Teabaggers and republicans: misogynic till their last breath

[quote=CuteOldGuy;2699973]Here ya go, Munchie. Now, tell us. What are the good parts of this bill that would warrant passage?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4970

Remember, you brought it up. Why does opposing this bill make one misogynic? Hello. Moron. Since I opposed it too, how the fuck would I know the answer to your un-informed ass question?

Oh, and what is a "potential independent"?Look it up[/quote]

Why would I look at reasons to pass it when I saw so many reasons to vote against it? Fix it and bring it back.

The funniest thing is you still don't understand what or who is on what side

ButtMunch, er, sorry, I mean, but Munchie, you were the one who told us the bill was good, and anyone who opposed it was mysogynistic. I just want to know why you said that. Is that so hard? I don't know if it's a bad bill or a good bill. I thought you did, since you took such a stand on it. I just wanted to know what part of it was so good it demanded passage. Sheesh. I didn't even disagree with you, and you fly off the handle. I don't think you should be drinking coffee after 3pm. It's not good for you.

Now you're saying you opposed the bill as well? Then you are a mysonygist?

And I'm the one who doesn't understand. Hmmm . . . Okay. Whatever, Munchie.

Fondling congressional pages??? I thought Gerry Studds was dead.

Misogyny??? What is the word for fear of government?

Started reading it, then started scanning it, then started skipping around the bill...

What a poorly written piece of crap! Why don't they just say rape is bad, you will not rape women. Instead we have to itemize Indian women (their word), college women, women with disabilities, illegal alien women, black women, asian women, young underage women, elderly women, women under the influence, married women, single women, estranged women, widowed women, etc.

You should read the one about "sex trafficking" and their definitions list. It would suck to get federal prosecution for sex trafficking if you cross the state line for a visit to an AMP.

Other than the fact that's not the topic of this post, the fact your mind is so set in concrete that you would drown in 5 inches of water, and since you bitch about cutting and pasting, you'll just have to do your own research.
A word to the wise (and you too), don't ask speedman, 2bitches, or cog for help.



No shit sherlock. It did occur to me there were some problems. That's why 23 House Republicans voted against it. Or are you pointing out the fact that republicans vote against some bills even when there is nothing wrong with them?



Then read it you fucking moron. Jesus Fucking Christ!

A few things.
I’ve read enough to form an opinion. And I agree with 23 House Republicans and 68% of the Senate. 23 opposed the republican sponsored bill in the house. 68% of the Senate, including every republican woman, was pro-senate bill.When can the knowledge that virtually no Congressperson reads an entire bill. Especially if the person is not an attorney. Huge percentages of the pages are nothing but lawyer speak. They have to make it so there are no loop holes left that can totally negate the intent of the law. Claiming someone who hasn’t read an entire piece of legislation can’t know if it’s good or not, is bullshit. They have a staff to read other bills and to put the bills together. Duh.

Not my job to keep you up with the times. Everyone on this site knows why I’m not going to waste my time explaining something to you. If only you had read it.

If you had read it we could have discussed it. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

ButtMunch, er, sorry, I mean, but Munchie, you were the one who told us the bill was good, and anyone who opposed it was mysogynistic. I just want to know why you said that. Is that so hard? I don't know if it's a bad bill or a good bill. There are 2 versions of the bill. A house version and a senate version. Understand? The democratic senate version was approved, 68%, etc, etc. The republican house version was opposed by 23 Republicans. Like I said, how can I have a discussion with someone that is ignorant?
To quote the rejection letter in John Grishams "The Rain Maker",
You must be Stupid!
Stupid!
Stupid!
Stupid! I thought you did, since you took such a stand on it. I just wanted to know what part of it was so good it demanded passage. Sheesh. I didn't even disagree with you, and you fly off the handle. I don't think you should be drinking coffee after 3pm. It's not good for you. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Now you're saying you opposed the bill as well? Then you are a mysonygist?

And I'm the one who doesn't understand. Hmmm . . . Okay. Whatever, Munchie. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You have proven you know nothing about this.

Please don't equate Tea Baggers with Republicans. We are against both partys as we wish for a group that will uphold the Constitution and cut spending.

Fondling congressional pages??? I thought Gerry Studds was dead.

Misogyny??? What is the word for fear of government? Try to pretend you are a teacher. Come prepared for class. Look it up.

Started reading it, then started scanning it, then started skipping around the bill...

What a poorly written piece of crap! Why don't they just say rape is bad, you will not rape women. Instead we have to itemize Indian women (their word), college women, women with disabilities, illegal alien women, black women, asian women, young underage women, elderly women, women under the influence, married women, single women, estranged women, widowed women, etc.

You should read the one about "sex trafficking" and their definitions list. It would suck to get federal prosecution for sex trafficking if you cross the state line for a visit to an AMP. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Read post 11 for why nobody reads them all and as to why the bills say what they say.

Or do you dispute my saying hardly any of the congresspeople read entire bills? If you don't dispute it, you agree with it. If you don't dispute it and you don't agree with it, what then?

Please don't equate Tea Baggers with Republicans. We are against both partys as we wish for a group that will uphold the Constitution and cut spending. Originally Posted by tucson

Sorry if I implied they are the same thing. They are not. They both hold forth lofty ideals, but they deliver ........less. Much less.
I have issues with both but there are some different reasons for both.
Many times they stand together.

Sorry if I implied they are the same thing. They are not. They both hold forth lofty ideals, but they deliver ........less. Much less.
I have issues with both but there are some different reasons for both.
Much more often than not, they stand together. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

There, I fixed it for you!

Fondling congressional pages??? I thought Gerry Studds was dead.

Misogyny??? What is the word for fear of government?

Started reading it, then started scanning it, then started skipping around the bill...

What a poorly written piece of crap! Why don't they just say rape is bad, you will not rape women. Instead we have to itemize Indian women (their word), college women, women with disabilities, illegal alien women, black women, asian women, young underage women, elderly women, women under the influence, married women, single women, estranged women, widowed women, etc.

You should read the one about "sex trafficking" and their definitions list. It would suck to get federal prosecution for sex trafficking if you cross the state line for a visit to an AMP. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Gerry Studds was a Democrat from Massachusetts. He was censured by Congress for having sex with a seventeen year old congressional male page. The people of Massachustetts re-elected him several times after the sex scandal. Studds died in 2004 at the age of 69. He is survived by his husband Dean Hara.

The people of Massachusetts are infamous for having no moral standards. They re-elected Ted Kennedy after Chappaquiddick. They re-elected Barney Frank after his live in boyfriend got busted for running a gay prostitution service out of Frank's Georgetown townhouse.

OP

Dude, you need more practice dealing with the GOP. This bill as introduced was meant to remove unofficial protections being funded for illegal immigrant and gay victims.

1. If the bill is GOP sponsored, it's name is general the opposite of it's intention. Think Patriot Act.

2. Check the organizations opposing or supporting.

Let's keep this on topic and let's cut out the name calling and insults. This is exactly why we don't have a political forum. My finger is on the point button.

The real number you should be talking about is "zero". (see nothing, null, less than something, zilch, nada) That is how many votes were cast in favor of Obama's budget in both the house and senate. Who said they couldn't be bipartisan?

If you guys are staunch democrats what do you care what the other side is? You'll be against it no matter what. Are you wanting people that are easier to fight? Munch I did catch where you said you disagreed with it. I'd like to know what exactly you disagreed with? Just wondering.

Chipper I thought that was the point of this forum. I read the rules and it plainly says "enter at own risk" have things changed?

It's nice to have a place you can call a dumbass a dumbass.