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.

(Yahoo)   Protip: If you're going to call out your opponent for using actors in a TV spot about asbestos victims... make sure they're actually actors and not real asbestos victims   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 52
    More: Fail, GOP, asbestos victims, asbestos, mesothelioma, The Woman-Identified Woman, actors, Travelers Insurance  
•       •       •

10093 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Oct 2012 at 12:43 PM (2 years 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
 
2012-10-19 10:24:56 AM  
get back in your pickup truck, scotty!
 
2012-10-19 12:07:04 PM  
This is what Scott brown has: a truck, a feathered headsess, and the hope that people are stupid enough not to understand how class action suits work.
 
2012-10-19 12:34:30 PM  

what_now: This is what Scott brown has: a truck, a feathered headsess, and the hope that people are stupid enough not to understand how class action suits work.


That's not fair. He's got handsome looks and hot daughters, too.

Brown actually hasn't been the worst. But this campaign has caused me to lose some respect for him.
 
2012-10-19 12:51:46 PM  
Surprised Scott didn't try to insinuate that the actors were also claiming to be Indian actors.
 
2012-10-19 12:53:26 PM  
In the ad, Jackson credits Warren for going "all the way to the Supreme Court to try to get more money for asbestos victims." She says Brown should be "ashamed" for using victims' suffering to help himself.

"Their suffering is to help ME campaign," she quickly added.
 
2012-10-19 12:56:40 PM  
FTFA: "It was wrong for me to have jumped to those conclusions and I apologize to those I offended," Brown said Wednesday.

Did he actually admit fault?

RINO! RINO! BURN HIM! BURN HIM!
 
2012-10-19 12:57:41 PM  

Diogenes: what_now: This is what Scott brown has: a truck, a feathered headsess, and the hope that people are stupid enough not to understand how class action suits work.

That's not fair. He's got handsome looks and hot daughters, too.

Brown actually hasn't been the worst. But this campaign has caused me to lose some respect for him.


He does have hot daughters. If I vote for Brown do you think there's a chance one of them will sleep with me?
 
2012-10-19 12:59:17 PM  
But, aren't we all actors in this film we call "life"?
 
2012-10-19 01:01:04 PM  
I hope Brown loses. He's been astoundingly douchy in his campaign and deserves to get kicked out of office. Plus Warren is one smart lady and I would be proud to have her as my representative in the senate.
 
2012-10-19 01:02:13 PM  
FTA: "The Taunton Daily Gazette..."

What's black and white and smells worse on the inside than it does on the outside?"
 
2012-10-19 01:15:36 PM  
Mesothelioma?
 
2012-10-19 01:15:49 PM  
All the world's a stage
And all the men and women merely players
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts

(Scott Brown is sans brain, sans eyes, sans taste)
 
2012-10-19 01:16:47 PM  

Diogenes: what_now: This is what Scott brown has: a truck, a feathered headsess, and the hope that people are stupid enough not to understand how class action suits work.

That's not fair. He's got handsome looks and hot daughters, too.

Brown actually hasn't been the worst. But this campaign has caused me to lose some respect for him.


I was fine with him right up until some of his yahoo supporters stole my elderly mom's Warren sign...three times.

Since they had to trespass to do it, screw them AND their candidate.
 
2012-10-19 01:21:29 PM  

ProfessorOhki: In the ad, Jackson credits Warren for going "all the way to the Supreme Court to try to get more money for asbestos victims." She says Brown should be "ashamed" for using victims' suffering to help himself.

"Their suffering is to help ME campaign," she quickly added.


Right, because victims of a tragedy shouldn't have any desire to advocate for a woman who helped them through it. They should remain silent like good little victims and let some stupid douche win the election instead.
 
2012-10-19 01:32:55 PM  
Why does the beltway media continue to say that Brown is a skilled politician?
 
2012-10-19 01:34:15 PM  

CarnySaur: But, aren't we all actors in this film we call "life"?


Just a pawn...as it were.?

RIP Mongo

/AKA Alex Karras
//Ain't even gonna attempt to name that other role he played
 
2012-10-19 01:35:23 PM  
The New Republican Slogan: No matter what I say, I'm sorry.
 
