Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Huffington Post)   Hugh Hefner decides to take a stand against the GOP's war on sex   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 153
    More: Hero, Hugh Hefner, GOP  
•       •       •

19186 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2012 at 8:55 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-23 11:56:47 PM  

TimonC346: puppetmaster745: mjbok: vwarb: Plus, it's not like the President gets to just strike down Supreme Court rulings.

It's all about looking at the court and figuring out when they'll die/retire. It is possible that the next President (especially if it is 8 instead of 4 years) might get a few judges to nominate.

tjsands1118: prevent women from getting birth control

Is not wanting to pay for it the same thing as preventing someone from getting it? I am the most anti-Catholic person I know, but as an employer they shouldn't be forced to pay for something that they are morally opposed to.

I am sad to see that "not getting it for free" = "not getting it". Where have we come as a country?

Ask the average idiot on the street, and he will tell you that the GOP wants to take away birth control. Absolutely false.

/ Catholic
// You still get a high-five

Uh, it isn't false when you take it completely out of anyone's reach, then claim it is their fault they have a child. That's what happens, my man, when you make it unavailable. Like it or not, people gonna fark, figure out what the better, more moral choice is.


My man, if you and your woman can't rub enough quarters together to buy a rubber, you have some serious problems.
 
2012-04-23 11:58:17 PM  

Johnny Savage: BokerBill: Johnny Savage: The simple fact is that everyone has the right to procure health insurance individually.

Uh, no: no such right. Not unless you see a corresponding responsibility of health insurance providers to cut a policy for anyone who wants to buy one. Is that where you're going with this point?

Fine... omit 'right'... insert 'opportunity'.


Blue #3.
 
2012-04-24 12:06:07 AM  

Johnny Savage: tjsands1118: Republican motto:
Smaller government, less intrusion, lower taxes.

Republican actions:
Take away freedom to consume drugs, I haven't seen Democrats do any different [...]

/minor adjustments.


But the motto above is not the Democrats' motto. Republican Party says one thing but does another, that makes that party hypocritical, end of story.

"Yeah, but they do it too" is NOT a defense.
 
2012-04-24 12:07:06 AM  

shotglasss: Oops, forgot to mention that no one is preventing women from getting birth control, we just don't want to pay for it. You want to have sex, fine, you buy the wrappers and leave me and my money out of it.


Don't people who get health insurance also pay for their health insurance? How are you paying a few dollars for someone else's BC pills?

And if that's the case, would you rather pay a few bucks or a few thousand bucks for the child?
 
2012-04-24 12:08:45 AM  

Ninja Otter: Johnny Savage: tjsands1118: Republican motto:
Smaller government, less intrusion, lower taxes.

Republican actions:
Take away freedom to consume drugs, I haven't seen Democrats do any different [...]

/minor adjustments.

But the motto above is not the Democrats' motto. Republican Party says one thing but does another, that makes that party hypocritical, end of story.

"Yeah, but they do it too" is NOT a defense.


"But it's okay when WE do it."

People who take rights away from others, especially for "Christian" reasons, are scum.
 
2012-04-24 12:10:04 AM  

shotglasss: Oops, forgot to mention that no one is preventing women from getting birth control, we just don't want to pay for it. You want to have sex, fine, you buy the wrappers and leave me and my money out of it.


OK hon--OMG, it didn't work! I could use a little help with raising the baby. My lawyer says so.
 
2012-04-24 12:21:46 AM  
Pointless arguing with these idiots. If you pull the head off a cockraoch it will twich for hours, much like a conservative presented with facts and reason that continues to vote Republican. It's not even a discussion, they just puke out propagandist talking points like it's involuntary motor control.
 
2012-04-24 12:22:47 AM  
I could easily see this backfire on the Republicans in a big way. Sure in the focus groups conservatives may try and sound righteous about how they are "true" Christians and are against sex, but how do these words reflect reality? I'm quite confident that the majority of Republicans and Christians may talk in public against birth control, but this does not reflect the practices occurring in the bedroom. If the Republican campaign promises an entire agenda against contraceptives this fall, then "Mr. and Mrs. Righteous Christian" may think twice about which party to vote for when alone in the voting booth.

