You can't make this shit up, folks. Where you at tea baggers?

S

speedracer

Banned
So Ben Nelson, the fine Democrat from Nebraska (of Cornhusker kickback fame) tried to insert a sweetheart provision into the financial regulation bill that would help Berkshire. The Dems tell him to piss off and they schedule the vote on a MOTION TO PROCEED (not actually voting on the goddamn thing, but beginning the rider/attachment/kill the bill with pork bullshit portion of the events). Natch, Nelson votes with the Republicans to filibuster and everyone smiles broadly. The guy who less than a month ago Republicans were deriding as being a earmarking leech scumbag crosses to vote with them because Democrats won't let him be a earmarking leech scumbag and the Repubs welcome him with open arms. Nothing shocking there.

Here's where it gets fun. They know they'll look like assholes carrying water for Wall St. if they don't find some cover, since they actually are carrying water. So they pull up some (natch) unsigned document from the Fed that says that if the government doesn't promise to bail out future companies that do exactly what these scumbag banks did, our economy will be irreparably damaged.

The Republicans, with a straight face, are arguing that we must bail out banks if we want to save capitalism in America. bwahahaha! Let's watch the wave of hate all over the Republicans as they are, to a man and woman, swept out of power by the new conservative movement. After all, this is the very purpose of the tea party, no? The Republicans are calling your bluff Tea Baggers. Reward Democrats for doing exactly what you want. The rest of us are waiting to see if you're partisans or if you actually give a shit about what you're spewing. A more obvious test couldn't possibly be designed.

Amazingly timed leaked Fed documents written so even middle school tea baggers can understand the screws being put to the Democrats: http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2010/04/Senate-Ag-bill-comments-april-24-2010-FED.pdf

The Financial Times, the parent of The Economist and a leading free market publication, can't even pretend it's not a bank shake down: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/04/27/212446/the-mysterious-fed-staffers-document/

I expect the bus, Beck, the whole bit. Git em! Every single Republican senator!
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It'd be awesome if we voted out every Republican and Democratic congressmen and women. ;)[/QUOTE]
The bill is being submarined because the bill does what the tea partiers want. Let that sink in.

You're actually getting what you want from the Dems. Which is exactly 1 thing more than the Repubs have done for anyone in what, 10 years?
 
I just love it how it is the usually the conservative Democrats who pull this shit.

We need better Democrats but anyhoo... this isn't the last we will hear of this failure once again isn't an option.
 
So let me get this straight. Your post is all postulation and assumption that the Tea Party movement dislikes Democrats more than Republicans? Am I warm?

At least, I THINK, that's your angle.... That would be mighty snarky and convenient if the tea party was actually a republican patsy all along. I can see the appeal in such an expose.

I'm still trying to let such radical thinking sink in... I'll sleep on it and hopefully understand in the morning.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So let me get this straight. Your post is all postulation and assumption that the Tea Party movement dislikes Democrats more than Republicans? Am I warm?[/QUOTE]
I'll try and be more tl;dr

1. People form tea parties because of bailouts.
2. Democrats attempt to pass legislation that *exactly* matches priorities of tea baggers.
3. ???

I can't imagine a better test. We'll see what the tea party express and the Dick Armey funded part is up to today. Obviously we know where Queen tea partier Bachmann is by her vote. Palin was quiet as a church mouse last night. Guess the tea partiers didn't pay enough to get continuing commentary.

No comment from you on the actual bill or the actual vote? Partisanship aside, honestly, this is a solid bill dude. The anti-bailout provisions are good. I mean shit, you know the derivative language is tight when Ben Nelson is trying to get Berkshire Hathaway (a huge Obama supporter) a loophole and they blow him off so bad he votes with Republicans. The "$50 bil" part that I'm certain will be a rallying cry for Repubs is going to defang the Fed and keep their hands out of the taxpayers' pocket. It was a really clever move. This is one of the better bills you'll ever see voted on. They haven't gotten lobbyist or special interest hooks in it yet. I didn't think the Democrats were capable of good governance. If the tea partiers massively rose up to support this bill RIGHT NOW, it would be signed on Friday and wouldn't get watered down.

