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.

(NewsOK)   Hobby Lobby to continue hobby of lobbying Appeals Court to allow their other hobby of lobbing their beliefs on their employees private lobby hobbies   (newsok.com) divider line 526
    More: Followup, sidelines, appeals court  
•       •       •

7703 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2012 at 4:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-29 10:53:34 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: Convenience abortions should be prosecuted as first degree murder.

Go ahead idiot liberals - open up this can of worms of pushing your beliefs on others through Obamacare and see what kind of a country we end up with. Because it won't take long for the ball to be in the other court, and I have a feeling the next republican president will make G W Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi, and then you dumbasses will really have something to cry about.


Just a troll, nothing to see here.
 
2012-12-29 11:01:07 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When the Nazis (National Socialists) took control in Germany they nationalized some industries,

Okay you have a valid comparison. What industries has Obama nationalized, again?

Sigh.

>>>>What industries has Obama nationalized, again?

Mention of nationalization was a context/history lesson, dumbass, as you (hopefully) well know (re-read my post). If you really don't, then rational discussion with you is hopeless.


Well then how can you compare us to the Nazis if you can't actually compare us to anything the Nazis have done? You could just as easily compare us to the UK, Germany or France. But then that wouldn't have gotten you as much attention, and anyway those countries do just fine (or better) with more industrial regulation than we have.
 
2012-12-29 11:11:48 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LOL! The history of godwining is interesting. Yes, it's been used (correctly) when someone, for example, has gone full retard with "But Nazis" when having an argument over a chess game. But it's also often used incorrectly, as a rhetorical (i.e.: cowardly) deflection from having to respond to someone who has made a valid point (as in: "Ha ha! You mentioned Nazi's so you lose!".

This present case is of the 2nd sort.

>>>>Lol, what are you on? Fascism? Nazi scientists?

So... what exactly is your point? Do you disagree that the United States exhibits some characteristics of Fascism? Do you disagree that the Nazi's had scientists? What? Please be specific. Try not to commit an ad hominem.


Your hyperbole is overboard. If you think this is remotely close to Nazi-ism or Fascism, there's no point in discussing anything further. I don't think you really believe that, I've seen you write non-insane comments before.

Now, to the godwinning bit, you've resorted to comparing the actions to Nazis without providing any remotely plausible link. It is a specious argument on your part, similar to the crazy here:
i233.photobucket.com
It isn't an argument. You want to discuss this? Make an argument. Wanna scream at clouds? Carry on with the same tack you've been following so far.
 
2012-12-29 12:16:40 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: "If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes," So: in principle, what's the difference? Give me a straight answer or STFU.

It's called "the law", or are you claiming that businesses are above the law?

Ah yes, "the law." Hmmmm... there are so many ways I could answer this.....

But I suggest you read a fun little book by a gentleman named Frederic Bastiat Link (pick your edition).

Ummm.... which law are we talking about, again? The Constitutional provision that Negros were to be counted as 3/5ths of a human being? Or was it the various laws that Negros could not own firearms? Or maybe the law that required Jews to sew yellow stars on their clothing? Or is it the current law that women cannot leave their homes without having an escort of a male relative? Or the one where a rape is considered the fault of the woman and the penalty is death by stoning?


Roight, guv. Because all those things are just like requiring insurance to cover contraception.

Or how 'bout these gems: There are laws limiting pollution of the air, water and soil. Should businesses be above such laws because they're businesses?

I'm really not evading answering your question,

i112.photobucket.com

How is a "legitimate" government different from a bandit warlord who exercises a monopoly of force over his domain, extracts supplies and provisions from the peasants in that area, impresses them into the gang, and protects them from the other warlords who want to do the same thing? (Warning, this is a trick question.)

The consent of the governed, dumbass.

Now, if you're advocating an anarchist position, answer me this (you're probably going to dodge it, and claim while doing so that you're not dodging it, just like you did above, but what the hey): How do you expect to avoid the rise of "bandit warlords" in an anarchist society?
 
2012-12-29 01:31:32 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh.

Yes, particularly when he is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to work, and you are chained to the desk and cannot quit your job at any farking time.

Seriously, are you THAT context-challenged that you don't understand the difference between a LAW (enforced with guns) and a VOLUNTARY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP? Seriously?


Well by that logic, then no one is forcing the business owner to keep their business open (or even in the country for that matter). If you're going to continue to maintain that it's as easy as 1, 2, 3 for the average American to simply get up and find another job with health coverage options of equal or greater magnitude -- and in this economic climate, no less -- then there's no reason the business owner can't do the same.

