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.

(The New York Times)   So can a Jehovah's Witness institution deny coverage for blood transfusions? Can a Hindu organization deny bovine based insulin? Can a Jewish or Muslim group deny porcine heart valves?   (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 466
    More: Scary, Hindus, muslims, employment discrimination, Ohio Republican, insulin, Rob Portman, hospital system, institutions  
•       •       •

5638 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Feb 2012 at 4:37 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



466 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-09 06:12:19 PM  

MrEricSir: I have a buddy who was denied treatment at a Catholic hospital because he has AIDS.


That's actually what I would call "monstrous." On the other hand, is monstrous conduct surprising from an organization which has demonstrated a long term commitment to protecting pedophiles?
 
2012-02-09 06:13:54 PM  

ps69: If this is the right wing's 2012 gay marriage, they will lose in a landslide. You just aren't going to get the middle fired up and scared about free birth control. People like it and do not view this as an encroachment on religious freedom. Inside the cocoon this seems like a hot issue. It isn't.


Yeah, I'm not really sure how "Birth control! Alinksy! Taste a cordite flavored cock, Middle East!" is supposed to rally the soccer mom vote.
 
2012-02-09 06:14:01 PM  
I haven't had time to read the whole thread, so forgive me if I'm making an argument that some else already has... but it seems to me that this IS a religious freedom issue, just not in the way the Catholic church wants you to think it is.

The vast majority of Catholic women believe in their religion AND using birth control. It seems to me that what the church is really asking for is the right - in the context of an employer - to infringe on the religious beliefs of those women. That puts policy makers in a position of infringing on the religious beliefs of either the church, who has a lot of money and power, or infringing on the religious beliefs of their actual parishioners, who do not have as loud a voice as the powerful institution who hopes to be able to be the infringer.

If given the choice I'll side with citizens over a powerful organization.

Of course if we would just do the RATIONAL thing & decouple health insurance from employment we wouldn't even have to make that choice in the first farking place. Losing your job shouldn't mean losing your insurance for most people, but that's exactly what it means for most people under our current - crazy - employer provided system.
 
2012-02-09 06:14:04 PM  

namatad: I Have The Touch of a Shocked Monkey: It's a good point, and honestly I was baptized at 13, but I was already aware of all the excommunication procedures, and it's generally a given that you get baptized knowing what happens if you decide later in life to renounce the religion. However, you are right in that some get baptized too early due to pressures from parents, and that kind of baptism I don't approve of (and neither does the Bible), but like I mentioned earlier, this is usually the minority. Witness children usually do get baptized around 14 and 15.

what is the point of baptizing at 13-15??
why isnt it delayed until 18+?
why isnt it required that the person not be living at home?

I hated the fact that I was forced to have my confirmation while in grade school (catholic equivalent to late baptism)
I was forced to reaffirm my belief???? ROFL

I wonder how many kiddies be baptized at 13 REALLY REALLY believe or are doing it because their parents told them to STFU and do it. I also wonder if the kiddies are able to affirm this faith, they should also be treated as adults, allowed to vote, drink, procreate, right?? how would one be rational and logical, but not the others??


easy.

Baptism = Silly supersition
Voting, Drinking, Farking = Life affecting descions that may also impact other citizens.
 
2012-02-09 06:21:34 PM  

ps69: If this is the right wing's 2012 gay marriage, they will lose in a landslide. You just aren't going to get the middle fired up and scared about free birth control. People like it and do not view this as an encroachment on religious freedom. Inside the cocoon this seems like a hot issue. It isn't.


They need something to coalesce around, since none of the candidates are causing the typical base solidification.

Unfortunately for them, the base is shrinking all the time.

When WND reports that 20% of Republicans (new window) they polled are supporting President Obama despite the galaxy sized amount of FUD tossed at him, you've already lost
 
2012-02-09 06:21:38 PM  

qorkfiend: CujoQuarrel: Well, you know, you could just, maybe , pay for the things yourself? You're allowed to do that still aren't you? Why do you think that this has to be paid for by some insurance policy? Insurance is for the unexpected which this definitely isn't.

Have the government provide it for the people who REALLY can't afford it and have the rest be the individuals responsibility.

