Women in Combat

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

...made a sustained, pernicious and fallacious attack on an anecdotal post that was supported by facts ...

"facts" ....? You wouldn't know one if it bit you on the ass. Are you in politics?

99.99% of what you have posed as NOTHING to do with whether or not women who volunteer in the military today should be assigned to "combat" duty....which in the sense of the current events means engaging our various enemies in a firefight using some sort of weapon to neutralize them, if not kill them.

I've said so many times it is ridiculous that I don't have a problem with it as long as their training and duties remain equal to the males with whom they are in combat.

All your other bullshit is trying to augment your fledgling and fadding credibility. It's almost like you posting a wiki article about the Sun rising in the East in a thread about snow storms in the West and repeatedly posting "personal testimonials" from people having seen the Sun rising in the East in a lame-ass effort to show how "smart" you are ... while calling everyone else "illiterate" ...

... if you were actually born in Texas, please quit embarrassing Texas.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"facts" ....? You wouldn't know one if it bit you on the ass. Are you in politics? The problem originates with your very limited knowledge of history, iLLiterate, not vice versa. Facts and citations were posted, but you’re obviously too ignorant to recognize them since you continue to deny them.

99.99% of what you have posed as NOTHING to do with whether or not women who volunteer in the military today should be assigned to "combat" duty....which in the sense of the current events means engaging our various enemies in a firefight using some sort of weapon to neutralize them, if not kill them. Are you ignorantly suggesting that a 19th century woman who under orders charged across a field with a single shot, ten pound Springfield Model 1861 rifle with mounted bayonet into the face of cannons loaded with canister is unequal to the challenge of picking up a nine pound, 30 round fully-loaded M16A2 rifle? Are you ignorantly suggesting that a woman who has the audacious courage to parry with an enemy soldier up close and personal with a bayonet wouldn’t have the courage to engage an enemy at 100 or 200 yards distance with an M16A2 rifle? Are you misogynistically suggesting there are not similar women in U.S. society today?

I've said so many times it is ridiculous that I don't have a problem with it as long as their training and duties remain equal to the males with whom they are in combat. That’s been my stated position this whole time, but you and your confederate Yankee buddy have created a straw man argument and argued otherwise, and that makes the both of you outright liars.

All your other bullshit is trying to augment your fledgling and fadding credibility. The fact that you have absolutely zero credibility, iLLiterate, leaves you wholly unqualified to render such a judgment. It's almost like you posting a wiki article about the Sun rising in the East in a thread about snow storms in the West and repeatedly posting "personal testimonials" from people having seen the Sun rising in the East

Again, you misogynistically disparage the ability of some women to render able service in combat. Check the history of European armies during WWII. Women served in the Soviet and Nazi armies. Chinese and Vietnamese women also fought as combatants in WWII and during the Vietnam War respectively. The Japanese trained their women to fight Americans with pointed sticks, but fortunately the war ended before they were tested. The weight of historical evidence is against you, iLLiterate. There are women who can compete as equals with men in combat.

in a lame-ass effort to show how "smart" you are ... while calling everyone else "illiterate" ... It’s easy to call you “illiterate”, iLLiterate. Time after time you were shown facts; yet, you both ignored them and denied they existed. Anyone reading this thread can see where you called for facts and citations long after they’d already been posted. Furthermore, you insist on telling me my birthplace was in Texas “hill country” even after you were told multiple time that that was a false presumption born of your obvious ignorance.

... if you were actually born in Texas, please quit embarrassing Texas.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Was that the "Great Plains"

or the "Hill Country"?

Just asking.

Or was this another anecdote?

You are an unmitigated ignoramus, iLLiterate, in that you persist in presuming to tell me where I was born. You were told before that your BS assumption was wrong, but your ignorant self doubles-down and posts the same BS again.

[LexusLover]

IBH: "That’s been my stated position this whole time, but you and your confederate Yankee buddy have created a straw man argument and argued otherwise, and that makes the both of you outright liars."

What was your original purpose of drifting off to the Civil War?

Can you remember?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

IBH: "That’s been my stated position this whole time, but you and your confederate Yankee buddy have created a straw man argument and argued otherwise, and that makes the both of you outright liars."

What was your original purpose of drifting off to the Civil War?

Can you remember?

The Civil War anecdotes were proffered as historical examples of women who served in combat to validate the fact that women have already served in combat in American armies and to underscore the probability that there are women today, though few, who are no doubt as equally capable as their forebears.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Civil War anecdotes were proffered as historical examples of women who served in combat to validate the fact that women have already served in combat in American armies and to underscore the probability that there are women today, though few, who are no doubt as equally capable as their forebears.

So you would be agreeable to 10-year-olds serving. Thank you.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So you would be agreeable to 10-year-olds serving. Thank you.

So you would continue to deny that a ten year old did serve in the Civil War and that a twelve year old did serve in WWII?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So you would be agreeable to 10-year-olds serving. Thank you.

