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.

(Reuters)   Fitch backs up US's AAA+ credit rating, douchey looking clothes   (reuters.com) divider line 95
    More: Interesting, United States, joint committee, long run, tangible, clothing  
•       •       •

8350 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Aug 2011 at 12:24 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-08-16 01:24:51 PM  
After government officials hold the economy hostage denying the appropriateness of a rating downgrade is simply that: denial.
 
2011-08-16 01:27:32 PM  
I read that as "Fletch."

content.internetvideoarchive.com
 
2011-08-16 01:31:14 PM  
So the US is a real fine country when you back that AAA+ up?

/obscure?
 
2011-08-16 01:33:52 PM  

Wangiss: patrick767: EdNortonsTwin
How can a country that goes $4.8B further in the hole every day have AAA+?

You'll have to ask bond investors. They've responded to the downgrade by buying even more US treasury bonds at even lower rates. In other words, they're saying the S&P is completely wrong. The people actually doing the investing think US treasury bonds are the safest place to have their money.


Are you quite familiar with supply and demand? The price of a bond only drops if people sell them off. If it dropped, it's because someone was offloading them. The fact that someone bought them afterward proves only that they aren't worthless.


Other people have already pointed this out, but let me just double back on this, because it's actually a very common misunderstanding. The yield, or "rate" of a bond moves in the opposite direction of its price. The price is basically how much you pay today to get $1,000 back at some specified date. If lots of people buy up treasuries, their price goes up from let's say $950 to $960 on a 2 year note, so the yield goes down from $50 over 2 years to $40 over 2 years, or from roughly 2.5% to roughly 2.0%.
 
2011-08-16 01:34:48 PM  
Let it go, America. Your problem is obvious, and it's not the credit rating agencies.
 
2011-08-16 01:36:20 PM  

Millennium: So the US is a real fine country when you back that AAA+ up?

/obscure?


Obscure? Some of us were, in fact, alive in 1998.
 
2011-08-16 01:37:49 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: Wangiss: snocone: Wangiss: patrick767: EdNortonsTwin

Are you quite familiar with supply and demand? The price of a bond only drops if people sell them off. If it dropped, it's because someone was offloading them. The fact that someone bought them afterward proves only that they aren't worthless.

"Supply and Demand", was that not a story recited to decades of idiot, amoral business undergrads?
It is a legend that sets the suckers up for the kill in this wide world.
Kinda like panicking a herd of bison to stampede off a cliff. Yum! Good eats!

It's not the only economic law, but it does apply to bonds, and it does apply to this situation.

It does. Except you've confused price with rates and have your analysis exactly backwards.


I certainly would have my analysis backwards if I had confused price with rates, but I was responding to someone who was taking about the secondary market.
 
2011-08-16 01:38:15 PM  
Thanks for the 101 guys. America clealry needs to get back to work innovating, producing and exporting.
 
2011-08-16 01:42:48 PM  

Xenomech: Honestly: would you make a long term loan to the US?


Sure - if they default, you can foreclose on Area 51.

/hot, hot alien booty
//or so I've heard...
 
2011-08-16 01:43:40 PM  

Wangiss: I certainly would have my analysis backwards if I had confused price with rates, but I was responding to someone who was taking about the secondary market.


Sorry dude, but all he said was:

patrick767: They've responded to the downgrade by buying even more US treasury bonds at even lower rates.


There's no way to interpret that except as increased demand driving up price, assuming you know that price and rates move in opposite directions.
 
2011-08-16 01:44:46 PM  

Wangiss:
I certainly would have my analysis backwards if I had confused price with rates, but I was responding to someone who was taking about the secondary market.


No, the person that you were responding to said that bond investors were buying even more US government bonds. As in, from the US. Primary market.

You have trouble admitting that you're wrong, don't you?
 
2011-08-16 01:51:27 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: America clealry needs to get back to work innovating, producing and exporting.


That's about as likely as Lincoln winning the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny unless somebody can figure out how to make it very profitable in the short term for the guys running things..
 