So, insurance shouldn't cover any sort of prescription medicine, since it's not unexpected?


Not even close

It's not the medicine it's the disease that is treated.

A woman doesn't have to have birth control pills, she can just abstain. You can't abstain from cancer.
 
2012-02-09 06:22:18 PM  
Santorum was on John King's show just a minute ago and referred to the use of birth control as "a grievous moral wrong" half a dozen times in one breath.
 
2012-02-09 06:22:45 PM  

InmanRoshi: Go on a strictly raw vegan diet and your cholesterol will drop just like it will on your insurance covered Lipitor. Do you enjoy your delicious bacon eating life? Tough titties. I shouldn't have to pay for the ramifications of your lack of willpower when I don't believe in eating meat.


Too bad it's not about what you as a citizen says, this is about what the pope says. Clearly we need to follow the orders of a foreign born Nazi. It's not like he has a funny sounding name or anything.
 
2012-02-09 06:22:45 PM  
So what is to stop an employer from making up a religion and claim offering any sort of benefits to employees violates their religion.
 
2012-02-09 06:22:47 PM  

mongbiohazard: The vast majority of Catholic women believe in their religion AND using birth control. It seems to me that what the church is really asking for is the right - in the context of an employer - to infringe on the religious beliefs of those women. That puts policy makers in a position of infringing on the religious beliefs of either the church, who has a lot of money and power, or infringing on the religious beliefs of their actual parishioners, who do not have as loud a voice as the powerful institution who hopes to be able to be the infringer.


We're witnessing the "Sharia Law" the right was warning us about.
 
2012-02-09 06:25:16 PM  

Tymast: InmanRoshi: Go on a strictly raw vegan diet and your cholesterol will drop just like it will on your insurance covered Lipitor. Do you enjoy your delicious bacon eating life? Tough titties. I shouldn't have to pay for the ramifications of your lack of willpower when I don't believe in eating meat.

Too bad it's not about what you as a citizen says, this is about what the pope says. Clearly we need to follow the orders of a foreign born Nazi. It's not like he has a funny sounding name or anything.


Evidently my moral beliefs don't represent a legitimate religious doctrine.

... that involves people giving away their money to a con man. Only then are you legitimized.
 
2012-02-09 06:25:58 PM  

Warlordtrooper: So what is to stop an employer from making up a religion and claim offering any sort of benefits to employees violates their religion.


probably the same thing that prevents you from starting the United Church of Virgin Sacrifice
 
2012-02-09 06:26:25 PM  

abb3w: serpent_sky: 98% have used at some point, or are currently using birth control.

...and 2% are still virgins?


...which is a form of birth control that Catholics, in particular, feel is unreliable at best.
 
2012-02-09 06:29:14 PM  

CujoQuarrel: A woman doesn't have to have birth control pills, she can just abstain. You can't abstain from cancer.


Since most diabetes and heart disease in America is attributed to Fatty McFatFats.not abstaining away from the Chicken McNuggets, employers should opt out of covering those expenses as well.

Gluttony and sloth are forbidden in the bible.
 
2012-02-09 06:29:16 PM  

simplicimus: Serious Black: Can a Scientology institution deny coverage for all mental health issues?

Isn't Scientology in the DSM?


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
this is a good one ....
technically, anyone working for the scientologists or religions which ban all medical, well, they shouldnt be surprised that they dont get healthcare or mental healthcare ...
seriosuly ... where is the surprise??

but if you work in a hospital ... as a janitor ... or a cook or a delivery wonk ....
should you get healthcare, even if it is a catholic hospital? probably ...
does the hospital take ANY government money? if so, they have muddied the waters ...
 
2012-02-09 06:30:37 PM  

mongbiohazard: I haven't had time to read the whole thread, so forgive me if I'm making an argument that some else already has... but it seems to me that this IS a religious freedom issue, just not in the way the Catholic church wants you to think it is.

The vast majority of Catholic women believe in their religion AND using birth control. It seems to me that what the church is really asking for is the right - in the context of an employer - to infringe on the religious beliefs of those women. That puts policy makers in a position of infringing on the religious beliefs of either the church, who has a lot of money and power, or infringing on the religious beliefs of their actual parishioners, who do not have as loud a voice as the powerful institution who hopes to be able to be the infringer.

