Slaydadea

MAN THAT'S HILARIOUS!!!!!

Mrs. Ravioli comes to visit her son Anthony for dinner. He lives with a female roommate, Maria. During the course of the meal, his mother couldn't help but notice how pretty Anthony's roommate is. Over the course of the evening, while watching the two interact, she started to wonder if there was more between Anthony and his roommate than met the eye. Reading his mom's thoughts, Anthony volunteered, "I know what you must be thinking, but I assure you, Maria and I are just roommates.'' About a week later, Maria came to Anthony saying, "Ever since your mother came to dinner, I've been unable to find the silver sugar bowl. You don't suppose she took it, do you?" "Well, I doubt it, but I'll email her, just to be sure. So he sat down and wrote an email: Dear MaMa, I'm not saying that you "did" take the sugar bowl from my house; I'm not saying that you "did not" take it. But the fact remains that it has been missing ever since you were here for dinner. Your Loving Son Anthony Several days later, Anthony received a response email from his MaMa which read: Dear son, I'm not saying that you "do" sleep with Maria, and I'm not saying that you "do not" sleep with her. But the fact remains that if she was sleeping in her OWN bed, she would have found the sugar bowl by now. Your Loving MaMa

Shabs. Him and many others brother! ALWAYS,' JUST WAITING TO GET MY A-- KICKED OFF OF DV! MY OPINION AS WELL. Sooner or later. Rather have the chance to say goodbye. About time!

I'm poor as well. At least we have Internet assess.

Wonder what it takes to be a Mexican? I expect benefits and Constitutional rights. Figured into the Military Industrial Complex budget I suppose.

Didn't get the "Informational Part"?

What’s the official definition of being poor in America? Share on printShare on email By Cynthia Boyd | 02/24/12 REUTERS/Jim Young Federal poverty guidelines determine the amount of money that goes to states to help pay for food and housing and other basic needs for the poor. Recently issued federal poverty guidelines establish the 2012 definition of poverty in America. Bottom line, it’s easier this year than last for families to qualify as poor and thus be eligible for state and federal government assistance programs, at least from the standpoint of income. The down side? The U.S. Census last year reported an 11 percent increase in the cost of living in Minneapolis. This year a hypothetical family of one adult and two children making an annual income of $19,090 or less is now officially poor, compared to the 2011 definition of poor for that family being $18,530. To put that in perspective, realize it figures out to one adult earner working full time for $9.17 an hour — about the cost of three tall lattes from Starbucks. Further, for a family of four, one or two parents and children, the poverty guideline announced late last month sets an annual income of $23,050. Last year it was $22,350. The federal definition establishes eligibility rules for federal public assistance programs, like TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), which replaced AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) in 1997. TANF money goes to the states to help pay for food and housing and other basic needs for the poor. MFIP, the Minnesota Family Investment Program, is Minnesota’s version of TANF. The U.S. guidelines serve as a benchmark for the states in determining who qualifies for their public assistance programs. In most states, if families exceed the poverty level income they lose their benefits. Current Minnesota law, however, allows families to earn up to 115 percent of poverty and still receive cash benefits through MFIP. But a proposed bill now before the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee would cut off benefits such as MFIP at 100 percent of poverty, explains Jessica L. Webster, staff attorney for the Legal Services Advocacy Project. She and other advocates for the poor oppose such a measure. Webster recalls that when MFIP was piloted in 1994 to 1997 persons were allowed to earn up to 140 percent of the poverty guideline. The idea, Webster says, was to allow families to save money and stabilize their housing and living situations before leaving MFIP, meant to be a temporary lifesaver for families. In addition, local advocates for the poor like Kara Arzamendia, research director at the Children’s Defense Fund Minnesota, argue that an income of $23,000 for a family of four isn’t enough to meet basic needs. She points to figures offered by the Jobs Now Coalition. Its online Family Wage and Budget Calculator estimates that a “basic needs” budget for a Minnesota family of four with two adults working full time and two children is actually about $56,300. (Figure in employer-provided health insurance, transportation costs, work clothes, child care.) Other experts maintain 200 percent of poverty, or $46,100, is sufficient income to support our hypothetical family of four’s basic needs. You’ll find a graph here listing qualifying incomes for up to families of eight ($38,890) with a sparse addition of $3,960 for each additional family member over eight. Update This week the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee approved the billthat would cut off some benefits at 100 percent of poverty and passed the measure on to the state House Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy and Finance Committee. The poverty guidelines are used to determine whether persons qualify to receive certain kinds of economic assistance. In response to a reader’s query below whether the guidelines refer to before-tax income: that depends. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services explains: “…ome agencies compare before-tax income to the poverty guidelines, while other agencies compare after-tax income. Likewise, eligibility can be dependent on gross income, net income, or some other measure of income.’’

