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.

(Some Guy)   Fark goes to Occupy Wall Street. This is what we saw   (blog.joethepeacock.com) divider line 1100
    More: Interesting, waste collector, Guy Fawkes  
•       •       •

35699 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2011 at 9:00 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1100 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-18 10:08:18 AM  

PunGent: That's an excellent question, and I agree with many of what I THINK are OWS goals.


OWS = gerneric candidate.

I too have some agreement with them on what I think they are maybe for. I just cannot give much sympathy if they really are against crony capitalism where were they during the time of the gross excesses in it. I was screaming from the rooftops at the time.
 
2011-10-18 10:08:23 AM  

archichris: They must attack success


Reminding people of a 40 hour work week is not attacking success. Being up set with investment banks is not attacking success. Being upset over 30 years of stagnant wages is not attacking success.
 
2011-10-18 10:08:28 AM  

thelordofcheese: I just think this whole vague thing is much like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror

I think people don't understand why things are farked up, how they got farked up, nor how to fix things with all of the changes that have happened since things started to get farked up. It's been 30 years - and 5 more of preparation - of things getting farked up.

I think a lot of people are there for selfish reasons, even simply to have a feeling of belonging.


[citation needed]
 
2011-10-18 10:08:34 AM  
The farking media doesn't care, fark them. All they want is film of violence and filth, the media are not your friends. You think a CEO of a huge media conglomerate wants his editorial slant to be controlled by a flaming liberal?
 
2011-10-18 10:09:04 AM  

Kit Fister: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 334x500]

Bagdog frowns on your shenanigans.


Separated at birth?

1.bp.blogspot.com

cache.ohinternet.com
 
2011-10-18 10:09:05 AM  

topcon: mbillips: I don't really see this as "doing something." It's more like "hanging out." When your message seems to be "I don't have enough money because bankers," without any clear proposed solutions, people are going to sneer at you and call you childish. This is more active than putting a green banner on your Facebook page, but it's still slacktivism.

Judging from most of those "99 percent" signs I've read, it's more " because I made stupid decisions and now I'm in huge debt."

Most non-Gen-Y'ers see this for what it is.


The real question is then, why do the millionaires on Wall Street get bonuses and a farking trillion dollar plus bailout from the government while the rest of us suffer? Seems to me what's good for the goose is good for the gander ... The doublespeak is astounding!
 
2011-10-18 10:09:25 AM  

Bunz: I can't help but look at those pictures and see a bunch of hippies or people that don't seem to be in the actual workforce.


Well, currently the workforce isn't big enough for everyone. That's the problem.
 
2011-10-18 10:09:27 AM  

seadoo2006: I was there Saturday afternoon during an impromptu trip from Cleveland Saturday morning to Sunday afternoon. The protest is HUGE and these pictures don't even give it justice. Saturday evening, they also were marching on Times Square ... Here's a few that I took:

[a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net image 640x480]

[a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net image 540x720]

[a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net image 640x480]


Nice!
 
2011-10-18 10:09:43 AM  
Here are some amusing vids from OWS (and the guy filming is just being a goof, he's on their side)

Link

Link

Link

Link
 
2011-10-18 10:09:53 AM  
Given the opportunity, most of the 99% would gladly be part of the 1% and they wouldn't think twice about it.
 
2011-10-18 10:09:53 AM  

PunGent:
OWS seems to be the civil disobedience version of the Iraq War: a sudden influx of bodies, followed by a long-term occupation with no clear exit strategy.


Aaaaaaand I'm stealing that.
 
2011-10-18 10:10:09 AM  

Al_Ed: I see a lot of white people who look like they might smell bad.


I see a logical fallacy.
 
2011-10-18 10:10:32 AM  

Bunz: and see a bunch of hippies or people that don't seem to be in the actual workforce.


as someone who works in high-tech i can safely say there are LOTS of people in the industry who look like they don't have jobs. it's like letting yourself go after you get married. not every job requires one to "look employed".
 
2011-10-18 10:10:51 AM  

WhyteRaven74: archichris: They must attack success

Reminding people of a 40 hour work week is not attacking success. Being up set with investment banks is not attacking success. Being upset over 30 years of stagnant wages is not attacking success.



