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.

(Anchorage Daily News)   We're not saying Republican Senators are obstructionists, but these days they're reluctant to vote on a bill that's favorable to hunters and outdoorsmen   (adn.com) divider line 98
    More: Asinine, Senate, obstructionists, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Denny Rehberg, environmental laws, firing ranges, hunters, Mitch McConnell  
•       •       •

6633 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Sep 2012 at 4:05 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-23 04:09:47 AM  
F those jerkasses.
 
2012-09-23 04:13:21 AM  
FTA: "Republicans resisted for a while Friday, contending the only reason Reid wanted the vote now on the bill long sought by hunters and sport fishermen was to benefit Democratic incumbent Jon Tester's re-election prospects in a tossup race in Montana that could determine which party runs the Senate next year."

Yes, how dare the Democrats try to trick Republicans into establishing a voting record that voters can look at to determine if the candidate's values align with their own. Those sneaky bastards.
 
2012-09-23 04:15:37 AM  
Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

3 years, 4 months, 1 week, 6 days AND counting...
 
2012-09-23 04:16:29 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: FTA: "Republicans resisted for a while Friday, contending the only reason Reid wanted the vote now on the bill long sought by hunters and sport fishermen was to benefit Democratic incumbent Jon Tester's re-election prospects in a tossup race in Montana that could determine which party runs the Senate next year."

Yes, how dare the Democrats try to trick Republicans into establishing a voting record that voters can look at to determine if the candidate's values align with their own. Those sneaky bastards.


They're only doing the right thing in order to look good! It's not fair that voters prefer politicians who do the right thing!
 
2012-09-23 04:18:42 AM  
FTFA: "These polar bears are dead, they are in cold storage and we know exactly who they are."

Mr. and Mrs. P. Bear, 41, Snowy Drive, Baffin Bay, Canada?
 
2012-09-23 04:20:47 AM  
"This isn't a campaign studio, It's the Senate," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., complained on the Senate floor Friday. "We've got responsibilities to meet. Let's meet them. And leave the politics out of it for once."

Sounds like good advice. You should listen to yourself.
 
2012-09-23 04:24:16 AM  
That was a very difficult article to read.
 
2012-09-23 04:25:28 AM  
images61.fotki.com
 
2012-09-23 04:26:36 AM  
"This isn't a campaign studio, It's the Senate," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., complained on the Senate floor Friday. "We've got responsibilities to meet. Let's meet them. And leave the politics out of it for once."

..Mitch McConnell said this? Mitch "Our only goal is to make Obama a one-term President" McConnell? He had the farking BALLS to say that?

Fark that turtlefaced douchebucket.
 
2012-09-23 04:34:37 AM  
If this bill passes, it will basically open up all federal lands to hunters carrying any and all weapons. That includes National Parks like Yosemite to National Military Park like Gettysburg to state historical sites like Mark Twain's birthplace.

If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.
 
2012-09-23 04:56:51 AM  
So the act of voting itself is now part of the liberal agenda. Got it.

/fark the selfish crybabies
 
2012-09-23 05:00:40 AM  

douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.


But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.
 
2012-09-23 05:12:54 AM  

bubo_sibiricus: douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.


TTHHIISS!!
Well said, bubo_sibiricus!!
 
2012-09-23 05:14:41 AM  

bubo_sibiricus: douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.


Actually, all budgetary bills begin in the House. It's the House's role to get a budget out. Then the senate offers its set of compromises, and then finally, the two chambers get an agreed upon budget that is then sent to the president for signature (or veto). So no, the Senate Democrats do not get to set the budget.
 
2012-09-23 05:44:26 AM  

LordJiro: "This isn't a campaign studio, It's the Senate," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., complained on the Senate floor Friday. "We've got responsibilities to meet. Let's meet them. And leave the politics out of it for once."

..Mitch McConnell said this? Mitch "Our only goal is to make Obama a one-term President" McConnell? He had the farking BALLS to say that?

Fark that turtlefaced douchebucket.


i235.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-23 05:48:25 AM  
When a republican reminds you that unemployment under President Obama is currently at 8.1% be sure to remind them that when President Bush left office it was 7.8%. Under President Obama the highest rate was 10.0, which is only an increase of about 30%. Under President Bush the lowest rate was 4.4. Unemployment under President Bush increased by over 75%!
 
2012-09-23 05:51:24 AM  

dericwater: bubo_sibiricus: douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.

Actually, all budgetary bills begin in the House. It's the House's role to get a budget out. Then the senate offers its set of compromises, and then finally, the two chambers get an agreed upon budget that is then sent to the president for signature (or veto). So no, the Senate Democrats do not get to set the budget.


OH MY GOD, DERIC

Quickly, lay down. DOn't worry, I got this.

How in the hell you got that hook in your mouth, I swear I don't know.
 
2012-09-23 05:54:10 AM  

Coelacanth: If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.


I'm just looking forward to next April.

Link
 
2012-09-23 05:58:58 AM  

Coelacanth: If this bill passes, it will basically open up all federal lands to hunters carrying any and all weapons. That includes National Parks like Yosemite to National Military Park like Gettysburg to state historical sites like Mark Twain's birthplace.

If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.


That sounds farming awesome, actually.
 
2012-09-23 06:15:42 AM  

dericwater: Actually, all budgetary bills begin in the House


You know, I just looked and it's not called out explicitly that the President must submit a budget in the Contitution, but Article 2 sections 2 and 3 don't work if he doesn't. It was codified and nailed down in 1921 for deadlines that the President must submit a budget every year no later than the first Monday of February.

But it does go like this: President submits budget to House. House comes up with a resolution, flings it over the wall to the Senate, they come up with a resolution, and then both are reconciled, and a budget is passed for signing.

In any case, I was wrong to imply it was explicitly called out in the Constitution. It's only implied. This is what I get for not looking before posting.
 
2012-09-23 06:25:22 AM  

dericwater: bubo_sibiricus: douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.