If given the choice I'll side with citizens over a powerful organization.

Of course if we would just do the RATIONAL thing & decouple health insurance from employment we wouldn't even have to make that choice in the first farking place. Losing your job shouldn't mean losing your insurance for most people, but that's exactly what it means for most people under our current - crazy - employer provided system.


Forcing the Vatican to pay for contraception is infringing on their rights. That institution can't keep their employees from getting it elsewhere. Nice try, though.
 
2012-02-09 06:30:51 PM  

InmanRoshi: ScouserDuck: For 20 bucks you can buy a book and learn NFP which is just as effective as hormone B.C..

0/10


I don't think he's trolling. I've had the debate with serious Catholics about NFP and it's proponents really do believe that it's just as effective.

Here's the thing: if you follow the NFP plan scrupulously and without fail, it has a high rate of success. It doesn't quite measure up to BP, but it's in the ballpark (2% for NFP vs. .3% for BP... so you're still off by an order of magnitude, but you're still only talking a few percentage points of absolute difference).

The problem is that it's a pretty complicated set of methods and it's very easy to deviate from the plan accidentally. Once you factor in the failure rate from user error and compare that with the equivalent data for BP, NFP doesn't fare nearly as well. In fact, it's kind of dismal.

The only NFP method that holds up without perfect usage is LAM (at ~2% failure), which basically means having post-pregancy sex while you're still lactating and using practices to lengthen that period. Obviously, that's not a method that's going to appeal to the majority of women in the majority of cases.

The failure rate for the other primary methods goes all the way to about 25% if you discount perfect usage and go with typical use data. Compare that with 8% for hormonal methods and it's really not much of a comparison at all. BP wins, hands down.
 
2012-02-09 06:31:10 PM  

PullItOut: abb3w: serpent_sky: 98% have used at some point, or are currently using birth control.

...and 2% are still virgins?

...which is a form of birth control that Catholics, in particular, feel is unreliable at best.


hehe
 
2012-02-09 06:31:14 PM  

Fart_Machine: Bronze Age dogma doesn't need to be included in what medical provisions are instituted in the first place.


But how will you determine which treatments are correct until you ask folks who facilitated child rape or others who conduct honor killings? You won't even ask which treatments Xenu would find appropriate?
 
2012-02-09 06:35:01 PM  

namatad: simplicimus: Serious Black: Can a Scientology institution deny coverage for all mental health issues?

Isn't Scientology in the DSM?

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
this is a good one ....
technically, anyone working for the scientologists or religions which ban all medical, well, they shouldnt be surprised that they dont get healthcare or mental healthcare ...
seriosuly ... where is the surprise??

but if you work in a hospital ... as a janitor ... or a cook or a delivery wonk ....
should you get healthcare, even if it is a catholic hospital? probably ...
does the hospital take ANY government money? if so, they have muddied the waters ...


Medicare and Medicaid are government monies.
 
2012-02-09 06:38:15 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: InmanRoshi: ScouserDuck: For 20 bucks you can buy a book and learn NFP which is just as effective as hormone B.C..

0/10

I don't think he's trolling. I've had the debate with serious Catholics about NFP and it's proponents really do believe that it's just as effective.

Here's the thing: if you follow the NFP plan scrupulously and without fail, it has a high rate of success. It doesn't quite measure up to BP, but it's in the ballpark (2% for NFP vs. .3% for BP... so you're still off by an order of magnitude, but you're still only talking a few percentage points of absolute difference).

The problem is that it's a pretty complicated set of methods and it's very easy to deviate from the plan accidentally. Once you factor in the failure rate from user error and compare that with the equivalent data for BP, NFP doesn't fare nearly as well. In fact, it's kind of dismal.

The only NFP method that holds up without perfect usage is LAM (at ~2% failure), which basically means having post-pregancy sex while you're still lactating and using practices to lengthen that period. Obviously, that's not a method that's going to appeal to the majority of women in the majority of cases.

The failure rate for the other primary methods goes all the way to about 25% if you discount perfect usage and go with typical use data. Compare that with 8% for hormonal methods and it's really not much of a comparison at all. BP wins, hands down.


