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.

(Jezebel)   Oh FFS I guess it's not possible to expect the GOP to just leave the whole topic of rape alone for one freaking day. Paul Ryan (R)apeublican wants to make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody. Rape   (jezebel.com) divider line 356
    More: Followup, GOP, party system, rapists, baby  
•       •       •

7631 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jan 2013 at 10:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-12 11:44:59 PM
I cannot express how creepy this whole thing is to me.

I want to say something pithy, but I'm too creeped out.
 
2013-01-12 11:45:09 PM

James F. Campbell: Peter von Nostrand: LOL, so I'm a right winger now?

I should hope that if you weren't a right-winger, you'd be intelligent enough to avoid even the possibility of being mistaken as defending this anathematic grandstanding -- which, so far, you have not avoided at all.


yeah, intelligent people don't criticize what they view as dubious arguments - even if they agree with the purpose of the argument - for fear that morons like James F. Campbell might mistake them for supporting the target of the criticism.
 
2013-01-12 11:45:55 PM

James F. Campbell: Peter von Nostrand: LOL, so I'm a right winger now?

I should hope that if you weren't a right-winger, you'd be intelligent enough to avoid even the possibility of being mistaken as defending this anathematic grandstanding -- which, so far, you have not avoided at all.


Do you do anything besides hate Republicans?
 
2013-01-12 11:46:19 PM

Frank N Stein: James F. Campbell: Peter von Nostrand: LOL, so I'm a right winger now?

I should hope that if you weren't a right-winger, you'd be intelligent enough to avoid even the possibility of being mistaken as defending this anathematic grandstanding -- which, so far, you have not avoided at all.

Do you do anything besides hate Republicans?


Everyone's gotta have a hobby.
 
2013-01-12 11:46:21 PM

clowncar on fire: FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.  That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.

Nice spin and you're all enjoying the ride I see.

The intent of the bill was to allow the biological father to be able to sue to prevent the abortion of his child, but yeah, I guess if a rapist would theoretically wanted to take on the financial responsibility for this child, the law would probably allow him to sue to prevent the abortion as well.

Yes, I totally agree and support the women's final decision on the matter but if the biological father (not usually a rapist) wanted the birth to come to full term and had the means and intent to care for the child, the bill would offer at least some recourse until a decision could be made. Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies (that's how some end up with unintended pregnancies in the first place), and this bill may offer enough time for cooler heads to prevail while other options to abortion are explored. The sad part of this bill is that as a biological father to be, rapists would be given the same rights as the intentional and accidental fathers would be given.

If you believe abortion is the only answer to an unwanted pregnancy- than yes, this bill is a load of horse relish.


You do realize the biological father can't carry that baby for 9 months. So what is your solution for compensating the mother who is being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? Who's going to pay those medical bills, time off of work, change in lifestyle for most of a year, etc etc?
 
2013-01-12 11:46:28 PM

clowncar on fire: Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies


So it's best that someone mansplain things that they should serve as a forced incubator for nine months.
 
2013-01-12 11:46:30 PM
"the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning"

Amazingly, there is a ray of light in this bill. Cloning. Most of the die hard conservatives reject cloning as contrary to nature. That is the position of the Catholic Church. http://www.americancatholic.org/News/Cloning/default.asp

So the fact that these people are willing to acknowledge that life could begin with cloning is actually rather liberal.
 
2013-01-12 11:47:21 PM

quickdraw: FlashHarry: sure his face is punchable - but it's not reince priebus punchable.

Well I suppose it's a matter of personal taste. But that smirk on Ryan's face just makes me clench my fist. OTOH I think Reince Priebus is a much more punchable name.


Sounds like a medical condition.

Doctor says I have a reince priebus. Need an operation.
 
2013-01-12 11:48:19 PM

quickdraw: FlashHarry: sure his face is punchable - but it's not reince priebus punchable.

Well I suppose it's a matter of personal taste. But that smirk on Ryan's face just makes me clench my fist. OTOH I think Reince Priebus is a much more punchable name.


Sean Hannity has the most punchable face in the known universe. Eric Cantor is second. Priebus and Ryan are tied for third, but if I was simul-punching, Ryan gets the left hand.

/I'm right-handed
//Next most punchable is probably Al Gore
 
2013-01-12 11:48:24 PM

dericwater: Sock Ruh Tease: Republicans: for a government small enough to fit in your vagina.

But still just big enough to be a real irritant.

/Even with lube.


The spines on the sides and the knife tied to the end serves as the irritant.
 
2013-01-12 11:53:34 PM

Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies

So it's best that someone mansplain things that they should serve as a forced incubator for nine months.


