Fuck its silent in here.......

[Yeti]

Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Can't I just have a boner for a couple good looking daughters of a REPUBLICAN RINO in peace? If either one of them came to my desk right now and said "Bone me, Yeti." I'd have my pants off faster than when Thrill answers phonecalls from heavy-breathing men.

[Internet Apex]

They're both 7.5s for the time being. They may at some point get their chests enhanced or begin speaking which would likely result in a +/- 1.

[SKO]

Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Can't I just have a boner for a couple good looking daughters of a REPUBLICAN RINO in peace? If either one of them came to my desk right now and said "Bone me, Yeti." I'd have my pants off faster than when Thrill answers phonecalls from heavy-breathing men.

Scott Brown is most certainly not a FAKE REPUBLICAN RINO. As GEORGE HUTCHINS would have you know:

This was TED KENNEDY'S U.S. Senate office, which has NOT been held by a Republican in several decades.

SCOTT BROWN stood up against OBAMA-NATION, not only facing the full rath of OBAMA-NATION Supporters, but also attacks from FAKE Republican RINOS, and still won.

The GEORGE HUTCHINS For U.S. Congress 2010 Campaign, has already faced the full rath of the FAKE Republican RINOS in North Carolina, even before the 2010 North Carolina Republican Primary has begun.

We are still here, and are now on a legal RINO HUNTING ADVENTURE.

JOIN US !!!

[Jon]

Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Sans penis, of course.

[Powdered Toast Man]

Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Sans penis, of course.

Of course, sans penis.

[Yeti]

Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Sans penis, of course.

Of course, sans penis.

coarse sand on your penis?

[MikeC]

It would be nice if you could get your facts straight.  The unions weren't being taxed.  The issue was whether taxpayers (like you and me) would have to declare our employers' contributions into a health care plan as taxable income for you and me.  The plan was that plans costing over a certain amount would be taxed to the recipient.  Since some unions have been fortunate enough to negotiate fairly decent plans what they are doing is trying to save ALL middle class taxpayers some money, not just their  members.  You have already told us that you don't have health insurance, so I can understand why you don't care if other people get taxed.  However, what you should understand is that these health plans weren't merely given to working people.  Typically they agree to get health insurance instead of taking pay raises.

I may have over simplified the situation but this is what I am talking about with the Unions and Health Care Reform....

Democrats have agreed to extend a special exemption from the Cadillac tax to any health plan that is part of a collective-bargaining agreement, plus state and local workers, many of whom are unionized. Everyone else with a higher-end plan will start to be taxed in 2013, but union members will get a free pass until 2018.
"Ponder that one for a moment. Two workers who are identical in every respect -- wages, job, health plan -- will be treated differently by the tax system, based solely on union membership.

Now if your a union member and and you could find yourself with the rest of the poor schmucks being slapped with a 40% increase in taxes who do you think your going to support? Its a blatant pay-off to buy support for Obama Care.

"Meanwhile, the extra five-year dispensation gives labor lobbyists plenty of time to negotiate a permanent extension for the Democratic union base, even as labor is being armed with an important new organizational tool: Eliminating the secret ballot in union elections might be unnecessary when unions have an exclusive tax privilege at their political disposal. Right-to-work states will also be punished because they are less unionized."

Health Care reform is not good enough for Unions, Government Employees and Congress itself. But its just fine for the rest of us to get slammed with the taxes to pay for it. Ohhh and that saving money part.....

The train is on the tracks in Washington to give a big tax break to union members whose health care plans are worth more than $24,000 a year. Under the deal worked out recently between congressional and union leaders, union health care plans would not be subject to the same excise tax as nonunion plans. Eighty-seven percent of Americans do not belong to a labor union.

Not only would the deal be a sellout to unions, who will tell members to support it (including factory workers, teachers, government employees, cops, firefighters and so on) but the exemption would cost the government an estimated $60 billion it was counting on to pay for the health care plan in the first place.

Where does that 60 billion come from? Ohhh right the non-union people get to pick up the tab so the Union and Government people get a sweet ride. And of course these people will need to vote Democrat because those nasty evil Republicans will want to take away their free ride in health care. Noooo how about they pay the same fair share as everyone else. Is that so hard to ask? And you wonder why unions suddenly went from opposition to full support of Health Care reform.

I fully understand that they have negotiated for better health benefits in exchange for a freeze on wages or whatever. The common complaint with Union people is that if they are taxed like the rest of us, they wont be able to afford it. I got a news flash for the Union people, there is going to be a shitload of Americans who wont be able to afford the taxes on Health Care reform. Unions make up about 12% of the workforce and if Union employees can't afford to be lumped in with the average American how the hell can the average American afford it and take on the $60 billion the union employees wont be paying?

And just because your union doesn't mean your the only group of people who took less pay for more benefits. Many people do research on companies and get hired with them based off their benefits in exchange for a lower wage than they would normally recieve. Is it fair for them to get shafted with higher taxes based on nothing more than whether your union or non-union? It's unfair and you know it.

