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)   House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says it's "not true" that he voted for sequester he voted for   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 64
    More: Obvious, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Carl Paladino, debt deal, welfare recipients, House Majority Leader, vice presidential candidate, Palm Beach Post, Sharron Angle  
•       •       •

1797 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Oct 2012 at 7:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 06:43:36 AM
If there is to be any hope for the country, the GOP has to lose its majority in the Congress.

It won't happen, of course, but one can dream.
 
2012-10-02 06:50:28 AM
Eric Cantor is a douche. That is all.
 
2012-10-02 06:55:56 AM
I've got a 5 and an 8-year-old. I've been teaching them since they were much younger to take responsibility for their actions.

At 5 and 8, they get it.

It's sad that our politicians aren't as smart as a couple of 5 and 8-year-olds.
 
2012-10-02 06:57:33 AM

MorrisBird: Eric Cantor is a douche. That is all.


Mitt Romney is a chode.

/and the capital of nebraska is lincoln
 
2012-10-02 07:43:30 AM

DjangoStonereaver: If there is to be any hope for the country, the GOP has to lose its majority in the Congress.

It won't happen, of course, but one can dream.


Yeah, about that, probably not a good idea.

I dont want one party controlling both legislative houses and the Presidency. It is always a recipe for disaster.
 
2012-10-02 07:52:10 AM

cman: DjangoStonereaver: If there is to be any hope for the country, the GOP has to lose its majority in the Congress.

It won't happen, of course, but one can dream.

Yeah, about that, probably not a good idea.

I dont want one party controlling both legislative houses and the Presidency. It is always a recipe for disaster.


Yeah, you're right. We have made such great strides with the GOP stonewalling everything the
President supports, including things that they themselves had proposed in the past.
 
2012-10-02 08:00:44 AM

cman: DjangoStonereaver: If there is to be any hope for the country, the GOP has to lose its majority in the Congress.

It won't happen, of course, but one can dream.

Yeah, about that, probably not a good idea.

I dont want one party controlling both legislative houses and the Presidency. It is always a recipe for disaster.


You are a reliable guide for advocation of opposites.
 
2012-10-02 08:01:47 AM

DjangoStonereaver: cman: DjangoStonereaver: If there is to be any hope for the country, the GOP has to lose its majority in the Congress.

It won't happen, of course, but one can dream.

Yeah, about that, probably not a good idea.

I dont want one party controlling both legislative houses and the Presidency. It is always a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, you're right. We have made such great strides with the GOP stonewalling everything the
President supports, including things that they themselves had proposed in the past.


One party holding all the power is a dangerous thing.
 
2012-10-02 08:02:04 AM
His seat is safely Republican, so it's curious that Cantor agreed to the debate. He beat his 2010 Democratic challenger by 25 percentage points.

His constituents like being lied to, there is literally no reason for him to be truthful. It has no bearing on anything in his world.
 
2012-10-02 08:04:50 AM

cman: residency. It is always a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, you're right. We have made such great strides with the GOP stonewalling everything the
President supports, including things that they themselves had proposed in the past.

One party holding all the power is a dangerous thing.


So is one party trying to self-destruct the country and prevent all progress, just because it will make the other side look bad.

So is one party governing in bad faith, and refusing to vote for things *THEY THEMSELVES SUPPORT*.
 
2012-10-02 08:07:21 AM
This really is the first modern post-truth political campaign. Objective, observable reality no longer matters.
 
2012-10-02 08:08:56 AM
This odious turd burglar also blamed a stray bullet that hit his campaign office on the Democrats, and never apologized when that was proved to be false.
 
2012-10-02 08:09:20 AM

cman: DjangoStonereaver: cman: DjangoStonereaver: If there is to be any hope for the country, the GOP has to lose its majority in the Congress.

It won't happen, of course, but one can dream.

Yeah, about that, probably not a good idea.

I dont want one party controlling both legislative houses and the Presidency. It is always a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, you're right. We have made such great strides with the GOP stonewalling everything the
President supports, including things that they themselves had proposed in the past.

One party holding all the power is a dangerous thing.


