Women in Combat

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Where do volunteer my ex-wife?

What does she look like when she dresses up like a man?

[LexusLover]

IBH, if you couldn't cut and paste you would have nothing comprehendable to say. Nothing!

You and Obaminable. He reads from the teleprompter and you cut and paste. Two peas in a pod. The sad part is you read only that part you want to see, and fail to see the underlying theme.

The year is now 2013. Not 1860. I know you want a "do over," but its about 150 years too late.

I didn't see your answer on holding, loading, shooting, and cleaning one of those 1861 Springfields, and hunting with one. I'll take that as "no."

[gnadfly]

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.

Originally Posted by JCM800

it depends on which state their from

Who said we had to use kids from the United States of America? You need to read the DREAMERs act more closely.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What does she look like when she dresses up like a man?

The same when she dresses up as a woman. That's why I paid to get rid of her.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Who said we had to use kids from the United States of America? You need to read the DREAMERs act more closely.

The same when she dresses up as a woman. That's why I married of her.

Fixes it for you

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

IBH, if you couldn't cut and paste you would have nothing comprehendable to say. Nothing! Still trying to wish away the evidence that fucks with your opinion, aren't you, iLLiterate. It is your opinion that amounts to nothing, iLLiterate.

You and Obaminable. He reads from the teleprompter and you cut and paste. Two peas in a pod. The sad part is you read only that part you want to see, and fail to see the underlying theme. Tsk, tsk, tsk, iLLiterate, the evidence and facts are not going to change no matter how much you kick and scream.

The year is now 2013. Not 1860. I know you want a "do over," but its about 150 years too late. The union was preserved. Do you have a problem with that, iLLiterate?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I didn't see your answer on holding, loading, shooting, and cleaning one of those 1861 Springfields, and hunting with one. I'll take that as "no."

Then you'd be almost completely wrong, iLLiterate. Own a replica Model 1861 Springfield rifle for target practice. Own an actual Model 1878 Springfield rifle -- never fired. Purchased an actual Enfield Tower, 1860, Pattern 1853 Rifle in Afghanistan -- never fired. Own and fired a Navy Colt Model 1860 .44 cal. replica pistol. Fired a Model 1861 .36 cal. Remington replica pistol. Use a hand built Hawkins .50 caliber for hunting.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Then you'd be almost completely wrong, ...

I'm completely correct about you not answering the question, but wanting to talk about something else ... in my line of work your answer was ....

"Non Responsive"!

Still "No" ....

Why don't you start a thread on arguing if the Sun will rise in the East?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

The same when she dresses up as a woman. That's why I paid to get rid of her.

First, I'm assuming she looked hot when you married her ... and you just rode her hard and put her up wet a few too many times ... and

Secondly, I assume you mean by "get rid of her" ... divorce!

I bet it was a relief when them yankees and confederates later learned that the "guy" they were boinking was really a woman .... took some of the pressure off I bet.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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.

Once again, you prove to one an all that you are a little twat.

Apparently you do not know the definition of "complicity". Let me help you:

"Complicity - Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or a crime."

I was born in the early 1960s. Slavery ended in 1865.

Since time travel is impossible, I have ZERO complicity in slavery. So NO, my complicity is NOT an historical fact. For the same reason, I do not have a malodorous place in the past either, you idiot.

For that matter, YOU don't have any complicity/malodorous past, either. I criticize you for being a Confederate sympathizer right here and now - in the 2010s. I don't criticize YOU personally for whatever some Confederate state did 150 years ago.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm completely correct about you not answering the question, but wanting to talk about something else ... in my line of work your answer was ....

"Non Responsive"!

Still "No" ....

Why don't you start a thread on arguing if the Sun will rise in the East?

More blathering from iLLiterate who obviously cannot read; hence, his sobriquet: "iLLiterate.

The answer was given, iLLiterate. There is a response, iLLiterate. Your blathering about "non responsive" and "still no", like your other worthless and unsubstantiated opinions that you've expressed in this thread still amount to -- as you say -- a pile of "crap", iLLiterate!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Point of fact, i So drop your mock outrage and face the fact that you are being a moronic hypocrite, iLLiterate. BTW, you earned that sobriquet in the other thread because you ignorantly presumed to tell me the geography of my home town: which you do not know,

Hmm, let's see.

You criticize LL for presuming to tell you about the geography of your home town, which he does not know.

And YET, you ignorantly presume to tell me about my career opportunities in NY prior to moving to Texas. In fact, I had plenty of job opportunities in the 1990s in NY, but I chose to leave and move to Texas for a better job, lower taxes and lower cost of living. I've told you that in other posts before this thread. And yet you repeat your stupid statements.

Hypocrite much?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Point of fact, iLLiterate, you – and your Yankee jackass partner – made a sustained, pernicious and fallacious attack on an anecdotal post that was supported by facts in this thread and in the other thread where you ignorantly presumed to lecture me on the geography of my birth place.

Your combined attacks, you in two threads and you with your miscreant partner in this thread, were both demeaning and uncivil; hence, you received the same in return: quid pro quo. So drop your mock outrage and face the fact that you are being a moronic hypocrite, iLLiterate. BTW, you earned that sobriquet in the other thread because you ignorantly presumed to tell me the geography of my home town: which you do not know, and you earned it in this thread because you created a straw man argument wherein you wholly ignored both the facts and citations provided, and you ignored my earlier stated position on women in combat units. Later, as the argument continued, you ignorantly demanded evidence substantiating the fact that women did indeed serve in combat units during the Civil War – the self-same evidence you had earlier and so willfully ignored. Since you demanded to see what had already been provided you earned your sobriquet: “iLLiterate”.

