That guy sucks.
http://www.stripes.com/nbc-s-brian-williams-recants-iraq-story-after-soldiers-protest-1.327792 (http://www.stripes.com/nbc-s-brian-williams-recants-iraq-story-after-soldiers-protest-1.327792)
What exactly did he steal? I mean besides lots of money from NBC.
I think it's kind of being blown out of proportion, and don't really care. But what ever.
I think it was blown into exact proportion.
If it was only the one instance about the rpg and the 'copter he was in then he'll probably be ok, can come back from it. I would hope so in that case. But if it involves more untrue or exaggerated stories of Williams heroics then I think he'll have done to much damage to himself to be a creditable news anchor. I would think that looking into other possible stories is part of the reason NBC suspended him for as long as they did.
He lied about the anecdote, but it is not "stolen valor", since as far as I can see the anecdote he lied about did not contain any claim he actually did anything valorous.
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
He lied about the anecdote, but it is not "stolen valor", since as far as I can see the anecdote he lied about did not contain any claim he actually did anything valorous.
You have to keep in mind that the military thinks being somewhere in the same zip code as live fire is valorous.
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 03:24:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
He lied about the anecdote, but it is not "stolen valor", since as far as I can see the anecdote he lied about did not contain any claim he actually did anything valorous.
You have to keep in mind that the military thinks being somewhere in the same zip code as live fire is valorous.
Uh, no.
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
He lied about the anecdote, but it is not "stolen valor", since as far as I can see the anecdote he lied about did not contain any claim he actually did anything valorous.
You're picking a nit. Taking live fire definitely gives a war correspondent street cred.
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 20, 2015, 03:34:07 PM
Uh, no.
I was just trying to figure why stripes claimed Brian Williams stole valor by lying about being shot down.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2015, 03:35:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
He lied about the anecdote, but it is not "stolen valor", since as far as I can see the anecdote he lied about did not contain any claim he actually did anything valorous.
You're picking a nit. Taking live fire definitely gives a war correspondent street cred.
The weird thing is he was sort of close to the helicopter that did get shot down right? He would have been perfectly fine just saying that. Seems to me the dude is an egotistical blowhard who cannot help puffing himself up. No wonder he got the anchor job, he knew how to oversell himself.
He was 35 minutes behind the other copter.
I hope this will finally shut the naysayers who kept saying those who lied about the Iraq war will never be brought to justice.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2015, 03:38:52 PM
He was 35 minutes behind the other copter.
Close enough. I felt all badass storming Fort Douaumont and it last got shelled 99 years ago.
But seriously he could have spun that just a half hour ago a helicopter was shot down where he was helicoptering about. He was willing to risk it for the noble journalistic profession blah blah.
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 03:40:11 PM
I hope this will finally shut the naysayers who kept saying those who lied about the Iraq war will never be brought to justice.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 03:24:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
He lied about the anecdote, but it is not "stolen valor", since as far as I can see the anecdote he lied about did not contain any claim he actually did anything valorous.
You have to keep in mind that the military thinks being somewhere in the same zip code as live fire is valorous.
:huh: wha? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 03:42:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2015, 03:38:52 PM
He was 35 minutes behind the other copter.
Close enough. I felt all badass storming Fort Douaumont and it last got shelled 99 years ago.
But seriously he could have spun that just a half hour ago a helicopter was shot down where he was helicoptering about. He was willing to risk it for the noble journalistic profession blah blah.
Supposedly that's how he used to tell the story for most of a decade, but it has morphed in the last couple of years to his helicopter was the one that got hit etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2015, 03:35:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
He lied about the anecdote, but it is not "stolen valor", since as far as I can see the anecdote he lied about did not contain any claim he actually did anything valorous.
You're picking a nit. Taking live fire definitely gives a war correspondent street cred.
How is that a nit? There is no "valor" in simply being shot at. That makes you a victim, not a hero.
It is certainly newsworthy, and gives your anecdote flavour, both of which are no doubt reasons he lied, but it is not "stolen valor" - a term I would associate more with people wearing military decorations they have not in fact earned and the like, where the presumption is that they are doing so to lay claim to heroism they have not in fact earned.
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 20, 2015, 03:44:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 03:24:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
He lied about the anecdote, but it is not "stolen valor", since as far as I can see the anecdote he lied about did not contain any claim he actually did anything valorous.
You have to keep in mind that the military thinks being somewhere in the same zip code as live fire is valorous.
:huh: wha? :hmm:
It was a joke about the 'stolen valor' thing, isn't stripes an official publication?
That line seems stolen from the John Kerry thing.
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:46:31 PM
How is that a nit? There is no "valor" in simply being shot at. That makes you a victim, not a hero.
It's a nit because exposing yourself to enemy fire and not running away, or assuming the fetal position and sobbing, or shitting your pants are generally accepted as proof of some positive quality, whether you want to call it valor or not. The history books are full of examples of folks who are lauded for nothing more than standing still under enemy fire.
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:46:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2015, 03:35:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
He lied about the anecdote, but it is not "stolen valor", since as far as I can see the anecdote he lied about did not contain any claim he actually did anything valorous.
You're picking a nit. Taking live fire definitely gives a war correspondent street cred.
How is that a nit? There is no "valor" in simply being shot at. That makes you a victim, not a hero.
It is certainly newsworthy, and gives your anecdote flavour, both of which are no doubt reasons he lied, but it is not "stolen valor" - a term I would associate more with people wearing military decorations they have not in fact earned and the like, where the presumption is that they are doing so to lay claim to heroism they have not in fact earned.
Valor awards in the military still have credence, fortunately. With the medal inflation of a lot of awards during the war (looking a you, bronze star) having a V(alor) device on a medal is fairly difficult to get and is what is important.
I have one and its the only thing on my rack that matters. :smarty:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2015, 03:53:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:46:31 PM
How is that a nit? There is no "valor" in simply being shot at. That makes you a victim, not a hero.