Look up Kim Campbell's campaign for Prime Minister of Canada in 1993. Different issues, but similar scenario. The result: The literal collapse of the Progressive Conservative Party, the nation's prime right wing party, bringing them to unofficial party status!
 
2012-04-24 12:24:35 AM  
Has anyone mentioned how it's actually LESS expensive to an insurance company (and thus everyone) to pay for birth control of any type than to pay for the hospital bills resulting from pregnancy?
The insurance companies WANT to pay for BC. They know this. It's the religious nutters and people with a poor grasp on economics that don't.

Cost of BC is anywhere from $20-$50 a month.
Cost of having a friggen baby? Several orders of magnitude higher.
Plus that child is now on the insurance, so all of their vaccinations, checkups, etc., are added to that. Until they are 26.
SO.
$50/month
OR
Tens of Thousands of Dollars over 26 years? Not factoring in injuries or other major medical problems?

/oh wait it kind of got mentioned
//rant
 
2012-04-24 12:27:41 AM  

Electrify: If the Republican campaign promises an entire agenda against contraceptives this fall, then "Mr. and Mrs. Righteous Christian" may think twice about which party to vote for when alone in the voting booth.


If we're talking about the middle 40% that is a multidenominational mix of liberal-thinking conservatives and conservative-minded liberals, then I agree. The 60% liberal & conservative bases choose which party to vote for before the candidates are selected.
 
2012-04-24 12:28:56 AM  
when are the republicans going to be evicted from the united states?
 
2012-04-24 12:42:22 AM  

Flumenos: Has anyone mentioned how it's actually LESS expensive to an insurance company (and thus everyone) to pay for birth control of any type than to pay for the hospital bills resulting from pregnancy?
The insurance companies WANT to pay for BC. They know this. It's the religious nutters and people with a poor grasp on economics that don't.

Cost of BC is anywhere from $20-$50 a month.
Cost of having a friggen baby? Several orders of magnitude higher.
Plus that child is now on the insurance, so all of their vaccinations, checkups, etc., are added to that. Until they are 26.
SO.
$50/month
OR
Tens of Thousands of Dollars over 26 years? Not factoring in injuries or other major medical problems?

/oh wait it kind of got mentioned
//rant


oh yeah?
Well then, Jesus!
aw.. yeah, can't beat that can you?
 
2012-04-24 12:43:28 AM  

rogue_L_chick:
Then maybe people should stop prefacing their beliefs with things like "My wife and daughter both take the pill, not for contraception".


Interesting idea. Sadly, the vast majority of the populous requires a "why" these days, much like a 2 yr old child... But I solidly agree with your premiss. I just wish that was our current reality.
 
2012-04-24 12:47:59 AM  

tjsands1118: Republican motto:
Smaller government, less intrusion,


They want the government to be small enough to fit comfortably in a woman's vagina.
 
2012-04-24 12:49:29 AM  

Stig O'Tracy: Children, over the past 50 years, Hefner has been instrumental in our society's countless battles in the unending war on human rights. He broke down barriers for revolutionary performers, artists and musicians. If he never existed, the world would be a vastly different place today. Porn is just a small part of his amazing story.

Look up "Hefner Dick Gregory" and LEARN. Just one small example of Hef's impact on the world.

Deep Purple's first American television appearance was on "Playboy After Dark" when no networks would dare show them.

/kids these days


Dude seriously. Hef gets kudos just for being Hef, but having the balls to have Deep goddamn Purple on his show, in think I need to go change my shorts.
 
2012-04-24 12:56:29 AM  
Oh, and just to prevent you getting the wrong idea... I do not think they should get special consideration on the health care plans for their medications. They should be approached in the manner of (hopefully) all medications, and if deemed a necessary medication, then covered. But again, that should be decided by the insurer, and not the government, as to what they will cover.

