9th Circuit Judge Richard Seeborg and Alexander Vindman Why are Foreign Born Actors Fast Tracked?

a reply to: Lumenari

Lumenari,

A curious aspect of Vindman-as-soldier, is that despite being an INFANTRY OFFICER, and having served his career at at time when combat operations were constantly underway ... he has no awards for valor. That is more than passing strange.

Now, he was awarded a Purple Heart. Vindman took a hit from some kind of enemy action, and for that, I extend him a nod of respect. I envy no one who wins one of those, but it is not an award for valor.

This is why the attempt of the Dems to sell him as a hero don't wash. Yes, he has served in the military. Yes, he was in a war zone. But neither of those facts make him a hero.

Cheers

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lumenari

As I have told you before I did not serve. That's irrelevant in the current discussion.

1. It's not a lawful order.

2. Lt. Col. Vindman followed his chain of command and received approval to appear as required by law and responded to a Congressional subpoena.

3. The rest is merely your authortarian Trump-loving opinion and I have no response.

~yawn~

1./ Just by you saying it is not a lawful order does not just make it so.

2./ He did not follow his chain of command at all.

3./ The rest is what the military is thinking right now so of course you have no response... just another tired ad hom.

How the Army officer who testified against Trump could end up in a court-martial

As far as the topic, I personally think that if you do not possess a DD-214 or are currently serving your opinion has no bearing on the topic.

Based on lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

As I said, I have great respect for those who have served but very little for their irrational or ignorant opinions. The only smell involved here is the aroma of cultic Trump-love.

Thank you for the technical correction.

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: Lumenari

Lumenari,

A curious aspect of Vindman-as-soldier, is that despite being an INFANTRY OFFICER, and having served his career at at time when combat operations were constantly underway ... he has no awards for valor. That is more than passing strange.

Now, he was awarded a Purple Heart. Vindman took a hit from some kind of enemy action, and for that, I extend him a nod of respect. I envy no one who wins one of those, but it is not an award for valor.

This is why the attempt of the Dems to sell him as a hero don't wash. Yes, he has served in the military. Yes, he was in a war zone. But neither of those facts make him a hero.

Cheers

His highest award is a purple heart, meaning he was wounded in a combat situation.

That could mean literally anything and the criteria for being awarded one isn't a high bar... it doesn't even have to do with anything heroic.

People my father served with in 'Nam were given them for literally shooting themselves in the foot.

He has nothing else... but yet the left is trying to sell him to the public as some sort of decorated war hero.

He quite simply isn't.



ETA....

He was awarded a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq, after he was injured from an IED attack during his deployment.

So he caught some shrapnel in Iraq.

Like a whole lot of American soldiers have... he wasn't even in a firefight.

a reply to: Waterglass

There's a theory about people being "planted" in our society at a young age, and groomed to carry out nefarious acts. Most recently, Congresswoman Ilhan OMAR is suspected as being one of these mini-cells.

a reply to: Lumenari

Your claim that the order is lawful has no greater standing. Compliance with subpoenas is Federal law.

He did follow chain of command: his current assignment is the National Security Council and he followed that protocol. Also see illegal orders above.

I know you come from a military family, but all due respect, you don't speak for "what the military is thinking."

Ad hom is an attack on you as the one making an argument. I stated a fact about your argument, since we are all being so technical today.

Buy your ooinion doesnt matter...a reply to: Gryphon66

a reply to: Gryphon66

You assume much. Try assuming less and learn from those who have been closer to these situations than you have.

Vindman has made what is likely a career-ending error. He is not a hero simply by virtue of his military service. Whatever else he is, he has smeared with his conduct regarding Ukraine. I understand it is not in the political interest of the Democrats to recognize that; Vindman is but a useful pawn for them in these proceedings. But political maneuvers do not the truth make.

You're welcome re: the correction. Note it varies by military service. However, "Let." is -never- used as an abbreviation for "lieutenant", at least, in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

I assume much? LOL. Right back at you "words on a screen."

As I said, I respect your service. On the other hand, appealing to your own authority, in this case of pure partisanship on your part, is somewhat like pimping out your sister, isn't it? Maybe a cousin?

