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.

(Minn Post)   In what appears to be the political equivalent of a tree falling in the forest, ND voters shoot down Catholic Churches' pet "Religious Liberation Restoration" act in this week's primary and nobody notices   (minnpost.com) divider line 88
    More: Interesting, Religious Liberation Restoration, North Dakotans, North Dakota, North Dakota voters, Fighting Sioux, strict scrutiny, name of God, war chest  
•       •       •

3203 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jun 2012 at 12:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-06-16 12:56:34 PM  
The who in the what, now?
 
2012-06-16 12:58:14 PM  
Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.
 
2012-06-16 12:59:11 PM  

odinsposse: Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.


Yeah you betcha'
 
2012-06-16 01:02:06 PM  
"Government may not burden a person's religious organization's religious liberty,"

Fixed that for y'all.
 
2012-06-16 01:05:43 PM  

odinsposse: Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.


Because normally America is completely obsessed with local Wisconsin politics.
 
2012-06-16 01:08:40 PM  
they also said no to dropping the income tax
 
2012-06-16 01:10:31 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax


Encouraging glimmers of rationality...
 
2012-06-16 01:11:37 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax


Actually it was banning property tax. Get your obscure local news straight!
 
2012-06-16 01:13:37 PM  
I noticed, and I gave quiet applause.
 
2012-06-16 01:20:50 PM  
"Tom Freier, executive director of the North Dakota Family Alliance"

Oh look, another group with the word "Family" in its name that you can substitute "bigot" for and describe the group.
 
2012-06-16 01:24:52 PM  
Rational voting decisions? Sounds like someone is afflicted with secondhand-Canada
 
2012-06-16 01:25:14 PM  

brandent: Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax

Actually it was banning property tax. Get your obscure local news straight!


The "religious freedom" thing lost 65% to 35%, the property tax measure lost 78% to 22%. This in ND, a very red state. The democrat in the senate race there also has a slight lead in current polls. The republican party would do well to pay attention to all this, but they probably aren't capable of an appropriate response.
 
2012-06-16 01:27:24 PM  
Notre Dame votes now? I thought they were an episcopocracy?
 
2012-06-16 01:28:49 PM  
This is just more evidence that there is a war on religion in this country.
 
2012-06-16 01:32:46 PM  
"The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.
 
2012-06-16 01:35:54 PM  

malaktaus: brandent: Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax

Actually it was banning property tax. Get your obscure local news straight!

The "religious freedom" thing lost 65% to 35%, the property tax measure lost 78% to 22%. This in ND, a very red state. The democrat in the senate race there also has a slight lead in current polls. The republican party would do well to pay attention to all this, but they probably aren't capable of an appropriate response.


Obviously, they're not acting conservative enough.
 
2012-06-16 01:46:05 PM  

deadcrickets: odinsposse: Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.

Because normally America is completely obsessed with local Wisconsin politics.


North Dakota has 10 people. Wisconsin has several thousand.
 
2012-06-16 01:48:47 PM  

Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.


Thread over.
 
2012-06-16 01:49:15 PM  

malaktaus: brandent: Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax

Actually it was banning property tax. Get your obscure local news straight!

The "religious freedom" thing lost 65% to 35%, the property tax measure lost 78% to 22%. This in ND, a very red state. The democrat in the senate race there also has a slight lead in current polls. The republican party would do well to pay attention to all this, but they probably aren't capable of an appropriate response.


While I hope it is indeed a harbinger of rationality, it could also be just Lutherans sticking it to Pope.
 
2012-06-16 01:53:33 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax


It wasn't income. It was property.
 
2012-06-16 01:57:09 PM  

Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.


You don't think preventing fully-loaded Boeing 747's from crashing into skyscrapers is a compelling government interest?
 
2012-06-16 02:00:25 PM  

Serious Black: Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.

You don't think preventing fully-loaded Boeing 747's from crashing into skyscrapers is a compelling government interest?


i322.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-16 02:08:17 PM  
"Stealth" anti-reproductive rights legislation.
 
2012-06-16 02:18:31 PM  

Serious Black: Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.

You don't think preventing fully-loaded Boeing 747's from crashing into skyscrapers is a compelling government interest?


Touche, salesman.
 
2012-06-16 02:19:32 PM  

LoneWolf343: Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax

It wasn't income. It was property.


Your mom is my property.

Her face I income.
 
2012-06-16 02:26:02 PM  

ghare: deadcrickets: odinsposse: Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.

Because normally America is completely obsessed with local Wisconsin politics.

North Dakota has 10 people. Wisconsin has several thousand.


Wisconsin has several thousand. Pennsylvania has millions.
 
2012-06-16 02:30:30 PM  

Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.


Clearly there was a typo in the law, it should have read,

"motivated by a sincerely held Christian belief"
 
2012-06-16 03:05:07 PM  

Serious Black: Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.

You don't think preventing fully-loaded Boeing 747's from crashing into skyscrapers is a compelling government interest?


Apparently, that depends on my religious beliefs. Because if I wasn't weighed down with paternalistic bronze age morality, I'd say absolutely that is a compelling government interest in the safety of its citizens. Just like, oh I don't know let me grab a random analogy, there's a compelling government interest in the health and freedom of its citizens to have easy and affordable access to birth control for both men and women. But, again, I suppose that depends entirely on ones religious beliefs.
 
2012-06-16 03:45:48 PM  

Kome: Serious Black: Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.

You don't think preventing fully-loaded Boeing 747's from crashing into skyscrapers is a compelling government interest?

Apparently, that depends on my religious beliefs. Because if I wasn't weighed down with paternalistic bronze age morality, I'd say absolutely that is a compelling government interest in the safety of its citizens. Just like, oh I don't know let me grab a random analogy, there's a compelling government interest in the health and freedom of its citizens to have easy and affordable access to birth control for both men and women. But, again, I suppose that depends entirely on ones religious beliefs.