I will gladly pay out of pocket what I must to keep my wife healthy. Even to the point that if health insurance were to disappear tomorrow, I would pay what the market would support. Insurance is just that... a hedge against a catastrophic event... and not a cheap doctor visit. Too many people are not getting that point. Health -insurance- is just that.... insurance. It's not to subsidize your day-to-day or monthly expenses. It is there in the even the unexpected happens.

Tell me where I can get auto insurance that has a co-pay on oil changes and car washed...
 
2012-04-24 01:21:36 AM  
Please. Politically correct college campus liberals started the war on sex in the 90's. Hippy chicks and speech codes and dating contracts, etc
 
2012-04-24 01:30:06 AM  

DysphoricMania: Oh, and just to prevent you getting the wrong idea... I do not think they should get special consideration on the health care plans for their medications. They should be approached in the manner of (hopefully) all medications, and if deemed a necessary medication, then covered. But again, that should be decided by the insurer, and not the government, as to what they will cover.

I will gladly pay out of pocket what I must to keep my wife healthy. Even to the point that if health insurance were to disappear tomorrow, I would pay what the market would support. Insurance is just that... a hedge against a catastrophic event... and not a cheap doctor visit. Too many people are not getting that point. Health -insurance- is just that.... insurance. It's not to subsidize your day-to-day or monthly expenses. It is there in the even the unexpected happens.

Tell me where I can get auto insurance that has a co-pay on oil changes and car washed...


Maintenance care is far cheaper than crisis care.

Look at it this way - if people don't bring their cars in to be maintained and when the car finally dies - they claim total vehicle damage, wouldn't it be cheaper for car insurances to offer co-pay for oil changes to prevent catastrophic costs?

However, in the case of people, it's lives. When it comes to lives, catastrophic events brings catastrophic costs.
 
2012-04-24 01:38:01 AM  

DysphoricMania: Oh, and just to prevent you getting the wrong idea... I do not think they should get special consideration on the health care plans for their medications. They should be approached in the manner of (hopefully) all medications, and if deemed a necessary medication, then covered. But again, that should be decided by the insurer, and not the government, as to what they will cover.

I will gladly pay out of pocket what I must to keep my wife healthy. Even to the point that if health insurance were to disappear tomorrow, I would pay what the market would support. Insurance is just that... a hedge against a catastrophic event... and not a cheap doctor visit. Too many people are not getting that point. Health -insurance- is just that.... insurance. It's not to subsidize your day-to-day or monthly expenses. It is there in the even the unexpected happens.

Tell me where I can get auto insurance that has a co-pay on oil changes and car washed...


As another guy pointed out, if car insurance companies were on the hook for any and every possible repair needed to keep 1930s clunkers sputtering along for a few more years, yer goddamn right they would pay for maintenance, out of their own self interest.
 
2012-04-24 01:47:56 AM  

OgreMagi: tjsands1118: Republican motto:
Smaller government, less intrusion,

They want the government to be small enough to fit comfortably in a woman's vagina.


That's not true.

They don't care if it's comfortable or not.
 
2012-04-24 01:48:23 AM  

STRYPERSWINE: Please. Politically correct college campus liberals started the war on sex in the 90's. Hippy chicks and speech codes and dating contracts, etc


radicalvixen.com
 
2012-04-24 01:53:01 AM  

cryinoutloud: LeroyBourne: I'm glad he could tear himself away from his huge bed whom he shares with many ladies.
/i typically don't go for that type, but his fiance in pic 8 is out of control

Crystal Harris? After she dumped him days before they were supposed to get married, she told everybody that she was only marrying him for money and publicity, that he sucked in bed, all the stuff about the dog shiat, then refused to give back the engagement ring.

Hef graciously told her that she could keep it. He then said that he "felt sorry for her" and that he'd dodged a bullet.

So you'd better hope that you don't go for "that type."

/Thank goodness she seems to have slunk right back into obscurity.


