posted on November 25, 2006 11:59:47 AM new
Let's review what kiara mentioned....WITHOUT GIVING A LINK, of course. lol
She stated that a 50 year old woman soldier was killed. Now she blames me for bringing it up. LOL LOL
She again FALSELY claims I wasn't aware of women servicing in the military. Of course, NONE of the 1000 times I've told her that her ASSUMPTION was incorrect....she STILL can't grasp that SIMPLE concept. tsk tsk tsk
I have repeatedly told her my own mother and father served in WWII. Now...would a mentally well person then believe I didn't know they SERVED?
I don't think so. Only someone with a mind that cannot grasp nor comprehend the written word.
I don't believe, from past experience of kiara's statements that she has much if ANY knowledge of our US military. lol But she THINKS she does.
Most are aware that women did serve in the military since way back when...prior to the 40's. BUT they didn't serve on the combat lines - only men did.
They did NOT serve on the front lines in VN either.
Now...she's once again seeking attention mentioning this LIE of hers.
=========
Maybe someday she'll take the time to find out just when and in which BRANCH of our military women first served in ANY capacity OTHER THAN a support situation.
Maybe someday...she'll learn what the AGE limits are when one cannot JOIN any of our Armed forces. AND which one/two have recently changed those limitations.
Maybe she'll not feel like so much of a radical feminists when she discovers that those THREE women who have died HAVE NOT DIED in combat.
Maybe she'll feel more knowledgable when she discovers that the % of women to men soldiers who HAVE died in Afghanistan and Iraq.....come no where NEAR the numbers of men soldiers.
BUT....like most feminists she want's women to have the choice of joining our Armed forces....BUT when they get injured...then, as in THIS THREAD, she takes the 'mother, nurturing' DEFENSE as to why they shouldn't.
After all....they have babies/children at home. She must believe THEY weren't aware of that fact when they volunteered/enlisted in our AF.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on November 25, 2006 12:10:16 PM new
There was an article I read that reminded me so much of the radical feminist women and their position on women serving in our military
It's funny how they are SO defensive about women being let out of being mentioned....even though they aren't normally on the 'front lines' of battle...but then their liberal MSM will make their articles sound like no men died...only the ONE women they are featuring for their article.
============
in part:
"Why was this routine, non-combat aircraft accident, resulting in 7 lost lives, reported on the front pages of both The Washington Post and The New York Times [7]? Because one of the crew members was a female. She was a Marine Sergeant radio operator.
The Post article highlighted this fact in a bold-face sub-heading, 'Female Radio Operator Among 7 Marines Killed.' In the first paragraph, it came as close as possible to falsely implying that the crew was on a combat mission. "It was the deadliest incident yet, for U.S. forces in the war against terrorism being fought in neighboring Afghanistan, and it brought the first death of a female service member in the conflict."
The incident was presumably 'deadly' because 7 U.S. military personnel were killed - more than in any other such 'incident' in the war in Afghanistan.
Can we assume that the incident would not have been reported on the front page - with a blazing headline - if it had been less 'deadly,' e.g. had 6 or less male Marines not have died? Not on your life. It took the lives of 6 male Marines to elevate the breathlessly 'near-combat mission' to the level of the 'deadliest incident yet' in the war on terrorism.
Nevertheless, it would still have been reported had the male Marines not died. Why? Because it was a way for radical feminists to raise a female - doing a routine non-combat job - to 'heroine' status.
This ploy was did not escape the watchful eyes of one letter-to-the-editor writer. Writing in response to the Washington Post article, he said [8], "The following sub-headline appeared on your front page Jan. 10: 'Female Radio Operator Among 7 Marines Killed.' What message does that convey about the relative value of male and female lives? Would you publish the headline 'White Radio Operator Among 7 Marines Killed?" Everyone alive today knows the answer to that question.
The New York Times front-page story on the same accident was even more egregious. It displayed a six-inch color photograph of a family member, holding Sgt. Jeanette L. Winters' picture - in her Marine uniform. The picture is captioned, "the first American woman to die in the Afghan war." Her understandably sad but proud family and friends are quoted as saying, "She died for all of us, and it's the price we have to pay for what happened on Sept. 11."