Not what I said- thoough that's probably how'd you you prefer to hear it. The alternative would be to accept the fact that some people are just too stupid not to be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (both partners), and that some people make hasty decisions without thinking things out. In the end, should a woman choose not to carry the child to full term for whatever reasons, then yes the law should respect that decision, but only after other options are explored.
 
2013-01-12 11:55:14 PM

FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.  That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.


How does a bill that allows states to ban abortions even in cases of rape amount to a "pro-rape" position???

There's nothing pro-rape about it.

You guys have lost all credibility by twisting and distorting ideas to smear the opposition. You can say the othr side does it, hope it makes you feel right with the world.
 
2013-01-12 11:57:23 PM

clowncar on fire: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies

So it's best that someone mansplain things that they should serve as a forced incubator for nine months.

Not what I said- thoough that's probably how'd you you prefer to hear it. The alternative would be to accept the fact that some people are just too stupid not to be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (both partners), and that some people make hasty decisions without thinking things out. In the end, should a woman choose not to carry the child to full term for whatever reasons, then yes the law should respect that decision, but only after other options are explored.


here i was thinking that was a masterful troll. leaving aside all the other insane derp you are spewing, you do realize that the longer the pregnancy goes on, the greater the risks and restrictions there are in a woman obtaining one, right? Like, as in days/weeks count.
 
2013-01-12 11:58:49 PM

jayhawk88: I went to a Catholic funeral for a ~75 year old woman today (mother of a friend). We're dead center in the middle of Kansas here. There were at least 30 beard sporting/bonnet wearing Holderman Mennonite's there for farks sake (husband was a lapsed Mennonite but never converted to Catholic for his wife). Could not be a more conservative setting.

And yet the priest still found it necessary to drop a "Isn't it great she had a long and fruitful life because her parents didn't have her aborted?"...not once but TWICE! AT A farkING FUNERAL! For a woman who, finally, mercifully, was free of the cancer that had been destroying her body for the past 2-3 years!

I can't imagine what he's spewing "to the choir", so to speak, on a week-to-week basis. Gotta be honest, sort of opened my eyes a bit.


That's some sick shiat right there. I remember something similar at my grandmother's funeral, but a little different. My Grandmother had worked with lots of Indian, Japanese, and Chinese people before retirement, and a lot of them were in attendance. This jackass was badmouthing Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. during the service. I really wanted to walk up and kick that jackass square in the balls.
 
2013-01-12 11:59:51 PM

Animatronik: FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party.  That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.

How does a bill that allows states to ban abortions even in cases of rape amount to a "pro-rape" position???

There's nothing pro-rape about it.

You guys have lost all credibility by twisting and distorting ideas to smear the opposition. You can say the othr side does it, hope it makes you feel right with the world.


It becomes "pro-rape" as the way the bill is written, in that any biological father to be- even rapists-- would have a say in the termination of their child and the ability to block or stall the abortion of that child. The fact that it includes rapists makes it extra fun to parade as a bill specifically designed to give rapists a right to sue their victims.
 
2013-01-13 12:01:54 AM
Wait a sec, I can clone human beings now and they'd be granted all the rights of a citizen? Good job, GOP, you've just legalized my army of clones.
 
2013-01-13 12:04:19 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Wait a sec, I can clone human beings now and they'd be granted all the rights of a citizen? Good job, GOP, you've just legalized my army of clones.


"I will make it legal."
 
2013-01-13 12:05:12 AM
Paul Ryan has always seemed kind of date rapey to me.
 
2013-01-13 12:09:29 AM
I often post this image in threads like these:

i560.photobucket.com

...but recently I've been wondering if maybe the GOP is too damn stupid to be a threat to anybody but themselves.
 
2013-01-13 12:09:30 AM

clowncar on fire: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies

So it's best that someone mansplain things that they should serve as a forced incubator for nine months.

Not what I said- thoough that's probably how'd you you prefer to hear it. The alternative would be to accept the fact that some people are just too stupid not to be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (both partners), and that some people make hasty decisions without thinking things out. In the end, should a woman choose not to carry the child to full term for whatever reasons, then yes the law should respect that decision, but only after other options are explored.


If the bill allows for the biological father to sue to stop the abortion what do you think happens if he wins?
 
2013-01-13 12:10:20 AM

Mrbogey: fusillade762: That's odd that they single out gender like that. No protections for sexual preference or race?

Is there a history of mothers aborting gay fetii? Are race based abortions a things?


Is there a history of Americans aborting fetuses of certain genders?
 
2013-01-13 12:11:01 AM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

Never realized how much they looked alike.

/One's a comedian, one's a joke.
 
2013-01-13 12:11:22 AM

fearthebunnyman: clowncar on fire: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies

So it's best that someone mansplain things that they should serve as a forced incubator for nine months.