2011-08-16 01:57:26 PM  
AAAA+++++++++ WOULD LOAN TO AGAIN
 
2011-08-16 02:05:23 PM  

StopLurkListen: I'm conflicted; as an investor I know the US's ability to pay is fine (debt as a percentage of GDP is under 10%; in 1992 it was almost 25%).

The political risk, however, is high due to the Tea Party politicians' claim that a default is 'no big deal'. WELL IT IS TO ME!

So, are the ratings agencies supposed to score the objective money numbers or give subjective judgements about the political will of a solvent nation's powerful minority to rip off its investors?



What. The. fark...?
 
2011-08-16 02:08:39 PM  

joness0154: Xenomech: Honestly: would you make a long term loan to the US?

Considering they have a better chance of paying it back than any other country, corporation, person or entity in the world, I'd have no problem doing so.


As long as you are only talking about US Dollars then you are correct, and that's only because they can print more of it.
 
2011-08-16 02:09:45 PM  
Who in the hell is "Fitch?" No my friends, S&P is the industry standard, and they were absolutely right to downgrade our credit. Personally i wouldn't invest in America right now at all, and that's saying something because when Donnie Trump or Old Man Murdoch or Boone Pickens have a tough investment call to make, I'm the person they call for advice.

No really.

What?
 
2011-08-16 02:15:59 PM  

Kazakhstan is greatest country in the world: that's only because they can print more of it.


Having the biggest military in the world and enough natural resources that we could close the borders and tell everyone to just fark off for a generation or two has something more to do with it.
 
2011-08-16 02:26:01 PM  

Xenomech: Honestly: would you make a long term loan to the US?


Yes.
 
2011-08-16 02:28:15 PM  

Surpheon: Kazakhstan is greatest country in the world: that's only because they can print more of it.

Having the biggest military in the world and enough natural resources that we could close the borders and tell everyone to just fark off for a generation or two has something more to do with it.


So what are you suggesting, that we tell the rest of the world to just kiss our ass? How does that solv....ah, forget it.
 
2011-08-16 02:33:15 PM  

VegasVinnie: We currently owe $14,615,828,834,261. In the moments between the time I post this and you read it, it will be tens of millions more. Each of you as a taxpayer owes $130,567. Stealth fighters ain't cheap, and we need more.

Don't have a hundred grand to give to the govt? I guess we're broke. Corporations own the politicians and they sure aren't going to pay...

I know, let's just borrow the money we need to pay of those we already borrowed from! Woo hoo! Yeah baby, problem solved. We're AAA+!!!


14,616,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 = ~49,000.

But I know, big numbers scare you, so you should be scared. Because it's not irrational to be scared of scary big numbers.
 
2011-08-16 02:40:03 PM  

dartben: 14,616,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 = ~49,000.

But I know, big numbers scare you, so you should be scared. Because it's not irrational to be scared of scary big numbers.


I don't know how to tell you this but the USA does not have 300 million tax payers
 
2011-08-16 02:53:50 PM  

the_sidewinder: dartben: 14,616,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 = ~49,000.

But I know, big numbers scare you, so you should be scared. Because it's not irrational to be scared of scary big numbers.

I don't know how to tell you this but the USA does not have 300 million tax payers


Pretty much anyone over the age of 5 is a tax payer, unless that 5 year old lives in a state without a sales tax. And those 1-4 year olds will become taxpayers soon enough.

Even if you are limiting it to Federal taxes, pretty much everyone over the age of 16 is a taxpayer, whether they drive or not.

//there are more taxes than just the income tax.
 
2011-08-16 03:09:33 PM  

StopLurkListen: I'm conflicted; as an investor I know the US's ability to pay is fine (debt as a percentage of GDP is under 10%; in 1992 it was almost 25%).


I've never read anything so unbelievably false. Depending upon which set of figures you use (either the CIA or the IMF, respectively), our national sovereign debt in 2010 was either 59.2% or 92.7% of GDP. And this does not include intra-governmental debt. And don't even get me started on total public debt, including state and local debt. Credit agencies prefer that debt be max 60% of GDP. We lose. At all levels.