At the end of the day, the employee is the one who feels the ramifications -- not the employer. Whether Hobby Lobby decides to provide the healthcare coverage or pay the fine, nothing will change in the daily lives of the company's owners. They can continue to not use contraceptives or not have abortions as before, and read their favorite scripture right before bed. It's the same smoke and mirrors argument they've always used against gay marriage -- there's this something that doesn't actually affect me, but I'm going to make damn sure I ruin it for all the people it impacts directly (because of MY religion).
 
2012-12-29 04:13:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When the Nazis (National Socialists) took control in Germany they nationalized some industries,

Okay you have a valid comparison. What industries has Obama nationalized, again?

Sigh.

>>>>What industries has Obama nationalized, again?

Mention of nationalization was a context/history lesson, dumbass, as you (hopefully) well know (re-read my post). If you really don't, then rational discussion with you is hopeless.

Well then how can you compare us to the Nazis if you can't actually compare us to anything the Nazis have done? You could just as easily compare us to the UK, Germany or France. But then that wouldn't have gotten you as much attention, and anyway those countries do just fine (or better) with more industrial regulation than we have.


Now I know your trolling. Or your reading comprehension and international affairs/economics knowledge is zip.

Or both.

Go away. Shoo.
 
2012-12-29 04:46:32 PM  

dr_blasto: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LOL! The history of godwining is interesting. Yes, it's been used (correctly) when someone, for example, has gone full retard with "But Nazis" when having an argument over a chess game. But it's also often used incorrectly, as a rhetorical (i.e.: cowardly) deflection from having to respond to someone who has made a valid point (as in: "Ha ha! You mentioned Nazi's so you lose!".

This present case is of the 2nd sort.

>>>>Lol, what are you on? Fascism? Nazi scientists?

So... what exactly is your point? Do you disagree that the United States exhibits some characteristics of Fascism? Do you disagree that the Nazi's had scientists? What? Please be specific. Try not to commit an ad hominem.

Your hyperbole is overboard. If you think this is remotely close to Nazi-ism or Fascism, there's no point in discussing anything further. I don't think you really believe that, I've seen you write non-insane comments before.

Now, to the godwinning bit, you've resorted to comparing the actions to Nazis without providing any remotely plausible link. It is a specious argument on your part, similar to the crazy here:
[i233.photobucket.com image 450x337]
It isn't an argument. You want to discuss this? Make an argument. Wanna scream at clouds? Carry on with the same tack you've been following so far.


>>>>>you've resorted to comparing the actions to Nazis without providing any remotely plausible link.

Your reading comprehension and retention sucks. Remember I said; "So, in theory, there is no difference (except in degree) between the United States and Nazi Germany?"

Key words: except in degree.

Now for Real World Politics 101. Fascism, socialism and capitalism are primarily economic terms. They really don't have a lot to do with the system of government (democracy / authoritarian / totalitarian) except by accident. (The overlays of "nationalism", "racism" etc. that are used to describe fascism are mostly bullshiat - accidents of history that are not central to the core definition.)

Most everyone should be aware of the well-documented tendency of authoritarian and (particularly) totalitarian systems to closely regulate economic activity. But there are numerous examples in history of authoritarian systems (generally the old monarchies) which were fairly hands-off on economic activity. There are also examples of democratic systems that experiment with socialism (state ownership of capital property); Sweden is perhaps the best known example of this. Also, there are differing degrees (ranges) and mixes of fascism, socialism and what is laughingly known as free-market capitalism.

Most national economic systems are mixes of, generally, fascism and capitalism (the US system is essentially a dominant fascistic "corporate socialist" system layered on top of a still-vibrant small-business sector that is still largely free market, with some broad restrictions.

There are - and never have been - no "pure" systems. Even the Soviet Union allowed a small free market segment to operate in agriculture. I forget the exact numbers, but 10% or 15% of the land, privately owned, grew 80% of the food.

Defining characteristics.

Socialism: State owns the majority of the "means of production" (i.e.: capital goods production).

Fascism: State CONTROLS the majority of the "means of production" (i.e.: capital goods production) which generally remain in private hands.

(Note that Socialism and Fascism are closely related. Both are on the "economic control" end of the Economic Scale and (generally, with exceptions noted above) on the authoritarian/totalitarian end of the Liberty Scale. Fascism is, essentially, "Socialism Light.")