Every American can and should be proud of Sgt. Winters. She was serving her country and she was doing her job.
Reading the inside pages of the N.Y. Times article, however, one finds a revealing set of facts - facts that could have highlighted the patriotism of at least four of the male members of the crew who died in that crash. Facts that could have placed in perspective the relative degrees of patriotism and devotion to country and duty of members of the various crew members. These facts tell a far different story - give a far more delineated perspective, as individuals. This individual perspective results from the fact that not all of us are equal to each other in attitude, aptitude, or dedication.
That perspective was ignored in the N.Y. Times story. This act betrays the mind-set of the N.Y. Times in supporting a radical feminist agenda, rather than reporting the news in-depth without gender bias.
While we can and should all be proud of Sgt. Winters, we should also be equally or even more proud of several of the other male crew members. For example, Captain Matthew Bancroft (the pilot) "...would have been out of the military in October, but decided to extend his term two more years because of the war on terrorism...His wife, Mary-Ellen, already had two sons and the couple had a daughter, Maddie, nine months ago."
"After his tour of duty in the Persian Gulf ended a month ago, Lance Cpl. Bryan P. Bertrand volunteered for a second tour" - in Afghanistan. Staff Sgt. Scott N. Germosen, after graduating from high school and spending four years in the Marine Corps, moved to California and joined the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. But after he was shot in a confrontation with a criminal, he decided it was "too dangerous" so he went back into the Marines. Germosen "volunteered for the mission in Afghanistan."
All of the above male members of the crew displayed love of country and devotion to duty far beyond any crew member who was simply assigned a 'job.'
Each of them went beyond the call of duty and volunteered to serve in Afghanistan when they could have skipped the assignment and let someone else take his place on rotation. Each of them deserve 'front-page' coverage based on this perspective - rather than the perspective based only on their sex.
article: War as Entertainment: War as radical feminists propoganda.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 25, 2006 12:14 PM ]
posted on November 25, 2006 12:13:34 PM newSuch misinformation canadian liberals have. lol
but kiara just continues to prove how little she DOES know about the U.S. Military...and how it functions. lol
I don't believe, from past experience of kiara's statements that she has much if ANY knowledge of our US military. lol But she THINKS she does.
Obviously I know a lot more than you do, lindak. And I'm open to learning even more........ not like you who think you know it all. Your ignorance about women serving today in Iraq and Afghanistan shines through time and time again in your continuous attempts to put others down. Now you put a long rambling rant trying to cover your ignorance from your last post about the number of women killed.
She stated that a 50 year old woman soldier was killed. Now she blames me for bringing it up. LOL LOL
YOU mentioned the 57 year old women first, not me. My link on the previous page shows a picture of the woman killed in Kabul. It shows pictures of other women killed. These are all real women serving.
So yes, I did provide a link but once again you are so involved in your own rant that you failed to see it or learn anything.
posted on November 25, 2006 12:18:50 PM new
Maybe kiara can give us all the DATE when women FIRST started serving on the FRONT LINES....First started serving in actual COMBAT situations.....NOT support positions. LOL LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on November 25, 2006 12:21:43 PM newMaybe someday...she'll learn what the AGE limits are when one cannot JOIN any of our Armed forces. AND which one/two have recently changed those limitations.
I did not mention age limits anywhere in this conversation nor have I in any previous postings.
Lindak, you are just making things up to cover your own ignorance on the previous page and hoping if you rant nonsense long enough you can bury it.
posted on November 25, 2006 12:25:41 PM new
kiara's memory is frightful...
kiara - Who was talking about 57 year old women, Linda? Or is age now your excuse for not serving since you have now been informed that just because your son served it didn't qualify you as serving too?
There was an American woman serving that was recently killed by a bomb in Kabul and she was in her 50's.
=====
Notice there is NO link to this soldiers death...as kiara said there was. lol
And I answered her above question with the truth...I'm too old...they don't accept 57 yr. old women.
Now she's taking even THAT down a whole new arguement.
Does anyone ELSE see kiara's thread about this 50+ year old woman soldiers death??????