Everything's not going to be "fine" until we come up with a concrete plan to make our debt sustainable. Obama, Democrats, and Republicans: none of them seem interested. This is why our credit was downgraded. The only reason we have an ability to pay is because we can print money all day and pretend to solve the problem. At which point bread will cost $500/loaf or something. So keep your head in the sand.
 
2011-08-16 03:21:14 PM  
EdNortonsTwin:
How can a country that goes $4.8B further in the hole every day have
AAA+?
Hell, why not make it AAAA++ for good measure.


Well, if you ran a credit card company, what customer would you prefer, the guy who rarely uses the card and when he does pays off his full balance every month like clockwork, or the guy who makes minimum payments every month but is never late on making that payment?

 
2011-08-16 03:25:18 PM  
Our debt was downgraded by one of the very agencies that did nothing but promote the subprime lending bubble that got us here in the first place. S&P didn't even start downgrading any of the mortgage-backed securities until 2007, by which point anyone with a functioning brain could see the whole thing was about to collapse. Regardless of whether you believe the US is a creditworthy borrower, you'd be better off asking your dog than taking S&P's advice on the matter. Of course, you can say the same about Fitch; they used the same models as S&P for rating these bonds and achieved approximately the same results.
 
2011-08-16 03:44:12 PM  

Phaid: Our debt was downgraded by one of the very agencies that did nothing but promote the subprime lending bubble that got us here in the first place. S&P didn't even start downgrading any of the mortgage-backed securities until 2007, by which point anyone with a functioning brain could see the whole thing was about to collapse. Regardless of whether you believe the US is a creditworthy borrower, you'd be better off asking your dog than taking S&P's advice on the matter. Of course, you can say the same about Fitch; they used the same models as S&P for rating these bonds and achieved approximately the same results.


Dart board for advice.
Definately the dart board.

Ouiji just doesn't seem to work unless there are at least two parties and then you have the same old problem.
 
2011-08-16 04:05:58 PM  
Duh.

Because like it or not, the United States is still the top dog. If the United States falls, your agencies little credit rating doesn't matter for shiat.
 
2011-08-16 04:13:10 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Xenomech: Honestly: would you make a long term loan to the US?

Of course I would. If you wouldn't, you don't know shiat about finance or macroeconomics.

Even with the dumbest Congress ever, the US still has never defaulted on any loan. Ever. Hence, the highest possible credit rating in TFA.


It's more than that. Going back to the Declaration of Independence, the USA/federal gov't has always paid every single legitimate financial obligation it's ever encumbered: Bondholders, welfare recipients, contractors/vendors, civil servant payroll, etc...

/S&P can suck it!
//Their over-rating of toxic mortgage backed securities was criminal.
 
2011-08-16 04:36:14 PM  

My Droogs: StopLurkListen: I'm conflicted; as an investor I know the US's ability to pay is fine (debt as a percentage of GDP is under 10%; in 1992 it was almost 25%).

I've never read anything so unbelievably false. Depending upon which set of figures you use (either the CIA or the IMF, respectively), our national sovereign debt in 2010 was either 59.2% or 92.7% of GDP. And this does not include intra-governmental debt. And don't even get me started on total public debt, including state and local debt. Credit agencies prefer that debt be max 60% of GDP. We lose. At all levels.

Everything's not going to be "fine" until we come up with a concrete plan to make our debt sustainable. Obama, Democrats, and Republicans: none of them seem interested. This is why our credit was downgraded. The only reason we have an ability to pay is because we can print money all day and pretend to solve the problem. At which point bread will cost $500/loaf or something. So keep your head in the sand.


I corrected my original point. See above.

"This is why our credit was downgraded." No, S&P pointed to the brinkmanship politics of the debt ceiling debate.
 
2011-08-16 04:49:16 PM  

StopLurkListen: My Droogs: StopLurkListen: I'm conflicted; as an investor I know the US's ability to pay is fine (debt as a percentage of GDP is under 10%; in 1992 it was almost 25%).

I corrected my original point. See above.

"This is why our credit was downgraded." No, S&P pointed to the brinkmanship politics of the debt ceiling debate.


Your correction is duly noted.

But are you sure "brinkmanship" (I will strangle the next farker who uses that word) the only reason they downgraded our debt? Really? You sure?