Perhaps one should establish the Church of Socialism. I'd love to see the arguments against that...
 
2012-06-16 03:53:07 PM  

Kome: there's a compelling government interest in the health and freedom of its citizens to have easy and affordable access to birth control for both men and women.


No there isn't.

Buy your own condoms, or you know, jerk off in the shower.

Oh I want to have sex, lets get the government involved!
 
2012-06-16 03:57:42 PM  

halfof33: No there isn't.

Buy your own condoms, or you know, jerk off in the shower.

Oh I want to have sex, lets get the government involved!


You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?
 
2012-06-16 04:01:02 PM  

Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?


Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.
 
2012-06-16 04:12:31 PM  

halfof33: Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?

Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.


It isn't a government handout any more than getting insulin payed by your INSURER is.
Besides, why should the tenets of your religion be codified into law?
 
2012-06-16 04:14:01 PM  

deadcrickets: ghare: deadcrickets: odinsposse: Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.

Because normally America is completely obsessed with local Wisconsin politics.

North Dakota has 10 people. Wisconsin has several thousand.

Wisconsin has several thousand. Pennsylvania has millions.


No, Pennsylvania has Neanderthals. No actual humans. Well, maybe Weaver.
 
2012-06-16 04:15:54 PM  

doyner: It isn't a government handout any more than getting insulin payed by your INSURER is.
Besides, why should the tenets of your religion be codified into law?


Why should the tenets of YOUR religion be codified into law, nah nah!

The guy just compared sex to diabetes and condoms to insulin.

SUPER! That is some sharp thinking. Not having sex is a fatal disease now, Fark closes shop, news at 11....
 
2012-06-16 04:23:17 PM  

halfof33: Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?

Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.


Ok. Condoms are one form of birth control. They are an incredibly effective one, at not just preventing pregnancy but stopping the transmission of STDs. So, yay for condoms. Over 99% effectiveness! Hooray! And, oddly enough, I can get them for free at most clinics. I don't know if that's just because I live near multiple college campuses, but they are free. I've never had to pay for a condom in my life. Why? Because preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs is apparently enough of a health and economic concern that hospitals and clinics (all of which receive state and/or federal financial aid) are willing to foot that tiny bill if it gets me to wrap my man-tackle up. Of course, condoms are for sale, and not just given away for free. But, you know, the last time I was at the drug store, it didn't seem like the cost of condoms were all that expensive. In fact, they were quite affordable. It is apparently better for society that men have cheap (possibly even free!) and easy access to a form of birth control, without having to even schedule a doctor's appointment to get a prescription for it.

Now, that said, as many free condoms as I can get, every woman I know has to get a prescription for her birth control method of choice. The most common one is a daily hormonal pill (well, with some chemically inert pills for a few days out of the month). Now, this hormonal pill does more than just aid in preventing unwanted pregnancies. They help regulate a woman's hormonal cycle. Hormone regulation is pretty important not just for pregnancy-related issues, but for quite a host of other health-related issues too. Once again, unwanted pregnancies are a health and economic concern (the cost of giving birth, the health risks in carrying to term, the health risks of giving birth, etc.; I should emphasize the word "unwanted" here since a desired pregnancy is usually accepting of those same risks and costs) to the degree that men's birth control (the condom) is so omnipresent that you can't go into any grocery store, drug store, or convenient store without being able to buy some. But women have to pay a higher rate. A higher rate for a product that also helps control disease, just not necessarily sexually transmitted ones. Seems strange, that.

It strikes me as somewhat short-sighted, ignorant, or just plain misogynistic to think that there is any rational reason to deny women access to either birth control or abortion to help prevent unwanted pregnancy (possibly both), regulate her hormonal cycle (birth control), possibly save her life (possibly both). So it is, of course, no surprise to see the religious freedom argument brought to bear on the issue, since religion is nothing if not short-sighted, ignorant, and plain misogynistic.

The government has an incredibly compelling reason to let women have access to these things. Because, and here's the kicker, having access to a thing is not the same thing as being forced or required to use it. Religious people who object to birth control or abortions can not have them. Win-motherf*cking-win.
 
2012-06-16 04:24:26 PM  

One Bad Apple: odinsposse: Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.

Yeah you betcha'


Uff da!
 
2012-06-16 04:30:06 PM  

halfof33: Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?

Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.


You want to save taxpayer money, do you? Well, guess wgat? A condom or BC pills is a hell of a lot cheaper than nearly two decades of Medicaid, food stamps, schooling, and other government assistance. Not to mention the expense of a prison cell over 4 or 5 decades.

You can preach abstinence all you want, but out in the real world, people are going to Fark. If they're low income, it would be vastly cheaper to pay for some BC.
 
2012-06-16 04:37:04 PM  

Riche: halfof33: Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?

Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.

You want to save taxpayer money, do you? Well, guess wgat? A condom or BC pills is a hell of a lot cheaper than nearly two decades of Medicaid, food stamps, schooling, and other government assistance. Not to mention the expense of a prison cell over 4 or 5 decades.

You can preach abstinence all you want, but out in the real world, people are going to Fark. If they're low income, it would be vastly cheaper to pay for some BC.


Fiscal matters clearly come in second place to social control of people in today's GOP. Witness the giant boost in bills passed over the last year and a half dealing with restricting abortion. This argument won't phase them.
 
2012-06-16 04:46:23 PM  

halfof33: doyner: It isn't a government handout any more than getting insulin payed by your INSURER is.
Besides, why should the tenets of your religion be codified into law?