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on November 25, 2006 12:36:00 PM newNotice there is NO link to this soldiers death...as kiara said there was. lol
There is a link on the previous page showing a picture of the lady killed in Kabul and it has some info about her. It shows other women that were killed also.
As I have noted, you are so busy ranting about me that you obviously missed it.
posted on November 25, 2006 12:39:34 PM new
Here is the link once again. Perhaps you should read the page, lindak and look at their pictures so as to overcome your ignorance about women serving over there and the jobs they do and the danger they are in.
posted on November 25, 2006 01:21:12 PM new
Fallen Heroes........ more on the 52 year old woman who was killed in Kabul.
Of the 66 women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, 51 are 30 or younger, according to Judy Bellafaire, chief historian for the Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation in Washington, D.C. Four women, aged 41 to 44, were the oldest casualties before Howard.
Women in the military would be barred from serving in direct ground combat roles, under a House bill that sets Defense Department policy and spending plans for the upcoming budget year.
The House Armed Services Committee approved the overall measure early Thursday on a 61-1 vote.
The same committee in the Senate passed a different version last week.
The House and Senate are to vote on their respective bills next week.
President Bush
requested $442 billion for defense for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, excluding money to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The House bill, like the Senate's version, envisions creating a $50 billion fund for the conflicts for next year - but provides no money for it.
The measure also calls for increasing the military by 10,000 Army soldiers and 1,000 Marines, boosting pay grades for uniformed personnel by 3.1 percent and permanently providing all Reserve and Guard members access to military health care services.
In a nearly 15-hourlong committee hearing, the most contentious issue was the role of women in combat.
The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat.
"Many Americans feel that women in combat or combat support positions is not a bridge we want to cross at this point," said Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., who sponsored the amendment.
It also allows the Pentagon to further exclude women from units in other instances, while requiring defense officials to notify Congress when opening up positions to women.
The amendment replaced narrower language in the bill that applied only to the Army and banned women from some combat support positions.
The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed.
"We're not taking away a single prerogative that the services now have," McHugh said.
Democrats opposed the amendment, saying it would tie the hands of commanders who need flexibility during wartime. They accused Republicans of rushing through legislation without knowing the consequences or getting input from the military.
"We are changing the dynamic of what has been the policy of this country for the last 10 years," said Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark.
Added Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the committee's leading Democrat: "There seems to be a solution in search of a problem."
The issue arose last week, when Republicans, at the behest of Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., added a provision that would have banned women from being assigned to "forward support companies."
Those units provide infantry, armor and artillery units with equipment, ammunition, maintenance and other supplies in combat zones.
The Army started allowing women to staff such support posts last year and says it is complying with the 1994 policy.
Some Republicans aren't so sure. "The Army is confused. They're all over the place on this one," Hunter said.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday the Army is working with Congress and battlefield commanders "to find an appropriate way that's consistent with our country's view on that subject."
He said the Army's attempt to reorganize and an asymmetrical front line on the battlefield muddies the issue.
Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., cast the lone dissenting vote on the overall bill.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 25, 2006 01:43 PM ]
posted on November 25, 2006 02:47:25 PM new
Hey Liar_K,
#1-For the last time I will ask you this direct question. CAN YOU SAY CIVIL WAR?
#2-Now that you are talking about the Viet Nam conflict. A conflict where America lost 50,000 Troops. As of today in Iraq, America has 2,873 Dead Troops. So Liar_K tell us all how many more dead Americans you can you stand in Iraq's CIVIL WAR. At what point or number is enough dead Americans ENOUGH?
You have 2 straight forward questions to answer. Show us all your answers.
I lived through Viet Nam. A time where National Guard Troops were sent to Kent State University. These American Troops wound up shooting unarmed Viet Nam Conflict protesting students at Kent State University in Ohio.
posted on November 25, 2006 02:47:28 PM new
""Some Republicans aren't so sure. "The Army is confused. They're all over the place on this one," Hunter said.""
posted on November 25, 2006 02:52:07 PM newI'll BELIEVE our own MILITARY and what they say....not some 'blog'. lol
The second link I posted was info on the 52 year old that was killed and how she had lived her life and what her husband said about her, so for most reading it they would show respect and wouldn't LOL over it as you do, lindak.