Someone negged the post. Got sucked into the Pumper Hype didn't you? It'll all be better. Pretty educational, gotta admit. Most don't have a clue.

PUMPER NEWS!! DON'T BEAT ME UP TOO BAD! SLAY DON'T PUMP! ACTUALLY, I could give a Rat's YOU KNOW WHAT! INFORMATIONAL ONLY. Maybe one day we can all say, "I TOLD YOU SO"! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-qrvL1_JPx4

Search George Carlin "American Dream" on YouTube for the real story. He sums it up pretty well.

Spot on!

A blonde heard that milk baths would make her beautiful. So she left a note for her milkman to leave 15 gallons of milk. When the milkman read the note, he felt there must be a mistake. He thought she probably meant 1.5 gallons so he knocked on her door to clarify the point. The blonde came to the door and the milkman said, "I found your note to leave 15 gallons of milk. Did you mean 1.5 gallons?" The blonde said, "I want 15 gallons. I'm going to fill my bathtub up with milk and take a milk bath." The milkman asked, "Do you want it Pasteurized?" The blonde said, "No, just up to my boobs, I can splash it in my eyes."

I put this in Off Topics but Iraq is mentioned. Mind that this is all speculative but does make some common sense points. Money, Power and Oil.

I don't think O is running this one either. Any other Presidents reply to "Chunky" would have been, "Come on fatboy, get ya some of this if you wan't it"!

EMPLOYEE NOTICE Due to the current sequester, the Government has decided to implement a scheme to put workers of 50 years of age and above on early, mandatory retirement, thus creating jobs and reducing unemployment. This scheme will be known as RAPE (Retire Aged People Early). Persons selected to be RAPED can apply to the Government to be considered for the SHAFT program (Special Help After Forced Termination). Persons who have been RAPED and SHAFTED will be reviewed under the SCREW program (System Covering Retired-Early Workers). A person may be RAPED once, SHAFTED twice and SCREWED as many times as the Government deems appropriate. Persons who have been RAPED could get AIDS (Additional Income for Dependents & Spouse) or HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel Early Severance). Obviously persons who have AIDS or HERPES will not be SHAFTED or SCREWED any further by the Government. Persons who are not RAPED and are staying on will receive as much **** (Special High Intensity Training) as possible. The Government has always prided themselves on the amount of **** they give our citizens. Should you feel that you do not receive enough ****, please bring this to the attention of your Representative, who has been trained to give you all the **** you can handle. Sincerely, The Committee for Economic Value of Individual Lives (E.V.I.L.) PS - Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas and oil, as well as current market conditions, the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off.

