(09-03-2024 11:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:21 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 10:12 AM)TripleA Wrote:  The whole point was he never made it clear and lied or misled MANY times about his service over the years. If half a dozen or more examples have been uncovered, I wonder how many more times he actually did it. Like always?

Hell, Pelosi even introduced him in Congress as Command Master Sergeant. He lied about that continuously for years. Not just once or twice.

FFS, you STILL don't understand the thing with the rank. He got that rank, he retired with the lesser rank because he didn't complete the courses. It's a nothingburger.

And no, he didn't have to detail every aspect of his service every time he mentioned it over the years to avoid confusion with those who might seek to use it against him down the line.

The scrutiny you have placed on him while you ignore the **** from trump...his avoidance of service and his denigration of those who served...is despicable.

Hey dumb***, I served 4 years in the military during the VietNam era. I'm guessing I know a helluva lot more about ranks than you do.

But keep on having a cow. It's entertaining.

Thank you for your service.

But you served 4 years. You did not retire from the military then, right? And I've read enough from veterans who did retire to know that what happened to Walz is not at all unusual. You should know this.

Nobody said it was unusual. They said he LIED about it.

The idea that me serving 4 years in the military is somehow overruled by you reading from veterans who retired is maybe the most laughable thing you have ever said on here, and that's saying a lot.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

How many times have you had a personal conversation with a Master Chief Petty Officer (Navy equivalent of Command Sergeant Major)? Less than me.

How many times have you had a personal hour-long meeting with the Secretary of the Navy, who was looking for business operational advice for his shipyards? One less than me.

How many retirement ceremonies have you attended? Way less than me.

How many military men have you personally talked to who were nearing retirement? Way less than me.

How many times have you attended rank promotion ceremonies? Way less than me.

How many times have you attended training that discussed these options? Less than me.

How many years have you actively spent solely around military people? I know. ZERO to my FOUR.

Yeah, but you read a lot.

P.S. Within 2 of my 4 years in the Navy, I was promoted to E-5, which is the equivalent of Sergeant in the Army, Marines and Air Force.

All that, and yet you know more about this than I do. Riiiight...

again, if you don't know anything about the military you shouldn't be talking about it, particularly the resident stolen valor troll

(09-03-2024 11:57 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  again, if you don't know anything about the military you shouldn't be talking about it, particularly the resident stolen valor troll

But but but he reads a lot!

I've said it before...

Walz could've said he served 24 years, with him already being retired once and coming back in after 9/11 and it would've been fine..

He could've stated he retired as a Sergeant Major and again an eye not be batted.. Could've even said he almost achieved the rank of CSM...

The problem is him claiming a rank he only achieved in title.. Claiming he was deployed to active war zones when he didn't.. Those are the issues in my mind..

(09-03-2024 11:42 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:21 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 10:12 AM)TripleA Wrote:  The whole point was he never made it clear and lied or misled MANY times about his service over the years. If half a dozen or more examples have been uncovered, I wonder how many more times he actually did it. Like always?

Hell, Pelosi even introduced him in Congress as Command Master Sergeant. He lied about that continuously for years. Not just once or twice.

FFS, you STILL don't understand the thing with the rank. He got that rank, he retired with the lesser rank because he didn't complete the courses. It's a nothingburger.

And no, he didn't have to detail every aspect of his service every time he mentioned it over the years to avoid confusion with those who might seek to use it against him down the line.

The scrutiny you have placed on him while you ignore the **** from trump...his avoidance of service and his denigration of those who served...is despicable.

Hey dumb***, I served 4 years in the military during the VietNam era. I'm guessing I know a helluva lot more about ranks than you do.

But keep on having a cow. It's entertaining.

Thank you for your service.

But you served 4 years. You did not retire from the military then, right? And I've read enough from veterans who did retire to know that what happened to Walz is not at all unusual. You should know this.

Nobody said it was unusual. They said he LIED about it.

