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.

(Hot Air)   Anderson Cooper: You do realize that you're lying about Mitt Romney's views on abortion, right..Debbie? Debbie?... "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down"   (hotair.com) divider line 355
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, illegal operation, global dimming, Mr. Roboto, blah blah, Robert Duvall, abortions, DNC  
•       •       •

6717 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Aug 2012 at 9:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-24 10:57:00 AM

McPoonDanlcrat: Posted this in another thread this morning..

I saw Anderson Cooper last night try to get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to admit that she misquoted an LA times article to mislead people she sent a donation email to. He tried hard for 5 minutes and she still wouldn't buckle even after he read the quote and her email. Made her look foolish. At first I was kind of angry that he pressed her so hard but then I realized I was mad because she was a Dem. (as am I) and I had never heard him press a Rep. that hard. Then it occurred to me, this is what needs to be done all the time. This is what I want from our jounalists. I then got mad at her for being intentionally derpish and myself for thinking that the derp was ok because it was on 'my side'. Damnit if I didn't feel a little smarter after that interview.


...and yet, they only do "real journalism" when they're interviewing Democrats. Probably because they know they can get away with it.

Calling Palin, Bachmann, etc. out on a lie: "Stop beating up on the poor woman! She doesn't know anything!"
Calling DWS, Pelosi, Clinton, etc. out on a lie: "Well, the coont probably had it coming, she should be back in the kitchen!"
 
2012-08-24 10:57:32 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?


Unless you want to try the fetus for invading the woman's privacy and give it the death penalty I am pretty sure it would be considered murder since it's a person and all.
 
2012-08-24 10:58:32 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?


Because of that pesky constitution-

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Once you define a fetus as human, you can't simply say, well yeah, they are human, they are persons, but we aren't going to apply the constitution to them.
 
2012-08-24 10:59:18 AM

Saiga410: vpb: Heisenberg-Romney principle makes it impossible to say exactly what his position is at any specific time.

Actually you can know his position at any specific time. It is if you do know this, you do not know where he is going with it. And conversly you can know where is is going but not know what his position is.


Heisenberg says that you cannot simultaneously know an objects position and velocity (rate of change in the position). Now, Mitt being Mitt, we can take it as a given that the position is changing, and at this point in time, almost certainly towards the right. Therefore, with the velocity (mostly) known, we cannot know his current position.

But Karac, you says, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle only applies to objects on a quantum scale. Well, says I, who here doubts that Romney's CPU is a positronic brain?
 
2012-08-24 10:59:38 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?


Because it's then murder. There are 3 positions in this debate.
1. Abortion isn't murder because the fetus isn't a person.
2. Abortion is murder because the fetus is a person.
3. Abortion is murder, because the fetus is a person, but it's somehow magically ok for us to murder a person if they were conceived in rape or incest.

Two of these positions are morally consistent.
 
2012-08-24 10:59:56 AM

Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.

Your point?

I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.

Lots of people wouldn't agree with such an amendment; however, it represents a philosophically defensible position.


Perhaps it is. But the fact that Mitt Romney supports it indicates that Wasserman-Schulz was not lying when she said he wants to ban abortion in all circumstances, since that's exactly what a personhood amendment would do.
 
2012-08-24 11:03:47 AM
i51.tinypic.comi56.tinypic.com 

/God bless her heart
//Democrats please don't let her go!
 
2012-08-24 11:04:59 AM

coeyagi: sprawl15: The interview looked like a textbook case of being wrong while being right.

Agreed. Debbie's not an intellectual heavyweight, and could have framed the argument thusly: "Anderson- look at who Romney surrounds himself with. He might not have overtly supported banning all abortions, but he won't think twice about doing it if somehow an amendment were brought forth that stated exactly that."


I'd have gotten in a jab at Ryan by saying that he's known for two things: the Ryan budget that eliminates Medicare and being the strongest anti-abortion member of the house...and Romney apparently doesn't want him for the budget.
 
2012-08-24 11:06:29 AM

soy_bomb: [i51.tinypic.com image 320x213][i56.tinypic.com image 284x213] 

/God bless her heart
//Democrats please don't let her go!


weknowmemes.com
Lookout....
 
2012-08-24 11:07:56 AM
As Mark Twain once wrote, "A lie is half way around the world before the truth gets it's shoes on."
 
And who but Samuel Clemens would know better?
 
2012-08-24 11:09:22 AM

I_C_Weener: As Mark Twain once wrote, "A lie is half way around the world before the truth gets it's shoes on."
 
And who but Samuel Clemens would know better?


Wait a minute... I've never seen Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain at the same time. You don't suppose...
 
