MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:04 pm
good lord, he indeed dealt with all this years ago... and put it to bed.
He misspoke, as was hugely clear because of the many, many times speaking and in writing where he was totally clear about what his service was and what it was not. It was long and honorable.
But nah, let's drag it out and pretend that he wasn't clear all those other times prior and subsequently.
Shameful.
But that's where we are in this upside down country.
How many times did he correct the misstatements of others ? Why did it keep happening ?
Because he was not straightforward about it in his rhetoric.
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 3:03 pm
Why the need to ask? The retired SM should be knocking people out of his way to get to the microphone and clarify all on his own. He has chosen to not say anything about it and that doesn't bother you in the least? If you were facing a similar dilemma would you handle it the same way? I'm guessing that you would not.
We already told you he did just that two days ago.
F Walz. F everyone who served who "implied" they did more than they really did...and Republicans get to be in charge of what is "implied".
So let's get back to celebrating and supporting the man who not only didn't serve, but dodged the draft, but openly mocked you and your fellow Veterans.
Vote Republican across the board.
Still waiting for you to praise Biden for giving your crew the biggest raise they've had in 20 years. But policy doesn't matter. What matters is that the Dems are bad, and the R's who never served are flawless and deserve our full support.
Makes perfect sense. What was I thinking in criticizing your line of thought?
"train of thought" may be generous...seems more reptilian to me.
Pure instinctual anger and resentment, festering for years and years.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:04 pm
good lord, he indeed dealt with all this years ago... and put it to bed.
He misspoke, as was hugely clear because of the many, many times speaking and in writing where he was totally clear about what his service was and what it was not. It was long and honorable.
But nah, let's drag it out and pretend that he wasn't clear all those other times prior and subsequently.
Shameful.
But that's where we are in this upside down country.
How many times did he correct the misstatements of others ? Why did it keep happening ?
Because he was not straightforward about it in his rhetoric.
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 3:03 pm
Why the need to ask? The retired SM should be knocking people out of his way to get to the microphone and clarify all on his own. He has chosen to not say anything about it and that doesn't bother you in the least? If you were facing a similar dilemma would you handle it the same way? I'm guessing that you would not.
We already told you he did just that two days ago.
F Walz. F everyone who served who "implied" they did more than they really did...and Republicans get to be in charge of what is "implied".
So let's get back to celebrating and supporting the man who not only didn't serve, but dodged the draft, but openly mocked you and your fellow Veterans.
Vote Republican across the board.
Still waiting for you to praise Biden for giving your crew the biggest raise they've had in 20 years. But policy doesn't matter. What matters is that the Dems are bad, and the R's who never served are flawless and deserve our full support.
Makes perfect sense. What was I thinking in criticizing your line of thought?
The people in the Harris campaign that vetted him my man are the ones that threw him under the bus. Isn't the job of vetting your pick for VP suppose to be to find and identify little bugaboos such as this. What the hell did you think the Republicans and media people were going to do once he was announced as the VP candidate. They are the GI docs now performing the colonoscopy on his background and not a polyp shall they miss. It's the way the game is played my man and you know it as well as I. The business of politics is a down right dirty and nasty business.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:04 pm
good lord, he indeed dealt with all this years ago... and put it to bed.
He misspoke, as was hugely clear because of the many, many times speaking and in writing where he was totally clear about what his service was and what it was not. It was long and honorable.
But nah, let's drag it out and pretend that he wasn't clear all those other times prior and subsequently.
Shameful.
But that's where we are in this upside down country.
How many times did he correct the misstatements of others ? Why did it keep happening ?
Because he was not straightforward about it in his rhetoric.
yeah, he's the lying POS...
Well, that is one way to put it. The other side has been slinging the same mud at JD Vance. I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander? I can sorta borrow a line from WT Sherman and change it a bit...politics is hell...
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:04 pm
good lord, he indeed dealt with all this years ago... and put it to bed.
He misspoke, as was hugely clear because of the many, many times speaking and in writing where he was totally clear about what his service was and what it was not. It was long and honorable.
But nah, let's drag it out and pretend that he wasn't clear all those other times prior and subsequently.
Shameful.
But that's where we are in this upside down country.
How many times did he correct the misstatements of others ? Why did it keep happening ?
Because he was not straightforward about it in his rhetoric.
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 3:03 pm
Why the need to ask? The retired SM should be knocking people out of his way to get to the microphone and clarify all on his own. He has chosen to not say anything about it and that doesn't bother you in the least? If you were facing a similar dilemma would you handle it the same way? I'm guessing that you would not.
We already told you he did just that two days ago.
F Walz. F everyone who served who "implied" they did more than they really did...and Republicans get to be in charge of what is "implied".
So let's get back to celebrating and supporting the man who not only didn't serve, but dodged the draft, but openly mocked you and your fellow Veterans.
