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.

(The Daily Show)   "You've confused the 'war on your religion' with 'not always getting everything you want'"   (thedailyshow.com) divider line 851
    More: Obvious, Dana Perino, Ali Soufan, culture war, Sean Hannity, faiths, ideologues  
•       •       •

7258 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Feb 2012 at 1:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-14 05:22:16 PM  

hutchkc: Knara: /moral of the story is: penises are important, women are not

damn straight ... now get back in the kitchen for my sammie before i hit you with this branch thinner than my thumb.


I don't like it when other people make my sammies.

I'm very particular about my sammies

Much moreso than I am about my women.
 
2012-02-14 05:22:43 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Explain how this rule ruins Obama's chance to be president of all Americans, then.


You explain it, since that's your statement.

thisone: I happen to believe that prevention is part of healthcare and the easier it is for people to access preventative measures, the better we are all.


As do I. But I don't believe that our view trumps someone else's religious convictions. Again, we aren't talking about the Catholic Church STOPPING anyone from going and getting contreception, only about them not being made to pay for it.
 
2012-02-14 05:23:58 PM  

KiltedBastich: because it is possible (as some have done here) to argue that whatever the law of the land, it's still wrong to infringe on the religious prerogatives anyhow, even through legislating business


It is but I think that's an incredibly easy argument to win ;-) Especially when you turn it from Christianity to discussing Islam. Right "9/11 mosque?"

KiltedBastich: And frankly I find the two points together provide a more complete argument


But I do agree with you on this one. Perhaps I was just too lazy to do both.
 
2012-02-14 05:25:03 PM  

Knara: Much moreso than I am about my women.


NOW that's some sammie love. After so many years I just eat what my wife puts in front of me. It's all bland and tasteless.
 
2012-02-14 05:25:38 PM  

SkinnyHead: If you're talking about the law, what about that US Supreme Court case where that Native American tribe got an injunction prohibiting US government from enforcing drugs laws against them, based on their use of an illegal drug used in the exercise of their religion? Doesn't that support a freedom of religion argument here?


O_o

Are you on drugs yourself? The SCOTUS ruled against them. The case was Employment Division vs. Smith. It's been cited multiple times in this thread. They were not granted an exception to the drug laws, or more specifically, for being fired for cause for breaking them during a religious ceremony, and thus denied unemployment benefits. The SCOTUS. with Scalia writing the majority decision, said the state government could if they chose, but they were not required to because generally applicable laws that don't target religion are not invalidated by the First Amendment just because they happen to impact on a religious practice, and that in fact that was an essential point, because otherwise anyone could arbitrarily refuse to obey any law, citing religious objection.

You're even derpier than usual, SkinnyHead.
 
2012-02-14 05:25:47 PM  

teeny: cameroncrazy1984: Some women don't; they're just that poor.

The mandate doesn't help them. The mandate helps a group of women who are employed. They receive regular paychecks, as well as health coverage. And somehow they're considered victims of a system that force them to pay for their own choice to use a condom or take a pill.


I'm sorry, is there a reason why you can only use one or the other?

If you're not with a consistent partner, you *should* be using both, after all.

It's a bizarre mindset that considers technology that allows a woman to control her reproductive system to be a frivolous choice that shouldn't be covered by insurance as a standard requirement.

/i'm pretty sure you're not actually female
//if you are, you're definitely in a vanishingly small minority of women who think that hormonal birth control is totally optional
///perhaps you're just asexual and don't understand the issues inherent in normal adult relationships
 
2012-02-14 05:27:08 PM  

hutchkc: Knara: Much moreso than I am about my women.

NOW that's some sammie love. After so many years I just eat what my wife puts in front of me. It's all bland and tasteless.


Well, in certain ways I am particular about my women, but sammiches are important.

I had a sharp, white cheddar and havarti on wheat with turkey, mayo and dijon last night that knocked my socks off
 
2012-02-14 05:28:00 PM  

hutchkc: Knara: Much moreso than I am about my women.