Why should the tenets of YOUR religion be codified into law, nah nah!

The guy just compared sex to diabetes and condoms to insulin.

SUPER! That is some sharp thinking. Not having sex is a fatal disease now, Fark closes shop, news at 11....


ITT: Yet another example of a conservative struggling and failing to comprehend complex concepts like "health" and "insurance".
 
2012-06-16 05:09:51 PM  

Biological Ali: halfof33: doyner: It isn't a government handout any more than getting insulin payed by your INSURER is.
Besides, why should the tenets of your religion be codified into law?

Why should the tenets of YOUR religion be codified into law, nah nah!

The guy just compared sex to diabetes and condoms to insulin.

SUPER! That is some sharp thinking. Not having sex is a fatal disease now, Fark closes shop, news at 11....

ITT: Yet another example of a conservative struggling and failing to comprehend complex concepts like "health" and "insurance".


I wonder if his insurer covers counseling for pathological partisanship.
 
2012-06-16 05:16:18 PM  

Serious Black: Riche: halfof33: Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?

Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.

You want to save taxpayer money, do you? Well, guess wgat? A condom or BC pills is a hell of a lot cheaper than nearly two decades of Medicaid, food stamps, schooling, and other government assistance. Not to mention the expense of a prison cell over 4 or 5 decades.

You can preach abstinence all you want, but out in the real world, people are going to Fark. If they're low income, it would be vastly cheaper to pay for some BC.

Fiscal matters clearly come in second place to social control of people in today's GOP. Witness the giant boost in bills passed over the last year and a half dealing with restricting abortion. This argument won't phase them.


Not second...last. They want to ramp up "defense" spending because TERROR, and if you try to touch *their* government benefits, they'll be straining to get up off their Hoverounds to shake their meaty fists and gasp, "not...armed...THIS time...THIS time! *wheeze*"

They don't give a fark about the deficit.

They want to see their imagined social and racial inferiors put back in a position of deference and humility. That's where it begins and ends. That's why they can say self-righteously "buy your own condoms, whore" and maintain that this is part of their deep, deep, super-deep concern for the deficit.
 
2012-06-16 05:29:12 PM  
Even if this passed, imagine how fast it would get shot down the first time some Muslim grocery clerk refuses to sell you bacon or a Muslim cabbie won't give you a ride because you've been drinking.
 
2012-06-16 05:36:23 PM  
the vote should show politicians across the country that some of the loudest church organizations and leaders are not reflecting the views of their followers.

My local parish priests talk more about their pet projects and the fundraisers for it than they do about God, except to bring him up as a bargaining chip (God wants you to give me money so I can expand my television show......and remember God will not be outdone in generosity!). Their most recent rant was that "the Catholic church is under attack, the same as it was in Mexico in the 1920's". Hmmm, I haven't noticed a whole lot of dead clergy and raped nuns recently, maybe I've been spending too much time on Fark. In the meanwhile the church is taking in 25k a week in collections alone and they are spending it like drunken sailors on shore leave. There is no modern luxury invented that they do not enjoy in their private lives, yet they claim to be poor, subsisting on a paltry 17k (albeit tax free) per year.

It has gotten to the point where when they start to talk, I immediately stop listening, because they have a higher crap content than most commercial grade fertilizers. If they have told me how to vote I reckon I was asleep. I not only would never consider them for a source of advice for voting, I wouldn't consider them as a source of advice for anything else period. They are in freaking la la land, young priests in a large and wealthy suburban parish where everyone constantly kisses their ass and nobody takes them to task when they makes mistakes or frivolously spend enormous amounts of money.
 
2012-06-16 05:44:17 PM  

Kome: The government has an incredibly compelling reason to let women have access to these things.


That is a SPECTACULAR number of words devoted to an absolute straw man. I seriously commend you for it! That takes effort.

Access does not equal public funding of birth control.

You also seem to be a stone cold champ of argument from the outlying case, but that is a whole nother story!

Diabetes = recreational sex, I still get a kick out of that one, lulz.
 
2012-06-16 05:57:03 PM  

halfof33: Access does not equal public funding of birth control.


How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?
 
2012-06-16 06:17:35 PM  

TheJoeY: How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?


For reals? lulz
 
2012-06-16 06:57:14 PM  

halfof33: TheJoeY: How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?

For reals? lulz


i48.tinypic.com

Living up to the tagging I see...
 
2012-06-16 06:57:41 PM  
Honestly, I didn't understand how throwing this in the constitution defended the state against the federal government mandating...whatever it was that this legislation was trying to prevent.

/ND kid
//we voted all kinds of sane on our ballot measures this year
///snowball fight in hell, anyone?
 
2012-06-16 07:13:06 PM  

Need Help Soonish: halfof33: TheJoeY: How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?

For reals? lulz

[i48.tinypic.com image 229x70]

Living up to the tagging I see...


Yawn. Sweetie, if you are going to bring a ad hominem, bring it, don't fark around with some half ass screen cap that makes you giggle but doesn't make a bit of sense to farking anyone reading it.

Go load up your profile with more myspace poses, the adults are talking.
 
2012-06-16 07:18:06 PM  

halfof33: Need Help Soonish: halfof33: TheJoeY: How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?

For reals? lulz

[i48.tinypic.com image 229x70]

Living up to the tagging I see...

Yawn. Sweetie, if you are going to bring a ad hominem, bring it, don't fark around with some half ass screen cap that makes you giggle but doesn't make a bit of sense to farking anyone reading it.

Go load up your profile with more myspace poses, the adults are talking.


Awww... I love being condescended upon in the afternoon!

///I see a lot of adults talking in this thread... Your not one of them though :)
///Yes, we know the idea that Lady-bits might be just as important as Dude-bits hurts your titty-pink feelings.
///I AM rather amused, thank you!
 