Several years ago I would have agreed with you, but in those days most worked together to find a compromise. Now that the GOP has assumed the position of "compromise bad" I've changed my mind.
 
2012-10-02 08:09:56 AM

Demetrius: I've got a 5 and an 8-year-old. I've been teaching them since they were much younger to take responsibility for their actions.

At 5 and 8, they get it.

It's sad that our politicians aren't as smart as a couple of 5 and 8-year-olds.


It's not that they don't get it - it's that they don't have to.
 
2012-10-02 08:11:17 AM
Felgraf


Smartest
Funniest

2012-10-02 08:04:50 AM

cman: residency. It is always a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, you're right. We have made such great strides with the GOP stonewalling everything the
President supports, including things that they themselves had proposed in the past.

One party holding all the power is a dangerous thing.

So is one party trying to self-destruct the country and prevent all progress, just because it will make the other side look bad.

So is one party governing in bad faith, and refusing to vote for things *THEY THEMSELVES SUPPORT*.



Worse, they are running on "See how Obama refuses to work with us? Vote republican, or else we'll hold the economy hostage some more!"
 
2012-10-02 08:11:45 AM

cman: Yeah, about that, probably not a good idea.

I dont want one party controlling both legislative houses and the Presidency. It is always a recipe for disaster


Might want to check the S&P downgrade of T-Bills as the result of Republican scum.
 
2012-10-02 08:15:11 AM
Ugh, I'm going to hate myself for this, but I have to defend Cantor on this one. He was using nuance for once, unlike most Republicans I've seen lately. He's basically saying that the sequester was a compromise. In a compromise, you DON'T agree with everything you're voting for, by definition. Therefore, there is a big difference between "voting for something" and "supporting something."

If we're going to defend Obama and other Democrats when they give a nuanced position that won't fit in a soundbite, we have to allow Republicans to do the same.
 
2012-10-02 08:17:07 AM

cman: DjangoStonereaver: cman: DjangoStonereaver: If there is to be any hope for the country, the GOP has to lose its majority in the Congress.

It won't happen, of course, but one can dream.

Yeah, about that, probably not a good idea.

I dont want one party controlling both legislative houses and the Presidency. It is always a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, you're right. We have made such great strides with the GOP stonewalling everything the
President supports, including things that they themselves had proposed in the past.

One party holding all the power is a dangerous thing.


I would agree except that the Dems seem much less inclined to take the "party before everything else" stance, ideally what we would see is a large Dem majority which over the course of the next election or two results in the death of the GOP as we know it today and a creation of two opposing parties from a split in the Dems

/actually ideal would be a change in our election laws to better support third parties, like an instant runoff system
 
2012-10-02 08:17:23 AM

Felgraf: cman: residency. It is always a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, you're right. We have made such great strides with the GOP stonewalling everything the
President supports, including things that they themselves had proposed in the past.

One party holding all the power is a dangerous thing.

So is one party trying to self-destruct the country and prevent all progress, just because it will make the other side look bad.

So is one party governing in bad faith, and refusing to vote for things *THEY THEMSELVES SUPPORT*.


I am not saying that they aren't doing that. GOP are acting like a bunch of babies indeed. I am just saying that one party holding all the power is still not something that should be considered. When one party holds all the power, the crazies come out and all hell breaks loose. Remember Bush trying to get Meier on SCOTUS although she was not even close to being that kind of material? That is the kind of bullshiat that needs to be stopped in its place.
 
2012-10-02 08:18:23 AM

Krymson Tyde: cman: DjangoStonereaver: cman: DjangoStonereaver: If there is to be any hope for the country, the GOP has to lose its majority in the Congress.

It won't happen, of course, but one can dream.

Yeah, about that, probably not a good idea.

I dont want one party controlling both legislative houses and the Presidency. It is always a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, you're right. We have made such great strides with the GOP stonewalling everything the
President supports, including things that they themselves had proposed in the past.

One party holding all the power is a dangerous thing.

Several years ago I would have agreed with you, but in those days most worked together to find a compromise. Now that the GOP has assumed the position of "compromise bad" I've changed my mind.


Yep.

