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.

(Huffington Post)   Michael Moore: "I think people should start to practice the words 'President Romney.'   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 269
    More: Obvious, Michael Moore, Mitt Romney, First Lady Michelle Obama, human beings, Thomas E. Donilon, Admiral Mike Mullen, Joint Special Operations Command, Eisenhower Executive Office Building  
•       •       •

7608 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Aug 2012 at 3:36 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-31 05:03:28 PM

Hobodeluxe: I can recall people saying "no way can Bush get re-elected" a lot around here too.



Bush had the benefit of 9/11 and "terror threats".
 
2012-08-31 05:06:20 PM
A Romney Administration will go after Internet pr0n and make the enforcement of television "decency" regulations a priority. Vote Obama.

//It may be that simple.
 
2012-08-31 05:07:44 PM

LazarusLong42: If he meant it in the sense of "If you don't get up off your lazy ass and vote, you'd best start thinking about those words" or even "President Romney is still a possibility, be scared of this, go vote," then hey, I'm all right with this.


Basically, he said both of those. He said not to underestimate the opposition and recognize the huge influence of money, but also get out and vote to counter this rather than assuming victory. His concern is people are becoming complacent, believing President Obama will again be President.
 
2012-08-31 05:07:44 PM

Serious Black: se spending, or cutting taxes so much that they couldn't balance the budget no matter what, do you think he's going to veto those things? Or is he going to sign the bill? Grover Norquist has already stated that he just wants Mitt Romney to sign what Congress puts in front of


I totally see him doing that. But it's the congress critters that worry me as the crazy they can create.
 
2012-08-31 05:07:58 PM

IntertubeUser: A Romney Administration will go after Internet pr0n and make the enforcement of television "decency" regulations a priority. Vote Obama.

//It may be that simple.


Only if you can really say with a straight face that 51% of this country buys into that kind of puritanism. I can't.
 
2012-08-31 05:08:07 PM
www.mopo.ca
 
2012-08-31 05:08:41 PM

The Great EZE: Outside of the money thing you're basically saying the exact same things that were said in 2008. When the stock market plunged and McCain had no response for it, people were handing the election to Obama then and there. Then pundits started showing concern about overconfidence. But people still went out to vote for him in record numbers.

Presidential elections have a way of stirring shiftless lazy Americans into 15 minutes of action every time. I don't know how it is: maybe it's the incessant commercials, maybe it's family members goading them, maybe it's those stupid "I Voted" stickers, but we have a tendency to sack up when decision time comes.

Even a moderate amount of "sacking up" in the swing states (the states that are hammered the most by social pressure) should do it for the President.


Rev. Skarekroe: MurphyMurphy: you think you've lost faith in your nation just looking at the nutjob Republicans?
wait until the depression that hits when your watching the map light up and realize Democrats didn't even turn out to hand Obama his 'guaranteed win'.

Not all of us. Hell, I'm voting for Obama and he's guaranteed to lose in my state.


I'm in a swing state (PA) and it's going to be real close I think.

No one that I know that seemed to give a shiat in '08 is at all interested in this election (all 20-30 somethings) and it's frustrating. It's their vote to not use... but if other social circles are the same way it's not a good sign.

Inner city turnout is going to be even less I'll bet. I'm using a stereotype and making assumptions about people... but I have a good feeling the week of the election there will be thousands of people in Philadelphia that have NO FKING CLUE that they have to vote for Obama again. Many people in the larger population centers weren't even aware that midterm elections existed (how the tea party nabbed the house and many governorships)... many (D) voters have little-to-no understanding of how this shiat works and when it is they are supposed to do their part.

I agree there is always doomsaying. But don't forget that the last time Peter called wolf, there actually was a wolf. And nobody farking paid any attention.
 
2012-08-31 05:09:10 PM

skykid: Hobodeluxe: I can recall people saying "no way can Bush get re-elected" a lot around here too.



Bush had the benefit of 9/11 and "terror threats".


He also had the benefit of early Rombot prototype, model name "John Kerry." And Obama's "I killed OBL" will = Bush's "I kept you safe."