NOW that's some sammie love. After so many years I just eat what my wife puts in front of me. It's all bland and tasteless.


There is a reason I do all the cooking.
 
2012-02-14 05:28:55 PM  

Knara: hutchkc: Knara: /moral of the story is: penises are important, women are not

damn straight ... now get back in the kitchen for my sammie before i hit you with this branch thinner than my thumb.

I don't like it when other people make my sammies.

I'm very particular about my sammies

Much moreso than I am about my women.


I like my women like I like my sandwiches: with fried eggs.
 
2012-02-14 05:29:35 PM  

orclover: YAY its BEVETS!!

Release the poo flinging monkeys at once!
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x206]


Don't bring me into this...
 
2012-02-14 05:29:51 PM  

DORMAMU: I had to contact the state AG to get it covered. With out a government mandate stating what is covered, I would be screwed. /csb


It sounds more like the AG intervened to force the insurance company to cover something that was already in your plan. It doesn't make sense for the AG to force Treatment-X through if it wasn't in your original plan, regardless of how necessary it was. I'd say in this case your insurance company were acting like douchy assholes trying to avoid paying out because of a loophole.
 
2012-02-14 05:30:05 PM  

qorkfiend: Unlike all the other things mentioned, the use of contraceptives has very real consequences for an insurer, as they will be paying for all of the birth-related expenses and the newborn's insurance.


Sure. You are arguing that insurance companies are free to exercise their judgement on what they do and do not cover then?

KiltedBastich: Whether or not something is life threatening has absolutely no bearing on the issue.


It certainly does on the topic of whether something should or should not be covered as part of an insurance health care plan. This is why face lifts and propecia are often not covered.
 
2012-02-14 05:30:53 PM  
This thread had potential. Then it took a Bevets to the knee.
 
2012-02-14 05:32:27 PM  
Now that the religious angle has been covered, let's shift slightly sideways and talk about the fact that all of the representatives of religious power - and thus of the moral, Godly perspective on reproduction - were all men. They talk about contraception like it's an affront to God that men should not be able to see the fruits of their sperm. That somehow disallowing the gestation cycle is something that hurts God's pride as a creator. I don't get that. All I see are fat, tiny-dicked assholes who somehow at once think that a womb is the temple of life and the source of all evil in mankind.

...WTF?

/answer: it's neither. It's a womb. You don't have one. Get over it.
 
2012-02-14 05:32:35 PM  

poo flinging monkey: orclover: YAY its BEVETS!!

Release the poo flinging monkeys at once!
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x206]

Don't bring me into this...


Heh. Nice.
 
2012-02-14 05:32:36 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Sure. You are arguing that insurance companies are free to exercise their judgement on what they do and do not cover then?


No, only that the claim that "it's not health-related" is false, and contraceptives are not cosmetic like hair restoration treatments.
 
2012-02-14 05:33:54 PM  

Kome: in 1990, the Supreme Court decided a case called Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)


KiltedBastich: Are you on drugs yourself? The SCOTUS ruled against them. The case was Employment Division vs. Smith. It's been cited multiple times in this thread.


I don't mean that case. What about that other case where that Native American tribe got an injunction prohibiting US government from enforcing drugs laws against them, based on their use of an illegal drug used in the exercise of their religion? That's the one I'm talking about.
 
2012-02-14 05:35:29 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: It certainly does on the topic of whether something should or should not be covered as part of an insurance health care plan.


you yourself have said that pregnancy is a life threatening issue.

you yourself have said that insurance should be dedicated to wellness, prevention, and catastrophe.

a medicine that prevents what you yourself admit is a life threatening issue (and somehow have a 'but behavior' exception for one instance and not the other) somehow does not meet this criteria, however.

you're giving gumby irreparable spinal damage. on purpose.

what did gumby ever do to you?
 
2012-02-14 05:36:55 PM  

Rent Party: hutchkc: Knara: Much moreso than I am about my women.

NOW that's some sammie love. After so many years I just eat what my wife puts in front of me. It's all bland and tasteless.

There is a reason I do all the cooking.