2012-06-16 07:30:38 PM  

Need Help Soonish: halfof33: Need Help Soonish: halfof33: TheJoeY: How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?

For reals? lulz

[i48.tinypic.com image 229x70]

Living up to the tagging I see...

Yawn. Sweetie, if you are going to bring a ad hominem, bring it, don't fark around with some half ass screen cap that makes you giggle but doesn't make a bit of sense to farking anyone reading it.

Go load up your profile with more myspace poses, the adults are talking.

Awww... I love being condescended upon in the afternoon!

///I see a lot of adults talking in this thread... Your not one of them though :)
///Yes, we know the idea that Lady-bits might be just as important as Dude-bits hurts your titty-pink feelings.
///I AM rather amused, thank you!


I use "retarded red" for a reason, dude.
 
2012-06-16 07:38:35 PM  

Need Help Soonish: I see a lot of adults talking in this thread... Your not one of them though :)


My not one of them what, genius?

Oh, you meant "you're." I can see that you are a deep thinker.

Hey, pork chop, condoms are for women too! Kinda difficult to get through your head, huh? And gay men, hell just about everyone, maybe if you stop fixating on what yourself, you might learn a thing or two.

Thumbs up, looking forward to "your" next screen cap! Or myspace picture.
 
2012-06-16 07:40:25 PM  

halfof33: what yourself


grumble, that is what I get for making my god damn post shorter.
 
2012-06-16 07:54:22 PM  

halfof33: Need Help Soonish: I see a lot of adults talking in this thread... Your not one of them though :)

My not one of them what, genius?

Oh, you meant "you're." I can see that you are a deep thinker.

Hey, pork chop, condoms are for women too! Kinda difficult to get through your head, huh? And gay men, hell just about everyone, maybe if you stop fixating on what yourself, you might learn a thing or two.

Thumbs up, looking forward to "your" next screen cap! Or myspace picture.


To quote Kome, who quite wonderfully beat this argument to a pulp with the following:

Kome: Now, that said, as many free condoms as I can get, every woman I know has to get a prescription for her birth control method of choice. The most common one is a daily hormonal pill (well, with some chemically inert pills for a few days out of the month). Now, this hormonal pill does more than just aid in preventing unwanted pregnancies. They help regulate a woman's hormonal cycle. Hormone regulation is pretty important not just for pregnancy-related issues, but for quite a host of other health-related issues too. Once again, unwanted pregnancies are a health and economic concern (the cost of giving birth, the health risks in carrying to term, the health risks of giving birth, etc.; I should emphasize the word "unwanted" here since a desired pregnancy is usually accepting of those same risks and costs) to the degree that men's birth control (the condom) is so omnipresent that you can't go into any grocery store, drug store, or convenient store without being able to buy some. But women have to pay a higher rate. A higher rate for a product that also helps control disease, just not necessarily sexually transmitted ones. Seems strange, that.

It strikes me as somewhat short-sighted, ignorant, or just plain misogynistic to think that there is any rational reason to deny women access to either birth control or abortion to help prevent unwanted pregnancy (possibly both), regulate her hormonal cycle (birth control), possibly save her life (possibly both). So it is, of course, no surprise to see the religious freedom argument brought to bear on the issue, since religion is nothing if not short-sighted, ignorant, and plain misogynistic.


Like I said, "retarded red". I find it unlikely you missed that earlier.
 
2012-06-16 07:55:34 PM  

halfof33: halfof33: what yourself

grumble, that is what I get for making my god damn post shorter.


I see you there, hoisted on your own retard.
 
2012-06-16 08:06:06 PM  

friday13: Like I said, "retarded red". I find it unlikely you missed that earlier.


Is retarded red how you filter out posts and concepts you don't understand?

That is cool.

You might have been better off looking up logical fallacies, but going with the eyes closed, thumbs up your ass strategy works for you, who am I to complain?

Ignore.
 
2012-06-16 09:03:44 PM  

friday13: I use "retarded red" for a reason, dude.


friday13: Need Help Soonish: halfof33: Need Help Soonish: halfof33: TheJoeY: How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?

For reals? lulz

[i48.tinypic.com image 229x70]

Living up to the tagging I see...

Yawn. Sweetie, if you are going to bring a ad hominem, bring it, don't fark around with some half ass screen cap that makes you giggle but doesn't make a bit of sense to farking anyone reading it.

Go load up your profile with more myspace poses, the adults are talking.

Awww... I love being condescended upon in the afternoon!

///I see a lot of adults talking in this thread... Your not one of them though :)
///Yes, we know the idea that Lady-bits might be just as important as Dude-bits hurts your titty-pink feelings.
///I AM rather amused, thank you!

I use "retarded red" for a reason, dude.


Oh, I mostly see the trolls as the white noise of fark... for me to go the extra step and highlight one means they earned a very special badge of stupid ;)

///It also means I poke them with the troll stick at my own leisure, for my own amusement...
///Example: Mr. Titty Pink over there...
 
2012-06-16 09:46:41 PM  

Kome: halfof33: Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?

Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.

Ok. Condoms are one form of birth control. They are an incredibly effective one, at not just preventing pregnancy but stopping the transmission of STDs. So, yay for condoms. Over 99% effectiveness! Hooray! And, oddly enough, I can get them for free at most clinics. I don't know if that's just because I live near multiple college campuses, but they are free. I've never had to pay for a condom in my life. Why? Because preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs is apparently enough of a health and economic concern that hospitals and clinics (all of which receive state and/or federal financial aid) are willing to foot that tiny bill if it gets me to wrap my man-tackle up. Of course, condoms are for sale, and not just given away for free. But, you know, the last time I was at the drug store, it didn't seem like the cost of condoms were all that expensive. In fact, they were quite affordable. It is apparently better for society that men have cheap (possibly even free!) and easy access to a form of birth control, without having to even schedule a doctor's appointment to get a prescription for it.

