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.

(White House)   TFer's friend's petition to force TSA to review "full body imaging" at airports has more than 20000 signatures; will go in front of Obama if it gets 4600 more. Difficulty: By tomorrow. DIT   (petitions.whitehouse.gov) divider line 57
    More: Spiffy, TSA, White House, rulemaking process, United States courts of appeals  
•       •       •

8521 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Aug 2012 at 1:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-08 02:20:17 PM
4 votes:

Boxingoutsider: This is a stupid idea. Planes are incredibly high value targets for terrorists and this is a great way to intimidate them. You don't like it, don't fly. Drive, walk, swim, whatever. 4th amendment doesn't apply IMO as its a voluntary activity that has been attacked many times over the last 40 years.


Dumbfarks like you are the reason the 4th amendment is dying. Because you let them take it away. Terrorists don't give a shiat about laws. Governments are the biggest terrorists there are, and always have been. By your logic virtually every daily activity is voluntary. They can take it away too and they are working damn hard to be able to do so.
2012-08-08 02:03:50 PM
4 votes:

wineskigolf: I have yet to see a credible study as to the cancer risk. I'm open to reading one if it exists.

Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply. I believe that it's already been appealed and turned down.

As for the bombs. i think the word i deterrent.

Both my wife and I spend more time on airplanes than we do at home so this interests me......


If I wanted to hijack a plane, I could do it naked. The only "deterrent" is to people who believe that somehow 9/11 would not have happened if only the hijackers had not had their little knives. Just so you and your wife feel better, it wasn't the boxcutters that allowed 9/11 to happen, it was the regulations then in place which required pilots and flight crews to obey hijackers' demands and not fight back. Those policies have now changed. But if someone wanted to get a bomb onto a plane, which seems to be your fear, they would simply find another way. I can think of several offhand, but I don't post suggestions like that on line. But it is entirely possible.
2012-08-08 11:57:09 AM
4 votes:
Signing this and passing it along.

/haven't flown in years
//will continue not flying as long as the TSA exists
2012-08-08 01:57:19 PM
3 votes:

wineskigolf: I have yet to see a credible study as to the cancer risk.


This is exactly why I don't use the machines.
2012-08-08 01:14:00 PM
3 votes:
wineskigolf is the reason we can't have nice things in this country.
2012-08-08 12:07:29 PM
3 votes:

wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply


Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.
2012-08-08 11:54:18 AM
3 votes:
Here's the deal. A federal court told the TSA (airport security) that they had to "promptly" review the use of the "rapiscan" bodyscans in airports. They use them on everyone going through O'Hare. Aside from the fact that the scanners cause cancer, and they probably violate the 4th amendment, AND they have cost us $2.4 billion, they have never even once uncovered a bomb. This is pure pork money.

Oh, and former Homeland Security officials have made a butt-load on the sale of these things ($170,000 each) after they left the Bush Administration. [Citation]

So of course, it's been a year and no action at all. This petition is asking the administration to force TSA to comply.

Here's the deal, this petition thing needs 25,000 signatures to get in front of Obama. By tomorrow. It's getting pretty close, but please consider signing this to push it over the edge. Yes, you have to confirm an email address, but I've never gotten any spam from them.
2012-08-08 02:41:42 PM
2 votes:

Another Pretentious Nickname: Also, leaning on a little bit of credibility as a cancer survivor, take your cancer alarmism about these things and shove it directly up your ass. It's not credible and it's not proportional. If you want to ban scanners for cancer risk you'd have to ban air travel entirely. Not to mention cell phones, WiFi, and probably chocolate cake.



Father died of cancer, both grandfathers died of cancer, my sister (at 22) had cancer. I prefer to avoid X-Ray machines operated by inexperienced, under-paid, and under-qualified personnel who may or may not have properly calibrated it that morning and have, in the last decade, developed a "stellar" reputation for maintaining and operating complicated pieces of equipment. What's more, since it's government operated, in the event they do fark up I have almost no recourse to redress my injury.

