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.

(CNN)   Will Republicans remember to come into work today? Will Nancy Pelosi bite anyone? Will John Boehner replace his gavel with a whiskey bottle? It's your "House of Representatives fiscal cliff vote" thread (House starts their session at noon today)   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 592
    More: Interesting, a.m. ET  
•       •       •

2155 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jan 2013 at 12:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-01 01:25:59 PM  

Mentat: DamnYankees: When all that stuff is literally worse than doing nothing? Yes, he's a terrible negotiator.

Again, NOTHING IS OFFICIAL UNTIL THE PRESIDENT SIGNS THE BILL.  There is literally no risk to the President to compromise with the GOP if he believes the Tea Party will scuttle the deal and take us off the cliff anyway.


My argument is obviously dependent on Obama signing this bill.
 
2013-01-01 01:26:28 PM  

Corvus: This is how stupid the Republican party is, they think waiting a day magically turns "tax increases" into "tax cuts".

It's a party that caters to idiots. If you vote for these people you are an idiot.


They've got almost two whole years to hammer home the lie that Obama refused to negotiate with them and unilaterally raised taxes, but the brave tea party stood up to him and lowered those taxes, forcing him to sign an extension of the bush tax cuts.

The low information talk radio/fox news voter will believe anything.
 
2013-01-01 01:26:51 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Obama should have been flogging them with that scenario from day-1,


Remember when Obama criticizes any Republican they get upset and threaten to throw the US down the tubes to just to spite Obama. They just did this yesterday threatening not to make a deal because Obama upset them because he criticized them. Because Republicans have NEVER criticized Obama.

They are children and it amazes me that the people are afraid to point it out.
 
2013-01-01 01:27:14 PM  

Mentat: You remind me of the guys on Pawn Stars who insist that their velvet Elvis is worth $5000 and then are shocked when Rick offers them $50.


You remind me of the guy who takes the offer and then does a quick interview on the street: "Yeah I was really hoping to get $5K for that, but I got $50 so that's money in my pocket. I'm a great negotiator!"

saintstryfe: Maybe, JUST MAYBE, Obama believes there should be some cuts, like most reasonable people do, to things beyond the military.

Or you can impose your ideology on him and then berate him for not living up to it. Go with that.


Great. Let him craft some bills to cut spending when and where he wants to cut, and put those up for a vote. I will continue to berate him for not living up to my ideology of "the President shouldn't be the absolute worst negotiator in the room", thanks.
 
2013-01-01 01:28:02 PM  

bharrisuc: Is anyone watching the House live stream? ( Link )

Instead of dealing with the fiscal cliff legislation, the republicans have dropped a random, un-discussed bill to further freeze the pay of federal workers. Now they are talking about naming a post offices.

CAN WE GET ON WITH IT !!111!11


Boehner doesn't have the votes, and he's apparently unwilling to risk his speakership by violating the Hastert Rule.

So, it's pretty much over. The TeaTards are now officially ion charge of the GOP.
 
2013-01-01 01:29:08 PM  

bharrisuc: Is anyone watching the House live stream? ( Link )

Instead of dealing with the fiscal cliff legislation, the republicans have dropped a random, un-discussed bill to further freeze the pay of federal workers. Now they are talking about naming a post offices.

CAN WE GET ON WITH IT !!111!11


Are you serious?
 
2013-01-01 01:30:11 PM  

Corvus: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Obama should have been flogging them with that scenario from day-1,

Remember when Obama criticizes any Republican they get upset and threaten to throw the US down the tubes to just to spite Obama. They just did this yesterday threatening not to make a deal because Obama upset them because he criticized them. Because Republicans have NEVER criticized Obama.

They are children and it amazes me that the people are afraid to point it out.


Which effectively takes their economic terrorism out of the equation. They'll do it no matter what, so Obama should just play hardball and be a total bastard to them. They're going to do it again when the debt-ceiling comes back to haunt us; another chance for Obama to piss away Social Security, Medicare, or anything else the GOP wants. We need a President who is not afraid of the inevitable shiat storm the GOP kicks up every time the President opens his mouth.
 
2013-01-01 01:31:03 PM  

DamnYankees: My argument is obviously dependent on Obama signing this bill.