It's a nit because exposing yourself to enemy fire and not running away, or assuming the fetal position and sobbing, or shitting your pants are generally accepted as proof of some positive quality, whether you want to call it valor or not. The history books are full of examples of folks who are lauded for nothing more than standing still under enemy fire.
Also he was doing it to bring us the news. It seems like it qualifies as heroic to get shot down in a helicopter, carry on, and report to America the story of the Iraq War from the desert in the same grave tones and great hair that you have in a NYC studio.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2015, 03:53:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:46:31 PM
How is that a nit? There is no "valor" in simply being shot at. That makes you a victim, not a hero.
It's a nit because exposing yourself to enemy fire and not running away, or assuming the fetal position and sobbing, or shitting your pants are generally accepted as proof of some positive quality, whether you want to call it valor or not. The history books are full of examples of folks who are lauded for nothing more than standing still under enemy fire.
Also he was doing it to bring us the news. It seems like it qualifies as heroic to get shot down in a helicopter, carry on, and report to America the story of the Iraq War from the desert in the same grave tones and great hair that you have in a NYC studio.
Well I guess people have issue with the fact that he was not, in fact, in any danger or under fire at any time. Guess he just wanted to be associated with Ernie Pyle?
Really though, still think he made a mistake but doesn't deserve as much attention as the issue is getting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2015, 03:53:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:46:31 PM
How is that a nit? There is no "valor" in simply being shot at. That makes you a victim, not a hero.
It's a nit because exposing yourself to enemy fire and not running away, or assuming the fetal position and sobbing, or shitting your pants are generally accepted as proof of some positive quality, whether you want to call it valor or not. The history books are full of examples of folks who are lauded for nothing more than standing still under enemy fire.
This is what he lied about:
Quote"The story actually started with a terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG," Williams said on the broadcast. "Our traveling NBC News team was rescued, surrounded and kept alive by an armor mechanized platoon from the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry."
In fact, he was in a different helicopter an hour behind that one.
According to his own lying anecdote, he did fuck-all: he was shot down - in a vehicle - and rescued by others. He did not claim to 'stand still under enemy fire', as you put it. He's no different than a hostage or an accident victim: he's not claiming any "heroism".
If it is "heroic" for a reporter to merely be in the field in a place where one *could* be shot at, well - that he wasn't actually lying about.
The 3rd Infantry must have been really confused 'wait when did we save that NBC news crew?'
I'm not interested in going on Malthus.
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 04:25:16 PM
The 3rd Infantry must have been really confused 'wait when did we save that NBC news crew?'
He committed 'valor-inflation'. :lol:
This is frontline reporting:
http://www.nrk.no/kultur/_thug-life-reporter_-responds-to-newfound-viral-fame-1.12134421
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ae_1420586129&comments=1
Fucks given: 0
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:46:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2015, 03:35:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
He lied about the anecdote, but it is not "stolen valor", since as far as I can see the anecdote he lied about did not contain any claim he actually did anything valorous.
You're picking a nit. Taking live fire definitely gives a war correspondent street cred.
How is that a nit? There is no "valor" in simply being shot at. That makes you a victim, not a hero.
It is certainly newsworthy, and gives your anecdote flavour, both of which are no doubt reasons he lied, but it is not "stolen valor" - a term I would associate more with people wearing military decorations they have not in fact earned and the like, where the presumption is that they are doing so to lay claim to heroism they have not in fact earned.
I tend to agree with you on this, but I think it's largely an issue of semantics as to whether or not his actions amount to a case of "stolen valor".
OTOH, as you say, he lied about it, and that is (or at least should be) a no-no for a newsman. But none of us are perfect, and other newsmen have lied about more substantial things, and managed to keep their careers, so I also think that it's probably being blown out of proportion.
What decorations is he claiming with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit make this a stolen valor issue?
Quote from: 11B4V on February 20, 2015, 08:08:39 PM
What decorations is he claiming with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit make this a stolen valor issue?
Agreed. This isn't stolen valor, it is ordinary fraudulence. Dorsey used to do this thee times a week right on this channel.
I guess I should be honest. I've filched a bit of Siege's valor and have been siphoning off a little of Funkmonk's honor for the last six years.
Pardon the Mother Jones source, but some interesting articles about good ole Bill O'Reilly and his "honesty" and "valor" in "warzones".
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-brian-williams-falklands-war
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/david-corn-response-oreilly-falklands
That to me is a very petty attack.
O'Reilly's attack on Williams after embellishing and lying about his own efforts in "warzones"? I totally agree. :)
Right.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on February 22, 2015, 01:41:54 AM
O'Reilly's attack on Williams after embellishing and lying about his own efforts in "warzones"? I totally agree. :)
There is a difference between "embellishing" and "lying." O'Reilly did the former, Williams the latter. If you think that they are the same thing, then naturally you think the actions of the men were equivalent. I think you find that equivalence road pretty sterile, though.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2015, 10:21:18 PM
I guess I should be honest. I've filched a bit of Siege's valor and have been siphoning off a little of Funkmonk's honor for the last six years.
That's ok, both have quite a bit to spare. :)
Marty's been guzzling Lusti's honor for years.
What is this? The Honorverse?
That series has gone downhill fast.
*infodump*
12 pages later......
*infodump*
That meant that the new hyperBase12 missiles could travel 2.341x as fast as the previous NegasXLR, when launched from a superdreadnaught's external missile pods.........
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 22, 2015, 09:59:11 AM
That series has gone downhill fast.
I'd argue that it was decent for six books, which is about four books better than any other series he wrote.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on February 22, 2015, 01:41:54 AM
O'Reilly's attack on Williams after embellishing and lying about his own efforts in "warzones"? I totally agree. :)
From what I've seen O'Reilly talk about as on the Jimmy Kimmel show, he hasn't trashed Williams and said that people should be very careful about going after him. Something like that and is a far cry from people who have been gleefully trashing Williams.
He also addressed the Mother Jones report as mostly inaccurate, and had documents from the time there to try and back up what he said, but I really have no idea either way if he did embellish something about his Falklands reporting. He certainly doesn't seem to have done something on the level of what Williams did.
