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.

(Think Progress)   Is it better to feed 280,000 hungry children for 10 years, or use the same money to give a tax break for 3340 millionaires for one year? If you have to ask, you're not a Republican   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 486
    More: Asinine, Republican, tax breaks, House Agriculture Committee, Gangs of New York, school meal  
•       •       •

5178 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Apr 2012 at 4:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-26 05:37:03 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-26 05:37:20 PM

Agneska: Is it better to submit simplistic headlines or just stfu?


WelcometoFark.jpg
 
2012-04-26 05:38:09 PM
Let them eat cake rice and beans.
 
2012-04-26 05:39:47 PM

Corporate Self: soy_bomb: Corporate Self: We as a nation need to decide who is more important: the top 1% or the bottom 99%.
Money rules all because we collectively choose to allow it to do so.

I would say the top 50% that pay 97% of all income taxes.

/or you could go with the top 10% that pay 70% of all income taxes
//its amazing how little income you need to be in the top 10%

fark you and your talk of percentages and money. People like you are the problem. Are you even human?


I would expect, if 1% of the people had 90% of the money, for them to pay 90%+ of the taxes collected, and I have no problem with that.

It's a nonsense talking point. Of course those that make more money are expected to pay more in income taxes.

Is there anything else from the No Shiat Sherlock Institute of Economics today?
 
2012-04-26 05:42:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Gyrfalcon: Soup4Bonnie: Gyrfalcon: But you're assuming 70% of the students didn't show up=waste=food thrown away.

And you're assuming his story actually happened just they way he tells it.

So? If it did, then he's still assuming that 70% of the students never showed up, and they just hocked all that food in the trash. I was merely pointing out that, assuming his story was completely accurate, HIS assumption was probably wrong anyway.

Like a lot of conservatives (or liberals for that matter) he's saying "I saw somewhere where our local schools did a free breakfast program, and only 30% of the students ever showed up SO I ASSUME that the other 70% of the program was wasted, and therefore we should cut it." My version is even if that's factually true, it doesn't mean that the food was automatically thrown in the trash (visions of huge garbage bags full of eggs&bacon) or that the money was spent for nothing, or even that only 30 out of 100 students got breakfast during the whole program.

Even if it is factually true that only 30% of the students eligible showed up, the food was not necessarily "wasted" if what was served was granola bars and apples; if 90 students showed up during the week but it wasn't the same 90 every day, it would average out to 30%, and so on. But it's the assumption that 70% of edible food that's getting tossed in the garbage day after day that allows conservatives to make these ridiculous claims which lets them cut these programs across the board. Because nobody challenges their assumptions as if their assumptions might be factually true.

Of course it's also built on the assumption that they are cooking food on the assumption that 100% of eligible students will show up 100% 0f the days.

If the program sees patterns of usage (i.e. More kids show right before the 15th and last of the month because of pay schedules) they likely tailor their operation to those patterns so that the can stretch the funding they get as far as possible.



This has been a pretty decent, thorough conversation of how stupid Giltric was for posting his comment. But let me return you guys to the original comment Giltric made:

Giltric: When they cut the funding for a breakfast program like this in NJ the complaintants failed to mention that only 30% of the students actually showed up at 7am or 730am for the free breakfast for poor kids, if the food wasn't eaten it was thrown out....ie wasted.

What Giltric failed to mention is he pulled that statistic out of his ass, which is why he failed to provide a citation.
 
2012-04-26 05:42:14 PM

chiefsfaninkc: Here is an interesting idea why don't poor people quit having children they cannot feed?


If only there was some kind of pill women could take until they were ready to have a child. Oh right, there is, but Republicans try relentlessly to prevent women from having access to it.
 
2012-04-26 05:43:11 PM

Lost Thought 00: Why the f*ck should children have to pay for their food? Shouldn't all school meals be free? What's wrong with our society that we have to turn a profit by feeding kids?


Well, to be honest, school lunches are usually pretty reasonably priced, I haven't gotten the impression in the 3 or 4 different schools my stepsons have been in in 2 different sates that we have been overcharged. That doesn't mean I don't think this isn't a dick move, I just think that they are are decently priced, probably pretty close to break-even.
 
