What a bizarre post, I'm guessing in your fit of anger you didn't stop to think if it actually made any sense. You're right, it's a poor sentence and he reveals himself to be a hypocrite who also can't form a coherent sentence, if we were to follow YOUR logic.
I think he just misspoke while giving a live speech, though. Otherwise, why would he mention carrying "weapons of war" if it wasn't in reference to his military experience? Not only would him mentioning that he carried "weapons of war" be irrelevant information, but it also makes him a hypocrite since he carried "weapons of war" outside of war, which according to him is the "only place where those weapons are allowed." In this case, I think he just misspoke and was making reference to carrying weapons in war (which would have also been a lie).
I know you must be embarrassed for having posted that video which clearly shows something very different from what you thought it showed. And, with your embarrassment at having been proven to be incapable of understanding English, you feel compelled to double down on sheer stup!dity.
You have your feelings and I respect that.
"Why would he mention carrying 'weapons of war'?" Just a wild guess here but maybe because, in his military experience, he did carry such weapons at times.
Now, as far as: "it also makes him a hypocrite since he carried 'weapons of war' outside of war, which according to him is the 'only place where those weapons are allowed.'" - I am sorry to see that you are now tripling down on stup!d.
Do you really think that him advocating for having "weapons of war" being restricted to "in war" means that he is advocating for military personnel to never touch such a weapon in their training and to first touch such a weapon after they are thrown into battle. Surely, even you could not be that stup!d!
Do yourself a favor and try to avoid quadrupling down on stup!d.
You have been proven, with 100% certainty, to be absolutely wrong on this. Stop digging. (not sure if you will know what that means since you struggle so with the English language - but just stop, you are embarrassing yourself)
You're right, I am stupid. Stupid for arguing this with you. The FULL sentence is "We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at." This sentence makes sense.
"We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried, in war is the only place where those weapons are at," (your interpretation) is an absurd, run-on sentence which defies every rule of English. It's two unrelated fragments ("we can make sure those weapons of war" and "in war is the only place where those weapons are at") and a dependent clause ("that I carried") - what a mess.
The sentence basically ends halfway through and then begins where another sentence left off, there's no way he could have meant this unless he was drunk or having a stroke on stage. I'm going with the simplest explanation, which is he said the sentence in the first paragraph.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
And other vets (without an axe to grind) say the whole thing is made up.
“Joe Eustice, who served with Walz for years, told The Washington Post he disagreed with the governor’s politics, but Walz did not avoid combat duty and was a good soldier. At the time Walz left the unit, Eustice told the Post there had only been speculation the unit could be deployed.“
“Al Bonnifield, who served 22 years in the Minnesota National Guard, told NewsNation’sJoe Khalil that Walz, like many of the men in their unit, suspected they might be deployed soon but had been given no such official order when he decided to retire.”
All this says is that he quit before their deployment was confirmed, not why he quit.
Not exactly an issue that's very important to me, but I think this does speak to his character.
If you need somewhere to live and want to maintain your standard of living the 35% is unrealized while the tax increase is real.
It's amazing how much you don't understand given your titanic ego on this subject....
If you can't pay your property tax. You should have planned better, loser.
I'll continue to let my houses appreciate and gladly pay the taxes. It's minimal.
I've always paid my taxes. It's the blue state losers who whined when they could no longer write off their obscene SALT taxes off on the federal returns.
No intelligent person in the history of the world has been happy to pay more taxes.
And other vets (without an axe to grind) say the whole thing is made up.
“Joe Eustice, who served with Walz for years, told The Washington Post he disagreed with the governor’s politics, but Walz did not avoid combat duty and was a good soldier. At the time Walz left the unit, Eustice told the Post there had only been speculation the unit could be deployed.“
“Al Bonnifield, who served 22 years in the Minnesota National Guard, told NewsNation’sJoe Khalil that Walz, like many of the men in their unit, suspected they might be deployed soon but had been given no such official order when he decided to retire.”
The senior NCO in the unit knows about the warning order which comes long before the actual order to deploy.
"... we can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried, in war is the only place where those weapons are (allowed?)."
It is all beginning to make sense to me. You folks simply do not understand the English language.
There is no possible interpretation to that statement other than that the "in war" refers to "is the only place where...".
The words "in war" certainly do NOT refer to "weapons of war that I carried." Otherwise, what the heck is "the only place where those weapons are (allowed?)?"
Is that the problem? You simply do not understand English?
I know you must be embarrassed for having posted that video which clearly shows something very different from what you thought it showed. And, with your embarrassment at having been proven to be incapable of understanding English, you feel compelled to double down on sheer stup!dity.
You have your feelings and I respect that.