My wife is so OCD that would be tempting fate. I can see the headline now ... "Man killed because he used a wooden spoon instead of the plastic one with holes in it."
 
2012-02-14 05:37:37 PM  

hutchkc: I can see the headline now ... "Man killed because he used a wooden spoon instead of the plastic one with holes in it."


i'd rather see the pics. never know, the wooden spoon might end up somewhere interesting.
 
2012-02-14 05:39:54 PM  

heap: hutchkc: I can see the headline now ... "Man killed because he used a wooden spoon instead of the plastic one with holes in it."

i'd rather see the pics. never know, the wooden spoon might end up somewhere interesting.



I picture it more like a cast iron skillet to the back of my head.
 
2012-02-14 05:39:55 PM  

Knara: The mandate doesn't help them. The mandate helps a group of women who are employed. They receive regular paychecks, as well as health coverage. And somehow they're considered victims of a system that force them to pay for their own choice to use a condom or take a pill.

I'm sorry, is there a reason why you can only use one or the other?

If you're not with a consistent partner, you *should* be using both, after all.

It's a bizarre mindset that considers technology that allows a woman to control her reproductive system to be a frivolous choice that shouldn't be covered by insurance as a standard requirement.


I think you may have misunderstood my statement. It still stands, even if you put 'and/or' instead of just 'or'. There is an enormous list of things that are critical to your personal health that are not covered by insurance. I still have to make the choice to buy healthy food. It is not provided by health insurance. Shiatty junk food is considerably less expensive than healthy food. Does that mean my access is limited, or that I don't have the freedom to provide it for myself? I don't think nutritional health is a frivolous choice. I don't think exercise is a frivolous choice. I just don't think that providing it for free helps anything. I don't think the problem of unwanted pregnancies is somehow higher in women with full-time employment, and that's the only demographic that would be helped here.
 
2012-02-14 05:47:52 PM  

The Bestest: This thread had potential. Then it took a Bevets to the knee.


This thread had the potential to have 35, maybe 40 posts total in it before it died a whimpering death. But since Bevets and Skinnyhead popped in and trolled the place to hell, it has nearly 600.

All the real conservatives, and even most of the trolls, have long since been chased off. The only thing that keeps a fark thread from being a complete echo chamber are the one or two trolls who occasionally pop up.

Otherwise, sadly, Fark is pretty damn boring nowadays.
 
2012-02-14 05:49:44 PM  

hutchkc: Rent Party: hutchkc: Knara: Much moreso than I am about my women.

NOW that's some sammie love. After so many years I just eat what my wife puts in front of me. It's all bland and tasteless.

There is a reason I do all the cooking.

My wife is so OCD that would be tempting fate. I can see the headline now ... "Man killed because he used a wooden spoon instead of the plastic one with holes in it."


There is a reason why I don't allow my wife in the kitchen, either, unless she's cleaning it.

My OCD trumps her OCD when it comes to the food.

/ Yes honey, I want the spatulas in the drawer next to the cook top...
 
2012-02-14 05:51:08 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: ohioman: no one is being forced to do anything, why all the outrage?

A bunch of childless old white men want to force women to have a lot of children.


to rape.

/Finished that for you.
 
2012-02-14 05:51:08 PM  

hutchkc: heap: hutchkc: I can see the headline now ... "Man killed because he used a wooden spoon instead of the plastic one with holes in it."

i'd rather see the pics. never know, the wooden spoon might end up somewhere interesting.

I picture it more like a cast iron skillet to the back of my head.


...and she sure as hell isn't allowed to touch my cast iron.
 
2012-02-14 05:59:29 PM  

SkinnyHead: I don't mean that case. What about that other case where that Native American tribe got an injunction prohibiting US government from enforcing drugs laws against them, based on their use of an illegal drug used in the exercise of their religion? That's the one I'm talking about.


I don't know if you know this, but Native Americans have sovereign territories inside the US where US law does not apply.
 
2012-02-14 06:00:22 PM  
It doesn't suprise me that some religous institutions are against this.

