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.

(Crooks & Liars)   Chris Christie vetoed civil rights. Now listen to the Newark mayor raise holy hell about putting the rights of minorities up for popular vote   (crooksandliars.com) divider line 312
    More: Cool, Chris Christie, Martin O'Malley, state senate, two-thirds majority, marriage certificate, Jon Corzine, civil rights, delegated voting  
•       •       •

6425 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Feb 2012 at 3:37 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-18 06:10:21 PM
The arguments against SSM are so weak and full of holes, yet people continue to cling to them.

It's like they know the sky is blue but they will continue to claim that the sky is green.

I call that nuts.
 
2012-02-18 06:11:39 PM

kronicfeld: FlyingLizardOfDoom: For all of human civilization, marriage was about procreation and creating heirs.

Which is why it's always been denied to the infertile and sterile.


cache.gawker.com

snapclicker.com

3.bp.blogspot.com

i511.photobucket.com

/funny, he just kinda ignored that response, didn't he?
 
2012-02-18 06:12:03 PM
Not to many people under 40 are against gay-marriage, so the Republicans are posed to keep digging a bigger hole for themselves. We haven't had a party shift in a while, it seems people in both parties will splinter off and create for ideologically "pure" groups.

This is all bullshiat opinion but I think the Republicans become more and more irrelevant, which leads to the complete split of the religious right from the rich business types and the libertarians. As the right crumbles, the Democrats will occupy the center-left and center-right due to the far right movement of the Republicans. This leaves the far left feeling marginalized, especially if the Democrats continue to coddle corporate interests and pay only lip service to liberal causes (gay marriage, peace movement, drug decriminalization, etc). You can tell people don't like their current choices by the ever growing amount of independents. This can't mean nothing and this does seem like an era of great changes.
 
2012-02-18 06:14:20 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: smeegle: SkinnyHead: care about democracy. If we're going to change the traditional definition of marriage, I think that's something that the voters should decide, like they did in California.

Firstly, this is a Democratic Republic. Secondly history teaches us the it's a bad idea to put peoples rights up for popular vote.
Lastly, if the tables were turned I seriously doubt you would be saying that.

What California did was wrong and the courts so stated.

All California tried to do with Prop 8 is overturn a court decision a majority of the voting public did not support. The courts should always be subject to limitations by the people, otherwise we have a judiciary subject to no one.



That's exactly the farking point. The will of the people doesn't mean shiat if it's unconstitutional. That's why the Judiciary doesn't answer to anyone. This argument has been used to support everything regressive, discriminatory, and hateful in this country. You people whined in the exact same way when you had to stop lynching blacks, too.
 
2012-02-18 06:14:24 PM

truthseeker2083: Hillbilly Jim: truthseeker2083: I say we get together as a 'democracy' (I know we're not, but shhhh, just go with me) and vote to outlaw christian marriages, marriages of people separated by more than two years of age and people of the same eye color. See how arbitrary distinctions would change the right wings view point?

For those too F*cling dense to understand, that was all sarcasm to prove a point illustrating how infuriating it is that I can't marry my partner because it's 'icky'.

It's not that I think it's "icky" it's a government issue. Civil Unions should be the legal quasi contract that everyone is offered, and let marriage be a religious thing.

While I see what you are saying and tend to agree with it, throughout this country's history, marriage is what has been available, even to those of non religious backgrounds. Civil Unions are weaker than a state marriage, and the only way that would work is if they were bumped up to the protections afforded under current marriage terms. Hope that came out right. I've got a headache and am typing on my phone.


It came out fine. It doesn't matter though. Hillbilly Jim is just playing the definition game to delay gays getting the freedoms they deserve.

You'll note these folks don't get up in arms about the rest of the dictionary and all of it's words with multiple definitions.

Or he is an honest to God ignorant fool who doesn't see that he's.bought into a terrible argument that hatemongers thought up just to get a few more people on board and/or let folks pretend to not be hateful while blowing the dog whistles.
 
2012-02-18 06:14:32 PM
ManateeGag:
I haven't seen him in months. he must get only a few hours of Fark time a month while he's in the joint.


