Thursday, 28 June 2012

Individual Mandate upheld by Supreme Court

quote [ The Supreme Court upheld the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s health care law Thursday, ruling that Congress did not overstep its power by requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance. ]

Fuck yeah!

For those with an interest, here's the full opinion of the SCOTUS:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

The Supreme Court upheld the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s health care law Thursday, ruling that Congress did not overstep its power by requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court’s four liberal justices in the ruling, which says Congress had the authority to impose the law’s individual mandate under Congress’s taxing power.

The ruling is a surprise victory for the Obama administration, which faced tough questions from the court during the oral arguments in March.

"Simply put, Congress may tax and spend," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "This grant gives the federal government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate."

"The federal government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid or otherwise control,” Roberts wrote.

The court has issued a more complex ruling on Medicaid, and it is not yet clear that the entire health law has been upheld.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 10:19 a.m. on June 28, 2012.
[politics] [by KingPellinore@2:49pmGMT] [+10 Good]

Comments

lilmookieesquire said @ 3:11pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Roberts voted for it? That's strange...

"'The federal government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid or otherwise control,' Roberts wrote."

Oh. I guess this establishes precedence for gay-sex-tax.

:(
GordonGuano said @ 3:19pm GMT on 28th Jun
I'm guessing the five batshit justices drew straws and Roberts got the short one. From a political standpoint, they knew striking the ACA down would have been more damaging to GOP electoral prospects than letting it stand. If this weren't an election year and the Greedy Old Pedophiles had control of both Congress and the Senate, I think we would have seen a different ruling.

Of course, Boehner has said he'll work on repealing whatever the Supremes left standing, so we'll see. Personally, I don't think Obama could be that lucky.
conception said @ 11:05pm GMT on 28th Jun
I sorta feel this way too... it feels like they realized they couldn't strike it down, and Roberts wanted to write the decision. 5/4 isn't a very strong decision for the court and shows that it can potentially be reviewed in the future.
spite48 said @ 3:22pm GMT on 28th Jun
Sex tax! Everyone loves sex-tax!
spite48 said @ 3:22pm GMT on 28th Jun
I think there needs to be a song about sex-tax.
KingPellinore said @ 3:35pm GMT on 28th Jun
Sex tax! Don't do it when you wanna go to it!

Sex tax! Don't do it when you wanna come!
KingPellinore said @ 3:56pm GMT on 28th Jun
Pay that funky sex tax, white boy!
zenviper said @ 3:36pm GMT on 28th Jun
cb361 said @ 3:43pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:2 Insightful]
Nate?
ComposerNate said @ 10:30am GMT on 5th Jul
I feel funny writing songs uncomfortable listening to with grandma.
DuncmanG said @ 5:30pm GMT on 28th Jun
I'd like to complain about all this sex on the television. I mean, I keep falling off!
Naruki said @ 1:20am GMT on 29th Jun
I've got an LED, so I can't even get on!


Good thing I don't get to have any sex, then.
tickaz said @ 6:09am GMT on 29th Jun
Masturbation is technically sex.
Naruki said @ 1:39am GMT on 30th Jun
Well then, just call me Giacomo Girolamo Casanova de Seingalt.
cb361 said @ 7:55pm GMT on 28th Jun
The sex tax is hard to bear, but it's almost worth it for when you get a rebate.
bbqkink said @ 3:41pm GMT on 28th Jun
Well it went 5/4, but.....not at all the way I expected. They still said that it wasn't the commerce clause that gave then the authority.. ..unbelievable. Well I guess this may placate some of the right wing anti-federalist.

The other thing is that they ruled that the expansion of the medicaid to 125% of the poverty line can not be forced on the States by denying all of their Medicaid money. At first it looked to be a blow to the universal coverage aspect of the law, but under closer inspection they can still offer the money to the states ...with regulations.
I'm am still here wondering if some red state Governor will turn down the money and expanded coverage for his people to make a point?

They also ruled that the individual made is valid and a tax can be levied to force compliance..although "as yet" there is no way to force people to pay it..they got until 2014 to figure that one out.

