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.

(Talking Points Memo)   GOP's desire to tax the '47%' would be so effective, it would put up to 9.2 million people below the poverty line   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 152
    More: Scary, GOP, poverty line, Tim Kaine, child tax credit, House Majority Leader, CBPP, Earned Income Tax Credit, Tax Policy Center  
•       •       •

2050 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2012 at 3:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-21 04:21:17 PM

SevenizGud: I'd be happy just to stop paying people to be career criminal crotch-droppers as part of a derpocrap vote-breeding project.

These people aren't in poverty. They just don't report their income from their drug-running and theft.


I remember when the trolls used to be entertaining.

/too lazy to look up the pic
 
2012-09-21 04:21:31 PM

fringedmyotis:

Don't forget - it's the dirty libs that are waging class warefare.


I really don't understand the Republicans anymore.
 
2012-09-21 04:22:18 PM

Weaver95: poor people not paying any taxes - OMG! OH MY F*CKING GOD! THIS IS THE END OF EVERYTHING!
rich corporations not paying any taxes - hey, we can't tax corporations, that would be communism! you aren't a commie, are you? no taxes on corporations!

*sigh*

look, if the GOP wants to go this route, then lets tax people who actually HAVE money. that includes corporations.


all i have to say is this: Link
 
2012-09-21 04:26:10 PM
"Broaden and flatten the tax base" -The weeping cheeto
 
2012-09-21 04:27:32 PM

serial_crusher: a typical poor family - two kids, $33,479 in income

Listen, that is not enough money to feed four people. We need to address that problem.

First and foremost: don't have kids until your income is at a level that can feed them (I don't know, I don't have an exact number. Let's say $25K per person?). If you DO have kids when you're this poor, you should go to jail, and your kids should be raised in a well-funded orphanage. Yes, increase my taxes to pay for the orphanage.

If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.


What if you have kids while making $50k a year, then five years later you're laid off and can't get better than $33.5k?

Kids are a 20-year responsibility. It's nearly impossible to forecast financially with any kind of accuracy beyond five years.

/support your local single mothers
 
2012-09-21 04:29:59 PM
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-21 04:31:18 PM

Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]


not sure that's the analogy you wanted to go with there :)
 
2012-09-21 04:31:27 PM
Yes, it's the Republicans that want to tax the 47%.

Oh, wait.

"I would be open to a proposal that would have some minimum tax level for everyone," [Democratic Senatorial Candidate Tim] Kaine told moderator David Gregory...Kaine's tax comments came at the start of an hourlong televised debate in McLean, Va., after the former governor was asked about Mitt Romney's controversial quip that the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay federal taxes are dependent on government and see themselves as "victims."
 
2012-09-21 04:32:07 PM

King Something: I'm pretty sure that that's the general idea, because f*ck people who don't vote straight-ticket GOP.


The sad and funny thing is that many poor people do, because Jesus.
 
2012-09-21 04:33:23 PM

oren0: Yes, it's the Republicans that want to tax the 47%.

Oh, wait.

"I would be open to a proposal that would have some minimum tax level for everyone," [Democratic Senatorial Candidate Tim] Kaine told moderator David Gregory...Kaine's tax comments came at the start of an hourlong televised debate in McLean, Va., after the former governor was asked about Mitt Romney's controversial quip that the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay federal taxes are dependent on government and see themselves as "victims."


The Republidevil made him do it
 
2012-09-21 04:34:55 PM

Sgt Otter: Oh cry me a river. A bunch of them already live in free government housing.

[img.photobucket.com image 432x346]


I keep forgetting that the government has the right to order all Americans not paying federal taxes to go on missions that will end in certain death.

/b-b-b-but FICA is a tax
//except when it's forced savings
 
2012-09-21 04:35:44 PM
Why bother writing an article about it? These assholes don't give two farks, and anyone who does is labeled as a RINO.
 