2012-04-26 05:44:26 PM

Gergesa: Here is something I don't get: Why can't the poor eat each other?


This is already occurring. It's called McDonald's.

Try the McSol Roth Happy MealTM. It is to die for!
 
2012-04-26 05:45:31 PM

Slaxl: It's just not funny anymore. Why does the GOP have a loyal following of poor people who think the millionaires need tax breaks while their children starve? Why does this happen?


A lot of the population has shiat for brains.
 
2012-04-26 05:47:57 PM

Slaxl: It's just not funny anymore. Why does the GOP have a loyal following of poor people who think the millionaires need tax breaks while their children starve? Why does this happen?


Because they'll either never hear about this, or when they hear about it will be convinced that it's a lie, or when they hear it and believe it, will also believe the lies that this is actually good for them.

In short, the media is at fault because they never hold the liars accountable, and the biggest news outlet in this country is the one feeding them the lies and untruths.

/we're farked.
 
2012-04-26 05:49:58 PM

cman: what_now: Guys, I think you're missing a very important factor in all of this: some of those children are not white.

Pay attention, children, this is how you shame people into compliance: accuse them of racism.


Okay, I'll bite: justify the Repubs' reasoning. Please include something about the US being a "Christian nation."
 
2012-04-26 05:51:07 PM

Lost Thought 00: Why the f*ck should children have to pay for their food? Shouldn't all school meals be free? What's wrong with our society that we have to turn a profit by feeding kids?


because it's life and you gotta pay for shiat? It costs money to feed little Jonny and little Jonny is his parents' responsibility so they, rather than your or I, should be the ones paying for it. If his parents cannot afford it, that's something else entirely but there isn't much to get upset about with regards to the fact that school lunches aren't on the house.
 
2012-04-26 05:52:18 PM

Liberal_With_a_Gun: cman: what_now: Guys, I think you're missing a very important factor in all of this: some of those children are not white.

Pay attention, children, this is how you shame people into compliance: accuse them of racism.

Okay, I'll bite: justify the Repubs' reasoning. Please include something about the US being a "Christian nation."


I am not taking a side in this battle. I am just saying that baseless accusations of racism are idiotic and an easy way to get your side to look better.
 
2012-04-26 05:53:00 PM
It's always boggled my mind how the religious right claims to follow the tenets of Christ in one breath and rail against programs for the less fortunate and progressive programs the next.

As Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
 
2012-04-26 05:53:13 PM

Liberal_With_a_Gun: cman: what_now: Guys, I think you're missing a very important factor in all of this: some of those children are not white.

Pay attention, children, this is how you shame people into compliance: accuse them of racism.

Okay, I'll bite: justify the Repubs' reasoning. Please include something about the US being a "Christian nation."


If we give the millionaires a tax cut, they'll buy more food, and when they're done the food they don't eat will go to feed the hungry children.
 
2012-04-26 05:53:30 PM

skullkrusher: Lost Thought 00: Why the f*ck should children have to pay for their food? Shouldn't all school meals be free? What's wrong with our society that we have to turn a profit by feeding kids?

because it's life and you gotta pay for shiat? It costs money to feed little Jonny and little Jonny is his parents' responsibility so they, rather than your or I, should be the ones paying for it. If his parents cannot afford it, that's something else entirely but there isn't much to get upset about with regards to the fact that school lunches aren't on the house.


True, but the fact that they GOP basically came out and said that they're doing this so they don't have to make any cuts in the defense budget for new toys and gadgets and other useless crap we don't need is pretty sickening to me.
 
2012-04-26 05:55:00 PM
I love how a tax break = taking food from kids mouths. This is how liberals argue.
 
2012-04-26 05:55:05 PM

Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Lost Thought 00: Why the f*ck should children have to pay for their food? Shouldn't all school meals be free? What's wrong with our society that we have to turn a profit by feeding kids?

because it's life and you gotta pay for shiat? It costs money to feed little Jonny and little Jonny is his parents' responsibility so they, rather than your or I, should be the ones paying for it. If his parents cannot afford it, that's something else entirely but there isn't much to get upset about with regards to the fact that school lunches aren't on the house.