In any event, to match your tone, shut the fark up you ignorant prick.
2012-08-08 02:17:51 PM
2 votes:

Boxingoutsider: This is a stupid idea. Planes are incredibly high value targets for terrorists and this is a great way to intimidate them. You don't like it, don't fly. Drive, walk, swim, whatever. 4th amendment doesn't apply IMO as its a voluntary activity that has been attacked many times over the last 40 years.


All the huge pussies who are scared of terrorists can drive, walk, swim, whatever.
2012-08-08 02:07:30 PM
2 votes:
All of you: the point of the petition isn't the scanners or their effectiveness. The point of the petition is to get the TSA to comply with a federal court order. I imagine most of us would be on board with government agencies complying with court orders.
2012-08-08 01:59:53 PM
2 votes:

wineskigolf: A condition of your drivers license allows them to test your blood, breath or urine.


This is entirely false. Cops have to have a reason (swerving, you smell of alcohol, you appear disoriented, etc.) to pull you over and demand you submit to the testing, they can't just stop you for no reason and make you piss in a cup or stab you with a needle.
2012-08-08 01:24:47 PM
2 votes:

wineskigolf: You have a choice to fly.


I dare you to say that to the face of someone who travels for a living.
2012-08-08 12:46:11 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: wineskigolf: A condition of your drivers license allows them to test your blood, breath or urine

You might want to check up on that. In Texas they have "no refusal" weekends (usually holidays and the like) where if you refuse to be tested a judge will sign a search warrant and then you WILL be tested. Now if you do refuse and are not subject to a warrant, you can lose your license for a period of time but you cannot be prosecuted for DWI due to lack of evidence.


Yeah, I think it depends on the state. In NY, if you refuse you're automatically arrested. It's a stupid law and likely unconstitutional, but nobody will ever repeal it because of MADD.
2012-08-08 12:09:24 PM
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.


This. And the people who have been staging naked protests lately have had their right to do so upheld by judges citing the 4th amendment.
2012-08-08 12:06:50 PM
2 votes:
I have yet to see a credible study as to the cancer risk. I'm open to reading one if it exists.

Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply. I believe that it's already been appealed and turned down.

As for the bombs. i think the word i deterrent.

Both my wife and I spend more time on airplanes than we do at home so this interests me......
2012-08-08 11:57:26 AM
2 votes:
They cause cancer, they probably violate the 4th amendment, they have cost us $2.4 billion, AND they have never even once uncovered a bomb. This is pure pork money. Not to mention the questionable lobbying.

And they let the government see your wiener.

/quoting cuz you probably posted before seeing my first.
2012-08-08 11:54:42 AM
2 votes:
What's wrong with the scanning? I go through it at least 4 times a week. It's no big deal.
2012-08-08 09:54:19 PM
1 votes:

Somacandra: wineskigolf: If you refuse to be searched you don't fly.

[i.imgur.com image 318x283]

I've decided to become a commercial airline pilot who refuses to ever be searched. I can't believe I didn't think of this before. Just sit back and let the Benji's roll in. Its not like I need to be searched to do my job or anything anyway.


As a commercial airline pilot, I have never gone through the body scanners. Flight crew are exempt. Good thing too, as on my last 3-day trip, I went through security at least 5 times.

However, it wasn't without lots of biatching and complaining by Pilot & FA groups that got us exempted. The Thousands Standing Around are pretty obtuse about regs and whom they should apply to.
2012-08-08 06:46:48 PM
1 votes:

Another Pretentious Nickname: Also, leaning on a little bit of credibility as a cancer survivor, take your cancer alarmism about these things and shove it directly up your ass. It's not credible and it's not proportional. If you want to ban scanners for cancer risk you'd have to ban air travel entirely.


It's entirely different to be subject to background radiation and to have someone shooting it at you.

Besides which, these are complicated machines that need proper calibration and monitoring. I can't count how many times I've heard that an airport terminal had to be dumped and re-scanned because they didn't notice that the metal detector was turned off. You trust those same people to say that the body scanners aren't emitting excess levels of radiation?

