Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nah, lying about being in combat is the lowest.
Lots of people avoid combat, only true slimeballs lie about being in combat.

---

He did not say he saw combat. You are a zealot saying zealous things and should not be taken seriously. His comment was out of place because it was not clear that he did not see combat, however it was not an actual claim to have seen combat.

---

Just watch this video and then try and defend the obvious lies.
He lied about his rank for nearly 20 years. It's not like the military screwed up and told him he was a retiring Command Sargent Major... he knew the difference but lied for political gain.
Then he lied about being in combat. You may try to split hairs and say that he only claimed to carry a weapon "in war" not "in combat"... but how do you defend the fact that he NEVER corrected the dozens of democrats & "journalists " who claimed he was in combat in Afghanistan & Iraq?
Not correcting the record for almost 20 years is just as bad as blatantly lying on your own.

At worst, Tim Walz is a stolen valor level liar.
At best, he allowed others to lie for him for almost 20 years.

Go ahead and defend his record of lying. Good luck.

ShooterTX said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nah, lying about being in combat is the lowest.
Lots of people avoid combat, only true slimeballs lie about being in combat.

---

He did not say he saw combat. You are a zealot saying zealous things and should not be taken seriously. His comment was out of place because it was not clear that he did not see combat, however it was not an actual claim to have seen combat.

---

Just watch this video and then try and defend the obvious lies.
He lied about his rank for nearly 20 years. It's not like the military screwed up and told him he was a retiring Command Sargent Major... he knew the difference but lied for political gain.
Then he lied about being in combat. You may try to split hairs and say that he only claimed to carry a weapon "in war" not "in combat"... but how do you defend the fact that he NEVER corrected the dozens of democrats & "journalists " who claimed he was in combat in Afghanistan & Iraq?
Not correcting the record for almost 20 years is just as bad as blatantly lying on your own.

At worst, Tim Walz is a stolen valor level liar.
At best, he allowed others to lie for him for almost 20 years.

Go ahead and defend his record of lying. Good luck.

---

I would say based on what I have seen, he is probably technically correct in he said. He let the perception it was more go for political gain which makes him a political scumbag. Stolen valor, I don't go that far. Untrustworthy political hack, I would say yes and his political record supports that.

The guy consistently lied for years around multiple aspects of his service: his rank, his seeing combat, etc. He's a lying scumbag - the only one worse is the rac/pist in the White House that lied about his children's deaths to exploit idiot voters. The Democrats are basically scum.

Yep, the below is terrible. And libs think this guy is fit to be VP. I think you are right, he's a scumbag, lowest of low.

"In 2004, Tim Walz organized a protest outside a rally for President George W. Bush where he held up a sign that read "Operation Enduring Freedom Veteran 4 Kerry" referencing the US fight against terrorists in Afghanistan."

He never ever had Jack squat to do with it, not a single skin cell in Afghanistan.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Yep, the below is terrible. And libs think this guy is fit to be VP. I think you are right, he's a scumbag, lowest of low.

"In 2004, Tim Walz organized a protest outside a rally for President George W. Bush where he held up a sign that read "Operation Enduring Freedom Veteran 4 Kerry" referencing the US fight against terrorists in Afghanistan."

He never ever had Jack squat to do with it, not a single skin cell in Afghanistan.

---

Usually if you were in a campaign you get a service ribbon. For example, SW Asia Service Ribbon for deploying and supporting in the Gulf. It specifically says serving in Europe, the US and Pacific is not eligible. His 214 should tell what he had. If had an Enduring Freedom Service Ribbon he is good. If not, he is lying. For the Gulf War serving in Italy would not qualify.

Any Enduring Freedom vets? You would know more about that.

FLBear5630 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Yep, the below is terrible. And libs think this guy is fit to be VP. I think you are right, he's a scumbag, lowest of low.

"In 2004, Tim Walz organized a protest outside a rally for President George W. Bush where he held up a sign that read "Operation Enduring Freedom Veteran 4 Kerry" referencing the US fight against terrorists in Afghanistan."

He never ever had Jack squat to do with it, not a single skin cell in Afghanistan.

---

Usually if you were in a campaign you get a service ribbon. For example, SW Asia Service Ribbon for deploying and supporting in the Gulf. It specifically says serving in Europe, the US and Pacific is not eligible. His 214 should tell what he had. If had an Enduring Freedom Service Ribbon he is good. If not, he is lying. For the Gulf War serving in Italy would not qualify.

Any Enduring Freedom vets? You would know more about that.

---

He's already lied about his rank. Serving in combat. Not to mention he's a ***** who quit when he actually had to serve.