And since he hasn't signed a bill, your argument is invalid.  If he's positioning himself for another Tea Party revolt, then he's obviously not a bad negotiator.  But even if the bill does pass and he signs it, he forced a GOP contaminated by Tea Party ideas to agree to tax increases.  Again, it's hard to call him a bad negotiator considering that most people would have considered that impossible just two years ago.

I understand why people are concerned about this.  During the health care debate, Obama WAS a bad negotiator because he believed the GOP would negotiate in good faith.  He clearly no longer believes that.  But until a bill actually hits his desk, it's all moot.
 
2013-01-01 01:32:00 PM  

Mentat: And since he hasn't signed a bill, your argument is invalid.


And so is yours. You posted upthread defending this deal. Don't do that until Obama signs it, by your own logic.
 
2013-01-01 01:32:12 PM  

DamnYankees: saintstryfe: Maybe, JUST MAYBE, Obama believes there should be some cuts, like most reasonable people do, to things beyond the military.

Then why did he just agree to a deal with no cuts?


Maybe because today shouldn't be a day for dealing with far-reaching fiscal policy, but instead to just fix this whole taxing-the-middle-class thing?
 
2013-01-01 01:33:19 PM  
The Democrats should all vote "present" and let the Republicans take full responsibility. It would be hilarious.
 
2013-01-01 01:34:15 PM  
Passed 89-8, with almost all Republican Senators on board, will the House Republicans follow suite or will they just blow it by either all voting "no" or adding some stupid shait, like the repeal Obamacare, onto the bill so it dies when it goes back to the Senate and say "It's not our fault it didn't' pass".
 
2013-01-01 01:34:19 PM  

saintstryfe: Maybe because today shouldn't be a day for dealing with far-reaching fiscal policy, but instead to just fix this whole taxing-the-middle-class thing?


In other words, you're making exactly our point. He gave up his leverage. By using this deal to just deal with the taxes, he took away the one piece of leverage he had over the GOP. When they now negotiate over spending in March, he has absolutely nothing to hit the GOP with.
 
2013-01-01 01:35:54 PM  

DamnYankees: saintstryfe: Maybe because today shouldn't be a day for dealing with far-reaching fiscal policy, but instead to just fix this whole taxing-the-middle-class thing?

In other words, you're making exactly our point. He gave up his leverage. By using this deal to just deal with the taxes, he took away the one piece of leverage he had over the GOP. When they now negotiate over spending in March, he has absolutely nothing to hit the GOP with.


Sure he does. He has the military cuts. The GOP doesn't want the military cuts.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-01 01:36:10 PM  
farm9.staticflickr.com

Dumbest, most idiotic, biggest bullshiater, worst Speaker ever.
 
2013-01-01 01:36:24 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: dumbobruni: GOP offered $800 billion in new revenue through "tax reform", instead of rate increases, to happen at a later date (unlikely)

Obama wanted $800 billion through "tax reform" and another $800 billion through rate increases. the rate increse would be immediate, with unlikely tax reform later.

Obama got $600 billion in automatic rate increases.

and somehow, to the liberal, he's the worst negotiator ever.

Who gives a shiat what the GOP was offering? They had no leverage in the negotiation, short of what Obama simply pretended they had. His (and your) insistence that the GOP should expect to get a single thing out of this is what makes him the worst negotiator ever.

The "deal" was simple: Go over the cliff, and then the dems introduce bills to cut taxes on the bottom 98%. The GOP is left either having to vote for dem bills or go into midterms with a track-record of shutting down tax-cuts on their constituents out of sheer stubbornness. The GOP has never once offered a single thing that is better than that scenario. Yet here we are.

Obama should have been flogging them with that scenario from day-1, and demanded an immediate lay-down on debt-ceiling raises, pending appointments, gay-rights, and filibuster reform even before the GOP is allowed to come to the table to discuss what else they were going to give up in order to get Obama to get them out of this mess. Now we get barely anything, and the debt-ceiling fight is coming up so Obama can give away everything else in the name of "compromise" while the GOP continues to block anything and everything.


in other news, the House of Representatives has no significance, and filibusters don't exist in the Senate.