He seems to have been laying low since being outed as an alt a while back. I'm surprised to say this, especially because I know it's an act, but I'd kinda missed seeing his stubbornness around here.
 
2012-02-18 06:14:38 PM
If we allow people to vote on marriages between same-sex couples, can we allow a referendum against allowing Juggalos to marry? Juggalos were never part of traditional marriage, which is between one human and another human.
 
2012-02-18 06:16:15 PM
Can we get Government out of farking marriage? It's an ill defined contract decided ex post facto by a family court judge at the end.

Make it a contract with 2 maximum participants and have people realize what they are actually getting into.
 
2012-02-18 06:16:37 PM
Let's be honest, this is NJ. We lean mostly Democrat. When the vote comes, gay marriage will probably be legalized.

But Booker is absolutely right here.
Civil rights should not be voted on. Gay people don't get to vote on Chris Christie's marriage... Or any other straight couple's marriage. Gay people's rights shouldn't be subject to majority rule.

If integration had been voted upon in 1960s Mississippi, do you think it would have passed? Hell, no.

The majority should not get to vote upon whether a minority (especially an unpopular minority in many states) get to be treated as equals.
 
2012-02-18 06:17:06 PM

smeegle: What California did was wrong and the courts so stated.


It was upheld by the California Supreme Court. I predict that the US Supreme Court will do the same. Even Kagen as stated:

"Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation's citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage." ~ Elena Kagen.

truthseeker2083: I personally don't care if you accept or approve. I just want people like you to stop interfering in my life. You don't know me, I don't know you. Your marriage has no impact on my life, what would mine have on yours?


That "stop interfering in my life" argument don't fly. If you want to be left alone, don't apply for a marriage license. When you apply for a marriage license, you are inviting the government into your life. You make your private life everyone's business when you do that.
 
2012-02-18 06:18:04 PM

SkinnyHead: It's about trying to force the culture to accept something. When people are forced to accept something, how do you know that they really accept it?


You could make the same argument about interracial marriage, or racial discrimination in employment or accommodations. When we made laws prohibiting restaurants from turning away black customers, and requiring schools to admit black children, a majority of Southerners didn't "accept" it. But that was just too farking bad, because basic human equality and dignity are not up for a popular vote.
 
2012-02-18 06:18:40 PM

SkinnyHead: Mugato: SkinnyHead: It is not a question of separate but equal. It's using different words for different things. Using different words for different things does not oppress anyone.

And why do you care? That's one question you people never seem to want to answer.

I care about democracy. If we're going to change the traditional definition of marriage, I think that's something that the voters should decide, like they did in California.


There is no legal requirement to change the definition of a word. The definition of words change over time. It's not some thing we have ever voted on. I'd prefer if we didn't start now.
 
2012-02-18 06:19:51 PM

shivashakti: The majority should not get to vote upon whether a minority (especially an unpopular minority in many states) get to be treated as equals


I think the people should be able to give people rights just not allowed to take them away.
 
2012-02-18 06:21:15 PM

quatchi: Descartes: Civil Rights? I'm pretty sure it was about gay marriage... (checks article). Yep, gay marriage.

The Marriage rights debate is an equal rights debate.

Equal rights = Civil rights

You are fighting a war you've already lost according to demographic charts on support for this issue.

Why do you remain on the wrong side of history and morality?


Equal rights... hahahahhahaha... Try suing for discrimination when not in a protected class. Rights have never been equal.
 
2012-02-18 06:22:37 PM

SkinnyHead: smeegle: What California did was wrong and the courts so stated.

It was upheld by the California Supreme Court. I predict that the US Supreme Court will do the same. Even Kagen as stated:

"Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation's citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage." ~ Elena Kagen.

truthseeker2083: I personally don't care if you accept or approve. I just want people like you to stop interfering in my life. You don't know me, I don't know you. Your marriage has no impact on my life, what would mine have on yours?

That "stop interfering in my life" argument don't fly. If you want to be left alone, don't apply for a marriage license. When you apply for a marriage license, you are inviting the government into your life. You make your private life everyone's business when you do that.


