Did they also admit he's never been to war?!Harris campaign admits Walz didn't retire as a CSM; updates bio to say "Served as a CSM; did not retire as a CSM."
Minnesota NG confirmed he did not retire as a CSM.
Very interesting for the Harris camp to admit he lied about this in the open. Figured they would just DARVO their way out of it.
Yeah, let's talk about DUI's.Good to know. It thought it was because of the DUI.
Technically he may be an OEF Vet, as his deployment to Italy may have been funded by OEF funds.Did they also admit he's never been to war?!
View attachment 45486
Now, we can move onto one of the many other lies this clown has told as well as his overall ineptness as governor of Minnesota.
F their narrative, I choose facts.
A rabbit hole.I've seen users pop up on social media claiming they are OEF vets because they were on OEF orders. Great, except by their own admission they never left the US.
Having said that, what constitutes being an OEF or OIF veteran? Just being on orders or going to the actual theater? I'm asking because that will be the next point to argue by many folks.
Agree here. Cubical and reductive but agree.View attachment 45487
I saw this today and I thought it was great.
Wait, wat!? Can someone verify this?? My google-fu is weak right now.
Uh… so- here’s the problem?^ Not true.
You shouldn't need Google-fu to discredit that nonsense. There's enough legit stuff to hammer Walz on that there's no reason for anyone to make up stupid shit like this.
Yeah, no issues with that. I can't edit my post any longer but that was supposed to be this video, not the pic -- my bad for not catching itYeah, let's talk about DUI's.
Technically he may be an OEF Vet, as his deployment to Italy may have been funded by OEF funds.
I think it's been fact checked (for whatever that means, half the time the fact check is wrong too )...however:Uh… so- here’s the problem?
It’s not fact checked. Anywhere. I haven’t posted it or reposted it anywhere, people are flooding my inbox with this story *everywhere*…. And the internet fact checker brigade is not hammering large conservative accounts (even on FB) for sharing…
Which is weird.
The hearing loss is probably true but probably used it to lie about not hearing the instructions.Yeah, no issues with that. I can't edit my post any longer but that was supposed to be this video, not the pic -- my bad for not catching it
As for Walz's DUI, here's some more facts from the liar:
* Walz was 31 years old and a teacher in Nebraska at the time
* Trooper clocked him at 96 in a 55
* Walz smelled of alcohol and failed field sobriety test and preliminary test
* BAC was .128
Walz's response?
* Ultimately, pleaded the case down to reckless driving
* To this day, Walz still claims he was only speeding (because he thought he was being chased) and that he was not drunk (despite BAC)
* Walz stated he failed the tests only because he misunderstood the troopers instructions due to hearing loss in the guard
Walz’s 1995 DUI arrest in Nebraska: 5 questions, answered
I had this argument once. A veteran is a veteran is a veteran to my eyes at least. Whether or not they saw trigger time, got shot at, deployed to, or never deployed is up to interpretation.
However I am not fond of combat vets belittling non combat vets just because one has an opinion that isn't trying to act hard. However with this being said I will nail a non combat vet if I feel they are acting as if they had the same experiences as those who've BTDT.
Exactly why I haven't posted it. But if it's that much of a slam dunk, then the huge pages sharing it should be getting absolutely tuned up. They arent.I think it's been fact checked (for whatever that means, half the time the fact check is wrong too )...however:
1. The hospital noted in the article, doesn't exist
2. The "article" used some sort of template that's been seen previously
I had two slick sleeved 5's that put themselves ahead of their soldiers in the RFI line and then bounced when I had explicably told all NCO's to go last to ensure their troops were issued things and that they were taken cared of first.This is exactly where it falls for me. A vet is a vet, but don't hate others for being "lesser" because they didn't get the same experience as you, and don't church up your own shit to be more that it was.
It's a big problem we've still got with the "combat patch vs slick sleeve" thing and perceived leadership.
I'm an E7 with a combat patch I got as an E3/E4; my time in AFG doesn't really seem relevant to the position I've made it to, but it's hard to convince my slick sleeved E5/E6 of that.
Gotta respect the guy wearing a "Vietnam era Veteran" hat. He's making it clear he did not get called to Vietnam but proudly served.Having said that, what constitutes being an OEF or OIF veteran? Just being on orders or going to the actual theater?
If they're wearing that hat and have a vetted POW or PH, and an award with a V in it for a license plate, they get an absolute and unquestionable free pass in my book.Gotta respect the guy wearing a "Vietnam era Veteran" hat.