I would have told her, "Crystal, how old are you? 25? Listen up kid, I've been through that many women this year already, including you, and it's only June. I was a pussy hound pulling twice that a month before your mother was born, and I bet I could have had her too. So take the ring, pack your sh*t, and have a nice life. Now if you'll excuse me, there are 4 other women waiting for me upstairs, all blonde, all with big fake tits, and all ready to f*ck my old ass to death."
 
2012-04-24 01:56:36 AM  

Johnny Savage: fritton: Johnny Savage: fritton: Johnny Savage: the_geek: mjbok: Is not wanting to pay for it the same thing as preventing someone from getting it? I am the most anti-Catholic person I know, but as an employer they shouldn't be forced to pay for something that they are morally opposed to.

If you're going to pay for health insurance you shouldn't get to choose what kind of health you'd like to provide. You get to provide health as it's regulated by the FDA, AMA, etc. Otherwise you could arbitrarily make up whatever nonsense you wanted to. If you're opposed to providing health care, don't provide it. We have religions in this country that believe rattlesnake venom cures diseases and that blood transfusions are sinful.

Besides, it's not as if it *costs* money to provide birth control. It's much cheaper to provide the pill to someone than it is to pay for the birth of a child. So it's not as if these religious organizations are *paying* for anything. They get a discount by providing birth control. They should pay a premium to *not* provide it.

This sentence exemplifies why the productive members of society hate liberals.

The insinuation that you should be able to regulate employees minimum healthcareinsurance because you offer a health package that is advantageous to the employee due to group rates and sign *part* of the check to the insurer exemplifies why the productive members of society pity conservativesis logical.

Liberals just love being the authoritarians, don't they? "Pay for my shiat, And, shut up about it, too."

Yah, employees never help pay for their healthcare (you mention the group rate itself),

Employees pay a portion of a rate that is discounted because of their association with the employer and his willingness to provide a single source of billing for the insurer.

also, you're going to go with *liberals* as the authoritarians? That's a joke.

If the shoe fits.

Simple fact is that health care (and insurance) is a regulated trade. Government has the right to set acceptable standards and minimums. I don't get to opt out of any other government regulation because of some bronze age morality, but conservatives sure love to play the victim if they see a ...

This goes back to the authoritarianism of the matter. The simple fact is that everyone has the right to procure health insurance individually. 'Liberals' want to force employers to spend money on things they (liberals) feel are moral. Ultimately, the 'liberal' argument is that employers have no rights over their own property. Also, they should be regulated within the employer/employee transaction.


If you think everyone had a right, or even an opportunity, to purchase health insurance prior to Obamacare,;well, I'm glad for you and your loved ones because obviously no one close to you ever had cancer and then tried to find coverage.

As to your last paragraph, well, liberals are your fellow Americans with slightly different political philosophies. They aren't Nazis, or Marxists, or gremlins. They don't go to bed each night fantasizing about the destruction of America, nor do they tangle up you Christmas lights.

Having this absolutist belief structure in which half of all Americans want nothing more than to loot you for everything you are worth is worse than foolish, its paranoia to the point its probably affecting your daily life, man.

The reality is much more nuanced than your panicked black and white absolutism in which this amorphous mass of Liberals plots to reshape America more radically than Mao ever dared to dream. I mean really, the current crop of Dem leaders are less organized, united, and efficient than the average prom committee!

But sure, whatever, dude. I'm sure doing the adult version of a child throwing a temper tantrum because he's forced to share his juice box with his brother must do something for you. At least I hope it is...
 
2012-04-24 02:00:29 AM  
Wait until Larry Flynt enters the fray. Rmoney won't know what hit him.
 
2012-04-24 02:06:03 AM  
Seriously, we need to extract some of Hugh Hefners and Keith Richards blood and inject it into some random Haitian just to see what it does.
 
2012-04-24 02:13:28 AM  
Oh, and you realize there is an entire field of law, "Employment Law" that stretches back for centuries to English Common Law, to even Roman, Greek, and Hebrew laws placing limits upon the contracts that an employer and employee can enter into.

Because even Bronze Age nomads were smart enough to recognize that letting the powerful run roughshod over the masses is not in the best interests of society.

