If Boehner was in the office at the time he probably needed a Dramamine, glass of wine and another smoke after seeing this:

nakedlibs

I know the one second from right looks like Harry Reid but I think that’s actually a woman. I heard they were all protesting potential cuts to HIV programs. If you’re really looking to punish yourself, unedited versions are here. More pics here.

Security should have called in FLOTUS so she could have handed out some “Let’s Move” brochures before cops gave them the boot… and hopefully some robes.

Comments

22 Responses to “Naked Libs Storm John Boehner’s Office Protesting Budget Cuts, Newton’s Law of Gravity”

  1. SullaFelix on November 27th, 2012 5:52 pm

    Seriously? Budget cuts? Where the hell does those naked morons think the money is coming from? Do they not understand what BROKE means? Ten bucks says they balance their checkbooks every month. Bloody stupid hypocrites.

  2. Marshall_Will on November 27th, 2012 6:17 pm

    And again like [random] "suspicious packages" that show up at the most inopportune times for Tea Party delegates, unhinged nitwits are allowed to WALTZ into the Speaker's office without authority and under false pretense.

    Did the Capitol Police offer them robes and sock warmers? Blue thongs?

    I'm sure Dimmocrats had absolutely nothing to do w/ this. Lemme' guess, No charges were filed…

  3. jeffythequick on November 27th, 2012 6:40 pm

    Protester #1: We demand that you don't cut the funding for AIDS research from where it is now at $100 million dollars to $120 million, because the expected amount is $130 million! That's a 8% cut!

    Boehner (on the verge of tears): But that's an increase of where we are now of 20%

    Protester #2: But Nancy said we'd get $130 million, so you're cutting $10 million dollars! That's like killing 40,000,000 babies!

    Boehner (tear running down his cheek): B-b-b-babies

    Protester #3: and their mommies! Mr. Speaker, you're killing people!

    Boehner (bawling): OK, let's compromise. How about $250 million?

    Protester #1: We were thinking about $500 million.

    Boehner (sobbing uncontrollably): The most I can do is $495 million

    Protesters huddle, talking amongst themselves…

    Protester #2: OK, we'll take it. But if there are any further cuts, we'll be back.

    Boehner (through a kleenex): OK

    Later… outside…
    Protester #1 (into a microphone): We were able to negotiate a 1% cut from that evil bastard, John Boehner, instead of an 8% cut in spending.

    Thus, we see, how an increase of spending of 395% becomes a 1% cut. Thank you Newt Gingrich, George Bush, and Bill Clinton.

  4. Marshall_Will on November 27th, 2012 7:00 pm

    JTQ,

    Perfect, don't change a thing! The same folks protesting the Nudie Ban in SF? Thought some of those buns looked, I don't know, oddly familiar?

    So many of Gateway Pundit's posters had it right. Radicals claim they're all about 'privacy' ( but then stick their genitals in your face every chance they get! ) And please don't tell us this wasn't the brain f@rt of Axlerod, Carney etc.

    Just the brand of cheap schtick they think is so damned 'funny'. This is a SERIOUS situation here people! Although you'll find increasingly on the Left the whole notion of a Fiscal Cliff is a paranoid fabrication of sore "looser" Rightwingers. Like we weren't talking about it BEFORE the election?

  5. jeffythequick on November 27th, 2012 8:34 pm

    Yeah, the moral of these whole shenanigans is that during the "surpluses" of 1997-2000, the spending kept going up, and they moved SS from off-budget to on-budget, which, at the time was taking in more than it was giving out.

    The next 4-6 years, that SS situation will reverse. Wait… it did reverse in 2010:

    Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits.
    http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

    We're already screwed.

  6. Marshall_Will on November 27th, 2012 8:44 pm

    Can we safely assume that by "non-interest income" ( they mean payroll contributions? )

    I'll be 54 in a few mos. and I'm certainly not planning on ever seeing a DIME. And if I DID it would be at greatly deflated values. At the rate gas prices are going up, you won't even be able to top off your motor home to go to the coast?

    Part of Crashing The System/Clow-Piv is all about kicking us down the hill in the SAME barrel. SS, PEU plans, Defined Benefit plans, military retirements ( take over of 401k's/IRA's ) .., it won't make any difference. They'll be nothing in 'reserve' and we'll all be eating from the same gruel bucket. Just like the OLD navy!

  7. SignPainterGuy on November 27th, 2012 9:10 pm

    Is it not cold in DC ?

  8. backwoodsconsr on November 27th, 2012 9:11 pm

    It is, but the liberals are too stupid to notice.

  9. SignPainterGuy on November 27th, 2012 9:25 pm

    Then no doubt, they didn`t bring a towel to put on the chair before they sat down.

  10. Granny55 on November 27th, 2012 9:31 pm

    Here is why SS is going broke. My ex-brother-in-law died this past August at the age of 48. He had a pretty good job all thru out his working years. His current wife was making as much as he was. He also inherited a bunch of money (1/4 million) about 15 yrs. ago. They were living in a home the wife inherited from her grandpa. So they were pretty much financially set when he passed away. He left behind two children ages 6 and 8. They are getting $1800/month EACH in SS benefits. Now if they collect that till their 18th birthday that is $518,000 total paid out. If they attend college they get to collect it till they graduate. Now this man made good money but how do you justify half a million dollars in SS benefits being paid out when he did not pay in that much – even if he was making good money? This is what is wrong with the system. There needs to be BIG reforms if the system is to survive.