I suppose my comments and view would make more sense if you read the articles. Oh well.
I read your links and thought they were silly. That Brian Williams seriously fucked up is not a loony right view, it's one that NBC agreed with and I expect most people agree with. To try to turn this into an indictment of O'Reilly for using "combat zone" to refer to Argentina is more a reflection on the obsessive hatred of Fox/O'Reilly and the knee-jerk defensiveness about errors committed by "our side" prevalent in the progressive media than it is anything else.
I wasn't aware I was defending Williams. I was simply trying to say it isn't a problem limited to him, and for some of his colleagues in the industry to throw barbed comments and indictments his way when they're as guilty or nearly as guilty as he is rubs me the wrong way. Please feel free to continue constructing my supposed argument to fight against though. :)
Oh man, so many posts since I last checked this thread.
Number one, Brian Williams is a fufuckin lier and stole valor in the sense he claimed to be in places he wasn't, and received fire he didn't.
Number two, embellishment is the same fuckin thing than lying. You are lying for either monetary rewards by making yourself more marketable, or to bust your petty ego.
Number three, I love Tim Roth. He is my favor juddenenglese actor.
The part that O'Reilly may have to explain is how he was in a war zone during the Falklands. He was in Buenos Aires and he and his crew did get caught up in rioting with the army and rioters shooting and were in danger, but I don't see that as a war zone. So that seems to be an exaggeration to me. But NBC is all over what Williams did and I think he has other cases they're looking into which warranted the six months suspension. I don't think Fox has issues (yet?) with O'Reilly and what he said may have been taken out of context, as they were in danger, just seems to be misleading statements by O'Reilly if the MJ quotes are accurate. We'll see though if it rises to a greater level of if Fox has to do something.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on February 22, 2015, 03:14:53 PM
I suppose my comments and view would make more sense if you read the articles. Oh well.
Nope. I read them, and your comments and view still didn't make sense. Oh, well.
You expect a native New Yorker who roots for the Cleveland Indians to make sense? :P
Quote from: KRonn on February 22, 2015, 04:51:52 PM
The part that O'Reilly may have to explain is how he was in a war zone during the Falklands. He was in Buenos Aires and he and his crew did get caught up in rioting with the army and rioters shooting and were in danger, but I don't see that as a war zone. So that seems to be an exaggeration to me. But NBC is all over what Williams did and I think he has other cases they're looking into which warranted the six months suspension. I don't think Fox has issues (yet?) with O'Reilly and what he said may have been taken out of context, as they were in danger, just seems to be misleading statements by O'Reilly if the MJ quotes are accurate. We'll see though if it rises to a greater level of if Fox has to do something.
Yep. His lumping his Falklands Crisis in with his "war zone" experiences is clearly an example of embellishment. That's a far cry from claiming claiming to be on a helicopter that was shot down, which is an outright falsehood.
He was however on a helicopter. The helicopter getting shot down with him on it is an embellishment. A helicopter was shot down ahead of him though.
And "I did not fuck Monica Lewinksy" is just an embellishment too, because there were other women that he didn't fuck.
Done.
I just saw on CNN one reporter who was there at the same time as O'Reilly, with the same company, refute some of what O'Reilly said about the riot being so dangerous. He felt O'Reilly embellished what went on at the riot, that it wasn't that bad and about the crew being in trouble, but he wasn't in the same place during the riot. Plus some other minor stuff so Bill may have more explaining to do, but I only heard the other guy and not Bill's response so we'll see what goes on. I still don't think it should be that big a deal and O'Reilly is a big boy so can fight his own battles.
I guess the point is that some reporters embellish things to make them look better or that they had to go through some tough times. However, when they get to the point about making the story about them and not the story they're covering then they probably have screwed up as reporters/journalists.
Something else that needs to be considered is that Bill O'Reilly is one of the great performances artists of our time. He is basically like Stephen Colbert, only not (overtly) satirical.
When I see him on tv while flipping through the channels, I often stop to both be amused by his style and amazed he has turned his bullshit into such a lucrative career. He has something the other partisans on MSNBC and FOX News lack.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2015, 09:35:07 PM
Something else that needs to be considered is that Bill O'Reilly is one of the great performances artists of our time. He is basically like Stephen Colbert, only not (overtly) satirical.
:mellow:
Quote from: grumbler on February 22, 2015, 10:43:42 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 22, 2015, 09:59:11 AM
That series has gone downhill fast.
I'd argue that it was decent for six books, which is about four books better than any other series he wrote.
He wrote some vampire alien invasion book a few years ago that was garbage of teh sort that doesn't even make for 'trashy fun reading'. I think he is heading towards Harry Turtledove territory.
Quote from: Siege on February 22, 2015, 04:47:34 PM
Number two, embellishment is the same fuckin thing than lying. You are lying for either monetary rewards by making yourself more marketable, or to bust your petty ego.
Well he is TV news anchor so I think we all know it is #3.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2015, 09:35:07 PM
Something else that needs to be considered is that Bill O'Reilly is one of the great performances artists of our time. He is basically like Stephen Colbert, only not (overtly) satirical.
Is that it? Well that makes some sense. I remember on his radio show he would boldly announce a principled moral stand, only to completely reverse it a few days later when it proved unpopular with his audience. It was the 'all-pandering zone'.
QuoteWhen I see him on tv while flipping through the channels, I often stop to both be amused by his style and amazed he has turned his bullshit into such a lucrative career. He has something the other partisans on MSNBC and FOX News lack.
I liked him at first because he gives the aura of thinking carefully about his subjects and fairness. But it doesn't take long to realize that is all style and no substance. But I applaud him, he indeed sells this better than the other nutcases.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2015, 07:30:29 PM
He was however on a helicopter. The helicopter getting shot down with him on it is an embellishment. A helicopter was shot down ahead of him though.
He made up an entire elaborate story about being shot down and rescued out of whole cloth. That is one hell of an embellishment.