All in all a good outcome for the people..fuck the politics..this is a good thing for the country a step in the right direction. The biggest mystery was that i wasn't Kennedy it was Roberts ...maybe he does care how people see the Roberts Court.




Navier-Strokes said @ 3:58pm GMT on 28th Jun
Yeah, Roberts pulls out a very interesting judicial perspective.
King of the Hill said @ 4:08pm GMT on 28th Jun
"They also ruled that the individual made is valid and a tax can be levied to force compliance..although "as yet" there is no way to force people to pay it..they got until 2014 to figure that one out."

They do have a way to force people to pay it... It is called the IRS. You don't demonstrate via your return that you have an employer provided plan or that you are buying one from the exchanges... You are "fined" that tax....

So they are already well set up for collecting the billions of dollars for the 20 somethings that will do the math and determine the tax penalty is still cheaper than any plan.
bbqkink said @ 4:12pm GMT on 28th Jun
Makes sense that they would use the IRS, but that is not what the law reads as yet.
bbqkink said @ 6:41pm GMT on 28th Jun
Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War

The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act while gutting the Commerce Clause.

But the health care law was, ultimately, a pretext. This was a test case for the long-standing—but previously fringe—campaign to rewrite Congress' regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/06/roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_real_reason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.html
bbqkink said @ 8:10pm GMT on 28th Jun
1st one already in.............

Walker will not implement federal health care overhaul in Wisconsin

Gov. Scott Walker says Wisconsin will not proceed with implementing the federal health care overhaul despite the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the central part of the federal law.

Walker said Thursday he would have preferred the court strike down the law, but he is holding out hope that a new president and Republican-controlled Congress will overturn it next year.

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/160687545.html
afrasr said @ 8:37pm GMT on 28th Jun
What a massive immature cunt!

Nope nope nope ! not gunna do it... can't make me ! Nope !

Don't care what congress, and the supreme court say ! Nope !


Wow.. If Obama gets back in for a second term, what is he going to do then?
theolypse said @ 10:18pm GMT on 28th Jun
Same thing.
Fort Sumter Reference said @ 11:40pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:1 Good]
Wisconsin is the new South Carolina.
sqmagellan said @ 3:42pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
I was expecting parts of the law to be struck down. Curious that it was sustained on the basis of 'tax.'

Isn't it a tad odd that the decision enables Republicans to claim that Democrats added a huge 'tax' to the middle class? $0.02 says Fox News is already prepping this angle for the evening commentators.
King of the Hill said @ 4:11pm GMT on 28th Jun
They did add a lot of taxes... On the middle class - much of which will trickle down and some that is direct.

http://www.atr.org/tax-hikes-obamacare-scotus-rule-a6996

The FSA CAP increased my federal income taxes by near 1% of my income alone and drive my out of pocket medical expenses higher. Thanks a lot.

GordonGuano said @ 4:20pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:2 Insightful]
Given that the middle class are seeing benefits from the ACA, I'm OK with that. Now if we could just get the uber-wealthy to pay taxes commensurate with the benefit they receive from the Interstate system, we'd be cooking with gas.

Also, Americans for Tax Reform are kind of a bunch of cunts.
Adam said @ 6:37am GMT on 29th Jun [Score:2 Insightful]
Firstly, and most importantly, FUCK Americans for Tax Reform. I'm supposed to be worried about an excise tax on tanning beds? Or cry because Blue Cross has to spend more than 85% of premiums on actual care, instead of executive compensation and advertising and other bullshit? No. Not a chance in hell.

I don't mind paying more taxes if they're being used to pay for something worthwhile, for once.
spite48 said @ 7:17pm GMT on 28th Jun
Already out there. Palin's twitter and:

http://www.peoplevobamacare.com/
afrasr said @ 4:08pm GMT on 28th Jun
My reaction to the news this morning.

tickaz said @ 6:10am GMT on 29th Jun
Hey it's Korean Beiber!
bbqkink said @ 4:10pm GMT on 28th Jun
The Impact
What does the Supreme Court's health-care ruling mean for me?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/
thepublicone said @ 4:28pm GMT on 28th Jun
Citizens of the United States of America!! The people of Canada grant you (temporary) admission* to the realm of sanity!