The Republican positionis basically anti antying Obama is for. Even if what he coems out for is a compromise. Look how fast they did a 180 on Libya. Look at how newt and Mitt distanced themselves from what was very similiar to what they proposed. Look at what they did with Obama giving states more leeway on welfare to work programs. These things all became "bad" once Obama was for them.
 
2012-10-02 08:20:43 AM
I thought the Republicans' wanted spending cuts. Why are they against spending cuts now? Why do they want to force my grand children to pay for today's government spending?

/ I think the sequester is bad idea basically because it is too dull a knife
// I am enjoying watching congress squirm pretending they had nothing to do sequester.
/// The whole mess is the result of congress and 100% the fault of Teabagger's unwillingness to compromise
//// And today we have a Teatard Cantor agrueing to increase government spending
 
2012-10-02 08:21:16 AM

cman: I am not saying that they aren't doing that. GOP are acting like a bunch of babies indeed. I am just saying that one party holding all the power is still not something that should be considered. When one party holds all the power, the crazies come out and all hell breaks loose. Remember Bush trying to get Meier on SCOTUS although she was not even close to being that kind of material? That is the kind of bullshiat that needs to be stopped in its place.


If the Democrats and the Republicans were equally crazy, you'd have a point. But they aren't.
 
2012-10-02 08:23:11 AM

Wooly Bully: cman: I am not saying that they aren't doing that. GOP are acting like a bunch of babies indeed. I am just saying that one party holding all the power is still not something that should be considered. When one party holds all the power, the crazies come out and all hell breaks loose. Remember Bush trying to get Meier on SCOTUS although she was not even close to being that kind of material? That is the kind of bullshiat that needs to be stopped in its place.

If the Democrats and the Republicans were equally crazy, you'd have a point. But they aren't.


With what happened when the GOP had the reigns the last time, no one shoud be wishing for one party majority. No party should be given a chance to duplicate the destruction that the GOP did to us.
 
2012-10-02 08:23:18 AM
Jesus, he's comes off as such a smarmy douche bag...
 
2012-10-02 08:23:46 AM

jack21221: Ugh, I'm going to hate myself for this, but I have to defend Cantor on this one. He was using nuance for once, unlike most Republicans I've seen lately. He's basically saying that the sequester was a compromise. In a compromise, you DON'T agree with everything you're voting for, by definition. Therefore, there is a big difference between "voting for something" and "supporting something."

If we're going to defend Obama and other Democrats when they give a nuanced position that won't fit in a soundbite, we have to allow Republicans to do the same.


Exactly: he didn't "Vote" vote for it - he just voted for it.
 
2012-10-02 08:24:16 AM

cman: One party holding all the power is a dangerous thing.


Extremists influencing government is a bad thing. I don't mind Republicans holding the house provided some Teatards get booted.
 
2012-10-02 08:25:47 AM

cman: Felgraf: cman: residency. It is always a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, you're right. We have made such great strides with the GOP stonewalling everything the
President supports, including things that they themselves had proposed in the past.

One party holding all the power is a dangerous thing.

So is one party trying to self-destruct the country and prevent all progress, just because it will make the other side look bad.

So is one party governing in bad faith, and refusing to vote for things *THEY THEMSELVES SUPPORT*.

I am not saying that they aren't doing that. GOP are acting like a bunch of babies indeed. I am just saying that one party holding all the power is still not something that should be considered. When one party holds all the power, the crazies come out and all hell breaks loose. Remember Bush trying to get Meier on SCOTUS although she was not even close to being that kind of material? That is the kind of bullshiat that needs to be stopped in its place.


Then it will never get better. Until the repbulican party gets the hint (which will, among other things, *require them to lose power*, they're going to keep going "VOTE FOR ME OR I WILL SHOOT THIS DOG NATION."

A new party is not going to spring up overnight and have just as much support as the repbulican party. It will be a slow rebuild, or a slow purging progress.

Furthermore, I'd argue the Democratic Party is currently diverse enough that the Democrats controlling all three branches would be *remarkably different* than the Repbulicans. Because the democrats *DO* vote against their own party.
 