Vote Republican across the board.
Still waiting for you to praise Biden for giving your crew the biggest raise they've had in 20 years. But policy doesn't matter. What matters is that the Dems are bad, and the R's who never served are flawless and deserve our full support.
Makes perfect sense. What was I thinking in criticizing your line of thought?
The people in the Harris campaign that vetted him my man are the ones that threw him under the bus. Isn't the job of vetting your pick for VP suppose to be to find and identify little bugaboos such as this. What the hell did you think the Republicans and media people were going to do once he was announced as the VP candidate. They are the GI docs now performing the colonoscopy on his background and not a polyp shall they miss. It's the way the game is played my man and you know it as well as I. The business of politics is a down right dirty and nasty business.
cradle, they undoubtedly understood that he'd withstood this scrutiny in multiple campaigns, including criticisms about these exact quotes. Asked and answered over and over again. No surprises.
And they know that the politics of personal destruction were coming from MAGA-world no matter who they chose. There's going to be much more, especially aimed at Harris, before it's all done as that's really the only game MAGA knows at this point. And it's truly all Trump knows at this point. His campaign is a reflection of who he is and he chose a VP who knows nothing else as well. Vance at least speaks coherently most of the time, though weirdly and awkwardly when off script. Looks to me like there's real surprise in the Trump Campaign over how many weird things he's said over time, how unpopular he'd be. Not beyond the realm of possibility that Trump dumps him and tries to choose someone else. Trump doesn't like pundits saying that Vance makes the case better than he does and yet is still hurting their chances...
Look at the vibes of these two campaigns.
Which one do you think will be more appealing to those relatively moderate swing voters, whether leaning conservative or liberal, who simply want the country to move forward not backward, who are exhausted with the politics of darkness, anger, resentment and just want the future to be a little brighter, a little happier, for themselves, their children, their neighbors?
Last edited by MDlaxfan76 on Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:17 pm
What the hell did you think the Republicans and media people were going to do once he was announced as the VP candidate. They are the GI docs now performing the colonoscopy on his background and not a polyp shall they miss. It's the way the game is played my man and you know it as well as I. The business of politics is a down right dirty and nasty business.
But you forgot to play this game with Vance. So did Old Salt.
Now that you've played the game of "Walz implied he fought in combat"....you're on the hook for this from Vance:
“When the United States Marine Corps, when the United States of America, asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it,”
Now playing by the same rules, how can you possibly argue that Vance didn't communicate to civilians that the fought in combat zones in Iraq? I immediately looked up Vance's military record when I saw this, as well as his attacks on Walz.
You and Old Salt are welcome to try and tell me "that's different". It won't work.
No one is bringing this up on the Dem side. Know why? Because they aren't led by a POS like Trump who is willing to trash a serviceman to win an election.
All this stuff is doing is telling the average voter that Trump and Vance are McCarthyites.....that they'll stoop to any low to get power.
Remember McCain's exchange with the Republican voter who played this little game with Obama on a live stage?.
Here's what the high road looks like, Cradle. This is SO far in Old Salt's rear view mirror, that he doesn't remember what the high road looks like anymore.
What is SUPPOSED to have happened is Vance DEFENDS Walz from attacks on his record. Up is down, and down is up. It's disgusting where the Republican party has landed.
Last edited by a fan on Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:04 pm
good lord, he indeed dealt with all this years ago... and put it to bed.
He misspoke, as was hugely clear because of the many, many times speaking and in writing where he was totally clear about what his service was and what it was not. It was long and honorable.
But nah, let's drag it out and pretend that he wasn't clear all those other times prior and subsequently.
Shameful.
But that's where we are in this upside down country.
How many times did he correct the misstatements of others ? Why did it keep happening ?
Because he was not straightforward about it in his rhetoric.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:04 pm
good lord, he indeed dealt with all this years ago... and put it to bed.
He misspoke, as was hugely clear because of the many, many times speaking and in writing where he was totally clear about what his service was and what it was not. It was long and honorable.
But nah, let's drag it out and pretend that he wasn't clear all those other times prior and subsequently.
Shameful.
But that's where we are in this upside down country.
How many times did he correct the misstatements of others ? Why did it keep happening ?
Because he was not straightforward about it in his rhetoric.
yeah, he's the lying POS...
Well, that is one way to put it. The other side has been slinging the same mud at JD Vance. I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander? I can sorta borrow a line from WT Sherman and change it a bit...politics is hell...
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:17 pm
What the hell did you think the Republicans and media people were going to do once he was announced as the VP candidate. They are the GI docs now performing the colonoscopy on his background and not a polyp shall they miss. It's the way the game is played my man and you know it as well as I. The business of politics is a down right dirty and nasty business.
But you forgot to play this game with Vance. So did Old Salt.
