Sean Mooney

Here's the difference between you and I: I will readily say the Afghanistan thing was poorly done and executed and it effectively was a swing point in the Biden presidency. See- that's called fair criticism of something that deserves it. i didn't have to write long posts trying to defend it...or blame someone else....or talk about your "ideological opponents." Now you try it.

What words that I said do you not know the meaning of? I can help you out because clearly you are missing something in the posts I've written.

The dirty secret none of the MAGA mooks here want to admit it that...Trump and his team know how valuable it is to have the media as a boogeyman. But in order to have them as a boogeyman you need to be in contact with them so you can control the flood of information. A lot of Trump's success is owed to the idea that he has made people believe the media is this huge calculated organization out to get him at every turn- be it CNN, the New York Times, the Atlantic, or Jimmy Kimmel. And the media obliges by running every story they can and downplaying Trump at times and at other times white washing some of his nonsense. They have a very symbiotic relationship

JFC- you are being obtuse at this point. How long do you plan to be that way? Yes influencers are designed to look more neutral because you are following them because they match with what you want to follow from a political (or lifestyle, etc) standpoint. But there are now pay-to-post schemes making their way into politics (the same way they've operated in other walks of life) and playing off the perception of neutrality people believe they have. In this case those pay to post companies are involving themselves in an issue that has/had potential to fracture some of the alliance between the two groups mentioned. Transparency is what this boils down to which the article mentions. If you'd have read the article instead of just commenting you'd know that.

Lobbyists are more upfront about what they are doing. Influencers are made to look more neutral in what they are doing. Basically it is a matter of explicitly stating a goal versus implicitly acting on one.

You are assuming that. You don't know that.

I have daughters. I guess you'd have to define "big issue" to me. Because I feel like the sports thing affects a portion of their life and the women's health things will affect them longer. So I'd consider the latter a bigger issue to me. I think it is something that should be addressed with transgender women competing but I do think it is not an issue to the level that one would think it is if they popped in here for a few days. And I think we could probably all agree that Overkill is weirdly obsessed with the issue. Save Women’s Sports, a leading voice in the bid to ban transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports, identified only five transgender athletes competing on girls’ teams in school sports for grades K through 12. Additionally of the 332 million citizens of the US- 300k are between the ages of 13 and 17 AND identify as transgender (1.3 million total identify as transgender). That is like 1% of the population. And I've made the point before here that the Democrats are silly to focus on laws that affect such a low portion of the population. But again- if you came here someone would think there are transgender people overrunning every town in America.

He could have stayed in the chat beyond the point he did. He removed himself. When you remove yourself it notifies whoever set the group up that said person has left the chat. So Waltz saw that Goldberg had left the discussion which should've triggered to him "Why was he here in the first place? I better check this out." He could've called him and asked the question and didn't. Goldberg had a story dumped in his lap and as a reporter- one I may add who clearly outlined in the original article the entire thought process of his thinking this was some elaborate set up or something- he has a duty to follow up on it. The reporter in this case did nothing wrong. That is the strong point here. RLLD is loathe to call Republicans out for anything. He is cautious to do it here despite the fact that this blunder is all in their court. But we saw the general process of this from all the traditional MAGA mooks on the board. Garbage whataboutism scenarios....Reporter's fault....Goldberg is lying.....Waltz didn't do it, a staffer did....there were no war plans....it was all declassified......just an endless circle of bullshit lies when we know if the Biden admin had pulled this it would be apoplectic here calling for everyone's head.

Imagine out of all of this people propped up an even worse beer than Bud Light.

Looks like Gutfield and his board surrogate RLLD won't get their wish with Crockett.

It is using that as a backdrop to talk more about influencers getting involved in political policy

You are writing a ton of words that just miss the point of the article.

Well then they've had more sex than you at least. So good for them

Middle School boys are writing your material now?

On some level war plans of some kind were discussed in the Signal thread. That is indisputable at this point. I am not saying I wouldn't trust a staffer to do certain things- prepare a press release, work on a speech, getting me the paperwork or file or something on some issue I need sure. But setting up what is to be an insulated text chain between me and higher ups as we discuss war plans of some kind on a strike we are planning to initiate? I'm not letting that up to a staffer. And this scenario (if it is what you seem to imply) is exactly why...

That might be the name I read.