The worse, he dishonored HIS OWN BATTALLION during Burn, Loot, Murder.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Yep, the below is terrible. And libs think this guy is fit to be VP. I think you are right, he's a scumbag, lowest of low.

"In 2004, Tim Walz organized a protest outside a rally for President George W. Bush where he held up a sign that read "Operation Enduring Freedom Veteran 4 Kerry" referencing the US fight against terrorists in Afghanistan."

He never ever had Jack squat to do with it, not a single skin cell in Afghanistan.

---

Usually if you were in a campaign you get a service ribbon. For example, SW Asia Service Ribbon for deploying and supporting in the Gulf. It specifically says serving in Europe, the US and Pacific is not eligible. His 214 should tell what he had. If had an Enduring Freedom Service Ribbon he is good. If not, he is lying. For the Gulf War serving in Italy would not qualify.

Any Enduring Freedom vets? You would know more about that.

---

He's already lied about his rank. Serving in combat. Not to mention he's a ***** who quit when he actually had to serve.

The worse, he dishonored HIS OWN BATTALLION during Burn, Loot, Murder.

---

My point is the 214 tells all. If it is on there, that is the truth. I don't understand why he is not just showing if it is true.

Any updates on Tim stealing any more valor? At the DNC, did he carry a rifle onto stage, carry a Combat "Vets for Harris" sign, kiss a purple cross pinned to his chest?

ShooterTX said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nah, lying about being in combat is the lowest.
Lots of people avoid combat, only true slimeballs lie about being in combat.

---

He did not say he saw combat. You are a zealot saying zealous things and should not be taken seriously. His comment was out of place because it was not clear that he did not see combat, however it was not an actual claim to have seen combat.

---

Just watch this video and then try and defend the obvious lies.
He lied about his rank for nearly 20 years. It's not like the military screwed up and told him he was a retiring Command Sargent Major... he knew the difference but lied for political gain.
Then he lied about being in combat. You may try to split hairs and say that he only claimed to carry a weapon "in war" not "in combat"... but how do you defend the fact that he NEVER corrected the dozens of democrats & "journalists " who claimed he was in combat in Afghanistan & Iraq?
Not correcting the record for almost 20 years is just as bad as blatantly lying on your own.

At worst, Tim Walz is a stolen valor level liar.
At best, he allowed others to lie for him for almost 20 years.

Go ahead and defend his record of lying. Good luck.

---

They are 2 different claims. I think he can claim to have misspoken on seeing combat, or having been unclear. He did actually straight up claim to have attained a rank he did not. That is an obvious lie.

To me, not disqualifying, but I'd be queasy about voting for him if I knew nothing else about him. The thing that disqualifies him for me, is he is tied to Harris. Republicans are right to call out Walz's lies, but in the grand scheme it's just a side show. They need to discredit Harris to have a real shot.

william said:

---

william said:

---

#AnotherWalzLie

---

>>
"I spent 24 years in the National Guard, some of that full-time. I was an artilleryman. I deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. My battalion provided base security throughout the European theater from Turkey to England in the early stages of the war in Afghanistan. And that same battalion is now in Iraq at this time," Walz said in 2007 on CSPAN.
<<

---

I hadn't seen this. That is intentional deception. Anybody reading this would believe he was deployed to a war zone and was engaged in active defense manuvers in a war zone. Everybody knows what a theater is when it comes to wars. This is the kind of crap real warriors hate. There are videos all over Youtube showing guys who go after folks who try to decieve about their war bonafides.

Just be satisfied you were in the Guard for 24 years, and you were very fortunate to never have to serve in a war zone or engage in actual battle of any kind. That is honorable in itself. Why try to create the image of doing more than you have done.

He had the chance to deploy into an active military zone, he was called for it, he chose to retire/quit right before he would have been deployed to an active zone. His choice, but don't exaggerate what you've done.

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nah, lying about being in combat is the lowest.
Lots of people avoid combat, only true slimeballs lie about being in combat.

---

He did not say he saw combat. You are a zealot saying zealous things and should not be taken seriously. His comment was out of place because it was not clear that he did not see combat, however it was not an actual claim to have seen combat.

---

Just watch this video and then try and defend the obvious lies.
He lied about his rank for nearly 20 years. It's not like the military screwed up and told him he was a retiring Command Sargent Major... he knew the difference but lied for political gain.
Then he lied about being in combat. You may try to split hairs and say that he only claimed to carry a weapon "in war" not "in combat"... but how do you defend the fact that he NEVER corrected the dozens of democrats & "journalists " who claimed he was in combat in Afghanistan & Iraq?
Not correcting the record for almost 20 years is just as bad as blatantly lying on your own.

At worst, Tim Walz is a stolen valor level liar.
At best, he allowed others to lie for him for almost 20 years.

