1 minute ago, The_Omega said:

 

 

He was there in his capacity as a member of the House.

Zuker seems especially unhinged lately. You ok bro?

 

 

3 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

 

 

Walz didn’t technically retire until 06Apr2024, what a liar. 🤣🤣🤣

29 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

 

 

Keep it up, commie scum.

2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

it’s been a good day my brother. carry on!

 

 

I never banged a couch but my gramma had this antique Victorian Bergére with a velvet seat that I had my eye on .

We're not supposed to kink shame (but keep away from my ottoman @Dave Moss ).

 

 

22 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

I never banged a couch but my gramma had this antique Victorian Bergére with a velvet seat that I had my eye on .

We're not supposed to kink shame (but keep away from my ottoman @Dave Moss ).

Do you bang people on the Ottoman?  Or do you bang the actual Ottoman??

Wondering if they'll be installed in the Boys bathrooms at school like Walz did

 

 

Just now, Procus said:

Wondering if they'll be installed in the Boys bathrooms at school like Walz did

 

You want Walz to muck your stall too?

 

4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Do you bang people on the Ottoman?  Or do you bang the actual Ottoman??

Did you mean to use uppercase? 

Note that I did not.

 

 

Weirdo.

2 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

Did you mean to use uppercase? 

Note that I did not.

 

 

Weirdo.

3 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

Did you mean to use uppercase? 

Note that I did not.

 

 

Weirdo.

Maybe in your price range?

 

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

On 8/11/2024 at 7:58 PM, The_Omega said:

From Colonel (Ret.) John Kolb, Tim Walz direct supervisor 

 

I find that dishonest and ridiculous.  It's not like Walz "sat in the cockpit", he actually flew the plane and served the duties of the rank in question. He never completed the certification for the rank is different from never performed the rank.

4 hours ago, The_Omega said:

 

 

G.I. Faux

15 hours ago, Toastrel said:

 

Et tu, Fox?

Aaaaand lied about it.

General Faux's Chicken

Textbook definition of white privilege. 

15 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I don't believe anyone's questioning his actual service, from what I've seen it's more a question of whether or not he's lying about his service after the fact though I do see people who were in his unit that are saying that he wasn't a good leader (his LTC, the CSM specifically, but I think there's others). For them to call into question (or defend) his performance of his duties is appropriate. They were there.

If he made claims after the fact, it's also appropriate to examine his service to see if his claims are the truth or if they are lies. 

This next bit is going off topic to an extent so I'll put it all into a spoiler, it's a case of 'stolen valor' that I found interesting (and disappointing). Read it if you wish:

Remember the movie "We Were Soldiers" and the crusty, tough old CSM Plumley played by Sam Elliot?

  Reveal hidden contents

(A picture from the movie)

The real man:

He served in the Army for 32 years and was an amazing soldier who full well deserves all the honor that could be given him for his actual service. But apparently, he exaggerated his exploits and wore awards that he shouldn't have been wearing. He wore the Airborne wings of a Master Parachutist with 5 combat stars indicating 5 jumps into combat (4 in WWII and 1 in Korea).  But in WWII, he was a gliderman in the 82nd and didn't jump, and didn't serve in Korea so he couldn't have jumped. 

As you see above, he also wore 3 CIB's when he only actually earned 1 and he's wearing more Silver Stars and Bronze stars than he actually earned. 

I don't think anyone would call into question his actual service. The man is a legend and did legendary things over a very long career. Calling into question whether he lied and claimed/wore awards that he didn't earn though, is completely appropriate.

To be fair to CSM Plumley, I his DD-214 had some discrepancies on it that shouldn't have been there. Apparently, it gave him credit for two CIB's (though he wore 3), but he only actually earned a single CIB.  

The article that I read about this is from 2016, so it's possible that some of this info has changed but I haven't looked much deeper into it (as of this moment), but if you want to read the article, it's here: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/05/17/army-investigating-we-were-soldiers-legend-for-inflating-award.html

Questioning his actions after leaving the National Guard isn't questioning his actual honorable service. So let's agree that it was (and is) honorable of him to serve for 24 years, be it part time or full time. 

If he later lied about his service for political gain/motivations though, would you say that that's proper or honorable or would you condemn that?

With Walz it comes down to a couple details:

1. Can he claim to have retired, or served as, a CSM?

2. Did he "quit" on his unit when they were being given notice of a tour in Iraq?

 

For #1, he served as a CSM for some undetermined amount of time, and that was the rank he was when he retired. Whether it's right for a retired vet to claim that a frocked or whatever rank is what you retired as seems a bit of splitting hairs, but sure he was demoted administratively for not completing the requirements of the rank before retirement so to not piss off the Republican vets saying he served as a CSM is perhaps the safer statement. 

For #2, this charge has been levied at him since he entered the political arena. According to those he served with he wrestled with that decision for a long time. He wanted to run for Congress, and at some point - with or without the knowledge that his unit was being deployed - he decided pretty early in that deployment process that it was time for him to retire after 24 years. This again seems like a very politically motivated line of attack for something that is ultimately his and only his decision to make. Had he retired and run as a Republican I suspect the same persons attacking his character would be lauding him for his service and his committed defense of veteran services while an elected politician. 

 

The attacks feel completely insincere and largely motivated by politics to me. At most he slightly - slightly - embellished his technical rank up on retirement, though based on dates he was a CSM on the day he retired. 

Calling this stolen valor to me is like calling a speeding ticket equivalent to murder. 

58 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

With Walz it comes down to a couple details:

1. Can he claim to have retired, or served as, a CSM?

2. Did he "quit" on his unit when they were being given notice of a tour in Iraq?

 

For #1, he served as a CSM for some undetermined amount of time, and that was the rank he was when he retired. Whether it's right for a retired vet to claim that a frocked or whatever rank is what you retired as seems a bit of splitting hairs, but sure he was demoted administratively for not completing the requirements of the rank before retirement so to not piss off the Republican vets saying he served as a CSM is perhaps the safer statement. 

For #2, this charge has been levied at him since he entered the political arena. According to those he served with he wrestled with that decision for a long time. He wanted to run for Congress, and at some point - with or without the knowledge that his unit was being deployed - he decided pretty early in that deployment process that it was time for him to retire after 24 years. This again seems like a very politically motivated line of attack for something that is ultimately his and only his decision to make. Had he retired and run as a Republican I suspect the same persons attacking his character would be lauding him for his service and his committed defense of veteran services while an elected politician. 

 

The attacks feel completely insincere and largely motivated by politics to me. At most he slightly - slightly - embellished his technical rank up on retirement, though based on dates he was a CSM on the day he retired. 

Calling this stolen valor to me is like calling a speeding ticket equivalent to murder. 

pretty good assessment. 

When I got out of the Navy in 98, I was an AT2, E5. I passed the test for AT1, E6 several times but was not advanced. We were told, at our 40 hour Transition Assistance Program, that we should use the higher rank on our resume, because civilian employers do not care to understand the promotion and retirement systems in the military. They simply care about experience. 

Could be that the logic behind the Walz pick is starting to bear fruit