Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:26 am

Cunt.

While I'm at it, She's a cunt and Alberto Gonzales needs to be waterboarded.

And why am I not surprised to see AIPAC's name in all this? They're cunts, too.

Post by **Ddrak** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:34 am

Remind me what the penalty for treason is?

Dd

Mukik · Post by **Mukik** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:58 am

during times of war (like now) death

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:51 am

What the fuck.....

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:36 am

Just curious....how exactly is she guilty of treason?

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:51 am

I would like to take this opportunity to chastise Partha for gross misogyny. I don't care what the woman is guilty of, calling her a "cunt" reveals a deep seated sexism on your part.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:53 am

I listend to her on NPR yesterday. The reporter kept asking her if she had teh conversation, she said she didn't know if she did or didn't. Then later he asked another question, and she replied that the person she was talking to was an American citizen, and therefore the wiretap was illegal. The reporter then asked how she knew the person was a US citizen, if she coulldn't remember the conversation. You could hear the "oh shit" moment in her tone and tenor after that.

She did it. She's cooked.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:56 am

Ooops.

I'm talking about this episode with Harman.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... t=1&f=1003

Not the same.

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:22 am

Trollbait wrote:I would like to take this opportunity to chastise Partha for gross misogyny. I don't care what the woman is guilty of, calling her a "cunt" reveals a deep seated sexism on your part.

No, it reveals my utter contempt, scorn, and derision of said cunt.

Arathena · Post by **Arathena** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:01 am

Partha wrote:
Trollbait wrote:I would like to take this opportunity to chastise Partha for gross misogyny. I don't care what the woman is guilty of, calling her a "cunt" reveals a deep seated sexism on your part.
No, it reveals my utter contempt, scorn, and derision of said cunt.

Not very well. I mean, cunts, as a whole, are pleasant things. Why associate good things with human-like-waste?

Select · Post by **Select** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:21 am

Arathena wrote:
Partha wrote:
Trollbait wrote:I would like to take this opportunity to chastise Partha for gross misogyny. I don't care what the woman is guilty of, calling her a "cunt" reveals a deep seated sexism on your part.
No, it reveals my utter contempt, scorn, and derision of said cunt.
Not very well. I mean, cunts, as a whole, are pleasant things. Why associate good things with human-like-waste?

*thumbs up emoticon to Troll and Ara* I've been impressed a few times by members on this board. Recently was by Free before he left. Didn't think these guys cared.

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:27 am

TPM, doing their usual awesome reporting, has the timeline and details on the Harman-AIPAC story.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:12 pm

Why associate good things with human-like-waste?

It is easy to tell why. A person who happens to be female did something wrong. To a closet sexist, that then entitles him to use gender specific degradations to describe said person.

To establish my stance ahead of the expected retort; I also object to the use of words such as "prick" when describing a male.

In either case it is an attempt to use the persons gender as an insult in a context that the sexist would assume would grant them immunity from reproach (ie Jane Harman did something that the majority feel is disgustingly wrong).

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:56 pm

Trollbait wrote:
Why associate good things with human-like-waste?
It is easy to tell why. A person who happens to be female did something wrong. To a closet sexist, that then entitles him to use gender specific degradations to describe said person.

To establish my stance ahead of the expected retort; I also object to the use of words such as "prick" when describing a male.

O RLY?

Uhhh, yeah.....I know it did not happen right away but the Scripture I posted was what was used to justify it when it did happen. You can be an arrogant prick sometimes. Nothing I said in my previous posts indicated that I thought priests were always unmarried. That is the way it is NOW and Corinthians is the Scripture used to justify it. Canon Law was and is an evolving set of rules.

Lying won't get you in Select's pants, you know.

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:01 pm

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3152

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:16 pm

O RLY?

Yes. Really. Using a word on you in the past does not invalidate my claim that I find it objectionable. It is a fairly recent attitude change that I have gone through regarding the use of certain words and phrases and how those phrases are insensitive and wrong headed so your rebuttal is a failure, sir.

You are still a bigot and misogynist.

Lying

How am I lying?

won't get you in Select's pants, you know.

And here we have the clincher. Clearly it would have to be about getting into Select's pants.

Because it could not possibly be that you are wrong in your sexist choice of syntax and someone chose to call you out on it.

Piss poor.

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:09 pm

Oh for the love of...... can people use douchebag?

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:42 pm

I tend to be old fashioned and midwestern in my values. Cunts are women and assholes are men.

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:53 pm

Can we still call Joe the Plumber a cunt?

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:05 pm

Lurker wrote:Can we still call Joe the Plumber a cunt?

No, but we can say he has one.

Brell Rants

Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)

Re: Rep. Jane Harman, D (Cunt)