It does apply. Should black people have not applied for marriage just because bigots thought they shouldn't be allowed to marry? And you're right, I do invite the government in, but only to enforce the contract as is. Marrying a man changes nothing about how the contract can be enforced.

Answer my question. What about my marriage impacts your life?
 
2012-02-18 06:22:55 PM

SkinnyHead: t was upheld by the California Supreme Court. I predict that the US Supreme Court will do the same. Even Kagen as stated:


Link (new window)

You would be wrong in your predictions.
 
2012-02-18 06:25:10 PM

SkinnyHead: If you want to be left alone, don't apply for a marriage license. When you apply for a marriage license, you are inviting the government into your life.


Unless you are straight of course, then it's all good.
 
2012-02-18 06:25:22 PM

SkinnyHead: smeegle: What California did was wrong and the courts so stated.

It was upheld by the California Supreme Court. I predict that the US Supreme Court will do the same. Even Kagen as stated:

"Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation's citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage." ~ Elena Kagen.

truthseeker2083: I personally don't care if you accept or approve. I just want people like you to stop interfering in my life. You don't know me, I don't know you. Your marriage has no impact on my life, what would mine have on yours?

That "stop interfering in my life" argument don't fly. If you want to be left alone, don't apply for a marriage license. When you apply for a marriage license, you are inviting the government into your life. You make your private life everyone's business when you do that.


And it was struck down by a Federal Court.

And the Supreme Court will uphold it, because California's Constitution DOES prescribe marriage regardless of the sexual orientation of those entering into the Marriage. No SCOTUS in history would uphold a law that specifically targets a demographic and strips them of a right that the Constitution expressly gives them.

Where'd you get your GED in Law? Mexico?
 
2012-02-18 06:26:10 PM

MyRandomName: Equal rights... hahahahhahaha... Try suing for discrimination when not in a protected class. Rights have never been equal.


Thanks Mr. Duke.
 
2012-02-18 06:26:23 PM

SkinnyHead: That "stop interfering in my life" argument don't fly. If you want to be left alone, don't apply for a marriage license. When you apply for a marriage license, you are inviting the government into your life. You make your private life everyone's business when you do that.


This is also a lie. Government is already in your life. Your income, your taxes, your property. It's involved in hospital visitation, wills, custody, and countless other issues. When you apply for a marriage license you are telling the government, that's already in your life, how it should treat all those issues. You're not inviting them in, they're already in, you're just making clarifications.
 
2012-02-18 06:26:41 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: henryhill: "No minority should have their civil rights subject to the sentiments, the passions of the majority."

This should be printed on money!

And vice versa.


Money should be printed on this?
 
2012-02-18 06:26:46 PM

MyRandomName: It's an ill defined contract decided ex post facto by a family court judge at the end.


Marriage isn't a contract. Contracts have legally enforceable mutual exchanges of promises and services or goods. You're not promising to do shiat in civil marriage. You're not promising to have sex. In most states, you're not promising not to cheat. You're not promising to provide a certain lifestyle to your partner. You're not promising to mow the lawn or take him or her to Tahiti. You may make vows in a religious marriage ceremony, but those are apart from what marriage is under the law of the state.

At most it's like forming a partnership. A merger of each other's interests for the common good of both. And the only times that is generally enforceable is when the marriage partnership dissolves or one spouse dies. It's a recognition that when one spouse dies, the other spouse gets first crack at his or her belongings, and if the marriage breaks up, the spouses are approximately equally entitled to wealth that the couple managed to acquire during marriage.
 
2012-02-18 06:27:30 PM
I think GED in law holders shouldn't be allowed to marry. If Skinnyhead applies for a marriage license it is mine and everyone else's business who he wants to marry and why. After all he applied for the marriage and it's now up to us if he can marry. Who's with me in preventing this atrocity?
 
2012-02-18 06:27:53 PM

Fart_Machine: MyRandomName: Equal rights... hahahahhahaha... Try suing for discrimination when not in a protected class. Rights have never been equal.

Thanks Mr. Duke.


