but only a moron would shout his mouth off if it would make things worst
So Rosa Parks was a moron? Or (again), it's okay if you personally agree?
That made things better
So she was right to do it
Let's say that you are an atheist at a gathering of Christians (or vice versa)
Now sure you could say "you all believe in a lie"
That's expressing your beliefs
but if you said it straight to all those dudes and dudettes you would be a moron (and also a twat)
Same with the Pope saying that atheism leads to a moral-less society
Sure he might beleive, it, and he can believe whatever he wants. He can even say whatever he wants
But when he said that in public, he was being a moron. What did that achieve? Nothing, except insulting a bunch of people
Though I wouldn't take away his right to do that, I do criticise him for saying it (both because I disagree, and because it wasn't exactly helpful to atheist/theist relations and that kind of thing)
So a black woman saying to a bus of white men and white women that she was their equal, is a moronic thing to do?
From a certain point of view
Not from mine
But a certain point of view
What I am saying is that people should be free to say whatever they want. But they should expect criticism from certain quarters if they say it. That criticism is acceptable as is what they say.
but only a moron would shout his mouth off if it would make things worst
So Rosa Parks was a moron? Or (again), it's okay if you personally agree?
That made things better
So she was right to do it
Let's say that you are an atheist at a gathering of Christians (or vice versa)
Now sure you could say "you all believe in a lie"
That's expressing your beliefs
but if you said it straight to all those dudes and dudettes you would be a moron (and also a twat)
Same with the Pope saying that atheism leads to a moral-less society
Sure he might beleive, it, and he can believe whatever he wants. He can even say whatever he wants
But when he said that in public, he was being a moron. What did that achieve? Nothing, except insulting a bunch of people
Though I wouldn't take away his right to do that, I do criticise him for saying it (both because I disagree, and because it wasn't exactly helpful to atheist/theist relations and that kind of thing)
So a black woman saying to a bus of white men and white women that she was their equal, is a moronic thing to do?
From a certain point of view
Not from mine
But a certain point of view
What I am saying is that people should be free to say whatever they want. But they should expect criticism from certain quarters if they say it. That criticism is acceptable as is what they say.
I can understand criticizing their argument, I can't understand criticizing their ability or even right to do such. Or that by using the right of free speech they are immoral.
Guys lets talk about less retarded things, like American politics
You know
in the UK I have heard fuck all on the news about any recent American politics
I mean some big things have been happenening lately and they didn't even cover Sander's epic eight hour speechathon
Why?
Fucking weather.
Sometimes (most times) I wish that people would look a little beyond the world directly around them.
The Guardian has a nice story about Detroit shutting off utilities and police services to 25% of the city and trying to encourage residents to move inwards to the serviced areas...
but only a moron would shout his mouth off if it would make things worst
So Rosa Parks was a moron? Or (again), it's okay if you personally agree?
That made things better
So she was right to do it
Let's say that you are an atheist at a gathering of Christians (or vice versa)
Now sure you could say "you all believe in a lie"
That's expressing your beliefs
but if you said it straight to all those dudes and dudettes you would be a moron (and also a twat)
Same with the Pope saying that atheism leads to a moral-less society
Sure he might beleive, it, and he can believe whatever he wants. He can even say whatever he wants
But when he said that in public, he was being a moron. What did that achieve? Nothing, except insulting a bunch of people
Though I wouldn't take away his right to do that, I do criticise him for saying it (both because I disagree, and because it wasn't exactly helpful to atheist/theist relations and that kind of thing)
So a black woman saying to a bus of white men and white women that she was their equal, is a moronic thing to do?
From a certain point of view
Not from mine
But a certain point of view
What I am saying is that people should be free to say whatever they want. But they should expect criticism from certain quarters if they say it. That criticism is acceptable as is what they say.
I can understand criticizing their argument, I can't understand criticizing their ability or even right to do such. Or that by using the right of free speech they are immoral.
but only a moron would shout his mouth off if it would make things worst
So Rosa Parks was a moron? Or (again), it's okay if you personally agree?