If your union, and you support Health Care reform....then you should be taxed like the other 88% of the population will be. You ain't special, you aren't more important than anyone else. Thats why a guy like Scott Brown needed to be elected to try and stop this bullshit from happening.

[Internet Apex]

Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Sans penis, of course.

Of course, sans penis.

coarse sand on your penis?

Corsendonk dunkel on your penis?

[Brownie]

To break it down even simpler than MikeC did, no one is "given" health insurance by his or her employer. It is part of his or her compensation. If one guy, bargaining individually, accepts better benefits in lieu of a pay raise, why is that any different from those bargaining collectively?

Regardless, I don't see this bill passing. They're going to have to start the process over, and I think this should be a good thing for everyone. Make it simpler.

[R-V]

To break it down even simpler than MikeC did, no one is "given" health insurance by his or her employer. It is part of his or her compensation. If one guy, bargaining individually, accepts better benefits in lieu of a pay raise, why is that any different from those bargaining collectively?

Regardless, I don't see this bill passing. They're going to have to start the process over, and I think this should be a good thing for everyone. Make it simpler.

Because as we all know, complex problems require simple solutions.

Also, what makes you think the process would by any simpler this time around? One seat out of 535 has changed. The minority party is now more emboldened to oppose the majority. How does this make things easier?

[Brownie]

To break it down even simpler than MikeC did, no one is "given" health insurance by his or her employer. It is part of his or her compensation. If one guy, bargaining individually, accepts better benefits in lieu of a pay raise, why is that any different from those bargaining collectively?

Regardless, I don't see this bill passing. They're going to have to start the process over, and I think this should be a good thing for everyone. Make it simpler.

Because as we all know, complex problems require simple solutions.

The simpler a solution is, the more likely it is to be executed correctly. That's been my experience with just about anything. A simple solution is not necessarily simplistic.

Part of the problem with health care IS its complexity. And I'm sorry, it's incredibly disingenuous to insist that a 1,000-plus page bill intended to affect the lives of every American with amendments being poured on left and right is good, transparent government. Our tax code is so difficult that the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY can't figure out how to do his taxes correctly.

We have a military procurement process so byzantine we routinely hear stories about a $500 screwdriver.

Medicare is so simple that those over 65 routinely see claims approved the previous year denied the next and approved the year after that for no particular reason.

Health care is already regulated by the government in a manner in which there is no advantage to buying your own goddamn insurance (actually it's quite onerous for one to buy his or her own insurance rather than letting his or her employer "give" it to him or her). Health care is already regulated in that one cannot buy health insurance across state lines (ironically, one of the reasons for adopting a strong, federalist constitution was to be sure Americans could buy and sell services freely across state lines). Health care is already regulated so much that you cannot get a clear answer just how much a particular procedure actually costs. But, no, let's make it more complicated. That's really serving your constituency!

We keep adding layers of federal regulations over federal laws over state laws over county and municipal ordinances that maybe a little simplification just might improve the quality of life for all.

We should be a nation with a government, not a government with a nation.

Also, what makes you think the process would by any simpler this time around? One seat out of 535 has changed. The minority party is now more emboldened to oppose the majority. How does this make things easier?

What do a majority of House Members and Senators agree on? Draft a bill that reflects that. Maybe the GOP will filibuster the bill in the Senate, maybe not. (When was the last time a true filibuster, and not the mere threat of one, actually happened?)  But when the Dems have an overwhelming majority in both houses and an Oval Office with several ball point pens in the desk and a President eager to sign most of what Congress sends him at the desk, what are you waiting for?

Or are you shocked that some people don't like the current Congress' and the president's agenda?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Clarence Thomas with this concurring opinion on yesterday's campaign finance ruling:

"The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection'."

So, he's worried that public disclosure of who gave money to candidates for public office will be subject to retribution for their donations.

That would mean that Thomas thinks that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

Fucking liberal.

[Yeti]

Our tax code is so difficult that the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY can't figure out how to do his taxes correctly.

That's my jorb security right there.

[CBStew]

Clarence Thomas with this concurring opinion on yesterday's campaign finance ruling:

"The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection'."

So, he's worried that public disclosure of who gave money to candidates for public office will be subject to retribution for their donations.

That would mean that Thomas thinks that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

Fucking liberal.

I have a personal issue about visiting the "Dead Pool".  So can someone tell me if Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito made anyone's list?

[Yeti]

Clarence Thomas with this concurring opinion on yesterday's campaign finance ruling:

"The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection'."

So, he's worried that public disclosure of who gave money to candidates for public office will be subject to retribution for their donations.

That would mean that Thomas thinks that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

Fucking liberal.

I have a personal issue about visiting the "Dead Pool".  So can someone tell me if Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito made anyone's list?

It doesn't appear to be so. I'm not sure if the late entries are incorporated in what I looked at, though.