Actually, all budgetary bills begin in the House. It's the House's role to get a budget out. Then the senate offers its set of compromises, and then finally, the two chambers get an agreed upon budget that is then sent to the president for signature (or veto). So no, the Senate Democrats do not get to set the budget.


Apparently, the difference between budgets and appropriations is as misunderstood as the difference between budget deficit and debt.

The President is required to submit a budget to Congress. A budget is a list of proposed spending. Each house of Congress must adopt a budget resolution and attempt to resolve the differences.

Spending bill, or appropriations, must originate in the House, be approved by the Senate, and then signed by the President. Appropriations authorize actual spending toward the budget.

A budget deficit (or surplus) is the difference between anticipated revenues and anticipated spending. The debt is the amount actually borrowed against the full faith and credit of the United States.

In this administration, the President did submit a budget that got no votes. The House submitted its own budget which passed the House but hasn't been brought up for a vote in the Senate. The Senate has done nothing with budgets.

Having worked in a lot of businesses that did budgets, I know that every year we came up with a month-by-month budget. Then, each month we had an executive review of budget vs. actual. Each department had a budget. Sales had a budget of what they were going to sell, manufacturing had a budget of what they were going to make, purchasing had a budget of what they were going to buy, etc. Each month, there was a review of the previous month - here's the budget, here's the actual. What was the difference and why was there a difference, how does that difference affect the budgets of future months or years?

Does there exist such an analysis in government?
 
2012-09-23 06:38:57 AM  

Mr. Right: lots of words...Does there exist such an analysis in government?


Yes, but since deficits don't matter when a Republican is in office, and Republicans got rid of paygo, and Republicans will no longer accept the CBO as being accurate (facts being liberal), etc, it's just a waste of time.
 
2012-09-23 07:20:26 AM  

ghare: Mr. Right: lots of words...Does there exist such an analysis in government?

Yes, but since deficits don't matter when a Republican is in office, and Republicans got rid of paygo, and Republicans will no longer accept the CBO as being accurate (facts being liberal), etc, it's just a waste of time.


So you're a purely partisan hack. We get it. I tried to keep it simple, but you apparently can't comprehend even that much. Or, your attention deficit is the size of Obama's budget deficit.

Deficits don't matter as much as debt does. Perhaps you missed the difference between budget deficit and debt. Don't take my word for it, look it up. When it's a budget deficit, you have an opportunity (never yet taken by any modern day politician) to balance it with revenues. Once it's a debt, the interest calculations start ticking and it's real money that you really owe.

Paygo was just a buzzword Nancy Pelosi came up with to make it look like she gave a rat's ass about spending. But paygo was another budgetary trick. "If we raise the tax rate, then revenues will increase" has never worked. If Congress was serious about paygo, they would be forced to raise revenues for every FEMA emergency or cut expenditures somewhere else. Ever seen that happen? Nor have I.

CBO numbers are as accurate as the data fed into them. Neither side likes them unless they support their own political position.
 
2012-09-23 07:31:23 AM  
I propose a bill where these hunters kill themselves for shooting polar bears. Big game trophies my ass. Is your penis really so small that you have to display large dead animals in your home? Imagine the story..."It was a dangerous hunt. It started with a lovely morning of eggs, bacon, pancakes and coffee. (We needed our energy to sit in the same spot for hours on end). Jim Bob and I set on the hunt. We sat, hidden in the wilderness all morning. The hunt was slow at first. We hasn't seen a polar bear for three hours. Jim Bob and I started to question the morality of hunting helpless animals for sport. We questioned why we were cursed with such small penises. It almost had to resort to a game of 'I'll show you mine if hou show me yours', but in a totally not-gay way. But then it happened, our target came with in range of our rifles. Our penises grew to a commanding 3 inches that day. I took the shot. My heart was pounding from the danger involved. What if I missed and the polar bear shot back. I came to my senses and realized that it was just a farking polar bear trying to find food. All I have to do is shoot. I took aim. I fired. Direct hit! That bear didn't even put up a fight! And they say bears are dangerous, tough-as-nails creatures. Not today my adversary, not today. We went on to kill 40 more that trip, fueled by the adrenaline of our first kill. We were truly athletes in a sport of killing animals with guns".
/How about I sneak up on you while you're eating and gun you down with a Howitzer? Pricks.
 
2012-09-23 07:33:30 AM  
Reading comprehension, what the fark is it?

//Reid was refusing to allow a vote and was wasting time with a (big word alert) theatrical test vote. Yeah, those damn Republicans and their Jedi mind tricks.
 
2012-09-23 07:50:06 AM  
ts1.mm.bing.net
 
2012-09-23 08:09:43 AM  

DubyaHater: I propose a bill where these hunters kill themselves for shooting polar bears. Big game trophies my ass. Is your penis really so small that you have to display large dead animals in your home? Imagine the story..."It was a dangerous hunt. It started with a lovely morning of eggs, bacon, pancakes and coffee. (We needed our energy to sit in the same spot for hours on end). Jim Bob and I set on the hunt. We sat, hidden in the wilderness all morning. The hunt was slow at first. We hasn't seen a polar bear for three hours. Jim Bob and I started to question the morality of hunting helpless animals for sport. We questioned why we were cursed with such small penises. It almost had to resort to a game of 'I'll show you mine if hou show me yours', but in a totally not-gay way. But then it happened, our target came with in range of our rifles. Our penises grew to a commanding 3 inches that day. I took the shot. My heart was pounding from the danger involved. What if I missed and the polar bear shot back. I came to my senses and realized that it was just a farking polar bear trying to find food. All I have to do is shoot. I took aim. I fired. Direct hit! That bear didn't even put up a fight! And they say bears are dangerous, tough-as-nails creatures. Not today my adversary, not today. We went on to kill 40 more that trip, fueled by the adrenaline of our first kill. We were truly athletes in a sport of killing animals with guns".
/How about I sneak up on you while you're eating and gun you down with a Howitzer? Pricks.