That made things better
So she was right to do it
Let's say that you are an atheist at a gathering of Christians (or vice versa)
Now sure you could say "you all believe in a lie"
That's expressing your beliefs
but if you said it straight to all those dudes and dudettes you would be a moron (and also a twat)
Same with the Pope saying that atheism leads to a moral-less society
Sure he might beleive, it, and he can believe whatever he wants. He can even say whatever he wants
But when he said that in public, he was being a moron. What did that achieve? Nothing, except insulting a bunch of people
Though I wouldn't take away his right to do that, I do criticise him for saying it (both because I disagree, and because it wasn't exactly helpful to atheist/theist relations and that kind of thing)
So a black woman saying to a bus of white men and white women that she was their equal, is a moronic thing to do?
From a certain point of view
Not from mine
But a certain point of view
What I am saying is that people should be free to say whatever they want. But they should expect criticism from certain quarters if they say it. That criticism is acceptable as is what they say.
I can understand criticizing their argument, I can't understand criticizing their ability or even right to do such. Or that by using the right of free speech they are immoral.
No, it's not whether you agree with the premise or not, it's whether you are putting people in danger irresponsibly with your words/actions.
Rosa Parks put no one at risk but herself, and what she did galvanized a peaceful movement that never resorted to violence. They were attacked, but they themselves never promoted nor incited violence.
Scott Lively put other people in danger, and has directly influenced a nation to adopt harsher rules on homosexuality as a result of his actions/words.
It has nothing to do with whether you agree or not, or whether it makes things better (in the long run) or not.
Langly on
0
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I really hope the dems manage to use THIS shit the reps did to their political advantage. I'm all against spin usually, but in this case I think the ends justify the meanse
i.e. keeping bigots and idiots away
You have to take some of this with a grain of salt. Most if not all of these bills the Dems are trying to cram at the end are political traps to begin with. They keep adding earmarks and stuff they know Republicans will have trouble supporting so they can label them bigots or whatever since earmarks sunk that one bill last week.
Which is hilarious, since the reason a supermajority is now required to even pass anything through the Senate is because Republicans have made a habit of adding "trap" amendments to every major bill in an effort to frame Democrats for voting against things like "prohibiting the sale of viagra to pedophiles".
Not to mention that earmarks have resoundingly bipartisan support.
And earmarks aren't an inherently bad thing, since more often than not they're pasting over the gaping cracks in infrastructure that the federal government would rather ignore than spend money on.
Earmarks are inherently dishonest as they don't really play a part in the debate over the merits of the primary objective but just grease the palms for negotiation and they are overwhelmingly unpopular with the voting populace right now.
Republicans wanted those earmarks for their states but they resisted getting attached to a $1.2T spending bill because it's that kind of fiscal policy that they successfully campaigned against the past two years.
Guys lets talk about less retarded things, like American politics
You know
in the UK I have heard fuck all on the news about any recent American politics
I mean some big things have been happenening lately and they didn't even cover Sander's epic eight hour speechathon
Why?
Fucking weather.
Sometimes (most times) I wish that people would look a little beyond the world directly around them.
The Guardian has a nice story about Detroit shutting off utilities and police services to 25% of the city and trying to encourage residents to move inwards to the serviced areas...
Is that close enough?
Well it's good that story is there.
But if you listen to the radio or watch tv news there is barely anything on the US ever.
Come one guys the US is the most important country in the world, they cough and we al sneeze. Let's pay attention!
but only a moron would shout his mouth off if it would make things worst
So Rosa Parks was a moron? Or (again), it's okay if you personally agree?
That made things better
So she was right to do it
Let's say that you are an atheist at a gathering of Christians (or vice versa)
Now sure you could say "you all believe in a lie"
That's expressing your beliefs
but if you said it straight to all those dudes and dudettes you would be a moron (and also a twat)
Same with the Pope saying that atheism leads to a moral-less society
Sure he might beleive, it, and he can believe whatever he wants. He can even say whatever he wants
But when he said that in public, he was being a moron. What did that achieve? Nothing, except insulting a bunch of people
Though I wouldn't take away his right to do that, I do criticise him for saying it (both because I disagree, and because it wasn't exactly helpful to atheist/theist relations and that kind of thing)
So a black woman saying to a bus of white men and white women that she was their equal, is a moronic thing to do?
From a certain point of view
Not from mine
But a certain point of view
What I am saying is that people should be free to say whatever they want. But they should expect criticism from certain quarters if they say it. That criticism is acceptable as is what they say.
