Hood Sex Is Good Sex

This nasty couple decided to show off how they get down...find more of them here @rude.com...

homegrownfreaks.net

Interracial Cream Compilation

Super compilation clip of various interracial cream scenes, some of which are probably familiar and some I've never seen...

Thanks to the Anonymous poster who found this one at xvideos.com

FUK DAT BITCH

A Face Full

How about a real government for the people?

By Distributorcap

We thought it was bad when Bush was in charge, but just look at the simpletons running the House of Representatives now. It's Titticut Follies meets Duck Soup.

Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, and the entire new crop of teabagging dingbats like Rand Paul and the freshmen reps give new meaning to the Peter Principle. Face it, we have a completely broken government put in power by a completely broken electoral system.

It is really time Americans took a hard look at our system and organization of government (which we won't) and change the things that are driving us into the cesspool (which of course we won't). For over 200 years we have basically followed the principles and doctrines of the founding fathers -- Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and all the other 18th-century scholars. Stability in the process of law has been our strength. It might now also be one of our greatness weaknesses. Plus, it is the 21st century, and most Americans are barely treated as 3/5 of a person.

The Amendments

So grounded are we in NOT changing, there have only been 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution in over 200 years. Of the 27, some are not really laws to govern by but rather corrections to flaws and issues stemming from the original document.

The 18th and 21st amendments deal with prohibition (which in reality had nothing to do with government) and negate each other. The 23rd (electoral representation for D.C.) and the 19th (giving women the right to vote) are corrections to obvious flaws. One can argue the 20th (which deals with term-end dates), the 24th (poll taxes), and the 25th (presidential succession) are really just clarifications of early laws. And finally the last amendment, the 27th (congressional compensation), has nothing to do with the rule of law. That leaves 19 amendments that have dealt with shifting times and a more complex country. One could even argue that the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery, is not an amendment to govern but a correction to a horrible mistake. Many racists Republicans are gunning to get rid of the 14th.

And guess what, with so few changes to an ideology established in a period that bears little relationship to an era of instant information in a shrinking world, our government continues to detract from its original aspiration and devolve into an incredibly dysfunctional body. Sure, a large chunk of people (like the right wing and others) will say our Constitution is the single greatest document laying down the basis for the single greatest political system ever (it is not; it allowed George Bush to be elected). So how dare we tinker with it. Well, arrogance knows no bounds from people unwilling or unable to adjust to the world as it is. That attitude and a quarter gets you more worthless American currency and more Congressmen like Jim DeMint and Louis Gohmert.

Here is my two cents: The Constitution (and the political process) ain't working. It needs an extreme makeover. Think Joan Rivers. There are those who do not want change: those in power (who are more and more looking like a bunch of less and less intelligent media whores) and the (allegedly non-ideological) media, both of whom have very little incentive to alter the structure that put/keeps them in power in the first place. Almost anyone in government today (from all political bents) would poo-poo any suggestion of major constitutional rewrites. But to survive as a viable and thriving society in a world of diminishing resources, floundering leadership, and increased divisiveness, we must consider moderation to the very fundamentals that brought us to the place we are at. Change or die. Survival of the fittest.

Here are some of my thoughts – food for discussion. They are not wrong or right, just some ideas on improving a broken (yes, broken, dilapidated, and now dangerous) system.

Elections

First I will say that I wish we had the parliamentary form of government like Canada, Britain, or Australia, where the party in power chooses the leader of government and can also fall from power before the end of the term. There are tons of pluses and minuses to this form of government. But for now I will work within the basic confines of the current government structure.

All elections should be held on Sunday (don't give me the lame excuses of Church or religion or the day of rest -- almost every other nation in the world votes on a weekend, and most churches today are political hotbeds anyway), so yhat people could vote and not worry about the kids at school or getting time off from work. Or if that doesn't suit you, have a two-day election Saturday and Sunday. EVERY polling place in the nation has the same equipment, all with paper trails. If you want early mail-in voting, fine. For the presidential elections, all polls close at the same time, 12 midnight ET, 9 pm PT, 6 pm in Alaska and Hawaii -- one day every four years is not too much to ask of a late-night election. This Tuesday nonsense is, well, nonsense and utterly ridiculous.

