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.

(Washington Post)   Fact checkers parse last night's debate and come to the conclusion that it would be easier to figure out what the two *weren't* lying about   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 52
    More: Obvious, fact checking, estate taxes, Tax Policy Center, economic planning, Congressional Budget Office  
•       •       •

2692 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 10:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-04 10:28:30 AM
I THINK Obama was telling the truth about being married 20 years, but I haven't seen his long form marriage certificate, so I can't be sure. what is he hiding!
 
2012-10-04 10:48:37 AM
Someone fact checked a Democrat?

Nah, someone's lyin'

/drtfa
 
2012-10-04 10:49:57 AM
You watch a presidential candidate where one candidate always lies and one candidate always tells the truth. What question do you ask, and to which candidate do you ask it, to determine which channel is showing reruns of "Match Game"?
 
2012-10-04 10:52:30 AM
The words "tax cut" "tax rate" "debt" and "deficit" were all used interchangeably by both politicians. They should be delivered an electric shock every time they do that.
 
2012-10-04 10:53:02 AM
All of the lies Obama told were actually true until Governor weather vane changed his policies in the middle of a farking televised presidential debate.
 
2012-10-04 10:53:18 AM

Kibbler: You watch a presidential candidate where one candidate always lies and one candidate always tells the truth. What question do you ask, and to which candidate do you ask it, to determine which channel is showing reruns of "Match Game"?


Ask either one of them what the other one would tell you to watch and do the opposite.
 
2012-10-04 10:54:33 AM
WaPo's fact checker continues to complain about Obama's two claims about deficit reduction:
"Obama's $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress"
"The administration is counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end."

I don't understand why the President counting change's HE made in HIS deficit reduction plan, even though the agreements occured in the past is lying. The cuts are still in the future. Is he only allowed to talk about agreements he's going to make in the future?

What should he be saying, "I have a 4 trillion dollar deficit reduction plan, which includes some deficit reducation in the future based on agreements we made in the past 4 years"?

The executive branch operates at LEAST year in the future with budget planning- the defense dept HAS to talk about cuts being made such as the winding down of the war NOW if they want to account for those cuts in 2013/2014.
 
2012-10-04 10:54:54 AM
Somebody gets paid to declare BSABSVR? I thought we were in a bad economy or something...
 
2012-10-04 10:55:03 AM
Facts? If facts mattered, the average person could tell you the name of their state and local representatives. If facts mattered, a voter could tell you the ramification of specific bond initiatives. If facts mattered, people wouldn't treat voting for the President as a team sport.
 
2012-10-04 10:55:05 AM
Like I'd believe anything the LSM says. Puh-shaw.
 
2012-10-04 10:55:40 AM
5 trillion versus 716 billion, Both over ten years.

The Tax Policy Center has analyzed the specifics of Romney's plan thus far released and concluded the numbers aren't there to make it revenue neutral.

In the debate, Romney countered that "six other studies" have found that not to be the case, but he's wrong about that.


So, the 5 trillion figure is accurate until Romney provides a scoreable real plan.

And on the other side...

Indeed, the House Republican budget plan crafted by Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, retains virtually all of the Medicare "cuts" contained in the health-care law, but diverts them instead to his Medicare overhaul. Republicans argue that that is a more effective use of the savings.

We get "cuts" in brackets that are touted as savings in the Lyin' Plan er Ryan Plan.

Both sides are bad, indeed.
 
2012-10-04 10:56:38 AM
Anything that Romney said that didn't state he will fark over the middle/lower class was a lie.
 
2012-10-04 10:56:59 AM
An hour ago it was 9 o'clock, Mr. President. Now you claim it is 10 o'clock. Which is it? Why must you mislead the American people?
 
2012-10-04 11:01:41 AM
So if we look at what Obama said in one specific manner, in a certain context, in regards to one thing Romney said (which he later changed), he was sort of inaccurate. Also, Romney flat-out lied multiple times. Boy howdy, I guess both sides are bad!
 