Fark you hippie. I'm hanging in a tree right now and I wish I had the breakfast you described. Bowhunting is a difficult sport and it would be especially hard to arrow a polar bear.

Leave your penis fixation at home and get out and hunt. You clearly don't know anything about hunting.
 
2012-09-23 08:23:02 AM  

bubo_sibiricus: douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.


Actually, while the President offers his budget -requests-, it's up to Congress to pass them. Check and Balance.

Coelacanth: If this bill passes, it will basically open up all federal lands to hunters carrying any and all weapons. That includes National Parks like Yosemite to National Military Park like Gettysburg to state historical sites like Mark Twain's birthplace.

If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.


So Teddy kills Yogi. Problem?

Mock26: When a republican reminds you that unemployment under President Obama is currently at 8.1% be sure to remind them that when President Bush left office it was 7.8%. Under President Obama the highest rate was 10.0, which is only an increase of about 30%. Under President Bush the lowest rate was 4.4. Unemployment under President Bush increased by over 75%!


Don't forget to remind them also that while Bush was in office, the Dems controlled both houses (and have been for 2 years). Cause and effect?
 
2012-09-23 08:35:15 AM  
douchebag/hater

Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

3 years, 4 months, 1 week, 6 days AND counting...

Hey, that's enough of that ! It's only wrong when "republicans" do it and you know it!

/sarcasm
 
2012-09-23 08:54:45 AM  

parkthebus: DubyaHater: I propose a bill where these hunters kill themselves for shooting polar bears. Big game trophies my ass. Is your penis really so small that you have to display large dead animals in your home? Imagine the story..."It was a dangerous hunt. It started with a lovely morning of eggs, bacon, pancakes and coffee. (We needed our energy to sit in the same spot for hours on end). Jim Bob and I set on the hunt. We sat, hidden in the wilderness all morning. The hunt was slow at first. We hasn't seen a polar bear for three hours. Jim Bob and I started to question the morality of hunting helpless animals for sport. We questioned why we were cursed with such small penises. It almost had to resort to a game of 'I'll show you mine if hou show me yours', but in a totally not-gay way. But then it happened, our target came with in range of our rifles. Our penises grew to a commanding 3 inches that day. I took the shot. My heart was pounding from the danger involved. What if I missed and the polar bear shot back. I came to my senses and realized that it was just a farking polar bear trying to find food. All I have to do is shoot. I took aim. I fired. Direct hit! That bear didn't even put up a fight! And they say bears are dangerous, tough-as-nails creatures. Not today my adversary, not today. We went on to kill 40 more that trip, fueled by the adrenaline of our first kill. We were truly athletes in a sport of killing animals with guns".
/How about I sneak up on you while you're eating and gun you down with a Howitzer? Pricks.

Fark you hippie. I'm hanging in a tree right now and I wish I had the breakfast you described. Bowhunting is a difficult sport and it would be especially hard to arrow a polar bear.

Leave your penis fixation at home and get out and hunt. You clearly don't know anything about hunting.


So it's hard, eh? Why not shoot at targets? Because killing animals that are no threat to you is... fun? It's... manly? I'm sorry, but no. Hunting for pleasure is the preserve of assholes.
 
2012-09-23 08:59:12 AM  
Maybe the Democrats led by Harry could vote on a budget? Seems a little more important.  And it's been over 1000 days since we've had one.
 
2012-09-23 09:04:02 AM  

Mock26: When a republican reminds you that unemployment under President Obama is currently at 8.1% be sure to remind them that when President Bush left office it was 7.8%. Under President Obama the highest rate was 10.0, which is only an increase of about 30%. Under President Bush the lowest rate was 4.4. Unemployment under President Bush increased by over 75%!


Well, that tears it. I am NOT voting for George Bush! Thanks for the info!
 
2012-09-23 09:44:30 AM  

Mr. Right: "If we raise the tax rate, then revenues will increase" has never worked.


Yes, if there's ever been one thing proven in the last thirty years (since the Laffer curve has become the dominant theory), it's that all the tax increases they've tried don't increase federal revenue per capita.
 
2012-09-23 09:47:41 AM  

Elephantman: [ts1.mm.bing.net image 221x236]


man, you're in trouble. don't you know you're forbidden from correctly using the adjective democratic? you must use the noun democrat as an adjective or risk being drummed out of the republican party!
 
2012-09-23 09:53:32 AM  

Mr. Right: ghare: Mr. Right: lots of words...Does there exist such an analysis in government?

Yes, but since deficits don't matter when a Republican is in office, and Republicans got rid of paygo, and Republicans will no longer accept the CBO as being accurate (facts being liberal), etc, it's just a waste of time.

So you're a purely partisan hack. We get it. I tried to keep it simple, but you apparently can't comprehend even that much. Or, your attention deficit is the size of Obama's budget deficit.

Deficits don't matter as much as debt does. Perhaps you missed the difference between budget deficit and debt. Don't take my word for it, look it up. When it's a budget deficit, you have an opportunity (never yet taken by any modern day politician) to balance it with revenues. Once it's a debt, the interest calculations start ticking and it's real money that you really owe.

Paygo was just a buzzword Nancy Pelosi came up with to make it look like she gave a rat's ass about spending. But paygo was another budgetary trick. "If we raise the tax rate, then revenues will increase" has never worked. If Congress was serious about paygo, they would be forced to raise revenues for every FEMA emergency or cut expenditures somewhere else. Ever seen that happen? Nor have I.

CBO numbers are as accurate as the data fed into them. Neither side likes them unless they support their own political position.



Lol, YOU calling other people partisan. Good one! Next you're going to tell us both sides are equally bad, right?!
 
2012-09-23 09:54:22 AM  

jaayjones: Maybe the Democrats led by Harry could vote on a budget? Seems a little more important.  And it's been over 1000 days since we've had one.


Too bad those Republicans refuse to allow such a measure onto the floor by filibustering it, isn't it?
 