As a fake journalist (aka news "anchor"), Williams' only asset other than his voice and ability to affect serious contemplation on camera, is the appearance of quasi-credibility. Once that perception is lost, he is done.
Oh man, so many posts since I last checked this thread.
Number one, Brian Williams is a fufuckin lier and stole valor in the sense he claimed to be in places he wasn't, and received fire he didn't.
Number two, embellishment is the same fuckin thing than lying. You are lying for either monetary rewards by making yourself more marketable, or to bust your petty ego.
Number three, I love Tim Roth. He is my favor juddenenglese actor.
It's deja vu all over again.
With a swagger.
How does a network anchor "steal" valor? Conversely, how does a network anchor "earn" valor? How can Siegey still be this drunk during his hungover this late on a Monday AM?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2015, 11:22:06 AM
How does a network anchor "steal" valor? Conversely, how does a network anchor "earn" valor? How can Siegey still be this drunk during his hungover this late on a Monday AM?
More on the story as it develops.
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 08:53:36 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2015, 09:35:07 PM
Something else that needs to be considered is that Bill O'Reilly is one of the great performances artists of our time. He is basically like Stephen Colbert, only not (overtly) satirical.
Is that it? Well that makes some sense. I remember on his radio show he would boldly announce a principled moral stand, only to completely reverse it a few days later when it proved unpopular with his audience. It was the 'all-pandering zone'.
QuoteWhen I see him on tv while flipping through the channels, I often stop to both be amused by his style and amazed he has turned his bullshit into such a lucrative career. He has something the other partisans on MSNBC and FOX News lack.
I liked him at first because he gives the aura of thinking carefully about his subjects and fairness. But it doesn't take long to realize that is all style and no substance. But I applaud him, he indeed sells this better than the other nutcases.
I only heard his radio show a few times, but I did note that he was the only conservative talk show host whom I had heard who actually allowed callers and even guests to express opinions contrary to his without getting cheapshotted. I was actually kind of impressed with how respectfully he treated opposing viewpoints.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2015, 01:50:22 PM
I only heard his radio show a few times, but I did note that he was the only conservative talk show host whom I had heard who actually allowed callers and even guests to express opinions contrary to his without getting cheapshotted. I was actually kind of impressed with how respectfully he treated opposing viewpoints.
I thought so to at first. But it depends. One of my breaking points was when a caller called in and said 'I don't see why we are making such a big deal about gay marriage? I mean who cares? Just let them be married.' O'Reilly immediately cut him off (as in dumped the call) and said: 'I am sorry that is just stupid. That is a stupid statement. Look at the polls, religion is important to 60% of Americans so gay marriage will never happen.'
I was like...ok then.
Who are you to contradict the the mighty Grumbler?
What's wrong with gay marriage?
Married people have the right to be gay.
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 01:59:17 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2015, 01:50:22 PM
I only heard his radio show a few times, but I did note that he was the only conservative talk show host whom I had heard who actually allowed callers and even guests to express opinions contrary to his without getting cheapshotted. I was actually kind of impressed with how respectfully he treated opposing viewpoints.
I thought so to at first. But it depends. One of my breaking points was when a caller called in and said 'I don't see why we are making such a big deal about gay marriage? I mean who cares? Just let them be married.' O'Reilly immediately cut him off (as in dumped the call) and said: 'I am sorry that is just stupid. That is a stupid statement. Look at the polls, religion is important to 60% of Americans so gay marriage will never happen.'
I was like...ok then.
My exposure to him was limited, so I obviously got the wrong impression.
Quote from: Siege on February 23, 2015, 03:51:15 PM
What's wrong with gay marriage?
Once they get married, they will find out.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2015, 07:01:48 PM
My exposure to him was limited, so I obviously got the wrong impression.
As I said, he is good at the appearance of thoughtfulness and fairness.
This piece of shit claims to be a "combat soldier" while never being deployed:
Article:
Lawsuit: SF members describe TV star as problem soldier
The bizarre saga of Discovery Channel reality star Joe Teti took another twist as court documents emerged, from his former National Guard Special Forces teammates, that paint a dark portrait of a man known more for lying, stealing — and worse — than for the combat prowess he professes on his show, "Dual Survival."
"I believe Joe is a sociopath [who] could be dangerous to those he believes have injured him," writes Sgt. 1st Class Daniel McClain, Teti's former team sergeant, in a letter to the Special Forces Association that is part of a formal response in an ongoing lawsuit.
"I knew he would always be a problem," writes Teti's former executive officer, Lt. Col. William Sharp, in another letter, part of the SFA's 50-page rebuttal to the lawsuit filed by Teti late last year.
Sharp, now with U.S. Special Operations Command, writes that he was preparing paperwork to bar Teti from reenlisting, revoke his security clearance and strip him of his Special Forces tab, before Teti left the unit on his own.
"Teti is far below Special Forces standards, he is an embarrassment to Special Forces and Special Operations," writes Sharp, listing a litany of allegations.
Responding to a detailed request for comment, Laurie Goldberg, Discovery Channel's executive vice president for public relations, declined.
Teti, through his attorney, declined to comment as well.
"We intend to try the case to judge and jury," said David Redding, another former Special Forces soldier who is representing Teti in the lawsuit.
In reality
Teti took turns as a one-enlistment Marine, a National Guard Special Forces soldier for about 10 years and, just after 9/11, several years as a government contractor before eventually becoming the co-star of Discovery's "Dual Survival," now in its fifth season. In 2013, he replaced another former soldier who was fired from the show for inflating his military resume.
Allegations soon surfaced that Teti was propping up his own record.
Leading that charge was another survival show reality star — and one of Teti's former Special Forces team leaders — Mykel Hawke.
A retired Special Forces captain and Afghanistan veteran, Hawke accuses Teti of violating Stolen Valor laws for, among other things, claiming he's a "combat veteran" but never serving in combat while in uniform.
Teti counters that his combat vet claims are justified because he served in several war zones as a civilian contractor.
