tvashtarkatena

At this point, I'd favor bombing both sides.

Uterus. Uterus. Uterus. Uterus. Uterus.

First one flight does an emergency landing due to 'bad air', then another errs on the side of too much fresh air. Could we, um, meet somewhere on the middle here?

Is 'uterus' on the list?

I'm taking Jim's cue and bowing out, too. You two may continue to piss into the same bowl.

So I'm a defeatist instead of an enabler? Both? Just need to know what to put on my resume. Sorry about the Accounting 101 Lesson on budget balancing. Arithmetic can be really controversial, and not everybody's ready for it. That's why Newt's leading off with "2+2=4", I guess. Guy's a fighter, not a lover. Unless you're one of his aids, that is.

Constitutionally, a state is free to cut services for the most part. It's not free to not balance its budget, however. Which am I - regressive or enabler? I loves me some black and white labels. So...useful in problem solving, no?

I've informed my employer that cutting expenses CANNOT POSSIBLY balance a budget. Awaiting a response....

Maybe you could hook up with Pat and your jurisprudence expertise could run it through the courts in time for the budget talks. In the meantime it's the law. Was I just bestowed an honorary law degree? Kewwwwwllllll.

In reality, Budeep Budeep's is too busy thinking about his next grope. Anton's too busy quietly masturbating under his robe in disgust at all the licentiousness in the world.

I'm actually curious to read the logical gymnastics they used to reach this outcome Vintage Natural Law thinking: The Constitution only regulates Gubmint - Business is like God, it can do whatev.

It ain't over til its over, which is never.

"VICTORY! Court Says Plaintiffs Can Challenge Bush Wiretapping Law In a huge victory for privacy and the rule of law, a federal appeals court today reinstated our landmark lawsuit challenging the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), a statute that gives the executive branch virtually unchecked power to collect Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose work requires them to engage in sensitive and sometimes privileged telephone and e-mail communications with colleagues, clients, journalistic sources, witnesses, experts, foreign government officials and victims of human rights abuses located outside the United States. A federal district court dismissed the case in August 2009, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have the right to challenge the new surveillance law because they could not prove that their own communications had been monitored under it. But with the support of law professors, the NYC Bar Association, the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press and many others, we appealed that decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. "Today, the appeals court reversed the lower court decision, finding that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the law even though they cannot show to a certainty that the government is acquiring their communications. According to today's ruling, "the FAA has put the plaintiffs in a lose-lose situation: either they can continue to communicate sensitive information electronically and bear a substantial risk of being monitored under a statute they allege to be unconstitutional, or they can incur financial and professional costs to avoid being monitored. Either way, the FAA directly affects them."

Let me know what you decide.

Be scared when everyone else is greedy and be greedy when everyone else is scared. Both JayB and Billcoe's advice are instructive as to exactly what not to do right now.

We're shootin it up agin

Considering America's ripening demographics, these two should be a a shoe in for the Hot Chick on Geriatric Leg Humper porn market after their failed bid to penetrate the oval orifice.

Public pensions are the item under question, not salaries. And the argument has been that they are unsustainable. Funny how this is not an issue in the private sector. I wonder how that could be... hmmm. Because the company declares bankruptcy and dumps the pension on the PBGC fucking over everyone? Ask an airline employee sometime. Sweet jesus you fuckers are retarded. Or the auto companies, or the... Yeah, private industry? NO PROBLEMS! LOL Fucking idiot.

fiscal responsibility (please leave regressive framing in the closet) demands revenues. Solely cutting spending isn't responsible Or 'conservative' as you call it. I think both Jim and I agree that we should tax the rich as part of the package, if that's politically possible, of course. You haven't been listening, apparently. Effective problem solving is 90% listening and 10% action.

Well designed private compensation program sets discretionary dispursements like bonuses and retirement contribution levels as a % of profits. This way, nobody goes out of business, and everyone shares the pain and the glory. It's sustainable. Companies can choose to rob one dispursement, bonuses or dividends, for example, to prop up retirement contributions as the situation calls for.

Pluto was considered a planet for 76 years, and Ceres for 50. Why u no call Ceres a planet, hater? By paranthesizing the issue I stepped one dimension above it.

Can you two retarded midgets throw the rest of us a bone and not shit all over every single thread? Thanks in advance.

Come on. Jim's suggesting some very reasonable (and likely unavoidable) solutions. Everything isn't an 'us' versus 'them' thing. FACT: most states MUST balance their budgets by law. Constitution and all that. FACT: They can't right now OPINION: Bringing retirement contributions in line with private sector norms is one of the least painful ways to do this. Recognizing a real problem and trying to solve it in a real and fair way is what 'our side' is supposed to do. Science based reality and all that. You seem to object to any proposed solution save 'grow the economy'...which is precisely the kind of 'wish your way out' proposal the 'other side' typically pursues. I think tweaks like this, in the long run, will aid public service workers and sustain vulnerable programs. There is nothing wrong with being fiscally conservative while pushing a progressive agenda. It just makes sense in the long run. Sustainability requires fiscal conservatism, by definition.

Come on. Jim's suggesting some very reasonable (and likely unavoidable) solutions. Everything isn't an 'us' versus 'them' thing. FACT: most states MUST balance their budgets by law. Constitution and all that. FACT: They can't right now OPINION: Bringing retirement contributions in line with private sector norms is one of the least painful ways to do this. Recognizing a real problem and trying to solve it in a real and fair way is what 'our side' is supposed to do. Science based reality and all that. You seem to object to any proposed solution save 'grow the economy'...which is precisely the kind of 'wish your way out' proposal the 'other side' typically pursues.

Just in time to herald in the spring rains on Titan.