Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

Post the date of the citation.


 

If it's important to you, go ahead and post it. I'm not here to do your bidding.
 

Huey » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

If it's important to you, 

Acknowledge that you ran from acknowledging another objective fact.

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Acknowledge that you ran from acknowledging another objective fact.

 

If it's important to you, go ahead and post it. I'm not here to do your bidding.  You didn't post a fact, you posted a demand.

 

Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

If it's important to you

It is important to you.

You're making an issue of it.

And running.

You always run.

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

It is important to you.

You're making an issue of it.

And running.

You always run.

 

I did not say anything wrong.  I said you bumped an old thread.  This thread is from March.  It is an old thread.  YOU run to it when getting your flabby old *** kicked.
 

Huey » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

I did not say anything wrong.  I said you bumped an old thread.  This thread is from March.  It is an old thread.  YOU run to it when getting your flabby old *** kicked.

You make these claims whenever you're getting your *** kicked.

Now acknowledge the objective fact, as you insist you do.

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

You make these claims whenever you're getting your *** kicked.

Now acknowledge the objective fact, as you insist you do.

 

Old man, I didn't run and bump an old thread.

I promise to acknowledge objective fact if and when you post it.  It is not objective fact administration officials knowing lied.  It is objective fact that there was a 5 or 6 person difference. 

The question is can YOU acknowledge objective fact, Old Man. 
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:15 am

There's reason why it isn't "person".

Each person has their own brain, but people that mind a social consensus don't navigate by their own brain for hundreds of generation gaps lived so far each heartbeat added since conception.

Date of birth isn't day conceived by its two biological parents.

Your reality is constantly inaccurate about evolving in plain sight. It is accurate about how persons behave as a social enterprise of people commanding last generation arrivals to obey all previous generations or else.

Huey » 48 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

48 minutes ago

Old man, I didn't run and bump an old thread.

I promise to acknowledge objective fact if and when you post it.  It is not objective fact administration officials knowing lied.  It is objective fact that there was a 5 or 6 person difference. 

The question is can YOU acknowledge objective fact, Old Man.

Tiny,


They "reclassified" existing casualties.

When caught, they reversed it...

The question is can YOU acknowledge objective fact, Old Man.

 No....it's whether you can distinguish it.

 

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

Tiny,


They "reclassified" existing casualties.

When caught, they reversed it...

 No....it's whether you can distinguish it.

 

 

Umm, Tiny...is that an example of you be able to hang and not make it personal.  Let me now when you ready to start and I will as well.

AI

The official U.S. military death toll in the war with Iran stands at 19 service members, though internal defense tallies and independent estimates place total regional deaths between 22 and 23. [1, 2]

U.S. Military Casualties

• Total Confirmed Deaths: 19 recorded in the public Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) database. [1, 2]

• Categories: 14 deaths are classified directly under Operation Epic Fury, while 5 are listed under a separate Overseas Operations category following shifts in the conflict's status and subsequent fighting. [1, 2]

 

Blackvegetable » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

Tiny,


They "reclassified" existing casualties.

When caught, they reversed it...

 No....it's whether you can distinguish it.

 

 

Also, 6 of the deaths are when the KC 135s had a mid air over Iraq.
 

Huey » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Also, 6 of the deaths are when the KC 135s had a mid air over Iraq.

Yes, the Official Excuse...to deny the widows full benefits. 


You're all about the troops, Toady.

Huey » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

Umm, Tiny...is that an example of you be able to hang and not make it personal.  Let me now when you ready to start and I will as well.

AI

The official U.S. military death toll in the war with Iran stands at 19 service members, though internal defense tallies and independent estimates place total regional deaths between 22 and 23. [1, 2]

U.S. Military Casualties

• Total Confirmed Deaths: 19 recorded in the public Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) database. [1, 2]

• Categories: 14 deaths are classified directly under Operation Epic Fury, while 5 are listed under a separate Overseas Operations category following shifts in the conflict's status and subsequent fighting. [1, 2]

You go to AI, to prove you "hang"..

Blackvegetable » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

Yes, the Official Excuse...to deny the widows full benefits. 


You're all about the troops, Toady.

 

What benefits are going to deny the widows?  I also you are still not ready to show us how to hang without insults.  What a **** fraud you are.

And after years of saying servicemembers suck at the teat of government you are suddenly for them?  

Blackvegetable » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

You go to AI, to prove you "hang"..

 

Those are sourced.

Huey » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

Those are sourced.

So was everything I said when we covered this weeks ago.

With the sources for which you are substituting an AI constructed narrative.




 

Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

What benefits are going to deny the widows?  

I suggest you learn about it.

I've already posted it.

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

So was everything I said when we covered this weeks ago.

With the sources for which you are substituting an AI constructed narrative.




 

 

No, I am constructing a sourced narrative.  Calling them Liars is an opinion.  I just reported the facts.  No opinion.
 

Blackvegetable » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

I suggest you learn about it.

I've already posted it.

 

****.  

AI Overview
Yes, survivors of service members who die from combat or in the line of duty on active duty receive substantial immediate and long-er term benefits that are significantly higher than standard veteran benefits. [1]

In the line of duty can be at Ft Lee, Va.  

Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

No, I am constructing a sourced narrative.  Calling them Liars is an opinion.  I just reported the facts.  No opinion.

You don't understand the limits of AI...

And you sure as **** don't know to ask the right questions.