I'm kind of horrified to be proud of the tea partiers because I never in a million years thought we would get a bill half as good and it has to be in part because of them. This bill is aggressive man. The daily posting of collateral as part of a derivative trade is a damned great idea. It seems they scared the Democrats enough that they were willing to tell Warren Buffett to piss off when he asked for an exemption. I'm in shock. And yet, I have this feeling that the tea parties that brought tens of thousands out to march and demand a bill that looks exactly like this one will suddenly find a reason to sit and snark from the sidelines. A movement that gets what it wants from the opposing party? We'll see if they can handle that. I sure as hell hope so.

Get your bags and effigies and march god damn it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is there really any doubt that most tea party people are conservative? I didn't say republican, i said conservative. Wouldn't that put them at odds with most democrats?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']It is still early. Does the bill prevent "too big to fail" in the future if derivatives are involved?[/QUOTE]
Yes, via removing a sneaky method the investment firms themselves used to hide losses and further their leverage.

So it went like this. I buy a derivative instrument from JPMorgan/Goldman/whoever. A separate account is opened. The numbers go upside down and I start losing money on it. I am now required to post the amount I'm under. If it goes back up, I get the money back. This happens daily. It was a market based collateral system that works really well because if I can't back up my trade, it's going to show because I won't be able to cover my losses. The investment companies would not be bound to do the same thing cause hey, they're good for it right? So when JPGoldmanMerrill went upside down, they just delayed and hid their losses.

The bill requires both sides to post collateral when they go upside down. Banks hate it because it forces them to deleverage to make good on the trade. They can't use the money somewhere else to make money because it's already promised out. In a nutshell, that's how they got busted. The call on the debt was made and they couldn't make good. AIG, Lehman, etc etc etc could not have failed if they were required to cover. Or at the very least, it would have become obvious very early that firms were taking a hit and you shouldn't do business with them. You wouldn't buy from an insurer that you know isn't able to cover existing liabilities. A perfect market mechanism to limit the market. Information!

Another reason they hate it is because it forces them to publicize the costs (this is the "strong derivative language" brought by Blanche Lincoln that you may have heard of). The banks were entering derivative contracts on housing paper trash, then when they got upside down they would lie and tell their counterparties that it hadn't (and even told them the value increased and THEY needed to pay more!). Since there was no published information, the counterparty couldn't call them on their bluff.

The final f-u to the investment firms is that they make huge margin on these suckers because the market doesn't publish info (again, the Lincoln language), so no one knows what anyone else is paying. When you buy a stock, you can see exactly who is buying and selling and at what cost, the history, insider moves, etc. I can't sell you Gamestop stock at $60 because you know it's only going for $25. Bonds, derivatives, all this other crap has no such mechanism so the investment banks would maximize profits based on the fact that *ONLY* they had perfect information (ie what the bond seller was selling at). The buyer, buying from investment banks has not only imperfect information, but literally none outside of what the investment bank tells them. Requiring publishing of the numbers will crush the margins on these types of instruments where their information is intentionally repressed. More information in the market is fabulous for everyone except the sneaky investment assholes. It will cheapen debt for companies and cheapen buying for buyers. If you think it can't be worth that much then remember that this quarter alone, in this shit market, Goldman alone posted over $3 bil in profits.

This bill is a great use of the banks' own ideas. It furthers the interests of the market without killing the golden goose of the market. You can still enter into derivatives, you can still do all this shit, but now you actually would have to pay for your gambling chips before gambling. To bring it back, what Berkshire Hathaway wants is an exception to derivative contracts already written. They don't want to have to post collateral on shit already out there. The Dems told em too goddamn bad and Ben Nelson got all salty and crossed the aisle and voted with the Republicans.

Of course, Republicans are fighting this tooth and nail in compromise sessions. They thought that since Lincoln is facing a touch election in a red state, she'd roll over for them so they told Dodd to stick it and let Lincoln's committee roll out language. But she didn't and now they're "stuck" with her strong language that results in a worse bill for them (and better for everyone else). So now they filibuster to try to kill the whole thing and get the Democrats to "compromise". Compromise being a watered down bill.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/what_happens_next_for_lincolns.html

The Lincoln language looks like it was written by a tea partier. It's that strong. The irony is that the Republicans bluffed expecting her to give up and save her hide to avoid the wrath of the tea partiers. Instead, she goes around the Repubs and gives the tea partiers exactly what they want. That's why the Dems thought it would be impossible for the Repubs to hold the line on a filibuster. Haha. Stupid Dems.