2012-10-04 11:01:53 AM
Doesn't matter. No one is talking about what they said last night, only how they said it.
 
2012-10-04 11:03:03 AM
Seems like Romney told the lion share of whoppers last night, to me...
 
2012-10-04 11:03:09 AM
Can we possibly get a fact-checking thread discussing Romney bringing up the "Death Panels" more than once? and completely misrepresenting this council's purpose?
 
2012-10-04 11:03:44 AM
Anybody who thinks a politician doesn't lie, even "their guy," is a certifiable idiot.

Seriously? "Politicians lie" is news?


i1.cpcache.com
 
2012-10-04 11:19:59 AM

Tamater: Can we possibly get a fact-checking thread discussing Romney bringing up the "Death Panels" more than once?


That's mentioned in this article.
 
2012-10-04 11:22:28 AM
Saw this coming with Romney. He is conservative when he needs to be conservative, moderate when he needs to be moderate and liberal when he needs to be liberal (to win an election). He is a chameleon with no real fixed political ideals, only raw ambition. So yeah, expect lots of lies from Romney for the rest of his life.
 
2012-10-04 11:23:06 AM

keylock71: Seems like Romney told the lion share of whoppers last night, to me...


no you see both sides are bad, President Fart overstated the jobs created in the last 30 months by less than 10%
 
2012-10-04 11:25:02 AM

born_yesterday: Facts? If facts mattered, the average person could tell you the name of their state and local representatives. If facts mattered, a voter could tell you the ramification of specific bond initiatives. If facts mattered, people wouldn't treat voting for the President as a team sport.


To be fair, anyone that names their local reps on the internet is also stupid, but for different reasons (posting personally identifiable info on a message board is a "you lose one internet, nothing but cat pictures for you for a month" penalty).

//Not that people couldn't put two and two together with enough e-stalking, but opening yourself up to people _casually_ locating you in meatspace is perhaps not Black Adder's most cunning plan.
 
2012-10-04 11:30:03 AM

Jim_Callahan: born_yesterday: Facts? If facts mattered, the average person could tell you the name of their state and local representatives. If facts mattered, a voter could tell you the ramification of specific bond initiatives. If facts mattered, people wouldn't treat voting for the President as a team sport.

To be fair, anyone that names their local reps on the internet is also stupid, but for different reasons (posting personally identifiable info on a message board is a "you lose one internet, nothing but cat pictures for you for a month" penalty).

//Not that people couldn't put two and two together with enough e-stalking, but opening yourself up to people _casually_ locating you in meatspace is perhaps not Black Adder's most cunning plan.


Your point is taken--I meant "name" as in when I accost them violently on the street and ask. But having said that, here's a picture of my girlfriend.
 
2012-10-04 11:40:44 AM

Pochas: Saw this coming with Romney. He is conservative when he needs to be conservative, moderate when he needs to be moderate and liberal when he needs to be liberal (to win an election). He is a chameleon with no real fixed political ideals, only raw ambition. So yeah, expect lots of lies from Romney for the rest of his life.


Well, if that's what he needs to win the election, what do you expect.

I mean, all the man wants is to be Presient--is that so much to ask? He has totally really really wanted to be President for a really really long time, so he has totally earned it. Who are we to deny him that which he has earned?
 
2012-10-04 11:41:58 AM
"You said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant."

--Romney


So is this one where Obama was actually right, but we can't call Mitt out for lying because he really might not know about it?

Toddlers don't know about gravity, but they still fall down.
 
2012-10-04 11:43:47 AM

sprawl15: Tamater: Can we possibly get a fact-checking thread discussing Romney bringing up the "Death Panels" more than once?

That's mentioned in this article.


It is, but it deserves more attention than Big Bird.
 