2012-10-19 01:39:05 PM  

Grapple: Mesothelioma?


That's MESOthelioma - a cancer linked to asbestos -

/The name sounds like a rodent infestation
//Cough, cough
 
2012-10-19 01:39:25 PM  

stonicus: The New Republican Slogan: No matter what I say, I'm sorry.



No I think it is --"I am sorry that you took offense at what I said" only a RINO actually apologizes
 
2012-10-19 01:42:42 PM  

lennavan: Diogenes: what_now: This is what Scott brown has: a truck, a feathered headsess, and the hope that people are stupid enough not to understand how class action suits work.

That's not fair. He's got handsome looks and hot daughters, too.

Brown actually hasn't been the worst. But this campaign has caused me to lose some respect for him.

He does have hot daughters. If I vote for Brown do you think there's a chance one of them will sleep with me?


That's what he's hoping ;-)
 
2012-10-19 01:43:24 PM  
Well, that was brief:

Scott Brown blames Elizabeth Warren for his insult to victims' families

Scott Brown had initially issued a gracious apology for calling the family members of absestos victims who appeared in ads for Elizabeth Warren "paid actors." That graciousness is totally gone now, and he's back to his usual nasty self as he gets pressed further about it.

"She's been the one who's been representing those large corporations against those victims. It's unfair. I should have verified it. I said I was sorry and I want to reiterate that," he said."

Link
 
P0e
2012-10-19 01:44:53 PM  
As a MA voter, the entire campaign has basically been the following conversation:

Warren: I'd like to talk about an issue.
Brown: I'd like to make an off-topic accusation
Warren: I have no idea why you're bringing up that issue, we should be talking about issues that matter, and oh by the way here's proof that your attack is full of crap
Brown: The fact that you're defending it proves I'm right, so I'm going to release 5 more adds on the issue and double down on how offensive I am about it.
Warren: Ok. I'll talk about the issues
Voters: Wow, Scott brown is a dick.
 
2012-10-19 01:46:19 PM  

Shenanigans!: ProfessorOhki: In the ad, Jackson credits Warren for going "all the way to the Supreme Court to try to get more money for asbestos victims." She says Brown should be "ashamed" for using victims' suffering to help himself.

"Their suffering is to help ME campaign," she quickly added.

Right, because victims of a tragedy shouldn't have any desire to advocate for a woman who helped them through it. They should remain silent like good little victims and let some stupid douche win the election instead.


I simply said that she's using the suffering they endured as an emotional appeal in her campaign- that's pretty much undeniable, right? Maybe it's justified, maybe it's in good taste. Don't know, haven't seen any of the ads. Point is it's still a hypocritical statement, especially given the fact that he wasn't using their suffering; he was saying she was doing so in a misleading way. Her campaign on the other hand IS directly profiting from their suffering. Not only that but the line about "he should be ashamed..." is actually ANOTHER instance of bringing up their suffering for political edge.

IMHO, intentionally using mostly-unrelated emotional appeals to manipulate voters is a lousy move and cheapens the idea of voting in general.
 
2012-10-19 01:46:56 PM  
If they want me to believe that they are not paid actors let them put that fact out in the media on their own, separate from any advertisements from Mrs. Warren's campaign. I don't mind them telling the truth, I mind them telling the truth in an ad paid for by anyones campaign.
 
2012-10-19 02:02:08 PM  

ProfessorOhki: I simply said that she's using the suffering they endured as an emotional appeal in her campaign- that's pretty much undeniable, right? Maybe it's justified, maybe it's in good taste. Don't know, haven't seen any of the ads.


Wrong. Scott Brown made the misleading attack ads first, Warren came back with these ads with people actually affected saying that Scott Brown is full of it.

Scott Brown tried to use their suffering without their permission or support and then he denigrated them by saying they were paid actors.

But at least you're big enough to admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about and simply jumped to an ill-considered conclusion.
 
2012-10-19 02:05:44 PM  

Monongahela Misfit: If they want me to believe that they are not paid actors


Yeah, the burden of proof is on these poor folks who were thrust into a political campaign through no fault of their own.
 