I'm sure that NFP works as long as you completely revolve your life around the practice of it. But again, eating a pure raw vegan diet would reduce your cholesteral just as well as Lipitor, but no one says Lipitor shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's widely used and perscribed and most people enjoy bacon and don't believe their entire life should revolve around eating raw vegetables. In this case we're talking about something that is used by even more people than Lipitor, and is even more inconvenient to substitute. So why are we even debating this?

Because it involves women enjoying their genitals, and the Catholic Bishops and GOP politicians HATE the idea of women enjoying their genitals. They'll gladly ignore all the other doctrine from the Jesus, the bible and the Pope .... .. you know, that inconvenient stuff about wars, and death penalty, and taking care of the poor ... .small details that we should just ignore, really. But females enjoying their genitals? This is madness!!!!
 
2012-02-09 06:39:48 PM  
I'm looking for the part where it says Catholics are going to be forced to use contraception by their insurance company. Not seeing it.
 
2012-02-09 06:41:03 PM  

Serious Black: Debeo Summa Credo: MasterThief: Here's an idea: let's disconnect health insurance from employers altogether. Take the employer contribution to employee health care plans, and give it to the employee as straight-up tax free cash. That way people can make their own choices about what kind of treatment they do or do not want to get, and their employers don't have to worry about paying for something that would violate their beliefs - religious or otherwise.

But this will never happen. It would make too much sense, and provide insufficient opportunities for graft and political meddling.

It will never happen because it would be extremely disruptive and detrimental to the insured public. Employers get group discounts on insurance, which lowers the cost to employees, for a couple reasons - one is economies of scale, its cheaper for the insurer to administer a book of 1,000 insureds through a group than 1,000 individual policyholders. But more importantly group coverage eliminates adverse selection and the price discrimination that would result. If the companies gave the money to employees, and allowed employees to select their own coverage, insurers would raise prices for those most likely to be expensive (older, generally), and lower it for 20somethings.

And that's exactly why the state-based health insurance exchanges will be required to community rate their policies. In essence, that makes the group with the entire population of policy holders.


I'm in favor of single payer, but not of this "government mandated coverage" half ass clusterfark.

An employer should be able to offer any form of plan (or no plan) it wants to.
 
2012-02-09 06:41:32 PM  
Public health is much more important than any sect's fairy tales.
 
2012-02-09 06:44:16 PM  

serpent_sky: NowhereMon: SphericalTime: it's up to the conscience of the individual to make the determination for him or herself.


This bears repeating!

Unfortunately, I actually heard a Representative from Long Island (NY) last night say this:

He was asked what about non-Catholic people that certainly work there and their rights. His answer? "They can get a job somewhere else, nobody makes them work there."

I wonder if he'd have the same answer for the Catholic doctor at a public hospital refusing an abortion or the morning after pill to a rape victim or a pharmacist refusing to dispense properly prescribed birth control.


No, of course not, cause that would require them to violate their religious beliefs and gawd knows we can't have that!
 
2012-02-09 06:45:54 PM  
I'm beginning to wonder how strange my Church has become. No one is positing mandatory abortions or birth control. What happened to free will, hate the sin, not the sinner?
 
2012-02-09 06:45:59 PM  

Githerax: I'm looking for the part where it says Catholics are going to be forced to use contraception by their insurance company. Not seeing it.


I think they are using the one drop rule.

If one cent of their money goes to a company that provides birth control, it's is exactly the same as forcing women to take birth control.
 
2012-02-09 06:47:18 PM  

simplicimus: I'm beginning to wonder how strange my Church has become. No one is positing mandatory abortions or birth control. What happened to free will, hate the sin, not the sinner?


The pews are getting more and more empty, and American Catholics are looking at how the Pentecostals and Baptists fill their churches for inspiration.
 
2012-02-09 06:47:47 PM  

meat0918: Githerax: I'm looking for the part where it says Catholics are going to be forced to use contraception by their insurance company. Not seeing it.

I think they are using the one drop rule.

If one cent of their money goes to a company that provides birth control, it's is exactly the same as forcing women to take birth control.


Sooo...giving money to a Catholic Church is exactly the same as supporting systematic child molestation.