If you wish to deny that her and other women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and want to believe that only 3 have died then I can't change that ignorance on your part.
Regardless of what you choose to believe, women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are in constant danger because these aren't conventional wars. Women who are in helicopters that are shot down by enemy fire and who are killed by roadside bombs which were put there by the enemy are in the midst of combat whether you want to believe so or not. There are no safe areas.
You were once unaware that women served like this in Iraq and Afghanistan and still seem to be just as ignorant, I never said that you were unaware that women had ever served in the military. So please stop the twisting of my words when you try to cover your ass to hide your ignorance.
PFC Laura Springer, 20, a medic from Odessa, Texas, is among the women who drives the Army's Stryker armored combat vehicle in Iraq.(Ann Scott Tyson - The Washington Post)
Excerpt...It was mid-February and Guay, 26, an Army specialist who was the first woman to be assigned as an infantry combat medic, was spending 10 hours a day on missions with the 82nd Airborne Division, dodging rockets and grenades in the crowded streets of Mosul.
(CNN) -- The Pentagon's policy banning women in combat is being tested in Iraq, where the lack of a defined front line and insurgents' guerrilla tactics expose female troops to deadly situations.
On Thursday night, a suicide car bomber struck a U.S. convoy in Falluja. The attack killed at least four Marines -- including three women, U.S. military sources said.
Of 13 Marines wounded in the attack, 11 were female, the sources said. A Marine and a sailor remain unaccounted for. Their genders were not disclosed.
posted on November 25, 2006 03:46:55 PM new
Yes, linda "supports" the troops by ridiculing their sacrifices...calling them "he-men" who should be home baking cookies.
So sad that the BRAVE women who are protecting linda's sorry asp are denied ANY support, even verbal, from the biggest war monger(linda) since George Bush.....by the way, HE doesn't care either....so sad, so anti-American, such treasonous behavior.....
Proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that linda does NOT support the troops......what a sad excuse for an American!!!
posted on November 25, 2006 03:57:29 PM new#2-Now that you are talking about the Viet Nam conflict. A conflict where America lost 50,000 Troops. As of today in Iraq, America has 2,873 Dead Troops.
Another garbage posting from the liberal propaganda terrorist bigdopa.
Thanks for posting on how few death's we have had in this major war. It only proves how many lives have been saved because of this action.
Then there is Cathy Cowfarm. Clueless when it comes to the military. Shut your pie hole. Linda had it correct. BTW, how does it feel to be living in an area where your Representative is a Republican and a state where they voted out the Demomoron leader?
helen's article ALSO says....
just what I said....
I'll REPEAT it AGAIN...for the SLOW readers
"The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed."
---------
from helen's link
"The Army has to understand the regulation that says women can't be placed in direct fire situations is archaic and not attainable," said Lt. Col. Cheri Provancha, commander of a Stryker Brigade support battalion in Mosul, who decided to bend Army rules and allow Guay to serve as a medic [SUPPORT] for an infantry company of the 82nd Airborne.
Under a 1994 policy, women are excluded from units at the level of battalion and below that engage in direct ground combat.
"This war has proven that we need to revisit the policy, because they are out there doing it," Provancha, a 21-year Army veteran from San Diego, said from her base in what soldiers call Mosul's "mortar alley." "We are embedded with the enemy."
Dozens of soldiers interviewed across Iraq -- male and female, from lower enlisted ranks to senior officers -- voiced frustration over restrictions on women mandated in Washington that they say make no sense in the war they are fighting. All said the policy should be changed to allow, at a minimum, mixed-sex support units to be assigned to combat battalions. Many favored a far more radical step: letting qualified women join the infantry.
NOTE - try to COMPREHEND
"SHOULD BE CHANGED....BUT HASN'T BEEN" lol
But Congress is moving in the opposite direction. A House subcommittee, seeking to keep women out of combat, passed a measure this week that would bar women from thousands of Army positions now open to them.
