HorrorMovieFans.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ret ... got-wrong/

Obviously Trump uses a fictional war crime as a way to glorify someone who did the exact opposite of that legend. Of course he did.

The real story is actually way more interesting about the man responsible for the Philippines campaign and insurgency. As it seems Trump is right, a lot could be learned from the real Pershing. Just not anything about pigs blood. Cool read. Best part is where Pershing's tactics were to try and understand and assimilate with local Islamic groups and value their culture and try to isolate those who would do real harm from those who would be helpful, and where they deliberately seek to avoid killing people "just because" and instead try and send a consistent message. The Trump Presidency might actually learn a thing or two.

so, he took the time to try and understand the situation and the people, in order to fight the real problem groups in the area. looks good to me. i guess the pigs blood thing is more catchy though as a soundbite.

I am not touching WaPo with a ten foot pole.

That's really cool that Trump learned who John Pershing is. Trump's intellectual curiosity cannot be contained!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Pershing

if you're actually interested, and just not clicking because you're afraid of liberal news bias. but i suspect there will be no attempt to learn about the guy at all either way.

Jason does not trust Wikipedia. He does not check the citations and if he did, they'd all be fake.

zombie wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Pershing

if you're actually interested, and just not clicking because you're afraid of liberal news bias. but i suspect there will be no attempt to learn about the guy at all either way.

Black Jack. Yeah.

I'm just not going to get the information on what was said from WaPo. :p

Headhunter wrote:Jason does not trust Wikipedia. He does not check the citations and if he did, they'd all be fake.

I trust wiki for the most part. But literally you or I can edit most wikipedia pages. It should never be cited as a credible source. The best source of information on a subject or incident is the subject or incident itself. Not what WaPo or CNN tells you about the incident.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Jason does not trust Wikipedia. He does not check the citations and if he did, they'd all be fake.

I trust wiki for the most part. But literally you or I can edit most wikipedia pages. It should never be cited as a credible source. The best source of information on a subject or incident is the subject or incident itself. Not what WaPo or CNN tells you about the incident.

or what donald trump tells you about the incident.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Jason does not trust Wikipedia. He does not check the citations and if he did, they'd all be fake.

I trust wiki for the most part. But literally you or I can edit most wikipedia pages. It should never be cited as a credible source. The best source of information on a subject or incident is the subject or incident itself. Not what WaPo or CNN tells you about the incident.

If you post bad info, it gets taken down as soon as an admin can spot it, and nothing posted survives long term without citations. Wiki gets a bad rap but they are instantaneous with their adjustments. More importantly, they lead you to wonderful articles, books and primary sources.

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of people left to attest to Pershing's cruelty or benevolence so unless you want to read some books, you'll have to trust that one or two info sources exist out on the interwebs without the expressed intent of trying to brainwash you into a globalist cuck.

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Jason does not trust Wikipedia. He does not check the citations and if he did, they'd all be fake.

I trust wiki for the most part. But literally you or I can edit most wikipedia pages. It should never be cited as a credible source. The best source of information on a subject or incident is the subject or incident itself. Not what WaPo or CNN tells you about the incident.

or what donald trump tells you about the incident.

He's more trustworthy than fake news, I can tell you that.

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Jason does not trust Wikipedia. He does not check the citations and if he did, they'd all be fake.

I trust wiki for the most part. But literally you or I can edit most wikipedia pages. It should never be cited as a credible source. The best source of information on a subject or incident is the subject or incident itself. Not what WaPo or CNN tells you about the incident.

or what donald trump tells you about the incident.

He's more trustworthy than fake news, I can tell you that.

he has just as much to gain by misleading and misrepresenting, as anyone else does.

He has nothing to gain. He has everything. He is currently getting paid 1 dollar a year.

misleading and misrepresenting is not about monetary gain (though i guess it could be used for that purpose), it's about serving an agenda and getting people to follow you and support you in that agenda.

An agenda of MAGA.

i'll have to wait and see if he lives up to that, or if it was just a slogan designed to mislead and misrepresent, so far, it seems like a rebranding of the last president's slogan, to appeal more to his base.

Did Obama even have a slogan? What was it "Let's all suck dick for coke" or something?

Anyone who's running in the future will get pretty far with a "Not Donald Trump" slogan.

Jason wrote:Did Obama even have a slogan? What was it "Let's all suck dick for coke" or something?

no, it was "make wild claims about the other political team and divide america, while we ride the country into the ground."

pershing could actually be a decent topic, rather than the same silly back and forth we do in every other thread.