Not what I said- thoough that's probably how'd you you prefer to hear it. The alternative would be to accept the fact that some people are just too stupid not to be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (both partners), and that some people make hasty decisions without thinking things out. In the end, should a woman choose not to carry the child to full term for whatever reasons, then yes the law should respect that decision, but only after other options are explored.

here i was thinking that was a masterful troll. leaving aside all the other insane derp you are spewing, you do realize that the longer the pregnancy goes on, the greater the risks and restrictions there are in a woman obtaining one, right? Like, as in days/weeks count.


I'm glad to be in the presence of a Ric Romero maintaining that Capt. Obvious stance. I don't believe the bill was intended to allow an abortion to be put off until the point of no return, and I'm pretty sure the legal folks understand these time constraints as well. What it does do is give both parents time to explore other options, if only a few extra hours to sit down and reason things out.

There is nothing here saying that a judge can't look at a father to be and block the suit should he prove to be psychologically, financially, or emotionally too unfit to be a parent. Should he have a compelling plan or reason for allowing the child to come to full term- then this will give him the extra time needed to at least have his say. In the end, the decision of the mother will hopefully be respected.
 
2013-01-13 12:13:12 AM
and then everyone will win

We heard that before Obama was elected too, but don't worry, this time we mean it!

Or is she going to be a moderate unlike Obama who is a left wing loon?
 
2013-01-13 12:16:29 AM

Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies

So it's best that someone mansplain things that they should serve as a forced incubator for nine months.

Not what I said- thoough that's probably how'd you you prefer to hear it. The alternative would be to accept the fact that some people are just too stupid not to be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (both partners), and that some people make hasty decisions without thinking things out. In the end, should a woman choose not to carry the child to full term for whatever reasons, then yes the law should respect that decision, but only after other options are explored.

If the bill allows for the biological father to sue to stop the abortion what do you think happens if he wins?


It will be a paper win only- a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to. Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines, don't you think?
 
2013-01-13 12:16:51 AM

clowncar on fire: fearthebunnyman: clowncar on fire: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies

So it's best that someone mansplain things that they should serve as a forced incubator for nine months.

Not what I said- thoough that's probably how'd you you prefer to hear it. The alternative would be to accept the fact that some people are just too stupid not to be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (both partners), and that some people make hasty decisions without thinking things out. In the end, should a woman choose not to carry the child to full term for whatever reasons, then yes the law should respect that decision, but only after other options are explored.

here i was thinking that was a masterful troll. leaving aside all the other insane derp you are spewing, you do realize that the longer the pregnancy goes on, the greater the risks and restrictions there are in a woman obtaining one, right? Like, as in days/weeks count.

I'm glad to be in the presence of a Ric Romero maintaining that Capt. Obvious stance. I don't believe the bill was intended to allow an abortion to be put off until the point of no return, and I'm pretty sure the legal folks understand these time constraints as well. What it does do is give both parents time to explore other options, if only a few extra hours to sit down and reason things out.

There is nothing here saying that a judge can't look at a father to be and block the suit should he prove to be psychologically, financially, or emotionally too unfit to be a parent. Should he have a compelling plan or reason for allowing the child to come to full term- then this will give him the extra time needed to at least have his say. In the end, the decision of the mother will hopefully be respected.


Either you are irredeemably naive (and ignorant of how the legal system works) or you are still trolling me. If its the latter, you did hook me, so congrats on that. nighters!
 
2013-01-13 12:19:18 AM

clowncar on fire: It will be a paper win only- a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to.


Where does it say that?

clowncar on fire: Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines, don't you think?


Given the mindset of the people who write this shait I wouldn't doubt their motivations.
 
2013-01-13 12:20:03 AM

clowncar on fire: I don't believe the bill was intended to allow an abortion to be put off until the point of no return


Am I reading something completely different than you are?
 
2013-01-13 12:21:07 AM
www.patentspostgrant.com

Seriously GOP - WTF?
 
2013-01-13 12:22:08 AM
The tide is turning, and a majority of voters don't want politicians making women's health choices for them.

No, just the people who want single payer systems, and those who support ObamaCare.

So this part is correct at least... Most people don't want that.
 
2013-01-13 12:22:58 AM

Apos: [img.rp.vhd.me image 215x125]
"If you happen to have a chatty GOP member as a passenger, ask him to do this one thing: SHUT THE FARK UP."


I love that sketch...
 
2013-01-13 12:23:04 AM

jayhawk88: And yet the priest still found it necessary to drop a "Isn't it great she had a long and fruitful life because her parents didn't have her aborted?"...not once but TWICE! AT A farkING FUNERAL! For a woman who, finally, mercifully, was free of the cancer that had been destroying her body for the past 2-3 years!