Obama wasn't just negotiating with a weakened GOP, but also with his own party, which couldn't muster up the balls to do raise taxes on the wealthy in 2010.

Several Democrat Senators, led by Schumer, wanted the threshold at $1 million (as recently as this fall this was a talking point)
 
2013-01-01 01:38:01 PM  
At this point, the least self damaging thing the GOP can do is make a deal.
 
2013-01-01 01:38:50 PM  

Corvus: DamnYankees: saintstryfe: Maybe because today shouldn't be a day for dealing with far-reaching fiscal policy, but instead to just fix this whole taxing-the-middle-class thing?

In other words, you're making exactly our point. He gave up his leverage. By using this deal to just deal with the taxes, he took away the one piece of leverage he had over the GOP. When they now negotiate over spending in March, he has absolutely nothing to hit the GOP with.

Sure he does. He has the military cuts. The GOP doesn't want the military cuts.


That's true. I should have said he gave up almost all his leverage for basically nothing. He has as tiny bit.
 
2013-01-01 01:39:00 PM  

OneBrightMonkey: I like the President, but he's a terrible negotiator


Agreed. I think his problem is that he sees compromise and bipartisanship as ends in themselves, rather than means to an end. He really thinks a shiatty but bipartisan deal is better than a good deal extracted with thumb-screws.
 
2013-01-01 01:39:04 PM  

dumbobruni: in other news, the House of Representatives has no significance, and filibusters don't exist in the Senate.


Explain how the House or Senate, using filibusters or not using them, could stop the fiscal cliff from being enacted today, or stop the Dems from flogging the GOP with bills to cut taxes on the bottom 98% afterward. Be specific.
 
2013-01-01 01:41:23 PM  

neongoats: Aaannnd republicans and republicanism shiatting on Americas chest in ...3 ...2 ...1


That's called a Cleveland Steamer!

/Ask your Mom about it.
 
2013-01-01 01:42:06 PM  
What I think is total bullshiat are these "poison pills" congress seems to need to pass in order to threaten them into doing their job. Whether it is the farm bill, debt limit, or this stupid ass "fiscal cliff"; it is us who have to face the worse of the consequences. Not those goobers in congress or the ultra-wealthy who basically own them. I would like to see some law passed to where any "poison pill" legislation designed to force them to do their jobs should only have direct consequences on them. Instead of tanking the economy for everyone, how about the consequences be they lose their right to run for re-election as well as any congressional seat in the future and a forfeiture of their congressional pension. Since this fiasco is basically due to their incompetence at doing their jobs, and if they can't do it all of them should be fired. Get them out of there and bring in people who actually have the guts to make the decisions they were elected to make.
 
2013-01-01 01:42:25 PM  

DamnYankees: Corvus: DamnYankees: saintstryfe: Maybe because today shouldn't be a day for dealing with far-reaching fiscal policy, but instead to just fix this whole taxing-the-middle-class thing?

In other words, you're making exactly our point. He gave up his leverage. By using this deal to just deal with the taxes, he took away the one piece of leverage he had over the GOP. When they now negotiate over spending in March, he has absolutely nothing to hit the GOP with.

Sure he does. He has the military cuts. The GOP doesn't want the military cuts.

That's true. I should have said he gave up almost all his leverage for basically nothing. He has as tiny bit.


I think it's more than you think. Remember those happen if he does nothing, which is a lot easier than doing something.

What is going to be great is all these Republicans voting for this bill now in 2014 will be attacked by tea party candidates as "They raised our taxes!!!!".

Many Republicans might lose their seats because they voted for this.
 
2013-01-01 01:43:57 PM  

Corvus: Many Republicans might lose their seats because they voted for this.


IF this is true, they will merely lose them to even more conservative republicans. I don't know how that's good.
 
2013-01-01 01:45:32 PM  

DamnYankees: Corvus: Many Republicans might lose their seats because they voted for this.

IF this is true, they will merely lose them to even more conservative republicans. I don't know how that's good.


No, they'll lose their primaries to more conservative Republicans.  Barring an anomalous 2010, that strategy hasn't worked very well for them.
 