2012-08-24 11:11:06 AM

Dr Dreidel: Galloping Galoshes: Your point? you may not agree, but that's a defensible point of view. Much more defensible than what SCOTUS put forward in Roe v. Wade.

The difference, of course, is that one is settled law, and the other is a philosophy with horrific ramifications for everyone.


All laws may be amended. Your second statement is but one side of the argument. Of course, since the other side disagrees with your position and assumptions, they are either stupid, evil, or both.
 
2012-08-24 11:11:33 AM

Dinki: Because of that pesky constitution-

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Once you define a fetus as human, you can't simply say, well yeah, they are human, they are persons, but we aren't going to apply the constitution to them.


Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?
 
2012-08-24 11:11:57 AM

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?

Because it's then murder. There are 3 positions in this debate.
1. Abortion isn't murder because the fetus isn't a person.
2. Abortion is murder because the fetus is a person.
3. Abortion is murder, because the fetus is a person, but it's somehow magically ok for us to murder a person if they were conceived in rape or incest.

Two of these positions are morally consistent.


Pretty much.
 
2012-08-24 11:12:40 AM

sprawl15: coeyagi: sprawl15: The interview looked like a textbook case of being wrong while being right.

Agreed. Debbie's not an intellectual heavyweight, and could have framed the argument thusly: "Anderson- look at who Romney surrounds himself with. He might not have overtly supported banning all abortions, but he won't think twice about doing it if somehow an amendment were brought forth that stated exactly that."

I'd have gotten in a jab at Ryan by saying that he's known for two things: the Ryan budget that eliminates Medicare and being the strongest anti-abortion member of the house...and Romney apparently doesn't want him for the budget.


Yeah, even better.

Or just go back to... "Anderson, just what in the name of Zeus' butthole does Romney stand for? He could stand for the sodomizing of kittens for all we know. And if we were to have evidence of that he believe this, what assurances would we have that he'd believe it tomorrow? And what assurances would we have that he wouldn't later down the road retroactively retract his switched stance on sodomizing felines? Anderson, Romney has spent decades and millions of dollars obfuscating the real Romney, if such a thing exists. Don't question me what he believes. Question him. Get him to spell it out, write out a god damn list of things he believes. Hold him to that and if he budges, ask him to explain in FULL DETAIL why. Do your job for once, man."
 
2012-08-24 11:13:12 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?


So, a fetus is a human, but it's not human if it was created by rape or incest?

Do you even REALIZE how retarded that sounds?
 
2012-08-24 11:13:43 AM

Dinki: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?

Because of that pesky constitution-

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Once you define a fetus as human, you can't simply say, well yeah, they are human, they are persons, but we aren't going to apply the constitution to them.


At least in Florida, a woman would have the option to kill that unborn baby if she felt like she might be harmed in the birthing process.
 
2012-08-24 11:14:11 AM
 
2012-08-24 11:14:29 AM

magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?

Because it's then murder. There are 3 positions in this debate.
1. Abortion isn't murder because the fetus isn't a person.
2. Abortion is murder because the fetus is a person.
3. Abortion is murder, because the fetus is a person, but it's somehow magically ok for us to murder a person if they were conceived in rape or incest.

Two of these positions are morally consistent.


Question:

At what point do you believe that a "fetus" becomes a person that should be protected from things like Late Term Abortion?
 
2012-08-24 11:15:37 AM

HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.

Your point?

I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.

Lots of people wouldn't agree with such an amendment; however, it represents a philosophically defensible position.

Perhaps it is. But the fact that Mitt Romney supports it indicates that Wasserman-Schulz was not lying when she said he wants to ban abortion in all circumstances, since that's exactly what a personhood amendment would do.


Yup, but supporting the amendment while claiming he favors some exceptions allows him wiggle room for the shills.
 
2012-08-24 11:16:20 AM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?

So, a fetus is a human, but it's not human if it was created by rape or incest?

Do you even REALIZE how retarded that sounds?


So when does a fetus become a person? I would assume that you are not ok with late term abortions, but those are still performed on a fetus, not a person, according to your logic.

Are you ok with killing fetuses that are only a certain amount of months old? After that, but before birth, it becomes not ok?
 
2012-08-24 11:17:17 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?

So, a fetus is a human, but it's not human if it was created by rape or incest?

Do you even REALIZE how retarded that sounds?

So when does a fetus become a person? I would assume that you are not ok with late term abortions, but those are still performed on a fetus, not a person, according to your logic.

Are you ok with killing fetuses that are only a certain amount of months old? After that, but before birth, it becomes not ok?


Also, did I not just say, and you quoted, that not all fetuses are humans? Fetus != Human
 
2012-08-24 11:17:36 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: magusdevil: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: You do realize that once you define a fetus as human, by definition you have to outlaw all abortion, right?