2012-09-23 10:19:42 AM  

Coelacanth: If this bill passes, it will basically open up all federal lands to hunters carrying any and all weapons. That includes National Parks like Yosemite to National Military Park like Gettysburg to state historical sites like Mark Twain's birthplace.

If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.


Racist.
 
2012-09-23 10:31:02 AM  

austin_millbarge: Coelacanth: If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.

I'm just looking forward to next April.

Link


Wait I thought republicans were against hand outs. This guy is saying he'll either be dead or making the taxpayers pay for his room and board?
 
2012-09-23 11:14:18 AM  

Coelacanth: If this bill passes, it will basically open up all federal lands to hunters carrying any and all weapons. That includes National Parks like Yosemite to National Military Park like Gettysburg to state historical sites like Mark Twain's birthplace.

If this bill passes, imagine rocker/bowman Ted Nugent going to Yosemite and legally killing the black bears that beg for food along the roads with his trusty bow and arrow.


Wow, that was bit hysterical. The bill would open some additional federal land to hunting, it will NOT allow hunting in National Parks.
 
2012-09-23 11:49:33 AM  

rosy at random: So it's hard, eh? Why not shoot at targets? Because killing animals that are no threat to you is... fun? It's... manly? I'm sorry, but no. Hunting for pleasure is the preserve of assholes.


While I'm sure the polar bear hunters in the article used rifles (really heavy caliber ones) and not bows, I liked the sentiment of hunting a polar bear with a bow. That would be about the fairest hunt I can imagine.

My core sentiment is that hunters are the ones that are preserving habitat and managing populations for the purpose of hunting. A hunted animal won't go extinct. The only thing I hunt anymore is deer. Delicious, tasty deer. Deer that are fattening themselves up on the scraps of corn and soybean fields right now.
 
2012-09-23 11:52:15 AM  

rosy at random:

So it's hard, eh? Why not shoot at targets? Because killing animals that are no threat to you is... fun? It's... manly? I'm sorry, but no. Hunting ...


I do both--shoot targets winter, spring, summer, and then kill animals in the fall. It has nothing to do with being manly, and I know lots of women who do the same. Go back to arranging your flowers or whatever you do.

Here's a target I shot, moran anti-hunter. Just for you.
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-23 12:08:20 PM  
Aww, you think I'm a woman.

Have fun killing those helpless animals! Do you punch toddlers too?
 
2012-09-23 12:17:26 PM  

rosy at random: Aww, you think I'm a woman.

Have fun killing those helpless animals! Do you punch toddlers too?


I have made no determination of your gender. I take little kids shooting every week, and I have never punched one.

I hunt deer, and they are hardly helpless--while they don't have weapons, they do have a tremendous sense of smell and other senses to avoid predators. You really should learn more about hunting.
 
2012-09-23 12:20:10 PM  

douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

3 years, 4 months, 1 week, 6 days AND counting...


What are you talking about? The 2010, 2011, and 2012 budgets have all passed.
 
2012-09-23 12:47:07 PM  

parkthebus: rosy at random: Aww, you think I'm a woman.

Have fun killing those helpless animals! Do you punch toddlers too?

I have made no determination of your gender. I take little kids shooting every week, and I have never punched one.

I hunt deer, and they are hardly helpless--while they don't have weapons, they do have a tremendous sense of smell and other senses to avoid predators. You really should learn more about hunting.


I'm sorry... they have a good sense of smell? I didn't know about that. That makes the ethics of shooting them completely fine! My girlfriend has an amazing sense of smell. Too bad she's in Japan right now so I can't shoot her. Do you think it would be an act of charity to alert hunters in her area that she'd make a good target?
 
2012-09-23 01:27:18 PM  
Of course not. Animals are not anything like people. I get that you're anti-hunting and that I'm not going to convince you. It's a wonderful and rewarding sport, that apparently you'll never enjoy.
 
2012-09-23 01:59:03 PM  
Hunting for fun = murder
 
2012-09-23 02:10:00 PM  

Mr. Right: dericwater: bubo_sibiricus: douchebag/hater: Get back to me after the Senate Dems have even OFFERED a budget.

But that's not their job. That's the executive branch's job. For farks' sake, for all the whining you idiots do about the Constitution, it would help if you read the farking thing once in a while.

Actually, all budgetary bills begin in the House. It's the House's role to get a budget out. Then the senate offers its set of compromises, and then finally, the two chambers get an agreed upon budget that is then sent to the president for signature (or veto). So no, the Senate Democrats do not get to set the budget.

Apparently, the difference between budgets and appropriations is as misunderstood as the difference between budget deficit and debt.

The President is required to submit a budget to Congress. A budget is a list of proposed spending. Each house of Congress must adopt a budget resolution and attempt to resolve the differences.

Spending bill, or appropriations, must originate in the House, be approved by the Senate, and then signed by the President. Appropriations authorize actual spending toward the budget.

A budget deficit (or surplus) is the difference between anticipated revenues and anticipated spending. The debt is the amount actually borrowed against the full faith and credit of the United States.

In this administration, the President did submit a budget that got no votes. The House submitted its own budget which passed the House but hasn't been brought up for a vote in the Senate. The Senate has done nothing with budgets.

Having worked in a lot of businesses that did budgets, I know that every year we came up with a month-by-month budget. Then, each month we had an executive review of budget vs. actual. Each department had a budget. Sales had a budget of what they were going to sell, manufacturing had a budget of what they were going to make, purchasing had a budget of what they were going to buy, etc. Each month, there was a review of the previous month - here's the budget, here's the actual. What was the difference and why was there a difference, how does that difference affect the budgets of future months or years?

Does there exist such an analysis in government?


Thanks for a nice summary. I think that within each department, there are monthly budget reviews. But some departments, like the Dept of Defense, a lot of actual vs expected misses are glossed over. That's not good.
 
2012-09-23 02:30:54 PM  
Maybe if we only hunted the really stupid people, that might be OK. I mean, at some point I imagine the animal just gets too smart to hunt and you have to sadly put down your gun. Up to that point, though, you know, the brighter the animal, the more fun to hunt! What a shame that at some point that annoying morality jerk kicks in and says you shouldn't be killing things anymore.
 