The campaigns go on way too long – they really become more of a turnoff and often evolve into a mudslinging anger-fest right out of As The World Turns. The 2012 campaign has been in full force for nearly a year (just watch any cable show and the handicapping is in full bloom). Stopping candidates from early or long campaigning is impossible and fraught with free speech implications, but you can limit advertising and debates to a narrow period of time. (I realize there are major freedom of speech issues with this as well, but what is more important, an honest debate or permanent campaigns to ensure pundits have a job?) The primary process sucks. It is long, expensive, and cumbersome. It should be divided into four regional super-primaries instead of a six-month drawn-out media party. The primaries should be about the candidates and issues, not about what the media wants in terms of covering the candidates and the issues (there is a big difference). Plus, it is expensive. We complain about all the money in politics, and all the donations. When you have a six-month primary system done on such a local-local level, it is bound to get very pricey.

(This issue of money and elections is a whole post unto itself.)

Presidential Election

The Electoral College needs major reformation or to be junked completely. My belief is to ditch the bitch -- get rid of it. It is an anachronism, developed (in my opinion) for arrogant and snobby reasons. The presidency is the only political office in the country that is elected by the entire country, and the current bizarre system allocates votes based on a lopsided and unfair weighting system. This is an electoral system that puts the states (or federalism) above the people (or populism). Votes in Alaska count much more than votes in California. It is a ridiculous and dispiriting procedure. And it is expensive. It is not one man, one vote, and it seems to me to be more Soviet-style than democratic.

We should have a national election where the winner is determined by a plurality of the popular vote, period. Sure, the "get to know the candidate" in more remote places will go away, but to my mind that is a small tradeoff for having every person count the same. Besides, with social media and invasive cable, every candidate is everywhere, everyday. Hand-to-hand campaigning would still be necessary, as would local stops. Right now a Republican would barely venture into New England or New York, a Democrat avoids the places like Kansas or Idaho -- that all would change. The Republicans in Massachusetts would have to be courted, just as the Democrats in Utah would have to be. Diehards would hate this, but too bad -- who cares what the diehard traditionalists think? The upside of this change far outweighs the downside, since the current system is ALL downside.

There is really no valid reason to keep the Electoral College other than tradition and the excuse that James Madison knew more than we did. Sure people will say it protects states' rights, minorities, and the two-party system. Protecting the two-party system is the last thing we should want. But is the presidency about the federal system or about representing the people of the nation?

Three times -- in 1876, 1888, and 2000 -- the candidate with the most popular votes lost to someone with more electoral votes. That is clearly not the will of the people but rather the will of the states. Why should someone in Wyoming have more say that someone in Oregon? The Declaration of Independence should be re-written to start "we the states" rather than "we the people" if that is what we really want from the presidency.

More importantly, we all know first-hand what happens when someone ignores the will of the people -- you get the idiocy of the self-anointed and power-hungry King George (yes we could have dumped him in '04, but if logic prevailed he should not have even been there for dumping). Plus, a little-revealed fact, the current Electoral College setup basically allows the electors to vote for whomever they want to. They do not have to vote for the candidate chosen by their state. While 24 states have laws to punish this, only ONE (Michigan) has the power to actually cancel that "faithless" vote. So in some surreal setting, a candidate could win the popular vote and the electoral vote and still not be elected president. Unlikely, but theoretically possible. This is not democracy, it is lunacy. To me, almost anything is better than the current Electoral College.

I go back and forth as to what would be best with regard to term limits for the president. As currently -- two four-year terms? One six-year term? No limit? I am not sure, but I lean towards one six-year term.

