Jump to content

Paid Letter: The truth about Tim Walz. Just a few issues with his military record. Was only a Master Sergeant.


Recommended Posts

Posted
16 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

i posted on this yesterday... im not sure if he removed it or not after being told

I was busy yesterday, need to be more thorough when attempting to catch up.  Sorry I missed it.  

2BPE 11/17/24 SMC

Posted
On 8/21/2024 at 12:01 PM, mspart said:

Yeah, word on the street is that Walz doesn't have much money, no house etc.   I guess he might get a pension from being a congressman, and from being a teacher.   But not much right now. 

mspart

His National guard pension kicked in this year.

Posted

Now there is some concern about 250 million dollars. Fraud in a program that was run by the Minnesota Department of Education.

Posted
On 8/22/2024 at 2:45 PM, ThreePointTakedown said:

Daughter of water plant employee(notoriously overpaid) and secretary in the south side of Chicago. Why wouldn't we listen to this person about this message? BTW the year the civil rights act was signed. So her parents couldn't vote until Michelle was even born. Russian nesting doll of inequality, notwithstanding, maybe we can take a beat and hear what real world experience Michelle has to pull from in this and other regards. 

That's all you have is to react because you have no words to counter it. Coward!

Posted
On 8/22/2024 at 3:56 PM, Caveira said:

Not even sure what the heck you mean.  Please be more specific.  

You reposted a comment about a person having three mansions. So I assume, correct me if I am wrong, that you agree that she should not be taken seriously on a subject because of her success. Why does it disqualify her from having knowledge or experience in this field? What is your criteria by which you take someone's opinion on a topic, seriously? 

Posted
9 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

You reposted a comment about a person having three mansions. So I assume, correct me if I am wrong, that you agree that she should not be taken seriously on a subject because of her success. Why does it disqualify her from having knowledge or experience in this field? What is your criteria by which you take someone's opinion on a topic, seriously? 

It’s her “success” that got her 150 million.   Yep.  Also what experience does she have in this field?

  • Bob 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Caveira said:

It’s her “success” that got her 150 million.   Yep.  Also what experience does she have in this field?

Good luck with your back and fourth...my guess is you will be called some sort of "ism" very shortly

  • Bob 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Good luck with your back and fourth...my guess is you will be called some sort of "ism" very shortly

Ism is not one of my pronouns.

  • Bob 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Caveira said:

It’s her “success” that got her 150 million.   Yep.  Also what experience does she have in this field?

Yes. Why wouldn't it have? Is your assertion that it she did not contribute to the building of that fortune? 

I think the field you are referring to is life, correct me if I am wrong. She grew up lower-middle class in Chicago. Worked hard to get educated and became a successful lawyer. Working for the mayor of Chicago on public projects. 

I don't want to preach, but c'mon do some homework before you throw your hat in with this crowd. Its embarrassing. The wrestling community can be seen as more than a middle class, white, conservative, crowd. Jerking their knees and clutching their pearls at any and every successful person that doesn't fit that, very specific, mold.  

  • Clown 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Good luck with your back and fourth...my guess is you will be called some sort of "ism" very shortly

If you were ever honest about the true nature of your positions, our conversations would never become so contentious. Have you noticed that? 

You make a claim or a comment about something. I ask you to support it. You say something along the lines of, 'did you see this one case? It must prove my point somehow.' I say, 'it doesn't, at least not for anyone that isn't already predetermined to believe it for some underlying reason that they just don't want to admit.' This should be the first red flag. Why are you trying to appeal to anyone that doesn't already agree? What's the point? Who are you dunking on, they all agree with you? Then someone doesn't. Wheels begin to come off the wagon. Because if there is one thing I know about uninformed people. They do not like being called out as such. 