Now that you've played the game of "Walz implied he fought in combat"....you're on the hook for this from Vance:
“When the United States Marine Corps, when the United States of America, asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it,”
Now playing by the same rules, how can you possibly argue that Vance didn't communicate to civilians that the fought in combat zones in Iraq? I immediately looked up Vance's military record when I saw this, as well as his attacks on Walz.
You and Old Salt are welcome to try and tell me "that's different". It won't work.
No one is bringing this up on the Dem side. Know why? Because they aren't led by a POS like Trump who is willing to trash a serviceman to win an election.
All this stuff is doing is telling the average voter that Trump and Vance are McCarthyites.....that they'll stoop to any low to get power.
Remember McCain's exchange with the Republican voter who played this little game with Obama on a live stage?.
Here's what the high road looks like, Cradle. This is SO far in Old Salt's rear view mirror, that he doesn't remember what the high road looks like anymore.
What is SUPPOSED to have happened is Vance DEFENDS Walz from attacks on his record. Up is down, and down is up. It's disgusting where the Republican party has landed.
What game was there to play with Vance? He joined the Marines, he served in the MOS he was trained in and was deployed to Iraq. Your trying to compare apples and oranges my man. I believe most of the criticism of Vance doesn't concern his time in the Marines. I suppose he might have been eligible for a purple for coming down with writers cramp.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:04 pm
good lord, he indeed dealt with all this years ago... and put it to bed.
He misspoke, as was hugely clear because of the many, many times speaking and in writing where he was totally clear about what his service was and what it was not. It was long and honorable.
But nah, let's drag it out and pretend that he wasn't clear all those other times prior and subsequently.
Shameful.
But that's where we are in this upside down country.
How many times did he correct the misstatements of others ? Why did it keep happening ?
Because he was not straightforward about it in his rhetoric.
yeah, he's the lying POS...
Well, that is one way to put it. The other side has been slinging the same mud at JD Vance. I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander? I can sorta borrow a line from WT Sherman and change it a bit...politics is hell...
This is, of course, complete bullsh*t.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:17 pm
What the hell did you think the Republicans and media people were going to do once he was announced as the VP candidate. They are the GI docs now performing the colonoscopy on his background and not a polyp shall they miss. It's the way the game is played my man and you know it as well as I. The business of politics is a down right dirty and nasty business.
But you forgot to play this game with Vance. So did Old Salt.
Now that you've played the game of "Walz implied he fought in combat"....you're on the hook for this from Vance:
“When the United States Marine Corps, when the United States of America, asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it,”
Now playing by the same rules, how can you possibly argue that Vance didn't communicate to civilians that the fought in combat zones in Iraq? I immediately looked up Vance's military record when I saw this, as well as his attacks on Walz.
You and Old Salt are welcome to try and tell me "that's different". It won't work.
No one is bringing this up on the Dem side. Know why? Because they aren't led by a POS like Trump who is willing to trash a serviceman to win an election.
All this stuff is doing is telling the average voter that Trump and Vance are McCarthyites.....that they'll stoop to any low to get power.
Remember McCain's exchange with the Republican voter who played this little game with Obama on a live stage?.
Here's what the high road looks like, Cradle. This is SO far in Old Salt's rear view mirror, that he doesn't remember what the high road looks like anymore.
What is SUPPOSED to have happened is Vance DEFENDS Walz from attacks on his record. Up is down, and down is up. It's disgusting where the Republican party has landed.
What game was there to play with Vance? He joined the Marines, he served in the MOS he was trained in and was deployed to Iraq. Your trying to compare apples and oranges my man. I believe most of the criticism of Vance doesn't concern his time in the Marines. I suppose he might have been eligible for a purple for coming down with writers cramp.
I think you missed the point. You and Salty haven't critiqued any aspect of Vance's prior words on any topic.
You haven't said he "implied" something he did or did not intend.
You haven't told us that Vance "implied" he wants people with children to get more votes than people without (he did say exactly that) or that people without children shouldn't be leading the country (he did say that about Dem "childless cat ladies" including Harris and Buttigieg) or that he "implied" that he agreed that the purpose of postmenopausal women is to support their daughters when they have babies (he did, but likely not exactly intended quite that way) or that he "implied" that he was actually terribly poor as a child (he did, but he wasn't) or any number of other 'weird' or clueless things demonstrating a lack of real empathy.
You and Salty could have, but you and Salty did not.
Nope, the hyper parsing, hyper partisan attacks are reserved for the 24 year veteran who served honorably and clearly didn't intend the "implied' things he's accused of, much less Stolen Valor.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:34 pm
But you forgot to play this game with Vance. So did Old Salt.
Now that you've played the game of "Walz implied he fought in combat"....you're on the hook for this from Vance:
“When the United States Marine Corps, when the United States of America, asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it,”
Now playing by the same rules, how can you possibly argue that Vance didn't communicate to civilians that the fought in combat zones in Iraq? I immediately looked up Vance's military record when I saw this, as well as his attacks on Walz.
