Exactly. This thread would have been short, much like the ANC thread, if the few lefties on this board hadn't put up a never ending defense of their Commie VP guy.

(09-03-2024 02:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(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.

You're the only one obsessed with the number of posts and how long a thread lives on here.

(09-03-2024 02:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Exactly. This thread would have been short, much like the ANC thread, if the few lefties on this board hadn't put up a never ending defense of their Commie VP guy.

Yeah, and?

A couple dozen people reply back and forth on a message board with around 100 or so regular users. Not exactly stopping the globe from spinning here.

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

(09-03-2024 02:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(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?

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.

You're the only one obsessed with the number of posts and how long a thread lives on here.

You obviously can't tell the difference between me being obsessed and me making fun of you.

(09-03-2024 03:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

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

(09-03-2024 02:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

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

(09-03-2024 02:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:   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.

You're the only one obsessed with the number of posts and how long a thread lives on here.

You obviously can't tell the difference between me being obsessed and me making fun of you.

Take a look in a mirror, pal.

(09-03-2024 02:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(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.

Eyeballing and tossing out the 'less than 10 posts' group --

There are 2 folks on the 'make a better argument' side that have right at 100 posts.
And 14 folks and 343 posts for the 'stolen valor' claim.

The 'must be stolen valor' messaging is FAR more than the 'need a better argument side'.


Your proportionate idea doesnt make sense. There is literally 3x+ more urgency to broadcast one message than the other.

How dare 2 posters interact with a flood of stuff. The horror. 2 posters must only answer once, and only once to every onslaught of shallow posts. That kind of sounds inane. Lol.

(09-03-2024 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 03:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

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

(09-03-2024 02:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

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

You're the only one obsessed with the number of posts and how long a thread lives on here.

You obviously can't tell the difference between me being obsessed and me making fun of you.

Take a look in a mirror, pal.

I did. I saw an image of you behind me and laughed so hard I got a sore throat.

(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.

Dude... You can say what you want in 50 words vs 500, it doesn't make you appear smarter, just makes it a pain to read.

He achieved the rank in TITLE ONLY. Meaning he did not ear the pay nor any of the benefits entitled to that position. Had he completed the course, he would've achieved the full benefits. However, Mr. Walz tried to submit paperwork saying he was a CSM and when the Army did their due diligence months later he was busted back down to Sergeant Major and his retirement reduced. He still proudly stated he was a retired CSM, which not true. He never completed the requirements but he had the title, just not the perks.

Walz stated he carried weapons of war in war. Bottom line, no posturing from you or the left can deny that. So stop.

While he visited Bagram as a civilian, that is not how he alluded to it until he got his pee pee slapped.

But please continue with your little rant on how wonderful Tim is... Maybe you can put a tampon where it's supposed to go on a man as well since you want to come at me half cocked and ill prepared..

Listen.. I hear an ambulance.

(09-03-2024 03:38 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(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.

Dude... You can say what you want in 50 words vs 500, it doesn't make you appear smarter, just makes it a pain to read.

He achieved the rank in TITLE ONLY. Meaning he did not ear the pay nor any of the benefits entitled to that position. Had he completed the course, he would've achieved the full benefits. However, Mr. Walz tried to submit paperwork saying he was a CSM and when the Army did their due diligence months later he was busted back down to Sergeant Major and his retirement reduced. He still proudly stated he was a retired CSM, which not true. He never completed the requirements but he had the title, just not the perks.

Walz stated he carried weapons of war in war. Bottom line, no posturing from you or the left can deny that. So stop.

But yet you bray that he said 'he was deployed to war". And that statement simply isnt that, no matter *how* much *you* posture it. Bummer for you.

And you keep up saying "he achieved the rank". Brilliant.

Quote:While he visited Bagram as a civilian, that is not how he alluded to it until he got his pee pee slapped. /quote]

I will take it you didn't even fing listen to the link you posted. *At best* he didnt say *anything* re: the timing.

Further, I will take it you dont know what the verb 'proceeded' means. Fantastic. But please keep jumping up and down and wind whirling your lil ol tiny hands to say what you do -- notwithstanding anything he actually did say.

Maybe next time use some facts, instead of rhetorical crap.

[quote]
But please continue with your little rant on how wonderful Tim is... Maybe you can put a tampon where it's supposed to go on a man as well since you want to come at me half cocked and ill prepared..

So says the dude that has to make up rhetorical excesses. Got it. And doesnt seem to understand the basic English verb 'proceed'. Brilliant display in full there dunn.

Including your pissant ad hom crap that you seemingly need to use as a idiot crutch.

Quote:Listen.. I hear an ambulance.

That ambulance just might be coming to help the idiot that displays only half a brain and full armload of Beavis **** talk.

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

(09-03-2024 02:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(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?

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.

You're the only one obsessed with the number of posts and how long a thread lives on here.