2012-10-04 11:55:01 AM
Am I the only one who's mind gets dizzy when they start throwing out numbers? One says $5 trillion, the other says $3.8 trillion. One guy wants $550 billion in subsidies for something, the other says it will cost $452 billion more than his plan. One guy says he will lower taxes by %18 percent, while the other says his plan will lower them by 18% if you're making over $100k...obviously I'm making up numbers here, but that's the point. They both could be making up numbers as far as I know. And I guess that's the point. They could both be making stuff up on the fly, blind me with a myriad of numbers, and I would have no idea which way is up or down. After a while I mentally shut down and just focus on which guy looks and sounds less like a d-bag.

How about this for a debate forum? The moderator asks a question. Romney gives his answer in less than three sentences or 30 seconds, whichever is first. The Obama's turn. Next question, Obama goes first. We do that for about an hour, and call it a day. No closing statements. No pandering. No time for stump speeches. Just questions, followed by answers. Would something like that work? Does something like that even exist? Or am I living in La-La Land?
 
2012-10-04 11:55:52 AM

GeneralJim: Anybody who thinks a politician doesn't lie, even "their guy," is a certifiable idiot.

Seriously? "Politicians lie" is news?

[i1.cpcache.com image 160x160]


I have to ask, is there a reason you always post in green, or is it just because you're a massive attention whore?
 
2012-10-04 11:56:19 AM

Tamater: sprawl15: Tamater: Can we possibly get a fact-checking thread discussing Romney bringing up the "Death Panels" more than once?

That's mentioned in this article.

It is, but it deserves more attention than Big Bird.


Why? I'd argue the thing that deserves the most attention is Romney categorically taking any revenue increases off the table.
 
2012-10-04 12:02:47 PM

Kibbler: You watch a presidential candidate where one candidate always lies and one candidate always tells the truth. What question do you ask, and to which candidate do you ask it, to determine which channel is showing reruns of "Match Game"?


You shoot one of them in the foot. If he says "you just shot me!", ask him what channel it is. If his says "you didn't just shoot me!" ask the other guy what channel it is.

/Order of the Stick FTW
 
2012-10-04 12:10:36 PM

sprawl15: Tamater: sprawl15: Tamater: Can we possibly get a fact-checking thread discussing Romney bringing up the "Death Panels" more than once?

That's mentioned in this article.

It is, but it deserves more attention than Big Bird.

Why? I'd argue the thing that deserves the most attention is Romney categorically taking any revenue increases off the table.


that's a surprise? That is new?

come on. he doesn't have the balls to stand up to Grover Norquist.
 
2012-10-04 12:36:49 PM
I told my colleague this today: you can't fact check Romney because he doesn't have a complete policy on anything.

"I'm for regulations but I'm not going to tell you which ones yet."

"I'm for tax cuts for EVERYONE!!! You get a tax cut! You get a tax cut! But revenues will be the same because the cuts will trigger an impossible level of GDP growth coupled with fewer deductions I'm not going to tell you about yet which don't add up even if you included all of them - and those deductions would probably be the equivalent of tax hikes for the middle class."

"I'm for education but you don't need to know how I'm going to pay for it, and college students don't need money for college because their parents can pay for it."

"I'm for repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a plan, but I'm not going to tell you how that plan would work except OMG STATES RIGHTS."

How is Obama supposed to state facts about Romney's policies? How do you argue with a guy who has no friggin platform? It's ridiculous.

And this guy won the debate on these points. Give me a break. I'll give you a Romney win on energy and that's it. There's no intellectual rhetoric that would make me think Romney 'won' the debate. The media plays much more of an important role in swinging public perception than you think. And they want a close race. End of story.
 
2012-10-04 12:37:36 PM

Citrate1007: Anything that Romney said that didn't state he will fark over the middle/lower class was a lie.


That may be the case but Romney clearly outperformed the president. He was more confident and delivered his message clearly. Obama seemed preoccupied through the whole debate until the 3 minutes prior to the closing 2 minutes.