2012-09-23 02:31:23 PM  
0.tqn.com
 
2012-09-23 02:32:23 PM  

digistil: So the act of voting itself is now part of the liberal agenda. Got it.

/fark the selfish crybabies


And apparently if you're a politician, engaging in politics is the worst thing imaginable.
 
2012-09-23 03:02:00 PM  

People_are_Idiots: Mock26: When a republican reminds you that unemployment under President Obama is currently at 8.1% be sure to remind them that when President Bush left office it was 7.8%. Under President Obama the highest rate was 10.0, which is only an increase of about 30%. Under President Bush the lowest rate was 4.4. Unemployment under President Bush increased by over 75%!

Don't forget to remind them also that while Bush was in office, the Dems controlled both houses (and have been for 2 years). Cause and effect?


Irrelevant. If the President gets all the credit then he gets all the blame, too.
 
2012-09-23 03:02:27 PM  
Hunting does not equal killing. The shot and harvest is just a tiny part of it. I recognize that this is impossible for those who haven't experienced it to understand.

One thing I will say, is that no hunter should be ashamed of their joy in success. The practice, the scouting, the pursuit, and the joy of family and friends in your success is rewarding and uplifting. It's a wonderful thing that human beings have done since the beginning of time. Humans have always killed living things to exist, it's part of being a human being.
 
2012-09-23 03:07:34 PM  

parkthebus: Hunting does not equal killing. The shot and harvest is just a tiny part of it. I recognize that this is impossible for those who haven't experienced it to understand.

One thing I will say, is that no hunter should be ashamed of their joy in success. The practice, the scouting, the pursuit, and the joy of family and friends in your success is rewarding and uplifting. It's a wonderful thing that human beings have done since the beginning of time. Humans have always killed living things to exist, it's part of being a human being.


My dad tells me stories of how he used to go hunting in the woods behind his farm in upstate New York with an unloaded gun. He'd hunt, find a deer, line it up, pull the trigger, then hear the empty click . He didn't wanna kill it, he wanted the chase. So I totally get what ya saying.
 
2012-09-23 03:57:50 PM  
Whatever joy you get out of the hunt, the death of the animal is not worth it. There's a very fine calculus once people decide death for pleasure is OK, and at the extreme is 'psychopath'. If you stay careful and moderate, you may get away with merely being an 'asshole'.
 
2012-09-23 04:06:55 PM  

stonicus: parkthebus: Hunting does not equal killing. The shot and harvest is just a tiny part of it. I recognize that this is impossible for those who haven't experienced it to understand.

One thing I will say, is that no hunter should be ashamed of their joy in success. The practice, the scouting, the pursuit, and the joy of family and friends in your success is rewarding and uplifting. It's a wonderful thing that human beings have done since the beginning of time. Humans have always killed living things to exist, it's part of being a human being.

My dad tells me stories of how he used to go hunting in the woods behind his farm in upstate New York with an unloaded gun. He'd hunt, find a deer, line it up, pull the trigger, then hear the empty click . He didn't wanna kill it, he wanted the chase. So I totally get what ya saying.


I did not hunt with an unloaded gun, but many a time while out hunting I just chose not to shoot. Of course, other times I did.
 
2012-09-23 04:39:31 PM  
Senators and other wealthy people who want to taste the great outdoors can do so at the vast estates their friends own, or on publicly owned restricted reserves where you and I are not allowed to even go hiking.

Wealthy powerful people are not your friends.
 
2012-09-23 04:43:22 PM  
I just do not understand the urge to shoot there, and I do not ever want to.
 
2012-09-23 04:52:34 PM  

Mock26: People_are_Idiots: Mock26: When a republican reminds you that unemployment under President Obama is currently at 8.1% be sure to remind them that when President Bush left office it was 7.8%. Under President Obama the highest rate was 10.0, which is only an increase of about 30%. Under President Bush the lowest rate was 4.4. Unemployment under President Bush increased by over 75%!

Don't forget to remind them also that while Bush was in office, the Dems controlled both houses (and have been for 2 years). Cause and effect?

Irrelevant. If the President gets all the credit then he gets all the blame, too.


I guess that's the nice thing about me. I blame and praise where it's due.
 
2012-09-23 05:05:41 PM  

rosy at random: Whatever joy you get out of the hunt, the death of the animal is not worth it. There's a very fine calculus once people decide death for pleasure is OK, and at the extreme is 'psychopath'. If you stay careful and moderate, you may get away with merely being an 'asshole'.


I respectfully disagree. Hunting for food is in our genes. There is nothing wrong with taking pleasure in it and doing so is completely natural. You don't have to eat animals, but most of the world does and has always done so. Don't hate what you don't understand.
 
2012-09-23 05:55:18 PM  

parkthebus: rosy at random: Whatever joy you get out of the hunt, the death of the animal is not worth it. There's a very fine calculus once people decide death for pleasure is OK, and at the extreme is 'psychopath'. If you stay careful and moderate, you may get away with merely being an 'asshole'.

I respectfully disagree. Hunting for food is in our genes. There is nothing wrong with taking pleasure in it and doing so is completely natural. You don't have to eat animals, but most of the world does and has always done so. Don't hate what you don't understand.


I think he was referring to hunting just for the sport of it...
 
2012-09-23 06:24:31 PM  
Even still, doesn't hunting become a sport anyway? All the time and money spent for equipment, etc. would be more efficiently used to just buy meat at the store. We do it because we love it, not just to get the meat. It's a challenge that takes skill and wisdom, with a reward of something tasty to eat.
 
2012-09-23 07:05:56 PM  
That is absolutely the worst ethical justification I have ever heard. You are one step away from the 'evolutionarily programmed to rape' argument, and you don't want to go there.

Seriously. Don't go there. All I am hearing is that you like to kill things; you don't like to make the suffer, thankfully, but you like to kill things. You like to take away lives and impoverish the world every time you do. Your justifications are just rationalisations for something horrible.
 
