If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Hillary Clinton tries to launch anti-Obama websites, apparently not realizing that unlike her own idiot staff, some people know about a little tool called WHOIS and see who they're registered to   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 569
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

37262 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2007 at 1:26 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



569 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-12-20 03:22:57 PM
farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2007-12-20 03:23:11 PM
Hickory-smoked: www.politicalcompass.org

I think that your graph may be a *bit* skewed.

But it's on the internet, so it must be accurate and unbiased.
 
2007-12-20 03:23:27 PM
I don't think I've seen a single well reasoned argument against her or her views. Just a lot of twitching, name calling, and flying spittle.


Socialized medicine, which she openly wants, is not authorized by the Constitution. Just isn't. Can't even be read into it via the most twisted of language.

Her position thus far from what I can tell, outside of socializing medicine, has been "hey, I'm a woman, don't you dare tell me my ideas are wrong, or you're a woman hater". Seriously, that's all the reading I can get on her.

Tell me some of her actual stated positions and I'll guarantee you that not a one of them, if put into practice via legislation, would stand Constitutional muster.

That said, the same goes for most of the other candidates on both sides as well. I don't hate Hilary per se because she's Hilary, I just generally dislike ALL of the idiots running this election. Ron Paul was a nice bone toss but as much as I like him he probably isn't going to get the nod. The rest of the group, without fail, are hardcore statist authoritarians. No thanks.
 
2007-12-20 03:23:37 PM
Snuke: Shintagara: If you are a republican and are not voting for Ron Paul YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

Ron Paul is a whack job. A tinfoil hat kind of whack job. People look past his batshiat insanity simply because he denounces the war and has an -R after his name. That does not make him the solution to any problem. The last thing this country needs is an isolationist foreign policy.


actually, I like him cause he's ready to boot the illegals out and stop the invasion. Will that actually happen? Who knows, it's about as likely as stoppin the war I guess.
 
2007-12-20 03:23:43 PM
Hickory-smoked: GaryPDX: Dude, I'm dead serious. Just watch her new Christmas ad, it's right out of the Castro/Chavez play book. Free Presents for all the little helpless child citizens. Now pony up all you little dumb chillins and get in line for the magical "Presents" to be bestowed upon your helpless, uneducated asses. And watch for the new marketing package, if you don't go along, you're destroying the planet.

Hardcore EcoSocialism is also in the mix, old story, new package.


I must say the dividing line between right wing nut and bat shiat crazy is the propensity of the lune to call Hillary a socialist. It's so grossly far out it boggles the mind.
 
2007-12-20 03:24:16 PM
sluck604: JDAT: How anyone can vote for this lying, conniving, power hungry, murderous biatch is beyond me

Wow... murderous? better adjust your tinfoil hat there. I was kind of on the fence about Hilary but watching how rabid she makes the 'tards. I have to vote for her now.

I don't think I've seen a single well reasoned argument against her or her views. Just a lot of twitching, name calling, and flying spittle.


Don't you remember? She was in on the plan to kill Vernon Jordan. I'm surprised she hasn't had Monica Lewinsky rubbed out yet.
 
2007-12-20 03:24:17 PM
I don't think I've seen a single well reasoned argument against her or her views. Just a lot of twitching, name calling, and flying spittle.

I would say that a good argument against Clinton is her constantly changing views. She has no convictions. Polls have shown that she is considered the least trustworthy candidate and would say anything to get elected, so I'm not the only one who feels this way. She has supporters that point to her left wing quotes and say she's very liberal, and detractors who point to her authoritative quotes and say she's basically a Republican. I have no idea where she stands on anything because she's changed it around so much.

She's hardly "evil", she's just ambitious and lacks strong convictions. People want to know what kind of candidate they will get, and nobody knows what kind of candidate Clinton is.
 
2007-12-20 03:24:41 PM
tweekster: Well Obama is not making the mistake of targeting a single audience just because he happens to be a member of said group. Unlike hillary, which the novelty of her being a woman, well that is fast losing its effectiveness on women voters who are switching their support to obama en masse.

Well, Obama should consider it if we wants this group's vote. Generations of African-Americans have only had one question for our politicians: what are you going to do for us and Hillary has responded. Frankly, I think Obama should ignore Oprah; she may get him the white middle-class suburban housewife vote, but I can't support anyone who acts as if rap has some negative conotations and I know plenty of us feel the same way.
 