True, but the fact that they GOP basically came out and said that they're doing this so they don't have to make any cuts in the defense budget for new toys and gadgets and other useless crap we don't need is pretty sickening to me.


So it's like saying "We can't eat this week because I bought a new flatscreen TV"?
 
2012-04-26 05:56:23 PM

Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Lost Thought 00: Why the f*ck should children have to pay for their food? Shouldn't all school meals be free? What's wrong with our society that we have to turn a profit by feeding kids?

because it's life and you gotta pay for shiat? It costs money to feed little Jonny and little Jonny is his parents' responsibility so they, rather than your or I, should be the ones paying for it. If his parents cannot afford it, that's something else entirely but there isn't much to get upset about with regards to the fact that school lunches aren't on the house.

True, but the fact that they GOP basically came out and said that they're doing this so they don't have to make any cuts in the defense budget for new toys and gadgets and other useless crap we don't need is pretty sickening to me.


The GOP are a bunch of twatwaddles. I just don't find the fact that kids have to pay money in the cafeteria all that worrisome
 
2012-04-26 05:56:53 PM

cman: Liberal_With_a_Gun: cman: what_now:
I am not taking a side in this battle.


That comment was just low-grade hormone and antibiotics-loaded steer manure.

I am just saying that baseless accusations of racism are idiotic and an easy way to get your side to look better.

It would help your argument if Republican policies, comments, and actions weren't so overtly racist.

/Oh, and [quizzical_dog.jpg] for the use of "baseless".
 
2012-04-26 05:57:53 PM

DozeNutz: I love how a tax break = taking food from kids mouths. This is how liberals argue.


well, in the absence of the tax break, these cuts could have been avoided and the same net impact on the deficit would have been realized. So, not, it's not directly tied but yes, if you are cutting spending on programs to REDUCE the deficit while reducing revenues at the same time, you're doing it wrong.
 
2012-04-26 05:58:09 PM

DozeNutz: I love how a tax break = taking food from kids mouths. This is how liberals argue.


no, (R) Jesus wants to pay for tax cuts by cutting food programs.
 
2012-04-26 05:58:16 PM

DozeNutz


FTFA:
House Republicans recently proposed cuts to nutrition assistance that will kick 280,000 low-income children off automatic enrollment in the Free School Lunch and Breakfast Program. Those same kids and 1.5 million other people will also lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamp benefits) that help them afford food at home.

Ten years' worth of these nutrition cuts could be prevented for the price of one year of tax cuts on 3,340 multimillion dollar estates that House Republicans are protecting in their budget.


It is just a statement that one is equal to the other.

Not reading. This is how Republicans argue.
 
2012-04-26 05:58:33 PM

MithrandirBooga: Because they'll either never hear about this, or when they hear about it will be convinced that it's a lie, or when they hear it and believe it, will also believe the lies that this is actually good for them.

In short, the media is at fault because they never hold the liars accountable, and the biggest news outlet in this country is the one feeding them the lies and untruths.


Or they believe it's Obama or the Democrats fault.
 
2012-04-26 05:59:07 PM
I thought that money was being shipped to NPR and Planned Parenthood. I hate it when they shift funds around like that.
 
2012-04-26 05:59:14 PM

cman: what_now: Guys, I think you're missing a very important factor in all of this: some of those children are not white.

Pay attention, children, this is how you shame people into compliance: accuse them of racism.


Good point. There is no reason to assume that Republicans are not equally indifferent about the lives of poor white children.

GOP: protecting the lives of the helpless (until they are born, that is...then they are on their own)
 
2012-04-26 05:59:17 PM

vernonFL: alaric3: I suggest compromise:
Can't we feed 280,000 hungry children to 3340 Millionaires?

A modest proposal.


I'd like to reverse it, however.
 