So it's bemoaning unsuccess?
 
2011-10-18 10:10:53 AM  

rtaylor92: canyoneer: Correlation is not causation. Has it ever occurred to these people that wealth ineqeuality is a symptom of an entirely different set of problems? Not to say that our political system is not corrupt, but even if it was not corrupt, economic deterioration and falling living standards would nonetheless be occurring. Take 7 billion people (about 5 billion too many), add an energy crunch and "free trade," and voila: Falling standard of living. I think these people have bought into an ideological interpretation of reality and are ignoring the more practical, physical interpretation of reality. In short, the banks could be broken up, corruption erased from the political system, taxes raised on the wealthy, and so on, but things would continue to deteriorate anyway. Nature is in charge. It's vanity for humans to think all of these problems are political - the political will get increasingly grim in response to reality, not the other way around. Perhaps people - society that is - simply can't emotionally accept the idea that things are out of control.

you lost me. The "energy crunch" and "free trade" are part and parcel with what is going on on wall street and not some natural occurence. Day trading oil futures is what has caused the price of gas to go crazy and that was due to deregulation. Free Trade is the byproduct of companies trying to maximize their bottom line in the short term to see wall street gains. What part of this don't you understand?


He's looking at a bigger picture than you are. Gas prices are ultimately rising because of Peak Oil. The oil futures trading is a symptom of capitalists exploiting a declining resource, not the problem itself.

The real problem is an exponentially-increasing population placing higher demands on a finite set of resources.
 
2011-10-18 10:11:00 AM  

archichris: Thats why it grates on us so much that we are expected to supply the taxes to solve the problem. The definition of "rich" has been dumbed down t the point that we are now in that classification despite the fact that we are the "middle" class. I fully expect that I will be among those singled out as the next problem after the left gets done with wall street. There simply isnt enough money around to keep the poor happy, but the left will keep trying until we are all poor.


Who is defining you as rich and how much did you pull down last year?


Have you examined your tax rates for what they are compared to 10, 20, 50 yrs ago?
 
2011-10-18 10:11:05 AM  

archichris: All the things that Liberals claim is important and must be taxed from the rich to provide.....


The taxes for that stuff come from everyone. And if incomes hadn't been stagnant for 30 years a lot of that stuff wouldn't be an issue now.
 
2011-10-18 10:11:18 AM  
Why are these guys so mad about the redistribution of wealth happening right at OWS itself?

Link (new window)
 
2011-10-18 10:11:23 AM  

UtileDysfunktion: Jake Havechek: What exactly is a "southern/midwestern" type?

A rube.

What midwestern rubes may look like (Occupy Chicago):

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 401x267]


Jake's just got a hair in the wrong place. Forget it Jake...its Chinatown...er...OWS/Tea Party envy.
 
2011-10-18 10:11:30 AM  

xenophon10k: Al_Ed: I see a lot of white people who look like they might smell bad.

I see a logical fallacy.


thats_racist.jpg
 
2011-10-18 10:11:49 AM  
.
.
.
.
YOU HAVE ANGERED BAG DOG!
.
.
.
.
 
2011-10-18 10:11:58 AM  

SilentStrider: EWreckedSean: And people wonder why the right doesn't support OWS.

because they're idiots?
Because Fox News told them not to?
Because socialism?
Because Blood for the Blood God?


Because these are the same people who have spent years ridiculing the Tea Party protests, calling them teabaggers, racists, astroturf, etc. even now pro-OWS can't stop deriding the Tea Party, while at the same time wondering why they don't support them. Personally I find the whole thing amusing. I especially love the "I am the 99%" signs. I promise you, the 99% can't camp out in parks living off of donated food having a month long party getting a message out that isn't exactly shocking to anybody.
 
2011-10-18 10:12:14 AM  

spentmiles: They need to get the fire hoses and police dogs going. This is ridiculous, a public park held hostage by the unemployable. If I was in charge, there would be rivulets of blood running down the streets. The police need to grow a pair and start cracking skulls.


