MAGA teen bused in from a Catholic school harasses Indigenous People's marcher. Vile.

[Anonymous]

Something I have been thinking about IRT Nathan Phillips.......

He has claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran.

My dad was a veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam. Officer in the AF. Career service.
When he talked about himself, he simply called himself a "veteran." He never referred to himself as a "Vietnam Veteran."

This guy used the "Vietnam Veteran" descriptor to mislead people. And his military record is proof of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were basically three parties to this event, all of whom behaved less than optimally in varying degrees:

1) The BHIs: Behaved reprehensibly, shouting horribly bigoted and profane insults for the purpose of inflaming the schoolboys
2) The Native American: An adult who contributed to the mayhem, with the maturity of an adolescent, by hostilely drumming in a teen's face
3) White, Catholic boys: The one being antagonized was completely restrained, other than a slight smirk

Yet because this forum is overrun with hard-left progressives who automatically side with whomever they see as downtrodden and against "white privilege," all the finger-wagging is directed at the wealthy white Christian boys. Some leftists have gone so far as to issue death threats because....a white boy smirked.

This country has gone insane. The Disney producer who posted on Twitter this teen belongs in a wood chipper? That is disgusting and scary. Disney should fire him but we know that would never happen.

I feel so sorry for that kid. He didn't stand a chance once the leftists got him in their crosshairs.

+1
“He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for as much as five minutes, and it was possible that his features had not been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself—anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.”

We are up to facecrimes now. Perfect.

Scary.

The good news is some people broke free from the "reality is in the human mind and nowhere else...whatever the Party holds to be true is true. If this is so, then by controlling men's [people's] minds, The Party controls the truth."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were basically three parties to this event, all of whom behaved less than optimally in varying degrees:

1) The BHIs: Behaved reprehensibly, shouting horribly bigoted and profane insults for the purpose of inflaming the schoolboys
2) The Native American: An adult who contributed to the mayhem, with the maturity of an adolescent, by hostilely drumming in a teen's face
3) White, Catholic boys: The one being antagonized was completely restrained, other than a slight smirk

Yet because this forum is overrun with hard-left progressives who automatically side with whomever they see as downtrodden and against "white privilege," all the finger-wagging is directed at the wealthy white Christian boys. Some leftists have gone so far as to issue death threats because....a white boy smirked.

This country has gone insane. The Disney producer who posted on Twitter this teen belongs in a wood chipper? That is disgusting and scary. Disney should fire him but we know that would never happen.

I feel so sorry for that kid. He didn't stand a chance once the leftists got him in their crosshairs.

The Parkland kids should reach out to them to offer them support, since they know what it's like literally and figurative to be in crosshairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something I have been thinking about IRT Nathan Phillips.......

He has claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran.

My dad was a veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam. Officer in the AF. Career service.
When he talked about himself, he simply called himself a "veteran." He never referred to himself as a "Vietnam Veteran."

This guy used the "Vietnam Veteran" descriptor to mislead people. And his military record is proof of that.

the legal definition of Vietnam Veteran is anyone who served during the war, in any location. 38 USC 4211(2).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something I have been thinking about IRT Nathan Phillips.......

He has claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran.

My dad was a veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam. Officer in the AF. Career service.
When he talked about himself, he simply called himself a "veteran." He never referred to himself as a "Vietnam Veteran."

This guy used the "Vietnam Veteran" descriptor to mislead people. And his military record is proof of that.

We already went through his. There are public laws about it. He is a Vietnam Veteran.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something I have been thinking about IRT Nathan Phillips.......

He has claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran.

My dad was a veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam. Officer in the AF. Career service.
When he talked about himself, he simply called himself a "veteran." He never referred to himself as a "Vietnam Veteran."

This guy used the "Vietnam Veteran" descriptor to mislead people. And his military record is proof of that.

the legal definition of Vietnam Veteran is anyone who served during the war, in any location. 38 USC 4211(2).