"Why would he mention carrying 'weapons of war'?" Just a wild guess here but maybe because, in his military experience, he did carry such weapons at times.
Now, as far as: "it also makes him a hypocrite since he carried 'weapons of war' outside of war, which according to him is the 'only place where those weapons are allowed.'" - I am sorry to see that you are now tripling down on stup!d.
Do you really think that him advocating for having "weapons of war" being restricted to "in war" means that he is advocating for military personnel to never touch such a weapon in their training and to first touch such a weapon after they are thrown into battle. Surely, even you could not be that stup!d!
Do yourself a favor and try to avoid quadrupling down on stup!d.
You have been proven, with 100% certainty, to be absolutely wrong on this. Stop digging. (not sure if you will know what that means since you struggle so with the English language - but just stop, you are embarrassing yourself)
You're right, I am stupid. Stupid for arguing this with you. The FULL sentence is "We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at." This sentence makes sense.
"We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried, in war is the only place where those weapons are at," (your interpretation) is an absurd, run-on sentence which defies every rule of English. It's two unrelated fragments ("we can make sure those weapons of war" and "in war is the only place where those weapons are at") and a dependent clause ("that I carried") - what a mess.
The sentence basically ends halfway through and then begins where another sentence left off, there's no way he could have meant this unless he was drunk or having a stroke on stage. I'm going with the simplest explanation, which is he said the sentence in the first paragraph.
The only thing he was carrying while deployed in Italy was gelato, espresso and the occasional cannoli.
And other vets (without an axe to grind) say the whole thing is made up.
“Joe Eustice, who served with Walz for years, told The Washington Post he disagreed with the governor’s politics, but Walz did not avoid combat duty and was a good soldier. At the time Walz left the unit, Eustice told the Post there had only been speculation the unit could be deployed.“
“Al Bonnifield, who served 22 years in the Minnesota National Guard, told NewsNation’sJoe Khalil that Walz, like many of the men in their unit, suspected they might be deployed soon but had been given no such official order when he decided to retire.”
All this says is that he quit before their deployment was confirmed, not why he quit.
Not exactly an issue that's very important to me, but I think this does speak to his character.
It's odd that you don't know why he "quit". He put in for retirement and was honorably discharged after serving 24 years. He did so because he was campaigning for a seat in Congress. This is all known. If someone retires and is honorably discharged for the military they are a quitter? His unit didn't receive orders for Iraq until two months after he retired. Others who served with him have publicly stated they were supportive of his decision.
You're right, I am stupid. Stupid for arguing this with you. The FULL sentence is "We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at." This sentence makes sense.
"We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried, in war is the only place where those weapons are at," (your interpretation) is an absurd, run-on sentence which defies every rule of English. It's two unrelated fragments ("we can make sure those weapons of war" and "in war is the only place where those weapons are at") and a dependent clause ("that I carried") - what a mess.
The sentence basically ends halfway through and then begins where another sentence left off, there's no way he could have meant this unless he was drunk or having a stroke on stage. I'm going with the simplest explanation, which is he said the sentence in the first paragraph.
Wowzers, you are dumber than a rock!
In your (ahem) interpretation, exactly what is "the only place where those weapons are at"?
Here's a quick clue for you, that would be "in war."
You're right, I am stupid. Stupid for arguing this with you. The FULL sentence is "We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at." This sentence makes sense.
"We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried, in war is the only place where those weapons are at," (your interpretation) is an absurd, run-on sentence which defies every rule of English. It's two unrelated fragments ("we can make sure those weapons of war" and "in war is the only place where those weapons are at") and a dependent clause ("that I carried") - what a mess.
The sentence basically ends halfway through and then begins where another sentence left off, there's no way he could have meant this unless he was drunk or having a stroke on stage. I'm going with the simplest explanation, which is he said the sentence in the first paragraph.
Wowzers, you are dumber than a rock!
In your (ahem) interpretation, exactly what is "the only place where those weapons are at"?
Here's a quick clue for you, that would be "in war."
Care to try again?
You're defending the indefensible because you're in a cult and you think other people are dumb...
All this says is that he quit before their deployment was confirmed, not why he quit.
Not exactly an issue that's very important to me, but I think this does speak to his character.
It's odd that you don't know why he "quit". He put in for retirement and was honorably discharged after serving 24 years. He did so because he was campaigning for a seat in Congress. This is all known. If someone retires and is honorably discharged for the military they are a quitter? His unit didn't receive orders for Iraq until two months after he retired. Others who served with him have publicly stated they were supportive of his decision.
Like I said, the commitment of someone who serves for 24 years cannot be questioned. Now I can easy claim that JV Name Change just did his 4 years as a "war correspondent" to check the box.