2012-09-21 04:36:23 PM
How did "47% of people are not paying taxes" turn into Taxing the 47%? No really. The point of what he was saying before was that "IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING or below the poverty level you are not paying taxes" If we get these people jobs and get people up above the poverty level--yes you will be paying taxes but you will also have a JOB. Why is this so hard for people to understand. I just.. ARGHHH
 
2012-09-21 04:36:41 PM
didn't the Dems already push those folks below the poverty line? And are keeping them there?
 
2012-09-21 04:37:14 PM

Cythraul: If they get their way, looks like I'm going to have to look for a second job just so I can pay the extra taxes. Oh well, life sucks.


Which may put you into a higher tax bracket, so that you would need a 3rd job to pay for the extra income from the second job. It's the 'In Living Color' sketch brought to life...

Yay! Fun!
 
2012-09-21 04:37:22 PM
Come on, you farks, do it. Help us get a hundred thousand people in the streets.
 
2012-09-21 04:38:15 PM

Mangoose: But what would it do for the other 290 million people?


I think the idea is that it would add an EXTRA 9.2 million people to the number already below the poverty line, it wouldn't actually probably benefit anyone anything at all.
 
2012-09-21 04:39:01 PM

skullkrusher: Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]

not sure that's the analogy you wanted to go with there :)


Why not? Liberals tend to support social justice, which includes a more equitable distribution of wealth, sometimes referred to as redistribution of wealth.
Whether President Obama actually gives any more than lip service to this goal remains to be seen.

/plus that snake is a drunk bastard
 
2012-09-21 04:40:32 PM

Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]

not sure that's the analogy you wanted to go with there :)

Why not? Liberals tend to support social justice, which includes a more equitable distribution of wealth, sometimes referred to as redistribution of wealth.
Whether President Obama actually gives any more than lip service to this goal remains to be seen.

/plus that snake is a drunk bastard


I think most supporters of BO might not like the "steals from the rich to give to the poor" characterization :)
 
2012-09-21 04:41:44 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Come on, you farks, do it. Help us get a hundred thousand people in the streets.


yes, let us drive millions below the poverty line so Captain Toughguy can live his masturbatory revolutionary fantasy!

despicable
 
2012-09-21 04:43:12 PM

Cup_O_Jo: How did "47% of people are not paying taxes" turn into Taxing the 47%? No really. The point of what he was saying before was that "IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING or below the poverty level you are not paying taxes" If we get these people jobs and get people up above the poverty level--yes you will be paying taxes but you will also have a JOB. Why is this so hard for people to understand. I just.. ARGHHH


Yes, those darn elderly folks need to get jobs. Same with those disabled slackers.
 
2012-09-21 04:43:41 PM

Fart_Machine: Most of these people own a refrigerator so they're not really poor.


And that's not even the real statistic. Most poor households don't "own" a fridge as that study claimed, the place that they are renting came with one provided, as is pretty much standard. Same with A/C. We've had a fridge for 6 years, but only because a neighbor was giving one away for free, before that, it was always what was in the apartment or house we were renting. I know plenty who have never actually "owned" a fridge. The people who did that "survey" are unbelievably retarded.
 
2012-09-21 04:45:47 PM
When the Democrats and Republicans, (or. Republicans and Democrats. if you prefer,) get done with the middle class, it will ALL be below the poverty line. In this feudal republic, those two parties will still have a binopoly on federal and state government, which means they control voting and ballot rules, which means they will still have a binopoly on federal and state...etc.

'Reform' aint gonna get it done.
 
2012-09-21 04:47:51 PM

serial_crusher: a typical poor family - two kids, $33,479 in income

Listen, that is not enough money to feed four people. We need to address that problem.

First and foremost: don't have kids until your income is at a level that can feed them (I don't know, I don't have an exact number. Let's say $25K per person?). If you DO have kids when you're this poor, you should go to jail, and your kids should be raised in a well-funded orphanage. Yes, increase my taxes to pay for the orphanage.

If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.