2012-04-26 05:59:32 PM

skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Lost Thought 00: Why the f*ck should children have to pay for their food? Shouldn't all school meals be free? What's wrong with our society that we have to turn a profit by feeding kids?

because it's life and you gotta pay for shiat? It costs money to feed little Jonny and little Jonny is his parents' responsibility so they, rather than your or I, should be the ones paying for it. If his parents cannot afford it, that's something else entirely but there isn't much to get upset about with regards to the fact that school lunches aren't on the house.

True, but the fact that they GOP basically came out and said that they're doing this so they don't have to make any cuts in the defense budget for new toys and gadgets and other useless crap we don't need is pretty sickening to me.

The GOP are a bunch of twatwaddles. I just don't find the fact that kids have to pay money in the cafeteria all that worrisome


Have you seen cafeteria food lately? It's the epitome of saying one thing (in this case, promoting the "Eat Healthy" mantra) and doing another (nachos and cheese and plain cheese pizza? Fries as a vegetable? Tater tot casserole?)

A parent could save money and give their kid better food if they sent them with lunch.

//Not a vegetarian. And mmmmm, tater tot casserole...
 
2012-04-26 06:00:29 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: It would help your argument if Republican policies, comments, and actions weren't so overtly racist.


yes... oftentimes they are. They are not in the case and, statistically, such a move would hurt more white kids than non-whites, so talking about this in the context of something designed to hurt non-whites is baseless.

Happy to help.
 
2012-04-26 06:01:00 PM

qorkfiend: Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Lost Thought 00: Why the f*ck should children have to pay for their food? Shouldn't all school meals be free? What's wrong with our society that we have to turn a profit by feeding kids?

because it's life and you gotta pay for shiat? It costs money to feed little Jonny and little Jonny is his parents' responsibility so they, rather than your or I, should be the ones paying for it. If his parents cannot afford it, that's something else entirely but there isn't much to get upset about with regards to the fact that school lunches aren't on the house.

True, but the fact that they GOP basically came out and said that they're doing this so they don't have to make any cuts in the defense budget for new toys and gadgets and other useless crap we don't need is pretty sickening to me.

So it's like saying "We can't eat this week because I bought a new flatscreen TV"?


Basically.

I even looked at Paul Ryan's budget plan and he's basically bragging about not having to make any cuts for defense.
 
2012-04-26 06:01:33 PM

DozeNutz: I love how a tax break = taking food from kids mouths. This is how liberals argue.


It's a question of limited resources:
Would you rather give a tax break to rich people or use those resources to help the less fortunate?
 
2012-04-26 06:01:42 PM
I would rather "waste" government money on a food program that some poor kids might not need, than hand all the money over to a person who is already richer than any human being needs to be, on the off chance that he'll spend some of that money on creating entry-level jobs at his company.
 
2012-04-26 06:02:37 PM

Mikey1969: Lost Thought 00: Why the f*ck should children have to pay for their food? Shouldn't all school meals be free? What's wrong with our society that we have to turn a profit by feeding kids?

Well, to be honest, school lunches are usually pretty reasonably priced, I haven't gotten the impression in the 3 or 4 different schools my stepsons have been in in 2 different sates that we have been overcharged. That doesn't mean I don't think this isn't a dick move, I just think that they are are decently priced, probably pretty close to break-even.


They are, if you aren't desperately poor. There are kids on that program that get the vast majority of their meals there.

Also, I don't know if this is still the case but it was when I was a kid- they'd make it very clear who was receiving free lunches. I hope that's not how it's still done.
 
2012-04-26 06:03:31 PM
I am not exactly defending this, but this isn't a cut in existing funds, but in the growth of the program. I can think of a lot better places to use the money than tax breaks, but I also believe that misrepresenting the numbers is bullshiat as well
 
2012-04-26 06:03:36 PM

meat0918: skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Lost Thought 00: Why the f*ck should children have to pay for their food? Shouldn't all school meals be free? What's wrong with our society that we have to turn a profit by feeding kids?

because it's life and you gotta pay for shiat? It costs money to feed little Jonny and little Jonny is his parents' responsibility so they, rather than your or I, should be the ones paying for it. If his parents cannot afford it, that's something else entirely but there isn't much to get upset about with regards to the fact that school lunches aren't on the house.

