glassgowkiss Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 this is the list of people who voted against new GI Bill in the senate. the same fucking morons who voted for going to war now want to deny soldiers benefits. vote the fuck out. nothing more then a bunch of cunts Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Kyl (R-AZ) Lugar (R-IN) McConnell (R-KY) Sessions (R-AL) Voinovich (R-OH) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canyondweller Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 We don't like you much, either. Â Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 this thread did well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 .... nothing more then a bunch of cunts... Â WOHHHH, that seems denigrating to women dude. The Cunt part. You might rethink that part of your post. Â Like this: Â Denigrating yes, but just for this woman, not all women like you got going. Â PS, do we have to sequentially move to those states and vote each election till they're all gone? I don't see anyone I recognize. PS I got Hillary on the phone and she wants to talk about this issue. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008  Coming out of the woodwork.  McCain Rejects Hagee Backing as Nazi Remarks Surface By Michael Luo SAN JOSE—Senator John McCain rejected the endorsement on Thursday of the evangelical leader, the Rev. John C. Hagee, three stormy months after it was first announced as part of an effort to shore up Mr. McCain’s standing among Christian conservatives. The rejection of Mr. Hagee’s endorsement occurred after another controversial sermon from the televangelist and pastor of Cornerstone, a mega-church in San Antonio, surfaced in which he argued that biblical verses made clear that Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust was part of God’s plan to chase the Jews from Europe and drive them to Palestine... Mr. Hagee’s controversial views are explained in part by his adherence to what is known in evangelical circles as dispensationalism, a literalistic approach to biblical prophecy that places a special emphasis on the role of the nation of Israel in the end of history.  Dispensationalists, who scholars say likely represent a vocal but small faction of evangelicals, believe that Israelites’ return to the promised land are a requirement of the second coming of Jesus Christ.  Mr. McCain’s advisers have admitted they did not vet Mr. Hagee’s background enough, although they began seeking his endorsement more than a year ago.--from NYT 5/22/08  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canyondweller Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 PS I got Hillary on the phone and she wants to talk about this issue. Â Â I thought Bill was the Clinton who was concerned about cum dumpsters. Maybe I was mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spotly Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Burr and the other ®s didn't vote against the veterans-just against this package. Burr's version offered veterans some pretty exceptional benefits but unlike the (D)'s version, which offered the same benefits across the board regardless of time served, the ®'s considered that studies showed the (D)'s package would adversely affect retention and so offered a package that increased the benefits per individual based on the amount of time served. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Burr and the other ®s didn't vote against the veterans-just against this package. Burr's version offered veterans some pretty exceptional benefits but unlike the (D)'s version, which offered the same benefits across the board regardless of time served, the ®'s considered that studies showed the (D)'s package would adversely affect retention and so offered a package that increased the benefits per individual based on the amount of time served.  This sounds like a Paul Harvey "And now.............the rest of the story" kind of thing........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Hey Bill......sweet pic of jim in the other thread.....I tried to add to it a little..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Burr and the other ®s didn't vote against the veterans-just against this package. Burr's version offered veterans some pretty exceptional benefits but unlike the (D)'s version, which offered the same benefits across the board regardless of time served, the ®'s considered that studies showed the (D)'s package would adversely affect retention and so offered a package that increased the benefits per individual based on the amount of time served.  Please don't attempt adding any clarity to Glasscowsuck's distorted view of American politics. He is...mmm...how you say...a stupid fuck mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I would say you have the distorted view of American Politics.....you voted for Bush....nuff said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 your spelling of distorted is distorted. notice that i did not say "you're spelling of distored is distored". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I would say you have the distored view of American Politics.....you voted for Bush....nuff said! Â I believe he voted for him TWICE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 happy birthday matt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I would say you have the distored view of American Politics.....you voted for Bush....nuff said! Â I believe he voted for him TWICE. Â Â Would that be a double distort? