So, there is a dress code that extends to their underpants? Is somebody checking on a daily basis to make sure nobody is coming to work with plain briefs? I swear to god, some of the things I hear about rules at the lowest-paying jobs make me wonder why the guillotine has not come out yet.

Oh yeah -- I hope against hope my little cousin has me on some filter that doesn't include, say, her grandfather, but I kind of doubt it. Keep that shit locked down, people!

Oh, and we did get legalized medical last year, which surprised me, but not Dave. He said it qualified as one of the government out of my life things to the rural Arizonans. The vote was really really close, though, so my vote mattered.

Oh yeah -- I hope against hope my little cousin has me on some filter that doesn't include, say, her grandfather, but I kind of doubt it. Keep that shit locked down, people!

I even have a filter for if I'm going to swear like a motherfucker, because I'm friends on FB with Tim's SiL and niece, and a nun. I do know how to maintain some decorum, from time to time.

(Please note that I don't filter my OWN family out of the swearing, because where do you think I learned it?)

My question is why the designation of boxer briefs, assuming you are wearing pants. Because if you are wearing pants at work, who the hell sees what undergarments you have on?

My question is why the designation of boxer briefs, assuming you are wearing pants. Because if you are wearing pants at work, who the hell sees what undergarments you have on?

It depends on how you're wearing those pants. If you're doing the low riding pants thing, too many people are still seeing your underwear.

I have no FB filters because I'm lazy, so I try not to post anything I wouldn't want my boss or mother to see. Of course, the one time my mother was on FB, my status was about a run in my stockings, so she really thinks the whole thing is useless and will never sign up.

I'm also too lazy to figure out facebook filters, so I try to keep in mind who is reading when I post things.

Wow. This guy isn't just saying that abortion to save the life or health of the mother shouldn't be allowed. He's actually asserting that, thanks to modern technology, there are no longer any situations in which pregnancy endangers the life or health of the mother. [link]

Asked by reporters after the debate if he was saying that it's never medically necessary to conduct an abortion to save the life of a mother, Walsh responded, "Absolutely."

"With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance," he said. "...There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing."

I am with sj and Jesse. I am friends with my goddaughter, so I just try to watch my mouth.