DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus VPs- Stolen Valor

Thank you for your service one minute, screw you over fascist ideals the next. Smh. You can read the comments and see who served and who would NEVER serve.

What about his rank?
Harris’ campaign has referred to Walz as a “retired Command Sergeant Major,” one of the top ranks for an enlisted soldier. He did in fact achieve that rank, but personnel files show he was reduced in rank months after retiring. That left him as a master sergeant for benefits purposes.

Advertisement

Minnesota National Guard officials have said that Walz retired before completing coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy, along with other requirements associated with his promotion.

Walz rank was demoted because he didn't make the qualifications. Vance was sent to IRAQ. Walz Yellow Bellied QUIT before his unit got sent over. Yet he claims to have went to war. STOLEN VALOR. SHAME.

I'm truly sorry that happened to you. Thank you for serving.

So he did in fact retire as a Command Sergeant Major which was changed later. Thanks.

Your first sentence to me? Means you have no reading comprehension, what so ever, at all.

You are about as sharp as a marble.

I will say his response went a little over the top. But for all the world it certainly sounds as if you were questioning his service to his country here. But that has become a popular theme in some circles.

You would be best served if you read the actual words I type, as opposed to seeing my name and making assumptions.

I respect all that served. Period.

What I DON'T do is assume they are better than others.

And my REAL point is: Does serving in the military make one a better president? NO.

Serving in the military as a general rule makes one a reliable person, but not always.

Again, go back and read what I posted? Read the names I listed. Please.

Daman read my name, then attacked. Obsessive doggie followed suit. Neither of them, and perhaps you, actually understood my post. That's not on me. That's on them.

I don't like that Vance went after Walz......that's like a penis measuring contest.

I don't like that people went after Bush - you know, the d's.

If military service matters, what about Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Trump, Hillary (who you all were voting for), now Harris. I'm sure I'm missing many more presidents and almost presidents that didn't serve. Carter?

It started a long time ago. I didn't start it. It's gotten worse. I didn't make it worse.

But with an open mind, if you can manage that - go read the post that got dam worked up.

He got basically forced out over medical reasons and didn’t get to do the schooling or training to keep the rank in retirement. That’s off recollection of hearing the talking heads, so may be slightly inaccurate, idk.

Every paragraph has a purpose. I quoted one of those paragraphs. Each paragraph stands on its own. As I stated, Damon I feel certainly went over the top. And as was pointed out to you previously, it was Vance who brought up his service in questioning it.

As far as military service being a prerequisite to becoming president I certainly don't feel that's a requirement. However in knowing the bio, background and experience of a candidate it certainly would be included. I think it does give a president a better understanding of our military personnel. I would consider that a positive thing.

I can and do understand that someone can look at that first paragraph you posted and take that as you questioning his service. You by contrast do not.

Why would having served give them a better understanding? Why would NOT having served give them less of an understanding?

Don't all presidents have multiple generals, etc, that council them? It's not like a president just makes decisions "cause I was in the infantry in war x, y z"

You think it gives them a better understanding? They why not elect someone that has an economics background? Or a labor background? Or an engineer background? Or a medical background? Etc.

Here's how it is: A president (SHOULD) go by his professional advisors. The president doesn't need to have lived it.

Think of the president as the CEO of a company. After all, that's what they are.

How many CEO's of any company - large company - do you know of that actually worked on the floor making the product. Worked as an engineer designing the product. Worked in HR, sat on the union meetings, cleaned the floors, etc.

I'll bet you can name a few. Doesn't make them better or worse than those that didn't.

THAT is why I say military service doesn't make a good, or bad, president. THAT is why I say Vance was wrong it attacking Walz. That is why I bring up Carter, Reagan, the attacks on Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump, and yes, now Harris.

So are you trying to say that spending over 24 years in the military and having been deployed overseas wouldn't give you a better understanding of that than someone whom had never experienced it?


Yes they do. That doesn't mean that they understand what a soldier who serves goes through. Maybe you missed the part where I said......


That's certainly an option. And in each of those cases it would give that person a better understanding of what they have experience in. Just like a former military member would understand what our military members go through better than someone who has not served.


They don't have to have lived it but it does give them better insight by having been directly involved in it. And I think the key word in your above quote is "SHOULD". Unless of course they surround themselves with yes men that go along with whatever they want to hear.


I've heard that said. And maybe from a purely economic aspect it is something of a point. However there's one major factor to consider in that. A CEO's job is to maximize profits. To look out strictly for his best interests and the interests of his stockholders. Not the overall good of an entire population. That presents quite the dichotomy.


As was stated above, a CEO has one main goal. To look out for the interests of the stockholders. You do have CEO's however that go beyond that and does look out for the rank and file but it's not all that common.


I still have no idea what part of this you missed.....

So you're saying the Democrats want to force another old, white man with health problems on the American people?

He got out to go into politics, of his own accord. The didn't do the training to finalize his promotion in rank part appears to be accurate.

