• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

President Trump Redefines "Beauty" by Mis-Naming Ugliness

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Site Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
41,556
16,683
Fort Smith
✟1,417,852.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I could not believe my ears when I heard a legitimate news outlet (I only listen to legitimate news outlets, of course) talked about the "Big Beautiful Bill Act." Apparently Democrats tried to rename the law in an amendment so that future generations, overwhelmed by the sheer ugliness, meanness, deliberate cruelty, and evil of the Act would become confused by its being called "beautiful."

We are stuck with this president (or Vance, if he gets nicked by the 25th Amendment) until 2028, but doesn't he mangle the English language enough without redefining the ugly and awful as 'beautiful?'
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: DaisyDay

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
41,797
19,824
Finger Lakes
✟307,262.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Link please.
To what, exactly? Legitimate news outlets that use the official moniker "Big Beautiful Bill" or to how she couldn't believe her ears?

Why? To argue about which news outlets are legitimate or do you doubt that this was done?
 
Upvote 0

Oompa Loompa

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2020
9,061
4,801
Louisiana
✟290,507.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I could not believe my ears when I heard a legitimate news outlet (I only listen to legitimate news outlets, of course) talked about the "Big Beautiful Bill Act." Apparently Democrats tried to rename the law in an amendment so that future generations, overwhelmed by the sheer ugliness, meanness, deliberate cruelty, and evil of the Act would become confused by its being called "beautiful."

We are stuck with this president (or Vance, if he gets nicked by the 25th Amendment) until 2028, but doesn't he mangle the English language enough without redefining the ugly and awful as 'beautiful?'
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If liberals think the bill is "ugly," then it is probably going in the right direction.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,786
16,426
55
USA
✟413,337.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I could not believe my ears when I heard a legitimate news outlet (I only listen to legitimate news outlets, of course) talked about the "Big Beautiful Bill Act." Apparently Democrats tried to rename the law in an amendment so that future generations, overwhelmed by the sheer ugliness, meanness, deliberate cruelty, and evil of the Act would become confused by its being called "beautiful."

We are stuck with this president (or Vance, if he gets nicked by the 25th Amendment) until 2028, but doesn't he mangle the English language enough without redefining the ugly and awful as 'beautiful?'
Sen Schumer did "rename" the bill through a motion that passed, or rather technically his motion removed the "BBBA" title from the bill.

From the enrolled (as passed) version of the text:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text

One Hundred Nineteenth Congress​
of the​
United States of America​
AT THE FIRST SESSION​
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,​
the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-five​
An Act​
To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14.​
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the​
United States of America in Congress assembled,​
SECTION 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS.​

No BBB title. It's gone missing from the final copy.

If we compare that to another bill the is under consideration (S 1748):

A BILL
To protect the safety of children on the internet.​
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.​
(a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the “Kids Online Safety Act”.
(b) Table Of Contents.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows:​


This bill has a "short title" to replace the long name "A Bill To protect the safety of children on the internet"

Or the exciting HR 1319, which also doesn't have a short title and is therefore :

"A BILL To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the National Labor Relations Act to clarify the standard for determining whether an individual is an employee, and for other purposes."

HR 1 (Now, PL 119-21) has the exciting official title: "An Act To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14." (Note that passed bills are "acts")

Alternatively we can just consider that Chuck prevented us from the grammatical nightmare is a law with both "Bill" and "Act" in its title. :)
 
Upvote 0

Always in His Presence

Jesus is the only Way
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
49,612
17,896
Broken Arrow, OK
✟1,042,890.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I could not believe my ears when I heard a legitimate news outlet (I only listen to legitimate news outlets, of course) talked about the "Big Beautiful Bill Act." Apparently Democrats tried to rename the law in an amendment so that future generations, overwhelmed by the sheer ugliness, meanness, deliberate cruelty, and evil of the Act would become confused by its being called "beautiful."

We are stuck with this president (or Vance, if he gets nicked by the 25th Amendment) until 2028, but doesn't he mangle the English language enough without redefining the ugly and awful as 'beautiful?'
Thanks for your opinion and view from your world. Since you offered no links or proof this can be nothing else.

You have every right to your opinion. Facts would give it credibility
 
Upvote 0

Oompa Loompa

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2020
9,061
4,801
Louisiana
✟290,507.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for your opinion and view from your world. Since you offered no links or proof this can be nothing else.

You have every right to your opinion. Facts would give it credibility
Agreed. How can one respond with anything other than a "Bless your heart"?
 
Upvote 0