"Are you kidding me?" / Facepalm Thread.

[patience0830]

Indicates the photo was taken in Indiana.....who was it?

Looks like one of the pink pistols.

 

[rob63]

Indicates the photo was taken in Indiana.....who was it?

He's not wearing pants, so it appears to be an LT6 operation.

 

[jamil]

He's not wearing pants, so it appears to be an LT6 operation.

That was my thought. Most people just don't get the importance of a sighting like this. One of the rare confirmations of the very existence of LT6.

 

[2A_Tom]

Too skinny for 97% of the men on INGO, Could be one of the gals. What? You've never heard of a bearded woman? LT6 Operator.

 

[sharkey]

Indicates the photo was taken in Indiana.....who was it?

Gun in holster.
No coonfingering of bang switch.


I can't quite bring a name to mind....

 

[hopper68]

Chicago man with defaced revolver live-tweets police chase, hiding spot


And for something strange.......
https://www.sunfrog.com/20160804-231545-194550076.html?67284&collectionCrossSell=35596

 

[Suprtek]

Here's a weird one for ya... Today I say a small SUV with a "Trump Pence" bumper sticker on the left and a "Obama Biden" bumper sticker on the right!

 

[techres]

Indicates the photo was taken in Indiana.....who was it?

He was in town for GenCon2016 and dressed up for it cosplay style.

Here's his FB if you want to check it out:

https://www.facebook.com/junglebush92

 

[Jerchap2]

I've never actually seen the pentagon in person so I'm not sure it exists.

I have seen it in person. My nephew is a Commander in the Navy and was stationed there for a couple of years. He gave me a personal tour.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

A lesbian couple in New Jersey is suing their insurance company. They want a baby, and expect the insurance to cover for their "infertility".

You can't make this **** up.

New Jersey Lesbian Couples Suing for Insurance to Cover Their 'Infertility'

 

[pudly]

The insurance company should tell them the following:
-they are doing it wrong.
-their bodies are working as designed.

 

[techres]

The insurance company should tell them the following:
-they are doing it wrong.
-their bodies are working as designed.

Would the insurance company say the same to an infertile heterosexual couple whose body/bodies were working "as designed" - which for some means infertile (PCO, sperm count issues, and other passed down traits that are, sadly, the design for fertility failure)?

If the insurance company offers artificial fertilization treatment to one (thereby overcoming the "as designed" problem - PCO, low sperm count, etc), then there is a logical argument that they would need to offer the same treatment to overcome for the other.

If offered to one set, then it follows they have to offer to the other. If not offered to the first, then the argument for the latter is moot.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Would the insurance company say the same to an infertile heterosexual couple whose body/bodies were working "as designed" - which for some means infertile (PCO, sperm count issues, and other passed down traits that are, sadly, the design for fertility failure)?

If the insurance company offers artificial fertilization treatment to one (thereby overcoming the "as designed" problem - PCO, low sperm count, etc), then there is a logical argument that they would need to offer the same treatment to overcome for the other.

If offered to one set, then it follows they have to offer to the other. If not offered to the first, then the argument for the latter is moot.

No. Not at all. "As designed" a hetero couple can conceive, things just aren't working as they are suppose to.

"As designed" the gay/lesbian couple could NEVER conceive.

 

[pudly]

No. Not at all. "As designed" a hetero couple can conceive, things just aren't working as they are suppose to.

"As designed" the gay/lesbian couple could NEVER conceive.

^This. You see, what I'm really asking for is for someone to tell the truth rather than another politically correct lie. Political correctness is about controlling thought and this is a prime example. These women want to claim that they are infertile. (They may actually have some legitimate physical issue with their bodies and how they produce eggs, etc., but that is irrelevant as fixing it wouldn't change their situation). Well, their bodies are working as women's are supposed to work and their coverage carries specific terms. Since they refuse to do what they are likely capable of doing to have a child using their own bodies, they are lying and attempting to defraud the insurance company and have others pay for their lifestyle.

 

[jamil]

Would the insurance company say the same to an infertile heterosexual couple whose body/bodies were working "as designed" - which for some means infertile (PCO, sperm count issues, and other passed down traits that are, sadly, the design for fertility failure)?

If the insurance company offers artificial fertilization treatment to one (thereby overcoming the "as designed" problem - PCO, low sperm count, etc), then there is a logical argument that they would need to offer the same treatment to overcome for the other.

If offered to one set, then it follows they have to offer to the other. If not offered to the first, then the argument for the latter is moot.

I think that's a failure of logic. You're essentially arguing that because one out of the couple's bodies does not produce sperm, that is the equivelent to a male partner who has a low sperm count. But those aren't equivelents. The reason the two can't have children isn't because of an underlying health issue, unless you consider lgbt a health issue of itself. That's probably not something LGBTs would want to say.

 

[printcraft]

Mental illness angle?

 

[HoughMade]

...If the insurance company offers artificial fertilization treatment to one (thereby overcoming the "as designed" problem - PCO, low sperm count, etc), then there is a logical argument that they would need to offer the same treatment to overcome for the other.

If offered to one set, then it follows they have to offer to the other. If not offered to the first, then the argument for the latter is moot.

They would have to prove that they have a physical disease, illness, ailment, disability that causes the infertility.

The lack of a wang isn't that if you didn't come with one.

 

[jamil]

They would have to prove that they have a physical disease, illness, ailment, disability that causes the infertility.

The lack of a wang isn't that if you didn't come with one.

Also, I would think that if you came into this world with a "wang", that you later declined, you shouldn't be able to claim some kind of disability after losing it voluntarily.

 

[Ericpwp]

 

[JettaKnight]

Eric, I can't believe I figured that one out. Google image search is amazing.

And while searching, I landed on this, which seems seem appropriate here.


Women Against Non-essential Grooming

In other words, they stopped shaving.