So are you going to make abortion taxpayer funded? Contraceptives free? People fark, I don't know if you've figured that out yet, but they do it, and the reason that poor people seem to have more kids is most likely a combination of not having affordable contraception and not a whole Hell of a lot of other things to occupy their time.

And $25K per person is ridiculously high. My wife and I make about $80k combined, and my brother in law lives with us, adding a mouth and another adult to our 3 kids, and we still make plenty to live on. IN other words 6 people live on $80k, not the $150k you threw out there.
 
2012-09-21 04:48:57 PM

Elandriel: Huh, I'm already below the line detailed in TFA at $29,662/yr with 2 kids. Awesome.

Farkers, I have a conundrum. How will I be able to pull myself up by the bootstraps when I can't afford boots?


I have boots, but I only had enough money for strapless ones...
 
2012-09-21 04:49:27 PM

skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]

not sure that's the analogy you wanted to go with there :)

Why not? Liberals tend to support social justice, which includes a more equitable distribution of wealth, sometimes referred to as redistribution of wealth.
Whether President Obama actually gives any more than lip service to this goal remains to be seen.

/plus that snake is a drunk bastard

I think most supporters of BO might not like the "steals from the rich to give to the poor" characterization :)


I don't think people who would primarily characterize Robin Hood as a criminal are going to vote for Obama, anyway.

I suppose there may be 1 or 2 people who view the story of Robin Hood as that of an unrepentant felon escaping punishment for his crimes.
 
2012-09-21 04:49:35 PM

serial_crusher: a typical poor family - two kids, $33,479 in income

Listen, that is not enough money to feed four people. We need to address that problem.

First and foremost: don't have kids until your income is at a level that can feed them (I don't know, I don't have an exact number. Let's say $25K per person?). If you DO have kids when you're this poor, you should go to jail, and your kids should be raised in a well-funded orphanage. Yes, increase my taxes to pay for the orphanage.

If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.


and what should we do if someone loses there job after having a kid? Here you are with a pretty safe, nice paying job, a low rent and no car payment, you get married have your kid. Two years later, the economy collapses and you are out of work. BOOM.

We should take your kid???

You get a replacement job, but because competition is high, it pays less, and they are below your "threshold".
We should take your kid???

Plus, your reality is insane. there are plenty of poor people living "comfortably" including having a kid or 10.
They live in the crappy parts of town no one else wants to live in. they take the bus. they struggle to get by with a low paying job.

Are you suggesting that they be banned from having children?
That their child should starve, rather than the rest of us pay for school lunches??


I dont have children. but I pay taxes which go to schools and school lunches. Why?
Why should I have to support anything????

/seriously - I LOVE paying taxes for education. period. it is one of the greatest goods that I can do in society.
 
2012-09-21 04:51:48 PM

thomps: for someone who is known for his inability to maintain a consistent position on anything, it's really funny how romney has stuck to his guns on what is probably the most ridiculous thing ever said by any politician in my lifetime.


That is quite a statement. Let me remind you that the GOP was considering repealing child labor laws only last year, and due to this, is one of the main reasons I will never vote GOP again.
 
2012-09-21 04:53:06 PM

Notabunny: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]

not sure that's the analogy you wanted to go with there :)

Why not? Liberals tend to support social justice, which includes a more equitable distribution of wealth, sometimes referred to as redistribution of wealth.
Whether President Obama actually gives any more than lip service to this goal remains to be seen.

/plus that snake is a drunk bastard

I think most supporters of BO might not like the "steals from the rich to give to the poor" characterization :)

I don't think people who would primarily characterize Robin Hood as a criminal are going to vote for Obama, anyway.

I suppose there may be 1 or 2 people who view the story of Robin Hood as that of an unrepentant felon escaping punishment for his crimes.


umm I meant the "steals from the rich" part - most supporters of BO do not characterize taxation as theft
 
2012-09-21 04:54:13 PM

Mikey1969: Elandriel: Huh, I'm already below the line detailed in TFA at $29,662/yr with 2 kids. Awesome.