2013-01-01 01:47:59 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: At this point, the least self damaging thing the GOP can do is make a deal.


Which means they'll do the complete opposite, just because.
 
2013-01-01 01:48:01 PM  

heavymetal: What I think is total bullshiat are these "poison pills" congress seems to need to pass in order to threaten them into doing their job. Whether it is the farm bill, debt limit, or this stupid ass "fiscal cliff"; it is us who have to face the worse of the consequences. Not those goobers in congress or the ultra-wealthy who basically own them. I would like to see some law passed to where any "poison pill" legislation designed to force them to do their jobs should only have direct consequences on them. Instead of tanking the economy for everyone, how about the consequences be they lose their right to run for re-election as well as any congressional seat in the future and a forfeiture of their congressional pension. Since this fiasco is basically due to their incompetence at doing their jobs, and if they can't do it all of them should be fired. Get them out of there and bring in people who actually have the guts to make the decisions they were elected to make.


What amusing is the GOP really did it to themselves. They forced themselves into voting to raise taxes because they put a gun to their own heads. They were so focused on screwing over Obama and Democrats they didn't realize they were forcing themselves in a worse position.

I mean yeah some Democrats in here are mad at Obama for "caving in" (as we see in this thread), but the teatards are going to go ballistic that the Republicans voted for "Obama's tax increase".

It's like if they would have voted for "Obamacare". They might go off the deep end call for the heads of the Republicans who voted for this bill.
 
2013-01-01 01:49:17 PM  
I'm just not that worried one way or the other.

I'll barely be affected in anyway no matter what deal passes.
 
2013-01-01 01:50:11 PM  

DamnYankees: Corvus: Many Republicans might lose their seats because they voted for this.

IF this is true, they will merely lose them to even more conservative republicans. I don't know how that's good.


Yep, the ones who have been losing races across the country. Sure not all will lose because of the gerrymandered districts but some will. Besides if their district is very gerrymandered they already have a ultra conservative republican in that seat,
 
2013-01-01 01:50:34 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: dumbobruni: in other news, the House of Representatives has no significance, and filibusters don't exist in the Senate.

Explain how the House or Senate, using filibusters or not using them, could stop the fiscal cliff from being enacted today, or stop the Dems from flogging the GOP with bills to cut taxes on the bottom 98% afterward. Be specific.


how many democrat-led bills and appointments were successfully stopped dead in the Senate? hundreds. many of them bipartisan and popular.

the house could refuse to take up the vote from the Senate, like they did last night. or vote present.

the GOP has shown stubborn indifference to popular opinion. and thanks to gerrymandering, they can easily maintain control no matter how unpopular they become.

Explain how 2 million Americans would be able to make ends meet when their unemployment insurance goes away today.
 
2013-01-01 01:52:52 PM  

Corvus: I mean yeah some Democrats in here are mad at Obama for "caving in" (as we see in this thread), but the teatards are going to go ballistic that the Republicans voted for "Obama's tax increase".


I liked the tactic the GOP was espousing yesterday.

"We'll go off the cliff, let taxes go up for a few hours, vote for the agreement and claim we cut taxes back to the same level they were at before the cliff!  No one will see through our cunning ruse!"
 
2013-01-01 01:54:38 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: dumbobruni: in other news, the House of Representatives has no significance, and filibusters don't exist in the Senate.

Explain how the House or Senate, using filibusters or not using them, could stop the fiscal cliff from being enacted today, or stop the Dems from flogging the GOP with bills to cut taxes on the bottom 98% afterward. Be specific.


The problem is Obama I think actually cares more about the American people than to make political gain. You seem to consider that a weakness.
 
2013-01-01 01:54:55 PM  

dumbobruni: the GOP has shown stubborn indifference to popular opinion. and thanks to gerrymandering, they can easily maintain control no matter how unpopular they become.


I think this pisses me off more than anything. WHY IS THIS OK!?!? Why are they allowed to do this?! I thought gerrymandering was illegal.
 
2013-01-01 01:55:29 PM  

tudorgurl: dumbobruni: the GOP has shown stubborn indifference to popular opinion. and thanks to gerrymandering, they can easily maintain control no matter how unpopular they become.

