One of the many supporters of Feinstein's Bill

[Pudfark]

You believe politicians RD?

Good one.

He's Canadian... he doesn't have much of a choice. That's why he's so interested in the US... at least here (or on the internet from there) you can pick around and find 'unapproved' public messaging. Come to your own conclusions...

I have a fuck of a lot more freedoms than you do.

Yes, you have some freedom, R_D. No need to Thank US/U.S.
We don't expect it...from the likes of you.

[Barfly]

I'll bet the some U.N. study agrees with you, and likewise, dupe.

[Buzz]

You believe politicians RD?

You do.

You figure that how?

[Pudfark]

You believe politicians RD?

You do.

You figure that how?

It's like this Buzz?
R_D never thinks past his question.
Much like his country, he just poses one.
Which is why?
He get's caught with his pants down, being fracked.
All the time.

[callmeslick]

should probably have made this a poll:

[Pudfark]

Yeah...a poll.
You Dem's can't do anything without one.
First you pole each other...
Then you try to pole everyone else...

Old Pudfark sez: "If'n ya can't get up....take a poll/pole..."

[Pudfark]

DEM REP: WOMEN SHOULD SERVE IN COMBAT, BUT SHOULDN’T USE ASSAULT WEAPONS

On the very same day that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women serving in active combat zones, a Democratic congresswoman from New York argued that assault weapons are actually difficult for women to handle and should therefore be banned.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy — a strong proponent for women serving in military combat roles — appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight Thursday to make the case for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban. To that end, McCarthy argued that women should use traditional rifles rather than assault rifles because the former would would be “easier for a woman” to use.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/01/25 ... t-weapons/

This is one of the reasons?
Why you have no credibility.

[callmeslick]

lessee.....because of what one woman in Congress said on a TV show, "I have no credibility"? You are one stupid dolt, Pud. And, that statement, thanks to the words you put on these pages, has GREAT credibility.

[Pudfark]

Let's refresh yer memory Slick...
You called Senator Feinstein as much as a dolt.
Is this yer admission that Dem's in office are dolts.
I agree with ya.
You agree with'em.
You're associated with'em...so ya are one'm.
Simples

[callmeslick]

Let's refresh yer memory Slick...
You called Senator Feinstein as much as a dolt.

ummm, no, I didn't. I merely stated that she doesn't have the control over the outcome of the bill, and isn't even reflective of the will of the Democratic caucus in the Senate. I said she lacked power, not brains.

Is this yer admission that Dem's in office are dolts.
I agree with ya.
You agree with'em.
You're associated with'em...so ya are one'm.
Simples

yes, it is simple. And, simpleminded, because life is NEVER simple. Making a statement about one person, within one party, in no way implies an overall view of that party. No one with a functional, adult skillset for reasoning would reach such a conclusion. I have reached the conclusion that you cannot develop that skillset, and thus, as I said above, you have no credibility. Continue amusing yourself by pushing up your postcount by responding to yourself, because any attempt at reason is a waste of keystrokes on my part.