Trumpies seem to obsessed with # of posts as much as the 'size of rally crowds' these days.

(09-03-2024 02:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Exactly. This thread would have been short, much like the ANC thread, if the few lefties on this board hadn't put up a never ending defense of their Commie VP guy.

Yes, how fing dare anyone defend that. Spoken like a true hero there, AAA. DONT EVER CHALLENGE *ANYTHING* THAT AAA BELIEVES IN.

Lolz.

(09-03-2024 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 02:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Exactly. This thread would have been short, much like the ANC thread, if the few lefties on this board hadn't put up a never ending defense of their Commie VP guy.

Yes, how fing dare anyone defend that. Spoken like a true hero there, AAA. DONT EVER CHALLENGE *ANYTHING* THAT AAA BELIEVES IN.

Lolz.

Ooh, that really hurts. Especially coming from you.

P.S. I'm not the one who brought up the ANC deal in the Epstein thread.

(09-03-2024 04:06 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 02:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Exactly. This thread would have been short, much like the ANC thread, if the few lefties on this board hadn't put up a never ending defense of their Commie VP guy.

Yes, how fing dare anyone defend that. Spoken like a true hero there, AAA. DONT EVER CHALLENGE *ANYTHING* THAT AAA BELIEVES IN.

Lolz.

Ooh, that really hurts. Especially coming from you.

P.S. I'm not the one who brought up the ANC deal in the Epstein thread.

Maybe you simply should have said 'most threads would be short if people I dont agree with put in any opposing views.' Yeah, the mark of true intellectual insight there.... lolz.

Which is pretty much what you say above.

(09-03-2024 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

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

(09-03-2024 02:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

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

(09-03-2024 02:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:   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.

You're the only one obsessed with the number of posts and how long a thread lives on here.

Trumpies seem to obsessed with # of posts as much as the 'size of rally crowds' these days.

Funny considering the new “Kamala’s Collapse” thread asks, “where are all the lefties?” Can’t win for losin’ with these MAGA Karens.

Yep. You guys are on top of it all right. We're awed by your intelligence, foresight and debate skills. And especially your choice for Pres/VP.

(09-03-2024 09:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Psst...this issue is done. It missed the mark. It's not working. Everyone knows of his service and the few times he didn't describe things as well as he should have. But please, keep wasting your time with it.

Never heard you describe a Trump lie as “he didn’t describe things as well as he should have”.
You’re such a moronic liar.

As far as wasting time, what does that have to do with you? You don’t have to keep responding.

(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...

“Inaccurate claims”
You ever try that chit in court? If you’ve actually ever been in one as a real lawyer.

(09-03-2024 03:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 02:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(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?

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.

Eyeballing and tossing out the 'less than 10 posts' group --

There are 2 folks on the 'make a better argument' side that have right at 100 posts.
And 14 folks and 343 posts for the 'stolen valor' claim.

The 'must be stolen valor' messaging is FAR more than the 'need a better argument side'.


Your proportionate idea doesnt make sense. There is literally 3x+ more urgency to broadcast one message than the other.

How dare 2 posters interact with a flood of stuff. The horror. 2 posters must only answer once, and only once to every onslaught of shallow posts. That kind of sounds inane. Lol.

Then why didn’t he answer the question when asked?

(09-03-2024 07:28 PM)Was SoMs Eagle 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...

“Inaccurate claims”
You ever try that chit in court? If you’ve actually ever been in one as a real lawyer.

Hate to tell you, pumkin, that ‘carrying a weapon in war’ is not ‘I was deployed to Afghanistan.’

Much like ‘I saw a boarding ceremony at Bagram’ is ‘I was deployed to Afghanistan while in the military’. Even more so given his known trip to the area while in Congress.

But keep jumping up and down and windmilling those tiny hands furiously trying to make those comments into what you want them to mean…. And by describing them in an amazingly rhetorical and highly inaccurate manner.

lol.

Oh, that’s when you aren’t reverting to your mean of highly retarded Beavis comments bereft of any substance. Classic.

(09-03-2024 07:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 07:28 PM)Was SoMs Eagle 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...

“Inaccurate claims”
You ever try that chit in court? If you’ve actually ever been in one as a real lawyer.

Hate to tell you, pumkin, that ‘carrying a weapon in war’ is not ‘I was deployed to Afghanistan.’

Much like ‘I saw a boarding ceremony at Bagram’ is ‘I was deployed to Afghanistan while in the military’. Even more so given his known trip to the area while in Congress.

But keep jumping up and down and windmilling those tiny hands furiously trying to make those comments into what you want them to mean…. And by describing them in an amazingly rhetorical and highly inaccurate manner.

lol.

Oh, that’s when you aren’t reverting to your mean of highly retarded Beavis comments bereft of any substance. Classic.

You’re so damned easy