*Admission contingent upon the installment of full rights to gay people, not treating anyone who isn't "American" as though they have the plague, the true separation of church and state, and removing the bullshit that is Citizens United and your lobbying practices from your legislative blueprint.

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:30pm GMT on 28th Jun
Don't do it. You'll let the crazy in.
Cakkafracle said @ 5:40pm GMT on 28th Jun
We already let the crazy in with the Harper Government™
foobar said @ 5:52pm GMT on 28th Jun
That's going to backfire on regressives pretty hard. It looks pretty certain that the role of the natural governing party is going to shift to the NDP.
thepublicone said @ 6:15pm GMT on 28th Jun
Yep- or else back to the Liberals if Lil' Trudeau decides he's going to run. He says he isn't, but you never know with politics.

Either way, the Conservative party might hold a majority, but it is not currently the popular party in the country.
foobar said @ 7:12pm GMT on 28th Jun
I doubt even that would resurrect them. If he has any of the political acumen of his father, he'll cross the floor to the NDP.
BergZ said @ 1:55am GMT on 29th Jun
On the topic of Trudeau:
In the days leading up to boxing matching between himself and Brazeau the CBC news forums were just loaded with conservative ass-wipes that were sooooooooo certain Brazeau would 'cream that liberal wimp'.
It still gives me a little pleasure to think of how Trudeau wiped the smug grins off their mugs.
happiest_sadist said @ 4:55am GMT on 29th Jun
A boxing match I'd watch:

Joe Hill vs. George Will
pleaides said @ 4:30pm GMT on 28th Jun
I'm not well enough informed about this to be able to add anything, except that if it results in the impotent rage and disappointment of American Conservatives then I'm looking forward to that very much :)
pleaides said @ 4:39pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:4 Funny]
Hey guys, check this shit out!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

A collection of tweets from angry conservatives;

"The supreme court upheld Obama Care. That's it. I'm moving to Canada!"
afrasr said @ 4:42pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:1 Funny]
We'll just send them to Winnipeg Bwa hahaha !
Cakkafracle said @ 5:46pm GMT on 28th Jun


I fucking love living in Winnipeg
Cakkafracle said @ 5:47pm GMT on 28th Jun
oops sorry!!

too big AND Celsius... double fayel

bltrocker said @ 11:51pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Dude. The average highs through the winter months are like 10-14 degrees F. That is not a very comfortable climate.
sensibleb said @ 12:09am GMT on 29th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Not only that, but you have to live in Winnipeg!
Cakkafracle said @ 2:15am GMT on 29th Jun
Winnipeg suffers from the Charlie Sheen effect.

They hate us because we have the name WIN in our name.
Cakkafracle said @ 2:14am GMT on 29th Jun
depends on the month, for example, the avg for Feb is usually -30 (which is pretty damn close to the same thing in F as it is in C)

my favorite is when it reaches < -45 and they have to shut down schools and gov.

not before tho.

which is hilarious considering anywhere else shuts down when it hits -20
tickaz said @ 6:14am GMT on 29th Jun
Considering most of the world uses Celsius, the only fail here is that you thought it necessary to convert to Fahrenheit.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 7:29am GMT on 29th Jun
Pfft. Add 273.15 to that Celsius and maybe we'll take it seriously.
thepublicone said @ 6:16pm GMT on 28th Jun
What happens when they move here, and we give them free health insurance? Do their heads collectively explode?
afrasr said @ 6:37pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:3 Insightful]
I can't wait to see their faces when we make them get gay married
Naruki said @ 1:25am GMT on 29th Jun
No, hypocrisy is actually their lifeblood. Without it, they slowly turn into liberals.
sanepride said @ 10:40pm GMT on 28th Jun
The really funny thing is that most elements of 'Obamacare', most especially the individual mandate, were originally Republican ideas. If these petulant contrarians had even a shred of sense now would be the time to take credit - even blame Obama for totally stealing their ideas.
GordonGuano said @ 4:31pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:-3 Troll]
So can we finally kill Sarah Palin's retard baby already?
Barnabas_Truman said @ 4:39pm GMT on 28th Jun
Dude, not cool.