The letters from McClain and Sharp, among others, convinced the SFA to disavow Teti and permanently scrub him from its membership rolls in August.
And it had nothing to do with his combat claims.
"He should be publicly disowned by the greater SF community because of the extreme poor quality of his service to SF," McClain writes. "He has become too public a personality to not address his immoral and unprofessional conduct before it reflects negatively on our community."
As news of SFA's disavowal spread and sponsors began dropping Teti from endorsement deals, he fired back in November with a defamation lawsuit.
The 20-page complaint states Hawke "is driven by the motive of jealousy to destroy Mr. Teti's successful television career" and that Hawke "enlisted several co-conspirators ... to aid him in his campaign against Mr. Teti."
In addition to Hawke and the SFA, Teti's lawsuit targets the nonprofit association's president, retired Col. Jack Tobin, and retired Special Forces Sgt. Maj. George Davenport, a longtime SFA member who added Teti to his Special Forces Poser Patrol's Facebook "Wall of Shame."
Also named in Teti's lawsuit are former Marine Scott Hughes, moderator of the Military Phonies website, and Monique Haina, another vocal online critic.
Stolen Valor to arson allegations
On his official website, Teti claims he qualified as a combat scuba diver and a HALO freefall parachutist, coveted qualifications even among the military's most elite troops.
In the SFA's Feb. 10 rebuttal to his lawsuit, the association flatly states that Teti "is not and has never been HALO or SCUBA qualified."
The rebuttal includes a statement from the U.S. Army Special Warfare Center and School that Teti was, in fact, relieved from the Combat Diver course in 1983. Although he did apparently graduate from a Navy dive school, the Special Warfare Center states that the school is not considered a combat diver course.
The Special Warfare Center message goes on to say Teti was later kicked out of a diving supervisor course for cheating on a test.
It's a familiar pattern, former teammates attest in their statements. McClain writes that Teti manipulated training scenarios and even boasted of committing arson.
"I personally have heard him claim to have burned out a competitor to his Las Vegas cleaning business. And, I witnessed him describing threats he made to others. He seemed to brag about this activity," McClain writes.
Hot gear and rubber checks
Teti also had a rep for ripping off gear, according to the court documents.
"Joe attempted to steal team and unit equipment. I made him take me to his off-post storage shed, where I recovered unit equipment he should not have had," writes Sharp, Teti's former XO.
Sharp lists, by name, 10 other senior officers and NCOs who are prepared to back up 11 specific allegations he makes against Teti.
In another instance, Teti is described as stealing a medical kit from a CH-47 crew.
"Our team's reputation with the air crew was gone; Joe said 'no big deal,' " Sharp writes.
That rep followed Teti to his gigs as a government contractor, according to Sharp. In a short-lived tour with security company Triple Canopy in Iraq, for example, he writes that Teti was fired almost as soon as he started.
"Teti came to [Triple Canopy] in Baghdad begging for a job because the company he was working for was 'screwing him,' '' writes Sharp, who relates that he also did a tour with Triple Canopy before returning to active duty.
He says Teti got a pay advance and immediately left for a month. "While on leave, his boss from his old company came to TC and asked if Joe had their MP5 and radio. The team found both the submachine gun and radio in Joe's gear box."
Teti was sent packing the same day he returned from leave, Sharp writes.
Teti also had a reputation for passing rubber checks. "I'm talking about a lot of bad checks," writes Teti's former SF roommate, Staff Sgt. John Phillips, currently serving with 20th Special Forces Group.
Teti moved in with Philips after being asked to leave the apartment of another roommate for not paying rent and writing bad checks.
Philips took him in because he wanted to believe the best in his teammate. "I really considered Joe a brother in arms," Phillips said. "Army Special Forces are a tight-knit community. We look out for one another. Trust is crucial, especially at the team level."
But it wasn't long before that trust started to erode. "It seemed every time he paid for anything, he attempted to pay with a check, and it was bad. It became a running joke amongst those who knew him," Phillips writes.
Around the same time, rumors started flying that Teti had stolen a pair of night-vision goggles and other sensitive gear.
"I'm not saying all he says about himself is false. He certainly has some admirable service. However, there seems to be some truth mixed with a lot of fiction. That is manipulative, dishonest and how a con-artist operates," Phillips writes.
Teti was arrested for writing more than 50 bad checks prior to a 1995 deployment to Haiti, according to Sharp, who states in the documents that he paid more than $1,000 out of his own pocket to spring Teti from jail.
Sharp writes that Teti did repay him — with a bad check.
'Our biggest problem'
In his own promotional materials, Teti has pointed to that Haiti deployment as one of his military career highlights.
Again, however, his teammates say he was less than a model soldier.
"During the deployment SSG Teti was our biggest problem. He avoided going on patrols (claiming sickness.) He did not do his job or help anyone on the team. His roommates came to me and the team Sgt. on a weekly basis wanting us to move him to a different building," Sharp writes.
When their team was assigned a mission to go after a local bad actor, Sharp says Teti froze.
"We got information on a bad guy. During the pre-mission rehearsal Joe was truly scared and did not want to go. He is not ready or willing to take any risk."
Hawke isn't so sure.
In October, a Texas judge granted Hawke a permanent protective order against Teti, finding reasonable grounds that Hawke "has been the victim of stalking."
The judge ordered Teti, who lives in North Carolina, to cease all communication with Hawke and his family, except through lawyers. The order also prohibits Teti from possessing firearms or ammunition.
"The Iredell County [North Carolina] Sheriff's Department confirmed to me that Mr. Teti's concealed carry permit in North Carolina has been suspended pursuant to the lifetime protective order of which he is bound," writes Hawke's attorney Chris Gabel.
"I need to stress that the protective order and the restrictions for Mr. Teti to not possess firearms or ammunition was most urgent due to his history of stalking and violent threats."
Iredell officials said that by law they could not confirm the suspension.
