On Voting Republicans Out Of Office

@RexRed,

The stimulus was supposed to build that infrastructure. Remember shovel ready jobs? The money got pissed away in Obamas never ending campaign.

1 Reply

Quote:

DHS buying 6X underwear for fat illegal aliens thanks to U.S. taxpayers

Quote:

We have had to endure one of the most absurd weeks regarding American politics. I believe this one says it all. Obama is shipping illegal gang banger kids from South of the border into our neighborhoods without so much as telling the Governors of the States involved. At least we can feel great that when they strut their stuff with their pants hanging around the low-end of their butt, we will have paid for their underwear. Anyone want to bet they weren’t made in the good old USA? On second thought, just who are these size 6 Xeres? How did they get over the so-called “dang fence” to coin a word from McCain.

Your tax dollars, hard at work.

1 White 100% Cotton Men’s Briefs Size: Medium Per Dozen – 600 DZ
2 White 100% Cotton Men’s Briefs Size: Large Per Dozen – 600
3 White 100% Cotton Men’s Briefs Size: X-Large Per Dozen – 600
4 White 100% Cotton Men’s Briefs Size: 2X-Large Per Dozen – 400
5 White 100% Cotton Men’s Briefs Size: 3X-Large Per Dozen – 400
6 White 100% Cotton Men’s Briefs Size: 4X-Large Per Dozen – 400
7 White 100% Cotton Men’s Briefs Size: 5X-Large Per Dozen – 300
8 White 100% Cotton Men’s Briefs Size: 6X-Large Per Dozen – 200

45,000 pair. Yes, a good start.

http://bunkerville.wordpress.com/page/3/

0 Replies

Behold, the drunk uncle-ization of America
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-talk-huppke-drunk-uncle-20140708,0,615165.story

Got a busload of immigrant children? We'll scream at 'em.

1 Reply

Do Republicans Want America to Become a Third World Country?
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/do-republicans-want-america-to-become-a-third-world-country

1 Reply

@RexRed,

Quote:

Got a busload of immigrant children? We'll scream at 'em.

They will pay for them too. And that is what they are screaming about. You are awful anxious to give away others money.

2 Replies

https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t1.0-9/10489620_334595493364197_2856029760709764883_n.jpg

Once again CJ thinks I am reading his retarded replies.

0 Replies

@RexRed,

You already posted this meme.

0 Replies

https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10449162_289297764585439_355158776335263483_n.jpg

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Whats the break down?

What break down?
Fox's median age of their viewers is 68.8. The number of viewers 55 or younger is dropping for Fox.

Ads are priced based on viewers between the age of 24-55 since those ages are the prime consumers for products advertised on TV.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

I looked up your bill, and you are full of ****.

Here is the wording in the bill.

Quote:
In divorce, separation, or 209A proceedings involving children and a marital home, the party remaining in the home shall not conduct a dating or sexual relationship within the home until a divorce is final and all financial and custody issues are resolved, unless the express permission is granted by the courts.

You are OK with a government that tells people over 18 when they can date or have sexual relations?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
Got a busload of immigrant children? We'll scream at 'em.

They will pay for them too. And that is what they are screaming about. You are awful anxious to give away others money.

Do you want Obama to make laws without Congress?

You conservatives (the ones like you Pinkie) are really stupid. You only want to bitch but you really don't want to think about the reality of anything. The law signed by Bush says Obama can't send them back. You complain when Obama follows the law. What a bunch of MORONS.

1 Reply

@parados,

It simply states no dating or sex in the marital home until the divorce is completed, this only applies if there are children involved in divorce. It doesn't say they can't date or have sex. It's a small limitation to protect the children.

You guys like to talk about the kids and everything is about the kids. So this is going to help the children. How do children feel when mommy or daddy brings someone home that isn't their parent? Confusion? How about if the parent is bringing home a new "date" every weekend? Should the children be subjected to this? Until a divorce is completed neither parent should involve their children in their dating life.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

A small limitation? Right. It's only a small limitation when the government says what you can do in the bedroom of your home.

1 Reply

@parados,

But it isn't that persons home just yet is it? It's a marital home. Once the divorce is finished then it will solely belong to the home owner, until then it is still jointly owned. As I also noted, this applies to both sexes. Seeing as how I'm going through a divorce right now, I can see why this makes sense. I don't care if my soon to be ex-wife is having sex with other people, just don't do it in the home where our children are. Don't bring home any dates you have and introduce them to the kids because the kids don't need the added confusion.

To be honest, it sounds like a common sense thing that shouldn't have to be a law, but we have a lot of selfish people that don't think of the consequences to their children. It becomes about the parent and the parent only.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

It's ridiculous no matter how you try to defend the language.

This is what they are adding the language to:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleIII/Chapter208/Section31

It allows for shared custody of children during the divorce proceedings. The "marital home" language seems to imply only one spouse will have restrictions as to dating and sex in the home. The spouse that moves out can have all the sex and dating they want when children are with them.

1 Reply

@parados,

We will have to disagree on this one. The original point was Rex was full of **** trying to point it out as against women only. If the law applies equally to both sex's and only has an effect on the person who remains in the marital home, then I don't have a problem with that. It is jointly owned property and until it is owned by a single person, they should not be allowed to do as they please in relation to the marital home.

If someone has the home and wants to have lots of sex, then they go to the new partners home. Problem solved.

I will say this. If you are dating and exposing your children to your dating life, before you divorce is final, you are subhuman. The children do not need to be subjected to your dating life and all the different people you could bring into THEIR life's. After the divorce they can do as they please. Prior to the divorce there should be some limitations.

When I start dating, I'm going to follow these rules. I won't be having my girlfriend over on the weekends I have my kids. In fact until I've been with someone for at least a year, they won't be meeting my children.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

signed by Bush says Obama can't send them back.

And that is why this administration created this crisis. Obama never intended to send them back. What conservatives object to is Obamas sleazy manipulation of the laws. And we don't care what their sleazy Shills say.

1 Reply

OOPS

Quote:

D’Souza’s ‘America’ Shoots to #1 on Amazon Following Costco Ban

A sycophant(Costco) tries to suppress the message and it backfires.

Quote:

The popular discount retailer induced a self-inflicted public relations nightmare it will not soon forget, as the company was getting obliterated on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, with customers feeling the move was politically motivated.

Customers called the move “censorship” and “communist” and many promised to boycott the company and vote with their shopping dollars at competitor Sam’s Club.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/07/09/dsouzas-america-shoots-to-1-on-amazon-following-costco-ban/

1 Reply

joint says:

Quote:

And that is why this administration created this crisis. Obama never intended to send them back. What conservatives object to is Obamas sleazy manipulation of the laws. And we don't care what their sleazy Shills say

Gee, everybody else thinks it's because the origin countries' economies are in the sewer, and kids are imperiled by raging gang violence which threatens them, but coldjoint somehow knows that anything that happens anywhere in the world is somehow Obama's fault. Silly, silly joint.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

I've been reading D'Souza's rants since the '80s and never once have found him to be accurate.

1 Reply

On Voting Republicans Out Of Office

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know