The ball is now SOLELY in the tea partiers court. They can be partisan or they can be tea partiers. Anyone wanna guess what they do?

Apologies for the wordiness. I haven't found a great way to describe it yet. If anyone could, they'd probably get paid very well to put it in a book.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, you right wing fuckers can blindly flail attacks at Chris Dodd to save face, parry this damning indictment that proves even you bullshit "I don't support Democrats or Republicans" assholes simply don't support Democrats, and get this nonsensical theater back on track.

I suspect we'll hear from them around 5:34PM this evening when they get their marching orders from Herr Beck.
 
Another great indicator of how upside down the world is right now. Bob Bennett is a staunch Republican from Utah. He is the prototypical arch-Republican in every respect, as you would expect from a Utah Republican. He is facing gigantic pressure because of his vote for the bailouts and losing his seat is a genuine possibility.

He "missed" the filibuster vote yesterday.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill Bennett is the author of "The Book of Virtue," a co-author of a dismally incomplete criminological theory called "moral poverty" with James Q Wilson, a conservative commentator on CNN, involved with the Reagan administration.

And a well-documented severely compulsive gambler.

You meant Bob Bennett.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Is there really any doubt that most tea party people are conservative? I didn't say republican, i said conservative. Wouldn't that put them at odds with most democrats?[/QUOTE]

They have a big tendency towards tribal conservatism, there is polling data out there so this isn't being pulled out of nowhere.
 
When Saudi prince Alwaleed (one of the principals of the Kingdom investment portfolio) is making comments like this, you know you're fucked.
"I cannot see the United States not passing a reform package. It has to happen... I think the financial reform has to move ahead. There's no choice even for the Republicans to hinder that."
Click to expand...

edited out from under you FoC. Sorry bout that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']I know this sounds pretty naive but I actually expected better of Buffet.[/QUOTE]
He bought a fat chunk of Goldman and probably came in a mopped up a bunch of these derivatives at a low price. Requiring they follow these new rules will result in him having to post collateral, which is definitely not his game. His whole game is long and these suckers would essentially force him short.

I would have bet that his ultra cozy relationship with the Dems and Obama in particular would have bought him a cushion. I'm glad to be wrong.
 
I would almost be willing to suffer a republican president next election just to see if the 'baggers suddenly calm down.
 
At least Ezra Klein is paying attention.

Well, we almost had the Buffett Buy-Off. Buffett, here, is Warren Buffett, the Omaha-based investor who prevailed on his state's senior senator to insert a provision exempting existing derivatives contracts from the new collateral requirements. Sound complicated? All you need to know is that this language is worth $8 billion to Buffett, and Sen. Ben Nelson was happy to help him out.

The rest of the Democrats, however, were not so happy once they got wind of this deal, and they stripped it out of the bill. Nelson then voted with the Republicans to filibuster the motion to move to debate. "Has Nelson forgotten how the Cornhusker Kickback saga played out?" asks Matt Yglesias. "That it became a huge embarrassment for him personally, for his party, and for his state?"

It's worth saying that this derivatives language would have applied to all companies, not just Buffett, so it's a bit less egregious than the Nebraska deal. But this does give you a sense of the problems Nelson has created for himself by embracing a buy-me-off approach to legislating. It's probably that dozens of senators have inserted provisions just as parochial and unseemly as Nelson's attempt to protect Buffett, but because everyone is on the lookout for this stuff with Nelson, his provision got tossed out of the bill and became an embarrassing news story.
Click to expand...

The Democrats are killing their own party porkers. What else could anyone ask of them at this point?
 
Yeah sorry, I don't buy it ram.

I mean occasionally they remember to make the right kind of noise but give me a fucking break.
 