It's not like Obama invented the concept of placing limits on employment conditions. Kidding aside, I want to clarify for you that the man does not, actually, own a time machine. He is still black though...

Anyway, my point is that if you want to advocate tossing out the hundreds of laws governing employment and go back to company towns, mangled factory orphans, and indentured servitude for the vast majority of Americans, by all means, be my guest.

But I don't see you on here complaining that your boss isn't allowed to force you to work more than 40 hours without compensation. So I think whats really going on is that you actually like a lot of the laws that intrude on the employer/employee contract. You just don't like this one in particular.

And dude, even that is fine, but quit with the farking damsel-in-distress hyperbole. Just say what you mean. Have the courage of your convictions.

TO;DR: Don't be dumber than a superstitious goat herder.
 
2012-04-24 02:13:30 AM  

ununcle: Seriously, we need to extract some of Hugh Hefners and Keith Richards blood and inject it into some random Haitian just to see what it does.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-24 02:20:29 AM  

mjbok: Romney's position (as best as I can tell at this moment) is that it should be a state decision, not federal policy.


Funny, that's RON PAUL's position.

/on everything, states' rights
//state laws > federal laws
/United States, duh
 
2012-04-24 02:21:12 AM  

tjsands1118: ununcle: Seriously, we need to extract some of Hugh Hefners and Keith Richards blood and inject it into some random Haitian just to see what it does.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 225x294]


I lol'd!!!!
 
2012-04-24 03:40:44 AM  
Just curious, and hoping some of the Fark Republicans can answer this conundrum...

I'm married. Happily married. And fortunately, my husband I have decent health insurance that covers contraception, although it IS paid for courtesy of Uncle Sam (military), which means that whenever the GOP gets a wild hair up their bum, they may decide to fark things up. But by GOP standards, we're the "perfect" family. We have four children who we homeschool (bootstrappy!), we're in a monogamous heterosexual marriage, and my husband is serving his country. Now we're very excitedly pregnant with #5. After #5 is born, I plan to get an IUD. I can't handle artificial hormones and condoms are just not very practical for monogamously married couples (although I'm sure the GOP would love to outlaw condoms as well), but the fact is that an IUD is PRICEY! Our insurance covers it (thankfully!), but what if it didn't? I've tried the NFP stuff and it actually works very well, but it tends to be a little hard to do when you're breastfeeding a new baby and sometimes gets farked up.

The fact is that I - a monogamous, married, heterosexual woman who is more than happy to have lots and lots of children - fall into the category that most people would call "Super Fertile". As my father says, "Mr. Morgantx hangs his pants on the bedpost and Morgantx ends up pregnant."

Normally the Republicans say that birth control is immoral, but if I don't use birth control, I WILL have about 9-12 months between pregnancies. NFP doesn't always work when you're in the postpartum/breastfeeding condition, and abstinence is morally wrong because I'm supposed to be a good wife and tend to my husband's needs, right? But at some point, we're going to end up with more children than we can afford to feed based on our own bootstrappiness, so I'm a little confused about what the correct Republican answer to this is?

tl;dr version:
If I'm already being a good little Republican by being in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage and not using birth control, who's going to pay to feed and clothe the children that will inevitably result?
 
2012-04-24 04:45:59 AM  

morgantx: Just curious, and hoping some of the Fark Republicans can answer this conundrum...

I'm married. Happily married. And fortunately, my husband I have decent health insurance that covers contraception, although it IS paid for courtesy of Uncle Sam (military), which means that whenever the GOP gets a wild hair up their bum, they may decide to fark things up. But by GOP standards, we're the "perfect" family. We have four children who we homeschool (bootstrappy!), we're in a monogamous heterosexual marriage, and my husband is serving his country. Now we're very excitedly pregnant with #5. After #5 is born, I plan to get an IUD. I can't handle artificial hormones and condoms are just not very practical for monogamously married couples (although I'm sure the GOP would love to outlaw condoms as well), but the fact is that an IUD is PRICEY! Our insurance covers it (thankfully!), but what if it didn't? I've tried the NFP stuff and it actually works very well, but it tends to be a little hard to do when you're breastfeeding a new baby and sometimes gets farked up.