I also recall a shocking number of anti-gay measures on local ballots that were cited as being part of the reason for a high Bush turnout. Basically every farkup the Dems made and every advantage the GOP in 2004 is working inversely (or is it conversely?) in 2012.

All the Democrats need to do is put measures on local ballots defining rape as "a very bad thing" and the cycle will be complete.
 
2012-08-31 05:14:01 PM

whidbey: vygramul: This is actually quite a bone of contention in the Democratic Party, with some people suggesting that we should stoop to merely messaging, damn the honesty, because it's what Republicans have been doing.

Who's suggesting that?

I thought Bowling for Columbine was way over the line, but Farenheit 911 went from manipulating facts and lies by omission to simply outright lying, like the trivially disprovable assertion that the bin Ladens were allowed to leave before US airspace was open.

I never saw either, but I do remember a bunch of righties getting their panties in a wad over whether F9/11 was factual or not.

To my knowledge, I'm not sure how much of their whining about it stuck or not.

It's still an incredible indictment on the Bush administration.


I used to say that there was plenty of reason to hate Bush without having to make shiat up. When you make shiat up, it gives the opposition something to latch onto and attack, with good reason, and distract from the perfectly valid reasons fo which Bush should have been kicked out of office. I don't find the film worth referencing because that well is so poisoned, even with the stuff that he pointed out that was true.

whidbey: vygramul: whidbey: FWIW, Moore usually annoys me. But aside from the sideshow, he does make some pertinent points that nobody else in the mainstream is. They don't even dare. If that's being a "douche," so what?

Do you think he should be nicer about some of hard unpleasant truths in this country?

I should point out that the ultimate tragedy is that he had very important things to say in Bowling for Columbine, but that (for me, anyway) it was terribly spoiled by the presentation. He chose controversy as the vehicle for popularizing the issue, but in the process so hopelessly muddied the water it even did a disservice to people who want more gun control.

Again, I need to see the movie, but some people just aren't moderates, and they don't feel that being moderate is the way to present things. Take it or leave it, it's their preferred means of expression.


True enough. I express my opinion to it. But I would never say you should just take my word for it. Watching the films is something I would suggest someone do if they want to argue about their contents. I intend, if I can do so without paying for some service I do not already receive, to watch Obama2016 in order to be appropriately informed about its preferred means of expression.
 
2012-08-31 05:14:48 PM

whidbey: IntertubeUser: A Romney Administration will go after Internet pr0n and make the enforcement of television "decency" regulations a priority. Vote Obama.

//It may be that simple.

Only if you can really say with a straight face that 51% of this country buys into that kind of puritanism. I can't.


Do you really think that 51% of Americans were that bothered by Janet Jackson's boob? Do you think that every law and regulation on the books is supported by +51% of Americans?

This election is the Theocrats vs. the sane, rational rest of us.

If Romney wins, start stocking up on Sears catalogs.
 
2012-08-31 05:15:19 PM

whidbey: IntertubeUser: A Romney Administration will go after Internet pr0n and make the enforcement of television "decency" regulations a priority. Vote Obama.

//It may be that simple.

Only if you can really say with a straight face that 51% of this country buys into that kind of puritanism. I can't.


Technically, you only need 51% of the 40% of Americans who vote.
 
2012-08-31 05:15:34 PM
People are expecting too much of these polls. Even 538 (the pick of the litter, IMHO) can only tell us what would happen if the election were held tomorrow - not 60 days from now.
The GOP has some catchup tp play - the "convention bump" hasn't worked out for them - we'll just have to see what they do next, and whether it does any good.
 
2012-08-31 05:15:51 PM

vygramul: I intend, if I can do so without paying for some service I do not already receive, to watch Obama2016 in order to be appropriately informed about its preferred means of expression.


Yeah I wouldn't mind stumbling upon a copy of that, myself.
 
2012-08-31 05:15:55 PM

IntertubeUser: whidbey: IntertubeUser: A Romney Administration will go after Internet pr0n and make the enforcement of television "decency" regulations a priority. Vote Obama.

//It may be that simple.

Only if you can really say with a straight face that 51% of this country buys into that kind of puritanism. I can't.

Do you really think that 51% of Americans were that bothered by Janet Jackson's boob? Do you think that every law and regulation on the books is supported by +51% of Americans?