You and Old Salt are welcome to try and tell me "that's different". It won't work.
If won't because you're being dishonest & willfully obtuse.
Vance never used the word combat or war. He truthfully stated where he deployed.
Do you assume that everyone who deployed to Iraq saw combat ?
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:34 pm
But you forgot to play this game with Vance. So did Old Salt.
Now that you've played the game of "Walz implied he fought in combat"....you're on the hook for this from Vance:
“When the United States Marine Corps, when the United States of America, asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it,”
Now playing by the same rules, how can you possibly argue that Vance didn't communicate to civilians that the fought in combat zones in Iraq? I immediately looked up Vance's military record when I saw this, as well as his attacks on Walz.
You and Old Salt are welcome to try and tell me "that's different". It won't work.
If won't because you're being dishonest & willfully obtuse.
Vance never used the word combat or war. He truthfully stated where he deployed.
Do you assume that everyone who deployed to Iraq saw combat ?
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:34 pm
But you forgot to play this game with Vance. So did Old Salt.
Now that you've played the game of "Walz implied he fought in combat"....you're on the hook for this from Vance:
“When the United States Marine Corps, when the United States of America, asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it,”
Now playing by the same rules, how can you possibly argue that Vance didn't communicate to civilians that the fought in combat zones in Iraq? I immediately looked up Vance's military record when I saw this, as well as his attacks on Walz.
You and Old Salt are welcome to try and tell me "that's different". It won't work.
If won't because you're being dishonest & willfully obtuse.
Right on cue. Only Walz is responsible for what he implies, Vance gets the Old Salt pass, and is NOT accountable for what he implies.
Don't care what you say, Vance lied about his service, and implied he fought in combat in Iraq.
He's bad, a liar, and as you say, will have to deal with this stolen valor accusation at the ballot box.
And not only is there nothing you can do about this, you're TELLING US this is what you want: for us to hold Veterans accountable not for what they say, but for what they imply about their service.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:34 pm
But you forgot to play this game with Vance. So did Old Salt.
Now that you've played the game of "Walz implied he fought in combat"....you're on the hook for this from Vance:
“When the United States Marine Corps, when the United States of America, asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it,”
Now playing by the same rules, how can you possibly argue that Vance didn't communicate to civilians that the fought in combat zones in Iraq? I immediately looked up Vance's military record when I saw this, as well as his attacks on Walz.
You and Old Salt are welcome to try and tell me "that's different". It won't work.
If won't because you're being dishonest & willfully obtuse.
Right on cue. Only Walz is responsible for what he implies, Vance gets the Old Salt pass, and is NOT accountable for what he implies.
Don't care what you say, Vance lied about his service, and implied he fought in combat in Iraq.
He's bad, a liar, and as you say, will have to deal with this stolen valor accusation at the ballot box.
And not only is there nothing you can do about this, you're TELLING US this is what you want: for us to hold Veterans accountable not for what they say, but for what they imply about their service.
Happy to do what you want. No problem here.
When you say “I served in Iraq”, the implication is that you fought, unless you qualify it. Vance has said he didn’t do any “real fighting”. That implies he did some fighting. That’s piss from old salt…not rain.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:34 pm
But you forgot to play this game with Vance. So did Old Salt.
Now that you've played the game of "Walz implied he fought in combat"....you're on the hook for this from Vance:
“When the United States Marine Corps, when the United States of America, asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it,”
Now playing by the same rules, how can you possibly argue that Vance didn't communicate to civilians that the fought in combat zones in Iraq? I immediately looked up Vance's military record when I saw this, as well as his attacks on Walz.
You and Old Salt are welcome to try and tell me "that's different". It won't work.
If won't because you're being dishonest & willfully obtuse.
Right on cue. Only Walz is responsible for what he implies, Vance gets the Old Salt pass, and is NOT accountable for what he implies.
Don't care what you say, Vance lied about his service, and implied he fought in combat in Iraq.
He's bad, a liar, and as you say, will have to deal with this stolen valor accusation at the ballot box.
And not only is there nothing you can do about this, you're TELLING US this is what you want: for us to hold Veterans accountable not for what they say, but for what they imply about their service.
Happy to do what you want. No problem here.
When you say “I served in Iraq”, the implication is that you fought, unless you qualify it.
I don't know if that implication definition is completely accurate.
I served in Iraq doesn't imply that you fought, that's a misinterpretation
of what was said, an incorrect assumption on the part of the listener. I'm one
who will ask in what capacity, it's pretty easy (most of the time) to take
it from there and figure how much combat was seen by that person.
If you were facing a similar dilemma would you handle it the same way? I'm guessing that you would not.
for coming down with writers cramp.