2007-12-20 03:24:42 PM
AdiliusTheGreat: I swear if you guys vote in Hillary as president, I'm gonna farkin puke! I HATE THAT WHORE!

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
 
2007-12-20 03:24:44 PM
CaptainFatass: tweekster 2007-12-20 03:11:46 PM Attacking and criticizing/pointing out something are two entirely different things even if the end message is the same.

My point exacty. Is it unfair criticism to point out a politician's penchant for voting "present."


I may have misunderstood your original post, it sounded like you were defending these tactics because it is considered a part of campaigning. It may be that way, but people that use them should be called on it and shunned for doing so.

I welcome all news reports of any candidate that tries to attack instead of taking them on with meaningful criticism/debate
 
2007-12-20 03:25:22 PM
They all seem like sad, aging hipsters trying to use a technology that they don't understand. Fark motives. They just look sad to me.

Hillary, 1969 was a long time ago.

Barack, who cares? America has already decided on one or the other of you if they are going to pick either of you at all. Just ride it out.
 
2007-12-20 03:25:34 PM
Smarshmallow: Hickory-smoked: www.politicalcompass.org

I think that your graph may be a *bit* skewed.

But it's on the internet, so it must be accurate and unbiased.


"I don't like/understand your graph, Hillary's a Socialist cause some guy on the radio told me so."
 
2007-12-20 03:26:04 PM
theconservativepost.com

People, please, this is what it'll be like in the Oval Office for four straight years if she get elected.

/Isn't there enough crap under that desk? I think so.
//Just try to imagine it "the Ovary Office".
///shudders
 
2007-12-20 03:26:26 PM
Smarshmallow: Hickory-smoked: www.politicalcompass.org

I think that your graph may be a *bit* skewed.

But it's on the internet, so it must be accurate and unbiased.


Do explain how the graph is skewed?
 
2007-12-20 03:26:43 PM
rebelyell2006: Benjamin Franklin didn't have much of an education, but that didn't stop him. Housing was decent. Hell, you could build your own home without a government bureaucrat telling you what to do. Things might have been simpler, but the government they made is just as valid now as it was then. To dismiss a good governmental system just because it was old is bullshiat.

Yeah, you could do a lot of things without regulation, which is why, among other things, the Blackstone river is still recovering from the environmental slaughtering it took in those days.

The idea that people can regulate themselves is equally stupid as the idea that they will "take what they need, give what they can"
 
2007-12-20 03:27:50 PM
Well, then what do you propose we do to solve this problem?


Get rid of the onerous and patently unfair ballot access restrictions on third parties, first off. Level the playing field in that regards.

Also, stop thinking that a presidential race should mean something. Most folks in Switzerland have no idea who the President is except on or a bit after election day. Know why? Because unless they're really into politics, the office just doesn't matter, it's kind of a "yeah, you go help with treaties and stay out of the way" affair, as ours is supposed to be. Now, in America, it almost seems like we're voting for Absolute Ruler these days.

Also, we need a different voting mechanism than the current winner take all formula. Something which doesn't penalize you for voting for a third party candidate.


I'd be interested in something along those lines too.

It's one thing to complain, but if you don't have any suggestions then you aren't really contributing to the solution.


You expected me to post all of my thoughts on elections in one post where I was simply noting that this current slate of candidates would be better suited running for the position of Emperor Palpatine(sp)? heh
 
2007-12-20 03:28:05 PM
archives.cnn.com

Hillah, PLEASE
 
2007-12-20 03:28:33 PM
The idea that people can regulate themselves is equally stupid as the idea that they will "take what they need, give what they can"


If we're not competent to regulate ourselves, how are we competent to vote for somebody to regulate us?
 
2007-12-20 03:28:36 PM
DarnoKonrad: Do explain how the graph is skewed?

The fact that it puts Ron Paul below even the 50% marker for libertarianism, and almost all of the candidates to the political right.

My guess is that this was made by an extreme liberal / extreme libertarian, skewed to make the extremes on one end look moderate.
 