What I think is odd, is that the GOP has decided to make this such an issue.

Anti-birth control is your big cause celebe? What other medical advances are you going to be against next? Maybe insurance companies shouldn't have to pay for that fancy surgery stuff, if you're sick go to the barber and have him bleed you. New fangles antibiotics, forget it - use leeches.

Keep it up, the laughs just keep coming.
 
2012-02-14 06:02:49 PM  

teeny: Shiatty junk food is considerably less expensive than healthy food.


Actually it's not.

I just made a big pot of beans and rice last night. I ate it with a small green salad today for lunch.

Wanna do a price per portion comparison with some shiatty junk food?
 
2012-02-14 06:04:14 PM  
I for one wouldn't mind an actual war on religion. Tax them and keep their adult santa claus behind closed doors completely. If they're going to complain about a war on religion, may as well give them one.
 
2012-02-14 06:09:21 PM  

kevinfra: Anti-birth control is your big cause celebe? What other medical advances are you going to be against next?


I'm guessing all procedures that turn women's vaginas into clown cars. Not only does IVF result in discarded fertilized embryos, the equivalent of abortion, but the sperm provider has to masturbate provide sperm counts and samples. Masturbation is also against Church Doctrine.
 
2012-02-14 06:14:39 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Might be one of the best segments of the Daily Show this year.


This. One of the best smackdowns I have seen Jon deliver to the Real 'Muricans screaming about Hitler, etc.

OF COURRRRSE Nazism/Hitler did not "start small". Dragging in Godwin's slippery slope over insurance reform is petulant reactionary nonsense.

The Nazis was evil from the start, kids. You may very well NOT LIKE what society does, but it does not necessarily make that society "fascist" and the ruling party "Nazis." In fact, generally speaking, it shows you don't really care enough about the issues and distinctions involved to form a coherent opinion.

/"You wanna dance the Nazi dance?"
//too much
 
2012-02-14 06:15:36 PM  

divx88: I for one wouldn't mind an actual war on religion. Tax them and keep their adult santa claus behind closed doors completely. If they're going to complain about a war on religion, may as well give them one.


Fark, all this talk about keeping government out of our lives and our religion .... what about keeping religion out of our lives and out of our government?

The government doesn't have solicitors knocking on my door multiple times a night ... religion does.

Here in Texas, the liquor stores are forced to close on Sundays. Hmmm, I wonder why private business owners are forced to close on that particular day of the week? I wonder why I, as an atheist, can't just run down to the local liquor store and pick up a bottle of vodka if I'm making cocktails for my friends on NFL football Sundays?

Why does A&E have to bleep and cut out half the material on every The Sopranos episode I wanna watch? Hmmm ... I wonder who's behind that?
 
2012-02-14 06:15:49 PM  

divx88: I for one wouldn't mind an actual war on religion. Tax them and keep their adult santa claus behind closed doors completely. If they're going to complain about a war on religion, may as well give them one.


But, to be fair, it should be against all religions. Waging a war against only one or a few religious beliefs is likely to prop up another or set of another religious beliefs as superior. Which would be patently absurd. In point of fact they're all nonsense garbage of equal inanity - though some are certainly more dangerous (pragmatically speaking) than others.
 
2012-02-14 06:16:30 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: The Catholic Church made their position clear on this since August when the regulation was under review and comment. The administration decided to make them mandated under Obamacare. They could have just as easily let it go.

I would like to think they were just being tone-deaf, and miscalculated the opposition rather than being suspiciously cynical that the Campaign wanted a fire storm to mobilize THEIR base, but no matter how you slice it, the White House could have avoided this and chose to 'pick a fight' over it.


Given that the majority of Catholics of reproductive age use birth control, "letting it go" would likely not have won Obama any actual Catholic voters. They can talk a good game in public, but when it comes down to it, Catholics don't want to lose their access to birth control, or even abortion. The only people that actually care about this issue are pundits, because this kind of thing is their bread and butter.
 