2012-10-19 02:07:05 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Her campaign on the other hand IS directly profiting from their suffering.


I really shouldn't have gone back to finish your post. You really, really have no idea what you're talking about and should probably just stop posting on the subject.
 
2012-10-19 02:12:26 PM  

P0e: As a MA voter, the entire campaign has basically been the following conversation:

Warren: I'd like to talk about an issue.
Brown: I'd like to make an off-topic accusation
Warren: I have no idea why you're bringing up that issue, we should be talking about issues that matter, and oh by the way here's proof that your attack is full of crap
Brown: The fact that you're defending it proves I'm right, so I'm going to release 5 more adds on the issue and double down on how offensive I am about it.
Warren: Ok. I'll talk about the issues
Voters: Wow, Scott brown is a dick.


Pretty much this.

Had Scott Brown ran a clean campaign and not gone negative and told his supporters to cool it and keep everything above the table he would be in a much better position than he is now.

Instead, not so much.
 
2012-10-19 02:12:32 PM  

P0e: As a MA voter, the entire campaign has basically been the following conversation:

Warren: I'd like to talk about an issue.
Brown: I'd like to make an off-topic accusation
Warren: I have no idea why you're bringing up that issue, we should be talking about issues that matter, and oh by the way here's proof that your attack is full of crap
Brown: The fact that you're defending it proves I'm right, so I'm going to release 5 more adds on the issue and double down on how offensive I am about it.
Warren: Ok. I'll talk about the issues
Voters: Wow, Scott brown is a dick.


Yep, it's fun to watch.
 
2012-10-19 02:26:43 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: ProfessorOhki: I simply said that she's using the suffering they endured as an emotional appeal in her campaign- that's pretty much undeniable, right? Maybe it's justified, maybe it's in good taste. Don't know, haven't seen any of the ads.

Wrong. Scott Brown made the misleading attack ads first, Warren came back with these ads with people actually affected saying that Scott Brown is full of it.

Scott Brown tried to use their suffering without their permission or support and then he denigrated them by saying they were paid actors.

But at least you're big enough to admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about and simply jumped to an ill-considered conclusion.


I don't doubt that he did and I do get the impression this guy is a douchebag. I'm just of the mind set that the better course of action would have been, "of course they're real people" and going back to talking about positive points. I loathe negative campaigning even if it's retaliatory and probably well deserved.

Zulu_as_Kono: Monongahela Misfit: If they want me to believe that they are not paid actors

Yeah, the burden of proof is on these poor folks who were thrust into a political campaign through no fault of their own.


I agree completely with you here; that's why I think that moving on quickly, leaving no opportunity for rebuttal would have been the 'higher road' in this case. I've got no issue with the ads you mention correcting the attack ads. Lies deserve to be rectified. I just get the sense from the article that the race is more about going back and forth with each other at this point than it is about showing why you're a good fit for the position. That sort of situation benefits the candidate least likely to get elected otherwise. Ever dollar she needs to spend going "this guy is a liar" is a dollar she's not spending to showcase herself.

Zulu_as_Kono: ProfessorOhki: Her campaign on the other hand IS directly profiting from their suffering.

I really shouldn't have gone back to finish your post. You really, really have no idea what you're talking about and should probably just stop posting on the subject.


Er, I don't mean 'profiting' in a exploitative manner; you're reading too far into what I'm saying. Their story is being told to the benefit of the campaign. That fact is literally all I meant by that, nothing more, not an accusation.
 
2012-10-19 02:27:40 PM  
I would certainly never advocate causing the majority of commercial actors to become actual asbestos victims, but that really would be the best-case scenario.
 
2012-10-19 02:31:15 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: P0e: As a MA voter, the entire campaign has basically been the following conversation:

Warren: I'd like to talk about an issue.
Brown: I'd like to make an off-topic accusation
Warren: I have no idea why you're bringing up that issue, we should be talking about issues that matter, and oh by the way here's proof that your attack is full of crap
Brown: The fact that you're defending it proves I'm right, so I'm going to release 5 more adds on the issue and double down on how offensive I am about it.
Warren: Ok. I'll talk about the issues
Voters: Wow, Scott brown is a dick.