Like I said, keep your head in the sand.
 
2011-08-16 04:56:35 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: EdNortonsTwin:
How can a country that goes $4.8B further in the hole every day have
AAA+?
Hell, why not make it AAAA++ for good measure.

Well, if you ran a credit card company, what customer would you prefer, the guy who rarely uses the card and when he does pays off his full balance every month like clockwork, or the guy who makes minimum payments every month but is never late on making that payment?


Congratulations, this is quite possibly the only analogy I've ever read on this subject that makes sense! All the other ones that compare the United States' role in the global economy to a household, a drunken sailor, or a small business suck ass and the people who spew them should be shunned.
 
2011-08-16 05:22:40 PM  
Not sure this has been shown:

www.thedoghousediaries.com

http://www.thedoghousediaries.com/?p=2945
 
2011-08-16 05:46:02 PM  

My Droogs: StopLurkListen: My Droogs: StopLurkListen: I'm conflicted; as an investor I know the US's ability to pay is fine (debt as a percentage of GDP is under 10%; in 1992 it was almost 25%).

I corrected my original point. See above.

"This is why our credit was downgraded." No, S&P pointed to the brinkmanship politics of the debt ceiling debate.

Your correction is duly noted.

But are you sure "brinkmanship" (I will strangle the next farker who uses that word) the only reason they downgraded our debt? Really? You sure?

Like I said, keep your head in the sand.


From S&P's press release:

"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed"

"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/05/sp-downgrades-u-s-debt-rating-press -r elease/ (new window)
 
2011-08-16 05:57:02 PM  
What does this prove? It proves that Standard and Poor's downgrade was not about the inability of the United States to pay its debts, it was about the United States refusal (almost) to pay its debts.

Standard and Poor's downgrade was a political statement about the childish bullsh*t that has been going on in congress (particularly the House of Representatives and the TeaBagger retards) at a time when the economies of this country and the world really, really, REALLY don't need to be f*cked with.

What these systems need is stability, continuity, and predictability, not a bunch of assholes that were willing to trash the planet just to prove a stupid and meaningless ideological point. Those economies had that stability under other presidents both republican and democrat for decades, and now that we get someone other than Joe Whiteguy in the Big Chair this motley collection of inbred psychopaths has made it their mission to do whatever is necessary to get that black man out of "their" White House, even if it means a planet-wide depression,

S&P did it in the most permanent and meaningful way possible, and I think it was justified.
Fitch chose not to make such a statement, as is their right... but I'm sure some people who worked there thought just as S&P did.
 
2011-08-16 06:31:07 PM  

rewind2846: What does this prove? It proves that Standard and Poor's downgrade was not about the inability of the United States to pay its debts, it was about the United States refusal (almost) to pay its debts.

Standard and Poor's downgrade was a political statement about the childish bullsh*t that has been going on in congress (particularly the House of Representatives and the TeaBagger retards) at a time when the economies of this country and the world really, really, REALLY don't need to be f*cked with.

What these systems need is stability, continuity, and predictability, not a bunch of assholes that were willing to trash the planet just to prove a stupid and meaningless ideological point. Those economies had that stability under other presidents both republican and democrat for decades, and now that we get someone other than Joe Whiteguy in the Big Chair this motley collection of inbred psychopaths has made it their mission to do whatever is necessary to get that black man out of "their" White House, even if it means a planet-wide depression,

S&P did it in the most permanent and meaningful way possible, and I think it was justified.
Fitch chose not to make such a statement, as is their right... but I'm sure some people who worked there thought just as S&P did.


So in other words, S&P punished the citizens of the United States because their duly elected representatives are now debating the serious and growing issue of deficit spending? We're truly living in a kleptocracy.
 
2011-08-16 06:53:21 PM  

ziponwheels:
So in other words, S&P punished the citizens of the United States because their duly elected representatives are now debating the serious and growing issue of deficit spending? We're truly living in a kleptocracy.


No, they did it because the discussion of deficit spending wasn't done where it was supposed to be, and would have been if the TeaDerpers had any common f*cking sense whatsoever - at the meetings where the nation's budget (you know, where they figure out how much is spent on what) is written.