Among Hawke's concerns, says Gabel, are that "if Mr. Teti is terminated from his show on Discovery Channel due to evidence procured from this North Carolina lawsuit, he might target the Hawke family for some sort of retribution."
The fifth season of "Dual Survival" began in January. The show airs Wednesdays at 9 p.m./8 p.m. Central.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/entertainment/2015/02/20/reality-survival-star-saga-takes-new-twist-joe-teti-mykel-hawke-dual-survival/23662023/ (http://www.armytimes.com/story/entertainment/2015/02/20/reality-survival-star-saga-takes-new-twist-joe-teti-mykel-hawke-dual-survival/23662023/)
Doesn't 'civilian contractor' mean Blackwater mercenary?
Sounds like Teti made some offensive claims.
I'd previously thought that being a reality TV show star would be as low as a man could sink, but it seems that this fate was actually a promotion for Teti. *shrug*
What is he on about now? His wife really need to monitor his internet usage.
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2015, 12:13:17 PM
Sounds like Teti made some offensive claims.
That may have sounded better in your head than typed out. :P
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on February 24, 2015, 11:55:44 AM
Doesn't 'civilian contractor' mean Blackwater mercenary?
No necesarily.
This guy was with Triple Canapy, which is a better outfit according to what I hear.
Keep in mind that all these contractors only provide security for VIPs. They don't actively hunt down bad guys, which is why in the military we don't look at what they do as a real deployment. They do get to shoot bad guys, but only when the bad guys initiate. They don't act on intell to hunt down targets.
The concept of National Guard Special Forces is jarring.
Hell, the VA head is under fire too. :lol:
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2015, 01:25:14 PM
They don't actively hunt down bad guys, which is why in the military we don't look at what they do as a real deployment.
Which "we" are you referring to, Harvey Two-Face?
I've seen the show, he does kind of come off as an abrasive asshole.
Invite to Languish?
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2015, 11:30:44 AM
A retired Special Forces captain and Afghanistan veteran, Hawke accuses Teti of violating Stolen Valor laws
Wasn't that struck down by the Supreme Court?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 24, 2015, 02:27:26 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2015, 11:30:44 AM
A retired Special Forces captain and Afghanistan veteran, Hawke accuses Teti of violating Stolen Valor laws
Wasn't that struck down by the Supreme Court?
The original was, due to free speech. It was too broad and appearenly shitbags have a right to lie about military service.
The new one only applies to people that lie about military service to receive monetary compensation or benefits.
So if Alcibiades here lied claiming he got a Bronze Star with V in Iraq, is ok because he is not making money here, but when Joe Teti lied to get a job in Dual Survival, he was lieying to receive money, therefore Stolen Valor applies.
Quote from: Syt on February 24, 2015, 01:21:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2015, 12:13:17 PM
Sounds like Teti made some offensive claims.
That may have sounded better in your head than typed out. :P
Yep, but I went with it anyway. This is Languish FFS.
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2015, 02:46:10 PM
The original was, due to free speech. It was too broad and appearenly shitbags have a right to lie about military service.
The new one only applies to people that lie about military service to receive monetary compensation or benefits.
So if Alcibiades here lied claiming he got a Bronze Star with V in Iraq, is ok because he is not making money here, but when Joe Teti lied to get a job in Dual Survival, he was lieying to receive money, therefore Stolen Valor applies.
I do like how the "I'm just a dummy grunt" schtick disappears when it comes to things you really care about! :D
However, both you and Hawke misunderstand the SV Act, I believe. The current SVA refers to specific awards that you cannot falsely claim to possess in order to receive tangible benefits. Merely claiming to be a "combat veteran" is not, contrary to Hawke's (and your) claim, a violation of the current SVA. It's possible that Hawke's comment came before the invalidation of the previous law, though.
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2015, 03:04:50 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2015, 02:46:10 PM
The original was, due to free speech. It was too broad and appearenly shitbags have a right to lie about military service.
The new one only applies to people that lie about military service to receive monetary compensation or benefits.
So if Alcibiades here lied claiming he got a Bronze Star with V in Iraq, is ok because he is not making money here, but when Joe Teti lied to get a job in Dual Survival, he was lieying to receive money, therefore Stolen Valor applies.
I do like how the "I'm just a dummy grunt" schtick disappears when it comes to things you really care about! :D
However, both you and Hawke misunderstand the SV Act, I believe. The current SVA refers to specific awards that you cannot falsely claim to possess in order to receive tangible benefits. Merely claiming to be a "combat veteran" is not, contrary to Hawke's (and your) claim, a violation of the current SVA. It's possible that Hawke's comment came before the invalidation of the previous law, though.
Well, I see your point. He still lied though.
Judge by yourself below. To me it sounds like a complete misdirection.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthisainthell.us%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FJoe-Teti-Bio.jpg&hash=d83f2db7d70802d7b88644323660954056ef51ef)
If you say "I am a special forces operator combat veteran", and the SF stint was not in combat, and his deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan were as a civilian, then you are fuckin lying. Do you agree with me?
Even if he could spin this as a truthful statement, it is still told in such a way as to give a false impression, so yes it is a fucking lie from a normal person point of view. From a soulless law talking point of view? Not sure.
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2015, 04:26:13 PM
Even if he could spin this as a truthful statement, it is still told in such a way as to give a false impression, so yes it is a fucking lie from a normal person point of view. From a soulless law talking point of view? Not sure.
Merely telling a lie is not a crime or offence, so as a soulless law talker I could care less whether his statement was truthful or not.
These are his awards according to the Army, release under FOIA.
As you can see he does not have a CIB, which means no combat.
I don't know about you, but i have never seen a SF guy without a CIB.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthisainthell.us%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FJoe-Teti-Awards.jpg&hash=8a6fd39286b8aa10275f834b85ac0790aa21b07b)
And below you can see he served until 2000. Meaning no service in Iraq and Ahganistan.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthisainthell.us%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FJoe-Teti-NG-FOIA.jpg&hash=f8666b4517fe72cba9df4f8cb1e598b8a4ac06b3)
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2015, 04:26:13 PM
Even if he could spin this as a truthful statement, it is still told in such a way as to give a false impression, so yes it is a fucking lie from a normal person point of view. From a soulless law talking point of view? Not sure.