Now, that said, as many free condoms as I can get, every woman I know has to get a prescription for her birth control method of choice. The most common one is a daily hormonal pill (well, with some chemically inert pills for a few days out of the month). Now, this hormonal pill does more than just aid in preventing unwanted pregnancies. They help regulate a woman's hormonal cycle. Hormone regulation is pretty important not just for pregnancy-related issues, but for quite a host of other health-related issues too. Once again, unwanted pregnancies are a health and econ ...


Quit talking sense. The US has moved past all that.
 
2012-06-16 10:27:38 PM  

Need Help Soonish: friday13: I use "retarded red" for a reason, dude.

friday13: Need Help Soonish: halfof33: Need Help Soonish: halfof33: TheJoeY: How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?

For reals? lulz

[i48.tinypic.com image 229x70]

Living up to the tagging I see...

Yawn. Sweetie, if you are going to bring a ad hominem, bring it, don't fark around with some half ass screen cap that makes you giggle but doesn't make a bit of sense to farking anyone reading it.

Go load up your profile with more myspace poses, the adults are talking.

Awww... I love being condescended upon in the afternoon!

///I see a lot of adults talking in this thread... Your not one of them though :)
///Yes, we know the idea that Lady-bits might be just as important as Dude-bits hurts your titty-pink feelings.
///I AM rather amused, thank you!

I use "retarded red" for a reason, dude.

Oh, I mostly see the trolls as the white noise of fark... for me to go the extra step and highlight one means they earned a very special badge of stupid ;)

///It also means I poke them with the troll stick at my own leisure, for my own amusement...
///Example: Mr. Titty Pink over there...


I use varying shades of yellow. Yellow 1 is for the worst, like halfof33 there, who I have tagged as "handle describes IQ", or our resident GED in Law.
 
2012-06-16 10:34:42 PM  

halfof33: TheJoeY: How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?

For reals? lulz


Yes.
 
2012-06-16 11:19:28 PM  

halfof33: Need Help Soonish: I see a lot of adults talking in this thread... Your not one of them though :)

My not one of them what, genius?

Oh, you meant "you're." I can see that you are a deep thinker.

Hey, pork chop, condoms are for women too! Kinda difficult to get through your head, huh? And gay men, hell just about everyone, maybe if you stop fixating on what yourself, you might learn a thing or two.

Thumbs up, looking forward to "your" next screen cap! Or myspace picture.


Agh, you mean all those years I spent on the pill to deal with my PCOD I could have just used condoms? Oh, such a fount of wisdom you are! You sure do know more about my vagina and ovaries than I do! (Or my Dr.!)

Gosh, all those years of pain and surgery... and all I needed were condoms!

///For the record, PP saved my life when I had a cyst the size of a small lemon in my left ovary
///Not that people like you care about other humans in general... No, your just peachy till YOUR in need..
 
2012-06-16 11:21:05 PM  

twat_waffle: I use varying shades of yellow. Yellow 1 is for the worst, like halfof33 there, who I have tagged as "handle describes IQ", or our resident GED in Law.


I have someone farkied in piss yellow as "Pissy and unfunny"

I can't remember who though :P
 
2012-06-17 12:31:36 AM  

Kome: Serious Black: Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.

You don't think preventing fully-loaded Boeing 747's from crashing into skyscrapers is a compelling government interest?

Apparently, that depends on my religious beliefs. Because if I wasn't weighed down with paternalistic bronze age morality, I'd say absolutely that is a compelling government interest in the safety of its citizens. Just like, oh I don't know let me grab a random analogy, there's a compelling government interest in the health and freedom of its citizens to have easy and affordable access to birth control for both men and women. But, again, I suppose that depends entirely on ones religious beliefs.


This is what I don't understand. To me the bill seems unnecessary, since we already have religious freedom to a specific extent--that extent being reasonable accommodation in terms of employment, and making sure you're not infringing on someone else's rights. What would this law provide that isn't already covered? The government has many compelling interests in terms of limiting religious expression already. It seems like the people who wrote this bill want religious rights to trump other types of rights, but the bill written the way it was doesn't seem to allow for that (and to do so would seem to acknowledge imminent, summary overturning by a higher court).
 
2012-06-17 01:03:10 AM  
halfof33
Sweetie, if you are going to bring a ad hominem ... You might have been better off looking up logical fallacies

You've mentioned this fallacy twice, but I don't see any place where it occurred. Perhaps you need to follow your own advice and look up what constitutes a "logical fallacy".

(You're not going to look it up, so I'll explain it to you. NSH did not say "You are an idiot, therefore your argument is wrong". He/she said, quite simply, "You are an idiot". Not every insult is an ad hominem. To confuse this demonstrates that you don't actually know what an argument is. Also, if you want someone to address your arguments, then you need to start by actually putting forward an argument. So far, you've really only said "I can't believe you guys agree with this stuff!").

So, tell us. What benefit do we gain from unwanted children? From more criminals? From more cases of STDs and cancer? Dazzle us with your intellect. Argue that these outcomes are good things. Or, alternatively, argue that easy access to birth control does not reduce these things. Or, even better, argue that the these costs are small compared to the cost of providing easy access to BC.

I'll note that I'm expecting the normal conservative-religious-naturalism argument, which tends to be "It's not about what's best! It's about what's right!" It's nothing more than authoritarian "because I say so" bullshiat.
 