And oh, the Supreme Court cannot stop recounts, and if a justice fails to disclose his wife's income he is automatically impeached.

Congress

The District of Columbia either becomes or is treated just like a state for national political purposes. Zero discussion on this. The fact D.C. residents have no Congressional representation is ludicrous. They're held hostage by the Republicans since over 80 percent of all voters in D.C. are Democrats.

The House of Representatives continues to be population-based. I don't know what the magical number of reps should be, but for argument's sake I would up the number to 565, which is taking the U.S. population of 309,000,000 in 2010 and dividing it by the population of the smallest state (Wyoming at 545,000). Of course, you wouldn't want to change the number of reps every year or even every ten. Just keep it at the base of 565. Frankly, the larger number, the more unmanageable an already unmanageable body would become. Under this algorithm, New York would have 34 reps, while Colorado would have nine.

There should be no gerrymandering of districts -- districts should ONLY be reassigned if the state gains/loses a House seat every ten years after the Census. Districts should be redrawn by bipartisan committee, with strict guidelines, not by state legislatures (no weird shapes to get in certain groups, minorities, or parties in certain districts). You cannot keep all politics out of districting, but it can and should be limited.

Reps should be required to be present for a certain number or percentage of votes or else are admonished, fined, or kicked out. Terms should be increased to three years (these two-year terms practically require reps to start campaigning the day the are elected). One-third (188) could be elected every year, keeping a rotation.

The Senate should be adjusted for some population-based figures. Having two senators from Alaska and two from California is plain stupid and unfair. I propose the top 17 states get three senators, the next 17 get two senators, and the bottom 17 (remember D.C. is added) get one senator. 102 senators, voted by their full state. In addition, three senators are elected by the entire country, essentially stateless senators, for a total of 105. The party with the most senators is in charge. Six-year terms remain, with 1/3 up for election every two years. Same deal on the minimum number of votes as for the House. NO FILIBUSTERS unless the senator actually does his best James Stewart.

If you think that basing both Houses on some sort of population count will really tilt the Congress towards the big states too much, then let's go with the Senate remaining with two senators from each state (102 including D.C.), plus three at-large senators elected either regionally or nationally. These senators would not answer to any one state. Total: 105 senators. There is nothing magic about 100 senators other than the round sounding of the total. Before 1959, there were 96 Senators.

Both bodies should be required to remain in session a minimum of 230 days/year. NO DISCUSSION. This is not a country club. That still leaves six weeks vacation for all Congressmen and plenty of time for Boehner to play golf.

Supreme Court

For this body I have absolutely no issues with term limits -- there should be. These are not elected officials answering to the people, they are appointed, and appointed with politics squarely in mind.

Nine justices, 18-year term limit. Every two years one justice steps down as his/her term expires. This way every president would get to nominate at least two justices (resignation and death would cause an immediate refill of the seat, regardless of the term order, and the appointee would fill the remaining term). The president continues to nominate and the Senate continues approval. This way you would not be stuck with a Scalia or Thomas for a lifetime. The politics of the Supreme Court could change every two years depending on the rotation and the president. In today's court you can predict the vote on every case almost to a tee. There should be strict ethics and guidelines for justices with respect to politics and even the appearance of impropriety. No lunches with the Koch boys.

Chime in. Am I that out to lunch?

La tetuda Kelly Madison en HD

Rubias maduritas tetudas y cachondas

Brilliant plan or petty scam? Republicans repackage Democratic budget ideas

By Nicholas Wilbur

Taking credit for someone else's work is called plagiarism – unless you're in politics, in which case it's called bipartisanship.

With Republicans vehement in their opposition to the Democratic Party's plans to merely shear the sheep, and with Democrats equally obstinate in their disregard for the Republican Party's plans to behead the beast, a Congressional showdown over federal spending quickly evolved into a seemingly imminent government shutdown. Even a short-term fix appeared impossible as Republicans proved unwilling to entertain any temporary plans that didn't include spending cuts while Democrats proved unwilling to accept any such budget Band-Aids that did include cuts.