Closer to these situations than I have? You've testified before the House then? Stop the oblique fallacies and focus on a viable argument.

"Let" was a typo. Glad you caught it though as your concentration on the trivial shows me exactly what merit your opinion deserves.

Have I referred to LTC Vindman as a hero in this discussion? More fallacies from you.

We shall see if you are correct in your opinion in time, I imagine. Thanks for the conversation.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think you're being too clever by half re: "hero". It is clear that the Democrats are appealing to an image of him as a hero and therefore unassailable because he wears a uniform. Except the image emerging, from Vindman's own conduct, his curious lack of awards for valor, and comments from those who served with him, don't square with the image of Vindman-as-hero. Vindman as someone who has served in the Army? Okay, but bear in mind how very many people have done that, and who have NOT violated their chain of command or engaged in acts of insubordination.

And why in the world are you making assumptions about any family members I may have, to include sexual suggestions? Gryphon66 -- get a grip. You REALLY assume a lot, far too much actually. Care to retract your loose statement?

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

You like technicalities. Look up the word simile and get back to me.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

You like technicalities. Look up the word simile and get back to me.

Don't evade. Answer the question directly. Repeated for your convenience:

And why in the world are you making assumptions about any family members I may have, to include sexual suggestions? Gryphon66 -- get a grip. You REALLY assume a lot, far too much actually. Care to retract your loose statement?

Cheers

originally posted by: Bigbrooklyn
Buy your ooinion doesnt matter...a reply to: Gryphon66

Perhaps.

Why respond then?

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Perhaps I should apologize for using adult language ... If it offended you.

However aside from your partisanship, you obviously are having difficulty with information processing.

The word "like" when comparing two things is a figure of speech called a simile.

The simile used for your claiming your military service justifies your absurd and disrespectful opinions is abominable, much like it would be if you pimped out your sister or cousin.

Of course, I don't know your family situation and if I did, a reader of any experience with English should be able to avoid your rather embarrassing mistake.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not "perhaps" ... just do it. It really is not difficult, and you are plainly wrong for having made that comment.

I understand English very well. I do not accept your argument that it was merely 'simile'. It is a personal attack on your part because my views on Vindman are not to your liking.

You need not accept my opinions, I really don't care. But refrain from making assumptions, ESPECIALLY SEXUAL NOTIONS, about any family other ATS users may have. It is offensive at a level that goes far beyond political sparring.

Now -- are you able to actually retract your unfortunate comment, or will you go forward with this childish avoidance of a simple corrective action?

Cheers

a reply to: carewemust

There are theories about many things. Do you have any evidence regarding Vindman? Or was this only a drive-by comment to further trash Omar?

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

I absolutely will not retract my comment. I used the words in complete awareness of their meanings. I did not say anything about your family real or imagined.

That you seem devoted to your misunderstanding is your own issue.

Other than that you know what to do.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

I absolutely will not retract my comment. I used the words in complete awareness of their meanings. I did not say anything about your family real or imagined.

That you seem devoted to your misunderstanding is your own issue.

Other than that you know what to do.

Your disingenuous approach is unconvincing, and your use of sexual slander is awful. It wins you no arguments and is low behavior, even for the mud-pit.

I have misunderstood nothing, least of all the evasiveness of your replies. Evasive, because you know you are in the wrong.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

May I suggest your posting ceases the repeated grandstanding and return to the discussion?

Or not.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

May I suggest your posting ceases the repeated grandstanding and return to the discussion?

Or not.

May I suggest you review relevant forum guidance? Highlighted items for convenience.

Note that it indicates name-calling, baiting and activity otherwise labeled as political trolling elsewhere on the site. Not generally hateful, bigoted, mean-spirited or gratuitous personal attacks on fellow members. It's also not exempt from the usual forum expectation of remaining on topic.

This is simple: The mud pit is not a place where members can personally insult each other. You can rip each other's politics up but you can't get personal just to slag someone you don't like. Additionally, posts must be relevant to the stated thread topic.

You are wrong on this issue, and in more ways than one. I have made a simple request of you, that's all. A simple comment that family members should be left out of these discussions will more than suffice.

Cheers