So, if you were in charge, we would live in a Constitution-less autocracy without the freedom to peaceably assemble? Good to know. Now we have a reason to keep you out of power.
 
2011-10-18 10:12:28 AM  

Saiga410: PunGent: That's an excellent question, and I agree with many of what I THINK are OWS goals.

OWS = gerneric candidate.

I too have some agreement with them on what I think they are maybe for. I just cannot give much sympathy if they really are against crony capitalism where were they during the time of the gross excesses in it. I was screaming from the rooftops at the time.


Does it matter? They're here now, and we're still suffering from the worst excesses.

Sometimes, it takes a while for people to wake up. I've been screaming about it too, and now I'm glad to have people to scream with me.
 
2011-10-18 10:12:35 AM  

archichris: "Since 1900 (end-of-year 1899), through 2010, I estimate the average total return/year of the DJIA (Dow Jones Industrial Average) was approximately 9.4% -- 4.8% in price appreciation, plus approx 4.7% in dividends. (Some numbers won't add up due to rounding.)"

Lets just grab that number, 9.4%.....


You're assuming that the DOW will increase at the same rate in the next century as it has in the previous century. You're also ignoring the fact that most of that growth occured when the US had strong social programming, the destruction of which you are advocating.
 
2011-10-18 10:12:39 AM  
It all goes back to...............................Reagan.
 
2011-10-18 10:12:42 AM  

I Am The Egg Matt Drudge Smears Upon His Body: It's nice that you tards finally decided to wake the fark up.

/it's a little too late, tards

///about 50 years too late

///buh-bye, the U. S. of A...... buh bye



////Laughing OL as these tards think they can change anything

/\\\\everything and everyone was already bought off before you were even a gleam in you babby's momma's eye

//\\\\ Wall Street has ripped the eyes from your sockets and pissed down your skulls and you all still too stupid to realize it



/am I supposed to be part of the 1%??????

//or am I supposed to be part of the 99%?????

///or am I supposed to be for the 53%'ers??????

////or am I supposed to be against the 53%'ers?

\////ONLY TIME WILL TELL

i was told there would be no math

/am probably a part of the 1%

//doesn't give a fark

///game over, dude; game over


Well, that was... useful?
 
2011-10-18 10:13:06 AM  

EWreckedSean: And people wonder why the right doesn't support OWS.


No one wonders that.
 
2011-10-18 10:13:11 AM  

sigdiamond2000: I've seen many "small government conservatives" who are against drug legalization because they hate the "dirty hippies".


I lean toward "small government conservative", but am willing to tolerate being on the side of smelly hippies because I don't think it's the governments business if I want to smoke some weed. For some really crazy alignment of social groups, go to a mountaintop removal mining protest. It's the only place you'll ever see a guy in overalls working side by side with a guy in dreadlocks.

/0.02
 
2011-10-18 10:13:19 AM  
img220.imageshack.us
 
2011-10-18 10:13:27 AM  

archichris: Dont forget the 163 million dollars the Obama Admin gave to the owner of the park recently


By "owner of the park", I'm guessing you mean "partner of a subsidiary of the owner of the park", and by "gave" you mean "awarded guaranteed loans through the DOE's section 1705 project" and by "163 million dollars" you mean "168 million dollars (total) or 135 million guaranteed", and by "recently" you mean "in January."

Did I get that right?
 
2011-10-18 10:13:34 AM  

LasersHurt: tacks: It's just easy to single out this amorphous beast called Wall Street because 1) it's publicly quantifiable, 2) it's a really really big number when you lump all financial services together, and 3) our evolved and heightened entitlement and greed focuses our attacks on people who have what we want.

Or they're symbolic of the greed and corruption that has fully metastasized into our political and economic systems, fundamentally damaging our nation's health, and having a rallying symbol makes it easier to sell your point.

But hey you can go with the "we want rich peoples' stuff" angle if you want. You're just... wrong.


On average I don't disagree with you.

Of the 99% there is a portion that truly does envy people who make more and "want their stuff" - looking at the pictures I would guess that it's the younger folks in that crowd, and anyone north of 125th not in attendance. They just want that 1% to make less, even though they'll still be 1%, just closer to 2% than before.