The idea that me serving 4 years in the military is somehow overruled by you reading from veterans who retired is maybe the most laughable thing you have ever said on here, and that's saying a lot.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

How many times have you had a personal conversation with a Master Chief Petty Officer (Navy equivalent of Command Sergeant Major)? Less than me.

How many times have you had a personal hour-long meeting with the Secretary of the Navy, who was looking for business operational advice for his shipyards? One less than me.

How many retirement ceremonies have you attended? Way less than me.

How many military men have you personally talked to who were nearing retirement? Way less than me.

How many times have you attended rank promotion ceremonies? Way less than me.

How many times have you attended training that discussed these options? Less than me.

How many years have you actively spent solely around military people? I know. ZERO to my FOUR.

Yeah, but you read a lot.

P.S. Within 2 of my 4 years in the Navy, I was promoted to E-5, which is the equivalent of Sergeant in the Army, Marines and Air Force.

All that, and yet you know more about this than I do. Riiiight...

He didn't lie about getting promoted to that rank. He was promoted to that rank. Period.

And nowhere did I claim I had any more expertise than you on this...I don't. What I did say is that I've seen quotes from many other retired veterans who said what happened to Walz is typical and that he is not stealing any valor in their opinion. You have your opinion, they...with similar or more experience than you...have a different opinion.

All this ever was is a matter of opinion. All I'm trying to tell you is that the voters have moved on...this is a nothingburger to them.

And not that it matters, but I did attend the retirement ceremony of my BIL who retired from the Navy after 24 years. There was nothing in that ceremony that explained what rank he would be listed on for purposes of his retirement pay. So attending one doesn't mean squat.

I also attended the promotion ceremony of my step-son when he was promoted to Chief. Again, nothing in that ceremony explained any particulars.

But yes, I'm sure you've attended more. Congratulations.

(09-03-2024 01:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:42 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:21 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  FFS, you STILL don't understand the thing with the rank. He got that rank, he retired with the lesser rank because he didn't complete the courses. It's a nothingburger.

And no, he didn't have to detail every aspect of his service every time he mentioned it over the years to avoid confusion with those who might seek to use it against him down the line.

The scrutiny you have placed on him while you ignore the **** from trump...his avoidance of service and his denigration of those who served...is despicable.

Hey dumb***, I served 4 years in the military during the VietNam era. I'm guessing I know a helluva lot more about ranks than you do.

But keep on having a cow. It's entertaining.

Thank you for your service.

But you served 4 years. You did not retire from the military then, right? And I've read enough from veterans who did retire to know that what happened to Walz is not at all unusual. You should know this.

Nobody said it was unusual. They said he LIED about it.

The idea that me serving 4 years in the military is somehow overruled by you reading from veterans who retired is maybe the most laughable thing you have ever said on here, and that's saying a lot.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

How many times have you had a personal conversation with a Master Chief Petty Officer (Navy equivalent of Command Sergeant Major)? Less than me.

How many times have you had a personal hour-long meeting with the Secretary of the Navy, who was looking for business operational advice for his shipyards? One less than me.

How many retirement ceremonies have you attended? Way less than me.

How many military men have you personally talked to who were nearing retirement? Way less than me.

How many times have you attended rank promotion ceremonies? Way less than me.

How many times have you attended training that discussed these options? Less than me.

How many years have you actively spent solely around military people? I know. ZERO to my FOUR.

Yeah, but you read a lot.

P.S. Within 2 of my 4 years in the Navy, I was promoted to E-5, which is the equivalent of Sergeant in the Army, Marines and Air Force.

All that, and yet you know more about this than I do. Riiiight...

He didn't lie about getting promoted to that rank. He was promoted to that rank. Period.

And nowhere did I claim I had any more expertise than you on this...I don't. What I did say is that I've seen quotes from many other retired veterans who said what happened to Walz is typical and that he is not stealing any valor in their opinion. You have your opinion, they...with similar or more experience than you...have a different opinion.