This election is the Theocrats vs. the sane, rational rest of us.

If Romney wins, start stocking up on Sears catalogs.


Ha!
 
2012-08-31 05:16:31 PM
 
2012-08-31 05:16:36 PM

MurphyMurphy: I'm in a swing state (PA) and it's going to be real close I think.

No one that I know that seemed to give a shiat in '08 is at all interested in this election (all 20-30 somethings) and it's frustrating. It's their vote to not use... but if other social circles are the same way it's not a good sign.

Inner city turnout is going to be even less I'll bet. I'm using a stereotype and making assumptions about people... but I have a good feeling the week of the election there will be thousands of people in Philadelphia that have NO FKING CLUE that they have to vote for Obama again. Many people in the larger population centers weren't even aware that midterm elections existed (how the tea party nabbed the house and many governorships)... many (D) voters have little-to-no understanding of how this shiat works and when it is they are supposed to do their part.

I agree there is always doomsaying. But don't forget that the last time Peter called wolf, there actually was a wolf. And nobody farking paid any attention.


Okay, now you're getting ridiculous. And I think you're forgetting that Obama can run a pretty good campaign. He'll be out in the swing states, stumping his heart out, town halling until his face turns blue. Local heroes (both popular and political) will be acting as surrogates annoying the denizens to no end. His highlights and Conservative lowlights ("HE'S A TERRORIST!") will go viral. The ads are going to air during Monday Night Football, American Idol, Survivor, and freakin' Glee. People will know. People always figure it out in time.

The real campaign season is only just beginning.
 
2012-08-31 05:17:41 PM

jso2897: People are expecting too much of these polls. Even 538 (the pick of the litter, IMHO) can only tell us what would happen if the election were held tomorrow - not 60 days from now.
The GOP has some catchup tp play - the "convention bump" hasn't worked out for them - we'll just have to see what they do next, and whether it does any good.


Nate Silver has truly impressed me, and I concur with your assessment.
 
2012-08-31 05:18:27 PM

IntertubeUser: If Romney wins, start stocking up on Sears catalogs.


Damn. I knew I forgot to do something important this year.
 
2012-08-31 05:19:27 PM

Rich Cream: He's just firing up the base.


If there were any year where firing up the base mattered, this is the year that's perhaps only second to four years ago.

It's 18 hours after hearing Romney dismiss climate change and my blood is still boiling. I want that farker to be sitting in the Cayman Islands in December knowing full well that America collectively thinks he's an arsehole....an unfit, unacceptable, unlikable and untrustworthy arsehole.

And then I want to find some way so that he can't be referred to as the Governor of Massachusetts ever again.
 
2012-08-31 05:19:28 PM

vygramul: jso2897: People are expecting too much of these polls. Even 538 (the pick of the litter, IMHO) can only tell us what would happen if the election were held tomorrow - not 60 days from now.
The GOP has some catchup tp play - the "convention bump" hasn't worked out for them - we'll just have to see what they do next, and whether it does any good.

Nate Silver has truly impressed me, and I concur with your assessment.


As you said - the real campaign starts now - and the GOP has to play catch-up. The probabilities are against them - but that doesn't mean they can't win, only that it is less probable.
 
2012-08-31 05:20:47 PM

Walker: Who cares what he says, he's fat!

/Typical Republican response to anything Michael Moore says


I never see dens call Rush fat. Never. Michael Moore is a lying whore. Like you.
 
2012-08-31 05:21:24 PM

whidbey: IntertubeUser: A Romney Administration will go after Internet pr0n and make the enforcement of television "decency" regulations a priority. Vote Obama.

//It may be that simple.

Only if you can really say with a straight face that 51% of this country buys into that kind of puritanism. I can't.


I live in Georgia. I sure as hell can.
 
2012-08-31 05:21:41 PM
I'm guessing Moore is working on a film about PACs and the super version thereof.
 
2012-08-31 05:23:31 PM

robbiex0r: I'm guessing Moore is working on a film about PACs and the super version thereof.


Because he would never ever make a politically-tinged statement unless he were plugging a movie. You just couldn't be going there with this.
 