2012-10-02 08:31:07 AM

cman: With what happened when the GOP had the reigns the last time, no one shoud be wishing for one party majority. No party should be given a chance to duplicate the destruction that the GOP did to us.


With what happened when the GOP had the reigns the last time, no one should be wishing for Republicans having a controlling voice in government. The Republicans should not be given a chance to duplicate the destruction that they did to us last time.
 
2012-10-02 08:33:10 AM

jack21221: Ugh, I'm going to hate myself for this, but I have to defend Cantor on this one. He was using nuance for once, unlike most Republicans I've seen lately. He's basically saying that the sequester was a compromise. In a compromise, you DON'T agree with everything you're voting for, by definition. Therefore, there is a big difference between "voting for something" and "supporting something."

If we're going to defend Obama and other Democrats when they give a nuanced position that won't fit in a soundbite, we have to allow Republicans to do the same.


Republicans have repeatedly and consistently used the "if you voted for a bill containing it, you support it" position. This is simply holding them to their own standard, ie. it's about hypocrisy. Democrats are much less prone to treating compromise as a moral failing, look at the ascension of the centrist from Clinton on. If he wants credit for compromising then he needs to be explicit and openly change his position re: compromise, until then he's just another hypocrite.
 
2012-10-02 08:33:35 AM

jack21221: Ugh, I'm going to hate myself for this, but I have to defend Cantor on this one. He was using nuance for once, unlike most Republicans I've seen lately. He's basically saying that the sequester was a compromise. In a compromise, you DON'T agree with everything you're voting for, by definition. Therefore, there is a big difference between "voting for something" and "supporting something."

If we're going to defend Obama and other Democrats when they give a nuanced position that won't fit in a soundbite, we have to allow Republicans to do the same.


While I see what you are saying it seems to be missing the fact that the debt ceiling was a completely avoidable situation that Cantor and his fellow house Republicans pushed us into. If he and they hated the sequester so much they could've just raised the debt ceiling. The whole situation is one of their making and they got, what, 98% of what they wanted.
 
2012-10-02 08:34:16 AM
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) insisted Monday night that he didn't support the budget sequester put into place last summer that Congress is now trying to get out of. But, well, he did vote for it.

Fark you, Cantor.

You deliberately came in and sank the 11th hour compromise hammered out by both sides. You wanted the compromise to fail even after getting "98% of what you wanted" in order to try to blame any negative consequences on Obama and because your teatarded caucus are too batguano insane to govern responsibly and you want Boehner's job.

Own that shiat.
 
2012-10-02 08:36:03 AM

cman: With what happened when the GOP had the reigns the last time, no one shoud be wishing for one party majority. No party should be given a chance to duplicate the destruction that the GOP did to us.


there's one major flaw in your theory, democrats are not a unified party like republicans are. republicans cull their party of moderates regularly while democrats will accept anyone. democrats as a party is fragmented enough that holding all three won't be a disaster. and unless they reform the filibuster, republicans only need 1 person in the senate to block anything.
 
2012-10-02 08:39:26 AM
"What is Truth", said jesting Pilate.
 
2012-10-02 08:44:02 AM

cman: DjangoStonereaver: cman: DjangoStonereaver: If there is to be any hope for the country, the GOP has to lose its majority in the Congress.

It won't happen, of course, but one can dream.

Yeah, about that, probably not a good idea.

I dont want one party controlling both legislative houses and the Presidency. It is always a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, you're right. We have made such great strides with the GOP stonewalling everything the
President supports, including things that they themselves had proposed in the past.

One party holding all the power is a dangerous thing.


In theory, yes. But since there's no way the GOP will ever discuss things like adults there are no "checks and balances".
 
2012-10-02 08:47:08 AM
andthisourlife.com

I did not vote for a compromise solution to the crisis I created by not understanding what a debt ceiling is, except that I did vote for it, but only because the president farted a bongo as I was going to vote, and I jumped and accidentally hit the wrong button.

Nailed it. Next question..
 
2012-10-02 08:51:28 AM

cman: Felgraf: cman: residency. It is always a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, you're right. We have made such great strides with the GOP stonewalling everything the
President supports, including things that they themselves had proposed in the past.