I love it. Fox News has no mention of the Financial Reform Legislation on the main page, instead showing articles about the Hearings on GS and another bogus "Noah's Ark" claim. Drudge's only mention of the financial reform vote is to slam Reid for accusing the Repubs of blocking the proposal when he voted against it as well. (He did that to make sure he could bring it up for reconsideration.)

Stupid. Not a damn mention in the press.
 
It's just a prime example of what's wrong with politics today.

It's all rhetoric and attacking the other side at all cost. There is no political discourse, it's just shout down the other side at all costs, even ignoring that sometimes ideas the others side is pushing forward are inline with their beliefs.
 
lets not be surprised here

regulation = capping profits = not the amrrrrrrrrkin way

that's the stupid man at work, i want to clarify
 
[quote name='unclebob']it'd be awesome if we voted out every republican and democratic congressmen and women. ;)[/quote]

+1
 
So they've had long enough to come up with a public relations message. Here comes the hilarity:

biggovernment.com (Breitbart):
But even without any bailouts, this bill is a behemoth that creates new bureacracies and empowers the government right down to the level of monitoring individual consumer’s transactions. This is a fight worth having. Republicans must hold the line. Democrats need to hear the message: American’s have had enough of bailouts, handouts and takeovers. The government is not the solution.

Let Dodd and Obama rattle the sabers. Republicans have achieved a great win today. Now, lets don’t win the war and lose the peace.
Click to expand...
Notice any actual policy in there, hmmm? I had to write a paper in college defending an indefensible political position. It sounded almost exactly like that.

National Review Online's story is about Tea Partiers being white or something. Nothing about the bill or the filibuster.

The Daily Caller (Tucker Carlson and by far the most hacktacular of the ones I read):
President Obama tried Monday to portray the Senate’s vote on financial regulation as a simple, black and white case of Republicans blocking needed progress on Wall Street reform.

But not many lawmakers – even those who voted to move forward Monday and those who want to vote for the bill – were buying the argument. And in fact, one Democrat joined with Republicans to vote against the motion to move to debate.
Click to expand...
A Democrat sided with the Republicans?!? You don't say! The bill must be terrible! Aren't you glad the authors don't have you worry your pretty little heads with the reason Nelson is balking?
Snowe also said that Republicans have added need to hold out in unanimity against the bill to gain leverage in negotiations, in particular because they have not been assured by Reid that he will not block them from offering amendments to the bill during debate.
Click to expand...
Psst. You can use this thing called a filibuster if they push a vote. I bet Republicans forgot about that procedure. lulz.
And on the issue of derivatives – the highly complex financial instruments that almost all experts agree got out of hand on Wall Street – Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, released comments by the Federal Reserve that were highly critical of Democratic proposals.
Click to expand...
Remember tea partiers: Don't read the comments (which I linked to in the OP) or you might realize they're bald face lying to you.

The Fox News piece is shockingly honest:
Dodd has already incorporated a number of Republican ideas into his version of the bill following negotiations with Shelby and Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee.

...

In yet another attempt to attract Republicans, Democrats appeared willing to jettison from the bill a $50 billion fund -- financed by large banks -- that would have been used to liquidate failing firms once considered "too big to fail." The fund has been one of the main targets of GOP criticism.
Click to expand...
THEY'RE RAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS OMG CALL RUSHBO WE NEED HELP
"Democrats have the nerve in this debate to say that we're the ones who are being dishonest," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said after the vote. "All of us want to deliver a reform bill that will tighten the screws on Wall Street, but we're not going to be rushed into another massive bill based on the assurances of our friends on the other side."
Click to expand...
Not a single word on what he would change. Or what he wants. Or what he doesn't like specifically. Not one.

They got nothin.
 
[quote name='Strell']lets not be surprised here

regulation = capping profits = not the amrrrrrrrrkin way

that's the stupid man at work, i want to clarify[/QUOTE]

That's actually a fair point, as it does show that being opposed to the bailouts and being opposed to tighter regulations aren't contradictory (which they did appear to be to me at first glance without putting any thought into it).

The free market, libertarian types would be opposed to either type of government action. They support business being as de-regulated as possible, and would never support any government bailouts. If investors lose everything, tough crap in their minds as that's the nature of the free market. It giveth, and it taketh away.