Capitalism: State activity is restricted to building/maintaining "commons" infrastructure, "defining the rules of the game," enforcing a level playing field, and protecting citizens from domestic and foreign aggression.

The U.S. has NEVER been a capitalist system. It started out, perhaps, 95% free market (consider things like the Whiskey Rebellion), but has gradually over the decades adopted greater and greater fascistic methods of organizing economic activity (this is a normal progression of any culture).
 
2012-12-29 05:08:48 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: "If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes," So: in principle, what's the difference? Give me a straight answer or STFU.

It's called "the law", or are you claiming that businesses are above the law?

Ah yes, "the law." Hmmmm... there are so many ways I could answer this.....

But I suggest you read a fun little book by a gentleman named Frederic Bastiat Link (pick your edition).

Ummm.... which law are we talking about, again? The Constitutional provision that Negros were to be counted as 3/5ths of a human being? Or was it the various laws that Negros could not own firearms? Or maybe the law that required Jews to sew yellow stars on their clothing? Or is it the current law that women cannot leave their homes without having an escort of a male relative? Or the one where a rape is considered the fault of the woman and the penalty is death by stoning?

Roight, guv. Because all those things are just like requiring insurance to cover contraception.

Or how 'bout these gems: There are laws limiting pollution of the air, water and soil. Should businesses be above such laws because they're businesses?

I'm really not evading answering your question,

[i112.photobucket.com image 180x180]

How is a "legitimate" government different from a bandit warlord who exercises a monopoly of force over his domain, extracts supplies and provisions from the peasants in that area, impresses them into the gang, and protects them from the other warlords who want to do the same thing? (Warning, this is a trick question.)

The consent of the governed, dumbass.

Now, if you're advocating an anarchist position, answer me this (you're probably going to dodge it, and claim while doing so that you're not dodging it, just like you did above, but what the hey): How do you expect to avoid the rise of "bandit warlords" in an anarchist society?


>>>>>Roight, guv. Because all those things are just like requiring insurance to cover contraception.

They are just the same in the fact that they are LAWS. Whether they are just or unjust laws - why THAT'S what we are discussing, isn't it? You are ASSUMING that the law requiring insurance to cover contraception is just. Logical fallacy.

>>>>>Or how 'bout these gems: There are laws limiting pollution of the air, water and soil. Should businesses be above such laws because they're businesses?

Air, water and soil are "commons" items that the government SHOULD have been holding businesses accountable for polluting from the very start. But - as I pointed out in another post in this thread - the U.S. has had a peculiar form of private property violation I call "corporate socialism" for most of it's life. Private profit combined with public cost. A true free enterprise system would have privatized those costs. (This is one area where the U.S. is moving towards private property rights - the private property rights of the citizens who have to breath and use the polluted air, water and soil.) This, IMHO, is right and proper.

>>>>>[i112.photobucket.com image 180x180]

Whups! more ad hominem. Bad habit there. People might not take you seriously.

I said: How is a "legitimate" government different from a bandit warlord who exercises a monopoly of force over his domain, extracts supplies and provisions from the peasants in that area, impresses them into the gang, and protects them from the other warlords who want to do the same thing? (Warning, this is a trick question.)

>>>>>The consent of the governed, dumbass.

Hmmm.... consent? As in.... democracy? As in.... majority rule? (Careful, now!)

>>>>>Now, if you're advocating an anarchist position, answer me this (you're probably going to dodge it, and claim while doing so that you're not dodging it, just like you did above, but what the hey): How do you expect to avoid the rise of "bandit warlords" in an anarchist society?

I'm not an anarchist. As a stable system, it is an impossibility, just like communism. Neither has ever or ever will exist for longer than a couple of months, or perhaps years. You are correct: since it only takes one side to create a war/slaughter, there would be nothing to prevent the rise of bandit warlords.
 
2012-12-29 05:09:14 PM  

Uniquely Common: wait, what's wrong with being in your 30s and still enjoying video games? :-(


Or your 60's?

/keeps me off the streets, a good thing
 
2012-12-29 05:19:09 PM  

TanHamster: cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: That's too bad, because this site was awesome.

Well, bye.

hey, douchebag, by any chance do you play a lot of video games? not married? no kids? still live in an apartment? in your 30s?

i'm all for ad hominem attacks, because it greatly simplifies the process of arguing with some 35 yr old who plays call of duty, and still thinks he knows jack shiat about being an adult


Lol, you think people are using ad hominem attacks against you.
 