Enough said. All your other crap is just that ... crap.

I'm not agreeable with 10-year-olds serving .. and apparently the ARMIES engaged in the Civil War were not "agreeable" for females to serve in combat.

You brought up History. Live with it. Or not. Don't make a rat's ass to me.

Just don't use lame-ass examples to shore up your lame-ass logic.

[jbravo_123]

Kids should be allowed to be conscripted into service. Their hands are smaller and can reach more easily into IEDs for disarming them.

Plus, if we lose one it's not like we invested all that much compared to an adult.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

... confederate Yankee buddy ...

Is that some kind of Freudian slip, little twat?

I also like this little piece of drivel:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Are you ignorantly suggesting that a 19th century woman who under orders charged across a field with a single shot, ten pound Springfield Model 1861 rifle with mounted bayonet into the face of cannons loaded with canister is unequal to the challenge of picking up a nine pound, 30 round fully-loaded M16A2 rifle? Are you ignorantly suggesting that a woman who has the audacious courage to parry with an enemy soldier up close and personal with a bayonet wouldn’t have the courage to engage an enemy at 100 or 200 yards distance with an M16A2 rifle? Are you misogynistically suggesting there are not similar women in U.S. society today?

This is but one of many examples in this thread where you try to put words into an opponent's mouth by setting up a loaded question that implies a bunch of things he never said. Strawman much?

And you do all that while simultaneously setting yourself up as some kind of politically correct defender of women, children, minorities, gays, etc.

You forget your place. But we have not. You are a redneck, Confederate sympathizer who spends night and day trying to spread the blame for slavery and the Civil War as far as possible from the actual practitioners of slavery and the state governments that permitted and nourished it.

You aren't fooling anybody little twat.

[JCM800]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Kids should be allowed to be conscripted into service. Their hands are smaller and can reach more easily into IEDs for disarming them.

Plus, if we lose one it's not like we invested all that much compared to an adult.

it depends on which state their from

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Enough said. All your other crap is just that ... crap.

I'm not agreeable with 10-year-olds serving .. and apparently the ARMIES engaged in the Civil War were not "agreeable" for females to serve in combat.

You brought up History. Live with it. Or not. Don't make a rat's ass to me.

Just don't use lame-ass examples to shore up your lame-ass logic.

There was nothing in this thread lamer, or more full of crap, than your lame-ass, substantively unsupported personal opinion, iLLiterate. You did not provide substantive facts that supported your opinion, and you were intellectually flummoxed by the facts that repeatedly ripped asunder your substantively unsupported opinion. Finding yourself intellectually overmatched, you retreated to create and knock down multiple, fallacious straw man arguments so you could feel good about yourself. Still finding yourself unable to compete intellectually, you now act like a three-year old who childishly chooses to knock over a board game he does not understand and cannot master. Unlike the child with the board game knocked askew, and the problem for you here now, iLLiterate, is that you cannot clear what has been posted in this thread with your shrill and measly assertion that the evidence provided is “crap”. The evidence provided stands as unrefuted facts, and it is your substantively unsupported personal opinion and your shrill, childish screams of denial that are collectively a pile of “crap”.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Is that some kind of Freudian slip, little twat?

It wasn't a "slip": look up the definition, you pretentious Yankee jackass.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It wasn't a "slip": look up the definition, you Yankee jackass.

I don't need to, you Confederate twat.

It's your choice of words that makes it a Freudian slip. After all, you could have said "your Yankee buddy".

Perhaps it betrays some secret longing on your part to be a northerner instead of a Confederate sympathizer? Heh.

[gnadfly]

Where do volunteer my ex-wife?

[JD Barleycorn]

UH, a confederate sympathizer is a northerner. A southerner is a confederate. The other name they went by was "Copperhead". They were quite a bunch you know. They complained bitterly about Lincoln, called him an ape, called him stupid, said he started this war just to have power, and they didn't just want him out of office, some of them plotted his assassination.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

This is but one of many examples in this thread where you try to put words into an opponent's mouth by setting up a loaded question that implies a bunch of things he never said. Strawman much? Your confederate, iLLiterate, refused to acknowledge the capable combat service of hundreds of American women who served as equals to the men during the Civil War. Never once did iLLiterate acknowledge their accomplished, equal service; rather, iLLIterate went out of his way to denigrate the documented records of their service. So no words were put in his mouth, that is his position; hence, there was no 'straw man' argument from this quarter, you pretentious Yankee fuck.

And you do all that while simultaneously setting yourself up as some kind of politically correct defender of women, children, minorities, gays, etc. While you sit with your pea-brained head up your enormous ass, there is extant evidence indicting the North for it's complicity in the slave trade. Forty cents out of every dollar made off slave picked cotton went into some Yankee fuck's pocket. New York City built scores of slave ships and continued the slave trade long after it was banned by the U.K. and the U.S. Those are all facts in the record books, you pretentious Yankee fuck. There is further extant evidence that ignorant, pretentious Yankee jackasses – like yourself – stick your heads in your ass and strive to deny those facts. Your very posts indict your ignorant ass, you pretentious Yankee fuck.