2012-09-23 07:07:32 PM  
Weird -- I'd tagged this link in the post above, but it hasn't come through. Anyway, this should have been in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy#Appeal_to_nature
 
2012-09-23 07:32:08 PM  

rosy at random: Whatever joy you get out of the hunt, the death of the animal is not worth it. There's a very fine calculus once people decide death for pleasure is OK, and at the extreme is 'psychopath'. If you stay careful and moderate, you may get away with merely being an 'asshole'.


Sure it is worth it. It is food on your table. Sure, we no longer need to hunt for our food, but hunting is still infinitely more humane than the vast majority of "meat factories."
 
2012-09-23 08:18:48 PM  

rosy at random: That is absolutely the worst ethical justification I have ever heard. You are one step away from the 'evolutionarily programmed to rape' argument, and you don't want to go there.

Seriously. Don't go there. All I am hearing is that you like to kill things; you don't like to make the suffer, thankfully, but you like to kill things. You like to take away lives and impoverish the world every time you do. Your justifications are just rationalisations for something horrible.


How does it impoverish the world?
 
2012-09-23 09:12:38 PM  

rosy at random: That is absolutely the worst ethical justification I have ever heard. You are one step away from the 'evolutionarily programmed to rape' argument, and you don't want to go there.

Seriously. Don't go there. All I am hearing is that you like to kill things; you don't like to make the suffer, thankfully, but you like to kill things. You like to take away lives and impoverish the world every time you do. Your justifications are just rationalisations for something horrible.


I was in my tree stand trying to kill something, and couldn't read the link from my phone. But I did now, and it's all well and good if you live in a world of theory. But we don't. One of the many, many benefits of hunting is that you get up and close to the natural world. You become a part of it.

I know I won't convince you of a thing since you think killing an animal impoverishes the world. I think that's absurd, but go ahead and feel that way.

Bottom line. You, and many who oppose hunting, really have no idea what it is all about. It's not what you see on TV and the movies. It's like I'm a martian trying to describe my world to you. Unless you've been part of hunting culture, and tried to hunt, how could you have any idea of the richness of the entire experience?
 
2012-09-24 03:56:59 AM  
I think I liked hunting better the way my dad talked about it. In small town 1940s it had no "culture," it was just a thing you did for fun, fresh air and sometime food. The grands remembered when ammo had been cheaper than meat, so everybody felt lucky they didn't HAVE to shoot to eat.
 
2012-09-24 04:25:09 AM  

i upped my meds-up yours: I think I liked hunting better the way my dad talked about it. In small town 1940s it had no "culture," it was just a thing you did for fun, fresh air and sometime food. The grands remembered when ammo had been cheaper than meat, so everybody felt lucky they didn't HAVE to shoot to eat.


And for many of us there is no hunting "culture." It is something that we do with friends, family, or even alone.
 
2012-09-24 05:21:17 AM  
Trust me, I get the idea of hunting. I would absolutely do the thing mentioned above, hunting without live ammo. But I would refuse to kill something just for fun. At least, anything with a somewhat developed nervous system. The fact that you cross that line, that you don't see the problem, and you don't see how animal lives enrich the world and are precious in themselves... well, let's just say I don't think you have any idea what my world is like, and I could never describe its richness to you.
 
2012-09-24 07:26:10 AM  
Here's an example of the sort of thing I coo over every day.



I love everything about that. That it exists, and it's possible to make its life better, and maybe to pet it. My world is richer by interacting with its world. You prefer to kill things, and make your life better by destroying its world.

This is our fundamental difference.
 
2012-09-24 07:30:33 AM  
OH GODDAMNIT. I'm really not very good at doing links lately Here!
 
2012-09-24 10:43:35 AM  

rosy at random: But I would refuse to kill something just for fun. At least, anything with a somewhat developed nervous system.


Houseflys have a developed nervous system. So do any other number of insects.

Hunting is not for everyone, but it is no worse than eating anything else made of meat. Those that hunt do it for several reasons. Fresh air, being in the outdoors, being with friends/family, excercize, thrill of the hunt, test of you skills (markmanship included), filling the freezer with food, etc.

All of these activities can be very enjoyable. In fact, if it was not enjoyable, no one would do it.

Also, let's not forget the wildlife management aspect of this as well. Hunters are the biggest givers to wildlidfe conservation programs as the money they spend on tags,licenses, permits, and all sporting good puchases go to help fund these programs. Wildlife management itself is tailored to also keep populations of species healty and in check.

If you cannot look your meal in the eye, you really don't know what it means to eat meat. There is no reason to be ashamed of it. It is part of life.
 
2012-09-24 10:46:56 AM  

rosy at random: What a shame that at some point that annoying morality jerk kicks in and says you shouldn't be killing things anymore.


If you want to starve to death, go ahead and quit killing things. The rest of us will continue to not feel guilty about existing as nature/God made us.
 
2012-09-24 10:55:00 AM  
The whole focus of my posts being about the pleasure taken in killing things being abhorrent didn't quite get through to you, did it?
 
2012-09-24 11:00:56 AM  

rosy at random: The whole focus of my posts being about the pleasure taken in killing things being abhorrent didn't quite get through to you, did it?


And my point is that the pleasure is never mutually exclusive from the act of hunting. If it were, no one would be hunting.
 
2012-09-24 11:04:03 AM  
You can take pleasure and pride that you've done something unfortunate but necessary in such a way as to minimise suffering, yes. That, I understand. To go and kill something for no other reason than killing it is enjoyable is repugnant.
 
2012-09-24 11:04:07 AM  
For most of us that hunt, we do it for the experience. Part of that is being successfull in the hunt and killing. Why not be happy about having a sucessful hunt? Why is that abhorrent?
 
2012-09-24 11:09:30 AM  

rosy at random: You can take pleasure and pride that you've done something unfortunate but necessary in such a way as to minimise suffering, yes.


So we should be sad (done something unfortunate) but happy (You can take pleasure and pride) now? Is that how we need to feel to be morally superior? You seem confused.