For the most part, I think most of them want the tide to rise and rightly so, and they couldn't give a shiat about what Mr. Monopoly is pulling in a room of 100 people.

The problem that the 1% have, is that they know damn well the money needed to fund this is coming out of their hide. The hope and change guy that threw them under the bus the last four years with a broad paintbrush stroke is not going to cut material waste out of the goverment system, he's going to be shaking them down. And all the other abusers of the system are still going to go on with their fraudulent pratices.

So rather than cleaning up the system nationally, we know full well it's just a game of bogus convoluted financial regulations coupled with tax increases at the top end, and maybe a few green programs thrown in for flavor.
 
2011-10-18 10:13:54 AM  

canyoneer:
You propose that the industrial way of life is human nature - an unchangeable, built-in feature of our species. That is not true. At its core, Homo sapiens sapiens is a nomad, also existing in dynamic equilibrium with the environment. It is our model of civilization that is unnatural. There are examples of civilized human societies that have lived sustainably for long periods of time in various environments - a happy medium between nomadism and the current model of suicide by overconsumption. These should be studied, not only as guides to the way forward, but also as object lessons in humility and restraint. If humans don't restrain themselves and their appetites in a conscious way, nature will do it for them in a brutal, chaotic way in the fullness of time, and much of value will be lost - thrown out with the garbage via the reimposition of biological reality on our species.


I agree that our nature isn't unchangeable. We're one of the few species that not only learns and passes those learnings on to our offspring, but we have the ability to document those learnings such that we can learn from others outside of our family units.

That being said, limiting our nature to nomadism/environmental equilibrium is patently false. That's one point along our evolution. You cannot compare our species development and evolution to others at this point due to the ability to communicate and pass on learnings. We may very well reach a point past equilibrium and face the consequences or we may find other ways to get around that (which we've been very successful at doing so far).

At best you'd have to say that our nature is no different than any other species - use whatever you can with no real though to the future and then, if you use up all available resources, die of starvation and let those resources repopulate (if possible, or maybe be replaced by some other thing that can be used up).
 
2011-10-18 10:14:08 AM  

EWreckedSean: these are the same people


I'm petty sure the various accountants, lawyers, airline pilots, engineers and others didn't bother with any of that stuff.
 
2011-10-18 10:14:32 AM  

elchip: [i.imgur.com image 640x802]


Coffee and croissant all over the monitor and keyboard. You bastid!
 
2011-10-18 10:14:45 AM  

EWreckedSean: SilentStrider: EWreckedSean: And people wonder why the right doesn't support OWS.

because they're idiots?
Because Fox News told them not to?
Because socialism?
Because Blood for the Blood God?

Because these are the same people who have spent years ridiculing the Tea Party protests, calling them teabaggers, racists, astroturf, etc. even now pro-OWS can't stop deriding the Tea Party, while at the same time wondering why they don't support them. Personally I find the whole thing amusing. I especially love the "I am the 99%" signs. I promise you, the 99% can't camp out in parks living off of donated food having a month long party getting a message out that isn't exactly shocking to anybody.


The Tea Party and the Occupiers have very similar core values, but they are opposite ideologies for whatever cultural reasons. If we could manage to find some common ground here we might actually have something. Not sure if it's possible though.
 
2011-10-18 10:14:48 AM  

Jake Havechek: It all goes back to...............................Reagan.


That's what it looks like. (new window)
 
2011-10-18 10:14:53 AM  

EWreckedSean: SilentStrider: EWreckedSean: And people wonder why the right doesn't support OWS.

because they're idiots?
Because Fox News told them not to?
Because socialism?
Because Blood for the Blood God?

Because these are the same people who have spent years ridiculing the Tea Party protests, calling them teabaggers, racists, astroturf, etc. even now pro-OWS can't stop deriding the Tea Party, while at the same time wondering why they don't support them. Personally I find the whole thing amusing. I especially love the "I am the 99%" signs. I promise you, the 99% can't camp out in parks living off of donated food having a month long party getting a message out that isn't exactly shocking to anybody.