I can understand criticizing their argument, I can't understand criticizing their ability or even right to do such. Or that by using the right of free speech they are immoral.
No, it's not whether you agree with the premise or not, it's whether you are putting people in danger irresponsibly with your words/actions.
Rosa Parks put no one at risk but herself, and what she did galvanized a peaceful movement that never resorted to violence. They were attacked, but they themselves never promoted nor incited violence.
Scott Lively put other people in danger, and has directly influenced a nation to adopt harsher rules on homosexuality as a result of his actions/words.
It has nothing to do with whether you agree or not, or whether it makes things better (in the long run) or not.
We understand that you believe his use of free speech is immoral.
Jigrah on
0
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
Guys lets talk about less retarded things, like American politics
You know
in the UK I have heard fuck all on the news about any recent American politics
I mean some big things have been happenening lately and they didn't even cover Sander's epic eight hour speechathon
Why?
Fucking weather.
Sometimes (most times) I wish that people would look a little beyond the world directly around them.
The Guardian has a nice story about Detroit shutting off utilities and police services to 25% of the city and trying to encourage residents to move inwards to the serviced areas...
Is that close enough?
Well it's good that story is there.
But if you listen to the radio or watch tv news there is barely anything on the US ever.
Come one guys the US is the most important country in the world, they cough and we al sneeze. Let's pay attention!
Don't you guys have proper comedy and entertainment on TV over there, do you really need this carnival of bullshit?
but only a moron would shout his mouth off if it would make things worst
So Rosa Parks was a moron? Or (again), it's okay if you personally agree?
That made things better
So she was right to do it
Let's say that you are an atheist at a gathering of Christians (or vice versa)
Now sure you could say "you all believe in a lie"
That's expressing your beliefs
but if you said it straight to all those dudes and dudettes you would be a moron (and also a twat)
Same with the Pope saying that atheism leads to a moral-less society
Sure he might beleive, it, and he can believe whatever he wants. He can even say whatever he wants
But when he said that in public, he was being a moron. What did that achieve? Nothing, except insulting a bunch of people
Though I wouldn't take away his right to do that, I do criticise him for saying it (both because I disagree, and because it wasn't exactly helpful to atheist/theist relations and that kind of thing)
So a black woman saying to a bus of white men and white women that she was their equal, is a moronic thing to do?
From a certain point of view
Not from mine
But a certain point of view
What I am saying is that people should be free to say whatever they want. But they should expect criticism from certain quarters if they say it. That criticism is acceptable as is what they say.
I can understand criticizing their argument, I can't understand criticizing their ability or even right to do such. Or that by using the right of free speech they are immoral.
No, it's not whether you agree with the premise or not, it's whether you are putting people in danger irresponsibly with your words/actions.
Rosa Parks put no one at risk but herself, and what she did galvanized a peaceful movement that never resorted to violence. They were attacked, but they themselves never promoted nor incited violence.
Scott Lively put other people in danger, and has directly influenced a nation to adopt harsher rules on homosexuality as a result of his actions/words.
It has nothing to do with whether you agree or not, or whether it makes things better (in the long run) or not.
We understand that you believe his use of free speech is immoral.
I think that Langley's point is more "if you, through your words, create a situation or incite others to lawbreaking, then you are at least in part responsible."
which is, to me, fair enough. If someone says "shoot the gays" and then someone shoots a gay guy and tells the police he did it because the guy on TV said so then the guy on TV should be included in the investigation, and possibly charged with inciting violence.
I really hope the dems manage to use THIS shit the reps did to their political advantage. I'm all against spin usually, but in this case I think the ends justify the meanse
i.e. keeping bigots and idiots away
You have to take some of this with a grain of salt. Most if not all of these bills the Dems are trying to cram at the end are political traps to begin with. They keep adding earmarks and stuff they know Republicans will have trouble supporting so they can label them bigots or whatever since earmarks sunk that one bill last week.
Which is hilarious, since the reason a supermajority is now required to even pass anything through the Senate is because Republicans have made a habit of adding "trap" amendments to every major bill in an effort to frame Democrats for voting against things like "prohibiting the sale of viagra to pedophiles".
Not to mention that earmarks have resoundingly bipartisan support.