I don't care what the legal definition is. My point is that he used that "moniker" to intentionally deceive people into believing he actually served in Vietnam. Most veterans don't qualify their "veteran" status.
He lied about a lot. Including what he did when in the service. Not to mention the series of events on Friday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something I have been thinking about IRT Nathan Phillips.......

He has claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran.

My dad was a veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam. Officer in the AF. Career service.
When he talked about himself, he simply called himself a "veteran." He never referred to himself as a "Vietnam Veteran."

This guy used the "Vietnam Veteran" descriptor to mislead people. And his military record is proof of that.

the legal definition of Vietnam Veteran is anyone who served during the war, in any location. 38 USC 4211(2).

I don't care what the legal definition is. My point is that he used that "moniker" to intentionally deceive people into believing he actually served in Vietnam. Most veterans don't qualify their "veteran" status.
He lied about a lot. Including what he did when in the service. Not to mention the series of events on Friday.

Do you have actual footage of him saying he served a tour of duty in Vietnam?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something I have been thinking about IRT Nathan Phillips.......

He has claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran.

My dad was a veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam. Officer in the AF. Career service.
When he talked about himself, he simply called himself a "veteran." He never referred to himself as a "Vietnam Veteran."

This guy used the "Vietnam Veteran" descriptor to mislead people. And his military record is proof of that.

the legal definition of Vietnam Veteran is anyone who served during the war, in any location. 38 USC 4211(2).

I don't care what the legal definition is. My point is that he used that "moniker" to intentionally deceive people into believing he actually served in Vietnam. Most veterans don't qualify their "veteran" status.
He lied about a lot. Including what he did when in the service. Not to mention the series of events on Friday.

Concur. My dad also served during Vietnam (1970-73) but did not go to Vietnam. He has NEVER called himself a “Vietnam vet.” Actually, he doesn’t go throwing out his veteran status at all unless it’s actually relevant to the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something I have been thinking about IRT Nathan Phillips.......

He has claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran.

My dad was a veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam. Officer in the AF. Career service.
When he talked about himself, he simply called himself a "veteran." He never referred to himself as a "Vietnam Veteran."

This guy used the "Vietnam Veteran" descriptor to mislead people. And his military record is proof of that.

the legal definition of Vietnam Veteran is anyone who served during the war, in any location. 38 USC 4211(2).

I don't care what the legal definition is. My point is that he used that "moniker" to intentionally deceive people into believing he actually served in Vietnam. Most veterans don't qualify their "veteran" status.
He lied about a lot. Including what he did when in the service. Not to mention the series of events on Friday.

Concur. My dad also served during Vietnam (1970-73) but did not go to Vietnam. He has NEVER called himself a “Vietnam vet.” Actually, he doesn’t go throwing out his veteran status at all unless it’s actually relevant to the conversation.

Irrelevant.

The kids were still jerks.
The chaperones were still negligent.
And the BHIs were still crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something I have been thinking about IRT Nathan Phillips.......

He has claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran.

My dad was a veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam. Officer in the AF. Career service.
When he talked about himself, he simply called himself a "veteran." He never referred to himself as a "Vietnam Veteran."

This guy used the "Vietnam Veteran" descriptor to mislead people. And his military record is proof of that.

the legal definition of Vietnam Veteran is anyone who served during the war, in any location. 38 USC 4211(2).

I don't care what the legal definition is. My point is that he used that "moniker" to intentionally deceive people into believing he actually served in Vietnam. Most veterans don't qualify their "veteran" status.
He lied about a lot. Including what he did when in the service. Not to mention the series of events on Friday.

Trump lies constantly about his tiny teeny hands. He still has tiny hands

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something I have been thinking about IRT Nathan Phillips.......

He has claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran.

My dad was a veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam. Officer in the AF. Career service.
When he talked about himself, he simply called himself a "veteran." He never referred to himself as a "Vietnam Veteran."

This guy used the "Vietnam Veteran" descriptor to mislead people. And his military record is proof of that.

the legal definition of Vietnam Veteran is anyone who served during the war, in any location. 38 USC 4211(2).