Yep, it's fun to watch.


The sad part is Brown still has a great shot at winning anyways. There are a lot of idiots people out there who see Brown as a champion of the working guy while Warren is seen as the rich, out-of-touch "la-dee-da Harvard perfesser" elitist. Although I hope Brown's recent conduct wakes people up.

/Hoping in one hand
//Touching myself in the other
 
2012-10-19 02:39:28 PM  

ProfessorOhki: I don't doubt that he did and I do get the impression this guy is a douchebag. I'm just of the mind set that the better course of action would have been, "of course they're real people" and going back to talking about positive points. I loathe negative campaigning even if it's retaliatory and probably well deserved.


You've got him running these ads all day 7 days a week and you think her holding a press conference is going to make the difference?

ProfessorOhki: I agree completely with you here; that's why I think that moving on quickly, leaving no opportunity for rebuttal would have been the 'higher road' in this case. I've got no issue with the ads you mention correcting the attack ads. Lies deserve to be rectified.


You have no issue with them even though you loathe them? That's confusing.

On the other hand, I was being sarcastic. These poor people had been through enough before Scott Brown tried to use them to attack Warren. Now you want them to organize a press conference or something? Of course, they'd be attacked for that, too.

ProfessorOhki: you're reading too far into what I'm saying.


No, I'm reading that you don't know what you're talking about, and haven't been convinced otherwise.
 
2012-10-19 02:42:22 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Shenanigans!: ProfessorOhki: In the ad, Jackson credits Warren for going "all the way to the Supreme Court to try to get more money for asbestos victims." She says Brown should be "ashamed" for using victims' suffering to help himself.

"Their suffering is to help ME campaign," she quickly added.

Right, because victims of a tragedy shouldn't have any desire to advocate for a woman who helped them through it. They should remain silent like good little victims and let some stupid douche win the election instead.

I simply said that she's using the suffering they endured as an emotional appeal in her campaign- that's pretty much undeniable, right? Maybe it's justified, maybe it's in good taste. Don't know, haven't seen any of the ads. Point is it's still a hypocritical statement, especially given the fact that he wasn't using their suffering; he was saying she was doing so in a misleading way. Her campaign on the other hand IS directly profiting from their suffering. Not only that but the line about "he should be ashamed..." is actually ANOTHER instance of bringing up their suffering for political edge.

IMHO, intentionally using mostly-unrelated emotional appeals to manipulate voters is a lousy move and cheapens the idea of voting in general.


Yikes, and here I thought you were kinda kidding. I haven't seen the ads myself either, but the point is that Scott Brown is a douche for accusing her of using paid actors in her ad, when in fact the spokespeople were genuine victims who genuinely support Warren. Emotional appeal? Welcome to political campaigning, and all advertising in general.
 
2012-10-19 02:44:02 PM  

FooDog: I hope Brown loses. He's been astoundingly douchy in his campaign and deserves to get kicked out of office. Plus Warren is one smart lady and I would be proud to have her as my representative in the senate.


Seriously, vote for Warren. It would bring the number of smart people in the Senate to almost double-digits.
 
2012-10-19 02:56:02 PM  

lilbjorn: FooDog: I hope Brown loses. He's been astoundingly douchy in his campaign and deserves to get kicked out of office. Plus Warren is one smart lady and I would be proud to have her as my representative in the senate.

Seriously, vote for Warren. It would bring the number of smart people in the Senate to almost double-digits.


Double digits, that is overly optimistic.
 
2012-10-19 03:40:59 PM  

ProfessorOhki: IMHO


There is nothing humble about your opinion. You think quite highly of it.

Amirite?
 
2012-10-19 03:49:29 PM  
FTA: "It was wrong for me to have jumped to those conclusions and I apologize to those I offended," Brown said Wednesday.

I'm actually kind of impressed that this is a real apology and not some half-assed non-apology which is all we seem to get from politicians these days.

So... bravo?
 
2012-10-19 04:04:39 PM  
Kind of interesting that he'd apologize. Usually Republicans hammer their mistakes over and over again until people believe it because they know the media isn't going to call them on it.