Yes, it is unfortuante from the prey's point of view. However, if you want to truly minimize suffering, a bullet to the head is much quicker and humane than dying of starvation or disease. All life ends in death. Methinks it is time you finally realize that fact.
 
2012-09-24 11:19:06 AM  

rosy at random: To go and kill something for no other reason than killing it is enjoyable is repugnant.


Who gets to judge if these other reasons are justified? What if the reasons are as follows:

Killing ground squirrels in a hayfield
Killing coyotes to sell the hide for additional income
Kililng wolves to help struggling elk populations
Killling houseflys that land on your target to see if you can actually hit one from 100 yards

Everyone I know does not hunt just to make something that was once alive become dead. They always do it for other reasons.
 
2012-09-24 11:22:44 AM  
Shall we just kill everyone now then and save some time? Why don't you start?

I'm not confused here. A doctor or vet can take comfort and pride in the fact that he's helping the sick. If the patient dies, or hast to be euthanised, then that is unfortunate but the knowledge that they are doing their best, and the suffering was minimised, will also be a source of comfort and pride.

You're really not very good at handling complex situations, are you?
 
2012-09-24 11:31:15 AM  

HeadLever:
Everyone I know does not hunt just to make something that was once alive become dead. They always do it for other reasons.


Some reasons are better than others. To provide food and other necessities is obviously good, though there is of course the question of what the alternatives are. For baubles and trinkets is... not so good.

There is no conscience police; all we have are ethics to guide our morality. And ours, clearly, are in disagreement.
 
2012-09-24 11:35:50 AM  

rosy at random: Shall we just kill everyone now then and save some time?


Not sure what you are getting at here? Not sure where I ever mentioned anything about kiling everyone (or everything). Or is this another suggestion from the 'moral highground'?

You're really not very good at handling complex situations, are you?

Lol, It takes quite the huckster to be able to say that just after spouting off with this little gem, "Shall we just kill everyone now then and save some time? Why don't you start?".
 
2012-09-24 11:47:08 AM  
Yes, it is unfortuante from the prey's point of view. However, if you want to truly minimize suffering, a bullet to the head is much quicker and humane than dying of starvation or disease. All life ends in death. Methinks it is time you finally realize that fact.

All life ends in death. This is used as an argument for killing things.

Oh wait... specifically, killing them with a bullet to the head as it's quick and humane. And they're going to die anyway, so why not?

Go. Find a gun. Sneak up to people and shoot them in the back of the head. It'll be quick and humane, and they are only going to die anyway, right?
 
2012-09-24 11:48:06 AM  
I really should use preview more often. That quote tag didn't really work there at all.
 
2012-09-24 11:58:41 AM  

rosy at random: There is no conscience police;


Then what the hell have you been doing in this thread? You have been trying very hard to be the conscience police. I don't mind that our ethics are in disagreement. I DO have a problem with you telling me that my ethics are repugnant and abhorrent. Also, I'll have a huge problem if you attempt to legislate these uninformed opinions. Especially when you have very little idea of why us that do hunt may be choosing to do so.

Uninformed blanket statements that end up only describing conjured ideals of trigger happy rednecks shooting everything that moves is a very bad way of making points about the morality of the type of hunting that 99% of us hunters engage in. In fact, due to the uninformed anti-hunting folks out there and the pressure they exert, many states are looking to add (or have added) hunting and fishing as an enumerated right into their states' constitutions.
 
2012-09-24 12:05:48 PM  
My morality differs from sadistic serial killers too, funnily enough. Who's to say which of us is right? Man, with all this post-modern cultural relativity in the air, it's just impossible to disagree about anything and try to convince someone your opinion's better.

So you go keep on killing animals and people humanely, sorry, just the people, I mean, animals, and I'll just keep on shaking my fist, I mean, head.
 
2012-09-24 12:11:30 PM  

rosy at random: This is used as an argument for killing things.


No, it is not the only reason to kill things. Again, those of us that hunt do not just shoot something in order to make something that was once alive become dead. Who is having trouble understand complex agruments again?

The quckly killing argument was only to show how hunting is oftentimes the best way to minimize suffering. If that is one of your major hangups (as you indicated it to be), you should be all for hunting. If I was a self-riteous ideologe I could counter with the question, 'why do you want to let animals suffer?'.

While it is obvious you don't want this to happen, it is the same self-serving type of argument that exemplifies those that refuse to actually recognize where the other side is coming from.
 
2012-09-24 12:19:26 PM  

rosy at random: My morality differs from sadistic serial killers too, funnily enough. Who's to say which of us is right? Man, with all this post-modern cultural relativity in the air, it's just impossible to disagree about anything and try to convince someone your opinion's better.

So you go keep on killing animals and people humanely, sorry, just the people, I mean, animals, and I'll just keep on shaking my fist, I mean, head.


Lol, so now we are sadist? Nice. I'll give that one a solid 7 on the derp scale.
 
2012-09-24 12:24:34 PM  

rosy at random: Who's to say which of us is right?


Since most of your points deal with uninformed blanket statements that end up only describing conjured ideals of trigger happy rednecks shooting everything, I know which way I lean.
 
2012-09-24 12:34:46 PM  
I never said you were a sadist; the point of that little juxtaposition was that even though there is no absolute morality we can use to settle such matters, and thus we can merely disagree without recourse to authority, this in no way means that there is no such thing as better or worse moralities, at least as far as humans can see, and in some cases we must defend and espouse our views.

All of this has been about hunting. And that has always been about the pleasure of the hunt, of the kill. The ulterior justifications bought up (population control, gaining food and materials, etc) are nothing bu distractions - there are people who hunt. Hunters. They like to hunt, they like to kill, and most of them would consider hunting itself to be the main activity here. "What do you do?" "I help maintain the deer population... oh, and I have to shoot wolves to do that." "And you?" "I sell hides. Oh, and yeah, I suppose I have to kill coyotes for them too."