I don't care what the legal definition is. My point is that he used that "moniker" to intentionally deceive people into believing he actually served in Vietnam. Most veterans don't qualify their "veteran" status.
He lied about a lot. Including what he did when in the service. Not to mention the series of events on Friday.

Concur. My dad also served during Vietnam (1970-73) but did not go to Vietnam. He has NEVER called himself a “Vietnam vet.” Actually, he doesn’t go throwing out his veteran status at all unless it’s actually relevant to the conversation.

Was this guy in a marine uniform? I teach my kids to not be jerks to all adults. I don't ask their veteran status or get snobby about which war was going on when they were in the service. I expect my kid to be respectful to all adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something I have been thinking about IRT Nathan Phillips.......

He has claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran.

My dad was a veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam. Officer in the AF. Career service.
When he talked about himself, he simply called himself a "veteran." He never referred to himself as a "Vietnam Veteran."

This guy used the "Vietnam Veteran" descriptor to mislead people. And his military record is proof of that.

the legal definition of Vietnam Veteran is anyone who served during the war, in any location. 38 USC 4211(2).

I don't care what the legal definition is. My point is that he used that "moniker" to intentionally deceive people into believing he actually served in Vietnam. Most veterans don't qualify their "veteran" status.
He lied about a lot. Including what he did when in the service. Not to mention the series of events on Friday.

Concur. My dad also served during Vietnam (1970-73) but did not go to Vietnam. He has NEVER called himself a “Vietnam vet.” Actually, he doesn’t go throwing out his veteran status at all unless it’s actually relevant to the conversation.

Irrelevant.

The kids were still jerks.
The chaperones were still negligent.
And the BHIs were still crazy.

I like how you break this down in to an easy to understand sound bite for people who want to rug sweep everything and make you think that 100+ rowdy teenagers were intimidated by an elderly native american man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am raising white boys.

And I am not raising them to think behaving like those kids is appropriate. But I wouldn't let my kids wear black face to a black out game, so there's that too.

I think this school is woefully out of touch with both our current world in the US and with technology.
That they thought the kids would be just boys being boys and did not take in to account that virtually everyone has cell phones with cameras that will document and spread like wildfire on the internet.

I bet only a very small % of these boys' parents actually check their cell phones to be sure they aren't texting things that could ruin their lives if publicized. And they completely missed that letting their kids think it is okay to behave like this in public is a huge risk in this day and age.

The internet is forever.

Yes.

I wonder if all those adults and professionals calling for doxing these kids, threatening them with violence, doxing the wrong kid and telling his university to rescind his acceptance, and posting outright lies realize that the internet is forever.

[Anonymous]

This thread is flacks shitposting to support Sandmann’s credulity-straining narrative.

It’s all gaslighting: we saw a spoiled-shit kid in over his head, acting like a smug jerk. Not a bit of that has changed, though desperately, people want us to believe this boy was praying as he was smirking.

Who are we to believe? The flack here repeatedly misapplying “1984,” or our own lying eyes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something I have been thinking about IRT Nathan Phillips.......

He has claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran.

My dad was a veteran. He served two tours in Vietnam. Officer in the AF. Career service.
When he talked about himself, he simply called himself a "veteran." He never referred to himself as a "Vietnam Veteran."

This guy used the "Vietnam Veteran" descriptor to mislead people. And his military record is proof of that.

the legal definition of Vietnam Veteran is anyone who served during the war, in any location. 38 USC 4211(2).

I don't care what the legal definition is. My point is that he used that "moniker" to intentionally deceive people into believing he actually served in Vietnam. Most veterans don't qualify their "veteran" status.
He lied about a lot. Including what he did when in the service. Not to mention the series of events on Friday.

Concur. My dad also served during Vietnam (1970-73) but did not go to Vietnam. He has NEVER called himself a “Vietnam vet.” Actually, he doesn’t go throwing out his veteran status at all unless it’s actually relevant to the conversation.

Was this guy in a marine uniform? I teach my kids to not be jerks to all adults. I don't ask their veteran status or get snobby about which war was going on when they were in the service. I expect my kid to be respectful to all adults.

YES X10000!