From ToonRefugee.com

But then, as if by magic or some divine intervention, the stars suddenly aligned, the Potomac parted, lions began hiring lambs as anger management counselors, and the two parties put aside their budget differences and began working as one body dedicated not to corporate or ideological interests but to the people who hired them.

With a week remaining before the government ran out of money, and with no agreement in sight, Republicans proposed a plan to fund the government another two weeks as negotiations over a more permanent fix continued.

Fearful of reliving the bare-knuckle beat-down they suffered over similar budget woes in 1995, Republicans decided to avoid the backlash of another government shutdown by proposing what The New York Times described as "a carefully calibrated stopgap measure" that would fund the government for two weeks while the two parties negotiate a more long-term budget resolution.

As promised, Republicans included significant spending cuts to the short-term stopgap measure. But, as the Times noted, "[t]o make it harder for Democrats to object to the temporary plan, Republican architects of the proposal tried to make the cuts relatively painless."

As it turns out, the cuts, totaling $4 billion, weren't so much "relatively painless" as they were pleasurable. Reversing course on their insistence earlier in the week that they would not support a proposal that included any cuts, "Senate Democrats indicated they would be willing to go along with the proposal," the Times reported. Looking at the source of the proposed cuts, it isn't terribly difficult to ascertain why they had a sudden change of heart. From the Times:

(Republicans) came up with the $4 billion by ending eight education, transportation and other programs that President Obama had previously sought to close down, a savings of almost $1.2 billion. They also reclaimed nearly $2.8 billion set aside for earmarks in the current budget; both the House and Senate have agreed to ban such pet projects.

I can't decide if this is utterly brilliant or completely retarded.

It seems as if Republicans have killed three birds with one stone.

First and foremost, they quelled a potential revolt of House Tea Party members by giving them a nice, big, round number which they can throw out to their anti-government constituents as evidence of their hardline stance against excessive federal spending. It was the Tea Party, after all, that accused senior Republicans in the House of going soft on their campaign pledge to slash government spending. Four billion dollars in a two-week funding package more than does the job.

Second, Republicans needed to propose something that Democrats would support. What better way to entice Democrats to back a Republican bill than to use ideas Democrats themselves proposed? As the Times noted, the $1.2 billion in cuts originated from the president's own proposal.

Knowing that the Tea Party could squabble about a puny $1.2 billion, they cut another $2.8 billion slated for earmarks even though both parties already agreed to end the use of earmarks, and even though the president already promised to veto any legislation that landed on his desk with earmarks attached.

Republicans essentially repackaged the president's own ideas and inflated the spending cuts with earmarks that nobody was allowed to include in a budget package anyway.

If it sounds similar to mining for gold in your neighbor's backyard and selling him bullion coins at a discounted rate, it is. Stargazing is free – like breathing oxygen, blinking, and flipping off the IRS building when you drive by – but that doesn't take away from its bipartisan popularity.

This is either the masterpiece of a genius or the scheming plot of an amateur scam artist.

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Duke Snider (1926-2011)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm much too young to remember the playing days of Duke Snider, the great Hall-of-Fame outfielder for the Brooklyn and Los Angeles Dodgers (1947-62) whose career ended in 1964, but I remember well his many days as one of the voices of the Montreal Expos, from 1973-86.

As a huge Expos fan growing up in Montreal, his was one of the key voices of my childhood. I was still much too young in 1973, but by 1978 and '79 I was listening regularly to Snider and partner Dave Van Horne (the latest winner of the prestigious Ford C. Frick award), and they were wonderful together, at a time when the Expos were a competitive and successful franchise.

Not showy, not flashy, not sensationalist, they were true baseball men, and they knew their stuff. The fact that I'm still such an enormous baseball fan today owes a great deal to them both.