Print Boomberg - Bloomberg On the evening of March 5, nine agents from the California Department of Justice, wearing bulletproof vests and carrying Glock pistols, assembled outside a ranch-style house in a Los Angeles suburb. They were preparing to confiscate weapons from a gun owner who’d recently lost the right to possess firearms after spending two days in a psychiatric hospital. They knocked on the door and asked to come in. These touchy encounters sometimes end in anger and, occasionally, handcuffs. This time, the agents came out peacefully with three guns. Then it was on to the next stop on the list for that night. California is the only state that takes legally obtained weapons away from citizens who are no longer supposed to have them. There are almost 20,000 such gun owners, state records show, including convicted felons, people under domestic violence restraining orders, or those deemed mentally unstable. “What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” California Attorney General Kamala Harris wrote to Vice President Biden after the shootings in Newtown, Conn. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, look to California as a model. Nationwide, as many as 200,000 people have lost their gun rights but keep their weapons, says Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis. Many states lack the ability to confiscate firearms because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most sales to go through a licensed dealer and be reported. “Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” says Wintemute, who helped set up the program. California’s been going after guns since 2007. Last year agents seized about 2,000 weapons, 117,000 rounds of ammunition, and 11,000 high-capacity magazines, according to state data. The list of those no longer eligible to keep weapons is compiled by matching files on almost 1 million gun owners with databases of new criminal records and involuntary mental health commitments. About 15 to 20 names are added each day, the attorney general’s office says. Showing up at people’s homes and demanding their guns is about as fun as it sounds. A felony conviction or restraining order is flagged as a “disqualifying event” in California’s database, but it isn’t sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant, says John Marsh, a supervising agent who coordinates the seizures. So the agents—there are 33 statewide—often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons. “We’re not contacting anybody who can legally own a gun,” says Marsh, who never knows what to expect when he approaches someone’s door. “I got called the antichrist the other day. Every conspiracy theory you’ve heard of, take that times 10.” During the March 5 outing, the agents visited a home in Fontana, in San Bernardino County. They were looking for a gun owner with a criminal record for running a prostitution business, according to the attorney general’s office. Marsh says that while the woman appeared to be home, she didn’t come to the door. Without a warrant, the team left empty-handed. They had better luck at the ranch house in nearby Upland, where they seized the three guns from the home of a woman who’d been hospitalized for mental illness. One gun was registered to her, two to her husband. “The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, says Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office. Although violating gun ownership laws is a felony, the agents don’t usually arrest people whose weapons they confiscate unless they’re convicted felons, who are prohibited from buying, receiving, owning, or possessing a firearm, Gregory says. The program has met little resistance from gun groups, which have pressed state and federal lawmakers to enforce existing gun control laws instead of writing new ones. “We think that crime control instead of gun control is absolutely the way to go,” says Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. His only complaint is how the law is funded. On March 7, California’s senate voted to expand the seizure program using $24 million from fees that gun dealers charge buyers for background checks. “This program has a benefit to the entire public,” Paredes says, “and therefore the entire public should be paying.”

Too Cute! If that dog can really do tricks, those muffins should be re-wrapped when you see them again!

Thanks LIboy! Your'e Great!

A lawyer married a woman who had previously divorced ten husbands. On their wedding night, she told her new husband, "Please be gentle, I'm still a virgin." "What?" said the puzzled groom. "How can that be if you've been married ten times?" "Well, Husband #1 was a sales representative: he kept telling me how great it was going to be. Husband #2 was in software services: he was never really sure how it was supposed to function, but he said he'd look into it and get back to me. Husband #3 was from field services: he said everything checked out diagnostically but he just couldn't get the system up. Husband #4 was in telemarketing: even though he knew he had the order, he didn't know when he would be able to deliver. Husband #5 was an engineer: he understood the basic process but wanted three years to research, implement, and design a new state-of-the-art method. Husband #6 was from finance and administration: he thought he knew how, but he wasn't sure whether it was his job or not. Husband #7 was in marketing: although he had a nice product, he was never sure how to position it. Husband #8 was a psychologist: all he ever did was talk about it. Husband #9 was a gynecologist: all he did was look at it. Husband #10 was a stamp collector: all he ever did was... God! I miss him! But now that I've married you, I'm really excited!" "Good," said the new husband, "but, why?" "You're a lawyer. This time I know I'm gonna get screwed!"

Little Prick!!