The fact is that I - a monogamous, married, heterosexual woman who is more than happy to have lots and lots of children - fall into the category that most people would call "Super Fertile". As my father says, "Mr. Morgantx hangs his pants on the bedpost and Morgantx ends up pregnant."

Normally the Republicans say that birth control is immoral, but if I don't use birth control, I WILL have about 9-12 months between pregnancies. NFP doesn't always work when you're in the postpartum/breastfeeding condition, and abstinence is morally wrong because I'm supposed to be a good wife and tend to my husband's needs, right? But at some point, we're going to end up with more children than we can afford to feed based on our own bootstrappiness, so I'm a little confused about what the correct Republican answer to this is?

tl;dr version:
If I'm already being a good little Republican by being in a monogamous, heterosexual marriag ...


Vasectomy.

/Someone else can answer your next stupid question
 
Skr
2012-04-24 05:20:17 AM  
Check your watch, it's time for debauch.
 
2012-04-24 06:20:10 AM  
Ooh, yay, another thread to remind me that there are men who think I don't have the right to decide on my own health care because I'm just a stupid woman! And my money doesn't count! THEY have to tell me and the other people who make up 51% of the population what we should do because shut up that's why, and make them a sammich! It's not big government, it's saving blastulae!

Not a big enough "fark you" GIF in the world for that. Go get slaved to a kidney patient for nine months as their breathing dialysis machine and get back to me on whether you should be forced into doing that.
 
2012-04-24 06:40:59 AM  
Republicans are okay with sex. As long as it's with young boys.

/amiright?
 
2012-04-24 07:13:41 AM  

morgantx: Just curious, and hoping some of the Fark Republicans can answer this conundrum...

I'm married. Happily married. And fortunately, my husband I have decent health insurance that covers contraception, although it IS paid for courtesy of Uncle Sam (military), which means that whenever the GOP gets a wild hair up their bum, they may decide to fark things up. But by GOP standards, we're the "perfect" family. We have four children who we homeschool (bootstrappy!), we're in a monogamous heterosexual marriage, and my husband is serving his country. Now we're very excitedly pregnant with #5. After #5 is born, I plan to get an IUD. I can't handle artificial hormones and condoms are just not very practical for monogamously married couples (although I'm sure the GOP would love to outlaw condoms as well), but the fact is that an IUD is PRICEY! Our insurance covers it (thankfully!), but what if it didn't? I've tried the NFP stuff and it actually works very well, but it tends to be a little hard to do when you're breastfeeding a new baby and sometimes gets farked up.

The fact is that I - a monogamous, married, heterosexual woman who is more than happy to have lots and lots of children - fall into the category that most people would call "Super Fertile". As my father says, "Mr. Morgantx hangs his pants on the bedpost and Morgantx ends up pregnant."

Normally the Republicans say that birth control is immoral, but if I don't use birth control, I WILL have about 9-12 months between pregnancies. NFP doesn't always work when you're in the postpartum/breastfeeding condition, and abstinence is morally wrong because I'm supposed to be a good wife and tend to my husband's needs, right? But at some point, we're going to end up with more children than we can afford to feed based on our own bootstrappiness, so I'm a little confused about what the correct Republican answer to this is?

tl;dr version:
If I'm already being a good little Republican by being in a monogamous, heterosexual marriag ...



Well, based on child count, and time married, you sound like you had children out of wedlock, so aren't a Republican, I'll be nice and spare you the names they think you are ;)

Seriously though, as someone said, get husband snipped for your situation.
If you don't care as much about the IUD, but are just curious of the "Republican" answer to such a situation, especially if it's one where a couple wants to pause on having babies but may want more later (an even STRONGER case for female birth control use than yours), I too would like to hear their answer, sadly, it won't make any sense and is likely to end in "but Jesus"
 
2012-04-24 08:07:02 AM  

Stig O'Tracy: Children, over the past 50 years, Hefner has been instrumental in our society's countless battles in the unending war on human rights. He broke down barriers for revolutionary performers, artists and musicians. If he never existed, the world would be a vastly different place today. Porn is just a small part of his amazing story.