Farkers, I have a conundrum. How will I be able to pull myself up by the bootstraps when I can't afford boots?

I have boots, but I only had enough money for strapless ones...


my boots have extra straps just for the sole purpose of not lending them to you

/heehee
//"sole"
 
2012-09-21 04:54:24 PM
So subby accounted for 6% of that 47% I guess the other 94% gets a pass too now.
 
2012-09-21 04:55:03 PM

namatad: I dont have children. but I pay taxes which go to schools and school lunches. Why?
Why should I have to support anything????

/seriously - I LOVE paying taxes for education. period. it is one of the greatest goods that I can do in society.



^^^THIS^^^

Even if I didn't have kids of my own, I would have no problem with this for two major reasons(Among many others):

1. Someone did it for me, my friends, my wife, my family, eyc.

2. These kids are the ones who wil be taking care of the country when we get old, why the fark wouldn't we want to make sure they get the best education possible?
 
2012-09-21 04:55:29 PM

Weaver95: poor people not paying any taxes - OMG! OH MY F*CKING GOD! THIS IS THE END OF EVERYTHING!
rich corporations not paying any taxes - hey, we can't tax corporations, that would be communism! you aren't a commie, are you? no taxes on corporations!

*sigh*

look, if the GOP wants to go this route, then lets tax people who actually HAVE money. that includes corporations.


You and your strawmen arguments get more deranged by the day.
 
2012-09-21 04:55:43 PM

Weaver95: fringedmyotis:

Don't forget - it's the dirty libs that are waging class warefare.

I really don't understand the Republicans anymore.


They got taken over by the Ross Perot/Tea Party/"Moral Majority".
They havent been the Conservative Party since Reagan took over. Slashed taxes and increased spending.
That is not conservative. not by any definition.

The history of the GOP from 1964 to now has been a pretty straight line. Whiter, older, more intolerant, more divisive, etc. Toss in warmongering.

Strangely enough, the DEMs have slid right during the same period. Carter - Clinton - Obama.
 
2012-09-21 04:56:30 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: serial_crusher: a typical poor family - two kids, $33,479 in income

Listen, that is not enough money to feed four people. We need to address that problem.

First and foremost: don't have kids until your income is at a level that can feed them (I don't know, I don't have an exact number. Let's say $25K per person?). If you DO have kids when you're this poor, you should go to jail, and your kids should be raised in a well-funded orphanage. Yes, increase my taxes to pay for the orphanage.

If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.

What if you have kids while making $50k a year, then five years later you're laid off and can't get better than $33.5k?

Kids are a 20-year responsibility. It's nearly impossible to forecast financially with any kind of accuracy beyond five years.

/support your local single mothers


Well, you probably got laid off due to your illiteracy, because I covered that in my original post. If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.

If the best you can make right now is $33K, let's give you $17K to fill the gap, as long as you're spending a reasonable amount of your free time looking for that 50k+ job.

But, I should also point out that under my original post, if the combined income of both parents is only $50k, they shouldn't have had the kid in the first place. Both parents are on the hook, so combined income needs to be $75k before anybody has a kid. If you're a single mom making less than $75K who doesn't know who the dad is, off to jail for you and off to the well-funded orphanage for that kid of yours.
 
2012-09-21 04:57:03 PM

Mikey1969: Even if I didn't have kids of my own, I would have no problem with this for two major reasons(Among many others):

1. Someone did it for me, my friends, my wife, my family, eyc.

2. These kids are the ones who wil be taking care of the country when we get old, why the fark wouldn't we want to make sure they get the best education possible?


To some degree, this is the definition of society.
Remembering where you came from and that you did nothing on your own.
Remembering that you will be old some day and that you dont want to live in a sewer.
 