Sounds about right.
 
2012-02-09 06:48:10 PM  

TheWhoppah: Debeo Summa Credo: The point is that the government shouldn't be able to dictate what employer provided plans cover, whether that employer is religious or not. It's a benefit provided by the employer, and enrolled in at the election of the employee.

Why not? The government dictates the minimum an employer pays per hour, the number of hours worked each week before overtime applies, the mimimum pay for overtime, which type of employee qualifies for overtime, what chemicals and hazards an employee must not be exposed to, how much tax must be deducted from the employee's paycheck, that employees must be allowed to form unions. The employer/employee relationship is not an equal arrangement. History has shown that employees are almost always exploited and it is definately the government's duty to protect the safety of citizens. Catholic employers shouldn't get a special exemption from labor laws.


If the government wants people o be covered by health insurance, they should provide it. Pay for it through an employee/employer matching contribution if you want, like SS. But requiring coverage is half ass and ridiculously inefficient and infringes on the rights of employers.

Incidentally, I assume you also think that those who refuse military service on religious grounds should be arrested, and banning headscarves is ok. After all, why should those groups get special rights?
 
2012-02-09 06:48:13 PM  
If the Catholics or any other religion wants this, then they should get out of the business of providing healthcare. Let them go back to being just a religion and then they can deny anything they want to those who choose to use their services.
 
2012-02-09 06:50:18 PM  
Some bubblebrain on CNN just announced that with this policy Obama has done what no politician has ever been able to do: unite Christians, Muslims, Jews etc (against him).
 
2012-02-09 06:50:34 PM  

simplicimus: I'm beginning to wonder how strange my Church has become. No one is positing mandatory abortions or birth control. What happened to free will, hate the sin, not the sinner?


Thats fine, but should they be required to pay for the sin?
 
2012-02-09 06:51:59 PM  

meat0918: simplicimus: I'm beginning to wonder how strange my Church has become. No one is positing mandatory abortions or birth control. What happened to free will, hate the sin, not the sinner?

The pews are getting more and more empty, and American Catholics are looking at how the Pentecostals and Baptists fill their churches for inspiration.


Yeah, I gathered we were going for market share when the priest bragged about reading the entire Old Testament at Mass. I'm pre-Vatican II, when we only read the Old Testament parts relating to prophecy.
 
2012-02-09 06:52:34 PM  

apoptotic: Some bubblebrain on CNN just announced that with this policy Obama has done what no politician has ever been able to do: unite Christians, Muslims, Jews etc (against him).


If it's one thing the conscientious faithful follow, it's CNN. The moral compass of our nation.
 
2012-02-09 06:53:20 PM  

InmanRoshi: I'm sure that NFP works as long as you completely revolve your life around the practice of it. But again, eating a pure raw vegan diet would reduce your cholesteral just as well as Lipitor, but no one says Lipitor shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's widely used and perscribed and most people enjoy bacon and don't believe their entire life should revolve around eating raw vegetables. In this case we're talking about something that is used by even more people than Lipitor, and is even more inconvenient to substitute. So why are we even debating this?


To be sure. I'm merely tossing some facts into the fire. It's fairly clear to me that NFP isn't a serious option and that you can't expect women to go on an NFP plan as an alternative to hormonal birth control.
 
2012-02-09 06:54:49 PM  

GAT_00: You know, the ability to get a blood transfusion has little influence on actually getting one. For example, I've been able to get a transfusion my whole life and I never have.


Then you must hurry out and need to obtain one!

I recommend starting an argument about religion with someone who opposes your viewpoint. Oh, and drink heavily beforehand.
 
2012-02-09 06:55:25 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: simplicimus: I'm beginning to wonder how strange my Church has become. No one is positing mandatory abortions or birth control. What happened to free will, hate the sin, not the sinner?

Thats fine, but should they be required to pay for the sin?


Please define "sin" in such a manner that doesn't make you sound like a character from The Omen.
 
2012-02-09 06:56:45 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: simplicimus: I'm beginning to wonder how strange my Church has become. No one is positing mandatory abortions or birth control. What happened to free will, hate the sin, not the sinner?

Thats fine, but should they be required to pay for the sin?