I see you have no actual retort. Thanks corky.

It's hilarious you are implying I'm racist for pointing out that various groups have more rights then others in regards to the laws. How is that racist? Please inform the class.
 
2012-02-18 06:29:09 PM
There's nothing in the Constitution originally that allowed for women's suffrage. But we f*cking added it because it was the right thing to do.

Maybe it's time we added it on to the Constitution that gays have equal rights as well. And don't give me this "HURR DURR...gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else". I mean, they should have the right to marry someone they love.
 
2012-02-18 06:30:43 PM
Swiss cheese holy argument to be purposely obtuse, in lieu of admitting to being a bigot.
 
2012-02-18 06:31:31 PM

MyRandomName: Fart_Machine: MyRandomName: Equal rights... hahahahhahaha... Try suing for discrimination when not in a protected class. Rights have never been equal.

Thanks Mr. Duke.

I see you have no actual retort. Thanks corky.

It's hilarious you are implying I'm racist for pointing out that various groups have more rights then others in regards to the laws. How is that racist? Please inform the class.


If people have 'more rights' by being a protected class, it's only because it has been shown that that minority has discriminated against them in the past. Maybe we wouldn't need 'more rights' if the majority didn't act like pricks to those that are differnt from them.
 
2012-02-18 06:32:53 PM

indylaw: MyRandomName: It's an ill defined contract decided ex post facto by a family court judge at the end.

Marriage isn't a contract. Contracts have legally enforceable mutual exchanges of promises and services or goods. You're not promising to do shiat in civil marriage. You're not promising to have sex. In most states, you're not promising not to cheat. You're not promising to provide a certain lifestyle to your partner. You're not promising to mow the lawn or take him or her to Tahiti. You may make vows in a religious marriage ceremony, but those are apart from what marriage is under the law of the state.

At most it's like forming a partnership. A merger of each other's interests for the common good of both. And the only times that is generally enforceable is when the marriage partnership dissolves or one spouse dies. It's a recognition that when one spouse dies, the other spouse gets first crack at his or her belongings, and if the marriage breaks up, the spouses are approximately equally entitled to wealth that the couple managed to acquire during marriage.


Wait, you dispute my argument by saying it's a partnership? If you are referring to corporate partnership, it is a well defined business agreement.

Marriage is undefined until a family judge gets its hands on it. Alimony, Seperation of assets, custody of children are all decided ex post facto. Marriage is exactly a contract in that there are terms of agreement JUST LIKE a partnership. It is ill defined. It grants you special access to hospital visits, access to SS in various cases, different tax structure, etc. Yet, it is ill defined.

You even have couples that divorce shop to get around actual prenuptial contracts. See Anna Nichole Smith. TO say it's not a contract is absurd, it holds terms of termination as well as terms that change if one is in the contract or out.

It is time for people to actually know what they are getting into at the beginning, and not at the end. Then maybe we can end the farce that is Family District Court where women get preferential rulings simply on basis of gender. Yes I can link you the studies.
 
2012-02-18 06:33:02 PM
The fight against marriage equality is a fight to codify bigotry, to codify hatred. That's it! Any statement to the contrary is a nothing but a pile of disingenuous, steaming bullshiat.
 
2012-02-18 06:37:04 PM

SkinnyHead: I care about democracy


Ask Athens how that worked out.
 
2012-02-18 06:41:48 PM

MyRandomName: Fart_Machine: MyRandomName: Equal rights... hahahahhahaha... Try suing for discrimination when not in a protected class. Rights have never been equal.

Thanks Mr. Duke.

I see you have no actual retort. Thanks corky.

It's hilarious you are implying I'm racist for pointing out that various groups have more rights then others in regards to the laws. How is that racist? Please inform the class.


Hey, is it my fault if he agrees with you?

You can run along now. I'm sure you've got other threads to troll.
 
2012-02-18 06:47:02 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: smeegle: SkinnyHead: care about democracy. If we're going to change the traditional definition of marriage, I think that's something that the voters should decide, like they did in California.