All this ever was is a matter of opinion. All I'm trying to tell you is that the voters have moved on...this is a nothingburger to them.

And not that it matters, but I did attend the retirement ceremony of my BIL who retired from the Navy after 24 years. There was nothing in that ceremony that explained what rank he would be listed on for purposes of his retirement pay. So attending one doesn't mean squat.

I also attended the promotion ceremony of my step-son when he was promoted to Chief. Again, nothing in that ceremony explained any particulars.

But yes, I'm sure you've attended more. Congratulations.

Lol. I bet he hates your pudgy fascist arse. You are bonified cuck.

(09-03-2024 01:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:42 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:21 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  FFS, you STILL don't understand the thing with the rank. He got that rank, he retired with the lesser rank because he didn't complete the courses. It's a nothingburger.

And no, he didn't have to detail every aspect of his service every time he mentioned it over the years to avoid confusion with those who might seek to use it against him down the line.

The scrutiny you have placed on him while you ignore the **** from trump...his avoidance of service and his denigration of those who served...is despicable.

Hey dumb***, I served 4 years in the military during the VietNam era. I'm guessing I know a helluva lot more about ranks than you do.

But keep on having a cow. It's entertaining.

Thank you for your service.

But you served 4 years. You did not retire from the military then, right? And I've read enough from veterans who did retire to know that what happened to Walz is not at all unusual. You should know this.

Nobody said it was unusual. They said he LIED about it.

The idea that me serving 4 years in the military is somehow overruled by you reading from veterans who retired is maybe the most laughable thing you have ever said on here, and that's saying a lot.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

How many times have you had a personal conversation with a Master Chief Petty Officer (Navy equivalent of Command Sergeant Major)? Less than me.

How many times have you had a personal hour-long meeting with the Secretary of the Navy, who was looking for business operational advice for his shipyards? One less than me.

How many retirement ceremonies have you attended? Way less than me.

How many military men have you personally talked to who were nearing retirement? Way less than me.

How many times have you attended rank promotion ceremonies? Way less than me.

How many times have you attended training that discussed these options? Less than me.

How many years have you actively spent solely around military people? I know. ZERO to my FOUR.

Yeah, but you read a lot.

P.S. Within 2 of my 4 years in the Navy, I was promoted to E-5, which is the equivalent of Sergeant in the Army, Marines and Air Force.

All that, and yet you know more about this than I do. Riiiight...

He didn't lie about getting promoted to that rank. He was promoted to that rank. Period.

He lied, many times, about retiring at that rank.

period

full stop

Steal that Vlaor

(09-03-2024 12:14 PM)gdunn Wrote:  I've said it before...

Walz could've said he served 24 years, with him already being retired once and coming back in after 9/11 and it would've been fine..

He could've stated he retired as a Sergeant Major and again an eye not be batted.. Could've even said he almost achieved the rank of CSM...

The problem is him claiming a rank he only achieved in title.. Claiming he was deployed to active war zones when he didn't.. Those are the issues in my mind..

So I should **** on my neighbor, who achieved Captain (for 1.5 years), yet retired as Commander (under the regs), because he has noted he was a Captain? Seriously?

And in all honesty, I do have an issue in his campaign where he said he bore 'weapons in war' --- when he was talking about the use of ARs in school shootings. It is a stretch. Not a big time massive one on its own. And one where he has admitted fault in his not well descriptive grammar.

But he never explicitly claimed to be "deployed to an active war zone" -- that part is *your* inaccurate expansion of his words. In a way that seemingly surpasses his inaccurate comments, in honesty.

If you are going to rip him for his not accurate claims, maybe you shouldnt make that accurate as to his actual comments. Not such equally inaccurate claims about his language as you do above. Now *that* is funny in retrospect...

This you, TA?

(09-03-2024 11:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  446 posts. The butthurt never ends.

(09-03-2024 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 12:14 PM)gdunn Wrote:  I've said it before...