The Tea Party was, and is, astroturf. If they got everything they wanted, it'd only make the situation worse. They're the definition of useful idiots.

Remove government regulations, and corporate power will grow and the average person will get screwed. We saw it in the financial sector. We'll see it in the others.
 
2011-10-18 10:14:53 AM  

make me some tea: As canyoneer said, something fundamental is going to have to change, and soon. It is no longer realistic to operate as a growth-based society and it's going to be a painful process coming to that realization, but ultimately it will be for the better. It's disconcerting to think about, but this is how I'm viewing things anymore. And no, I don't have any solutions either.


There aren't any solutions, really. What ought to be done won't.
 
2011-10-18 10:14:57 AM  

SilentStrider: EWreckedSean: And people wonder why the right doesn't support OWS.

because they're idiots?
Because Fox News told them not to?
Because socialism?
Because Blood for the Blood God?


Because it has yet to accomplish anything?
 
2011-10-18 10:15:11 AM  
calling them teabaggers

THEY CALLED THEMSELVES 'TEABAGGERS' FIRST!!!!
 
2011-10-18 10:15:28 AM  

make me some tea: Gaseous Anomaly: Yeah, but more people = more production and consumption = larger economy. There's not a fixed-size pile of dollars that are divvied up (yet; glances nervously in the direction of RON PAUL).

We could certainly run into limits on natural resources, lebensraum, etc., but that seems quite a ways off. Energy may be a challenge; the sooner we can get some more abundant sources of energy than dinosaur juice in wide usage the better.

As the developing world gets richer we can expect birthrates to drop (as they do everywhere when people move away from subsistence farming). I don't know the real projections though.

Everything has its limits, nature itself sets them. We can push it with technology and we are, but I don't see that as limitless either.

As canyoneer said, something fundamental is going to have to change, and soon. It is no longer realistic to operate as a growth-based society and it's going to be a painful process coming to that realization, but ultimately it will be for the better. It's disconcerting to think about, but this is how I'm viewing things anymore. And no, I don't have any solutions either.


We are no where near the limit though. It isn't going to change soon. Trust me, as a libertarian, I'd like to think the same things about government that you think about Wall Street, But the truth is we'll be lucky to see it change in our lives. We are still dealing with the fall out of the housing/credit bubble. In a year or two, things will start picking up again, and we'll stumble along until the next down turn, and so on. Hell the biggest economic boom in the history of this country was still going on 12 years ago. The breaking point has not remotely been reached.
 
2011-10-18 10:15:30 AM  

make me some tea: canyoneer: Has it occurred to anyone that a civilization based on perpetual growth and industrialism is fundamentally flawed...destined to fail? The modern concept of perpetual growth is antithetical to nature and the universe. Even the universe does not grow forever, but will eventually lose energy and contract. Even a forest full of myriad life forms does not grow perpetually, but exists in a complex state of dynamic equilibrium, where the biomass is more-or-less constant over time, with individual species and individual life forms appearing and disappearing over time. There are no vacant lots in nature, and our species is devouring the planet's natural capital at a rate that cannot be sustained any longer. That's why things are starting to fall apart.

Absolutely. I've been saying it for years, there are too many damn people on the Earth. That's a big part of the problem. When I was born 37 ago, there was something like what, 4 or 5 billion here? Now we're pushing 7 billion and the rate is accelerating. We're in a population bubble. Happens all the time in nature, we're not immune to its effects.


Well sure, the answer has been staring us in the face the entire time! Genocide. Genocide is the answer. I've been watching all these documentaries on the History Channel and I just keep saying to myself, "I really like that Stalin guy, but I just wish he did more. " and "Hitler was ok, but he just couldn't scale up to meet demand. We really need someone that can get the job done."
 
2011-10-18 10:15:45 AM  

BeesNuts: archichris: Dont forget the 163 million dollars the Obama Admin gave to the owner of the park recently

By "owner of the park", I'm guessing you mean "partner of a subsidiary of the owner of the park", and by "gave" you mean "awarded guaranteed loans through the DOE's section 1705 project" and by "163 million dollars" you mean "168 million dollars (total) or 135 million guaranteed", and by "recently" you mean "in January."