2012-08-31 05:24:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: WombatControl: They said that we would cut $716 from Medicare - that's A) not going to happen

Why not?


Because it's politically suicidal.

Ryan's plan makes cuts to Medicare in the same amount, but doesn't double-count those cuts. The money goes right back to the Medicare trust fund. And quite frankly, even that isn't going to work. The argument that there's fraud and abuse in Medicare is true. The argument that there's $716 billion worth of fraud and abuse in Medicare is ridiculous. You simply cannot cut that much from Medicare without reducing payments to doctors, which will make it harder for Medicare patients to get care.

In the end, neither Obamacare nor Ryan's plan can really count on those cuts ever going through. Neither side is actually going to cut $716 billion from Medicare, because both sides want to have a chance in hell at getting reelected.
 
2012-08-31 05:26:13 PM
Hope so, but probably not. Very hard to beat an incumbent.
 
2012-08-31 05:27:01 PM

Nemo's Brother: Walker: Who cares what he says, he's fat!

/Typical Republican response to anything Michael Moore says

I never see dens call Rush fat. Never. Michael Moore is a lying whore. Like you.


i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-31 05:27:51 PM

vygramul: jso2897: People are expecting too much of these polls. Even 538 (the pick of the litter, IMHO) can only tell us what would happen if the election were held tomorrow - not 60 days from now.
The GOP has some catchup tp play - the "convention bump" hasn't worked out for them - we'll just have to see what they do next, and whether it does any good.

Nate Silver has truly impressed me, and I concur with your assessment.


I agree with this. But the problem with Nate Silver's predictions is that they're based largely on polls, which means that they're going to reflect the incomplete state of polling right now. That problem will lessen as more and better polls come out, but Silver is giving credence to old polls along with the new. That's not always bad, but it depends on how you do the weighting.

But the biggest problem with Silver's model is that he's the only one who knows how it works. There could be a whole shiat-ton of assumptions in there than could prejudice his analysis. The more shiat you add into a statistical model, the more opportunities for error you introduce.

Silver's a smart guy, and he does good work, but you should never take his stuff as gospel.
 
2012-08-31 05:32:21 PM
No matter who wins at this point, Moore loses: Romney is diametrically opposed to everything Moore stands for, but his ability to vastly outspend Obama means that if Obama wins anyway, Moore's entire core political assumption -that we live in a plutocracy where money is the only real agent of change- falls apart. Either way, Moore loses.

For the record, I think Obama will win.
 
2012-08-31 05:33:11 PM
Look, I think we can all agree that Obama needs to win in November, because if he doesn't, the cries of "Racism!" will be so shrill for the next four windows that glass objects worldwide will have an expected life of about 10 seconds.
 
2012-08-31 05:33:18 PM
One more...

Copy pasta from Romney's Wiki page

During his years in business, Romney held several specific positions in the local lay clergy, which consists of worthy males over the age of 12. Around 1977, he became a counselor to the president of the Boston Stake. He served as bishop of the ward (ecclesiastical and administrative head of his congregation) at Belmont, Massachusetts, from 1981 to 1986. As such, in addition to home teaching, he also formulated Sunday services and classes using LDS scriptures to guide the congregation. He forged links with other religious institutions in the area when the Belmont meetinghouse was destroyed by a fire of suspicious origins in 1984; the congregation rotated its meetings to other houses of worship while the structure was rebuilt.

Romney isn't just a Mormon, he's been a leader in the Mormon church. He's drank the kool-aid and helped serve it to others, so to speak.

Romney is the most devoutly religious presidential candidate in my lifetime. I don't know if Obama deserves a second term; but Romney shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a first term.
 
2012-08-31 05:43:08 PM

BigNumber12: Look, I think we can all agree that Obama needs to win in November, because if he doesn't, the cries of "Racism!" will be so shrill for the next four windows that glass objects worldwide will have an expected life of about 10 seconds.


I can think of a number of reasons far better than that.
 
2012-08-31 05:45:33 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So suddenly conservatives care about what Moore says?


No.
Did you think Huffpo is a conservative site?
 
2012-08-31 05:46:58 PM

ManateeGag: he is a fat farking idiot and this proves it.