No, this is the sport of hunting we're talking about. "What shall we do today?" "Let's track down something wild and helpless." "OK... but only if we get to kill it." "Of course... do you think I just wanted to see or feed it, or something pussy like that? No man, I want to put a bullet in something's brain today! Yeah!"

So no, at no point will I think that the impulse to kill for its own enjoyment is anything but horrible. And when you do it for other reasons, it is still not OK to take pleasure in the death.
 
2012-09-24 12:51:27 PM  

rosy at random: And that has always been about the pleasure of the hunt, of the kill.


Hunt or kill. These are two different things. Or are you confused again?

The ulterior justifications bought up (population control, gaining food and materials, etc) are nothing bu distractions

Really? How would you know? Is this in reaction to your conjured ideals of trigger happy rednecks shooting everything under the sun again? As someone who doesn't know much about hunting, you sure seem to have no shortage of opinions on the subject.

it is still not OK to take pleasure in the death.

I'll agree if you are only talking about the death itself. However, as i have stated for the 3rd time (and it apparetnly has not sank into your thick head yet), everyone I know does not hunt just to make something that was once alive become dead. Not sure why you are having a hard time understanding this point. The only thing that I can think of is that it will force you to admit that your entire argument is built on a strawman.

If you want to go beat up on the strawman that shoots animals (or humans) just to take pleasure in the death, then I guess, go ahead. Just know that you are not talking to 99.9% of the population that will identify themselves as hunters.
 
2012-09-24 02:45:37 PM  

rosy at random: To go and kill something for no other reason than killing it is enjoyable is repugnant.


Why do you assume that that is the only reason people enjoy hunting? Hmm?
 
2012-09-24 02:47:15 PM  

rosy at random: My morality differs from sadistic serial killers too, funnily enough. Who's to say which of us is right? Man, with all this post-modern cultural relativity in the air, it's just impossible to disagree about anything and try to convince someone your opinion's better.

So you go keep on killing animals and people humanely, sorry, just the people, I mean, animals, and I'll just keep on shaking my fist, I mean, head.


Are you a vegetarian or vegan?
 
2012-09-24 02:53:14 PM  

rosy at random: I never said you were a sadist; the point of that little juxtaposition was that even though there is no absolute morality we can use to settle such matters, and thus we can merely disagree without recourse to authority, this in no way means that there is no such thing as better or worse moralities, at least as far as humans can see, and in some cases we must defend and espouse our views.

All of this has been about hunting. And that has always been about the pleasure of the hunt, of the kill. The ulterior justifications bought up (population control, gaining food and materials, etc) are nothing bu distractions - there are people who hunt. Hunters. They like to hunt, they like to kill, and most of them would consider hunting itself to be the main activity here. "What do you do?" "I help maintain the deer population... oh, and I have to shoot wolves to do that." "And you?" "I sell hides. Oh, and yeah, I suppose I have to kill coyotes for them too."

No, this is the sport of hunting we're talking about. "What shall we do today?" "Let's track down something wild and helpless." "OK... but only if we get to kill it." "Of course... do you think I just wanted to see or feed it, or something pussy like that? No man, I want to put a bullet in something's brain today! Yeah!"

So no, at no point will I think that the impulse to kill for its own enjoyment is anything but horrible. And when you do it for other reasons, it is still not OK to take pleasure in the death.


What about someone who does not hunt but goes out, orders a steak, and enjoys it? Is such a person complicit of enjoying killing something? By your reasoning it would seem that the answer is Yes.

And why are you trying to associate hunting of animals with murdering of human beings? That is a flawed analogy. Are there people who enjoy killing animals and hunt just to kill? Sure there are. But not all hunters are that way. And while not really "proof" my personal experience is that very few hunters are that way. But, for some reason you are lumping all hunters under your opinion that we are blood thirsty, psychopathic killers who enjoy nothing but killing. Why is that?
 
2012-09-24 02:54:16 PM  

HeadLever: rosy at random: And that has always been about the pleasure of the hunt, of the kill.

Hunt or kill. These are two different things. Or are you confused again?

The ulterior justifications bought up (population control, gaining food and materials, etc) are nothing bu distractions

Really? How would you know? Is this in reaction to your conjured ideals of trigger happy rednecks shooting everything under the sun again? As someone who doesn't know much about hunting, you sure seem to have no shortage of opinions on the subject.

it is still not OK to take pleasure in the death.

I'll agree if you are only talking about the death itself. However, as i have stated for the 3rd time (and it apparetnly has not sank into your thick head yet), everyone I know does not hunt just to make something that was once alive become dead. Not sure why you are having a hard time understanding this point. The only thing that I can think of is that it will force you to admit that your entire argument is built on a strawman.

If you want to go beat up on the strawman that shoots animals (or humans) just to take pleasure in the death, then I guess, go ahead. Just know that you are not talking to 99.9% of the population that will identify themselves as hunters.


Either rosy is a die hard vegetarian or she is a troll. I am betting on she is both.
 
2012-09-24 03:09:47 PM  

Mock26: Either rosy is a die hard vegetarian or she is a troll. I am betting on she is both.


I am betting on a city slicker that has never spent any real time in nature and has the notion that all hunters are toothless hillbillies.

Connecting hunters to those that murder people is just another way to attain a self-righteous moral foothold above us unwashed country folk and helps justify the deluded position he/she has chosen to take. Doesn't seem to matter that this coorelation has no real significance in the real world.
 
2012-09-25 03:22:43 PM  

HeadLever: Mock26: Either rosy is a die hard vegetarian or she is a troll. I am betting on she is both.

I am betting on a city slicker that has never spent any real time in nature and has the notion that all hunters are toothless hillbillies.

Connecting hunters to those that murder people is just another way to attain a self-righteous moral foothold above us unwashed country folk and helps justify the deluded position he/she has chosen to take. Doesn't seem to matter that this coorelation has no real significance in the real world.


Yarp. She is a self delusional person who thinks that name calling is a mature way of making your point.
 
Displayed 98 of 98 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report