You perniciously created at least four other straw man arguments. First, you seized upon Cathay Williams’ impressment during the Civil War and willfully ignored both my post and the article’s explicit reference to Williams’ enlistment in the army in 1866 – after the Civil War. Your second straw man argument is that a combat tour in a combat unit always requires and entails fighting: it doesn’t. Since 2002, thousands of combat soldiers have secured and patrolled the perimeters of the U.S. bases in Bagram and Kandahar: most never saw or shot at an enemy combatant while providing security for the bases or serving as escorts to places like Kabul (just an FYI, don’t presume to lecture me otherwise: I was there). Nevertheless, these combat soldiers performed their combat duty just like Cathay Williams performed her combat duties patrolling around and performing sentinel duty at Ft Bayard deep in hostile Apache territory. While Williams was at Ft Bayard there were no pitched battles; nevertheless, there were infrequent Apache attacks which resulted in some civilian and soldier fatalities.

Your third straw man argument was to claim Federal and Confederate recruiters actively recruited women into their armies. That is wholly untrue. The women that served – some 400 of them – lied and deceived to gain entry into the armies, and they enlisted for a plethora of reasons, many of which are not today known.

On the other hand, and again by way of factual-historical anecdotes, I pointed out that boys were recruited and allowed to enlist while women were legally shunned. And yes, these boys did serve a vital purpose in both the armies and the navies of both belligerents. And here's another FYI, iLLiterate, many young men lied to gain entry into the service during WWII, the youngest boy to do so was twelve:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2434215.html

If you knew more than the rudimentary American history beyond what is taught to the average high school 11th grader, you would know these stories. So once again your presumption that 'no' boy is equal to such a task, like your notion that no woman is capable of such tasks, has again been put asunder.

Further, it is that position for which I provided the factual, anecdotal evidence – evidence you ignorantly denied and pretended didn't exist – that a few, strong-willed women did serve as equals to their male counterparts in combat units in hostile combat situations during the Civil War; thus, there is historical evidence demonstrating that there are probably some, though few, women who can do so again. Your fallacious, straw man argument otherwise has been substantively and factually refuted, iLLiterate.

Hmmm, let's see now.

Pernicious, extant, miscreant, belligerents, rudimentary, asunder, sobriquet, extant, suzerainty, plethora, and many, many others - in this thread or previous ones.

But I'm the one who is pretentious? Is that right, little twat?

[LovingKayla]

So, there's a female solider walking next to two men and she says,"I hope I'm not distracting you." the first guy says " na we're married" the second guy says "to each other."

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Once again, you prove to one an all that you are a little twat.

Apparently you do not know the definition of "complicity". Let me help you:

"Complicity - Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or a crime."

I was born in the early 1960s. Slavery ended in 1865.

Since time travel is impossible, I have ZERO complicity in slavery. So NO, my complicity is NOT an historical fact. For the same reason, I do not have a malodorous place in the past either, you idiot.

For that matter, YOU don't have any complicity/malodorous past, either. I criticize you for being a Confederate sympathizer right here and now - in the 2010s. I don't criticize YOU personally for whatever some Confederate state did 150 years ago.

Your attempts to universally color southerners as “ignorant redneck racists” by foisting onto southerners – and southerners only – all of the evils associated with slavery betrays you for the liar and hypocrite you are, you pretentious Yankee jackass. So quid pro quo, you pretentious Yankee jackass, Yankees were complicit in every aspect of slavery.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Hmm, let's see.

You criticize LL for presuming to tell you about the geography of your home town, which he does not know.

And YET, you ignorantly presume to tell me about my career opportunities in NY prior to moving to Texas. In fact, I had plenty of job opportunities in the 1990s in NY, but I chose to leave and move to Texas for a better job, lower taxes and lower cost of living. I've told you that in other posts before this thread. And yet you repeat your stupid statements.

Hypocrite much?

Your posts gave you away, you pretentious Yankee jackass. Your expressed hatred for all things "southern" can only mean you did not take employment in the South in lieu of an equal job in that vermin infested snake pit you hail from, you pretentious Yankee jackass.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Hmmm, let's see now.

Pernicious, extant, miscreant, belligerents, rudimentary, asunder, sobriquet, extant, suzerainty, plethora, and many, many others - in this thread or previous ones.

But I 'm the one who is pretentious? Is that right, little twat?

It's your pretentious opinion that you are innately superior to anyone born south of the Mason-Dixon Line that define you as pretentious, you pretentious Yankee jackass.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your attempts to universally color southerners as “ignorant redneck racists” by foisting onto southerners – and southerners only – all of the evils associated with slavery betrays you for the liar and hypocrite you are, you pretentious Yankee jackass.
Please cite evidence where I attempted to UNIVERSALLY color southerners that way. That would mean ALL southerners.

So quid pro quo, you pretentious Yankee jackass, Yankees were complicit in every aspect of slavery.
Except the aspect of, you know, making it illegal in the "Yankee" states, right?

Your posts gave you away, you pretentious Yankee jackass. Your expressed hatred for all things "southern" can only mean you did not take employment in the South in lieu of an equal job in that vermin infested snake pit you hail from, you pretentious Yankee jackass.
Please cite evidence where I expressed hatred of ALL things "southern". I'm pretty sure that I have only expressed hatred of slavery and the Confederate sympathizers who make excuses for it. Does that mean that YOU think "slavery" and "southern" are synonymous? Freudian slip much?

It's your pretentious opinion that you are innately superior to anyone born south of the Mason-Dixon Line that define you as pretentious, you pretentious Yankee jackass.
Please cite evidence where I expressed the opinion that I am innately superior to anyone born south of the Mason-Dixon line. Or is that just something you PRESUME I think?

Oh, BTW, you are still a little twat.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Oh, BTW, you are still a little twat.

Here! BTW, you're still a pretentious Yankee jackass, you pretentious Yankee jackass.