Incidentally, it's funny that the same sorts of people who say that we don't need to invest in rail in this country, and we shouldn't improve our highway system, also say that air travel is "optional" because there's other options.
2012-08-08 03:28:18 PM
1 votes:

arethereanybeernamesleft: Still, if you think that TSA checkpoints don't keep people from taking things through, maybe you should keep your alien-fighting rock. Get one for knives and guns, too.


You mean like that time that Adam Savage got a 12" razor through TSA security?
Or that time that a guy got a loaded gun past the TSA?
Or the guy with the knife in his carry on that the TSA totally missed?
Or how about the guy who would have gotten on the plane with a couple of box cutters if they hadn't fallen out of his luggage after he'd passed the security checkpoint?

At this point, the rock would be more effective than the TSA.


arethereanybeernamesleft: GhettoWinter: Are metal detectors not also a deterrent?

Not to a plastic explosive, they aren't. Not to a plastic knife, either.

So, not really.


And if the person takes the incredibly devious step of strapping said explosives or knife to their side, the full body scanner won't catch them either.

FFS people, it's like someone broke into your home so you called Jimmy-Ray's Fly-by-Night Home Security to install an alarm, only to discover that anyone can disable the alarm just by jiggling the doorknob, but by golly that's just fine with you, because it's a "deterrent."
2012-08-08 02:59:03 PM
1 votes:

wineskigolf: I have yet to see a credible study as to the cancer risk. I'm open to reading one if it exists.

Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply. I believe that it's already been appealed and turned down.

As for the bombs. i think the word i deterrent.

Both my wife and I spend more time on airplanes than we do at home so this interests me......


I think the point of the petition is that the courts ordered the TSA to "publish the policy in the Federal Register, take comments from the public, and justify its policy based on public input." They have not yet, essentially telling the court to screw off. Signing the petition would request the President put more pressure on them to follow through with the court order.
2012-08-08 02:50:25 PM
1 votes:

spiderpaz: OMFG just pick one instead of biatching about everything chicken little:

1) Scanners
2) Intrusive pat downs that slow down lines and drive costs up
3) Nothing - which means terrorists will be able to easily get knifes and bombs on the plane with you and your kids (a side benefit is that this is the cheapest option per ticket)

Don't be such a goddamn baby, demanding a magic bullet when none exists.



Pretty sure you've forgotten a bunch of other options. I'll add one:
4. Metal detectors and x-ray of bags as is standard in most countries and was standard in ours until all of this BS started.

And yes 9/11 was terrible but as many many people have pointed out, it was a failure of the rules: comply with hijackers, box cutters being allowed on planes (which scanners or metal detectors have NOTHING to do with) that caused the problem not.

As always, if the terrorists really wanted to screw our country up they would take the same amount of people used in 9/11, spread them out in the country and then once a month shoot up a mall, theater, school, whatever. Why do we think the airport is some magic place and only there they will strike?

/Eroding civil rights in the name of safety is more dangerous than any terrorist
2012-08-08 02:46:07 PM
1 votes:

Another Pretentious Nickname: If you want to ban scanners for cancer risk you'd have to ban air travel entirely. Not to mention cell phones, WiFi, and probably chocolate cake.


Because, you know, there's absolutely no difference in ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation.
2012-08-08 02:45:52 PM
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: arethereanybeernamesleft: Have they uncovered guns? Knives?

No and no.


Hey, give credit where credit is due. When bombs are prominently displayed, attached with many wires, painted bright red and have "BOMB" written on them, the TSA finds nearly half.
2012-08-08 02:43:12 PM
1 votes:

maxheck: And another thing!

Why doesn't Obama show us his REAL birf cerficate!

Seriously...

If you want something more than a circus, then provide actual citations on what is going wrong and what you want changed. Don't let your enthusiasm carry you to to point where you post an information-free online petition.


"The TSA has ignored a court order for the last 18 months" is an insufficient indicator of "what is going wrong"?
2012-08-08 02:41:34 PM
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: arethereanybeernamesleft: Have they uncovered guns? Knives?

No and no.