In Iraq, female soldiers immediately denounced the vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 25, 2006 04:24 PM ]
posted on November 25, 2006 04:54:20 PM new
I hope you took the time to read Helen's link too, Linda. Then you will understand what I've been trying to tell you for several years now about the women serving over there. There is no rear area in this war. They all face danger each day.
Moreover, in contrast to their roles in past wars, women are serving in a widening variety of Army ground units -- from logistics to military police, military intelligence and civil affairs -- where they routinely face the same risks as soldiers in all-male combat units such as infantry and armor.
Too bad my original post here about remembering their children during the holidays has set you off so bad that you've had to lie and rant out of control all day. By now I realize that you get pretty bent when anyone shows real support for the troops and cares enough to view them as individuals and not part of YOUR GUY's war machine for more killing.
posted on November 25, 2006 05:08:02 PM new
helen's first link is what I copied and pasted. lol
It agreed with my statements....100%.
The other link I provided on 'War Entertainment: Feminists'.....explained how many of these women WANT to be in direct combat.
But as I've also proven....it is NOT allowed.
That some leaders are 'bending the rules' doesn't CHANGE the rules.
On Jan 11th of this year our CIC ALSO stated no women in direct combat.
These are just 'gung-ho' women soldiers.....three I believe the article mentioned....NOT the majority of women who are in active duty.
kiara conintues to LIE and refuses to admit it HAS been the 'RULES/regulations' that women don't serve in combat....but rather 'SUPPORT' for those in combat.
She'll never 'get' it. Just like she still hasn't 'got' that I knew years ago that women served in our armed forces....they just DIDN'T serve in COMBAT back then.
But...that's her problem.....and she has many to deal with. LOL
==================
gotta say I did get another laugh out of helen's statement 'this ISN'T a conventional war' LOL LOL LOL
We've been trying to tell her that since she argued that the US MUST follow the LETTER of the Geneiva Convention....while we're fighting terrorists - NOT a conventional 'army'. LOL LOL
Guess it just depends on her mood or bad hair days as to which way HER wind blows.
================
And HERE is our C-I-C saying NO...to women in combat:
Even under pressure, President Bush says NO to women in combat.
Maybe someday this will all sink in....but it sure does't appear it's going to easily.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 25, 2006 06:15 PM ]
posted on November 25, 2006 06:20:57 PM new
Keep twisting and spinning, lindak. You've turned into such a silly ditz that you make up things in your head about what I've said and then you believe your own thoughts to such a degree that you rant in long posts for hours about things I've NEVER said.
posted on November 25, 2006 08:17:15 PM new
kiara's projecting once again.
Blaming ME for all the LIES she continues to post here.
Here's a recent long list of lies she told. ALL FALSE of course.....all coming from her own twisted brain/thinking. tsk tsk tsk
kiara - posted on November 13, 2006 06:33:48 PM
Troop Support - Linda_k Style
She ROFL each time more deaths are reported and more coffins come home.
She compares their deaths to traffic accidents and supports comments like 'sh!t happens' and laughs even more.
She doesn't realize women serve in Iraq and Afghanistan but when she is informed she insults them and calls them 'HE-MEN"
She rides on the service of her son thinking that now she has served also while she puts down others who have actually served or have family members serving.
Her LIP SERVICE on Veteran's Day is when she spits venom all over a tribute topic and ridicules those who really go out and support the troops as she posts more hatred over the internet and calls out for more deaths and more war, all the while laughing her head off nonstop.
[ edited by kiara on Nov 13, 2006 06:34 PM ]
=================
kiara has NO ability to see that my laughing is AT HER.....NEVER our brave soldieres. But in her twisted mind....she can't see that.
It's a mental block of some sort....or a strange denial she suffers from. But it's kiara.....lying all the time.
She just now said she didn't say that....but her own words.....OFT repeated are above for anyone who can comprehend what she writes and then DENIES writing.
posted on November 25, 2006 08:34:47 PM newShe just now said she didn't say that....but her own words.....OFT repeated are above for anyone who can comprehend what she writes and then DENIES writing.
I said all of that and even more, lindak. I haven't denied those words as I own them all and do not regret saying any of them. You just now made it up in your head that I denied writing them, you ditz.
But YOU said:
Thank heaven there are men [and maybe women] serving today.