I think this pisses me off more than anything. WHY IS THIS OK!?!? Why are they allowed to do this?! I thought gerrymandering was illegal.


Why would you think its illegal.
 
2013-01-01 01:55:51 PM  

Corvus: DamnYankees: Corvus: Many Republicans might lose their seats because they voted for this.

IF this is true, they will merely lose them to even more conservative republicans. I don't know how that's good.

Yep, the ones who have been losing races across the country. Sure not all will lose because of the gerrymandered districts but some will. Besides if their district is very gerrymandered they already have a ultra conservative republican in that seat,


Here in Washington State we just created 2 new districts that were supposed to be competitive for Republicans, and it turned out to be not even close because TeaTards won the primaries. They're at maximum derp, and they'll continue to lose seats until they get their heads out of their asses.
 
2013-01-01 01:55:53 PM  

Mentat: Corvus: I mean yeah some Democrats in here are mad at Obama for "caving in" (as we see in this thread), but the teatards are going to go ballistic that the Republicans voted for "Obama's tax increase".

I liked the tactic the GOP was espousing yesterday.

"We'll go off the cliff, let taxes go up for a few hours, vote for the agreement and claim we cut taxes back to the same level they were at before the cliff!  No one will see through our cunning ruse!"


I can't wait until the call this bill both "Republican tax cuts" and "Obama tax increases". They will I know it.
 
2013-01-01 01:56:34 PM  
According to Rep Emanuel Cleaver- before meeting with Joe Biden today - the sentiment was 7-2 in favor of the bill. After the meeting, he said Biden convinced at least one more.

So that's two reports that show Democrats with an icy reception.
 
2013-01-01 01:57:18 PM  

Bontesla: According to Rep Emanuel Cleaver- before meeting with Joe Biden today - the sentiment was 7-2 in favor of the bill. After the meeting, he said Biden convinced at least one more.

So that's two reports that show Democrats with an icy reception.


How is that icy? 8-1 in favor is overwhelming.
 
2013-01-01 01:58:20 PM  
Well, if President Obama essentially negotiated this bill knowing that it would fail in the House so that he could get his 250K cutoff limit anyway, I take back my annoyance at his seeming ability to negotiate against himself.
 
2013-01-01 01:58:45 PM  

JolobinSmokin: I'm just not that worried one way or the other.
I'll barely be affected in anyway no matter what deal passes.


I'm only watching this to see if I'm going to have a job this summer. You know, everybody was freaking out about defense contractors losing their jobs--highly trained, highly paid professionals who can probably find another (well-paying) job. Meanwhile, seasonal government workers--a lot of students and poor people who work two or three jobs in a year--will probably not be hired this year because of funding hold-ups, just like they weren't a few years back, when another budget battle was going on.

Never heard a word about that, though, did you? I did, because my job was never funded and I was unemployed during the only time of the year when I make enough money to get by. Is it going to happen again? Nobody knows, because first there's this battle, then the debt ceiling coming up, before anyone even knows if they will get their money for the year. But who gives a fark? It's just people who depend on those seasonal jobs to get by or pay their college tuition, that's all. But cut those jobs, cut unemployment, cut social services, and hey, take out another loan if you can't afford college. You can always pay it back later with the super job you're going to get from our booming economy.

/fark it, I'm going on welfare. I'll probably make more money being a leech. We don't really need national parks or public lands, anyway.
//"Government jobs--they're a sure thing. Just get in with the feds--you're set. You'll be rehired year after year."
 
2013-01-01 01:59:02 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Raises taxes only on the super-rich, but leaves the rich making $250K-$400K untouched. Thanks for sticking with your principles, spineless Democrats. You could have just run out the clock but you caved.


that's why the GOP never compromises. the know the Dems will.
 
2013-01-01 01:59:59 PM  

tudorgurl: dumbobruni: the GOP has shown stubborn indifference to popular opinion. and thanks to gerrymandering, they can easily maintain control no matter how unpopular they become.

I think this pisses me off more than anything. WHY IS THIS OK!?!? Why are they allowed to do this?! I thought gerrymandering was illegal.