2007-12-20 03:29:15 PM
Recall All Repuglikkkans You actually think that has to do with the economic system and not the US military destroying those socialist nations one by one... Think that is a coincidence?

No, I actually think that the US military is the mightiest in the world because our Capitalist System afforded us the opportunity to spend copious quantities of cash on ramping up our manufacturing infrastructure, procuring raw materials, attracting the best engineers with the brightest minds, and the best-compensated production workers, resulting in delectable superiority - both in terms of economies and military strength. Why does the US spend more total dollars on military than many other nations combined? Because we can - and we LIKE IT!
 
2007-12-20 03:30:20 PM
He_Hate_Me: GaryPDX:

Are you kidding me? She's a socialist hag

Please expand upon this. Single payer healthcare is on the table, but also supported by all the other Democrats, what makes Hilary so much more of a "socialist hag."(nice gendered name-calling...)

who wants to be the "Oracle of Delphi" bestowing her blessings on the poor dumb whithered masses.

I don't know about you, but I want my president to be intelligent. Electing the idiot next door has brought us 7 years of disaster. Who still thinks voting for an idiot is a good idea?

She's tasted power and she hungers for it, she wants to be "Goddess Hillary of Planet Earth, All Knowing, All Blessing Provider of the little chillins of the Earth".

Running for president is, by definition, ambitious, but again I don't see what makes Hilary any more ambitious than any of the other dozen candidates running for president. Is ambition only cute when it's a man doing it, but the work of a "hag" or "biatch" when a woman seeks power?

There's no farking way that wicked witch should ever become POTUS. She wants to seize an entire private industry and fold into a government bureaucracy. That makes me, and The Founders, kinda stabby.

The founders never intended corporations to have anywhere near as much power as they currently are allowed to have. This private industry has given us the most expensive and yet least effective healthcare system in the entire industrialized world. If you work for an insurance company, fine, you're looking out for yourself at the expense of the rest of us. If you don't work in the industry then you are one of their many useful idiots.

Don't get me started on the choking stench of her evil bile.

Please do get started, all you've offered up so far is name-calling, stereotypes, and emotion. I'd like to see actual policy discussions.


Zing!
 
2007-12-20 03:30:25 PM
DarnoKonrad:

"I don't like/understand your graph, Hillary's a Socialist cause some guy on the radio told me so."

She's certainly past the 50% marker, yes. Let me ask you this, if you disagree, what is the 50% marker? What lies halfway between an entirely socialist state and an entirely capitalistic state? Describe it.
 
2007-12-20 03:31:38 PM
Pincy: Thor's Raging Ball of Flaming Nuclear Fury: Pincy: I'm about as Liberal as they get and I'm not crazy about Hillary either. Personally I'm leaning toward Edwards at this point, but I live in Oregon and by the time I get to vote in the primaries Edwards may not even be around anymore.

But I'll tell you this, I don't care who the Dem candidate ultimately is, I sure as hell won't be voting for any of the Republican losers out there. The last thing we need is another 4-8 years of Republican Supreme Court nominations. So calling all Dems and Republicans with a conscience, you need to put aside your hate for Hillary if she gets the nomination because a Republican is still worse than Hillary.

reverse the candidates names/party and you sound exactly like that hannity hack..

Please point out to me the one Republican candidate who is better than any of the current Democratic candidates.


they're ALL a bunch of clowns you dumbass... i was only pointing out the fact that type of party line drivel is exactly how we got to this point... with "this point" being a collection of people who only hunger for power and will lie to any and everyone to obtain even more control over us... these farkers would challenge god himself if they could...

however, klinton has admitted to being stupid enough to let even gwb fool her into supporting the war!... ha ha!...
 
2007-12-20 03:31:44 PM
rebelyell2006: 200 years ago they didn't have cars, vaccines, or any advanced medicine.

Imagine how advanced they could have been if the government had been able to spend money on research, like it does now. Again, the founders were selfish fool.

Education was rare, sure. Benjamin Franklin didn't have much of an education, but that didn't stop him.

Yes, some of the wealthiest members of society were educated. Great. The question is, were the slaves educated? No, and that didn't change until the government was willing to do it.

Housing was decent. Hell, you could build your own home without a government bureaucrat telling you what to do.

How much actual building do you think they actually did as opposed to having slaves do all day?