2012-06-17 11:20:27 AM  

Need Help Soonish: Agh, you mean all those years I spent on the pill to deal with my PCOD I could have just used condoms? Oh, such a fount of wisdom you are! You sure do know more about my vagina and ovaries than I do! (Or my Dr.!)


ZOMG, another person who completely does not understand the concept of BIRTH control, which was what we were talking about, not PCOD which was not what we were talking about. There is a difference, although I would not expect most of you to understand.
 
2012-06-17 11:40:11 AM  

halfof33: Yawn. Sweetie, if you are going to bring a ad hominem, bring it, don't fark around with some half ass screen cap that makes you giggle but doesn't make a bit of sense to farking anyone reading it.


falkone32: You've mentioned this fallacy twice, but I don't see any place where it occurred. Perhaps you need to follow your own advice and look up what constitutes a "logical fallacy".


I'll assume that you cut off my actual sentence intentionally, because if you'll read my post carefully you'll see that I actually pointed that her post made no farking sense.

I see the rest of your post blathers on about access, rather than funding. Curious.
 
2012-06-17 12:11:43 PM  

halfof33: Need Help Soonish: Agh, you mean all those years I spent on the pill to deal with my PCOD I could have just used condoms? Oh, such a fount of wisdom you are! You sure do know more about my vagina and ovaries than I do! (Or my Dr.!)

ZOMG, another person who completely does not understand the concept of BIRTH control, which was what we were talking about, not PCOD which was not what we were talking about. There is a difference, although I would not expect most of you to understand.


BC is used to treat PCOD, dipshiat.
 
2012-06-17 12:17:32 PM  

halfof33: Need Help Soonish: Agh, you mean all those years I spent on the pill to deal with my PCOD I could have just used condoms? Oh, such a fount of wisdom you are! You sure do know more about my vagina and ovaries than I do! (Or my Dr.!)

ZOMG, another person who completely does not understand the concept of BIRTH control, which was what we were talking about, not PCOD which was not what we were talking about. There is a difference, although I would not expect most of you to understand.


Really? Me, The female who was on BC for over ten years, knows less about the Pill and it's uses than you do?

That's what we are going with here?

REALLY?
 
2012-06-17 02:01:36 PM  

friday13: BC is used to treat PCOD, dipshiat.


Really? A a diaphragm is used to "treat" PCOD?

Oh wait, you think that an oral contraceptive pill is the only type of birth control, or that the use of an oral hormone as a therapy for PCOD and only incidentally (if at all) to prevent contraception is "birth" control?

But I agree, you've made your case! "birth control" should be used only for women with PCOD! Thumbs up!

/protip: arguing from extreme example or final consequences is a fallacy for a reason.
 
2012-06-17 02:58:43 PM  

halfof33: friday13: BC is used to treat PCOD, dipshiat.

Really? A a diaphragm is used to "treat" PCOD?

Oh wait, you think that an oral contraceptive pill is the only type of birth control, or that the use of an oral hormone as a therapy for PCOD and only incidentally (if at all) to prevent contraception is "birth" control?

But I agree, you've made your case! "birth control" should be used only for women with PCOD! Thumbs up!

/protip: arguing from extreme example or final consequences is a fallacy for a reason.


And yet you do it so frequently one imagines you would view it more favorably.

"Birth control" is a broad description of many products. Condoms are one form of birth control, but they are not the only one. So you're harping on condoms earlier while arguing against several of us was just stupid. Diaphragms are also just one form of birth control, but again are not the only one. Hell, your trying to turn the conversation from one about birth control generally into one about condoms specifically was particularly retarded because of the reasons I outlined above - the ease of availability for whomever wishes to acquire them, as contrasted with the most popular form of woman's birth control, oral contraceptives, which requires a physician's prescription and often costs an order of magnitude more (at least) annually thereby making it prohibitively LESS available. Now you wish to turn the discussion from one about birth control, which I remind you again is a very general category of products and services, into yet another single specific type of birth control? Yea, sorry dude, but that kind of blatant stupidity isn't going to fly.

When legislation comes out to try and make it more difficult for women to have access to birth control, it is not worded specifically enough to just be targeting condoms or diaphragms. It targets oral contraceptives, as well, which do have other uses besides preventing pregnancy.

But, you know something else, why should anyone care if someone is taking birth control to prevent pregnancy or if it's to help treat a medical condition, like hormonal contraception is often used for? Sex is fun, but there are sometimes unwanted consequences or serious risks. What is so wrong with trying to mitigate the risks and unwanted consequences (whether it be preventing an STD, like a condom can help with, or preventing an unwanted pregnancy, which all birth control methods can help with) by having multiple forms of birth control methods as easily available as condoms are to allow people to have a good time by having sex with each other? If people really had a problem with the idea of consequence-free sex, they'd be against all attempts to find cures, treatments, or vaccines for STDs, because those are just as natural a consequence of f*cking as pregnancy is - and based on epidemiological studies, much more likely an outcome than getting pregnant is.

The argument against access to birth control for women is just as f*cking stupid as if someone tried to argue against wearing helmets in football. "Well, that's just what happens when a 300-pound person tackles you, why should so much taxpayer-funded medical research and engineering research go into designing safer equipment for high school, college, and professional athletes? That's not fair to the rest of us who try to avoid getting concussions and broken spines by not playing football. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm getting ready to watch the Packers game, so we can continue this discussion some other time."
 
2012-06-17 03:12:17 PM  

halfof33: Need Help Soonish: I see a lot of adults talking in this thread... Your not one of them though :)

My not one of them what, genius?

Oh, you meant "you're." I can see that you are a deep thinker.


Classic comeback!
You're the insult master!
 