Nominally, gerrymandering is a method of allowing a minority to have a voice - if you have 51% of a state lean left and 49% lean right, it's "better" to gerrymandered and ensure a proper representation.

Also remember that many political splits are geographical, and gerrymandering can enable geographical regions that would otherwise not have a voice to provide representatives. Again, nominally.
 
2013-01-01 02:00:10 PM  
And to prove my point that those on the right hate that the GOP is voting for this, look at this thread.

How many of the right wing derp squad are in this thread? almost none.

When they are really pissed the hide, just like on election night.
 
2013-01-01 02:02:27 PM  
Does this deal create a new tax bracket? I THOUGHT the highest bracket started at 200/250, but there's now that one and the 400/450 one? In the long game, that actually could be advantageous, you've now split up the top 2% into more rational brackets.
 
2013-01-01 02:03:30 PM  

DamnYankees: tudorgurl: dumbobruni: the GOP has shown stubborn indifference to popular opinion. and thanks to gerrymandering, they can easily maintain control no matter how unpopular they become.

I think this pisses me off more than anything. WHY IS THIS OK!?!? Why are they allowed to do this?! I thought gerrymandering was illegal.

Why would you think its illegal.


I don't know...

sprawl15: Nominally, gerrymandering is a method of allowing a minority to have a voice - if you have 51% of a state lean left and 49% lean right, it's "better" to gerrymandered and ensure a proper representation.

Also remember that many political splits are geographical, and gerrymandering can enable geographical regions that would otherwise not have a voice to provide representatives. Again, nominally.



I totally get that. I guess the only gerrymandering I've seen is here in Texas, where the crazy-ass Lege has gerrymandered the state so badly that a Democrat has about a 2% chance of getting elected to anything anymore. It's disgusting.
 
2013-01-01 02:05:02 PM  

uksocal: Does this deal create a new tax bracket? I THOUGHT the highest bracket started at 200/250, but there's now that one and the 400/450 one? In the long game, that actually could be advantageous, you've now split up the top 2% into more rational brackets.


Yes, it does.
 
2013-01-01 02:05:22 PM  
$330B in new spending.  this will ensure a newer, deeper fiscal cliff in our future.
 
2013-01-01 02:05:41 PM  
UPDATE: 12:21 PM - Today
Republicans Delay Fiscal Cliff Deal Vote

In a sign that the fiscal cliff deal could face an uncertain future in the House, Republican leaders delayed their planned vote on the measure and were expected to meet twice before going to the floor of the House in the late afternoon or evening.

If the House amends the bill passed by the Senate early this morning, or worse, offers a whole new bill, it could throw the seeming certainty achieved by the Senate out the window. Many observers had seen the strong bipartisan vote in the Senate -- including such conservatives as former Club For Growth head Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) -- as an encouraging sign that Tea Party House members could also hold their noses and go along.

-- Mike McAuliff

Source
 
2013-01-01 02:06:24 PM  

DamnYankees: Gosling: DamnYankees: It's a decent deal in a vacuum. It's a horrible deal when you realize there's a debt cieling fight coming in two months in which the Democrats now have zero leverage and the GOP once again knows Obama will always fold. Any gain made in this deal will simply be lost in March.

It's only a horrible deal if it in fact turns out to be a deal. You're thinking that somehow the GOP has decided to start taking yes for an answer.

They don't need to. If Pelosi signed off on this, there's no way this won't pass. All Boehner needs to do it break the Hastert Rule, which is barely even a rule.


So you're saying all Boehner needs to do is desire to no longer be Speaker.
 
2013-01-01 02:09:17 PM  

DamnYankees: Bontesla: According to Rep Emanuel Cleaver- before meeting with Joe Biden today - the sentiment was 7-2 in favor of the bill. After the meeting, he said Biden convinced at least one more.

So that's two reports that show Democrats with an icy reception.

How is that icy? 8-1 in favor is overwhelming.


If for every seven, there were two opposed on the Democrats side, that becomes a huge gap. There are what... 191 Dems. If that sample is representative then we're talking about about 42 Democrats that are icy. There are two different reports that suggest there's a good portion that are opposed to this deal. I used Howard Fineman's analysis.
 
Displayed 50 of 592 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report