Then they are operating as a deterrent. Convenient that you ignored everything else, though.
2012-08-08 02:36:33 PM
1 votes:

fred_chan: I've signed one of these in the past that did get the required amount of signatures, and the White House did issue an official response. Want to know how they responded? "We can't comment on this issue at this time."

/waste of time


Oh no, you didn't get an immediate response. Better give up forever.
2012-08-08 02:36:09 PM
1 votes:
I fly all the time for work, there is absolutely no reasonable alternative for me (and many, many others), and the scanners don't bother me in the slightest. They seem to speed things up a bit in the airports where they're used.

Also, leaning on a little bit of credibility as a cancer survivor, take your cancer alarmism about these things and shove it directly up your ass. It's not credible and it's not proportional. If you want to ban scanners for cancer risk you'd have to ban air travel entirely. Not to mention cell phones, WiFi, and probably chocolate cake.
2012-08-08 02:35:51 PM
1 votes:

cannotsuggestaname: wineskigolf is the reason we can't have nice things in this country.


on several levels...
2012-08-08 02:34:59 PM
1 votes:
Signed. I effing hate what the TSA has done since 9/11. Pure security theater.
2012-08-08 02:34:08 PM
1 votes:

spiderpaz: Don't be such a goddamn baby, demanding a magic bullet when none exists.


Same to you.
2012-08-08 02:33:38 PM
1 votes:

wineskigolf: I have yet to see a credible study as to the cancer risk. I'm open to reading one if it exists.


The fact that there hasn't been a study doesn't mean that they're okay to aim at my junk.

Also, petition signed. Follow the court order, a-holes!
2012-08-08 02:31:53 PM
1 votes:
Done.

/F the TSA.
2012-08-08 02:30:06 PM
1 votes:

wineskigolf: I have yet to see a credible study as to the cancer risk. I'm open to reading one if it exists.



Exposing yourself to radiation sources (especially X-Rays) is a cancer risk. The question is one of degrees, how much your risk increases depends on how much radiation you were exposed to. In the case of the TSA, the Rapiscan systems need to be regularly calibrated, otherwise the dosage levels can reach or exceed those used for chest X-Rays (which should not only be limited per annum but when performed take place behind shielding). Given the poor pay and training of TSA agents who (are no where near the level of quality, expertise, or pay of medical technicians who normally operated such machines), most recently, didn't realize the scanner was turned off the risk is extremely real.
2012-08-08 02:29:10 PM
1 votes:

akula: Is there some reason the President needs a petition to have him do this?

Methinks some folks don't understand what "chief executive" means... he can make the TSA do this review at ANY time. If he hasn't yet, it's because he has chosen not to. I really doubt the President is unaware that people are generally unhappy about the TSA's activities, he just doesn't consider that unhappiness significant enough to impose change upon the agency.

A petition won't change that.


Yup, he sure can. This is just a way of saying that this is something important that 25,000 people think he should prioritize.
2012-08-08 02:28:46 PM
1 votes:

redmond24: I don't know where I sit on this issue. I don't have a huge problem with these scanners but I figure this petition may get us on the way of better studies, particularly with the cancer element.


People who don't have problems with the scanners should still have problems with federal agencies ignoring court orders.
2012-08-08 02:28:06 PM
1 votes:

gunga galunga: Absolutely. Anything I can do get to shine a spotlight on the TSA's shenanigans.

** clicks link **

Wait, you mean I have to create an account? Awwww, man.


All you have to do is give an email address - they're trying to prevent spam bots.
2012-08-08 02:25:37 PM
1 votes:
Already signed it....
2012-08-08 02:24:45 PM
1 votes:

Boxingoutsider: 4th amendment doesn't apply IMO as its a voluntary activi


So is going outside your house.
2012-08-08 02:21:22 PM
1 votes:

indarwinsshadow: peterquince: Here's the deal. A federal court told the TSA (airport security) that they had to "promptly" review the use of the "rapiscan" bodyscans in airports. They use them on everyone going through O'Hare. Aside from the fact that the scanners cause cancer, and they probably violate the 4th amendment, AND they have cost us $2.4 billion, they have never even once uncovered a bomb. This is pure pork money.