Go ahead and defend his record of lying. Good luck.

---

I would say based on what I have seen, he is probably technically correct in he said. He let the perception it was more go for political gain which makes him a political scumbag. Stolen valor, I don't go that far. Untrustworthy political hack, I would say yes and his political record supports that.

---

Kinda like going to a University and quitting right before you graduate, but still say you are a grad of X university, instead of saying you attended X university for 4 years. He keeps saying over and over he is a retired Command Sargent, but he isn't, he is a retired Master Sargent. I mean to the average non military guy they would be equally impressed with either, why lie about it.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

william said:

---

william said:

---

#AnotherWalzLie

---

>>
"I spent 24 years in the National Guard, some of that full-time. I was an artilleryman. I deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. My battalion provided base security throughout the European theater from Turkey to England in the early stages of the war in Afghanistan. And that same battalion is now in Iraq at this time," Walz said in 2007 on CSPAN.
<<

---

I hadn't seen this. That is intentional deception. Anybody reading this would believe he was deployed to a war zone and was engaged in active defense manuvers in a war zone. Everybody knows what a theater is when it comes to wars. This is the kind of crap real warriors hate. There are videos all over Youtube showing guys who go after folks who try to decieve about their war bonafides.

Just be satisfied you were in the Guard for 24 years, and you were very fortunate to never have to serve in a war zone or engage in actual battle of any kind. That is honorable in itself. Why try to create the image of doing more than you have done.

He had the chance to deploy into an active military zone, he was called for it, he chose to retire/quit right before he would have been deployed to an active zone. His choice, but don't exaggerate what you've done.

---

But probably true. His unit did deploy "in support" and was in reserve in Italy. They were tasked with providing Security, probably as another unit went forward.

His logic is that his unit did not choose its assignment. Anyone that deployed also know that you have no choice where your unit goes or what assignment. You do your job. I have no problem with this statement, he said "Support". It does not imply combat. There were a lot of soldiers that did not leave the US that supported these Operations, their jobs are just as important to support the front lines. There were a lot of non-combat MOSs that were forward. IMO, I think this is nitpicking.

Some of the other things he said, I do think were disqualifying. There is a lot to choose from with his DUI, carrying weapons, and others. I do not like him, I will not vote for him. But, this is not one I would hang my non-vote on. One persons opinion.

For me, what hurts Walz the most is that the men who served under men are still pissed about his sudden retirement. It's not what some politician says that would matter, a lot of veterans would be displeased to know the details of Walz's decisions, especially his continued claim to a rank he knows he did not earn.



I would not be surprised at all to see a commercial sometime later this fall where some of his men remind Americans that he cut and run, as they saw it.

Tim lies about everything trying to make himself look better. He can't help himself, he's just a sick tampon armed groomer. He even lied about getting an award from the Nebraska chamber of commerce.

He even lied about his children's births
"Today's IVF Day. Thank God for IVF my wife and I have two beautiful children," Walz had said.
Of course that wasn't true. The guy constantly lies.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nah, lying about being in combat is the lowest.
Lots of people avoid combat, only true slimeballs lie about being in combat.

---

He did not say he saw combat. You are a zealot saying zealous things and should not be taken seriously. His comment was out of place because it was not clear that he did not see combat, however it was not an actual claim to have seen combat.

---

Just watch this video and then try and defend the obvious lies.
He lied about his rank for nearly 20 years. It's not like the military screwed up and told him he was a retiring Command Sargent Major... he knew the difference but lied for political gain.
Then he lied about being in combat. You may try to split hairs and say that he only claimed to carry a weapon "in war" not "in combat"... but how do you defend the fact that he NEVER corrected the dozens of democrats & "journalists " who claimed he was in combat in Afghanistan & Iraq?
Not correcting the record for almost 20 years is just as bad as blatantly lying on your own.

At worst, Tim Walz is a stolen valor level liar.
At best, he allowed others to lie for him for almost 20 years.

Go ahead and defend his record of lying. Good luck.

---

I would say based on what I have seen, he is probably technically correct in he said. He let the perception it was more go for political gain which makes him a political scumbag. Stolen valor, I don't go that far. Untrustworthy political hack, I would say yes and his political record supports that.

---

Kinda like going to a University and quitting right before you graduate, but still say you are a grad of X university, instead of saying you attended X university for 4 years. He keeps saying over and over he is a retired Command Sargent, but he isn't, he is a retired Master Sargent. I mean to the average non military guy they would be equally impressed with either, why lie about it.

---

To me, this is what makes it so weird and pathological. There is not real reason to lie. But we see it with all of his lies ... they're so petty and pathological. Why lie about getting some random award from the Nebraska Chamber.