Obama's format was superior. 1) Here is what I have done 2) Here is how I made it happen OR 1) Here is what I am going to do 2) Here is how I am going to do it.

Romney on the other hand was more like: 1) Here is what I am going to do.

Obama had significantly more substance but most voters won't care. Romney is going to see a big jump in the polls over the next couple days.
 
2012-10-04 01:19:27 PM
What did Obama lie about?

I'll wait.
 
2012-10-04 01:20:47 PM
How can Mitt Romney repeal Obamacare and let the states implement their own plan while simultaneously having a magical secret plan that covers pre-existing conditions and has most the other popular stuff from Obamacare, just without all that pesky "paying for it"?

If having a choice between Medicare and private insurance will be so amazing for retirees in the future, why deny our current retirees this same choice? Could it be that Romney's plan is so bad that even over the short term for our current retirees, his voucher program would completely screw them over?
 
2012-10-04 01:37:10 PM

Kazrath: Citrate1007: Anything that Romney said that didn't state he will fark over the middle/lower class was a lie.

That may be the case but Romney clearly outperformed the president. He was more confident and delivered his message clearly. Obama seemed preoccupied through the whole debate until the 3 minutes prior to the closing 2 minutes.

Obama's format was superior. 1) Here is what I have done 2) Here is how I made it happen OR 1) Here is what I am going to do 2) Here is how I am going to do it.

Romney on the other hand was more like: 1) Here is what I am going to do.

Obama had significantly more substance but most voters won't care. Romney is going to see a big jump in the polls over the next couple days.


Intellectually Obama won by a large margin. Too bad everyone who actually thinks has already decided who to vote for.

I won't deny I was completely baffled by his performance. Faced with Romney's stream of BS, warped half truths and lies, he let them draw him into long, drawn-out answers to minutae. The healthcare segment was especially painful (or perhaps it was because I was wishing for a loaded revolver at that point) when Obama spent probably a full minute talking about what the ACA review board will do. And he went into far too much detail for it to have been improvised on the spot, which leads me to wonder "dude, who prepared you for this?" It was basically like watching a scientist in a "debate" with a creationist... They can spew way more BS in their 2 minutes than you can possibly refute in yours. 

My most charitable interpertation is that something major is ongoing and Obama has higher priorities than debate prep. But, given what I would expect to be the literally nation-destroyingly bad policies of a Romney administration with a Republican majority, and (as mentioned in the debate thread) that the performance tonight will temporarily halt the sinking of Romney's campaign and thereby prevent money from being redirected from the President's campaign to various congressional campaigns, these debates (inane though they are) should have a pretty high priority. As painfully stupid as human political behavior is, you can't be President without devoting enough resources to fully play the game.
 
2012-10-04 01:49:13 PM

erik-k: But, given what I would expect to be the literally nation-destroyingly bad policies of a Romney administration with a Republican majority, and (as mentioned in the debate thread) that the performance tonight will temporarily halt the sinking of Romney's campaign and thereby prevent money from being redirected from the President's campaign to various congressional campaigns, these debates (inane though they are) should have a pretty high priority. As painfully stupid as human political behavior is, you can't be President without devoting enough resources to fully play the game.


On that note I think Obama should have said more about the Republican led congress in the debates. He briefly mentioned it and made a zinger, but then just let it go, possibly to avoid looking like he was shifting blame.

But congress really needs to be a #1 priority of Obama's campaign and it simply is never mentioned. If Obama wants to pursue any of his ideas and policies, he needs a Democratically controlled congress, and he needs all of the people who vote for him to make that happen. If people just vote in Obama but Republicans retain the House, nothing will get done.

Most people don't know enough about how our government works so they don't realize electing Obama isn't enough.
 
