The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
PS "the generals" used to be inside-speak for Deep State (example ITT)
| Chest-beating slap-happy mexican | 01/10/26 |
| Chest-beating slap-happy mexican | 01/10/26 |
| Chest-beating slap-happy mexican | 01/10/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 10th, 2026 9:04 PM Author: Chest-beating slap-happy mexican Try making sense of this article. Look who wrote it and when, see if that helps
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/541975-will-lloyd-austin-stand-up-to-the-generals/ |
Date: January 10th, 2026 9:05 PM Author: Chest-beating slap-happy mexican PS it doesn't mean that anymore. Nowadays it literally just means any general officer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820585&forum_id=2Reputation#49579817) |
|
Date: January 10th, 2026 9:10 PM Author: Chest-beating slap-happy mexican PS an old trick these people use is to use a word to mean the opposite of its definition. "Civilian" here means military. He's saying civilians (the CIA) need to fuck off. He's calling them "the generals" because they're not actually part of the military and have no military rank.
Think about it. It's preposterous to think an incoming SecDef (let alone a retired general) would have to wrestle with disobedient generals, right? |