What the TeaDerpers did is like a couple arguing about dirty towels left on the bathroom floor in a car speeding down the highway at 80 miles an hour. NOW IS NOT THE TIME. Argue about that sh*t when you get home, not when the driver is supposed to be paying attention to the f*cking road.

It takes many months to write a budget. B*tch about spending then, NOT when there's a deadline coming up that could wreck the planet's economy just so you can score ideological bonus points with your equally stupid constituents. It was childish, it was dumb, and it was a stunt that will come back and b*tchsmack the TeaBaggers come 2012.
 
2011-08-16 09:06:05 PM  

Surpheon: SlothB77: immediately after the Senate Banking Committee launched an investigation of S&P.

Good. The ratings agencies failed, completely and for corrupt profit driven reasons, to do their job rating mortgage securities. If they hadn't been taking bribes, the entire 2008 crash would never have happened (of course, 2005-2007 wouldn't have been so bonus rich for banks either). The ratings agencies are demonstratively corrupt and should have been investigated more fully after the crash. At a minimum, the government should pull their legal status as reliable raters of risk.


except they didn't get investigated. not in 2008. not in 2009. not in 2010. the investigation was launched the next business day after the credit rating downgrade. our government didn't do it to remove corruption from these agencies. our government did it as retribution. to instill fear. to get the credit ratings it wants. our oversight failed. and this has nothing to do with 2008-2009.
 
2011-08-16 09:28:51 PM  

SlothB77: except they didn't get investigated. not in 2008. not in 2009. not in 2010.


You are wrong. Do you care? Is your opinion based upon reality and therefore changed by this information, or will you just make up new facts and bull along?

The rating industry was closely investigated after the crash and subjected to significant additional regulation. They're still churning out reports on it.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-14/moody-s-s-p-caved-to-goldman-ubs-mo r tgage-pressure-levin-says.html

Accountability isn't a bad thing. There is evidence suggesting S&P (a for profit company with hundreds of millions in investments) made the downgrade partly to keep large clients who were betting on a market swoon that Friday happy. That's why when huge holes were blown in their financial analysis they shoved that to the back of the report and made the unprecedented move of blaming political process. To put that in perspective, France lets-riot-and-strike-over-the-end-of-a-four-day-work-week, is still AAA - and their currency is shackled to Greece, Portugal, Ireland, etc.
 
2011-08-17 01:28:39 AM  

rewind2846: ziponwheels:
So in other words, S&P punished the citizens of the United States because their duly elected representatives are now debating the serious and growing issue of deficit spending? We're truly living in a kleptocracy.

No, they did it because the discussion of deficit spending wasn't done where it was supposed to be, and would have been if the TeaDerpers had any common f*cking sense whatsoever - at the meetings where the nation's budget (you know, where they figure out how much is spent on what) is written.

What the TeaDerpers did is like a couple arguing about dirty towels left on the bathroom floor in a car speeding down the highway at 80 miles an hour. NOW IS NOT THE TIME. Argue about that sh*t when you get home, not when the driver is supposed to be paying attention to the f*cking road.

It takes many months to write a budget. B*tch about spending then, NOT when there's a deadline coming up that could wreck the planet's economy just so you can score ideological bonus points with your equally stupid constituents. It was childish, it was dumb, and it was a stunt that will come back and b*tchsmack the TeaBaggers come 2012.


The Teabaggers mostly play bad cop to Baybsitter Barry's good cop so that we can continue our high levels of corporate welfare and not have CEOs pay any more tax on their ill gotten gains then the people who empty their wastebaskets. The puppet show reduces, or at least misdirects, public outrage.

That said, its still disturbing to see a Wall Street firm retaliate against the deliberations of a democratically elected congress. The deliberations may just be an appeal to misdirected outrage, but that's not the point. They didn't reduce our ability to repay our debts in any concrete way. The excessive borrowing itself did that.
 
2011-08-17 01:41:44 AM  
img823.imageshack.us
 
2011-08-17 08:49:47 AM  
Is this the thread were all you recipient class libtards blame bush?
 