But I guess you don't like it because the government made people think and act for themselves, instead of expecting the government to take care of them.

No, I don't like it because it set this nation back hundreds of years. If we had elected people who were smart enough to organize and manage government like we have today, we would be a much more advanced society.
 
2007-12-20 03:32:13 PM
sluck604: JDAT: How anyone can vote for this lying, conniving, power hungry, murderous biatch is beyond me

Wow... murderous? better adjust your tinfoil hat there. I was kind of on the fence about Hilary but watching how rabid she makes the 'tards. I have to vote for her now.

I don't think I've seen a single well reasoned argument against her or her views. Just a lot of twitching, name calling, and flying spittle.


Search on "clinton+murder" before you call such claims "rabid". The evidence is substantial, and largely circumstantial, and not enough to prosecute. The Clintons are not the happy-go-lucky family you think they are, I suspect. The story of Danny Casolaro is particularly interesting, but the list is long.

It's just like Laura Bush's hushed-up accident in which she T-boned her very-recently-ex-boyfriend's car, killing him, out in the middle of Nowhere, TX. That synopsis sums up the public record, but what do you think happened?

Laura Bush is innocent as a new-born lamb, just like the Clintons.
 
2007-12-20 03:32:36 PM
Smarshmallow: DarnoKonrad:

"I don't like/understand your graph, Hillary's a Socialist cause some guy on the radio told me so."

She's certainly past the 50% marker, yes. Let me ask you this, if you disagree, what is the 50% marker? What lies halfway between an entirely socialist state and an entirely capitalistic state? Describe it.


That's pretty easy to quantify, actually. Just calculate how much of GDP is spent by the gov't. We fluxuate between 20-30% of that, depending on the year. Socialism just means state ownership of business, so it's a pretty good metric.
 
2007-12-20 03:33:06 PM
LowPlainsDrifter: Socialized medicine, which she openly wants, is not authorized by the Constitution. Just isn't. Can't even be read into it via the most twisted of language.

Please point us to the exact line in the Constitution where it says "The government shall never provide health care to the people". It doesn't. In fact, there are a ton of things that it isn't crystal clear on. And it was designed that way on purpose so that it would be able to work in the future as things change and we face new crises never imagined by people hundreds of years ago. The Founding Fathers were great, but they couldn't see into the future.

Her position thus far from what I can tell, outside of socializing medicine, has been "hey, I'm a woman, don't you dare tell me my ideas are wrong, or you're a woman hater". Seriously, that's all the reading I can get on her.

Well then it is obvious to all of us that you can't read.

Tell me some of her actual stated positions and I'll guarantee you that not a one of them, if put into practice via legislation, would stand Constitutional muster.

So you are telling us that if she wanted to raise taxes to pay for Bush's war that it would be unconstitutional?

That said, the same goes for most of the other candidates on both sides as well. I don't hate Hilary per se because she's Hilary, I just generally dislike ALL of the idiots running this election. Ron Paul was a nice bone toss but as much as I like him he probably isn't going to get the nod. The rest of the group, without fail, are hardcore statist authoritarians. No thanks.

So you are going to vote for no one then? Maybe that is for the best as you don't seem to willing to educate yourself on the issues.
 
SSP
2007-12-20 03:34:10 PM
The spittle drooling farktards that hate Hillary should just up and admit that they are unabashed misogynists.
 
2007-12-20 03:34:38 PM
SSP: The spittle drooling farktards that hate Hillary should just up and admit that they are unabashed misogynists.

QFT, THIS, Bears repeating.
 
2007-12-20 03:34:52 PM
LowPlainsDrifter: If we're not competent to regulate ourselves, how are we competent to vote for somebody to regulate us?

The idiots are not competent to regulate themselves. The educated elite is perfectly competent. The problem is that the masses need to make sure they elect proper leaders or otherwise you'll just have Repuglikkkans in power destroying everything.
 
2007-12-20 03:35:20 PM
mrtoadswildride: Pincy 2007-12-20 01:35:59 PM

But I'll tell you this, I don't care who the Dem candidate ultimately is, I sure as hell won't be voting for any of the Republican losers out there. The last thing we need is another 4-8 years of Republican Supreme Court nominations. So calling all Dems and Republicans with a conscience, you need to put aside your hate for Hillary if she gets the nomination because a Republican is still worse than Hillary.