Did I get that right?


I think he actually meant "derp derp a derpitty derpitty derp derp."
 
2011-10-18 10:15:58 AM  
Wendy's Chili:
WHAR TOPLESS
HIPPIE CHICKS?
WHAR?
\o/
|
/\


One of my observations...

The people most likely to go naked in public are the ones most would rather not see naked.
 
2011-10-18 10:16:13 AM  

tacks: Wow they're really working hard there, it's a shame they don't have jobs that they could apply that work ethic to. Actually being serious, would like to be generating enough P&L hire to hire a couple of these folks - after I hose 'em down though.


And that's the actual problem with the economy.

Insufficient demand = businesses don't need to hire more because they wouldn't be able to sell more anyway = unemployment stays high = demand stays low.

Somebody needs to break the cycle. Usually in these kinds of situations we look to the government, since they have access to cheap credit, a long time horizon, and (theoretically) some incentive to do something about aggregate unemployment.

Unfortunately Congress isn't going to be any help for at least the next couple years. About the best we can hope for is that they don't actively sabotage the economy.

The Fed could help but won't for whatever reason. They appear to be viewing their dual mandate as "keep inflation low" and "keep keeping inflation low".
 
2011-10-18 10:16:16 AM  

Confabulat: the emotional investment that you've clearly made to make you WANT to support Wall Street billionaires over regular Americans, that you'd have to explain to me.


You haven't gone to support a teaparty rally have you?

From that I can take it that you support endless deficits forever and hate the idea of balanced budgets in general?

Have you joined ELF in torching a car dealership? No? So you want to rape the earth and destroy every living thing in the name of corporate profits?

I suggest you look up "logical fallacy". Your argument would be flawed even if all these people were doing was calling for an end to Wallstreet bailouts instead of the 10,000 other causes that have been tacked on as well.

Here's a tip: if you want government to stop doing something either mobilize a lot of votes against them or a lot of money for the opposition. Waving signs several states away at people who are not elected officials isn't the way to do it. I'm sure the idiots in Washington who voted for handing out federal money to private interests are thrilled that the OWS movement is targeting bankers and not them. You can't vote bankers out. You can vote politicians out. So by all means, go after the people who received our federal money and are not our employees but leave alone the people who collected and distributed our money and at least in theory work for us.

DC appreciates your misdirection sir.
 
2011-10-18 10:16:46 AM  

erveek: EWreckedSean: And people wonder why the right doesn't support OWS.

No one wonders that.


Your not reading these threads very well then.
 
2011-10-18 10:17:14 AM  
Joe -

Awesome stuff and better than any mainstream article on the topic
 
2011-10-18 10:17:19 AM  

seadoo2006: topcon: mbillips: I don't really see this as "doing something." It's more like "hanging out." When your message seems to be "I don't have enough money because bankers," without any clear proposed solutions, people are going to sneer at you and call you childish. This is more active than putting a green banner on your Facebook page, but it's still slacktivism.

Judging from most of those "99 percent" signs I've read, it's more " because I made stupid decisions and now I'm in huge debt."

Most non-Gen-Y'ers see this for what it is.

The real question is then, why do the millionaires on Wall Street get bonuses and a farking trillion dollar plus bailout from the government while the rest of us suffer? Seems to me what's good for the goose is good for the gander ... The doublespeak is astounding!


The bonuses are explained easily. Because the company (board, shareholders) okay it and the CEO expects it. The bailouts are also explainable. Goldman Sachs now runs our financial politics...after waiting for Lehman Brothers to fail...they then worked with the Obama Admin...by being in the Obama Admin to do all the bailouts that put Goldman Sachs at the top of the pyramid.

OWS is really protesting the policies of Obama's Admin as much as the Fannie/Freddie failures and Wall Street.

Both the Tea Party and the OWS crowd are unhappy with a rigged system. They are just protesting similar (if not the same) things from different ideological backgrounds. Kind of like when the US and USSR took out Nazi Germany.
 
Displayed 50 of 1100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report