2012-02-14 06:17:51 PM  

Kome: Epicedion: lennavan: Er... I'm not sure where to go with this. In the human sacrifice example, the argument would be one right (religious freedom) does not trump another's right to life. Just because human sacrifice is illegal trumps religions doesn't logically mean we can regulate religions all we want.

Oh, assume that the person volunteered or something. Imagine I said something else horrifying and illegal but not a rights-versus-rights issue.

I made the polygamy analogy earlier: it's illegal to be a polygamist, even if your religion says that you can, should, and must.
.


You don't have to go to the extreme of multiple wives or cannibalism. Just witness Christian Scientists not being allowed to withhold medical treatment from their children when they have severe illness.
 
2012-02-14 06:18:13 PM  
i think the most amazing thing in this thread is that people still respond to skinnyhead and bevets. Really, it's remarkable.

/that's why i'm remarking on it.
 
2012-02-14 06:20:24 PM  

someonelse: BojanglesPaladin: The Catholic Church made their position clear on this since August when the regulation was under review and comment. The administration decided to make them mandated under Obamacare. They could have just as easily let it go.

I would like to think they were just being tone-deaf, and miscalculated the opposition rather than being suspiciously cynical that the Campaign wanted a fire storm to mobilize THEIR base, but no matter how you slice it, the White House could have avoided this and chose to 'pick a fight' over it.

Given that the majority of Catholics of reproductive age use birth control, "letting it go" would likely not have won Obama any actual Catholic voters. They can talk a good game in public, but when it comes down to it, Catholics don't want to lose their access to birth control, or even abortion. The only people that actually care about this issue are pundits, because this kind of thing is their bread and butter.


Maybe mainstream Catholics don't care but I don't see only pundits when I try to go to PP. I see some pretty serious mouthbreathing morons who call me all kinds of nasty names for wanting my annual exam. So someone is electing these assholes.
 
2012-02-14 06:22:08 PM  

InmanRoshi: Actually it's not.

I just made a big pot of beans and rice last night. I ate it with a small green salad today for lunch.

Wanna do a price per portion comparison with some shiatty junk food?



Sure. Let's compare it to a bag of frozen burritos and some kool-aid. You might come out about the same or a little bit ahead of me, but I think that only comparing one meal is not a very good study. I'm going to channel my inner-Herman Cain here and add the disclaimer, "I don't have the facts to back this up" (because I'm only going on my personal experience feeding my own family). The cost to feed a family of four a healthy, balanced diet is more expensive in the long run than living on corndogs and mac and cheese.
 
2012-02-14 06:23:01 PM  

Bevets: The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.


But they will be.

The government forces lots of people to do things they are morally against. The draft, for example.

Social conservatives are always wrong. They are ALWAYS wrong. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. This time is no different.
 
2012-02-14 06:23:12 PM  

InmanRoshi: kevinfra: Anti-birth control is your big cause celebe? What other medical advances are you going to be against next?

I'm guessing all procedures that turn women's vaginas into clown cars. Not only does IVF result in discarded fertilized embryos, the equivalent of abortion, but the sperm provider has to masturbate provide sperm counts and samples. Masturbation is also against Church Doctrine.


No, no, no. IVF is fine, because that makes women squeeze out more babbys. They're for implanting ALL of them at once, not discarding them, and DEFINITELY not selective reduction. So you would see more Octomoms.

And of course they don't take the hint when God has their uterus fall out from overuse, so they use medicine to make sure they can have more kids. So "God's will" only applies when it happens to align with what they want to do already.
 
2012-02-14 06:26:22 PM  

teeny: Sure. Let's compare it to a bag of frozen burritos and some kool-aid. You might come out about the same or a little bit ahead of me, but I think that only comparing one meal is not a very good study. I'm going to channel my inner-Herman Cain here and add the disclaimer, "I don't have the facts to back this up" (because I'm only going on my personal experience feeding my own family). The cost to feed a family of four a healthy, balanced diet is more expensive in the long run than living on corndogs and mac and cheese.