Not that I agree with that view point at all, but it's not contradictory to oppose both the bailouts and tighter regulations if you're a small government conservative.
 
[quote name='berzirk']+1[/QUOTE]

To paraphrase speed the Democrats are pretty bad, some are worse than bad but at this point the Republicans are irredeemable.

The solution is to get better Democrats.

Right or wrong we have a de facto two party system, thinking you are going to get a a third party to sweep both out is relying on wishful thinking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Are derivatives really the free market?

Is the free market allowed to be as dishonest as derivatives are?[/QUOTE]

IMO, no. Not at all.

But you can't expect that kind of nuance from the anti-government types who will shout down most any kind of government intervention into the market.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Yeah sorry, I don't buy it ram.

I mean occasionally they remember to make the right kind of noise but give me a fucking break.[/QUOTE]

im not going to tell you that all of the tea party hates the republicans, because we both know theres a large percentage that does. but i think part (certainly not all) of that has to do with what you said below.

[quote name='Msut77']

Right or wrong we have a de facto two party system.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Msut77']To paraphrase speed the Democrats are pretty bad, some are worse than bad but at this point the Republicans are irredeemable.

The solution is to get better Democrats.

Right or wrong we have a de facto two party system, thinking you are going to get a a third party to sweep both out is relying on wishful thinking.[/QUOTE]

From a liberal perspective (you) of course you find the Democrats not good, but not worthy of being kicked out, whereas the Republicans should be booted. I'm middle of the road, and I feel that both parties don't serve their constituents. They're career guys (and gals). We do have a two party system, but I think for the first time in my lifetime, the nation is ready to launch a viable 3rd party and start bringing in people who think both sides have it wrong. They don't need to sweep, but they do need competition.

If we even had 80% Dem/Repub, 20% 3rd party, that would be a great start. These politicians run under one of the two parties because they know that's where the money is, even if they are closet independents (Ron Paul). It rings as hollow as this unspoken rule that all politicians have to be good, church-going representatives.
 
[quote name='Msut77']To paraphrase speed the Democrats are pretty bad, some are worse than bad but at this point the Republicans are irredeemable.

The solution is to get better Democrats.

Right or wrong we have a de facto two party system, thinking you are going to get a a third party to sweep both out is relying on wishful thinking.[/QUOTE]

Maybe not, right now the UK seems to actually have a three party system, and they are also a democratic plurality.
 
[quote name='berzirk']From a liberal perspective (you) of course you find the Democrats not good, but not worthy of being kicked out, whereas the Republicans should be booted. I'm middle of the road, and I feel that both parties don't serve their constituents. They're career guys (and gals). We do have a two party system, but I think for the first time in my lifetime, the nation is ready to launch a viable 3rd party and start bringing in people who think both sides have it wrong. They don't need to sweep, but they do need competition.

If we even had 80% Dem/Repub, 20% 3rd party, that would be a great start. These politicians run under one of the two parties because they know that's where the money is, even if they are closet independents (Ron Paul). It rings as hollow as this unspoken rule that all politicians have to be good, church-going representatives.[/QUOTE]

I would actually prefer career politicians, albeit not the ones we have now. Given a choice I would rather have policy analysts represent us rather than ex business hacks and lawyers. Career politicians aren't the problem, crooked politicians are. Do not confuse the issues.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I would actually prefer career politicians, albeit not the ones we have now. Given a choice I would rather have policy analysts represent us rather than ex business hacks and lawyers. Career politicians aren't the problem, crooked politicians are. Do not confuse the issues.[/QUOTE]

Meh, I agree and disagree. A good lifer is obviously unfair to lump together with the folks that get elected, then hold their position on name recognition and sucking off lobbyists, but I think oftentimes even those who get to DC with noble intentions, see how easy it is to exploit the system for personal gain, so it helps create the scumbag politicans we've got now. I still think the Senate desperately needs term limits.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']im not going to tell you that all of the tea party hates the republicans, because we both know theres a large percentage that does.[/quote]

I actually don't know that, probably because that pretty much all available evidence points to it not being true.

but i think part (certainly not all) of that has to do with what you said below.
Click to expand...