But your sentiments do not compute with trolls that all farkers are Moore apologists.
 
2012-08-31 05:49:39 PM

Walker: Who cares what he says, he's fat!

/Typical Republican response to anything Michael Moore says


Who cares what he says, he's a propagandist, and not even a competent one like Rove. His shiat literally only catches idiots who have even less than the average knowledge of policy (which is already bad to begin with) and if you actually respect his work as a legit statement of policy you should be ashamed of yourself.

//Whereas if you fall for one of Rove's bits you should also be ashamed of yourself, but it's more understandable, cause, y'know, competence.
 
2012-08-31 05:51:53 PM

WombatControl: vygramul: jso2897: People are expecting too much of these polls. Even 538 (the pick of the litter, IMHO) can only tell us what would happen if the election were held tomorrow - not 60 days from now.
The GOP has some catchup tp play - the "convention bump" hasn't worked out for them - we'll just have to see what they do next, and whether it does any good.

Nate Silver has truly impressed me, and I concur with your assessment.

I agree with this. But the problem with Nate Silver's predictions is that they're based largely on polls, which means that they're going to reflect the incomplete state of polling right now. That problem will lessen as more and better polls come out, but Silver is giving credence to old polls along with the new. That's not always bad, but it depends on how you do the weighting.

But the biggest problem with Silver's model is that he's the only one who knows how it works. There could be a whole shiat-ton of assumptions in there than could prejudice his analysis. The more shiat you add into a statistical model, the more opportunities for error you introduce.

Silver's a smart guy, and he does good work, but you should never take his stuff as gospel.


Yes we should rather listen to a blatant shill such as yourself.
 
2012-08-31 05:52:19 PM

skykid: Bush had the benefit of 9/11 and "terror threats".


Bush had the benefit of Kerry. Obama has the benefit of Romney.
 
2012-08-31 05:52:22 PM
I think Michael Moore is Dinesh D'Souza's biggest fan, 'cuz 2016 is gonna do for Mitt Romney what his Fahrenheit 9/11 did for John Kerry.

/That is, lose the election for him, of course.
 
2012-08-31 05:53:43 PM
"I think people should start to practice the words 'President Romney.' To assume that the other side are just a bunch of ignoramuses who are supported by people who believe that Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs 6,000 years ago is to completely misjudge the opposition."

Find me a prominent mouthpiece of the political right that says its a mistake to assume their opposition is just a bunch of hippie socialists who want to make gay marriage mandatory and get hard at the thought of aborted fetuses and I'll go DOWN on you!
 
2012-08-31 05:57:29 PM

Halli: WombatControl: vygramul: jso2897: People are expecting too much of these polls. Even 538 (the pick of the litter, IMHO) can only tell us what would happen if the election were held tomorrow - not 60 days from now.
The GOP has some catchup tp play - the "convention bump" hasn't worked out for them - we'll just have to see what they do next, and whether it does any good.

Nate Silver has truly impressed me, and I concur with your assessment.

I agree with this. But the problem with Nate Silver's predictions is that they're based largely on polls, which means that they're going to reflect the incomplete state of polling right now. That problem will lessen as more and better polls come out, but Silver is giving credence to old polls along with the new. That's not always bad, but it depends on how you do the weighting.

But the biggest problem with Silver's model is that he's the only one who knows how it works. There could be a whole shiat-ton of assumptions in there than could prejudice his analysis. The more shiat you add into a statistical model, the more opportunities for error you introduce.

Silver's a smart guy, and he does good work, but you should never take his stuff as gospel.

Yes we should rather listen to a blatant shill such as yourself.


I wonder if Wombat approves of Florida's protect the polls campaign.
 
2012-08-31 05:58:03 PM
You farking morons need and deserve corporate rule. You really do. I want every last one of you to experience the fruit of your labour.
 
2012-08-31 05:58:10 PM

WombatControl: Romney is going to win, and not just because he's outraising Obama and has more cash on hand. He's going to win because Obama's whole strategy was based around making voters afraid of Romney. All this summer I've heard about how robotic Romney is, how he can't dare talk about Bain, how he's so out-of-touch, all the usual left-wing Obama Approved® talking points.