2012-09-21 04:58:09 PM

skullkrusher: Notabunny: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Notabunny: [img.photobucket.com image 537x699]

not sure that's the analogy you wanted to go with there :)

Why not? Liberals tend to support social justice, which includes a more equitable distribution of wealth, sometimes referred to as redistribution of wealth.
Whether President Obama actually gives any more than lip service to this goal remains to be seen.

/plus that snake is a drunk bastard

I think most supporters of BO might not like the "steals from the rich to give to the poor" characterization :)

I don't think people who would primarily characterize Robin Hood as a criminal are going to vote for Obama, anyway.

I suppose there may be 1 or 2 people who view the story of Robin Hood as that of an unrepentant felon escaping punishment for his crimes.

umm I meant the "steals from the rich" part - most supporters of BO do not characterize taxation as theft


You're right. Sorry, it's past my nap time.
 
2012-09-21 04:58:48 PM
I would love for a liberal here to show any country that is successful where only half the populace pays income taxes. You won't find an example in Europe. US has one of the most progressive systems in the world. Not even a vat tax which really hits people in regressive manner.
 
2012-09-21 05:03:12 PM

serial_crusher: if the combined income of both parents is only $50k, they shouldn't have had the kid in the first place. Both parents are on the hook, so combined income needs to be $75k before anybody has a kid. If you're a single mom making less than $75K who doesn't know who the dad is, off to jail for you and off to the well-funded orphanage for that kid of yours.


so you are completely insane?
so now we take a struggling mother, who is paying no federal incomes taxes (which is not the same as no taxes). who is working to feed and house her children. and you are doing what?
1) jail for her - for how long? life? ok but now we are paying for that. thanks
2) orphanage for her kid - for 18 years. ok, but now we are paying for that. thanks

ignoring the moral insanity of your position, the costs alone GREATLY exceed the cost of covering her being poor and getting a LITTLE government assistance.

so
you are either insane, a troll or both
thanks for sharing
buh bye
 
2012-09-21 05:03:53 PM

Mikey1969: So are you going to make abortion taxpayer funded? Contraceptives free? People fark, I don't know if you've figured that out yet, but they do it, and the reason that poor people seem to have more kids is most likely a combination of not having affordable contraception and not a whole Hell of a lot of other things to occupy their time.


IMHO free contraception, but criminalize abortion. Catholics can STFU.
Poor people who don't avail themselves of the free contraception (or gamble and lose) get to go to jail while their kids have a grand old time at the well-funded orphanage.

Mikey1969: And $25K per person is ridiculously high. My wife and I make about $80k combined, and my brother in law lives with us, adding a mouth and another adult to our 3 kids, and we still make plenty to live on. IN other words 6 people live on $80k, not the $150k you threw out there.


Agreed. I think I was pretty upfront about pulling that number out of my ass.
Local cost of living has a lot to do with it too. Same as minimum wage, I'd like to see the federal government establish a minimum standard of living, then set income expectations based on local cost needed to attain that standard of living.
 
2012-09-21 05:04:41 PM

nomike1: didn't the Dems already push those folks below the poverty line? And are keeping them there?


Nope. Anymore stupid questions?
 
2012-09-21 05:08:16 PM

MyRandomName: I would love for a liberal here to show any country that is successful where only half the populace pays income taxes. You won't find an example in Europe. US has one of the most progressive systems in the world. Not even a vat tax which really hits people in regressive manner.


I have one.

The United States of America.
 
2012-09-21 05:09:09 PM

namatad: jail for her - for how long? life? ok but now we are paying for that. thanks


Jail is supposed to be a deterrent and a rehabilitation tool. So, however long it takes to deter people from having unplanned kids, or to convince them not to have another unplanned kid. Like I said during my latest jury selection, I'm not qualified to know how long it takes to rehabilitate somebody. That's what experts are for.
 
2012-09-21 05:10:40 PM

Fart_Machine: Most of these people own a refrigerator so they're not really poor.


Because it's cheaper than having botulism, salmonella, and other food poisonings because their food has gone bad.
 