  11. Marshall_Will on November 27th, 2012 11:48 pm

    Granny,

    Same-o on this end. Good friend dated one of the accountant gals out here from the main Nike hdqtrs. Very, VERY nice family. Near identical scenario. Her hubby was an acct. too and this is when they made BANK. ( Now they have TurboTax and the few left are making JACK )

    They absolutely never had any NEED of the money. As an uptighty whitey acct. he also had MEGA life insurance. It totally paid off the mortgage AND set up college funds for the kids.

    The DOWNside is, the monthly 'payouts' accidentally got mentioned in FRONT of them and both the boy and girl turned into real under-achievers. I mean no-loads. My buddy went thru H3LL trying to be a dad to them. Last I heard, he threw in the towel. The kids were so spoiled/screwed up he couldn't stand to be in the same CAR w/ them!

  12. jeffythequick on November 27th, 2012 11:54 pm

    Well, it is billed as insurance, and the way that insurance works is, essentially, you're betting that you'll die, and they're betting you won't.

    With whole life, you pay enough through your life so that if you die when the actuaries think you will, you will have invested the money at a slightly less rate than the insurance company did.

    With term life insurance, the insurance company is playing the odds that you won't die during the term and will gladly sell you another policy at the end of the first term, at a slightly higher price, just because at an older age, your odds went up.

    However, with StateAll insurance, you have a choice in the matter, and any silliness with the accounting is frowned upon by those that make the rules, both internal, shareholders, and regulatory agencies.

    With SS, you don't have that choice (realistically), and you must participate in the system, and the people that are there to help you want you to get stuck on it.

  13. jeffythequick on November 28th, 2012 12:09 am

    You mean like those Romney kids?

    Wait… they've become Venture Capitalists, Real Estate investors, and a doctor. You should see what people say about them on this site: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/the-romney-sons-a

    They say that money changes who you are. I disagree. Money reveals who you are.

  14. jeffythequick on November 28th, 2012 12:13 am

    Can we safely assume that by "non-interest income" ( they mean payroll contributions? )

    Yeppers…

    cool! In addition to the < i > and all the others, you can use < blockquote > to highlight what someone else says!

  15. SignPainterGuy on November 28th, 2012 12:38 am

    You have it right ! What appears to be "change" is actually exposure !

  16. Dale on November 28th, 2012 1:58 am

    Why is it that the people that feel the need to be naked in public never look like Laurie Dhue?

  17. Marshall_Will on November 28th, 2012 2:12 am

    "exposure"

    That's not the HALF of it. We worked (1) office suite down from each other and I'd get a daily dose of how his GF ( they were both in their mid/late 40's at the time ) caught 'Chad' looking at beastie web-sites, not helping around the house for squat and generally flunking at life!

    I've seen the Wealth Effect RUIN lots of people and certainly the individual holds ultimate responsibility. But there's plenty of blame for Portland, where it's 'cool' to be OWS material.

    Needless to say the mom was devastated.

  18. JetHeadJoe on November 28th, 2012 11:37 am

    Evidently, it's not just the emperor that has no clothes. His most loyal subjects are completely naked, too.

  19. Granny55 on November 28th, 2012 12:11 pm

    Here is my point – the guy was making about $90k per year. He paid in $6800 to SS, his employer paid in $6800 to SS per year for a total of $13600 per year. SS is paying out $43200 per year in survivors benefits to these two kids. Who is making up the difference? Me, you and future generations. That is not sustainable. Try explaining this to a liberal – they can't do the math.

  20. Marshall_Will on November 28th, 2012 12:19 pm

    "After police showed up and repeatedly threatened to arrest the protesters for indecent exposure, they eventually put on their clothes and walked out of the Speaker’s office. The three female protesters stuck around in the hallway to speak to reporters and were arrested anyway; the four male protesters appeared to get away, the organizers said."

    Wrong OFFICE guys! Apparently their stop by the DNC wasn't this spectacle? What was the 'problem' Capitol Popo, you guys couldn't manage to identify the 4 male perps that slipped away..?

  21. Marshall_Will on November 28th, 2012 12:49 pm

    Granny,

    BUT… but.. bu. you're putting starving widows and orphans out in the STREET you cruel, heartless NeoCon YOU.!?

    Not only is it not 'sustainable', it's altogether too COMMON. And it least in your scenario, they paid SOMETHING into it! I've seen many cases where younger parents die ( OD, motorcycle accident etc. ) and their offspring become our responsibility without their having paid ANYTHING into SS!

    ( Isn't that why we get LIFE insurance when we get married and have kids? ) Just curious…

  22. SignPainterGuy on November 28th, 2012 1:13 pm

    The Capitol Popo need to watch more cop shows. Strangely, even Hollyweird knows to lock the place down so No One leaves with out being ID`d and perhaps questioned.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.