I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you are an idiot and statements like go to show how stupid some people are. (not you personally, but the entire mindset of the democrats/liberals). You are already viewing the world through a "glass is half empty" prism.

I'm a little scared by the fact that you have such a blind hatred of republicans; that you have simplified such a complex issue into I hate republicans...so I will never vote for one...even if it means voting for Hillary (which it sounds like you aren't to keen on).


I am a lot scared by people like you would would still vote Republican after the last 7 Years...
 
2007-12-20 03:35:52 PM
Recall all Repuglikkkans: Yes, some of the wealthiest members of society were educated. Great. The question is, were the slaves educated? No, and that didn't change until the government was willing to do it.

I agree, we need more education for our slaves.
 
2007-12-20 03:36:12 PM
SSP: The spittle drooling farktards that hate Hillary should just up and admit that they are unabashed misogynists.

The spittle drooling farktards that hate Ann Coulter should just up and admit that they are unabashed misogynists.

/see what I did there?
 
2007-12-20 03:36:25 PM
Rational Exuberance: DarnoKonrad: Rational Exuberance:

Would you go skiing if you didn't have any insurance? What about skydiving? How risky would your behavior be if you knew you had to foot 100% of the bill every time?

Again this sounds insane. I don't do those things because I don't enjoy thrill seeking. People who do enjoy thrill seeking would tell you, quite honestly, they would do it regardless of the risks or insurace.

Secondly, you don't in the least think that is intellectually dishonest? What percentage of health care costs are due sky diving accidents?

Besides that, broken bones are not expensive. Long term illnesses that are particular to populations that live well into their 70s are. We're dealing with diseases that don't get to people until they are in their 40s and 50s.

A society that gets progressively older due extended life span is not a risk calculation.

Quit extrapoliting every tiny example I use to the entire argument. Skiing and skydiving are just examples of risk taking behaviors - there are lots more, both subtle and unsubtle. You're the one being intellectually dishonest on this one.

I find it hard to believe that you don't believe people evaluate risks, though. Risk compensation is a pretty well known phenomena, and it works with costs as well.


Show me something other than a Wiki asse

Smarshmallow: DarnoKonrad: Do explain how the graph is skewed?

The fact that it puts Ron Paul below even the 50% marker for libertarianism, and almost all of the candidates to the political right.

My guess is that this was made by an extreme liberal / extreme libertarian, skewed to make the extremes on one end look moderate.


Why guess? Go to the site and read the methodology. Write them an email if you wish. I've had them reply to my questions.

But it sounds to me exactly like

"I don't like/understand your graph so I will ignore it out of hand without considering it's purpose or educating myself about it."
 
2007-12-20 03:36:34 PM
Pincy: Please point us to the exact line in the Constitution where it says "The government shall never provide health care to the people". It doesn't. In fact, there are a ton of things that it isn't crystal clear on. And it was designed that way on purpose so that it would be able to work in the future as things change and we face new crises never imagined by people hundreds of years ago. The Founding Fathers were great, but they couldn't see into the future.

I know, what do you think the General Welfare clause was for? It means anything that is good for the general welfare (and that excludes the unconstitutional crap that the Repuglikkkans are always trying to pull).
 
2007-12-20 03:36:36 PM
Re: Charlie Crist

He is from florida. There is a reason why florida has a tag.

Yeah, he's my governor, I'm glad I voted for him. He's one of the only prominent Republicans ever to take a pro gay rights position, which is one of the few issues that I break away from the GOP on. He's also an environmentalist and has some other qualities that appeal highly to independent voters. Just having him on the ticket would practically hand Florida over to the GOP.
 
2007-12-20 03:37:29 PM
I'll vote Republican because I want a conservative in the White House, something we haven't had in the last 7 years...
 
2007-12-20 03:38:41 PM
SSP: The spittle drooling farktards that hate Hillary should just up and admit that they are unabashed misogynists.

Hillary is a women? When did this news come out? Well she really should get her ass back to the kitchen then.