2012-10-04 01:51:55 PM
when Romney said:

My own view, by the way, is I've added to that. I happen to believe, I want the kids that are getting federal dollars from IDEA or Title I -- these are disabled kids or -- or -- or poor kids or -- or lower-income kids, rather, I want them to be able to go to the school of their choice.

is that even possible? if I don't like the school my kids are going to go to, can I just take them somewhere else? And to me, it seems to be oversimplified...like a poorer person with a part-time job can just drive across down to the good school everyday. 

/romney did do better than I expected...but that is not really saying much considering how sh*tty I expected him to do.
 
2012-10-04 02:00:55 PM

justtray: What did Obama lie about?

I'll wait.


"I've put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan.... And the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 of additional revenue.... That's how the bipartisan commission that talked about how we should move forward suggested."

- Obama


Though Obama often claims that his deficit-reduction plan has the "balanced approach" of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposal offered by the co-chairmen, the Simpson-Bowles plan is actually quite different. (The commission failed to reach a consensus.)

For instance, Simpson-Bowles envisioned $4 trillion in debt reduction over nine years; the president's plan would spread the cuts over 10 years. A good chunk of the savings from deficit reduction piles up in that last year. When the two plans are compared apples to apples, Simpson-Bowles yields about $6.6 trillion in deficit reduction - 50 percent more than Obama's plan.

By Obama's math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). That's how he claims $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.

But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. Obama's $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank. (The Obama campaign notes that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the president's budget would reduce the deficit by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. The national debt, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, would rise from 73 percent to 76 percent in that period, however.)

"It's important for us ... that we take some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America."

- Obama


This is fantasy money. The administration is counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end.

In other words, by projecting war spending far in the future, the administration is able to claim credit for saving money it never intended to spend. And Obama would still be borrowing the money to "rebuild America" (Imagine someone borrowing $50,000 a year for college - and then declaring that they have an extra $500,000 to spend over the next decade once they graduate.)

This budget trick actually works both ways. The Bush administration never properly accounted for war spending, refusing to project costs in the future, which kept its deficit projections artificially low. Now that the wars are winding down, the Obama administration is happy to project costs far into the future, because it artificially inflates the potential deficit reduction. Funny how that works.


There's two, shall I continue?
 
2012-10-04 02:12:57 PM

bdub77: I told my colleague this today: you can't fact check Romney because he doesn't have a complete policy on anything.

"I'm for regulations but I'm not going to tell you which ones yet."

"I'm for tax cuts for EVERYONE!!! You get a tax cut! You get a tax cut! But revenues will be the same because the cuts will trigger an impossible level of GDP growth coupled with fewer deductions I'm not going to tell you about yet which don't add up even if you included all of them - and those deductions would probably be the equivalent of tax hikes for the middle class."

"I'm for education but you don't need to know how I'm going to pay for it, and college students don't need money for college because their parents can pay for it."

"I'm for repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a plan, but I'm not going to tell you how that plan would work except OMG STATES RIGHTS."

How is Obama supposed to state facts about Romney's policies? How do you argue with a guy who has no friggin platform? It's ridiculous.

And this guy won the debate on these points. Give me a break. I'll give you a Romney win on energy and that's it. There's no intellectual rhetoric that would make me think Romney 'won' the debate. The media plays much more of an important role in swinging public perception than you think. And they want a close race. End of story.


Romney ranted and screamed and Obama was calm and rational. Therefore, Romney won the debate. Can't you tell? Being calm and rational are not qualities we want in a President! We want a President to rant and scream!
 
2012-10-04 02:50:43 PM

Kibbler: You watch a presidential candidate where one candidate always lies and one candidate always tells the truth. What question do you ask, and to which candidate do you ask it, to determine which channel is showing reruns of "Match Game"?


You ask either one what channel the other guy would say is showing "Match Game" reruns.
 
2012-10-04 02:52:45 PM

Egoy3k: Kibbler: You watch a presidential candidate where one candidate always lies and one candidate always tells the truth. What question do you ask, and to which candidate do you ask it, to determine which channel is showing reruns of "Match Game"?