Anyway, all you're doing is giving ammo to incpenners.
King of the Hill said @ 4:43pm GMT on 28th Jun
Wow.
afrasr said @ 4:47pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
Dude ! not cool !

Besides, Sarah is the bigger retard, so we should start with her.

At least her kid will grow up to be a loving, nice human being.

Don't pick on the downs kid.
Supreme_Coconut said @ 3:08am GMT on 29th Jun
Of the three female Palin's (Bristol, Sarah, and Trig) I'd say Trig is the only one that is not retarded. Or is Trig a boy? Y'know what? I don't care. We all know Sarah is one of the dumbest sack of rocks on the planet and any teenage girl that has a child from consensual sex is a goddamned retard. Don't act like you've never heard of condoms before you stupid twat.
krimz said @ 1:44pm GMT on 29th Jun
It takes two to tango...
Supreme_Coconut said @ 2:35pm GMT on 30th Jun
Yes it does but at least one of them should have said "Hey, we should use a condom/pill/prophylactic." Women should be more adamant about using one since they face the larger consequence. That doesn't absolve the guy from responsibility. He should have condoms if he's wanting sex. However, she should not be willing to open her legs unless they are prepared as a couple.
Barnabas_Truman said @ 7:32pm GMT on 30th Jun
Women should be more adamant about using one since they face the larger consequence.

Flatworms, being hermaphroditic, are very adamant about which one has to "face the larger consequence."

"During penis fencing, each flatworm tries to pierce the skin of the other using one of its penises. The first to succeed becomes the de facto male, delivering its sperm into the other, the de facto female. For the flatworms, this contest is serious business. Mating is a fight because the worm that assumes the female role then must expend considerable energy caring for the developing eggs."
mechanical contrivance said @ 1:01am GMT on 1st Jul
I guess worms and humans aren't so different after all.
cb361 said @ 1:07am GMT on 1st Jul
Bend over...
structured_spirits said @ 6:52pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:4 Funny]
You mean Bristol right?
erich wiess said @ 6:29pm GMT on 29th Jun [Score:-4 Troll]

"The tolerant left."

KingPellinore said @ 6:57pm GMT on 29th Jun [Score:-2 Insightful]
Yeah, because obviously we all found it fucking hilarious...

Confirmation bias much?
Ankylosaur said @ 12:17am GMT on 30th Jun [Score:-2]
We should at least give him pity credit for using the word "tolerant" right this time. Wanting someone killed actually is intolerant, as opposed to criticizing someone, which has nothing to do with tolerance but is what usually prompts this sort of whiny sarcasm from conservatives.
midden said @ 5:07pm GMT on 28th Jun
I heard an interesting story about why the Chief Justice will sometimes vote in favor of a ruling he or she actually disagrees with: They get to write (or designate who will write) the official opinion on the ruling, and can thereby define it so narrowly that it essentially prevents the decision from becoming a precedent for any future related cases. If the Chief Justice votes against something that passes anyway, the most senior of the Justices in favor get's to write the official judicial opinion, potentially opening it up to have a tremendous impact far into the future. It's sort of a "lose the battle but win the war" strategy.
bbqkink said @ 5:12pm GMT on 28th Jun
Which is what I thought would happen, but this time he was the deciding vote ...it went 5/4 not 6/3.
midden said @ 5:17pm GMT on 28th Jun
Yes. Good point. Maybe Roberts has a a bit of humanity in him, after all?
DuncmanG said @ 5:33pm GMT on 28th Jun
That doesn't *sound* right...
midden said @ 5:35pm GMT on 28th Jun
Also, this brings up the question: Do the Justices of the Supreme Court necessarily know before hand what everyone else is going to vote? Do they give their final votes in some kind of public forum, or is all that pretty much worked out behind closed doors? Might there sometimes be uncertainty, so the Chief Justice might choose in favor, just to cover his ass?