Walz could've said he served 24 years, with him already being retired once and coming back in after 9/11 and it would've been fine..

He could've stated he retired as a Sergeant Major and again an eye not be batted.. Could've even said he almost achieved the rank of CSM...

The problem is him claiming a rank he only achieved in title.. Claiming he was deployed to active war zones when he didn't.. Those are the issues in my mind..

So I should **** on my neighbor, who achieved Captain (for 1.5 years), yet retired as Commander (under the regs), because he has noted he was a Captain? Seriously?

And in all honesty, I do have an issue in his campaign where he said he bore 'weapons in war' --- when he was talking about the use of ARs in school shootings. It is a stretch. Not a big time massive one on its own. And one where he has admitted fault in his not well descriptive grammar.

But he never explicitly claimed to be "deployed to an active war zone" -- that part is *your* inaccurate expansion of his words. In a way that seemingly surpasses his inaccurate comments, in honesty.

If you are going to rip him for his not accurate claims, maybe you shouldnt make that accurate as to his actual comments. Not such equally inaccurate claims about his language as you do above. Now *that* is funny in retrospect...

I don't know.. Is your neighbor going around stating he was a rank above where he technically was? Is your neighbor going around pounding his chest about it or trying to use it for political gain?

I'm not poo-pooing on anyone for their service, but Walz achieved the rank in title only. He didn't achieve the benefits that title gave him because he ducked out in the middle because he was going to be deployed. It's documented.

Don't know why you decided to come at me half cocked.

But as far as his statement:

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/t...ns-of-war/

It was "weapons I carried in war".. So I guess that's the gotcha moment.

A. He never deployed to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, he was deployed to Italy.
B. He's done interviews where he claimed he was at Bagram, which is not in Italy, but Afghanistan.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/12/us-news/wa...eployment/

So I'm sorry if I misquoted him.. Damn me for being wrong.. You got me counselor... If I admit I was wrong for a crime, I don't get punished right?

(09-03-2024 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [quote='gdunn' pid='19723192' dateline='1725383683']
I've said it before...

Walz could've said he served 24 years, with him already being retired once and coming back in after 9/11 and it would've been fine.

nope

but you should sh*t on him if he continues to collect a retirement pay package he was not entitle to and lied about his rank.

(09-03-2024 02:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [quote='gdunn' pid='19723192' dateline='1725383683']
I've said it before...

Walz could've said he served 24 years, with him already being retired once and coming back in after 9/11 and it would've been fine.

nope

but you should sh*t on him if he continues to collect a retirement pay package he was not entitle to and lied about his rank.

That never even remotely happened then, or now. Is there anything you're right or honest about?

(09-03-2024 01:54 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 12:14 PM)gdunn Wrote:  I've said it before...

Walz could've said he served 24 years, with him already being retired once and coming back in after 9/11 and it would've been fine..

He could've stated he retired as a Sergeant Major and again an eye not be batted.. Could've even said he almost achieved the rank of CSM...

The problem is him claiming a rank he only achieved in title.. Claiming he was deployed to active war zones when he didn't.. Those are the issues in my mind..

So I should **** on my neighbor, who achieved Captain (for 1.5 years), yet retired as Commander (under the regs), because he has noted he was a Captain? Seriously?

And in all honesty, I do have an issue in his campaign where he said he bore 'weapons in war' --- when he was talking about the use of ARs in school shootings. It is a stretch. Not a big time massive one on its own. And one where he has admitted fault in his not well descriptive grammar.

But he never explicitly claimed to be "deployed to an active war zone" -- that part is *your* inaccurate expansion of his words. In a way that seemingly surpasses his inaccurate comments, in honesty.

If you are going to rip him for his not accurate claims, maybe you shouldnt make that accurate as to his actual comments. Not such equally inaccurate claims about his language as you do above. Now *that* is funny in retrospect...

I don't know.. Is your neighbor going around stating he was a rank above where he technically was? Is your neighbor going around pounding his chest about it or trying to use it for political gain?