Politicians doing work? They aren't allowed to do that, right? He couldn't do the training if he wanted to be in politics. (Probably more purple there)

Yes, he was actually given the rank of Command Sergeant Major by the military and as such was listed in that rank and serving in that rank until after he retired. When the military looked at his retirement status, they realized he had not completed all the training required to be classified as such so they reclassified him as Master Sergeant. They didn't seem to care about that while he was serving but it saved them some money when paying his retirement.

So, a libtard was given a title they didn't earn. Sounds familiar. It's a reoccurring theme with libtards.

Yes, the American military gave him that rank. More attacking the American military again I see. #deplorable

Says the guy with a STOLEN VALOR candidate. #SHAMEFUL

Misspoke is libtard code for lying. SHAME LIARS SHAME

Hold on.

He "misspoke"? For nearly twenty years?? That is a LOT of misspeaking.

Can you show any other cases where he said that same thing elsewhere or just this once?

You would think trumpsters would find it refreshing that a man admitted he said something false for a change.

Here’s How Many Times Trump Lied During His Weird RNC Speech

Spoiler alert: It’s a lot.

https://newrepublic.com/post/184048/how-many-times-trump-lied-weird-rnc-speech

But what do the trumpsters do? "Well there was this one time when Walz said...."

You folks are hilarious! Let me guess, whatabouts? lmao

Says the girl with a fascist captain bone spurs as a candidate. Your ish leaves a horrible stain, mine not so much.

Stolen valor? They must have forgotten the attempt at a stolen presidency. But when all else fails they have to grasp at any straw they can find.

All the weak sauce in this this thread..."But Trump" Suck if up libtards, your candidate STOLE VALOR. SHAME.

Aw.... poor Eve. She can't stay on the topic because she's upset about the rank the military gave Walz while he was active military. The rank he was given and the job he was doing at that rank. Because you know.... some classes he didn't take.

Of course she avoids that trump advocated his political opponent be hacked and that hacked information should be made public. You poor thing. I'll pray for you.

I bet you were really good at dodge ball in school weren't you? I know it's hard for you, but try to focus on the topic and good luck with that.

Are you projecting? YOU cant stay on the thread topic with your "But Trump" And now you're rambling about some other garbage. This thread is about Walz and his STOLEN VALOR SHAME.


Walz straight lied about going to war. He's the Dems pick and he stole valor. SHAME. YOU SHOLD BE EMBARASSED THIS LOSER IS YOUR PICK. SHAME.

So you support a candidate the lies every time he speaks in public and now all of a sudden you pretend to care about honesty? Hypocrisy knows no bounds with you. I would think you would find it refreshing somebody actually apologized when they said something that wasn't true. But I can see why that would be a foreign concept to you.

All you got is But Trump. Here's your L.


STOLEN VALOR. SHAME. WHAT A SHAMEFUL CANDIDATE.

He's a broken record with the same tired song and dance.

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, and more Trump.

He probably has his posters all over his walls and a MAGA blow up doll.

This guy doesn’t like Waltz

j/c


Gotta tell the board:
This was one of the fastest 'speedscrolls' I've ever managed to do.


Y'all so predictable, you make it easy to ignore the entire lot of you.



Please... do better.
Please... be better.

FWIW, I kinda agree with him.


Arch,
Below is really just me riffing off of your post. Not trying to put words in your mouth. Please feel free to point out where you agree or disagree.

I also think the "served" thing is overrated. I feel like some want any military service record to be treated like the person earned a Purple Heart. This conversation is the perfect example. Neither of these guys are what we try to make military service out to be, but one side wants to apply a standard that even he doesn't meet. I find it extremely hypocritical that the guy armed with a pencil and paper for 4 years and the draft dodger want to try to attack someone (anyone) else's service record. It's not so much that there's nothing to attack, but moreso that they have no leg to stand on. The statement that they're latching onto wasn't even about his service. It was about gun control. It's so transparently pandering to a portion of population that blindly feeds on outrage.

It's clear that the strategy is to distract from other topics (if I had attempted a coup and my running mate was an opportunistic empty suit, I know I would want people talking about anything else).

So your response to stolen valor is that many didn't really earn much valor anyway??

Now that's a fresh take.

You're like a Pit-in-training lately.


No. My response is that this whole dick-measuring contest was kicked off by a guy (and his running-mater) that similarly don't have a leg to stand on in terms of judging someone's record. My point was that the whole conversation is ridiculous.

When you become desperate and that's all you got, this is what you see. FATE acting like Eve and seeing a total meltdown with zero substance on the topic.

He just said I was acting like YOU.

Some didn't serve as hard as others. Your words.

Did you serve? If not, have a tall glass and quit demeaning other's service. If so, shame on you too.

No he did not. He said you were in training.

I'd have to go back and check, but I think those were more or less Archs words.

That's pretty rich coming from someone who has been, and continues demeaning the service of a military veteran now retired that served for over 24 years.