2012-06-17 03:13:07 PM  

Kome: which I remind you again is a very general category of products and services, into yet another single specific type of birth control? Yea, sorry dude, but that kind of blatant stupidity isn't going to fly.


Face palm.... that is just exactly what I explained to your friends. There is literally no way in the world that you could have missed that. Your pals were saying that "birth control" was being used to treat a syndrome, and THEY were the ones using it in its generic sense, not me. Wake up, champ.

I briefly scanned through the rest of your post and caught a bunch of strawmen, and some farking nonsense and going to watch the Packers? In June. Uh huh.

troll bot typing detected. Beep bop beep.
 
2012-06-17 03:25:48 PM  

INTERTRON: halfof33: Need Help Soonish: I see a lot of adults talking in this thread... Your not one of them though :)

My not one of them what, genius?

Oh, you meant "you're." I can see that you are a deep thinker.

Classic comeback!
You're the insult master!


Hay, it's a classic case of "Man, this is all I got!"
 
2012-06-17 03:38:41 PM  

Need Help Soonish: Hay, it's a classic case of "Man, this is all I got!"


So you are saying I should roll out the big guns to respond to clever comments like "your not one of them"? Huh, thanks for the protip sportshirt, I'll make a note of it.
 
2012-06-17 03:43:43 PM  

halfof33: Your pals were saying that "birth control" was being used to treat a syndrome


Yes, "birth control" IS being used to treat various medical conditions. Using it in that sense is accurate. Responding to them as if they meant specifically diaphragms or condoms is either willful ignorance or a deliberate strawman. In the same sense that saying "I put decorations on my lawn at Christmas time" is accurate but responding by pointing out that you can't decorate your lawn with birthday cake decorations is f*cking stupid.

and THEY were the ones using it in its generic sense, not me.

The language of the legislation is generic. That's one of the many points being implied with this entire discussion. That you fail to grasp that is your failing.

I briefly scanned through the rest of your post and caught a bunch of strawmen, and some farking nonsense and going to watch the Packers? In June. Uh huh.

A few questions: What strawmen did you detect because reviewing it I don't detect any, and did you not get the point of the analogy in the football portion of my comment and that's why you're confused about the Packers comment? The entire thing was prefaced with "...as f*cking stupid as if..." and then went into an analogously-phrased argument. Does non-literal language confuse you to such a degree that the concept of an analogy is too much for you?
 
2012-06-17 03:49:09 PM  

halfof33: Need Help Soonish: Hay, it's a classic case of "Man, this is all I got!"

So you are saying I should roll out the big guns to respond to clever comments like "your not one of them"? Huh, thanks for the protip sportshirt, I'll make a note of it.


Considering your "Big Guns" are of the Nerf variety... Do have at it :D
 
2012-06-17 03:54:29 PM  

Kome: GWOT


Geez, you and DrMojo have a habit of saying what I want to before I can...and more eloquently, too...

halfof33: Kome: which I remind you again is a very general category of products and services, into yet another single specific type of birth control? Yea, sorry dude, but that kind of blatant stupidity isn't going to fly.

Face palm.... that is just exactly what I explained to your friends. There is literally no way in the world that you could have missed that. Your pals were saying that "birth control" was being used to treat a syndrome, and THEY were the ones using it in its generic sense, not me. Wake up, champ.

I briefly scanned through the rest of your post and caught a bunch of strawmen, and some farking nonsense and going to watch the Packers? In June. Uh huh.

troll bot typing detected. Beep bop beep.


You keep earning your "retarded red" coloration, this time by failing to recognize a (very blatant) analogy, and by failing to recognize what a "strawman" is. HINT: It's not when someone makes a substantial argument like " why should anyone care if someone is taking birth control to prevent pregnancy or if it's to help treat a medical condition, like hormonal contraception is often used for? Sex is fun, but there are sometimes unwanted consequences or serious risks. What is so wrong with trying to mitigate the risks and unwanted consequences (whether it be preventing an STD, like a condom can help with, or preventing an unwanted pregnancy, which all birth control methods can help with) by having multiple forms of birth control methods as easily available as condoms are to allow people to have a good time by having sex with each other?".
 
2012-06-17 03:56:57 PM  

Kome: Does non-literal language confuse you to such a degree that the concept of an analogy is too much for you?


Like I said, he continuously earns his coloration.
 
2012-06-17 04:38:04 PM  

Kome: Yes, "birth control" IS being used to treat various medical conditions.


First the goal posts were there, and now they are there. Dude you are all over the place.

Words mean things, champ, if a substance is being used to treat a condition other than not wanting to get pregnant, then it is not proper to refer to it as birth control. Oral hormone therapy is not synonymous with "birth control." It is like talking to a child.

And ladies and gentlemen, straight from Las Vegas Upstairs School of Logic, I bring you a strawman:

"If people really had a problem with the idea of consequence-free sex, they'd be against all attempts to find cures, treatments, or vaccines for STDs, because those are just as natural a consequence of f*cking as pregnancy is - and based on epidemiological studies, much more likely an outcome than getting pregnant is."

Money analogy on the Packers thing, though, rolls eyes...
 
2012-06-17 06:37:02 PM  

halfof33: Words mean things, champ, if a substance is being used to treat a condition other than not wanting to get pregnant, then it is not proper to refer to it as birth control.


If an anti-epileptic is prescribed to treat depression (which happens sometimes), it is still categorized as an anti-epileptic medication and not an anti-depressant. If a birth control medication is prescribed for a medical reason that is not pregnancy prevention, it doesn't stop being a method of birth control. Just because YOU don't like it or seem to understand that doesn't mean that the entire medical research branch of science and field of law that deals with medical insurance needs to change their practices and standards. It just means YOU need to learn the terminology.