As for Snider, what can I say? He played on some pretty great Dodgers teams, including some memorable Brooklyn ones in the '50s that would have won more World Series than the one they did win (in 1955) had it not been for the damn Yankees, to whom they lost in 1947 (with Snider mostly in the minors and not playing in the World Series), 1949, 1952, 1953, and 1956. (They moved to L.A. in 1958 and won again, with Snider, in 1959.) He didn't put up incredible numbers by Hall standards (.295, 407 HRs, 1,333 RBI), but he made eight all-star teams (1950-56, 1963) and was a superb player.

Here, watch this:

Gunboat diplomacy again?

By Capt. Fogg

It may seem like old news at a time when this morning's Punch and Judy show is already old by lunchtime, but I've been taking a small vacation from blogging and improving my health by not immediately looking at the news every morning. I'm back, but old news is what I have for breakfast today.

I heard Mr. Huckabee lambaste President Obama last week on MSNBC for not parking the Navy off the coast of Libya so as to intimidate Colonel Qaddafi. Do we need any more evidence for the presidential unsuitability of the avuncular mediocrity who doesn't "believe" in science but thinks it's always better to look tough even when it defeats your purpose?

The mad Colonel has made capital out of standing between Libya and the imperialism of America and what better help could we give him in putting out his message that it's either his leadership or chaos?

I have either to think that Obama bashing is sufficient end in itself for Mike to forget about any possible benefit from a move toward liberal democracy in the Middle East, or that waving the flag is all one needs to do to rally the mob, but in either case the pronouncements of Mike Huckabee are all about the candidacy of Mike Huckabee and everything he says or does is designed to further that end rather than to offer any viable solutions to real problems. Just the kind of Bozo America loves to elect, isn't he?

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Mayor Mike blows it

By Carl 

This op-ed, to no great surprise, is a bundle of elitist hackery that speaks volumes about how Mayor Michael Bloomberg has handled New York City's finances through two budget crises.

It's not that he doesn't make some points (I'll get to those), but it's the overall tone of privilege, which is sort of funny coming from a billionaire, self-made or no.

To wit:

Across the country, taxpayers are providing pensions, benefits and job security protections for public workers that almost no one in the private sector enjoys. Taxpayers simply cannot afford to continue paying these costs, which are growing at rates far outpacing inflation. Yes, public sector workers need a secure retirement. And yes, taxpayers need top-quality police officers, teachers and firefighters. It’s the job of government to balance those competing needs. But for a variety of reasons, the scale has been increasingly tipping away from taxpayers.

Now, like I said, Mayor Mike has a point: There is an enormous burden on taxpayers to fund budget deficits. In New York City in particular, the budget by law has to be balanced (barring catastrophes) in order for the city to receive state funding. And the costs of pensions and health care are outstripping the rate of inflation, particularly at a time of near-zero inflation.

But... this article smacks of so much hypocrisy that I had no choice but to address it.

The argument you never hear, the argument that Mayor Mike ought to hear and then shut his piehole over, is this: Public-sector workers make MUCH LESS SALARY than their private sector counterparts. A clerk in a bank gets a 10-15% higher salary, plus vacation, plus paid sick time, and may even be eligible for a bonus each year.

Yes, that's right: a clerk at Goldman Sachs can make a bonus that brings his income significantly higher than the private sector premium already paid! The equivalent clerk at the city Department of Finance? Not so lucky.

So what makes people want to serve the public? It can't be the appreciation, a glance at the New York Post or FOX News will show any public servant just how appreciated they are. These outlets lie in wait for some poor soul who hasn't slept in three nights because his wife is due to deliver a baby to fall asleep on a park bench, even momentarily, so they can smear his face across front pages for millions.

Just ask an EMT who has to drive an ambulance down a crowded street to try to pick up a heart attack victim just how much appreciation he gets from motorists stuck behind his rig, lights flashing and EMTs hustling about. Why, the shouted "Hosannas" would make a stevedor blush!