Why?

Because it's then murder. There are 3 positions in this debate.
1. Abortion isn't murder because the fetus isn't a person.
2. Abortion is murder because the fetus is a person.
3. Abortion is murder, because the fetus is a person, but it's somehow magically ok for us to murder a person if they were conceived in rape or incest.

Two of these positions are morally consistent.

Question:

At what point do you believe that a "fetus" becomes a person that should be protected from things like Late Term Abortion?


I'm with Will Rogers when it comes to determining when life begins. 
www.garbervilletheatre.com
 
2012-08-24 11:19:02 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person?


When it's capable of surviving outside the womb without assistance.
 
2012-08-24 11:19:08 AM

kronicfeld: Isn't Romney on record holding different views on rape/incest exceptions? everything


Fixed that for ya.

Seriously, the thing that scares me most about Romney is that I have no clue what his position will be. In the 90's he tried to pass himself off as more liberal than Ted Kennedy. In the GOP primary debates he tried to pass himself off as more conservative than everyone else.
 
2012-08-24 11:19:58 AM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person?

When it's capable of surviving outside the womb without assistance.


So late term abortions should be legal.
 
2012-08-24 11:20:08 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?

So, a fetus is a human, but it's not human if it was created by rape or incest?

Do you even REALIZE how retarded that sounds?

So when does a fetus become a person? I would assume that you are not ok with late term abortions, but those are still performed on a fetus, not a person, according to your logic.

Are you ok with killing fetuses that are only a certain amount of months old? After that, but before birth, it becomes not ok?


So you're OK with forcing women to go to term once they become pregnant regardless of circumstances. Gotcha.
 
2012-08-24 11:20:19 AM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?

So, a fetus is a human, but it's not human if it was created by rape or incest?

Do you even REALIZE how retarded that sounds?



Rape fetusies are gollem
 
2012-08-24 11:21:03 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person? I would assume that you are not ok with late term abortions, but those are still performed on a fetus, not a person, according to your logic.

Are you ok with killing fetuses that are only a certain amount of months old? After that, but before birth, it becomes not ok?


I'm okay with giving a woman control over her own body. Scientifically, a fetus isn't a person until they are born and have a birth certificate. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
 
2012-08-24 11:21:28 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person?

When it's capable of surviving outside the womb without assistance.

So late term abortions should be legal.


Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?
 
2012-08-24 11:21:41 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person?

When it's capable of surviving outside the womb without assistance.

So late term abortions should be legal.


Sure.
 
2012-08-24 11:21:42 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, did I not just say, and you quoted, that not all fetuses are humans? Fetus != Human


Well, unless you're some kind of goddamn idiot, we're not talking about babboon abortions, here.
 
2012-08-24 11:21:50 AM
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a terrible representative of the Democratic Party. Why do they always get the worst possible people to run the national committees of both parties?
 
2012-08-24 11:21:54 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?



The whole purpose of the personhood amendment is to define the fetus as human and confer on that 'human' all the rights and protections that the constitution proclaims. Otherwise, why bother even going through the process? If the sole purpose of the personhood amendment was to simply change the nomenclature but not actually change any rights or protections, do you really think the anti-abortionists would be backing it?

And no, you can't define a fetus as human and simultaneously define exceptions that would take away fundamental rights from that human. Again, that really is the sole purpose of this amendment.
 
2012-08-24 11:21:56 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person?

When it's capable of surviving outside the womb without assistance.

So late term abortions should be legal.


Yes they should be legal.
 
2012-08-24 11:23:22 AM
That is why they interview folks like DWS, Allen West and Trump, they want them to say stupid things.
 
2012-08-24 11:23:23 AM

Galloping Galoshes: whatsupchuck: I guess I won't be voting for Wasserman-Shultz for president now. Nor the Republican candidate.

Who's left?

Nobody, unless you're wedded to voting for hope over experience.


I have experienced a number of appalling right-wing Republican presidents in my adult lifetime, beginning with Richard Nixon, who have worked hard to destroy America and its people. I keep hoping we can elect a series of liberal Democratic presidents and a similarly-controlled Congress who might be able to dig this country out of the shiat-pit the conservatives have dragged it into.
 
2012-08-24 11:23:25 AM

I_C_Weener: Rape fetusies are gollem


"Fetusies," the fantasy fetish you pick up when dressing up like a giant baby is too mainstream.
 
2012-08-24 11:23:30 AM

Krymson Tyde: Did you miss Soledad O'brien's interview of John Sununu?


My bad, I meant that as a reply to this:

IlGreven: McPoonDanlcrat: Posted this in another thread this morning..