If Waltz was having a staffer set that up though that seems equally problematic. Like if you know war plans are going to be discussed and possibly shared over the text chain why would you not be doing that yourself and instead entrusting that to someone else? I thought I read somewhere initially that someone else was supposed to be on the message and they clicked the wrong person....but I can't find evidence of that now so I may be misremembering that.

And I'm telling you the facts... you are the biggest bootlicking, ass-kissing weirdo here.

New points- 1.) Just Wrong all around from you- and again (NOTE- I never said YOU were going to do this personally.) You just got a bug up your ass because you were caught getting your political cues from FOX News when you want everyone here to believe you are some deep thinker. Again, this is lazy. Pretending I cannot have my own positions because someone else.....somewhere else holds that position.....is lazy and an act of avoidance by trying to discredit instead of discuss. I'm not sure why you are incapable of seeing the part where I said I never said you were going to do this personally. Is the bold throwing you off? Are you seeing these comments right now? If I wanted to I would've said "RLLD is going to make Crockett the big bad for the next 4 years." I asked if she was going to be the one the right focused on and I asked if Gutfield said this. It was two separate questions.. Now I know you hate simple questions but questions have yes or no answers sometimes. You could have simply said "I don't know if she will be and I don't know what Gutfield said." But you didn't do that. You chose to say they should let her be and say nothing after saying she will pay dividends. Even a dullard can see you are saying she is the right person because she harms the party. This is disingenuous....notably because above you assert I get my cues from Fox, even thought I ingest multiple sources to make my own decisions. Your question which created the association instead of asking the actual question, was effectively responded to as well.....if you go back and read it. Now this is disingenuous. Because I made the FOX News connection after I made my first two initial comments to you. And again- you could have simply answered the questions instead of going defensive right away. You going defensive right away screams guilt. 2.) I'm not randomly associating your words. I'm providing a quote to something said approximately 16 hours ago on TV that parallels what you are saying right now on this forum. And again- I get why you would parrot Gutfield. He's popular to the MAGA side. This is where I might bristle a little, because you are effectively projecting Democrat behaviors on to me. And I have to insist that you not insult me in such a manner. My position is mine, regardless of who else agrees. I don't care if you bristle or anything. You are doing exactly what I said. Now maybe you accidentally parroted what Gutfield said. You could make that case....but notably you are not. 3.) The Hamas thing is a huge deflection because you are trapped and do what you always do- swing wildly to try and find something to latch on to....but of course you are too obtuse to see that. It was my best hope to highlight the lazy method of attribution you demonstrated, hoping you might step back and say....well gees, I wouldn't want that done to me.....so I should not do it to others......sadly, you remain ambivalent to this simple logic It is my hope by continually mentioning this you see how you are trying to deflect away from the topic at hand and then project that on to someone else. Sadly you remain ambivalent to this simple logic. Not to mention- I said "Sure go ahead...if I parrot a Hamas terrorist you can call me one." You know why someone would say that? Because they have nothing to hide to that respect. 4.) The AOC comment was something where you can try and change the function of the conversation after the fact and pretend like you meant that all along. It's a common thing you do. So you are reaffirming......what you affirmed....and I confirmed....again? To what end? If you presume that providing options which refutes your initial claim about her being thebig baddy, as well as your Gutfeld claim since he never appears to have suggested it....further emphasizing my point and its distinctions.... I think you are then refuting your own attempts to make your lazy attribution point. Hilarious that I said exactly what you are now trying to do- change the function of the conversation to pretend like you meant that all along. I've said this before to you....I don't need your help proving you wrong and myself right. I do fine on my own. 5.) I'll repeat the last point. It's okay man- just admit you got caught. It's fine if you want to parrot the political wisdom of Greg Gutfield. But own it. You already turn to YouTube financial experts for economy advice- Gutfield is quite a few steps up from guys in their basements with skeletons in the background. Gutfield at least appears on two highly rated shows. You are the emperor and your new clothes have been seen. You aren't the deep thinker you want people to think. You are a FOX News parroting puppet. As I said before- you are what happens if someone used ChatGPT to write Maximum Overkill's posts Just imagine...if instead of using that lazy attribution tactic....you had instead asked me to elaborate on my thoughts? What if instead of pretending the thought came from someone else or somewhere else, you asked how I arrived at that conclusion? What if instead of attempting to dillute my opinion with no knowledge what so ever of what I was thinking, you engaged.....just imagine.....I'll repeat the last point. It's okay man- just admit you got caught. It's fine if you want to parrot the political wisdom of Greg Gutfield. But own it. You already turn to YouTube financial experts for economy advice- Gutfield is quite a few steps up from guys in their basements with skeletons in the background. Gutfield at least appears on two highly rated shows. You are the emperor and your new clothes have been seen. You aren't the deep thinker you want people to think. You are a FOX News parroting puppet. As I said before- you are what happens if someone used ChatGPT to write Maximum Overkill's posts Responses in blue

And the article wasn't even really about what he said- I don't think Tbay read the article before his first comment. I'm not sure he has read it still by this point.