Oh, and former Homeland Security officials have made a butt-load on the sale of these things ($170,000 each) after they left the Bush Administration. [Citation]

So of course, it's been a year and no action at all. This petition is asking the administration to force TSA to comply.

Here's the deal, this petition thing needs 25,000 signatures to get in front of Obama. By tomorrow. It's getting pretty close, but please consider signing this to push it over the edge. Yes, you have to confirm an email address, but I've never gotten any spam from them.

So don't fly. Take a f*cking bus.

Some people have too much time on their hands.


I recognize your concerns, but I also believe in political engagement. Even if it doesn't work, at least for a minute we weren't apathetic. And if that helps even a half of an iota, it's maybe worth it.

BTW - the petition's gotten almost 200 "signatures" since this went green. Thanks everybody!
2012-08-08 02:20:53 PM
1 votes:

wineskigolf: Implied consent



If you don't know the answer then just admit it. Pulling your answer at of your ass (or worse off of what they post in the airport) isn't acceptable. Your answer is a dramatic oversimplification that fails to respond to the previous post since it doesn't provide a distinguishing characteristic. One could simply respond that driving on roads is "implied consent" to a search of your vehicle which would be an error since it contravenes Supreme Court precedent. The correct answer is that it is an special needs search which balances the need to conduct the search versus the intrusiveness of the search. This is an exception to the warrant requirement for searches as well as the need to show individualized suspicion.
2012-08-08 02:20:32 PM
1 votes:

indarwinsshadow: peterquince: Here's the deal. A federal court told the TSA (airport security) that they had to "promptly" review the use of the "rapiscan" bodyscans in airports. They use them on everyone going through O'Hare. Aside from the fact that the scanners cause cancer, and they probably violate the 4th amendment, AND they have cost us $2.4 billion, they have never even once uncovered a bomb. This is pure pork money.

Oh, and former Homeland Security officials have made a butt-load on the sale of these things ($170,000 each) after they left the Bush Administration. [Citation]

So of course, it's been a year and no action at all. This petition is asking the administration to force TSA to comply.

Here's the deal, this petition thing needs 25,000 signatures to get in front of Obama. By tomorrow. It's getting pretty close, but please consider signing this to push it over the edge. Yes, you have to confirm an email address, but I've never gotten any spam from them.

So don't fly. Take a f*cking bus.


Except the TSA is working on getting in the bus/train/subway business. Sounds awesome.
2012-08-08 02:17:14 PM
1 votes:

wineskigolf: What's wrong with the scanning? I go through it at least 4 times a week. It's no big deal.


A complex combinations of economics and politics (through propagandizing).

Economically, the cost of these things is a straight loss. Destruction is not profit: since the scanners do nothing useful, society is left bereft of the monetary value of one scanner for each one owned and operated. It's the same as if you randomly went and burned down somebody's house every week: you can argue that you've done a great service making work for contractors and construction workers and inspectors and the like, but the insurance companies lose money and then go and raise everyone's insurance rates to compensate for the distributed risk of a total loss pay-out on homeowner's insurance (i.e. if you've got a 1/1000 chance each week of having your house burned down and your house costs $250,000, then you pay $250/wk more in insurance to cover the risk OR the insurance company soon goes bankrupt).

Basically the people selling the scanners are leeches on society, like muggers and Nigerian scammers, just taking peoples' money and offering nothing in return.



As for politics, it's easy to get people to let you put in all kinds of crazy tyrannical 1984 conspiracy theorist loony stuff if they're afraid of being killed. Cameras and microphones along the streets and sidewalks, increased police power, etc. Where I live, we're encouraged to spy on our neighbors: if you see someone acting "suspiciously" you should call the police, and they claim someone is "suspicious" if they look nervous, or inappropriately happy, or appear to be talking to themselves... the propaganda here even goes so far as to imply that if somebody seems to be under stress and is furiously texting on their cell phone, they may be part of a terrorist plot to blow up the train, and calling the police immediately "could save your life".