2011-08-17 09:47:19 AM  

ziponwheels: rewind2846: What does this prove? It proves that Standard and Poor's downgrade was not about the inability of the United States to pay its debts, it was about the United States refusal (almost) to pay its debts.

Standard and Poor's downgrade was a political statement about the childish bullsh*t that has been going on in congress (particularly the House of Representatives and the TeaBagger retards) at a time when the economies of this country and the world really, really, REALLY don't need to be f*cked with.

What these systems need is stability, continuity, and predictability, not a bunch of assholes that were willing to trash the planet just to prove a stupid and meaningless ideological point. Those economies had that stability under other presidents both republican and democrat for decades, and now that we get someone other than Joe Whiteguy in the Big Chair this motley collection of inbred psychopaths has made it their mission to do whatever is necessary to get that black man out of "their" White House, even if it means a planet-wide depression,

S&P did it in the most permanent and meaningful way possible, and I think it was justified.
Fitch chose not to make such a statement, as is their right... but I'm sure some people who worked there thought just as S&P did.

So in other words, S&P punished the citizens of the United States because their duly elected representatives are now debating the serious and growing issue of deficit spending? We're truly living in a kleptocracy.


Debating?
This is debating?
This is shadow puppets on a cheap curtain.
 
2011-08-17 01:34:35 PM  
Wangiss
I certainly would have my analysis backwards if I had confused price with rates, but I was responding to someone who was taking about the secondary market.

Others have responded already, but since you're referring to me, I can assure you that I was referring to the primary bond market. The US government offers bonds for sale. Higher demand from bond investors means that the government can sell the bonds at a lower interest rate and thus borrow the money more cheaply. That's exactly what has happened following the S&P downgrade.

The bond market has made it clear that investors still see the US as the best, safest place for money.
 
2011-08-17 09:48:44 PM  

ziponwheels: rThe deliberations may just be an appeal to misdirected outrage, but that's not the point. They didn't reduce our ability to repay our debts in any concrete way. The excessive borrowing itself did that.


Okay, let's assume this premise is true (it isn't, but let's)... the questions that must be asked would be... "Where has all this outrage been since 1980?" "How many times has the debt ceiling been raised without incident in the last 30 years?" "Where was the TeaParty (not the original Ron Paul libertarian incarnation but the spittle-flecked group that sprang into existence sometime around January 2009) during all the government spending and budgets in my voting lifetime?" "Do these morans realize how much government spending and the size of government increased during the twenty years of republican presidencies of the past 30 years (rhetorical question, I know)?

Simply put, the spending is not the real reason for the TeaBaggers' ire.
The size of government is not the real reason for the TeaBaggers' bile.
The Java-hued gentleman in the white house is, and they prove as much on their websites, during their rallies, and with their rhetoric. Not all republicans mind you, just the Teas who have taken the party over.
 
2011-08-18 02:38:35 PM  

rewind2846: ziponwheels: rThe deliberations may just be an appeal to misdirected outrage, but that's not the point. They didn't reduce our ability to repay our debts in any concrete way. The excessive borrowing itself did that.

Okay, let's assume this premise is true (it isn't, but let's)... the questions that must be asked would be... "Where has all this outrage been since 1980?" "How many times has the debt ceiling been raised without incident in the last 30 years?" "Where was the TeaParty (not the original Ron Paul libertarian incarnation but the spittle-flecked group that sprang into existence sometime around January 2009) during all the government spending and budgets in my voting lifetime?" "Do these morans realize how much government spending and the size of government increased during the twenty years of republican presidencies of the past 30 years (rhetorical question, I know)?

Simply put, the spending is not the real reason for the TeaBaggers' ire.
The size of government is not the real reason for the TeaBaggers' bile.
The Java-hued gentleman in the white house is, and they prove as much on their websites, during their rallies, and with their rhetoric. Not all republicans mind you, just the Teas who have taken the party over.


Just something about having a BLACK MAN in their WHITE HOUSE.
Go figure.

/wish the bankers would get over it
//still remember where I was when I first saw that Cannon Rebel camera ad w/ the line,"Image is everything". Good Lies sell very well.
 
Displayed 45 of 95 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report