Firstly, this is a Democratic Republic. Secondly history teaches us the it's a bad idea to put peoples rights up for popular vote.
Lastly, if the tables were turned I seriously doubt you would be saying that.

What California did was wrong and the courts so stated.

All California tried to do with Prop 8 is overturn a court decision a majority of the voting public did not support. The courts should always be subject to limitations by the people, otherwise we have a judiciary subject to no one.


Hi there. I've been a resident of California for over 22 years now, and what you said wasn't just wrong, it was very, very wrong.

Here's what really happened:
1. California State Supreme court rules that, according to the California State Constitution, it is un-Constitutional for the State of California to barr same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.
2. Starting June 6, 2008, same-sex couples began to marry. Approximately 15,000 same-sex couples got married.
3. Meanwhile, a Proposition was put on the ballot to change the State Constitution so as to take the right to marriage away from same-sex couples. The campaign to get this Proposition passed was heavily funded, to the tune of millions of dollars, by outside groups supported by the Mormon and Roman Catholic church.
4. The Proposition passes. No more same-sex marriages are allowed, though 15,000 couples remain married.
5. The groups who supported Proposition 8, who, prior to its passage, said they weren't going to do anything about the existing marriages, seek to get them overturned. Lying bastards.
6. On August 4, 2010, judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was un-Constitutional. The lawyers who defended Proposition 8, when asked directly by the judge what harm the legalization of same-sex marriage would cause, were unable to come up with anything.
7. This ruling was appealed. On February 7, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of California ruled that yes, Proposition 8 is indeed un-Constitutional.

Note: the majority now supports legal same sex marriage... so I'll assume you'll try to come up with some other justification for your opposition.

You, and those like you, are on the wrong side of history. Future generations will look upon attitudes like yours with the same mix of bafflement and disgust with which we view the racial bigots of the past.

/dustbin of history
//your attitudes go there
 
2012-02-18 06:48:03 PM

MyRandomName: Wait, you dispute my argument by saying it's a partnership? If you are referring to corporate partnership, it is a well defined business agreement.


I'm saying it's "more like a partnership." Corporations and partnerships are different things. You can have a partnership by written agreement, and you can promise certain things. Or you can have a partnership that is more informal, but acknowledged by the common law, which will determine what each partner's entitlement to profit and responsibility for debt is when the partnership splits up. You don't even need to register a partnership (just as you used not to have to register a marriage, if you were living together like a husband and a wife for a fixed period of time - this was called a common-law marriage); all it takes is entering into a arrangement that looks like it's intended to be a partnership.

What terms of agreement do you say that there are to marriage?
 
2012-02-18 06:50:06 PM

MyRandomName: Then maybe we can end the farce that is Family District Court where women get preferential rulings simply on basis of gender. Yes I can link you the studies.


I don't doubt you on that. But that's a separate issue. Rather than abolish civil marriage, the state could just as easily spell out rules of custody, visitation, and distribution of property by statute so that courts do not have wide equitable discretion. That's also a reasonable reform.
 
2012-02-18 06:50:49 PM
So no answer on how my marriage would have any impact on anyone else's life? Anyone have an answer that doesn't boil down to 'it's icky'? Because I'll tell ya, from my view point straight people are 'icky' but I'm not marching in the streets to get it banned. You know why? It doesn't impact my life at all.
 
2012-02-18 06:54:57 PM

truthseeker2083: So no answer on how my marriage would have any impact on anyone else's life?


It would impact my life because I might have to buy you fabulous gifts if invited to the wedding. Sense gay men generally have impeccable taste, the gift would be rather expensive. Therefore, I would bust my budget thusly impacting my life.
amirite?
 
2012-02-18 06:57:52 PM

smeegle: truthseeker2083: So no answer on how my marriage would have any impact on anyone else's life?

It would impact my life because I might have to buy you fabulous gifts if invited to the wedding. Sense gay men generally have impeccable taste, the gift would be rather expensive. Therefore, I would bust my budget thusly impacting my life.
amirite?


Maybe for most gays, but my partner and I are gay truckers, so adjust gifts accordingly please. ;) Some tire shine and fuzzy dice would be nice.
 