One party holding all the power is a dangerous thing.

So is one party trying to self-destruct the country and prevent all progress, just because it will make the other side look bad.

So is one party governing in bad faith, and refusing to vote for things *THEY THEMSELVES SUPPORT*.

I am not saying that they aren't doing that. GOP are acting like a bunch of babies indeed. I am just saying that one party holding all the power is still not something that should be considered. When one party holds all the power, the crazies come out and all hell breaks loose. Remember Bush trying to get Meier on SCOTUS although she was not even close to being that kind of material? That is the kind of bullshiat that needs to be stopped in its place.


One party controlling things is bad. Luckily if the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress that wouldn't be a problem.

/I am not a member of any organized party. I am a Democrat. - Will Rogers
 
2012-10-02 08:52:28 AM

cman: With what happened when the GOP had the reigns the last time, no one shoud be wishing for one party majority. No party should be given a chance to duplicate the destruction that the GOP did to us.


So voting for the party that actually brought the destruction is good?
 
2012-10-02 09:01:20 AM

cman: Wooly Bully: cman: I am not saying that they aren't doing that. GOP are acting like a bunch of babies indeed. I am just saying that one party holding all the power is still not something that should be considered. When one party holds all the power, the crazies come out and all hell breaks loose. Remember Bush trying to get Meier on SCOTUS although she was not even close to being that kind of material? That is the kind of bullshiat that needs to be stopped in its place.

If the Democrats and the Republicans were equally crazy, you'd have a point. But they aren't.

With what happened when the GOP had the reigns the last time, no one shoud be wishing for one party majority. No party should be given a chance to duplicate the destruction that the GOP did to us.


I know you are a Republican and asking for a citation would be pointless, but could you please cite an instance of an equally crazy move the Dems did in those 2 years when they had "complete control" when Obama took office?

Thanks
 
2012-10-02 09:04:21 AM

cman: With what happened when the GOP had the reigns the last time, no one shoud be wishing for one party majority. No party should be given a chance to duplicate the destruction that the GOP did to us.


cman, I've noticed you're generally pretty level-headed, but what we've got here is transcending "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican" and going all the way to "Republicans are bad, so vote Republican." It's a little breathtaking actually.
 
2012-10-02 09:05:06 AM

Muta: / I think the sequester is bad idea basically because it is too dull a knife
// I am enjoying watching congress squirm pretending they had nothing to do sequester.


Part of me is enjoying it, but the other part realizes that these assholes are in charge of the government. Congress basically decided to bet that they could come up with a good decision by making the consequence of losing the bet be that the country gets farked. Even though the fact that they were making that bet is proof that they make bad decisions. That's like something out of a Douglas Adams or Joseph Heller book.
 
2012-10-02 09:07:57 AM

cman: DjangoStonereaver: cman: DjangoStonereaver: If there is to be any hope for the country, the GOP has to lose its majority in the Congress.

It won't happen, of course, but one can dream.

Yeah, about that, probably not a good idea.

I dont want one party controlling both legislative houses and the Presidency. It is always a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, you're right. We have made such great strides with the GOP stonewalling everything the
President supports, including things that they themselves had proposed in the past.

One party holding all the power is a dangerous thing.


I used to feel the same way. But the modern Republican party is a greater danger. They need to be replaced, and they cannot be replaced until they are destroyed politically.
 
2012-10-02 09:09:34 AM
Cantor is a sleaze and his comments don't surprise me in the least (he regularly reminds me of a low-life used car dealer that says anything to make that sale).

In many ways, I hope the people in his district actually cross party lines and put Powell in the House in Nov. Then Cantor will have to do something he hasn't ever had to do in his life.

Look for a job.
 
2012-10-02 09:11:36 AM

cman: I dont want one party controlling both legislative houses and the Presidency. It is always a recipe for disaster.


When the Democratic party had a majority (for about 8 months, not two years), they passed a healthcare bill. What a disaster that was, right? We don't need no stinking healthcare. What we want is more wars.
 