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 We need a separate Happy Brithday mattp thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Burr and the other ®s didn't vote against the veterans-just against this package. Burr's version offered veterans some pretty exceptional benefits but unlike the (D)'s version, which offered the same benefits across the board regardless of time served, the ®'s considered that studies showed the (D)'s package would adversely affect retention and so offered a package that increased the benefits per individual based on the amount of time served.  Please don't attempt adding any clarity to Glasscowsuck's distorted view of American politics. He is...mmm...how you say...a stupid fuck mother.  Let's be specific here. The Dems package included increasing the amount that would be paid for college, which has not kept up with the cost of 4 yr schools. The Dems also wanted someone who was in the reserves, went to Iraq, to be paid the cost of continuing their education. The way it works not is that if you complete your tour and finish your commitment of your tenure, but don't resign up, you lose your benefits. So the only way you can get an education is to continue sign up in the reserve and continue to get pulled over to the action. Basically it's a veteran's benefit except you don't get it unless you stay in active duty. WTF?  The Repubs are "concerned" that after two or three tours of Iraq a person might feel that was enough and decide to use their benefits, get a degree, and move on to another career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glm Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 I think this is very insulting to "cunts", by which, I presume you mean women? perhaps republicans=steaming piles, or something like that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted May 27, 2008 Author Share Posted May 27, 2008 I think this is very insulting to "cunts", by which, I presume you mean women? perhaps republicans=steaming piles, or something like that... where the fuck did you get this idea? cunt is a quite popular british expression basically describing a dumb fuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted May 27, 2008 Author Share Posted May 27, 2008 Burr and the other ®s didn't vote against the veterans-just against this package. Burr's version offered veterans some pretty exceptional benefits but unlike the (D)'s version, which offered the same benefits across the board regardless of time served, the ®'s considered that studies showed the (D)'s package would adversely affect retention and so offered a package that increased the benefits per individual based on the amount of time served.  does this make any sense to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 I think this is very insulting to "cunts", by which, I presume you mean women? perhaps republicans=steaming piles, or something like that... where the fuck did you get this idea? cunt is a quite popular british expression basically describing a dumb fuck. Â This isn't Britain, cunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Burr and the other ®s didn't vote against the veterans-just against this package. Burr's version offered veterans some pretty exceptional benefits but unlike the (D)'s version, which offered the same benefits across the board regardless of time served, the ®'s considered that studies showed the (D)'s package would adversely affect retention and so offered a package that increased the benefits per individual based on the amount of time served.  does this make any sense to you?  Yes, it is in English. Unlike your posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Burr and the other ®s didn't vote against the veterans-just against this package. Burr's version offered veterans some pretty exceptional benefits but unlike the (D)'s version, which offered the same benefits across the board regardless of time served, the ®'s considered that studies showed the (D)'s package would adversely affect retention and so offered a package that increased the benefits per individual based on the amount of time served.  does this make any sense to you? Makes all the sense in the world. More time served => better benefit package. Seems like a very republican thing to do.  If you served, say, 10 years and got the same benefit package of someone who served only, say, 2 years, what would be your motivation to stay in the extra 8 years? Does that clear it up any? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 the only reason you'd be able to serve 2 years if you would be unfit to finish your contract- which is 4 years. and how do you compare- 2 years of tours of duties or sorting parts in a warehouse in kansas for 10 years?! why in the hell a 10 year desk jockey should get better benefits then a front line grunt, who gets legs blown off after let's say 6 mo of service? that's exactly the cunt mentality of republicans i am talking about. your argument is totally stupid and without an inch of reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 I think this is very insulting to "cunts", by which, I presume you mean women? perhaps republicans=steaming piles, or something like that... where the fuck did you get this idea? cunt is a quite popular british expression basically describing a dumb fuck. Â This isn't Britain, cunt. whom do you call cunt you fucking cunt. go and feltch on some republican ass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.