By the rules, yes. See: Prodigal Son. See: Golden Rule. See: Love thy neighbor. I didn't make the rules.
 
2012-02-09 06:57:34 PM  

serpent_sky: SphericalTime: That's excellent news for the 98% of Catholic women who use birth control.

All of whom should be speaking out.

Why do people like me have to fight their battle for them?


FTFA: The organization Catholics for Choice, whose magazine is pointedly entitled Conscience, is calling on its supporters to "tell our local media that the bishops are out of touch with the lived reality of the Catholic people" and "do not speak for us on this decision." Link (new window)

Not for, with. No one's asking you to fight the battle for them, but even if the only personal interest you have is the principle of the matter, you're welcome to fight with them.
 
2012-02-09 06:57:51 PM  

mysticcat: As a physician, I have a hard time buying that. Catholic hospitals provide great care and are not fronts for proselytization.


If you seriously believe that, try going to a Catholic hospital for an abortion.

"Great care" my ass. They may not proselytize, but they're certainly more concerned with their little beliefs than giving care to those in need.

skullkrusher: holy crap, which hospital?


Dunno, it was one of the Catholic hospitals in LA.
 
2012-02-09 06:58:19 PM  

s2s2s2: Forcing the Vatican to pay for contraception is infringing on their rights. That institution can't keep their employees from getting it elsewhere. Nice try, though.


That's the thing though... we have a health care system based around employer coverage and not everyone does have the option. Allowing the Catholic church as an employer to deny them that kind of basic service - when no one else can - amounts to allowing them to infringe on the religious rights of Catholic women who believe in a Catholicism which is compatible with contraception.

Which is more important, a citizen's right to their religion or an employer's right to discriminate against the religious beliefs of their employees?

Now if the church doesnt want the hassle of meeting the basic obligations of employers in our country then they have the choice of not hiring anymore... Or we can man up as a country & end this crazy system which relies on employer provided coverage and puts us in these positions.
 
2012-02-09 07:00:37 PM  

s2s2s2: Forcing the Vatican to pay for contraception is infringing on their rights.


One could argue the same about banning witch burning.
 
2012-02-09 07:04:47 PM  

MrEricSir: s2s2s2: Forcing the Vatican to pay for contraception is infringing on their rights.

One could argue the same about banning witch burning.


Or planting wheat and barley in the same field.
 
2012-02-09 07:06:01 PM  

MrEricSir: s2s2s2: Forcing the Vatican to pay for contraception is infringing on their rights.

One could argue the same about banning witch burning.


If one was an idiot.
 
2012-02-09 07:07:07 PM  

gimmegimme: MrEricSir: s2s2s2: Forcing the Vatican to pay for contraception is infringing on their rights.

One could argue the same about banning witch burning.

Or planting wheat and barley in the same field.


Who is trying to force the Catholics to plant wheat at all?
 
2012-02-09 07:08:45 PM  

gimmegimme: MrEricSir: s2s2s2: Forcing the Vatican to pay for contraception is infringing on their rights.

One could argue the same about banning witch burning.

Or planting wheat and barley in the same field.


Are you wearing a cotton/polyester blend?
 
2012-02-09 07:10:19 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Among other things, I am morally opposed to money being spent on wars and capital punishment. And yet I am inexplicably forced to pay for these things through my taxes.


You're also paying for these things through organizations that lobby the federal government. That pack of smokes you bought? Philip Morris' next contribution to keep marijuana illegal. How about your last trip to Wal-Mart? The Waltons will pay their share to keep their taxes as low as possible. But hey, my local landscaper wouldn't do any of that, right? Wrong, he just made a contribution to the party you're desperately trying to throw out this election cycle.

Why are you okay with these uses of "your money", but not the federal government's use of "your money"?
 
2012-02-09 07:10:51 PM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: MrEricSir: s2s2s2: Forcing the Vatican to pay for contraception is infringing on their rights.

One could argue the same about banning witch burning.

Or planting wheat and barley in the same field.

Who is trying to force the Catholics to plant wheat at all?


No one. We get by fine on barley and rye.
 
2012-02-09 07:14:38 PM  
Fartbama should just tell them if they don't like it, they can go back to Kenya
 
Displayed 50 of 466 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report