And ladies and gentlemen, straight from Las Vegas Upstairs School of Logic, I bring you a strawman:

"If people really had a problem with the idea of consequence-free sex, they'd be against all attempts to find cures, treatments, or vaccines for STDs, because those are just as natural a consequence of f*cking as pregnancy is - and based on epidemiological studies, much more likely an outcome than getting pregnant is."


Technically, if you want to really call that a logical fallacy, it's a reductio ad absurdum and not a strawman, since it argues against an extreme position and not a position I am putting in someone's mouth. However, it isn't a logical fallacy because an argument that is popularly used to defend legislation that would prohibit women from being able to have cheap/free, easily accessible contraception (whether it is for medical reasons or just so they can not have kids while still having sex) is that pregnancy is a natural consequence of having sex, and if you don't want to take that risk you just shouldn't have sex, eliminating the need for birth control. So even calling it a reductio ad absurdum is missing the entire point, especially since an extreme fringe on this whole birth control debate actually DO want to ban access to condoms, vaccines for STDs, etc. It isn't the mainstream position of people who are against women having access to birth control, but it is a fringe element of the discussion. So it's fair to point out how come the mainstream position in this debate ISN'T that one.
 
2012-06-17 11:59:09 PM  

Kome: If an anti-epileptic is prescribed to treat depression (which happens sometimes), it is still categorized as an anti-epileptic medication and not an anti-depressant. If a birth control medication is prescribed for a medical reason that is not pregnancy prevention, it doesn't stop being a method of birth control.


Wow, take a minute and re-read what you just wrote. You'll see that it is not parallel. Study it. Learn something.

By the way, save your goal post moving condescension about medical terminology for someone who doesn't know you are a bullshiat artist.

"birth control" is a medical term of art, and it mean whatever this dork needs it to mean in the course of a discussion. Derp.

FACEPALM
 
2012-06-18 12:05:15 AM  

Serious Black: This is just more evidence that there is a war on religion in this country.


Yeah, but it's being waged by religious zealots against those of who want freedom of choice.
 
2012-06-18 01:53:00 AM  
What about my right to be free from Christianist bullshiat?
 
2012-06-18 08:28:57 AM  

halfof33: Kome: If an anti-epileptic is prescribed to treat depression (which happens sometimes), it is still categorized as an anti-epileptic medication and not an anti-depressant. If a birth control medication is prescribed for a medical reason that is not pregnancy prevention, it doesn't stop being a method of birth control.

Wow, take a minute and re-read what you just wrote. You'll see that it is not parallel. Study it. Learn something.

By the way, save your goal post moving condescension about medical terminology for someone who doesn't know you are a bullshiat artist.

"birth control" is a medical term of art, and it mean whatever this dork needs it to mean in the course of a discussion. Derp.

FACEPALM


What I wrote was accurate and straightforward, as well as providing an example of a frequently used additional example to demonstrate the point. Is all you do to respond to someone to accuse them of logical fallacy without either showing what is logically fallicious about it or attempting to have a point? Is that pretty much all you do? No goal posts were moved, because there were no goal posts. I'm not establishing a standard of proof that needs to be met in order to reject the null hypothesis. Throughout this whole thread, I've merely been stating commonly accepted facts and/or assumptions as well as providing analogies in various forms, from very direct and similar (the anticonvulsant to antidepressant analogy) to somewhat more abstract and nonliteral (the wasted taxpayer money on designing better football helmet analogy). Whatever problems you have with my comments are, to be perfectly frank, unknown to me because all you've down is accuse the entirety of my comments of being strawmen, of moving goalposts, or of me being a bot/troll. If you want to have a debate or a discussion, you could help me out by letting me know specifically why you have a problem with a particular sentence or paragraph or point I've posted.
 
2012-06-18 04:43:14 PM  

halfof33: Kome: If an anti-epileptic is prescribed to treat depression (which happens sometimes), it is still categorized as an anti-epileptic medication and not an anti-depressant. If a birth control medication is prescribed for a medical reason that is not pregnancy prevention, it doesn't stop being a method of birth control.

Wow, take a minute and re-read what you just wrote. You'll see that it is not parallel. Study it. Learn something.

By the way, save your goal post moving condescension about medical terminology for someone who doesn't know you are a bullshiat artist.

"birth control" is a medical term of art, and it mean whatever this dork needs it to mean in the course of a discussion. Derp.

FACEPALM


OK, you're slowly approaching the amount of stupidity I can see being legitimate stupidity and still not be a troll. Right now, the only bullshiat artist is you, and you're a regular damn picasso. There is just so much wrong with your last few posts I really do not know where to begin breaking it down for you...
 
2012-06-18 10:15:23 PM  

friday13: OK, you're slowly approaching the amount of stupidity I can see being legitimate stupidity and still not be a troll. Right now, the only bullshiat artist is you, and you're a regular damn picasso. There is just so much wrong with your last few posts I really do not know where to begin breaking it down for you...


You ever notice that it is losers like this clown whose TOP contribution to the thread was to brag about having "retarded" category takes it upon himself to troll the bottom of a dead thread and add absolutely nothing?

Back on ignore you go.

/had you actually explained why your goal post moving buddy was right, I'd give you a break, but it just turns out that you are a moran. Bring something to the thread next time cheerleader. Good luck with the whole "retarded red" list. You can brag about it homeroom next September.
 
2012-06-19 05:49:28 PM  

halfof33: You ever notice that it is losers like this clown whose TOP contribution to the thread was to brag about having "retarded" category takes it upon himself to troll the bottom of a dead thread and add absolutely nothing?


Pot to kettle...
 
Displayed 88 of 88 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report