2012-02-18 07:01:59 PM

truthseeker2083: Some tire shine and fuzzy dice would be nice.


Lovely, you got it.
Maybe some nice cotton hankies in you favorite color too :P
 
2012-02-18 07:06:11 PM

smeegle: truthseeker2083: Some tire shine and fuzzy dice would be nice.

Lovely, you got it.
Maybe some nice cotton hankies in you favorite color too :P


That's awesome, you've got my partner and I rolling. Peach is a nice color, like the Orange 4 your posts now show up in ;)
 
2012-02-18 07:09:44 PM

truthseeker2083: Peach is a nice color


Peach, oh la la.
I was thinking maybe a nice blue and gray.
 
2012-02-18 07:10:00 PM

SkinnyHead: That "stop interfering in my life" argument don't fly. If you want to be left alone, don't apply for a marriage license.


Same with those uppity Negroes, right Adolf?
 
2012-02-18 07:12:27 PM

smeegle: truthseeker2083: Peach is a nice color

Peach, oh la la.
I was thinking maybe a nice blue and gray.


I may not fit the sterotype, but why limit it to such drab colors?
 
2012-02-18 07:14:13 PM

SkinnyHead: Mugato: SkinnyHead: It is not a question of separate but equal. It's using different words for different things. Using different words for different things does not oppress anyone.

And why do you care? That's one question you people never seem to want to answer.

I care about democracy. If we're going to change the traditional definition of marriage, I think that's something that the voters should decide, like they did in California.


So you agree then that the voters of US southern states should have been able in the 1950s to vote directly on whether or not to keep or end segregation? Segregation was traditional in the US South.

So, you think we should be able to directly vote on the rights of minorities, how about individuals. If we got up enough signatures in your state to hold a referendum on what rights, you, Skinnyhead, as an individual were allowed, you would support that as it's very democratic, right?
 
2012-02-18 07:15:02 PM

truthseeker2083: smeegle: truthseeker2083: Peach is a nice color

Peach, oh la la.
I was thinking maybe a nice blue and gray.

I may not fit the sterotype, but why limit it to such drab colors?


Good question. Peach it is.
BearNation?

My guys across the street have a cute little statue of a bear in their front yard.

Anyhow, congrats on possible impending nuptuals.
Keep on truckin!
 
2012-02-18 07:18:47 PM

smeegle: truthseeker2083: smeegle: truthseeker2083: Peach is a nice color

Peach, oh la la.
I was thinking maybe a nice blue and gray.

I may not fit the sterotype, but why limit it to such drab colors?

Good question. Peach it is.
BearNation?

My guys across the street have a cute little statue of a bear in their front yard.

Anyhow, congrats on possible impending nuptuals.
Keep on truckin!


Thanks! As a matter of fact, we're going to put in for some home time in NY sometime soon and take a few days to get married. Now that you mention it, I guess we do qualify as bears. Never really thought of it.
 
2012-02-18 07:22:24 PM

truthseeker2083: I guess we do qualify as bears. Never really thought of it.


Thats okay purple 5, being yourself is even better.
 
2012-02-18 07:22:26 PM
dumbimages.net
 
2012-02-18 07:24:33 PM

cmunic8r99: [dumbimages.net image 237x311]


I think she's hot. Cute little policy wonk that she is.
 
2012-02-18 07:26:40 PM

smeegle: truthseeker2083: I guess we do qualify as bears. Never really thought of it.

Thats okay purple 5, being yourself is even better.


Yup, that's actually a reason we became truckers. It seems to fit us and allow us to be who and what we are. I read your profile, thanks for your service! My parents (and partner) were USAF as well and I respect the military and all those who serve. Thanks again!
 
2012-02-18 07:28:52 PM

truthseeker2083: smeegle: truthseeker2083: Peach is a nice color

Peach, oh la la.
I was thinking maybe a nice blue and gray.

I may not fit the sterotype, but why limit it to such drab colors?


Because, if you're not careful with the colors you might end up in a surprise threesome with a robot wielding a giant rubber fist attachment and an angry gorilla..
 
Displayed 50 of 312 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report