Posters and pictures of bloody boxes here help give us an image of fear. Yes, they show a picture of a cardboard box that has blood soaked into one corner and is leaking red fluid, and say "SUSPICIOUS PACKAGE" (severed head in a box?). Routinely searching people is a good way to remind folks that the government is "protecting" you. Bringing in multi-million-dollar expensive high-tech machines that use gamma, phi-boson, and tachyon scans to do a full-depth physical scan and detect bombs and guns and knives shows people that the threat is more serious than a simple pat-down or looking for a suspicious character. The little old lady next to you could have a nuclear weapon in her purse.

With all this fear, we're encouraged to let the government do anything they want to "ensure our safety." People still make excuses for FDR throwing every Japanese and German person--even natural born American citizens of a generation or two from Japanese descent--into concentration camps "to protect us", but I think the trade-off was too high. We're not here because we're free; we're here because the government has decided to let our leashes out far enough for us to trot around and stretch our legs. They want to remind us that the leashes are there so they can catch us if we go wandering off a cliff? I'd rather take my chances with the cliff.



Costs aren't just in terms of money, I guess.
2012-08-08 02:10:58 PM
1 votes:
Absolutely. Anything I can do get to shine a spotlight on the TSA's shenanigans.

** clicks link **

Wait, you mean I have to create an account? Awwww, man.
2012-08-08 02:04:16 PM
1 votes:
I don't give a rats ass about the modesty issue or radiation fears, but I am pissed as hell that the damn things are _slow_ compared to a good old metal detector. Both in the time for the scan and the added time from having to empty pockets of absolutely everything, not just metal. I'll sign if only in hopes of getting back to slightly less cumbersome security theater.
2012-08-08 02:00:21 PM
1 votes:

wineskigolf: I have yet to see a credible study as to the cancer risk. I'm open to reading one if it exists.

Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply. I believe that it's already been appealed and turned down..


It is "forced consent" by a government agency therefore your 4th amendment protections could be violated. Now, I am not sure, but I would hazard a guess that there is reams of case law stating that the TSA security guidelines are not unreasonable.
2012-08-08 01:59:23 PM
1 votes:
So we want pat downs instead?

I think someone didn't think their cunning plan through.
2012-08-08 01:57:06 PM
1 votes:
Just out of curiosity (because I dont fly anymore). Do other countries force people to submit to this? I dont fly because I am scared shiatless of it, but if I did I think this would really piss me off.
2012-08-08 01:26:09 PM
1 votes:

Aarontology: I like refusing and making them go through the process of frisking me.


This. And I usually have a couple farts stacked up for the occasion.
2012-08-08 01:21:35 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: It does. A condition of your drivers license allows them to test your blood, breath or urine. If you refuse you lose your license. If you refuse to be searched you don't fly.

To answer your question/statement. No, not unless they have a warrant.

Wow. That is an impressive level of cognitive dissonance there.


Not at all.

When you get your license you sign an "implied Consent" agreement allowing them to test you (most states).

There is no implied consent in regard to a car search..

You have a choice to fly. Choosing to fly and enter an airport is implied consent to search. ""implied consent," which means that you cannot refuse to be searched; your consent is implied when you purchased your ticket."
2012-08-08 12:45:50 PM
1 votes:
I like refusing and making them go through the process of frisking me.
2012-08-08 12:40:13 PM
1 votes:
While some of your premises are highly questionable, Submitter, I can't argue that these rape-scan things are nothing more than an expensive set-piece in security theater.

Signed, and passing it on.
2012-08-08 12:14:34 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: A whitehouse.gov account is required to sign Petitions.


All you need is an email address; it doesn't ask for any other info afaik.
2012-08-08 12:13:59 PM
1 votes:

wineskigolf: cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.

Implied consent


That doesn't apply to search and seizure. Oh my god, you let a cop search your car every time you get stopped, don't you? You know you don't have to do that, right?
2012-08-08 12:12:01 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.


Implied consent
2012-08-08 12:10:53 PM
1 votes:

peterquince: They cause cancer


Flying "causes" cancer. The risk is small in comparison.
2012-08-08 12:06:54 PM
1 votes:
Signed and facebooked.
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report