2012-12-29 05:21:36 PM  

Beavz0r: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh.

Yes, particularly when he is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to work, and you are chained to the desk and cannot quit your job at any farking time.

Seriously, are you THAT context-challenged that you don't understand the difference between a LAW (enforced with guns) and a VOLUNTARY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP? Seriously?

Well by that logic, then no one is forcing the business owner to keep their business open (or even in the country for that matter). If you're going to continue to maintain that it's as easy as 1, 2, 3 for the average American to simply get up and find another job with health coverage options of equal or greater magnitude -- and in this economic climate, no less -- then there's no reason the business owner can't do the same.

At the end of the day, the employee is the one who feels the ramifications -- not the employer. Whether Hobby Lobby decides to provide the healthcare coverage or pay the fine, nothing will change in the daily lives of the company's owners. They can continue to not use contraceptives or not have abortions as before, and read their favorite scripture right before bed. It's the same smoke and mirrors argument they've always used against gay marriage -- there's this something that doesn't actually affect me, but I'm going to make damn sure I ruin it for all the people it impacts directly (because of MY religion).


>>>>>Well by that logic, then no one is forcing the business owner to keep their business open (or even in the country for that matter).

Yeah, and the Jews should have left Europe in 1925.

Actually, the Unintended Consequence of this may be that the owner will say "fark it" and end all insurance for his employees. I'm sure, in this economy, that he can find new ones when/if the old ones quit or get fired. Perhaps we need another law preventing that. Maybe something like a federal Jobs Equalization Board that all employers must petition if they want to fire an employee or want to change the compensation or benefits of their employees. Yeah, that's the ticket.

>>>At the end of the day, the employee is the one who feels the ramifications -- not the employer. Whether Hobby Lobby decides to provide the healthcare coverage or pay the fine, nothing will change in the daily lives of the company's owners. They can continue to not use contraceptives or not have abortions as before, and read their favorite scripture right before bed. It's the same smoke and mirrors argument they've always used against gay marriage -- there's this something that doesn't actually affect me, but I'm going to make damn sure I ruin it for all the people it impacts directly (because of MY religion).

The point is is that it is THEIR religion, and YOU should not have the "right" of dictating to them how they should exercise it. (AND vice versa).

At some point in time, the chickens are gonna come home to roost and bite you in the ass. One on YOUR beliefs will get farked over by some government edict. So are you going to take the same position as on this? Or whine about it like a little hypocrite?
 
2012-12-29 05:25:57 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Defining characteristics.

Socialism: State owns the majority of the "means of production" (i.e.: capital goods production).

Fascism: State CONTROLS the majority of the "means of production" (i.e.: capital goods production) which generally remain in private hands.

(Note that Socialism and Fascism are closely related. Both are on the "economic control" end of the Economic Scale and (generally, with exceptions noted above) on the authoritarian/totalitarian end of the Liberty Scale. Fascism is, essentially, "Socialism Light.")

Capitalism: State activity is restricted to building/maintaining "commons" infrastructure, "defining the rules of the game," enforcing a level playing field, and protecting citizens from domestic and foreign aggression.


OK, man. What is your reference for your definitions? Where is fascism defined, not as rabidly anti-liberal/anti-communist and extremely nationalistic and authoritarian right-wing ideology, but rather a nearly socialist (socialism light, indeed) and only economic principle?
 
2012-12-29 05:58:20 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Now I know your trolling. Or your reading comprehension and international affairs/economics knowledge is zip.

Or both.

Go away. Shoo


That's another way of saying "Oh crap, I don't have a rebuttal for that argument."

We know.
 
2012-12-29 05:59:41 PM  

dr_blasto: OK, man. What is your reference for your definitions? Where is fascism defined, not as rabidly anti-liberal/anti-communist and extremely nationalistic and authoritarian right-wing ideology, but rather a nearly socialist (socialism light, indeed) and only economic principle


In that tumbleweed forest he calls a head.
 
2012-12-29 06:16:44 PM  

dr_blasto: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Defining characteristics.

Socialism: State owns the majority of the "means of production" (i.e.: capital goods production).

Fascism: State CONTROLS the majority of the "means of production" (i.e.: capital goods production) which generally remain in private hands.

(Note that Socialism and Fascism are closely related. Both are on the "economic control" end of the Economic Scale and (generally, with exceptions noted above) on the authoritarian/totalitarian end of the Liberty Scale. Fascism is, essentially, "Socialism Light.")