You forget your place. But we have not. It’s not from lack of effort on your part that you haven’t forgotten, you pretentious Yankee fuck! You vigorously strive to hide and deny your malodorous place in the past, but others have documented your complicity, and that complicity is historical fact. You are a redneck, Confederate sympathizer who spends night and day trying to spread the blame for slavery and the Civil War as far as possible from the actual practitioners of slavery and the state governments that permitted and nourished it. New York was one of those states that permitted and nourished slavery, you pretentious Yankee fuck. New Yorkers financed the slave trade. New Yorkers built the slave ships. New Yorkers manufactured the slave shackles. New Yorkers harbored the slave ships. New Yorkers insured the slave ships and their slave cargoes. New Yorkers crewed the slave ships. New Yorkers engaged in the slave trade. New Yorkers profited off the slave trade, and New Yorkers profited off slave agriculture. So fuck you and your ignorant denials, you pretentious Yankee shit. You aren't fooling anybody little twat. You can’t hide your complicity, so you aren’t fooling anybody, you pretentious Yankee fuck.

The New York Journal of Commerce wrote in 1857, "and that down-town merchants of wealth and respectability are extensively engaged in buying and selling African Negroes, and have been, with comparative little interruption, for an indefinite number of years.”

“By 1860, New York City's reputation for official corruption and leniency toward slavers was unrivaled. Putting money into slaving voyages was considered a good investment—much as one would invest today in AT&T or Microsoft—and although the practice was illegal and the transgressors were widely known, no efforts were made to apprehend either the investors or the traders. Amazingly, it was generally viewed as a "victimless" crime. In fact, when*ever a voice was raised to condemn the practice, New York's businessmen were united in their opposition to change.”

http://www.historynet.com/the-day-ne...-to-secede.htm

It would seem that a dissolution of the Federal Union is inevitable. Having been formed originally on a basis of general and mutual protection, but separate local independence--each State reserving the entire and absolute control of its own domestic affairs, it is evidently impossible to keep them together longer than they deem themselves fairly treated by each other, or longer than the interests, honor and fraternity of the people of the several States are satisfied. Being a Government created by opinion, its continuance is dependent upon the continuance of the sentiment which formed it. It cannot be preserved by coercion or held together by force. A resort to this last dreadful alternative would of itself destroy not only the Government, but the lives and property of the people.
If these forebodings shall be realized, and a separation of the States shall occur, momentous considerations will be presented to the corporate authorities of this city. We must provide for the new relations which will necessarily grow out of the new condition of public affairs.
. . . we must rely upon our own resources and assume a position predicated upon the new phase which public affairs will present, and upon the inherent strength which our geographical, commercial, political, and financial preeminence imparts to us.
With our aggrieved brethren of the Slave States, we have friendly relations and a common sympathy. We have not participated in the warfare upon their constitutional rights or their domestic institutions. . . .
Then it may be said, why should not New York city, instead of supporting by her contributions in revenue two—thirds of the expenses of the United States, become also equally independent? As a free city, with but nominal duty on imports, her local Government could be supported without taxation upon her people. Thus we could live free from taxes, and have cheap goods nearly duty free. In this she would have the whole and united support of the Southern States, as well as all the other States to whose interests and rights under the Constitution she has always been true.

It is well for individuals or communities to look every danger square in the face, and to meet it calmly and bravely. As dreadful as the severing of the bonds that have hitherto united the States has been in contemplation, it is now apparently a stern and inevitable fact. We have now to meet it with all the consequences, whatever they may be. If the Confederacy is broken up the Government is dissolved, and it behooves every distinct community, as well as every individual, to take care of themselves.

When Disunion has become a fixed and certain fact, why may not New York disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master--to a people and a party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her and a party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her commerce, taken away the power of self—government, and destroyed the Confederacy of which she was the proud Empire City? Amid the gloom which the present and prospective condition of things must cast over the country, New York, as a Free City, may shed the only light and hope of a future reconstruction of our once blessed Confederacy.”

Fernando Wood, Major. (Mayor of New York City)

January 6th, 1861.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=435

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I don't need to, you Confederate twat. Then why ask the stupid question, you pretentious Yankee jackass?

It's your choice of words that makes it a Freudian slip. After all, you could have said "your Yankee buddy". Guess what, you pretentious Yankee fuck? Used "confederate", so fuck you!

Perhaps it betrays some secret longing on your part to be a northerner instead of a Confederate sympathizer? Heh. You're the pretentious Yankee fuck that was betrayed -- you couldn't get a job in that lousy Yankee job market and had to move south.