And earmarks aren't an inherently bad thing, since more often than not they're pasting over the gaping cracks in infrastructure that the federal government would rather ignore than spend money on.
Earmarks are inherently dishonest as they don't really play a part in the debate over the merits of the primary objective but just grease the palms for negotiation and they are overwhelmingly unpopular with the voting populace right now.
Republicans wanted those earmarks for their states but they resisted getting attached to a $1.2T spending bill because it's that kind of fiscal policy that they successfully campaigned against the past two years.
This, of course, hinges on how you define "successfully campaigned".
If you mean "GOP lawmakers have not attached a single earmark to any piece of legislation for the past two years", you are completely and utterly mistaken.
If you mean "The GOP has been able to demonize earmarks to the voting public while GOP lawmakers continue to take advantage of earmarking funds for their home states", then you're correct.
Right now, the GOP's opposition to earmarks is 100% partisan and ebbs and flows with how they can use it against Democrats. "Earmarks" was a convenient excuse to vote down the spending bill, but if there were no earmarks at all the Senate GOP would have conjured up some other excuse to filibuster it.
Guys lets talk about less retarded things, like American politics
You know
in the UK I have heard fuck all on the news about any recent American politics
I mean some big things have been happenening lately and they didn't even cover Sander's epic eight hour speechathon
Why?
Fucking weather.
Sometimes (most times) I wish that people would look a little beyond the world directly around them.
The Guardian has a nice story about Detroit shutting off utilities and police services to 25% of the city and trying to encourage residents to move inwards to the serviced areas...
Is that close enough?
Well it's good that story is there.
But if you listen to the radio or watch tv news there is barely anything on the US ever.
Come one guys the US is the most important country in the world, they cough and we al sneeze. Let's pay attention!
Don't you guys have proper comedy and entertainment on TV over there, do you really need this carnival of bullshit?
I hate British TV, but even if I didn't, paying attention to the wider world is something everyone should be doing.
We might not want to hear about the US government's bullshit
But it is probably better if we do
Solar on
0
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
Stop quoting giant blocks of replies. You fuckers.
I think that Langley's point is more "if you, through your words, create a situation or incite others to lawbreaking, then you are at least in part responsible."
which is, to me, fair enough. If someone says "shoot the gays" and then someone shoots a gay guy and tells the police he did it because the guy on TV said so then the guy on TV should be included in the investigation, and possibly charged with inciting violence.
So when Tossrock wished I got hit by a bus, and Rane decides to bury me in the back of a suburban, Tossrock should be charged?
Lets assume I did get hit by a bus, because someone thought tossrock knew best. Does he become immoral?
If nothing happened, wouldn't the fact that Tossrock did specify he hoped I got hit by a bus, make him immoral?
Jigrah on
0
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
Aw man
I thought Deacon was permabanned after that whole "i pretended to be black but i'm not so YOU'RE ALL RACIST" thing
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
i understand the theoretical purpose of earmarks but at this point they are such garbage, and i am very interested to see how the republican no-earmark manifesto will play out
i understand the theoretical purpose of earmarks but at this point they are such garbage, and i am very interested to see how the republican no-earmark manifesto will play out
i understand the theoretical purpose of earmarks but at this point they are such garbage, and i am very interested to see how the republican no-earmark manifesto will play out
I think that Langley's point is more "if you, through your words, create a situation or incite others to lawbreaking, then you are at least in part responsible."
which is, to me, fair enough. If someone says "shoot the gays" and then someone shoots a gay guy and tells the police he did it because the guy on TV said so then the guy on TV should be included in the investigation, and possibly charged with inciting violence.
So when Tossrock wished I got hit by a bus, and Rane decides to bury me in the back of a suburban, Tossrock should be charged?
Lets assume I did get hit by a bus, because someone thought tossrock knew best. Does he become immoral?
If nothing happened, wouldn't the fact that Tossrock did specify he hoped I got hit by a bus, make him immoral?
First of all, no, because you're talking about something said in sarcasm and jest, and not a massively public tent revival.
Secondly, if someone seriously said you should be killed, and someone who heard that killed you, then yes that person should be in some way held responsible.
I think that Langley's point is more "if you, through your words, create a situation or incite others to lawbreaking, then you are at least in part responsible."
which is, to me, fair enough. If someone says "shoot the gays" and then someone shoots a gay guy and tells the police he did it because the guy on TV said so then the guy on TV should be included in the investigation, and possibly charged with inciting violence.