But seriously, lets remember back to the 1992 election when she was playing little housewife to help Bill to win the election. Being the perfect little mom that baked cookies. Although I have to admit that recipe she bought and had published as her own family recipe was pretty damn good. Still have it actually.
 
2007-12-20 03:38:42 PM
i201.photobucket.com
 
2007-12-20 03:39:19 PM
DarnoKonrad: Show me something other than a Wiki asse

I'm not your research assistant - that wiki page had links to six different studies on risk compensation. Now you are just quibbling.
 
2007-12-20 03:39:22 PM
Smarshmallow: I think that your graph may be a *bit* skewed.

But it's on the internet, so it must be accurate and unbiased.


Is it? Go ahead and take the test for yourself.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test (pops)

/In the interest of full disclosure, I got a Economic Left/Right: -6.12, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26
 
2007-12-20 03:39:47 PM
Pincy: I wish I could disagree more, but you do make some excellent points. To clarify, I consider conservatives and neo-cons to be different beasts. They may have had a common ancestor, but they have diverged into different species (great idea - bring evolution into a politics discussion, that ought to reduce the flames...).

Frankly, I think we are agreement in principle but perhaps not degree. Government has it's place in helping to protect the country and citizens. Sometimes this means social programs to help the poor, sick, and other needy. My concern is how easy it is to go too far. I couldn't find the quote I was looking for but it is something like this:

"No democracy have ever survived the realization that the people can vote themselves another entitlement."

Yes, I know you can't run a country on quotes, but the idea behind it sums up my concerns pretty well. I am a big believer in the law of unintended consequences.


Nation destroying/building is the economic platform of neo-cons. Read "The Shock Doctrine" and you'll discover why Iraq fits in perfectly with the Republican agenda.

Never read it, but it sounds interesting. Is it from a reasonably unbiased source? I did a quick look on Amazon and frankly it doesn't look like it. Obviously you read it so please give me your opinion.
 
2007-12-20 03:39:48 PM
Rational Exuberance: That's pretty easy to quantify, actually. Just calculate how much of GDP is spent by the gov't. We fluxuate between 20-30% of that, depending on the year. Socialism just means state ownership of business, so it's a pretty good metric.

I think that a linear system like that is overly simplistic. For one thing, it suggests that Ron Paul would want to reduce that to ~6%, according to that chart, which clearly isn't going to happen with military expenditures. Can you name one country
 
2007-12-20 03:39:53 PM
img178.imageshack.us
 
2007-12-20 03:40:08 PM
Rational Exuberance
What about STD testing? That could be a public health thing too. If you subsidize that, you are making it easy to not be careful.

Right, because having STDs only happens to whores. Except for the fact that 80% of people who have ever had sex will get HPV and, left untreated, certain forms can develop into cervical cancer.

/sorry, couldn't pass this gem up
 
2007-12-20 03:40:27 PM
She really makes some farking ugly faces.
 
2007-12-20 03:40:29 PM
Hickory-smoked: Is it? Go ahead and take the test for yourself.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test (pops)

/In the interest of full disclosure, I got a Economic Left/Right: -6.12, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26


Wait, I can take the test??? That must mean that it's accurate.
 
2007-12-20 03:40:58 PM
I'm sitting here reading ya'lls comments while eating fudge rolled in chopped nutz...mmmmm....fudge...carry on
 
2007-12-20 03:41:01 PM
GaryPDX: Naw..I'll wait for you guys to realize the error of your ways and laugh my ass off. Anytime the government is involved in anything, it's all FUBAR'd. You should know that.

I'm assuming you include national defense in that as well. I'm with you. We should just rely on hired mercenaries to protect us. Get those lazy-assed welfare loving armed forces off of the government dole. If they want a job, they should compete with all the illegal aliens who would be willing to do our bidding for half the price.

/P.S. I'm kidding
/P.S.S Your statement on government is idiotic.
 
2007-12-20 03:42:09 PM
Good day: Rational Exuberance
What about STD testing? That could be a public health thing too. If you subsidize that, you are making it easy to not be careful.

Right, because having STDs only happens to whores. Except for the fact that 80% of people who have ever had sex will get HPV and, left untreated, certain forms can develop into cervical cancer.

/sorry, couldn't pass this gem up


I'm not even quite sure of your point here.
 
Displayed 50 of 569 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report