It's not the salary or the awesome potential to make millions, because you know what? No one makes that kind of money in city government.

No, they do it because they get two guarantees: job security in tough economic times and the promise of a pension at the end of the road.

And even in New York City, thousands of civil servants have been laid off by the bushel and now there's talk of 6% of the teachers being axed, most from the poorest schools furthest behind grades... who will then be closed because they underachieve academically. Mayor Mike, with this article, demonstrates that even pensions are not above his vulgar rapacity.

It's a win-win for the billionaires that Bloomberg is kowtowing to! It's a lose-lose for the other nine million citizens who work their fingers to the bone, trying to make ends meet and give their kids some kind of leg up in life.

See, the dirtiest secret of them all is, we wouldn't be in this crisis if Bloomberg and his predecessors, particularly Rudy 9-11 Giuliani, hadn't given away the candy store to companies who even glanced at New Jersey and winked at the mayor. You want to understand why the city's finances are in the toilet? Companies like NASDAQ and Citicorp pay no taxes to New York City, of any consequence, based on sweetheart deals to retain their presences in our fair town.

The irony is, where the hell would they have gone? If you want to be taken seriously as a player, you have to have your offices in the biggest financial capital in the world (well, except that's now London, but I digress).

Even Lehman Brothers... LEHMAN BROTHERS, who couldn't make money in a market that practically printed it!... got tax incentives to stay here and build a garish headquarters in Times Square. And then went bankrupt.

But hey, Mr. Mayor, you go right on balancing the budget on the backs of the clerks and the firefighters and the teachers and the santitation workers and all the people who voted for you last time out, then hop your little jet to Bermuda to get away from the stench of burnt charcoal and chalk dust and uncollected trash... who needs you?

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Sexxxxy_Angellll Returns

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"Hi, I'm Morgan Reigns & I Like to Get FUCKED"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Asian Amateurs

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A worthy look back at the Oscars

By Michael J.W. Stickings

No real surprises -- where there any at all? -- in what was a horrendously bad show (with some incredibly bad hosting, especially the not-quite-there James Franco and the awkward Anne Hathaway, though it surely had a lot to do with some even worse writing). Maybe the main surprise is that it was that bad, which is to say, even worse than usual.

I amused myself by tweeting excessively.

And that's really all I have to say. I haven't seen all the major contenders yet, but it was, from what I could tell, a crappy year for Hollywood. And that was reflected tonight.

The King's Speech? Okay, fine, but I doubt anyone will look back on it years from now and say, "Wow, that's a historically great film." (Not that Oscars really reward historical greatness, mind you.)

I mentioned my favourite movies of 2010 -- movies I saw for the first time in 2010 -- a while back. I'd still go with Sacha Guitry's wonderful The Story of a Cheat (1936), released in an Eclipse set by Criterion. For "new" movies in 2010, I'd go with the restored, complete Metropolis (on Blu-ray), Fritz Lang's stunning 1927 masterpiece. To that list I'd like to add Michael Haneke's marvellous (and deeply troubling) The White Ribbon (2009).

As for new 2010 movies, I found most of the big ones highly overrated: The Social Network, Toy Story 3, Inception.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World was a lot of fun, but I'd say Winter's Bone was the best, pending others, like Black Swan and The Fighter (which I highly doubt are better), I'll see when they're out on video.

And that's that. It was a terrible show, and none of the major winners, however genuinely deserving (Colin Firth in particular, with a performance, and a role, that was Oscar-perfect -- overcoming a disability, a lot of emoting), really jumped out for me.

I wish I could say it can only get better from here, but I was also saying that during the show, and then out came Celine Dion.

And now I need to get to bed.

foto foto gokil polisi republik indonesia

http://forum.vivanews.com/showthread.php?t=71209

Sexo durante el embarazo - Sex during pregnancy - Pregnancy fetishism - Fetichismo y embarazadas

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.