Women in Combat

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JCM800

what's the record for largest thread ever?

We aren't even close.

IBHankerwrong keeps posting a link above (under the word "Here") to a 34 or 35 page thread.

Not surprisingly, IB Hankerwrong was also responsible for making that other thread 30+ pages long.

[SkyDriver]

And now back to the subject at hand ... http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/02...at-with-women/

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Who established that "one thing for certain"?

LL wrote:
"He cited a 150-year-old series of personal anecdotes about cross-dressers who fraudulently and deceptively snuck into the military, which did not allow women to join, to support his notion that women should be allowed in combat in the military."

Sounds pretty accurate to me!

What is “accurate” and “established” is that you have demonstrated that you cannot read and comprehend, iLLiterate. By ignorantly and repeatedly demanding to see facts AFTER the facts had been provided is evidence of your inability to read and comprehend, iLLiterate. Furthermore, you’ve proffered nothing but your ignorant opinion in the matter and have yet to produce any facts that invalidate the military records or equal service of the women who served in combat during the Civil War.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

The little twat may be wrong, but he is never doubtful. He like to declare his judgments and opinions as facts.

That is a common trait in narcissistic sociopaths.

IBHankerwrong will lie, distort, obfuscate, and omit relevant facts as much and as often as necessary to make himself feel like he is "winning".

And, of course, he accuses others of having the very character faults (like pretentiousness and dishonesty) that he knows deep inside that he has.

He can also be flown from a flagpole.

It’s notable that neither the pretentious Yankee jackass nor iLLiterate offered anything but their ignorant, personal opinions. Neither one of these ignorant fucks has produced any facts that invalidate the military records or equal service of the women who served in combat during the Civil War. So take your stupid, lame-ass questions and your pretentious demands and go get fucked, you pretentious Yankee jackass!

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Not all of us.I remember the question distinctly. It was:

If they flew IBHankerwrong from a flagpole over the Georgia Capitol, would the press refer to it as a "Confederate fag controversy"?

Take your stupid, lame-ass questions and your pretentious demands and go get fucked, you pretentious Yankee jackass!

Originally Posted by ExNYer

We aren't even close.

IBHankerwrong keeps posting a link above (under the word "Here") to a 34 or 35 page thread.

Not surprisingly, IB Hankerwrong was also responsible for making that other thread 30+ pages long.

The pretentious Yankee jackass admits to knowing the whereabouts of the evidence he pretentiously demands to see, but he stupidly believes it doesn't exist if he pretends like it's not there.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It’s notable that neither the pretentious Yankee jackass nor iLLiterate offered anything but their ignorant, personal opinions.
I'm not part of the women in compabet debate. I only joined in this thread to point out what a pathetic narcissist you are. Your posts are the only evidence I need.

The pretentious Yankee jackass admits to knowing the whereabouts of the evidence he pretentiously demands to see, but he stupidly believes it doesn't exist if he pretends like it's not there.
I admitted to nothing, since there is no evidence of anything in that link. ONCE AGAIN, you twist other peoples words to mean something they clearly do not. I simply pointed out where the link to that enormous 35 page post was hidden. Only YOU claim there is some evidence in that pile. But you refuse to identify any post. Coward.

Lying, narcissistic Confederate sympathizer.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

...the military records or equal service of the women who served in combat during the Civil War.

Are you referencing the cross-dressers who snuck into the military?

As that your "proof" that women should be allowed in combat today?

Did you believe that Obaminable should have presented his original birth certificate?
Did you believe that Obaminable should have presented his college transcripts?
Did you believe that Obaminable lacked the qualifications to be POTUS?

Just asking. BTW, is this you?

[JCM800]

Attachment 194778

[SkyDriver]

So much for intellectual discourse .....

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by SkyDriver

So much for intellectual discourse .....

You must be new here! Welcome

[i'va biggen]

He will soon be disappointed or corrupted.

[SkyDriver]

Just stirrin' the puddin' .. the human condition is always fascinating.

[Jackie S]

Every Web Site dedicated to just about any hobby, activity, or what ever on the Internet has a Political Forum, and you could plug the conversations from this Sandbox into any of them, and the conversation would be the same. So would the same list of characters.

If the owner of a Site says, "we do not discuss politics here", the response will be, "get your fuckin head out of the sand".

By the way, Tinkerbell would give a whole new meaning to the phrase "flying fuck"

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Every Web Site dedicated to just about any hobby, activity, or what ever on the Internet has a Political Forum, and you could plug the conversations from this Sandbox into any of them, and the conversation would be the same. So would the same list of characters.

If the owner of a Site says, "we do not discuss politics here", the response will be, "get your fuckin head out of the sand".

By the way, Tinkerbell would give a whole new meaning to the phrase "flying fuck"

True, but usually there's a lot less name calling. ECCIE does seem to have an inordinately high amount of that (from both sides!) even for an internet forum.



(I'm guilty of this too)

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Every Web Site dedicated to just about any hobby, activity, or what ever on the Internet has a Political Forum, ...

By the way, Tinkerbell would give a whole new meaning to the phrase "flying fuck"

Sandbox:



As for "Tinkerbell" ... I don't give a "flying fuck"!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I'm not part of the women in compabet debate. I only joined in this thread to point out what a pathetic narcissist you are. Your posts are the only evidence I need. Thus proving you are truly pathetic creature with mediocre personal goals, you pretentious and lying Yankee jackass.

I admitted to nothing, since there is no evidence of anything in that link. ONCE AGAIN, you twist other peoples words to mean something they clearly do not. I simply pointed out where the link to that enormous 35 page post was hidden. Only YOU claim there is some evidence in that pile. But you refuse to identify any post. Coward. You’re lame-ass denials do not change your posts in that thread, you pretentious and lying Yankee jackass.

Lying, narcissistic Confederate sympathizer. You’re a pretentious and lying Yankee jackass.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are you referencing the cross-dressers who snuck into the military? Is that your best intellectual rejoinder, iLLiterate. The best you’ve been able to muster is to argue that their service should be out-of-hand dismissed because they had to wear men’s uniforms, iLLiterate? You do know they didn’t manufacture women’s uniforms, don’t you, iLLiterate.

As that your "proof" that women should be allowed in combat today? It’s evidence -- BTW, evidence you have have yet to refute, iLLiterate -- that American women have capably served as equals before, iLLiterate. Are you misogynistically claiming that today’s women are innately inferior to 19th century American women and that no 21st century woman is capable of serving as a man’s equal in combat, iLLiterate?

Did you believe that Obaminable should have presented his original birth certificate? Bogus deflection, iLLiterate. Where’s that intellectual superiority you claim to possess, iLLiterate?
Did you believe that Obaminable should have presented his college transcripts?
Bogus deflection, iLLiterate. Where’s that intellectual superiority you claim to possess, iLLiterate?
Did you believe that Obaminable lacked the qualifications to be POTUS?
Bogus deflection, iLLiterate. Where’s that intellectual superiority you claim to possess, iLLiterate?
Just asking. BTW, is this you? No, and once again you’ve jumped to a stupidly ignorant conclusion even where extant evidence disproves your conclusion; hence, your sobriquet: “iLLiterate”! And where’s that aloof, intellectual superiority you always brag about, iLLiterate?

.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

.

Thought one of these might help you, IBH:

After some of these ..