2012-10-02 09:15:16 AM
I watched the 7th District debates last night and really liked Wayne. His delivery was sincere, if at times rough around the edges. Cantor is a smarmy dickbag whose only positions were to frame his points on a fictional single mother, or that ubiquitous small -business owner, and his only points were tax cuts and deregulation. When called out on specifics (like how he could justify extending his pay while holding service members' pay hostage, etc.) he claimed Wayne was running a campaign of personal attacks. Wayne succinctly countered with, " I'm not attacking you, I'm simply describing you."

I overwhelmingly agreed with Wayne's positions but I'm not holding my breath for a win in such a heavily-conservative district.
 
2012-10-02 09:18:19 AM

RminusQ: cman: With what happened when the GOP had the reigns the last time, no one shoud be wishing for one party majority. No party should be given a chance to duplicate the destruction that the GOP did to us.

cman, I've noticed you're generally pretty level-headed, but what we've got here is transcending "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican" and going all the way to "Republicans are bad, so vote Republican." It's a little breathtaking actually.


And people make the same argument that you HAVE to go out and vote for Obama to ensure Romney doesnt get the presidency. Obama is bad, but vote for Obama because we cannot let Romney win.

NateGrey: cman: Wooly Bully: cman: I am not saying that they aren't doing that. GOP are acting like a bunch of babies indeed. I am just saying that one party holding all the power is still not something that should be considered. When one party holds all the power, the crazies come out and all hell breaks loose. Remember Bush trying to get Meier on SCOTUS although she was not even close to being that kind of material? That is the kind of bullshiat that needs to be stopped in its place.

If the Democrats and the Republicans were equally crazy, you'd have a point. But they aren't.

With what happened when the GOP had the reigns the last time, no one shoud be wishing for one party majority. No party should be given a chance to duplicate the destruction that the GOP did to us.

I know you are a Republican and asking for a citation would be pointless, but could you please cite an instance of an equally crazy move the Dems did in those 2 years when they had "complete control" when Obama took office?

Thanks


Dems didnt have supermajority. They could not get around GOP cock-blocking. That does not mean that giving them a supermajority is the best idea. I am really pissed off about the whole situation. The GOP is filled with morons and extremists. When they had the reigns, they destroyed us. I don't want any party to put us in a position like that ever again.
 
2012-10-02 09:20:42 AM
He didn't "support" it, he just voted for it.

"The first surprise in our findings is that several interview respondents denied believing Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda, even though they had indicated such a belief on the survey." - (doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00280.x)
 
2012-10-02 09:24:28 AM
jack21221: Ugh, I'm going to hate myself for this, but I have to defend Cantor on this one. He was using nuance for once, unlike most Republicans I've seen lately. He's basically saying that the sequester was a compromise. In a compromise, you DON'T agree with everything you're voting for, by definition. Therefore, there is a big difference between "voting for something" and "supporting something."

Then you SAY THAT. You don't just say that it's "not true" that you supported someting that you actually voted for, in the hopes of giving the impression that your accuser is a liar, which is clearly what Cantor was going for.
 
2012-10-02 09:28:09 AM
i43.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-02 09:31:33 AM
No joking here; Eric Cantor is literally and seriously the only person I've ever wanted to revoke Jew status from. I literally cannot believe he has any sense of Judaism in him to be such a mendacious prick.

// now back to dick jokes
// Eric Cantor is a cock
// like, 6' of penis in human form
// but not the good kid of penis
// floppy, skinny, not-hard-since-Grenada, unsatisfying
// and probably moldy or cheesy or misshapen or something
// herpetic, maybe - but I tend to think Cantor is a kind of virus, too
 
2012-10-02 09:32:17 AM

thurstonxhowell: Muta: / I think the sequester is bad idea basically because it is too dull a knife
// I am enjoying watching congress squirm pretending they had nothing to do sequester.

Part of me is enjoying it, but the other part realizes that these assholes are in charge of the government. Congress basically decided to bet that they could come up with a good decision by making the consequence of losing the bet be that the country gets farked. Even though the fact that they were making that bet is proof that they make bad decisions. That's like something out of a Douglas Adams or Joseph Heller book.



Catch 435
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report