True, but the fact that they GOP basically came out and said that they're doing this so they don't have to make any cuts in the defense budget for new toys and gadgets and other useless crap we don't need is pretty sickening to me.

The GOP are a bunch of twatwaddles. I just don't find the fact that kids have to pay money in the cafeteria all that worrisome

Have you seen cafeteria food lately? It's the epitome of saying one thing (in this case, promoting the "Eat Healthy" mantra) and doing another (nachos and cheese and plain cheese pizza? Fries as a vegetable? Tater tot casserole?)

A parent could save money and give their kid better food if they sent them with lunch.

//Not a vegetarian. And mmmmm, tater tot casserole...


There might be a certain amount of economics at play here. You don't want food going to waste because the kids won't eat it, so you get things you know kids will eat. Chicken nuggets, fries, tater tots, pizza, etc.
 
2012-04-26 06:03:56 PM

EnviroDude: Why not take all the money from the 3340 millionaires and run the country for 17 days. Or cut spending.


If only there were some way to combine the two. Perhaps not to the extreme you propose, maybe start with just the elimination of ill-conceived tax cuts. That, combined with some cuts to extravagant defense programs, and you've got a start.

soy_bomb: Corporate Self: We as a nation need to decide who is more important: the top 1% or the bottom 99%.
Money rules all because we collectively choose to allow it to do so.

I would say the top 50% that pay 97% of all income taxes.

/or you could go with the top 10% that pay 70% of all income taxes
//its amazing how little income you need to be in the top 10%


What point are you trying to make? Because those numbers are indicative of the greatest levels of income disparity since the depression era.
 
2012-04-26 06:04:37 PM

meat0918: A parent could save money and give their kid better food if they sent them with lunch.


was always how I rolled. Except on Fridays because French bread pizza is da bomb
 
2012-04-26 06:05:01 PM

cman: kmmontandon: cman: what_now: Guys, I think you're missing a very important factor in all of this: some of those children are not white.

Pay attention, children, this is how you shame people into compliance: accuse them of racism.

That's complete bullshiat.

After all, Republicans aren't capable of shame.

You also spew bullshiat. This country is not just Dems v Repubs. There are many others out there that do not subscribe to the two party system.


Yet, you are just as ignorant as those with an R beside their name.
 
2012-04-26 06:05:06 PM
I need less cough syrup
 
2012-04-26 06:06:54 PM
I haven't read the entire thread, which means I didn't read 50 posts that said, "The wealthy pay 99.999999999% of the taxes as it is! You can take away everything they have and it would only reduce the deficit by 0.0000000000001%!!!11"

I feel cheated.
 
2012-04-26 06:07:42 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: soy_bomb: .....

School children don't pay income taxes and don't have K Street lobbyists to spread cash out to congressmen, therefore they are of no importance.


FTFY


But we can't feed these kids in that some of them may be illegal immigrants or have brown or yellow skin and then it would be unMurican
 
2012-04-26 06:08:38 PM
feed your damn kids.

and gbtw
 
2012-04-26 06:10:25 PM
Lets change the title to something honest. Such as "140,000 parents too lazy to work want free lunch so they can piss away the money otherwise spent there on drugs and alcohol, as usual." I thought a little honesty might help all you libtards to get a clue about the real world.
 
2012-04-26 06:10:46 PM

spiderpaz: chiefsfaninkc: Here is an interesting idea why don't poor people quit having children they cannot feed?

If only there was some kind of pill women could take until they were ready to have a child. Oh right, there is, but Republicans try relentlessly to prevent women from having access to it.


If only there were some kind of education program which would talk about pregnancy, safe sex and birth control. Oh wait, we had one of those and the GOP replaced it with just say no and abstinence only.

Bwahahahahahahahahhaha
 
2012-04-26 06:12:29 PM

jwilson07: Lets change the title to something honest. Such as "140,000 parents too lazy to work want free lunch so they can piss away the money otherwise spent there on drugs and alcohol, as usual." I thought a little honesty might help all you libtards to get a clue about the real world.


And now for my next trick, I will cut off my own head with a chainsaw.