I am not defending it, but the belief that the 'baggers or anyone else is going to sweep both parties out of office (even ignoring the fantastical idea these replacements are going to be "pure" for lack of a better word) is to believe in magic.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I actually don't know that, probably because that pretty much all available evidence points to it not being true.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed. The movement, from what I can tell, is much more full of people who support Palin, Limbaugh, Beck etc. than people who support Ron Paul or other independents/libertarians.

It may not have started it's way, but it's been hijacked by the republican far right in any case.
 
[quote name='berzirk']From a liberal perspective (you) of course you find the Democrats not good, but not worthy of being kicked out, whereas the Republicans should be booted. I'm middle of the road, and I feel that both parties don't serve their constituents.[/quote]

I consider myself pretty middle-of-the-road, I am also a pragmatist.

Anyone who has been paying attention would want the Republicans booted, they have no interest in tackling any of the problems our country currently faces. They appear to want to turn the US into a failed state.

They're career guys (and gals). We do have a two party system, but I think for the first time in my lifetime, the nation is ready to launch a viable 3rd party and start bringing in people who think both sides have it wrong. They don't need to sweep, but they do need competition.
Click to expand...

It isn't really necessary, this isn't the first time there have been other movements are parties. Their usual fate is to be co-opted and if one of the parties takes over large parts of the platform it can rightfully be considered a job well done.

If we even had 80% Dem/Repub, 20% 3rd party, that would be a great start. These politicians run under one of the two parties because they know that's where the money is, even if they are closet independents (Ron Paul). It rings as hollow as this unspoken rule that all politicians have to be good, church-going representatives.
Click to expand...

Like I was kind of saying before, having more parties and them being influential would probably be a good thing but there isn't some guarantee these mythical replacements are going to be any less corruptible than anyone else.
 
This perception is supported by a National Journal congressional vote rating from 2006, which placed Nelson to the right of five Senate Republicans (Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and Lincoln Chafee).

Nelson's the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. His fetish for kickbacks is blatantly obvious at this point, especially when Dem's need him for that final vote he has a TON of leverage.

Let's be honest teapartiers, where were you when Bush was turning a surplus into a massive deficit? Beck says 'it doesnt matter I'm here now.'

IMO it absolutely matters. Because if they weren't complaining about Bush deficits but they complain about Obama deficits...well...it makes it seem as if they're not criticizing Obama deficits on their merits.

Consistency increases credibility.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Let's be honest teapartiers, where were you when Bush was turning a surplus into a massive deficit? Beck says 'it doesnt matter I'm here now.'[/QUOTE]

As someone who did object to much of what Bush did, I can totally understand this. Yes, Bush screwed things up. Royally. But Obama's in charge, now. He needs to take charge and stop trying to use Bush's miserable fail as an excuse for continued failure on his own part. If he wasn't up to the challenge, he should have stayed a community organizer and let someone who is willing to stand on their own two feet handle things.
 
Obama's only been in office for a little over a year, despite what Britt Hume believes about the way time works. With the economy failing at the end of Bush's second term and it now turning around, Obama has shown he can at least do something competent, regardless of whether the economy came back on its own or through government aid. With the budget deficit however, it is completely impossible to bring it out of over-spending until we limit entitlement programs. That is something Obama cannot do, so instead of having Americans focus all the budget problems on Obama, they should petition their representatives to start thinking with their brain rather than looking at how much money they stand to gain with each vote.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']But Obama's in charge, now. He needs to take charge and stop trying to use Bush's miserable fail as an excuse for continued failure on his own part. If he wasn't up to the challenge, he should have stayed a community organizer and let someone who is willing to stand on their own two feet handle things.[/QUOTE]
I thought telling Warren Buffett to get fucked and pushing a bill that is damn near exactly what we want was pretty decent evidence that he's up to the challenge. Does this not get there for you?
 
[quote name='speedracer']I thought telling Warren Buffett to get fucked and pushing a bill that is damn near exactly what we want was pretty decent evidence that he's up to the challenge. Does this not get there for you?[/QUOTE]

I bet they need just a little more help. Try massaging one of their prostates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top