From a law-talking POV, in general, it's legal to lie, except under certain circumstances, such as testifying under oath. Even if he lied to get the show, it probably wouldn't be prosecuted as a criminal fraud; it would be up to Disney to hit him with a civil suit if they wanted to. And even then, it might not be found to be a serious enough misrepresentation to amount to fraud (people are sort of expected to puff themselves up a bit when seeking employment) or it could come to light that there was no fraud because Disney knew all about his record and hired him anyway.
Is lying on an affadavit (sp?) considered perjury?
Quote from: Barrister on February 24, 2015, 04:32:57 PM
Merely telling a lie is not a crime or offence, so as a soulless law talker I could care less whether his statement was truthful or not.
Well if you were prosecuting him for breaking SV laws you probably would.
My question is, can a civilian be a combat veteran?
I have never met anybody that claimed to a "civilian combat veteran".
But then, I have always been surrounded by people that have served.
You guys are the only civilians that I speak with, so do you see a civilian contrator as a combat veteran, or is the term reserved especificly for people serving their country?
If somebody says 'I am a civilian combat veteran'.
I will think they are some sort of mercenary.
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2015, 04:33:38 PM
These are his awards according to the Army, release under FOIA.
As you can see he does not have a CIB, which means no combat.
I don't know about you, but i have never seen a SF guy without a CIB.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthisainthell.us%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FJoe-Teti-Awards.jpg&hash=8a6fd39286b8aa10275f834b85ac0790aa21b07b)
And below you can see he served until 2000. Meaning no service in Iraq and Ahganistan.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthisainthell.us%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FJoe-Teti-NG-FOIA.jpg&hash=f8666b4517fe72cba9df4f8cb1e598b8a4ac06b3)
This guy you're on the mark with IMO.
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2015, 04:42:07 PM
If somebody says 'I am a civilian combat veteran'.
I will think they are some sort of mercenary.
I don't know; I'd think he meant he'd been in something like the WWII French Marquis. Well, if he was old and French, but you get the idea.
Veteran to me means someone who has served in the military.
I'd guess the producers of the TV programme might have the best, biggest claim against him; I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't clauses in the contract/s he signed that ask him to affirm his past as attested by him is real.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2015, 04:36:07 PM
Is lying on an affadavit (sp?) considered perjury?
Yes. Though proving perjury is awfully tough.
Quote from: mongers on February 24, 2015, 04:48:45 PM
I'd guess the producers of the TV programme might have the best, biggest claim against him; I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't clauses in the contract/s he signed that ask him to affirm his past as attested by him is real.
Cause TV isn't about smoke and mirrors. At all.
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2015, 04:43:52 PM
I don't know; I'd think he meant he'd been in something like the WWII French Marquis. Well, if he was old and French, but you get the idea.
Well yeah, context is important. These days maybe he was a volunteer to defend the Assyrians from ISIS.
Quote from: The Brain on February 24, 2015, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 24, 2015, 04:48:45 PM
I'd guess the producers of the TV programme might have the best, biggest claim against him; I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't clauses in the contract/s he signed that ask him to affirm his past as attested by him is real.
Cause TV isn't about smoke and mirrors. At all.
Financial loss is very real to any company.
Quote from: mongers on February 24, 2015, 04:55:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 24, 2015, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 24, 2015, 04:48:45 PM
I'd guess the producers of the TV programme might have the best, biggest claim against him; I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't clauses in the contract/s he signed that ask him to affirm his past as attested by him is real.
Cause TV isn't about smoke and mirrors. At all.
Financial loss is very real to any company.
It'd be hard to prove damages, though. I don't know what the ratings are for the show, but it would be almost impossible to prove that they would have been different depending on how accurately his stories about his service are. Even if the ratings go down now, and they cancel it, well, shows decline in the ratings and get cancelled all the time.
Any way you slice it the guy is a Grade-A douchebag.
To me a combat veteran is somebody who's participated in an armed conflict serving on an organized military body; either a government army or a mercenary outfit. Dunno if Teti's "contractor work" qualifies as the latter.
That said, the screenie that somebody posted with his resume is written in that assholish way of being probably truthful, but obviously misleading.
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2015, 04:41:14 PM
My question is, can a civilian be a combat veteran?
I have never met anybody that claimed to a "civilian combat veteran".
But then, I have always been surrounded by people that have served.
You guys are the only civilians that I speak with, so do you see a civilian contrator as a combat veteran, or is the term reserved especificly for people serving their country?
I think they'd be a mercenary, if part of some organised military-like body, otherwise couldn't you describe a common or garden gunman/thug as a 'civilian combat veteran'.
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2015, 05:02:18 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 24, 2015, 04:55:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 24, 2015, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 24, 2015, 04:48:45 PM
I'd guess the producers of the TV programme might have the best, biggest claim against him; I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't clauses in the contract/s he signed that ask him to affirm his past as attested by him is real.
Cause TV isn't about smoke and mirrors. At all.
Financial loss is very real to any company.
It'd be hard to prove damages, though. I don't know what the ratings are for the show, but it would be almost impossible to prove that they would have been different depending on how accurately his stories about his service are. Even if the ratings go down now, and they cancel it, well, shows decline in the ratings and get cancelled all the time.
Well Lance Armstrong is getting his ass handed to him for lying and cheating, and those doing the damage are sponsor companies, insurers etc.
Quote from: The Brain on February 24, 2015, 04:51:53 PM
Cause TV isn't about smoke and mirrors. At all.
Do NOT tell me the show "Mountain Monsters" isn't 100% real. Because it is :angry:
Do we need a "Stolen Valor" megathread? :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2015, 04:26:13 PM
Even if he could spin this as a truthful statement, it is still told in such a way as to give a false impression, so yes it is a fucking lie from a normal person point of view. From a soulless law talking point of view? Not sure.