Travel the world, people much poorer than Americans are eating much healthier. Whether it's Beans and Rice in Latin America, Kale Soup in Portugal, Pho in Vietnam, Daal in India, Borschts in former Soviet blocs .... every culture has people eating staple recipes that are both cheaper and more nutritious than the junk food Americans are eating.
 
2012-02-14 06:26:34 PM  

CapnBlues: i think the most amazing thing in this thread is that people still respond to skinnyhead and bevets. Really, it's remarkable.

/that's why i'm remarking on it.


Two characters that have established themselves as being impervious to logic, reason, and most importantly - evidence. I'm pretty sure you would have better results arguing with a brick wall. The wall might at least fall over and put you out of your misery.
 
2012-02-14 06:35:02 PM  

InmanRoshi: Travel the world, people much poorer than Americans are eating much healthier. Whether it's Beans and Rice in Latin America, Kale Soup in Portugal, Pho in Vietnam, Daal in India, Borschts in former Soviet blocs .... every culture has people eating staple recipes that are both cheaper and more nutritious than the junk food Americans are eating.


I've never been out of the country, but I'm sure you're right. But the fact that it's cheaper in other countries raises questions. (genuine ones, not snarky ones) Are they cheaper because their government doesn't subsidize x, y and z industries, so that their food costs aren't artificially inflated? (totally unrelated to the thread topic, I know. it's not even point I need to argue extensively. I'm just curious.)
 
2012-02-14 06:35:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I don't know if you know this, but Native Americans have sovereign territories inside the US where US law does not apply.


But that wasn't the basis for the decision. The Supreme Court upheld the preliminary injunction (allowing use of the drug for religious purposes) based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That law protects religious freedom by prohibiting the Federal Government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion, unless the Government can demonstrate that the rule burdening religion is the least restrictive way of advancing a compelling government interest.
 
2012-02-14 06:35:52 PM  

GhostFish: CapnBlues: i think the most amazing thing in this thread is that people still respond to skinnyhead and bevets. Really, it's remarkable.

/that's why i'm remarking on it.

Two characters that have established themselves as being impervious to logic, reason, and most importantly - evidence. I'm pretty sure you would have better results arguing with a brick wall. The wall might at least fall over and put you out of your misery.


i like your style, dude.

i understand when i see noobs arguing with them, but some old-school farkers still try to argue with them. It's almost like a dance we go through in these threads. Though I will say that I prefer the Bevets brand of trolling to some of the newer sorts. He's at least respectful in tone and manner. All too many of the newer class are just vile and insulting, rather than amusingly stupid.
 
2012-02-14 06:38:04 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: KiltedBastich: Whether or not something is life threatening has absolutely no bearing on the issue.

It certainly does on the topic of whether something should or should not be covered as part of an insurance health care plan. This is why face lifts and propecia are often not covered.


Most procedures and medications covered by any insurance plan will be for conditions that can't even remotely be considered "life-threatening". "Discomfort-inducing", perhaps. "Inconvenience-inflicting", definitely. But "life-threatening", only rarely.

In fact, if you took a poll asking everybody in this thread about the last thing (whatever it may be) they had that was covered by their health insurance plan, I'd be surprised if more than 5-10% would be for conditions that can reasonably be considered "life-threatening".
 
2012-02-14 06:38:19 PM  

heap: a medicine that prevents what you yourself admit is a life threatening issue (and somehow have a 'but behavior' exception for one instance and not the other) somehow does not meet this criteria, however.


heap: a medicine that prevents what you yourself admit is a life threatening issue


Pregnancy is not a disease.

The Pill is not disease prevention or disease treatment.
 
2012-02-14 06:40:44 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Pregnancy is not a disease.


it is a life threatening issue, the bar you yourself set. now all the sudden, it's disease.

for real - you yourself see the distances you have to drag the goal posts around to fit this contortion you've created, right?
 
2012-02-14 06:41:01 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Pregnancy is not a disease.

The Pill is not disease prevention or disease treatment.

Unwanted

pregnancy, on the other hand, absolutely is a disease.
 
Displayed 50 of 851 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | 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