kbordson

Except for the fact that she's actually asking: "Do I get this job or do the internship?" -FWIW: If your finances allow, then I have to go along with the finish school, do the internship and work in the field that you really want to.

The only rock concerts that Rapid City ever gets is... well..... ok... no rock concerts. (source) Lots of rocks! Really cool ones. But not so many rock concerts.

I don't know about falling asleep... but I have driven so tired that I began hallucinating. That was when I was in South Dakota... and luckily there was never any real traffic issues.... but I distinctly remember seeing the huge bales of hay turn into snakes and move onto the highway infront of me. THAT woke me up very quickly!

This thread started with complaints about people that broke the law before they illegally took IRS tax credits...talk about double standards. If these bad-rich-evil-tax-evading people are so wide spread, where's the all the news over the convictions for evasion? It's hype. It's class warfare. It's populism. Keep moving with the struggle for the people...yeah! Down with those with the money to create business and jobs! I haven't condoned illegals taking tax credits they shouldn't. You, however, appear to have no issue with rich people cheating on their taxes. Since the rich appear to be stealing about 100x as much from the taxpayers as the poor illegal aliens, I'm surprised you stick up for their thievery. source or speculation?

WOOOO HOOOOOO! DD's first SC thread!!

Why is there such a separation of Bonfire and Speakers Corner? Is it because there is a hard, fast line - You can NOT debate about fuckery. Babes and guns can not be united. There is absolutely no sex in politics. OR should there be a required balance between the forums. cuz God knows that some in SC NEED TO GET LAID... and there are one or two in Bonfire that could learn to enjoy the dominance of debate DD - go have fun! And those that have wandered over to bonfire, post some naughty pics [Amazon, you already did. How many sets of breasts were in that pic... that should help some of the guys out]

Ya know. I think you might have something there. But then who would want to run for office knowing that at the completion of his/her term, that there would be a final trial instead of the current book deals and tours? But that would be a good idea to have a honest and true "State of the Union" type handoff of the office. . . . . I doubt it would happen.

Amen to that.... IF anyone is going to get screwed over it needs to start at the top who gave the directives and justified that shit in the first place. A part of me wants to agree with you here (and trust me... a big part doesn't just to be ornery) It SHOULD start at the top. President Bush should have known or been briefed on the happenings. If he was, then he should be called on it. If he wasn't, why not? But.... I don't know that those who did the abuses should get off scott free. Even if they had DOJ approval, their conscience knew something was wrong. It would be hard, but their moral conviction should have prompted them to take further action to stop such abuse

Does anybody really do that in SC? My honest thoughts ... just be yourself. Read others opinions, try to take the random insults with a grain of salt, try to play nice. There's a lot in this world that we don't know about or haven't even thought enough on to base an opinion. Hearing other topics and seeing things from different perspectives can help you grow and/or can help you better understand your own beliefs.

The only complaints about not paying enough have been in reference to illegal tax evasion. And you call those complaints "whining". It's OK, we understand. You, sir, either have a guilty conscience or are quite egocentric. I was NOT specifically pointing you out. I was NOT replying to you. After giving REAL NUMBER examples of tax payments, I wondered, IN GENERAL, how many that get money back will complain that others (specifically the "fat cats" of whom many, not just you, demonize as evil) don't pay enough. Then YOU directly replied to me accusing me of supporting tax evasion with no proof to that statement. Not a "wonder if you support it" nor even a question of "do you support it?" Just a sniped out of context sentence with a poor interpretation of its meaning that accuses someone of a federal offense. And now you think you understand?!

I'm curious why anyone's rebate status should affect the validity of their opinion about tax cheats. edit to put the percentage value with the right number. Another one who condones illegal underreporting of income. Nope. Never said that, nor do I condone it. But if you want to be on public record with such lies, go for it. Curious why you would call someone who objects to tax cheats a whiner, if you don't condone tax cheating. My statement was in regards to those getting money back, or not paying as much in... but complaining about those who do by saying they can't be paying enough. Everybody wants the benefit... but "someone else" needs to pay in. Nothing in my statement condones tax evasion. Try again.

Another one who condones illegal underreporting of income. Nope. Never said that, nor do I condone it. But if you want to be on public record with such lies, go for it.

So Lets look at real numbers here for a small business owner. "top wage earners" - Income above 357,700 has the highest tax bracket. Federal rate at 35%. source $125,195 State taxes at 6% (using the above $357,700 listed by the feds as the highest tax bracket amt) source $21,237 Self-Employment tax (12.4% for first 102,000 and 2.9% for entire amt)

I don't thing darvocet really does that good of a job with pain though. Incisional pain - I write for vicodin or percocet. Cramping pain - ibuprofen or celebrex (Vioxx was WONDERFUL.... while you could get it) Darvocet... meh. But... you might get a nice placebo effect.

so, doing a quick search revealed: Forums: Search Results Your search for boobie returned 856 results in 0.703s. Your search for ass returned 71407 results in 1.141s. So 857 boobie threads and 71408 ass threads = total bedlam!! COOL!