You said above "he only achieved in title." You seemingly admit he 'achieved' the title. Change my neighbor being Captain for 24 hours after his notice. Yes how dare he refer to him for a something he 'achieved in title'.

Quote:I'm not poo-pooing on anyone for their service, but Walz achieved the rank in title only.

And you say again, bolded above -- he "achieved the rank".

Quote:He didn't achieve the benefits that title gave him because he ducked out in the middle because he was going to be deployed. It's documented.

No, its not documented. It is a bunch of third parties who claim it -- and whole bunch of others that say, at best, 'there might have been a rumor'.

The actual deployment directives were issues *well after* his departure. *That* is the documentation.

Quote:Don't know why you decided to come at me half cocked.

Because of your inapt accusations.

Quote:But as far as his statement:

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/t...ns-of-war/

It was "weapons I carried in war".. So I guess that's the gotcha moment.

And on point with my paraphrase above. In response to your comment that he claimed to have been deployed to an active war zone. At least we agree that your expansion was inaccurate.

Again -- "when he was talking about the use of ARs in school shootings. It is a stretch. Not a big time massive one on its own. And one where he has later admitted fault in his not well descriptive grammar."

Quote:A. He never deployed to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, he was deployed to Italy.

He never claimed to be deployed to anywhere else, mind you. Big deal.

Quote:B. He's done interviews where he claimed he was at Bagram, which is not in Italy, but Afghanistan.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/12/us-news/wa...eployment/

So I'm sorry if I misquoted him.. Damn me for being wrong.. You got me counselor... If I admit I was wrong for a crime, I don't get punished right?

Yes, he stated "I stood one night in the dark of the night on the tarmac at Bagram". A well documented trip he took as a congressman there.

In fact, the sections preceding he related to coming home, and noting his daughter had moved a year in his absence. But did not carry guilt. He then noted "In the proceeding years "watching us ... as our political systems became more difficult for all of us to understand." 'Proceeding years' literally means -- in the years *after coming back*. And in those 'proceeding years' he also related "I stood one night in the dark of the night on the tarmac at Bagram". Again, a well documented trip he took as a congressman there. he also noted that that ceremony *requires* one to try to figure out 'what are we doing, what are we trying to get do'.

No, there isnt any mention of that episode as a military deployment. In fact, he specifically relates it in time to the years "proceeding" from his time of coming home from deployment.

O I fault you for making the assertion he was "claiming to be in an active war zone" -- when his words in the speech simply do not do that.

Yet you seemingly complain of how horribly deceptive and inaccurate Walz was. When in fact you seem to be using rather braid 'latitude' (diplomatically) in your leap of faith to that 'expanded' verbiage.

(09-03-2024 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 01:54 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 12:14 PM)gdunn Wrote:  I've said it before...

Walz could've said he served 24 years, with him already being retired once and coming back in after 9/11 and it would've been fine..

He could've stated he retired as a Sergeant Major and again an eye not be batted.. Could've even said he almost achieved the rank of CSM...

The problem is him claiming a rank he only achieved in title.. Claiming he was deployed to active war zones when he didn't.. Those are the issues in my mind..

So I should **** on my neighbor, who achieved Captain (for 1.5 years), yet retired as Commander (under the regs), because he has noted he was a Captain? Seriously?

And in all honesty, I do have an issue in his campaign where he said he bore 'weapons in war' --- when he was talking about the use of ARs in school shootings. It is a stretch. Not a big time massive one on its own. And one where he has admitted fault in his not well descriptive grammar.

But he never explicitly claimed to be "deployed to an active war zone" -- that part is *your* inaccurate expansion of his words. In a way that seemingly surpasses his inaccurate comments, in honesty.

If you are going to rip him for his not accurate claims, maybe you shouldnt make that accurate as to his actual comments. Not such equally inaccurate claims about his language as you do above. Now *that* is funny in retrospect...