New points- 1.) Just Wrong all around from you- and again (NOTE- I never said YOU were going to do this personally.) You just got a bug up your ass because you were caught getting your political cues from FOX News when you want everyone here to believe you are some deep thinker. If I wanted to I would've said "RLLD is going to make Crockett the big bad for the next 4 years." I asked if she was going to be the one the right focused on and I asked if Gutfield said this. It was two separate questions.. Now I know you hate simple questions but questions have yes or no answers sometimes. You could have simply said "I don't know if she will be and I don't know what Gutfield said." But you didn't do that. You chose to say they should let her be and say nothing after saying she will pay dividends. Even a dullard can see you are saying she is the right person because she harms the party. 2.) I'm not randomly associating your words. I'm providing a quote to something said approximately 16 hours ago on TV that parallels what you are saying right now on this forum. And again- I get why you would parrot Gutfield. He's popular to the MAGA side. 3.) The Hamas thing is a huge deflection because you are trapped and do what you always do- swing wildly to try and find something to latch on to....but of course you are too obtuse to see that. 4.) The AOC comment was something where you can try and change the function of the conversation after the fact and pretend like you meant that all along. It's a common thing you do. 5.) I'll repeat the last point. It's okay man- just admit you got caught. It's fine if you want to parrot the political wisdom of Greg Gutfield. But own it. You already turn to YouTube financial experts for economy advice- Gutfield is quite a few steps up from guys in their basements with skeletons in the background. Gutfield at least appears on two highly rated shows. You are the emperor and your new clothes have been seen. You aren't the deep thinker you want people to think. You are a FOX News parroting puppet. As I said before- you are what happens if someone used ChatGPT to write Maximum Overkill's posts

BAH GAWD... THAT'S BOOTLICKER JONMX'S MUSIC....

Look at the very least you can admit she could've picked her words more carefully. It's silly politicians in 2025 don't know people will just soundbite things. Even if she wasn't referring to his condition (and I think she was to some degree) she has to know it will get painted that way.

I'm not deflecting. Let's go to the replay: So: 1.) You clearly jumped in to say you want her at the face of the party because you think she harms them and your side wins. 2.) I asked if this was going to be the big bad now for the next 4 years (which is what politics is- position someone on the other side as the big bad) 3.) You said- no let her go and she will pay dividends. 4.) I asked if Gutfield said this (which was just a name I threw out there) and then found a video from The Five where he is basically saying the same thing as you- put her up front because it will hurt the Democrats. 5.) You responded with Can I compare you to a Hamas terrorist- and then said that I'm deflecting. 6.) Then you added an AOC comment at the end so you can now fall back on that and pretend like you meant that from the start when it's clear you didn't. 7.) It's okay man- just admit you got caught. It's fine if you want to parrot the political wisdom of Greg Gutfield. But own it. You already turn to YouTube financial experts for economy advice- Gutfield is quite a few steps up from guys in their basements with skeletons in the background. Gutfield at least appears on two highly rated shows.

I'm of two minds on this: 1.) This is kind of a no win for Goldberg. He either protects what he saw and keeps his journalistic high ground but gets run for being a liar, or he posts what he saw and now people will just say it's more of a vendetta and try to run him over the coals from that end. 2.) This is a colossal screwup by Waltz and Hegseth. Waltz needs to be better attuned to what he is doing and setting up and Hegseth needs to vette this stuff before he starts sending out war plans. But in the end- Goldberg was texted war plans, Hegseth and his team lied about it, the usual MAGA mooks here like jonmx and his like swallowed every drop of it like the good whores they are, and then Goldberg threw his receipts on the table....game, set, match to Goldberg on this one. Waltz needs to be dumped. Hegseth gets a pass this time I think but needs to vette better in the future.