Mitt Romney said "fark it" to all of them. He didn't appear wooden last night. He didn't walk away from Bain. He showed a hell of a lot more life in him than I've ever seen from the guy. If that Mitt Romney shows up in the debates, it might not be that close.


Yeah, he said a lot of pretty things but no concrete plan of action.


"I have a plan that will create 8 million jobs"

Oh yeah...well I have a plan that will create 10 million jobs. Beat that Romney!
 
2012-08-31 05:59:45 PM

Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: Romney is going to win, and not just because he's outraising Obama and has more cash on hand. He's going to win because Obama's whole strategy was based around making voters afraid of Romney. All this summer I've heard about how robotic Romney is, how he can't dare talk about Bain, how he's so out-of-touch, all the usual left-wing Obama Approved® talking points.

Mitt Romney said "fark it" to all of them. He didn't appear wooden last night. He didn't walk away from Bain. He showed a hell of a lot more life in him than I've ever seen from the guy. If that Mitt Romney shows up in the debates, it might not be that close.

Yeah, he said a lot of pretty things but no concrete plan of action.


"I have a plan that will create 8 million jobs"

Oh yeah...well I have a plan that will create 10 million jobs. Beat that Romney!


And in which country will you create those jobs, Mr. Romney?
 
2012-08-31 05:59:53 PM
FTFA: "Mitt Romney is going to raise more money than Barack Obama. That should guarantee his victory," Moore told host Josh Zepps. "I think people should start to practice the words 'President Romney.' To assume that the other side are just a bunch of ignoramuses who are supported by people who believe that Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs 6,000 years ago is to completely misjudge the opposition."

Wait a minute... What is he trying to say here? Adam and Eve didn't ride on dinosaurs 6,000 years ago?
 
2012-08-31 05:59:54 PM

ClintonKun: Didn't more of the "base" watch Honey Boo Boo than Romney's acceptance speech? I don't think many of them can muster up enough enthusiasm for Romney to bother voting for him. Nevertheless, the Dems shouldn't be caught with their pants down thinking they can't lose.


Perhaps that's why Moore is saying this. After all, conventional wisdom after 2008 was that the Republicans were done. Two years later, and they come back in a major way thanks to the Tea Party and morans who sat out the 2010 election. This yer we have Citizens United and a Republican voting base that might not love Romney, but they really don't like Obama. If people sit out this year the way they sat out 2010, then it could go for Romney.

Assuming Romney is Kerry 2.0 is risky. While the odds are in Obama's favor, and the RNC clearly didn't give Romney the bump he'd like, things could still happen. That's why voter turnout is so critical, and if you can vote but don't, you are part of the problem.

And if you look at Romney and Obama and don't see a lot of difference (both sides are bad so why bother) take a look at who might control Congress. Do you really want Romney to give the Tea Party a blank check to go nuts? Because giving them more power will make things so much worse. Remember, these are people would cheer on as America burned if they could blame Obama. (See Paul Ryan blame Obama for what he and his fellow Republican's did to America's credit rating.)

So vote. Every vote is sacred. Every vote is great. (If a vote is wasted, God gets quite irate)
 
2012-08-31 06:01:11 PM
Moore is accounting for the statistical significance of money in determining electoral outcomes, but is not accounting for the at-least-as-strong significance of incumbency. Also, while I can generally agree with his opinions, he hasn't shown any aptitude for predicting outcomes of anything ever.
 
2012-08-31 06:01:21 PM
Look at what you idiots are talking about. Would you respect you?
 
2012-08-31 06:01:49 PM

saintstryfe: or he's gone stupid, that's entirely a possibility too


Maybe fat cells can turn cancerous and metastasize to the brain.
 
2012-08-31 06:02:52 PM

burndtdan: Moore is accounting for the statistical significance of money in determining electoral outcomes, but is not accounting for the at-least-as-strong significance of incumbency. Also, while I can generally agree with his opinions, he hasn't shown any aptitude for predicting outcomes of anything ever.


You want him to talk like a pollster? You want him to sound like James Carville?
 
2012-08-31 06:04:01 PM

Phil Moskowitz: Look at what you idiots are talking about. Would you respect you?


Cue Ali G's address to the British parliament.

//restecp
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report