I imagine the social dynamics between the members of the Court changes over time. Sometimes, everyone knows what everyone is thinking. Others, there is plenty of uncertainly right up to the final vote.
Anti-fuites said @ 6:30pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:1 Informative]
As far as I know the actual voting process is secret, as in, no court has ever reveled publicly how they tallied their votes. But once all the votes are in the senior justices write up all their decisions then read them to the public, usually all in one big chunk.
sua_sponte said @ 5:36pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:2 Funny]
BTW, an "individual mandate" is NOT what Larry Craig was looking for in the Minneapolis airport men's room. He just has a wide stance.
Tirade said @ 6:09pm GMT on 28th Jun
And now for something completely stupid.
mky said @ 1:41am GMT on 29th Jun
No, no, no. 17 more retards in Canada is 17 more too many.

I do so love the "this sauna just got too hot for me, think I'll go sit in the furnace for a while" mentality though.

or

"this baseball game has gotten too boring, is there a soccer game on somewhere?"

structured_spirits said @ 6:53pm GMT on 28th Jun
Well for a Kenyan prince, Obama seem to know a lot about constitutional law after all.
afrasr said @ 8:34pm GMT on 28th Jun [Score:4 Underrated]
sensibleb said @ 12:08am GMT on 29th Jun
They'll be here soon enough. The Water Wars can't be more than a couple decades away.
Naruki said @ 1:19am GMT on 29th Jun
Yeah, but at that time you'll be legally allowed to shoot them. Win win!
bbqkink said @ 1:43am GMT on 29th Jun
I wonder if any of these geniuses know Canada has that there communist heath care already?
flat_michael said @ 1:52am GMT on 29th Jun
socialist. not fucking communist. fuck.
KingPellinore said @ 2:07am GMT on 29th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Only a commie would point that out! Git 'im!
Ebichuman said @ 2:55am GMT on 29th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
I'm very glad the health care law got upheld, but not the individual mandate. The individual mandate has always seemed unconstitutional to me.

I was even ready to think that maybe, just maybe, Obama, being a constitutional scholar, had specifically included the mandate in order to throw a fake bone to health care companies and gain their early support/inaction during the legislative process, betting it would be struck down while the rest of the law would be clearly severable and upheld. I was ready to believe he was that clever, but not ready to believe Congress actually had the power to force someone to buy insurance, with no condition precedent to that requirement.

And this is why Roberts' "tax" argument makes no sense to me. The government can tax an action, or possession of something, or some other benefit granted by specific virtue of citizenship and membership in American society - purchasing goods, owning property, accruing income, etc. You "tax" something, not existence itself. But to tax a lack of something is to tax a state of being. Roberts' opinion is that we are susceptible to taxes for being alive and not otherwise engaged in a specific act. I do not understand the argument at all.

The individual mandate also doesn't seem to make any sense in solving our health care crisis. The problem with health care costs isn't that we don't have enough people paying for it. The problem is (in large part) that our health care system, at many many levels, is a for-profit business, despite offering a basic need that citizens rationally will pay any price for. So where the motive is to make profit rather than help people, you objectively must accept that where the two conflict, making a profit wins. And that problem isn't solved by requiring everyone to buy health insurance. (Ahem...maybe it may be solved by single payer public health care?)

I'm happy the law was upheld, if only because it was better than nothing. But if someone can explain to me Roberts' opinion on the individual mandate better, please do, I'm certainly not trolling. It just seems very obviously wrong to me.
sanepride said @ 4:09am GMT on 29th Jun
My own opinion is that Roberts was just looking for a way to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court as an impartial body...instead of an increasingly politicized shadow president & legislature.
As for the constitutionality of the individual mandate, legal scholars were pretty unanimous that it was not an issue - when it passed as 'Obamacare' or when the Republicans first dreamed it up in 1993. Really the whole debate snowballed when two conservative federal judges ruled it unconstitutional bowing to political pressure. Never mind that nearly a dozen other judges - across the ideological spectrum- let it stand. The conservative media latched on and now here we are.
profetscott said @ 7:42am GMT on 29th Jun
I thought about it a bit. Seems, if no one had health insurance, they would all-if they had sufficient income be taxed. So the tax is waved if you have insurance.
Navier-Strokes said @ 4:41am GMT on 29th Jun
Might this decision implore Congress to move away from regulations in favor of pigovian taxes?
edga alunpo said @ 8:03am GMT on 29th Jun
I don't even understand why this landed up in court. From what 've I heard and read it was about the right of the government to force people to buy something they did n't want to buy - but governments are doing this all the time.