Look up "Hefner Dick Gregory" and LEARN. Just one small example of Hef's impact on the world.

Deep Purple's first American television appearance was on "Playboy After Dark" when no networks would dare show them.

/kids these days


This. Thank you sir. Hefner's role in the modernization of human rights cannot be overstated. Make all the 'old man and hot women' jokes you want, but marginalizing Hefner's role in making it possible for you to suck a cock if you want to, or me to marry my black gf, does both him and history a massive disservice.
 
2012-04-24 08:10:33 AM  

illannoyin: Vasectomy.

/Someone else can answer your next stupid question



Hey, I got an idea. You're a smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous douchebag right now. Please kill yourself.

That is yet another example of a permanent solution to a temporary problem, dumbass.
 
2012-04-24 09:12:18 AM  

DysphoricMania: Tell me where I can get auto insurance that has a co-pay on oil changes and car washed...


I can do better than that: How about no co-pays?

Extended Srevice Plans

They're so common even the FTC has a page about them: See?
 
2012-04-24 10:22:22 AM  

illannoyin: Vasectomy.

/Someone else can answer your next stupid question



HA!

My sister managed to beat THAT odds.
 
2012-04-24 10:25:21 AM  

Madbassist1: illannoyin: Vasectomy.

/Someone else can answer your next stupid question


Hey, I got an idea. You're a smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous douchebag right now. Please kill yourself.

That is yet another example of a permanent solution to a temporary problem, dumbass.


They have FIVE KIDS!!!!!!
WTF is wrong with having a vasectomy after all that?!?!
or should I just assume that it's women's responsibility to take care of birth control??
Her husband shouldn't have to have any mean-ol doctors touch his naughty bits!!!

"If I'm already being a good little Republican by being in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage and not using birth control, who's going to pay to feed and clothe the children that will inevitably result?"
Most definitely NOT the people who brought ALL those lives into this world. for sure!
I sure hope personal responsibility is covered by my insurance!!
 
2012-04-24 10:28:09 AM  
FTA: "Mitt Romney, as Hefner notes, has vowed to overturn Roe v. Wade."

Is he getting his skills at making shiat up from fox news?

FTA:"... celebrating the media tycoon as an ardent defender of women's rights"
So now exploiting women is defending their rights? HAHAHAHAHAh
What a tard
 
2012-04-24 10:33:47 AM  
"Hugh Hefner decides to shore up flagging Playboy sales by taking a stand against the GOP's war on sex"

FTFY, Subby
 
2012-04-24 10:59:39 AM  

illannoyin:
Vasectomy.

/Someone else can answer your next stupid question


Just so I'm clear on this... We plan to use the IUD because we don't plan to have more kids than we CAN support.

But for those of you who didn't understand the question (like you!), there are plenty of elements within the Republican party who do NOT believe in ANY form of birth control, including vasectomies.

The point? The GOP loves to spout off a bunch of bullshiat about how birth control only encourages immorality. Listening to their talking points, you get the impression that the ONLY people that use birth control are sluts, whores, and the gheys (to prevent the spread of STDs). Reading their Jeebus-approved sex ed curriculums, you'll find that the ONLY form of contraception approved is abstinence until marriage and then sex within the confines of marriage as a way to reduce the spread of STDs. My point is simply that for some of us, following the abstinence-only rule means having a lot more kids than it is possible to support independently. On the other side of the coin, the GOP loves to tout how important "personal responsibility" is as they slash programs designed to help poor families provide the necessities for their children (food stamps, school lunch, children's healthcare, etc.). The assumption there is that if you have more than 2 children, it must be because you're a slut who can't keep her legs closed. It's an incongruity. If you're going to promote something that will lead to LOTS of breeding, you have to be willing to provide care for the result of that breeding. If you're going to take away people's access to contraception, you have to be willing to deal with the consequences.