Could he be...concerned?
 
2012-10-19 04:24:20 PM  

sdd2000: lilbjorn: FooDog: I hope Brown loses. He's been astoundingly douchy in his campaign and deserves to get kicked out of office. Plus Warren is one smart lady and I would be proud to have her as my representative in the senate.

Seriously, vote for Warren. It would bring the number of smart people in the Senate to almost double-digits.

Double digits, that is overly optimistic.


I think he meant it would double the number of smart people in the Senate. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders against the idiots.
 
2012-10-19 04:29:42 PM  

TaterTot_HotDish: FTA: "It was wrong for me to have jumped to those conclusions and I apologize to those I offended," Brown said Wednesday.

I'm actually kind of impressed that this is a real apology and not some half-assed non-apology which is all we seem to get from politicians these days.

So... bravo?


The one I hate the most is:
"I'm sorry that you feel offended by what I said."
 
2012-10-19 04:33:53 PM  

lennavan: sdd2000: lilbjorn: FooDog: I hope Brown loses. He's been astoundingly douchy in his campaign and deserves to get kicked out of office. Plus Warren is one smart lady and I would be proud to have her as my representative in the senate.

Seriously, vote for Warren. It would bring the number of smart people in the Senate to almost double-digits.

Double digits, that is overly optimistic.

I think he meant it would double the number of smart people in the Senate. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders against the idiots.


Not really that bad, I kinda like Franken, anyone who can publicly call Rush a big fat liar is ok in my book.
 
2012-10-19 04:35:10 PM  

sdd2000: lennavan: sdd2000: lilbjorn: FooDog: I hope Brown loses. He's been astoundingly douchy in his campaign and deserves to get kicked out of office. Plus Warren is one smart lady and I would be proud to have her as my representative in the senate.

Seriously, vote for Warren. It would bring the number of smart people in the Senate to almost double-digits.

Double digits, that is overly optimistic.

I think he meant it would double the number of smart people in the Senate. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders against the idiots.

Not really that bad, I kinda like Franken, anyone who can publicly call Rush a big fat liar is ok in my book.


I like him too. He's just too easy to attack so I left him out.
 
2012-10-19 05:14:30 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Shenanigans!: ProfessorOhki: In the ad, Jackson credits Warren for going "all the way to the Supreme Court to try to get more money for asbestos victims." She says Brown should be "ashamed" for using victims' suffering to help himself.

"Their suffering is to help ME campaign," she quickly added.

Right, because victims of a tragedy shouldn't have any desire to advocate for a woman who helped them through it. They should remain silent like good little victims and let some stupid douche win the election instead.

I simply said that she's using the suffering they endured as an emotional appeal in her campaign- that's pretty much undeniable, right? Maybe it's justified, maybe it's in good taste. Don't know, haven't seen any of the ads. Point is it's still a hypocritical statement, especially given the fact that he wasn't using their suffering; he was saying she was doing so in a misleading way. Her campaign on the other hand IS directly profiting from their suffering. Not only that but the line about "he should be ashamed..." is actually ANOTHER instance of bringing up their suffering for political edge.

IMHO, intentionally using mostly-unrelated emotional appeals to manipulate voters is a lousy move and cheapens the idea of voting in general.


Que?
So, it is wrong for her to have the people that she helped speak up for her and acknowledge that she did indeed defend them, help them, advocated for them to receive help?

How is it not applicable to to do that when you are basically in an election telling the voters that you will represent them and fight them and have an actual group off people you helped voluntarily speak up and confirm that it is what you did in deed, not words?

You see how that works right? Warren fought for these people to be able to get their compensation, and made sure that the compensation would be there for them to collect damages in the future. These people, are coming forward to endorse her based on her ability and will to fight for their rights and compensation. It is not only ethical, it is completely called for. The problem for Brown here is that she actually did these deeds and the people who received that help acknowledge it.

What has he done for the people?
 
2012-10-19 05:15:58 PM  
Honestly, why in the hell is anyone voting for Scott Brown, professional douchenozzle?
 
2012-10-19 05:53:35 PM  
BUT WHAT ABOUT DOUG? HE HAS MESOTHELIOMA.
 