Capitalism: State activity is restricted to building/maintaining "commons" infrastructure, "defining the rules of the game," enforcing a level playing field, and protecting citizens from domestic and foreign aggression.

OK, man. What is your reference for your definitions? Where is fascism defined, not as rabidly anti-liberal/anti-communist and extremely nationalistic and authoritarian right-wing ideology, but rather a nearly socialist (socialism light, indeed) and only economic principle?


Pretty much standard "revisionist" Political Science circa early 1970's. Also, Hannah Arendt contributed.

The political square that a lot of people are enamored with is meaningless. For god sakes, Left and Right is crap from revolutionary France! And Liberal -vs- Conservative is NORMATIVE - it depends on the society being discussed (a Russian conservative is definitely not the same as an American conservative.)

The only political square that is objective and universal is this one:

Axis 1: Political system (description of "down to top" relationships - the method of choosing rulers):
- [A] Authoritarianism/totalitarianism ................ [D] Democracy

Axis 2: Economic system (description of "top to down" relationships - the form of economic activity):
- [S] State ownership/control (one side) ............ [P] Private ownership (other side)

The four sections are:

AS - Soviet Union, Nazi Germany (fairly common)
AP - some of the old monarchies, some "junta" states, best modern example is probably Singapore (rarer)
DS - Sweden, Finland, UK approaching (fairly common)
DP - U.S., some European countries (fairly common)

AP is rare since the natural tendency of an authoritarian regime is to expand power into all areas of the nation (including economic).

It would be a self-illuminating exercise for you to chart your own political square using the above parameters.
 
2012-12-29 06:48:53 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The only political square that is objective and universal is this one:


Based on what evidence? Your assertion? Please.
 
2012-12-29 07:53:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The only political square that is objective and universal is this one:

Based on what evidence? Your assertion? Please.


I already gave it. But to spoon feed you:

Left/right are normative, and based on political positions 200 years old. Conservative/liberal are also normative. A liberal 200 years ago was essentially an advocate of free markets (Adam Smith). A liberal now is the exact opposite. A conservative in Russia longs for the return of Soviet Socialism. A conservative in America longs for the return of Eisenhower's America. The weakness of the left/right/liberal/conservative square is that is is not objective. It changes according to time and society.

The axes...
Authority>>>>>>>>>>>>>Democracy and
Command Economy>>>>>>>>>>Free Enterprise
...never change; they are eternal and completely describe the political economy of any society, at any time, in any place. they are objective.
 
2012-12-29 08:20:35 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The axes...
Authority>>>>>>>>>>>>>Democracy and
Command Economy>>>>>>>>>>Free Enterprise
...never change; they are eternal and completely describe the political economy of any society, at any time, in any place. they are objective.


You realize that all this is is changing the name of the axes. They are and mean exactly the same thing.
 
2012-12-29 09:02:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The axes...
Authority>>>>>>>>>>>>>Democracy and
Command Economy>>>>>>>>>>Free Enterprise
...never change; they are eternal and completely describe the political economy of any society, at any time, in any place. they are objective.

You realize that all this is is changing the name of the axes. They are and mean exactly the same thing.


You're trollin' me 'bro. You can't be that dense and still know how to type on the keyboard.
 
2012-12-31 10:59:13 AM  

KidneyStone: lennavan: Sin_City_Superhero: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Insurance that pays for contraception is cheaper than insurance that doesn't, and has to pay to deliver an unwanted baby, then maintain it's health for years, and years. How do you not understand this. A rubber costs a couple of bucks. How much does it cost to bring a baby to term, you dolt?

Well when you pop the kid out, $3-5000 will cover the room depending on if you're there two or three nights. As for the doctors/nurses, procedures/meds, etc well those are gonna be extra. And don't get me started on the pregnant lady checkups.

So instead of paying $3,000 for the room for two nights, you could just pay for 60 months of birth control if you have no insurance.

/One of these days I'm gonna do all of the math out to see how many months of non insured BC you can get for a single kid, starting from maternal care to popping it out.

Another genius missing my point.

Imma try again a different way:
Where does the law say that if health insurance doesn't cover contraceptives then people are not allowed to buy their own?

The arguments here are all "if the health insurance doesn't cover birth control then a babby will be formed"


Don't be a dipshiat. The arguments here are all "if the health insurance doesn't cover birth control then the probability a babby will be formed increases."