As it's been said before: People are going to fark whether you like it or not. Some people will fark outside of marriage. Some people will fark within marriage. Some people will fark on camera, with multiple people, with people of the same gender, with people of indeterminate gender, etc. It may sound great to some of these people to say, "If people would only far within marriage, they wouldn't be having babies they can't support," but that's just not true. If you're happily married and have not been using birth control and you only have two children, you're either a)using birth control, b)not all that happily married, or c)dealing with a health issue that affects your fertility.
 
2012-04-24 11:20:20 AM  

DysphoricMania: Compared to Larry Flint, Hugh is a stand-up guy.


I kind of like Larry Flint and Hugh Hefner. I have a friend at my meeting for worship that I've tried to explain this to. As examples, I cited their opposition to war, their refusal to deny the inherent sexuality of a sub-group of humans, and the fact that Flint purchased certain Jessica Lynch photos and took them out of circulation so that right-wing extremists couldn't use them against her.

My friend was not persuaded. She said "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

I think they're okay though.
 
2012-04-24 11:40:17 AM  
How many of these wars can the Dems manufacture?
 
2012-04-24 01:14:57 PM  
Anyone else see this as a bad precedent for religiously/morally denying insurance coverage? What's next? Oh, Aids are a punishment from god for your sins so we don't cover the treatment. Doesn't matter how you got it, you won't get any treatment here. Soon enough there's a new religion all the cheap companies are following that states any medical issue is ordained by their god and it would be immoral or something to intervene in gods will.
 
2012-04-24 02:02:45 PM  

Booneht: Anyone else see this as a bad precedent for religiously/morally denying insurance coverage? What's next? Oh, Aids are a punishment from god for your sins so we don't cover the treatment. Doesn't matter how you got it, you won't get any treatment here. Soon enough there's a new religion all the cheap companies are following that states any medical issue is ordained by their god and it would be immoral or something to intervene in gods will.


Jehovah's Witnesses already believe that blood transfusions are sinful, so a first step has been taken.
 
2012-04-24 04:17:02 PM  

Lunaville: DysphoricMania: Compared to Larry Flint, Hugh is a stand-up guy.

I kind of like Larry Flint and Hugh Hefner. I have a friend at my meeting for worship that I've tried to explain this to. As examples, I cited their opposition to war, their refusal to deny the inherent sexuality of a sub-group of humans, and the fact that Flint purchased certain Jessica Lynch photos and took them out of circulation so that right-wing extremists couldn't use them against her.

My friend was not persuaded. She said "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

I think they're okay though.


I have a broken digital clock that starts at 12:01 when it's plugged in, and starts from there. The buttons to change the time are broken, so unless I plug it in at 12:01, it will NEVER be right. Even then, it flashes, flashes, flashes, flashes because it wants the time set. It keeps flashing and blinking and flashing...
 
2012-04-24 05:16:07 PM  

meta1hed: How many of these wars can the Dems manufacture?



Also im shocked, shocked I tell you to hear that Hugh Hefner doesnt like republicans.


I am also shocked that Democrats will be seen in the same room as him given that he treats young women like prostitutes, using them for sex and PR all week long then making them come to his office for pre-arranged "allowances" only to critique their sexual service for the last week and warn them if they dont start servicing the old man better they are out on the street...... Im both jealous and disgusted ;)
 
2012-04-24 05:17:05 PM  

archichris: meta1hed: How many of these wars can the Dems manufacture?


Also im shocked, shocked I tell you to hear that Hugh Hefner doesnt like republicans.


I am also shocked that Democrats will be seen in the same room as him given that he treats young women like prostitutes, using them for sex and PR all week long then making them come to his office for pre-arranged "allowances" only to critique their sexual service for the last week and warn them if they dont start servicing the old man better they are out on the street...... Im both jealous and disgusted ;)


Neat it skipped the part where I said I am GOP and not at war with either women or sex. wierd.....
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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