2012-10-19 06:10:12 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: On the other hand, I was being sarcastic. These poor people had been through enough before Scott Brown tried to use them to attack Warren. Now you want them to organize a press conference or something? Of course, they'd be attacked for that, too.


I was agreeing with the point you were making with your sarcasm.... you know, that the burden of proof wasn't on them?

Zulu_as_Kono: ProfessorOhki: you're reading too far into what I'm saying.

No, I'm reading that you don't know what you're talking about, and haven't been convinced otherwise.


I actually said that, so that's not really reading into anything.

AssAsInAssassin: ProfessorOhki: IMHO

There is nothing humble about your opinion. You think quite highly of it.

Amirite?


Honestly? I toss stuff out and sees what sticks. I have a tendency to put my entire train of thought out there which is what apparently got me into this argument.

sdkOyOte: So, it is wrong for her to have the people that she helped speak up for her and acknowledge that she did indeed defend them, help them, advocated for them to receive help?

How is it not applicable to to do that when you are basically in an election telling the voters that you will represent them and fight them and have an actual group off people you helped voluntarily speak up and confirm that it is what you did in deed, not words?

You see how that works right? Warren fought for these people to be able to get their compensation, and made sure that the compensation would be there for them to collect damages in the future. These people, are coming forward to endorse her based on her ability and will to fight for their rights and compensation. It is not only ethical, it is completely called for. The problem for Brown here is that she actually did these deeds and the people who received that help acknowledge it.

What has he done for the people?


Of course it's not wrong. I specifically said it wasn't at least once. I didn't say it wasn't applicable either. Seriously, you guys are getting hung up on semantics. Just because I point out her campaign is 'profiting,' or benefiting, or "gaining support from" them doesn't mean it's negative, wrong, or in bad taste. It's a minimalist point - You get on TV and say "I helped these people," great. If you specifically make a point out of how much they were suffering prior to your help, then yes, you're indirectly gaining as a result of using their suffering. "I helped this guy who got a paper cut" and "I helped this guy who ended up with cancer as a result of negligence" have different weights specifically because of the differences in suffering. Again, that's not a bad thing; it's along the lines of saying that the Red Cross would have little notoriety if there were no natural disasters. Which is true, and only really offensive if you take it as a slight against their work, which wasn't what was intended. Just because it's hypocritical at the surface level doesn't mean that is actually is in spirit. I can't help but feel you're all seeing the word "profit" and taking it to mean I think she's doing something nefarious - I'm don't.

The only part I was talking about when I mentioned handling it differently was the "ashamed" remark. She's against an guy who's obviously a fan of personal attacks. Pointing out the authenticity of your campaign is a must. Pointing out the crappy character of your opponent is optional. I just happen to think that rather than addressing the guy directly, focusing on positive reinforcement of her own platform would have been a sounder choice in that one instance. Judging by what you're all saying, no one should have any illusions this guy isn't an asshat, so I don't see a comment like that as being beneficial and at worst, just stirs up more personal attacks against her.

"What has he done for the people?" - You think just because I mentioned that I thought a different approach on a one-line comment would have been better, I'm somehow supporting the other guy? Not at all; like I said several times, I've got no dog in this race and not the slightest clue about their characters other than what I've seen in TFA and this thread. This entire argument's only a result of me thinking it was sort of amusing that she used those exact words when her actions in the face of their suffering were part of her campaigning. A simple comment about a surface disparity in the phrasing of one remark. C'mon, I've got no way of knowing that public emotions are running so hot about an election on the opposite side of the country.
 
2012-10-19 06:34:44 PM  
Of course the Publicans will still vote for him.
 
2012-10-19 06:48:09 PM  
My neat little story concerning this race: co-worker with 2 kids in college. He's voting for Brown. Because Professor Warren makes too much and that is why tuitions are too high. Doesn't matter that Brown's voting record shows that he doesn't care about lower student loan interest rates.
 
2012-10-19 08:23:40 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Honestly? I toss stuff out and sees what sticks. I have a tendency to put my entire train of thought out there which is what apparently got me into this argument.


They make pills for that.
 
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