Maestro, a drumroll if you please!
 
2012-04-26 06:13:04 PM

Geotpf: We call those people "unimportant". If they don't vote, or always vote third party (same result), they are showing they think that the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate are exactly equal in every way and they don't really care about which one wins. So why would any elected official bother to care what they think?


Sorry, being an Independent voter doesn't make you "unimportant". I will vote Dem or Repub, based on the candidate and the issues, I vote a mixed ticket. I (usually*) think both parties are equally good and equally bad, but it doesn't mean that my vote doesn't count. I actually consider it to be more responsible by far than those who vote straight Party lines. I feel in that way, the politicians have to actually do MORE convincing, since I am as willing to vote for their opponent as I am for them when it comes to the letter next to their name.

* I say "usually" because until lately I could respect Republicans and their views, I just disliked SOME of them. John McCain was the last one of these, save for Jon Huntsman. Once McCain went into full pandering asshole mode he started to lose me, Caribou Barbie was the final straw. Before that, I admired that he had the integrity to call torture torture and call out Bush on his "intelligence" in regards to Iraq when the rest of the Party considered it next to treason. UNfortunately, the only Republican I've been able to stomach over the last 4 years or so is Jon Huntsman, and we all saw where 'sane and reasonable' got HIM...
 
2012-04-26 06:13:24 PM

namatad: spiderpaz: chiefsfaninkc: Here is an interesting idea why don't poor people quit having children they cannot feed?

If only there was some kind of pill women could take until they were ready to have a child. Oh right, there is, but Republicans try relentlessly to prevent women from having access to it.

If only there were some kind of education program which would talk about pregnancy, safe sex and birth control. Oh wait, we had one of those and the GOP replaced it with just say no and abstinence only.


If only there was some way a woman could safely terminate a pregnancy because she fears that she won't have the resources to raise a child. Oh wait, there is, Republicans just constantly try to prevent women from accessing it.
 
2012-04-26 06:13:35 PM

jwilson07: Lets change the title to something honest. Such as "140,000 parents too lazy to work want free lunch so they can piss away the money otherwise spent there on drugs and alcohol, as usual." I thought a little honesty might help all you libtards to get a clue about the real world.


gold, Jerry. Gold. Come up with that yourself?
 
2012-04-26 06:14:49 PM
i5.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-26 06:14:51 PM
Hmmm - I really like how y'all get each other all frenzied up on an issue that you clearly all agree with. In fact - let's tax the snot out of anyone earning a lot of money - generally that is about $50k/year more that "you" earn - (where "you" is whoever is asked what a lot of money is).

And yet - there seems to be virtually zero understanding about how income tax works on this thread. You assume that a higher tax RATE automatically means more revenue to the Government - and yet as JFK demonstrated quite nicely - cutting marginal tax rates spurred economic activity and increased tax revenues. If your real objective is to increase tax revenue, then you need to reward job creation (and no - I don't mean give blind tax breaks in hopes someone will do it - tie the tax breaks DIRECTLY to increasing both number of employees AND payroll)

So why don't we pick out the nice things that people with a lot of money buy - and then we can "stick it to them". How about yachts - yeah - tax those really high - the rich bastards will really pay then. Except that they don't - they either fix up a used yacht, or do without. And who loses? They men and women who used to have jobs building yachts (BTW: do a limited amount of internet based research and you will find this to be a true story - and in addition tax revenue declined).

I'm sure everyone - regardless of party affiliation, could set up a nice "either this or that" vote during an election year to be able to have nasty talking points for the campaign trail.

I see - throwing money at poor kids is compassionate - so if someone else wants to solve the root of the problem instead - they should be killed or even worse! SOME people even think that there are certain things that are NOT the job of the Government to solve (GASP).

I would be MUCH more impressed if all of the evidently ample brainpower on this thread were actually applied to solving the problems that make it possible for children to NEED free lunch in the first place - rather than on scoring cheap political points.

(I know, I know - welcome to FARK)

Going home now - so g'night all - might have time to read the reasoned responses in the morning though.
 
Displayed 50 of 486 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report