MAYBE:
1. perhaps; possibly:
2. a possibility or uncertainty.
Duh............ keep twisting, it's about the only exercise you get.
posted on November 25, 2006 08:35:09 PM new
And here's the BROKEN RECORD, kaira....back in Aug. of LAST YEAR....STILL going on and on and on and on with this exact same LIE.
It's like she's obsessed.....just can't let it go....MUST continue repeating these lies over and over again.
It's not normal.....not normal at all...but it's kaira.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on November 25, 2006 08:49:00 PM new
Whenever I post any support for the troops, lindak I can be certain that it will keep you ranting for hours afterwards. In your mind the evil lefties cannot possibly care about the troops so it really sets you off whenever you see that they truly do care and are aware of things that you didn't even know about ..... it goes against everything the voices in your head have told you and sends you into a spinning rage.
posted on November 25, 2006 09:17:21 PM new
Here's the original TWO year old thread....that kaira's been HARPING on....lying about for ALL that time.
And there is a second link provided....that was attached WITH this repeated lie...where anyone can easily see kiara reads things that just are NOT there/written.
It's her in her own little 'pretend' world of fantasy.
Pretty sad.
posted on August 30, 2005 08:27:00 AM
kiara - lindak, do you ever start your day without your lips attached to one butt while you're trying to kick another?
Linda - It just gets so old having my statements twisted beyond any recognizable reality
kiara - HEY! It wasn't me that dragged up that old topic about women serving in Iraq and you did not start that thread, lindak. It was started by septembermom.
kiara LYING again - Thread in question where lindak called me evil for mentioning that soldiers were injured, got prosthetics and wanted to make the best of things and go on with their lives.
You read it for yourselves...you decide IF I called kiara evil as she lies about again....repeatedly. >sigh>
kiara - Now can we just move on....
========
twig125silver
posted on August 30, 2005 06:16:28 PM
Now I remember why I stopped reading this thread.....
=========
dblfugger9
posted on August 30, 2005 11:30:30 PM
Thread in question where lindak called me evil for mentioning that soldiers were injured, got prosthetics and wanted to make the best of things and go on with their lives.
I dont see where she called you evil in that thread. All I see is this statement: Maybe that's really the whole problem with your posts here....you don't understand the difference between good and evil. sad, very sad.
=====================
I have never seen anyone who can 'TWIST' and mangle and lie about what has been said.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
She doesn't realize women serve in Iraq and Afghanistan but when she is informed she insults them and calls them 'HE-MEN'
YOU: (conveniently leaving out the Iraq and Afghanistan part like you always do).
She again FALSELY claims I wasn't aware of women servicing in the military. Of course, NONE of the 1000 times I've told her that her ASSUMPTION was incorrect....she STILL can't grasp that SIMPLE concept. tsk tsk tsk
ME:
You were once unaware that women served like this in Iraq and Afghanistan and still seem to be just as ignorant, I never said that you were unaware that women had ever served in the military. So please stop the twisting of my words when you try to cover your ass to hide your ignorance.
YOU: (conveniently leaving out the Iraq and Afghanistan part like you always do).
She'll never 'get' it. Just like she still hasn't 'got' that I knew years ago that women served in our armed forces....they just DIDN'T serve in COMBAT back then.
When you scream LIAR at me, you always neglect to post that I said you were unaware of women serving in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. My words are here and I do not deny any of them.
posted on November 25, 2006 09:43:23 PM new
Hey Kiara, do ya like this one where SHE repeats herself calling YOU not normal for repeating yourself ???LOLOLOL!
""It's like she's obsessed.....just can't let it go....MUST continue repeating these lies over and over again.
posted on November 25, 2006 09:45:39 PM new
I don't EVER expect someone as DENSE as kiara to EVER understand my repeated explanations about that quote.
I have done so repeatedly...to NO avail.
Some people just can't grasp what has been said over and over and over again.....because then they'd have one less LIE to continue posting.
And they wouldn't get their desperately REQUIRED negative attention.
tsk tsk tsk
Please note....not all canadians are like this....some actually are very NORMAL people. honest.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
This topic is 7 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new