You confuse one example of an occurrence with your mistaken opinion of the whole group. You mistake correlation with causation and like anyone caught in an emotional loop, you double down and insist that you are correct. Still without providing any compelling evidence to back up that claim either. Then trapped in a corner you try to weasel out with every dishonest trick in the book; arguing semantics, focusing on a point that is not related to the topic, calling names, poisoning the well, or just claiming that you don't have time or interest to continue a discussion that you have made circular by not acknowledging any point contrary to your own. Because we all know that admitting your wrong will force you change your mind. Changing you mind is hard. Makes you question everything you know from that source and what if all that stuff is wrong. The mountain of potential embarrassing things is pretty high. So rather than take that first step and having to go through this process each and every time you change you mind. You just... don't. Because its easier. So the cycle continues. You probably didn't read down to the this part and why would you? From everything I know about you, as soon as you see something you don't agree with or could challenge your opinion you stop, call it crazy so you don't have to take it seriously, and move on. Making sure to offer your opinion so that others can see it and form their opinions on it before reading too. 

Good luck 

Posted
23 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

I think the field you are referring to is life, correct me if I am wrong. She grew up lower-middle class in Chicago. Worked hard to get educated and became a successful lawyer. Working for the mayor of Chicago on public projects. 

 

a public servant is worth 150mil? really... 

Posted
29 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

a public servant is worth 150mil? really... 

Don’t really have a dog in this fight, but are you under the impression that rich people get rich, with one revenue stream?  I think you’ll find that most really rich people use one good revenue stream to create other revenue streams, hence becoming really really rich. 

Posted
1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

If you were ever honest about the true nature of your positions, our conversations would never become so contentious. Have you noticed that? 

You make a claim or a comment about something. I ask you to support it. You say something along the lines of, 'did you see this one case? It must prove my point somehow.' I say, 'it doesn't, at least not for anyone that isn't already predetermined to believe it for some underlying reason that they just don't want to admit.' This should be the first red flag. Why are you trying to appeal to anyone that doesn't already agree? What's the point? Who are you dunking on, they all agree with you? Then someone doesn't. Wheels begin to come off the wagon. Because if there is one thing I know about uninformed people. They do not like being called out as such. 

You confuse one example of an occurrence with your mistaken opinion of the whole group. You mistake correlation with causation and like anyone caught in an emotional loop, you double down and insist that you are correct. Still without providing any compelling evidence to back up that claim either. Then trapped in a corner you try to weasel out with every dishonest trick in the book; arguing semantics, focusing on a point that is not related to the topic, calling names, poisoning the well, or just claiming that you don't have time or interest to continue a discussion that you have made circular by not acknowledging any point contrary to your own. Because we all know that admitting your wrong will force you change your mind. Changing you mind is hard. Makes you question everything you know from that source and what if all that stuff is wrong. The mountain of potential embarrassing things is pretty high. So rather than take that first step and having to go through this process each and every time you change you mind. You just... don't. Because its easier. So the cycle continues. You probably didn't read down to the this part and why would you? From everything I know about you, as soon as you see something you don't agree with or could challenge your opinion you stop, call it crazy so you don't have to take it seriously, and move on. Making sure to offer your opinion so that others can see it and form their opinions on it before reading too. 

Good luck 

You are a true whakadoodle!  What are you even talking about??  I think you just type words to type words and just project what you truly feel about yourself onto others.

To prove how crazy you are...name or provide one instance where I did not provide examples/facts/data for my stance on something...just one!

Posted
2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Yes. Why wouldn't it have? Is your assertion that it she did not contribute to the building of that fortune? 

I think the field you are referring to is life, correct me if I am wrong. She grew up lower-middle class in Chicago. Worked hard to get educated and became a successful lawyer. Working for the mayor of Chicago on public projects. 

I don't want to preach, but c'mon do some homework before you throw your hat in with this crowd. Its embarrassing. The wrestling community can be seen as more than a middle class, white, conservative, crowd. Jerking their knees and clutching their pearls at any and every successful person that doesn't fit that, very specific, mold.  

I thought she grew up in Canada. I know she went to school there/

Posted
1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Don’t really have a dog in this fight, but are you under the impression that rich people get rich, with one revenue stream?  I think you’ll find that most really rich people use one good revenue stream to create other revenue streams, hence becoming really really rich. 

i dont disagree

just wondering what the other stream is

  • Bob 1
Posted
16 hours ago, Paul158 said:

Now there is some concern about 250 million dollars. Fraud in a program that was run by the Minnesota Department of Education.

is this a NEW concern?

or from this summer

Posted
1 minute ago, Scouts Honor said:

is this a NEW concern?

or from this summer

Its from the time period around covid. It keeps coming up on the news feeds.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...