You HAVE to buy a driving license(take lesson etc.). You HAVE to buy a TV license (not sure for the states). You HAVE to .... and so on.

Even better, you HAVE to pay tax and you can be conscripted to fight for your country - how come no one ever went to court about that? and if they did they obviously already lost the argument. So why have the argument in court all over again?
Barnabas_Truman said @ 8:19am GMT on 29th Jun
We're actual dealing with a significant quantity of people--or at least a significantly noisy quantity of people--who seem to think that they SHOULDN'T have to pay taxes. Their policy, as far as I can tell, is to vote against ANY new tax, regardless of who's to be taxed or how much or what the money's going to, and to dismantle existing taxes whenever possible. They seem to think that the best way to deal with government is to give it no money whatsoever, or "starve the beast," in their terminology.
the circus said @ 10:19pm GMT on 29th Jun
Couldn't we annex Sommalia, but then just leave it the way it is? No laws, no taxes, no support, nothing to impede anyones influence on the natural market and human affairs occuring solely within it's borders?
zarathustra said @ 12:02am GMT on 30th Jun [Score:2]
Okay. Finally read the whole decision. Sorry to piss on the party, but Roberts is an evil genius and the left is fucked.

We just got a precedential decision that you can't do this under the commerce clause. Now all we need is a rediculous law ( which I guarantee some republicans are crafting right now) to pass a tax on the basis that this majority just upheld. That law will be rejected by the court as unconstitutional, rending this law unconstitutional but not effecting the precedential value of the commerce clause ruling.

Obama will accept this ruling on its face rather than following up on some of the implied threat he made about if they over turned it since having it stand might boost his reelection chances - offset by the fact the supreme court has just ruled that he raised taxes on the poor.

This is a decision reminiscent of Marbury v Madison as a justice is getting what he wants by pretending to give the president what he wants.

I pray I'm wrong.
sanepride said @ 2:50am GMT on 30th Jun
Yes, there is something here. By framing the argument as taxation Roberts has handed a stronger political argument to the right. Thing is, it ends up being a tax on a very small number of individuals (by some estimates <1%), and the actual poor wouldn't have to pay under the law as it stands. Not that these nuances matter to those who argue in the broadest strokes.
Barnabas_Truman said @ 4:01am GMT on 30th Jun
You mean those who think that the very idea of "tax" is an affront to humanity, and that EVERY tax, no mater the specifics, should be voted down?
sanepride said @ 4:51am GMT on 30th Jun
Sorry to say, it is a fairly widely held view in certain circles.
zarathustra said @ 6:53am GMT on 30th Jun
Not at all. The problem here is a discriminatory tax against the poor that the conservative wing of the court can latch on to to simultaneously make themselves look like the good guys and overturn the law just approved. And they don't even have to overturn the new precedent re the commerce clause.

Just imagin. A state rules that, since everyone is a consumer of porn, but not everyone pays their far share for it, that if you don't have a porn account with a respected ( yea, I know) supplier you will be taxed an extra 1,000 a year to support on of the last products actually procuded in the US. You have a 8 to 1 decision againt the rule, or even 9-0 if Roberts says, "well, I was wrong"

Voila, no more healthcare law and a standing decision against overreaching with the commerce clause.
granitewitch said @ 6:10am GMT on 1st Jul
I notice that we haven't heard anything from Rush Limbaugh the past few days. What happened to him moving to Costa Rica? Maybe someone gave him a plug and told him to go pack his own shit?

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.




Members

Registered: 24545

Classifieds

Heaven666
What has been seen cannot be un-seen


BOOBLE
Search sites, pics, movies, personals.


Best Porn
Reviews of the best porn sites with pics, vids, scene desription and member area preview


LONELY GUYS
Meet Women Near You