As a soulless law talker, I would point out that the SVA is a criminal statute. And there is a rule that criminal laws are to be interpreted strictly. For very soulful reasons.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2015, 05:31:02 PM
Do we need a "Stolen Valor" megathread? :unsure:
Maybe we should just call it the "Siege Spazs out megathread".
Oh man, what happened with the Stolen Valor thread?
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2015, 04:24:02 PM
If you say "I am a special forces operator combat veteran", and the SF stint was not in combat, and his deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan were as a civilian, then you are fuckin lying. Do you agree with me?
Oh, the guy appears to be a lying scumbag on top of being a reality TV scumbag. I hope he loses his job and the entire network that broadcasts shit like his show goes belly-up.
That still doesn't mean he's in violation of the SVA.
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2015, 04:42:07 PM
If somebody says 'I am a civilian combat veteran'.
I will think they are some sort of mercenary.
Or a militiaman or perhaps a refugee who escapes a war zone.
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2015, 09:25:43 PM
I hope he loses his job and the entire network that broadcasts shit like his show goes belly-up.
There wouldn't be anything on TV but dead air.
Wait, "Stolen Valor" is actually the name of a statute of law? I thought it's just some bizarre expression Siege coined or read on some blog.
You Americans are weird. :lol:
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2015, 02:46:10 PM
The new one only applies to people that lie about military service to receive monetary compensation or benefits.
In normal countries this kind of thing is dealt with through ordinary fraud laws. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2015, 01:21:08 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2015, 02:46:10 PM
The new one only applies to people that lie about military service to receive monetary compensation or benefits.
In normal countries this kind of thing is dealt with through ordinary fraud laws. :huh:
:huh: In "normal countries" you don't have the freedom of speech that Americans revel in.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2015, 01:19:34 AM
You Americans are weird. :lol:
When politicians pass things they like brand-name bills. Like 'the PATRIOT Act' or the 'Defense of Marriage Act'. It's all about the marketing.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2015, 01:19:34 AM
Wait, "Stolen Valor" is actually the name of a statute of law? I thought it's just some bizarre expression Siege coined or read on some blog.
You Americans are weird. :lol:
Americans seem to love this sort of thing ... sadly, so does our conservative government here in Canada.
One example I noticed the other day was a TV channel that I watch occasionally that specializes in military history documentaries was renamed from the "Military Channel" to the "American Heroes Channel".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Heroes_Channel
QuoteAmericans seem to love this sort of thing
Let me just say it makes us cynical. Everything being a marketing gimmick wears on you.
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 10:06:20 AM
QuoteAmericans seem to love this sort of thing
Let me just say it makes us cynical. Everything being a marketing gimmick wears on you.
Why do you hate Freedom
TM? :(
That is why I prefer the European way.
Such as Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 862/2012 of 4 June 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 as regards information on the consent to use of the prospectus, information on underlying indexes and the requirement for a report prepared by independent accountants or auditors. :wub:
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2015, 10:02:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2015, 01:19:34 AM
Wait, "Stolen Valor" is actually the name of a statute of law? I thought it's just some bizarre expression Siege coined or read on some blog.
You Americans are weird. :lol:
Americans seem to love this sort of thing ... sadly, so does our conservative government here in Canada.
One example I noticed the other day was a TV channel that I watch occasionally that specializes in military history documentaries was renamed from the "Military Channel" to the "American Heroes Channel".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Heroes_Channel
Yes, Americans seem to love this sort of thing. Much as Canadians seem to love to over-generalize. :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2015, 10:54:15 AM
That is why I prefer the European way.
Such as Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 862/2012 of 4 June 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 as regards information on the consent to use of the prospectus, information on underlying indexes and the requirement for a report prepared by independent accountants or auditors. :wub:
Actually, that's pretty much how the laws in the US are actually titled. Nicknames for bills are just nicknames. The real bill names are exciting stuff like
HR 252b1
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2015, 01:21:08 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2015, 02:46:10 PM
The new one only applies to people that lie about military service to receive monetary compensation or benefits.
In normal countries this kind of thing is dealt with through ordinary fraud laws. :huh:
In the US ordinary fraud laws exist at the state level. This law allows such cases to be prosecuted federally. As to whether that is really needed, one can certainly question. I suppose there is some sort of logical connection in that the military is federal institution.
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2015, 11:00:53 AM
Yes, Americans seem to love this sort of thing. Much as Canadians seem to love to over-generalize. :P
Over-generalization is universal. Absolutely everyone does it.
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2015, 10:02:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2015, 01:19:34 AM
Wait, "Stolen Valor" is actually the name of a statute of law? I thought it's just some bizarre expression Siege coined or read on some blog.
You Americans are weird. :lol:
Americans seem to love this sort of thing ... sadly, so does our conservative government here in Canada.
One example I noticed the other day was a TV channel that I watch occasionally that specializes in military history documentaries was renamed from the "Military Channel" to the "American Heroes Channel".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Heroes_Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Heroes_Channel)
What is particularly jarring about that is that they show five shows in a row about Nazis. It makes one suspicious who they consider heroes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 25, 2015, 03:54:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2015, 11:00:53 AM
Yes, Americans seem to love this sort of thing. Much as Canadians seem to love to over-generalize. :P
Over-generalization is universal. Absolutely everyone does it.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2015, 04:04:12 PM
What is particularly jarring about that is that they show five shows in a row about Nazis. It makes one suspicious who they consider heroes.
George Rockwell.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 25, 2015, 03:54:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2015, 11:00:53 AM
Yes, Americans seem to love this sort of thing. Much as Canadians seem to love to over-generalize. :P
Over-generalization is universal. Absolutely everyone does it.
:D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 25, 2015, 03:54:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2015, 11:00:53 AM
Yes, Americans seem to love this sort of thing. Much as Canadians seem to love to over-generalize. :P
Over-generalization is universal. Absolutely everyone does it.
Not true.
As always you are wrong.