Turns out that increased probability multiplied by the cost of birth exceeds the cost of simply providing birth control for free. For as much as the far right biatches about welfare queens, you'd think they'd be fine with free BC.
 
2012-12-31 11:25:34 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The point is is that it is THEIR religion, and YOU should not have the "right" of dictating to them how they should exercise it. (AND vice versa).


Congratulations: You won today's award for most bass-ackward statement of the freedom of religion I have read on Fark so far this morning. Under your construction, freedom of religion means that you can impose the tenets of your religion on your employees.

/Don't worry. Some other fark will state it even more idiotically.
 
2012-12-31 11:45:31 AM  

lennavan: KidneyStone: lennavan: Sin_City_Superhero: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Insurance that pays for contraception is cheaper than insurance that doesn't, and has to pay to deliver an unwanted baby, then maintain it's health for years, and years. How do you not understand this. A rubber costs a couple of bucks. How much does it cost to bring a baby to term, you dolt?

Well when you pop the kid out, $3-5000 will cover the room depending on if you're there two or three nights. As for the doctors/nurses, procedures/meds, etc well those are gonna be extra. And don't get me started on the pregnant lady checkups.

So instead of paying $3,000 for the room for two nights, you could just pay for 60 months of birth control if you have no insurance.

/One of these days I'm gonna do all of the math out to see how many months of non insured BC you can get for a single kid, starting from maternal care to popping it out.

Another genius missing my point.

Imma try again a different way:
Where does the law say that if health insurance doesn't cover contraceptives then people are not allowed to buy their own?

The arguments here are all "if the health insurance doesn't cover birth control then a babby will be formed"

Don't be a dipshiat. The arguments here are all "if the health insurance doesn't cover birth control then the probability a babby will be formed increases."

Turns out that increased probability multiplied by the cost of birth exceeds the cost of simply providing birth control for free. For as much as the far right biatches about welfare queens, you'd think they'd be fine with free BC.


Entirely self defeating concept.
It is the unwanted pregnancy that grows up to be your mass murderer.
Logic would indicate that stopping the problem at the source is a good idea, but Noooo, some dickheads' idiotic "beliefs" create their own demons for us all to enjoy.

self fufilling failure FTW
 
2012-12-31 11:48:51 AM  
Organizing religion is the Best Work the Devil has ever done.
 
2012-12-31 01:02:07 PM  
snocone [TotalFark]

Organizing religion is the Best Work the Devil has ever done.


Doubt it. One of the reasons why denominations don't get together to have one big charity.. is because each of them wants their churches name slapped onto the charity. Said charity usually involves not having any one church represented. So they all have a hissy fit with the one recommending it.

Then each denomination tends to think that an individual church or churches in another or even their own is a cult.

And lord help anyone in a non-denominational church who convinces said church's leadership to contact all the denominations to start the charity. Non/independent are viewed as a cult by most of the churches of any denomination in every city.
 
2012-12-31 06:32:11 PM  

cwolf20: snocone [TotalFark]

Organizing religion is the Best Work the Devil has ever done.

Doubt it. One of the reasons why denominations don't get together to have one big charity.. is because each of them wants their churches name slapped onto the charity. Said charity usually involves not having any one church represented. So they all have a hissy fit with the one recommending it.

Then each denomination tends to think that an individual church or churches in another or even their own is a cult.

And lord help anyone in a non-denominational church who convinces said church's leadership to contact all the denominations to start the charity. Non/independent are viewed as a cult by most of the churches of any denomination in every city.


It's ALL about identity, aka ID, no?

Pssst: Make it Tax ID too, now, please, thank you.
 
2012-12-31 11:51:26 PM  

cwolf20: snocone [TotalFark]

Organizing religion is the Best Work the Devil has ever done.

Doubt it. One of the reasons why denominations don't get together to have one big charity.. is because each of them wants their churches name slapped onto the charity. Said charity usually involves not having any one church represented. So they all have a hissy fit with the one recommending it.

Then each denomination tends to think that an individual church or churches in another or even their own is a cult.

And lord help anyone in a non-denominational church who convinces said church's leadership to contact all the denominations to start the charity. Non/independent are viewed as a cult by most of the churches of any denomination in every city.



The Point went thata way, Pardner.

Any "denomination" is an "organized religion", ergo the Work of The Devil.

/the concept of churches unionizing is a whole ,,,,
 
Displayed 26 of 526 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report