I don't know.. Is your neighbor going around stating he was a rank above where he technically was? Is your neighbor going around pounding his chest about it or trying to use it for political gain?

You said above "he only achieved in title." You seemingly admit he 'achieved' the title. Change my neighbor being Captain for 24 hours after his notice. Yes how dare he refer to him for a something he 'achieved in title'.

Quote:I'm not poo-pooing on anyone for their service, but Walz achieved the rank in title only.

And you say again, bolded above -- he "achieved the rank".

Quote:He didn't achieve the benefits that title gave him because he ducked out in the middle because he was going to be deployed. It's documented.

No, its not documented. It is a bunch of third parties who claim it -- and whole bunch of others that say, at best, 'there might have been a rumor'.

The actual deployment directives were issues *well after* his departure. *That* is the documentation.

Quote:Don't know why you decided to come at me half cocked.

Because of your inapt accusations.

Quote:But as far as his statement:

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/t...ns-of-war/

It was "weapons I carried in war".. So I guess that's the gotcha moment.

And on point with my paraphrase above. In response to your comment that he claimed to have been deployed to an active war zone. At least we agree that your expansion was inaccurate.

Again -- "when he was talking about the use of ARs in school shootings. It is a stretch. Not a big time massive one on its own. And one where he has later admitted fault in his not well descriptive grammar."

Quote:A. He never deployed to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, he was deployed to Italy.

He never claimed to be deployed to anywhere else, mind you. Big deal.

Quote:B. He's done interviews where he claimed he was at Bagram, which is not in Italy, but Afghanistan.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/12/us-news/wa...eployment/

So I'm sorry if I misquoted him.. Damn me for being wrong.. You got me counselor... If I admit I was wrong for a crime, I don't get punished right?

Yes, he stated "I stood one night in the dark of the night on the tarmac at Bagram". A well documented trip he took as a congressman there.

In fact, the sections preceding he related to coming home, and noting his daughter had moved a year in his absence. But did not carry guilt. He then noted "In the proceeding years "watching us ... as our political systems became more difficult for all of us to understand." 'Proceeding years' literally means -- in the years *after coming back*. And in those 'proceeding years' he also related "I stood one night in the dark of the night on the tarmac at Bagram". Again, a well documented trip he took as a congressman there. he also noted that that ceremony *requires* one to try to figure out 'what are we doing, what are we trying to get do'.

No, there isnt any mention of that episode as a military deployment. In fact, he specifically relates it in time to the years "proceeding" from his time of coming home from deployment.

O I fault you for making the assertion he was "claiming to be in an active war zone" -- when his words in the speech simply do not do that.

Yet you seemingly complain of how horribly deceptive and inaccurate Walz was. When in fact you seem to be using rather braid 'latitude' (diplomatically) in your leap of faith to that 'expanded' verbiage.

Walz DID NOT "achieve" the rank of command sergeant major. He was conditionally promoted to that rank until he achieved it, which he didnt.

(09-03-2024 01:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This you, TA?

(09-03-2024 11:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  446 posts. The butthurt never ends.

Yeah, that's what I meant, doofus.

(09-03-2024 02:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 01:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This you, TA?

(09-03-2024 11:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  446 posts. The butthurt never ends.

Yeah, that's what I meant, doofus.

478 posts here...much of which is butthurt from your boys.

(09-03-2024 02:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 02:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 01:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This you, TA?

(09-03-2024 11:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  446 posts. The butthurt never ends.

Yeah, that's what I meant, doofus.

478 posts here...much of which is butthurt from your boys.

You daring me to go back and count? And let's make them proportionate. There are about 6 of you on this board, and dozens of us.

(09-03-2024 02:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 02:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 01:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This you, TA?

(09-03-2024 11:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  446 posts. The butthurt never ends.

Yeah, that's what I meant, doofus.

478 posts here...much of which is butthurt from your boys.

oh yea

us: TIm Walz stole valor again

dipsh*t squad: shut up! no he didnt! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!