Stolen Valor

[Max R.]

Did you not say it only applied to officers?

No, I did not.

The confusion seems to stem around various laws. It's against the law to falsely wear medals of valor. It's not against the law for a scumbag to falsely claim to be an enlisted veteran of the service or combat. It is against the law to claim to be a military officer. As the previous links pointed out, that's rarely prosecuted unless really egregious. Nathan Phillips was a "Vietnam Era" vet, but he let others think (probably with his assistance) that he actually served in Vietnam. That's not against the law.

 

[OldTrapper]

No, I did not.

So, it was not you that said this:

Max R., post: 2426695, member: 19567"]Stolen Valor should be a crime. It's a Federal crime to impersonate an officer which is why most stolen valor assclowns claim to be enlisted personnel, but I strongly believe any person who claims to be a vet and isn't should be criminally prosecuted.

Or this:

The bill only covers false claims of medals of valor. It's still legal to wear a uniform and falsely claim veteran status as long as it's an enlisted rank.

 

[Max R.]

So, it was not you that said this:



Or this:

Yes, both of those are my posts although I find it odd you didn't link them so others could see the context. Why are you confused on this?

 

[OldTrapper]

No, I did not.

The confusion seems to stem around various laws. It's against the law to falsely wear medals of valor. It's not against the law for a scumbag to falsely claim to be an enlisted veteran of the service or combat. It is against the law to claim to be a military officer. As the previous links pointed out, that's rarely prosecuted unless really egregious. Nathan Phillips was a "Vietnam Era" vet, but he let others think (probably with his assistance) that he actually served in Vietnam. That's not against the law.

Nathan Phillips never claimed to be in Vietnam, and those that made the false claim apologised for misleading the people.

 

[OldTrapper]

Yes, both of those are my posts although I find it odd you didn't link them so others could see the context. Why are you confused on this?

the context is there. Why would you lie about it? Force of habit?

 

[Max R.]

Nathan Phillips never claimed to be in Vietnam, and those that made the false claim apologised for misleading the people.

He didn't correct anyone who said he did. Why else would so many of his own people think he was in Vietnam?

 

[Max R.]

the context is there. Why would you lie about it? Force of habit?

Context includes the entire conversation, not you just cherry-picking the parts you like. Your choice to hide the context.

Now that you've falsely accused me of being a liar, I can see that any further conversation on the matter is a waste of time. You are, IMO, not different than the RWNJs on this forum. Opposite polarity but with all the anger and hostility.

 

[OldTrapper]

Context includes the entire conversation, not you just cherry-picking the parts you like. Your choice to hide the context.

Now that you've falsely accused me of being a liar, I can see that any further conversation on the matter is a waste of time. You are, IMO, not different than the RWNJs on this forum. Opposite polarity but with all the anger and hostility.

Like the good little Trumpite you are you must double down on your lie to try and cover up for the original lie. Here are the two posts in their entirety:

="Max R., post: 2426969, member: 19567"]The bill only covers false claims of medals of valor. It's still legal to wear a uniform and falsely claim veteran status as long as it's an enlisted rank.

It is against the law to lie in order to dodge the draft. However, rich guys like Limbaugh and Trump generously pay doctors to fill out the claim. I'm sure there's a kernel of truth in those claims, but the doctor is free to exaggerate the effect.

Note that I posted the first half since the second paragraph has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Your comment in the first paragraph was a lie.

Stolen Valor should be a crime. It's a Federal crime to impersonate an officer which is why most stolen valor assclowns claim to be enlisted personnel, but I strongly believe any person who claims to be a vet and isn't should be criminally prosecuted.

This, as many other forums, have many members who claim to be vets. Almost always claiming to be formerly enlisted personnel. That's not unusual since the ratio of enlisted to officers in the military is about 10 to 1. Still, and sadly, it's not a crime to claim to be a veteran as long as it's not a claim to be an officer.

Note that in both paragraphs you state that it is a crime only if one claims to be an officer. Nothing was taken out of context.

So, when I asked:

OldTrapper said: ↑
Did you not say it only applied to officers?

And you replied:

No, I did not.

You lied.

 

[Max R.]

Like the good little Trumpite you are....

More lies. Sad. Most everyone here knows I strongly dislike Trump and haven't nor ever will vote for him. The fact you have to compound this lie on top of the others you've posted about me is disgusting, but I'm sure you're used to being called deceitful, dishonest and disgusting.

 

[Dawg]

Nathan Phillips never claimed to be in Vietnam, and those that made the false claim apologised for misleading the people.

You enjoy calling others liars while Lying!

Straight from the horses mouth...................

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Ask your cousin in the FBI. Tell him you have a guy you suspect is impersonating an officer on the Internet. Ask him if that's a crime or not.

Dude the officer in that law is an officer of the law such as police officer, not an officer separated from the military. Care to cite the referred law?

 

[Max R.]

Dude the officer in that law is an officer of the law such as police officer, not an officer separated from the military. Care to cite the referred law?

Another factually incorrect statement as the links proved. Try reading it again...better yet, have your "cousin" the FBI agent read it to you just before having him investigate me.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

The 2005 Stolen Valor act doesn't.

This one does: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912

That's not talking about an officer separated from the military

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Another factually incorrect statement as the links proved. Try reading it again...better yet, have your "cousin" the FBI agent read it to you just before having him investigate me.

NO I'm not wrong
That law tyou cited said officer or employee and officer for the intend law is one who holds an office in the government, not someone claiming to be an officer seperated from the military. If that law was intended for officers in the military separated the employee would also be the enlisted NCO are officers I was an E4 Sargent

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Did you not say it only applied to officers?

military officers

 

[OldTrapper]

You enjoy calling others liars while Lying!

Straight from the horses mouth...................

You really love to lie, and it is all you are good for if anything. Did you listen to the video, and I mean really listen? He says that on his discharge papers it was marked "in theater". He never claimed to be. Can you grasp the difference, or are you going to lie some more as usual:

https://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/nathan-phillips-native-american-in-standoff-with-teens-faces-scrutiny-of-his-military-past-1.565701

 

[Dawg]

You really love to lie, and it is all you are good for if anything. Did you listen to the video, and I mean really listen? He says that on his discharge papers it was marked "in theater". He never claimed to be. Can you grasp the difference, or are you going to lie some more as usual:

https://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/nathan-phillips-native-american-in-standoff-with-teens-faces-scrutiny-of-his-military-past-1.565701

Are you in a mental institute or liars club?

"I don't talk much about my Vietnam time"
That's what he said, he can't, he was never in Vietnam!

No one call out lie you.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

You really love to lie, and it is all you are good for if anything. Did you listen to the video, and I mean really listen? He says that on his discharge papers it was marked "in theater". He never claimed to be. Can you grasp the difference, or are you going to lie some more as usual:

https://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/nathan-phillips-native-american-in-standoff-with-teens-faces-scrutiny-of-his-military-past-1.565701

In his video he starts off with I am a Vietnam Vet his own words

 

[OldTrapper]

In his video he starts off with I am a Vietnam Vet his own words

You do know, and as usual you would be too stupid to do so, that anyone who served during the Vietnam conflict is a Vietnam Vet, right?

Being a veteran of a certain era does not mean you were in combat, or even out of country.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

You do know, and as usual you would be too stupid to do so, that anyone who served during the Vietnam conflict is a Vietnam Vet, right?

Being a veteran of a certain era does not mean you were in combat, or even out of country.

You need to be specific
Vietnam ERA vet and Vietnam Vet
One is in country one is not.
Philips was not in Country but said he was.