2012-09-21 05:13:01 PM

mcsmiley: Fart_Machine: Most of these people own a refrigerator so they're not really poor.

Because it's cheaper than having botulism, salmonella, and other food poisonings because their food has gone bad.


Also, as I pointed out upthread, that "stat" is bullshiat anyway, since almost every rental comes with a fridge and stove, quite often a dishwasher and even sometimes a microwave. That "study" was the biggest piece of bulllshiat I think has ever been perpetrated on the American Public...
 
2012-09-21 05:14:33 PM
So what were these people doing before Bush cut their taxes and increased their deductions until they paid no income taxes? I do not remember anachy in the streets during the Clinton days.
 
2012-09-21 05:15:31 PM

serial_crusher: But, I should also point out that under my original post, if the combined income of both parents is only $50k, they shouldn't have had the kid in the first place. Both parents are on the hook, so combined income needs to be $75k before anybody has a kid. If you're a single mom making less than $75K who doesn't know who the dad is, off to jail for you and off to the well-funded orphanage for that kid of yours.


Wow, you really are good at making people's heads hurt online... Are you typing all of this in a straight jacket on Thorazine, using your forehead on the keys? It's the only thing I can guess...
 
2012-09-21 05:19:33 PM

serial_crusher: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: serial_crusher: a typical poor family - two kids, $33,479 in income

Listen, that is not enough money to feed four people. We need to address that problem.

First and foremost: don't have kids until your income is at a level that can feed them (I don't know, I don't have an exact number. Let's say $25K per person?). If you DO have kids when you're this poor, you should go to jail, and your kids should be raised in a well-funded orphanage. Yes, increase my taxes to pay for the orphanage.

If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.

What if you have kids while making $50k a year, then five years later you're laid off and can't get better than $33.5k?

Kids are a 20-year responsibility. It's nearly impossible to forecast financially with any kind of accuracy beyond five years.

/support your local single mothers

Well, you probably got laid off due to your illiteracy, because I covered that in my original post. If you have a well-paying job and lose it, I'm happy with you getting welfare until you get back on your feet. But I want sufficient controls in place to say that you are looking for a job that meets your needs.

If the best you can make right now is $33K, let's give you $17K to fill the gap, as long as you're spending a reasonable amount of your free time looking for that 50k+ job.

But, I should also point out that under my original post, if the combined income of both parents is only $50k, they shouldn't have had the kid in the first place. Both parents are on the hook, so combined income needs to be $75k before anybody has a kid. If you're a single mom making less than $75K who doesn't know who the dad is, off to jail for you and off to the well-funded orphanage for that kid of yours.


For a married filing joinly couple to make 100k a year, that puts them in the 68th percentile of household incomes. You really think that only 30% of the population "gets" to have a child? You don't see any negative long term impact from a policy like this? You didn't think this out very well, did you?
 
2012-09-21 05:21:04 PM

Mikey1969: mcsmiley: Fart_Machine: Most of these people own a refrigerator so they're not really poor.

Because it's cheaper than having botulism, salmonella, and other food poisonings because their food has gone bad.

Also, as I pointed out upthread, that "stat" is bullshiat anyway, since almost every rental comes with a fridge and stove, quite often a dishwasher and even sometimes a microwave. That "study" was the biggest piece of bulllshiat I think has ever been perpetrated on the American Public...


Wait, somebody actually did a "study" that came to that conclusion? And this was recently, not like 1920? That's pretty ridiculous.
 
2012-09-21 05:25:29 PM

serial_crusher: namatad: jail for her - for how long? life? ok but now we are paying for that. thanks

Jail is supposed to be a deterrent and a rehabilitation tool. So, however long it takes to deter people from having unplanned kids, or to convince them not to have another unplanned kid. Like I said during my latest jury selection, I'm not qualified to know how long it takes to rehabilitate somebody. That's what experts are for.


What the fark am I reading?

I'm voting troll on this one.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report