I saw Anderson Cooper last night try to get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to admit that she misquoted an LA times article to mislead people she sent a donation email to. He tried hard for 5 minutes and she still wouldn't buckle even after he read the quote and her email. Made her look foolish. At first I was kind of angry that he pressed her so hard but then I realized I was mad because she was a Dem. (as am I) and I had never heard him press a Rep. that hard. Then it occurred to me, this is what needs to be done all the time. This is what I want from our jounalists. I then got mad at her for being intentionally derpish and myself for thinking that the derp was ok because it was on 'my side'. Damnit if I didn't feel a little smarter after that interview.

...and yet, they only do "real journalism" when they're interviewing Democrats. Probably because they know they can get away with it.

Calling Palin, Bachmann, etc. out on a lie: "Stop beating up on the poor woman! She doesn't know anything!"
Calling DWS, Pelosi, Clinton, etc. out on a lie: "Well, the coont probably had it coming, she should be back in the kitchen!"

 
2012-08-24 11:23:55 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?


I enjoy how you phrase that like it's some sort of gotcha question. Isn't it obvious that's what he meant?
 
2012-08-24 11:24:00 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?


Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.
 
2012-08-24 11:24:17 AM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person? I would assume that you are not ok with late term abortions, but those are still performed on a fetus, not a person, according to your logic.

Are you ok with killing fetuses that are only a certain amount of months old? After that, but before birth, it becomes not ok?

I'm okay with giving a woman control over her own body. Scientifically, a fetus isn't a person until they are born and have a birth certificate. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.


So you would have no problem with someone aborting a fetus at say......day 265?
 
2012-08-24 11:24:28 AM

vpb: Heisenberg-Romney principle makes it impossible to say exactly what his position is at any specific time.


exactly. he is at once all and nothing. the alpha and omega
 
2012-08-24 11:25:04 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dinki: Because of that pesky constitution-

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Once you define a fetus as human, you can't simply say, well yeah, they are human, they are persons, but we aren't going to apply the constitution to them.

Also, it's going to be pretty hard to define "fetus" as "human." All mammals have fetuses.

But you don't believe that an amendment can be written as to contain exceptions?


A fetus would not be born no, but it would be a person. And the constitution does not limit it's protections to just citizens. That's why if the police arrest a Japanese citizen traveling in the states they still have to read him his rights. A human fetus would be a person, and murder laws would have to consider the death of that person to be a crime the same as the death of anybody else.

And sure, a personhood amendment could be written to contain exceptions, but why would it? The whole point of a personhood amendment is to get rid of those exceptions.
 
2012-08-24 11:25:23 AM

cman: Oh, and the downvote brigade hath arrived. Cannot have anything negative against Liberalism, can we?


You really don't think that Romney has held every single stance on the abortion issue at one time?
 
2012-08-24 11:25:37 AM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.


Smells like I haven't finished my Rockstar yet. Read into that whatever you wish. You're the one that has no problem with killing children.
 
2012-08-24 11:25:43 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: The_Six_Fingered_Man: sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So when does a fetus become a person?

When it's capable of surviving outside the womb without assistance.

So late term abortions should be legal.

Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?


upload.wikimedia.org
The left has been pretty consistent and forthcoming with this. It's not the gotcha question you think it is.
 
2012-08-24 11:25:54 AM

Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: HeartBurnKid: Galloping Galoshes: Notabunny: Huckabee: Would you have supported an amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Romney: Absolutely.

Your point?

I think his point is that such an amendment would, by definition, ban all abortion, including those from rape and incest cases.

Lots of people wouldn't agree with such an amendment; however, it represents a philosophically defensible position.

Perhaps it is. But the fact that Mitt Romney supports it indicates that Wasserman-Schulz was not lying when she said he wants to ban abortion in all circumstances, since that's exactly what a personhood amendment would do.

Yup, but supporting the amendment while claiming he favors some exceptions allows him wiggle room for the shills.


Is "allows him wiggle" a euphemism for "pisses off his fundie base"?
 
2012-08-24 11:26:09 AM

sprawl15: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, mixed that up. So you are saying that abortion should be legal up until say....26 to 27 weeks, at which 90% of all fetuses are viable outside the womb?

Smells like you ran to Wikipedia after realizing you have no idea what these terms mean.


He's quickly trying to change the subject away from the whole point of the Personhood Amendment.
 
2012-08-24 11:26:31 AM

DarwiOdrade: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a terrible representative of the Democratic Party. Why do they always get the worst possible people to run the national committees of both parties?


To have them overshadow their actual party leaders' comments (not that Obama has a huge problem with foot-in-mouth disease)?
 
Displayed 50 of 355 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report