So when Tossrock wished I got hit by a bus, and Rane decides to bury me in the back of a suburban, Tossrock should be charged?
Lets assume I did get hit by a bus, because someone thought tossrock knew best. Does he become immoral?
If nothing happened, wouldn't the fact that Tossrock did specify he hoped I got hit by a bus, make him immoral?
Tossrock isn't asking bros to go out and kill you
like in my example
He is not inciting that violence
It is just that lots of people seem to want to kill you
If Tossrock said "Someone should turn that fucker Jigrah into roadkill"
and then someone flattened you with a 4x4
Then I would say that Tossrock has incited that violence, and if it can be proven within reason that the dude who flattened you did it because Tossrock said so, then he should be charged. Theere is a debate about whether Tossrock said it in jest or not, which would come out in the trail, let's be sensible. But if you go on TV and make a statement inciting violence, then you should be culpable for the violence should it happen.
I really hope the dems manage to use THIS shit the reps did to their political advantage. I'm all against spin usually, but in this case I think the ends justify the meanse
i.e. keeping bigots and idiots away
You have to take some of this with a grain of salt. Most if not all of these bills the Dems are trying to cram at the end are political traps to begin with. They keep adding earmarks and stuff they know Republicans will have trouble supporting so they can label them bigots or whatever since earmarks sunk that one bill last week.
Which is hilarious, since the reason a supermajority is now required to even pass anything through the Senate is because Republicans have made a habit of adding "trap" amendments to every major bill in an effort to frame Democrats for voting against things like "prohibiting the sale of viagra to pedophiles".
Not to mention that earmarks have resoundingly bipartisan support.
And earmarks aren't an inherently bad thing, since more often than not they're pasting over the gaping cracks in infrastructure that the federal government would rather ignore than spend money on.
Earmarks are inherently dishonest as they don't really play a part in the debate over the merits of the primary objective but just grease the palms for negotiation and they are overwhelmingly unpopular with the voting populace right now.
Republicans wanted those earmarks for their states but they resisted getting attached to a $1.2T spending bill because it's that kind of fiscal policy that they successfully campaigned against the past two years.
This, of course, hinges on how you define "successfully campaigned".
If you mean "GOP lawmakers have not attached a single earmark to any piece of legislation for the past two years", you are completely and utterly mistaken.
If you mean "The GOP has been able to demonize earmarks to the voting public while GOP lawmakers continue to take advantage of earmarking funds for their home states", then you're correct.
Right now, the GOP's opposition to earmarks is 100% partisan and ebbs and flows with how they can use it against Democrats. "Earmarks" was a convenient excuse to vote down the spending bill, but if there were no earmarks at all the Senate GOP would have conjured up some other excuse to filibuster it.
What they successfully campaigned against was massive spending bills which is what I said in my post. The earmarks (which as I said they wanted) weren't the convenient excuse at all. They were put in to try and entice them to vote for a huge spending bill they otherwise might not have supported and would have put a huge dent in their attempts to regain the reputation of fiscal responsibility the GOP has long lost.
First of all, no, because you're talking about something said in sarcasm and jest, and not a massively public tent revival.
Secondly, if someone seriously said you should be killed, and someone who heard that killed you, then yes that person should be in some way held responsible.
I'm fairly certain that that sort of thing is illegal in America.
Mind you, I haven't read your previous arguments. I've no fucking clue what you bitches are bitching about.
Posts
From a certain point of view
Not from mine
But a certain point of view
What I am saying is that people should be free to say whatever they want. But they should expect criticism from certain quarters if they say it. That criticism is acceptable as is what they say.
lol
https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/1JI9WWSRW1YJI
I can understand criticizing their argument, I can't understand criticizing their ability or even right to do such. Or that by using the right of free speech they are immoral.
You know
in the UK I have heard fuck all on the news about any recent American politics
I mean some big things have been happenening lately and they didn't even cover Sander's epic eight hour speechathon
Why?
Fucking weather.
Sometimes (most times) I wish that people would look a little beyond the world directly around them.
How close you were to the back of the bus directly correlated to your popularity/status when I was in school.