So do you think it improper for the Navy to have stepped in and defended a US ship in peril by pirates? Can you propose what you feel the Navy SHOULD have done? In your opinion, should there have been no support for a private shipping vessel... even though it could be argued that the shipping industry is important to the commerce of America. In fact, since it's so important, shouldn't the government buy them out... or is that only for Automotive companies? In your opinion, should we have allowed the pirates to continue their attacks unchallenged? Tell us your opinion on that event, instead of comparing it to a situation that really is apples to oranges. "Sure... the Navy will do this... but the Government won't do this." With regards to your push for National Healthcare.... careful what you wish for - it might come true.

Sent it in today. Not happy.

With all these sex threads... I was just thinking (a dangerous pasttime I know) If your life could consist ONLY of sex, would that be a fulfilling life for you? Or is sex more the proverbial cherry (and whipped cream) on top of a sundae of life?

How's ya'll doin?

Men are only good for.... interesting topic. So I googled "what are men good for?" and found something quite interesting: American Psychological Association, Invited Address, 2007 Is There Anything Good About Men? Roy F. Baumeister Yes, it's a bit of a long read, but it is interesting!! -ya know... I was going to edit this for using the word interesting too much, but .... maybe men are THAT interesting!

She is GREAT! I am absolutely looking forward to meeting her in person!!! It is truly peoples like her that make the world a better, happier, more shinier place!

were you willing to pay for it in the past administration? No. I don't think that the tax payers need to be paying for the wives of the elected officials (whether it be the President or the Vice President or the Senators or the Congressmen....) to get their hair done or their make up done... If as an individual, they wish to pay for these services themselves, that is fine. It just shouldn't be a beni of having a spouse in politics. Laura and Hillary got the same treatment Are you sure? When I first read the article, I got to the eyebrow comments and thought "blech, enough of this babble." I commented that I didn't think the govt should be paying for it, BUT IF SHE WAS PAYING FOR IT I didn't care. If Mrs Bush or Mrs Rodham Clinton were paying for it, I don't care. And neither should you. I just think that it would be irresponsible to have hairstyling and makeup for the wives of elected official in the white house budget... especially when the National deficit is what it is. And if prior wives did get that... lets say that Mrs. Kennedy Onassis had that benefit (why am I selecting her... cuz she did look nice and the initial statement that I replied to used that as an argument for "why not?") If we went back to the white house budget in the 60's and it was a perk of the office, that still wouldn't make it right. But you seem to have an allowance for that? So lets go down that slippery slope. What SHOULD the government fund in your opinion? Hair - ok by you. Makeup - yup. Dental whitening? Tummy tuck? Implants? Botox? What should the taxpayer contribute so that the spouse of an elected official can look like a celebrity? And which elected officials? Only the Presidents wife?

Why are you discounting her ability to provide for her own? Why only lump it with her association with her husband? Is she not worthy of having a net worth of her own? According to the couple’s 2006 income tax return, Michelle's salary was $273,618 from the University of Chicago Hospitals, while her husband had a salary of $157,082 from the United States Senate. source She is a capable woman. If she wants to have a fashion consultant, she can get one. I just don't want to pay for it (and you seem to think that she can only get one through having a husband.)

TO ALL OF THOSE INCAPABLE OR UNWILLING TO COMPREHEND SIMPLE IF/THEN STATEMENTS: My initial post was in reply to georgerussia who asked: "She's definitely better looking; why not? " My answer was: BIGUN provided reference in his post that she did fund this herself, therefore my statement "who are we to complain at all?" applies. Then jerryzflies felt he had a right to take a swing with a indignant "Who are YOU to tell them how to spend it?" (again... look ABOVE where I said we aren't able to complain if it is out of her pocket) so AGAIN I stated billvon THEN re-referenced the fact that Mrs. Obama paid for it herself (post 17... basically restates post 11) Amazon got her cut in. (not so shocking) And now CaptSlog asks: so for a THIRD time: IF it had been funded by the White House, by the government, by MY tax money - I would rather that be spent on necessities... since we, as a nation, are broke - I want my tax money going to flour. I don't want my money taken from me to be spent flowers. IF she had paid that tab, then it's none of our business. Since it HAS been stated TWICE now that it was privately funded... there is no issue. I just didn't care enough about her make up to research whether it was on her credit card... I just gave my opinion in If/Then situations.

Even cosmetics manufacturers contribute to the economy and employ workers. And the Obamas have more than $5 to spend. Who are YOU to tell them how to spend it? Did you read my whole post and got confused or just got so excited at the thought of attacking anyone that you think might think differently from you that you just responded with only reading a portion of a comment? Can we say "out of context", boys and girls? IF they were using gov't funding, and the gov't is broke - don't spend my tax money on her makeup. But... I even stated in my post that IF IT WAS HER MONEY... that it's none of our business. - was that easier to read this time?