Ask either one of them what the other one would tell you to watch and do the opposite.


fark. Nevermind. Fark is best used after coffee.
 
2012-10-04 02:55:04 PM

Sid_the_sadist: justtray: What did Obama lie about?

I'll wait.

"I've put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan.... And the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 of additional revenue.... That's how the bipartisan commission that talked about how we should move forward suggested."

- Obama

Though Obama often claims that his deficit-reduction plan has the "balanced approach" of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposal offered by the co-chairmen, the Simpson-Bowles plan is actually quite different. (The commission failed to reach a consensus.)

For instance, Simpson-Bowles envisioned $4 trillion in debt reduction over nine years; the president's plan would spread the cuts over 10 years. A good chunk of the savings from deficit reduction piles up in that last year. When the two plans are compared apples to apples, Simpson-Bowles yields about $6.6 trillion in deficit reduction - 50 percent more than Obama's plan.

By Obama's math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). That's how he claims $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.

But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. Obama's $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank. (The Obama campaign notes that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the president's budget would reduce the deficit by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. The national debt, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, would rise from 73 percent to 76 percent in that period, however.)

"It's important for us ... that we take some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America."

- Obama

This is fantasy money. The administration is counting $848 billion in phantom savings from ...


Sure since neither of those are lies by even your own admission. Now try again.
 
2012-10-04 03:02:21 PM

justtray: Sure since neither of those are lies by even your own admission. Now try again.


Yay!! I got a Green Arrow(TM)
 
2012-10-04 03:19:38 PM

GranoblasticMan: GeneralJim: Anybody who thinks a politician doesn't lie, even "their guy," is a certifiable idiot.

Seriously? "Politicians lie" is news?

[i1.cpcache.com image 160x160]

I have to ask, is there a reason you always post in green, or is it just because you're a massive attention whore?


Half the fun is to favorite him and choose just the right background color so his comments disappear
 
2012-10-04 03:20:09 PM

GeneralJim: Anybody who thinks a politician doesn't lie, even "their guy," is a certifiable idiot.

Seriously? "Politicians lie" is news?

[i1.cpcache.com image 160x160]


Yes, it should be news. Every time. Our problem is that it's not. If Romney can lie as naturally as he did last night, I'm sure he can lie his way into a couple more wars as president just like the Bush administration did. If you want to see our country cave in, Romney is probably your man.
 
2012-10-04 03:43:38 PM

Sid_the_sadist: justtray: Sure since neither of those are lies by even your own admission. Now try again.

Yay!! I got a Green Arrow(TM)


Still waiting for those lies.
 
2012-10-04 04:22:38 PM

justtray: Sid_the_sadist: justtray: Sure since neither of those are lies by even your own admission. Now try again.

Yay!! I got a Green Arrow(TM)

Still waiting for those lies.

And another one! Woohoo I'm collecting them now! Shall I go for three or will you realize you've been tossing tasty McRibs under my bridge?
 
2012-10-04 04:28:13 PM

Sid_the_sadist: justtray: Sid_the_sadist: justtray: Sure since neither of those are lies by even your own admission. Now try again.

Yay!! I got a Green Arrow(TM)

Still waiting for those lies.
And another one! Woohoo I'm collecting them now! Shall I go for three or will you realize you've been tossing tasty McRibs under my bridge?


Okay, I get it now. But I still don't get the Green Arrow reference...
 
2012-10-04 04:51:39 PM

Sid_the_sadist: justtray: Sid_the_sadist: justtray: Sure since neither of those are lies by even your own admission. Now try again.

Yay!! I got a Green Arrow(TM)

Still waiting for those lies.
And another one! Woohoo I'm collecting them now! Shall I go for three or will you realize you've been tossing tasty McRibs under my bridge?


Hilarious. Entertaining for all. That knock at the door? I think it's Monty Python.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 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