The Guardian has a nice story about Detroit shutting off utilities and police services to 25% of the city and trying to encourage residents to move inwards to the serviced areas...
Is that close enough?
Well yeah I agree
These people can say what they want
And people can criticise them all they want
Earmarks are inherently dishonest as they don't really play a part in the debate over the merits of the primary objective but just grease the palms for negotiation and they are overwhelmingly unpopular with the voting populace right now.
Republicans wanted those earmarks for their states but they resisted getting attached to a $1.2T spending bill because it's that kind of fiscal policy that they successfully campaigned against the past two years.
Well it's good that story is there.
But if you listen to the radio or watch tv news there is barely anything on the US ever.
Come one guys the US is the most important country in the world, they cough and we al sneeze. Let's pay attention!
We understand that you believe his use of free speech is immoral.
Don't you guys have proper comedy and entertainment on TV over there, do you really need this carnival of bullshit?
I think that Langley's point is more "if you, through your words, create a situation or incite others to lawbreaking, then you are at least in part responsible."
which is, to me, fair enough. If someone says "shoot the gays" and then someone shoots a gay guy and tells the police he did it because the guy on TV said so then the guy on TV should be included in the investigation, and possibly charged with inciting violence.
This, of course, hinges on how you define "successfully campaigned".
If you mean "GOP lawmakers have not attached a single earmark to any piece of legislation for the past two years", you are completely and utterly mistaken.
If you mean "The GOP has been able to demonize earmarks to the voting public while GOP lawmakers continue to take advantage of earmarking funds for their home states", then you're correct.
Right now, the GOP's opposition to earmarks is 100% partisan and ebbs and flows with how they can use it against Democrats. "Earmarks" was a convenient excuse to vote down the spending bill, but if there were no earmarks at all the Senate GOP would have conjured up some other excuse to filibuster it.
Because that's what they do.
Edit: Odd that both the House and Senate GOP refuse to ban something they claim to oppose, even though it's "overwhelmingly unpopular" with the voters.
I hate British TV, but even if I didn't, paying attention to the wider world is something everyone should be doing.
We might not want to hear about the US government's bullshit
But it is probably better if we do
Also, Deacon ruined Christmas.
The noble art of speaking lots
So when Tossrock wished I got hit by a bus, and Rane decides to bury me in the back of a suburban, Tossrock should be charged?
Lets assume I did get hit by a bus, because someone thought tossrock knew best. Does he become immoral?
If nothing happened, wouldn't the fact that Tossrock did specify he hoped I got hit by a bus, make him immoral?
I thought Deacon was permabanned after that whole "i pretended to be black but i'm not so YOU'RE ALL RACIST" thing
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Fuck sake...
Deacon's taking a break, I'm just covering for him a bit.
Yes, if you can't trust the GOP to be honest about earmarks, who can you trust?
The answer? Not the fucking "Tea Party Caucus", either.
I've never even been temp banned, just FYI.
First of all, no, because you're talking about something said in sarcasm and jest, and not a massively public tent revival.
Secondly, if someone seriously said you should be killed, and someone who heard that killed you, then yes that person should be in some way held responsible.
Tossrock isn't asking bros to go out and kill you
like in my example
He is not inciting that violence
It is just that lots of people seem to want to kill you
If Tossrock said "Someone should turn that fucker Jigrah into roadkill"
and then someone flattened you with a 4x4
Then I would say that Tossrock has incited that violence, and if it can be proven within reason that the dude who flattened you did it because Tossrock said so, then he should be charged. Theere is a debate about whether Tossrock said it in jest or not, which would come out in the trail, let's be sensible. But if you go on TV and make a statement inciting violence, then you should be culpable for the violence should it happen.
EDIT: heheh Toss
post some pictures of Red Pandas
That's what we all need this Christmas
Never change, Joe.
This thread just got interesting
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
What they successfully campaigned against was massive spending bills which is what I said in my post. The earmarks (which as I said they wanted) weren't the convenient excuse at all. They were put in to try and entice them to vote for a huge spending bill they otherwise might not have supported and would have put a huge dent in their attempts to regain the reputation of fiscal responsibility the GOP has long lost.
I ruined your gf the other night bro.
Mind you, I haven't read your previous arguments. I've no fucking clue what you bitches are bitching about.
you bad boy you