HOLY CRAP
if the priest had done that at my mom's funeral .... FFS, would have had to beat the crap out of him
FFS
I hated my mom but still would have had to step up.

CSB
It was actually an awesome service, he REALLY knew my mom, the funeral was fun and touching.
He had some GREAT stories to tell about my mom trying to plan the funeral. Which readings, what day the funeral would be on, etc. lawl mom!!
/CSB
 
2013-01-13 12:25:05 AM

clowncar on fire: What it does do is give both parents time to explore other options, if only a few extra hours to sit down and reason things out.


Okay, yeah, you got me, too. (I'm a sucker sometimes, but dammit, SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS SH*T!)

/happy farking, etc.
 
2013-01-13 12:26:21 AM
You have to wonder about a party that can't seem to get on the right side of the "rape issue". Or a party that even considers rape to BE an "issue". Or a party that wants to be associated with rape, PERIOD.

Conservatives are damaged human beings. Psychopaths, every one of them. At some point in the future, the Republican party will be thought of as a lunatic abberation. They'll be studied as an example of how to gain power by feeding on fear and ignorance and xenophobia. Just like the...wait for it...Nazis.
 
2013-01-13 12:28:15 AM

Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: It will be a paper win only- a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to.

Where does it say that?

clowncar on fire: Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines, don't you think?

Given the mindset of the people who write this shait I wouldn't doubt their motivations.


It doesn't say that, but to be a society of choice, the woman should be given final say. Think of the suit as a "waiting period" before the final decision is made. Again, the suit should only be used a legal formality in that the father to be is given a legal audience to present his rational for allowing the child to come to full term. Regardless of the rational, the final decision of the woman is to be respected. I don't believe this law would have - nor should have-- any merit should it be in any way used as a tool to compel a woman to have an unwanted child.
 
2013-01-13 12:28:45 AM
He's a vagina wonk. It's what he does.

/wonkwonk
 
2013-01-13 12:34:00 AM
You Catholics are farking nuts. Every damn one of you. WTF?
 
2013-01-13 12:37:25 AM

EvilEgg: quickdraw: FlashHarry: sure his face is punchable - but it's not reince priebus punchable.

Well I suppose it's a matter of personal taste. But that smirk on Ryan's face just makes me clench my fist. OTOH I think Reince Priebus is a much more punchable name.

Doocey has the most punch able face I've ever seen


Oh hell yeah. Even if I had never heard a word he said.

Knowing that if Dick Cheney raped a baby in Times Square, Douchey would spin it as creating jobs in the child care industry just makes it easier.
 
2013-01-13 12:38:18 AM

fusillade762: cannotsuggestaname: what the fark is wrong with these people? I mean seriously, what is wrong?

Playing to their base and hoping nobody else remembers come election day?


They just don't realize that this thing called "the Internet" exists and works as advertised, do they?
 
2013-01-13 12:41:13 AM

Coco LaFemme: This current crop of Republicans makes me sick to my farking stomach.  They just absolutely nauseate me.


Ya but so do regular bodily functions...

:)
 
2013-01-13 12:41:54 AM

realmolo: You have to wonder about a party that can't seem to get on the right side of the "rape issue". Or a party that even considers rape to BE an "issue". Or a party that wants to be associated with rape, PERIOD.

Conservatives are damaged human beings. Psychopaths, every one of them. At some point in the future, the Republican party will be thought of as a lunatic abberation. They'll be studied as an example of how to gain power by feeding on fear and ignorance and xenophobia. Just like the...wait for it...Nazis.


I believe the nazi's were the ones who used the popular media to flood with untruths about others that didn't agree with their political ambitions- just like democrats.

See how that works? Anyone can say stupid stuff here on the internets. Oddly enough- the bill is about the fathers to be (not just rapists) their day in court too. Mommy may be carrying, but on many occasions, daddy and mommy were in mutual agreement on how that baby got there. When this is the case, shouldn't daddy at least have some say. That's all this bill really is: a chance for daddy to get his say as well: not as a tool for rapists to harrass their victims. It's about the rights of both parties involved in the pregnancy.

But i will agree- should this law be used in any way to compel a woman to have a child she does not want to bring to full term- than yes: they can burn it now.

Reading comprehension- how's that work again.
 
2013-01-13 12:42:33 AM

DeaH: quickdraw: MmmmBacon: Thank you, Ryan, for killing any chance you might have had of winning the Presidency in 2016. You have almost single-handedly given the Presidency to the Democrats until at least 2020, if not 2024, and for that I again thank you. Oh, and way to learn from the arse-kicking the GOP took in November 2012, Sir.

What a crazy bastard!

I really never understood the phrase "punchable face" until I saw Paul Ryan.

Actually, I think his face is cock-punchable, which is a concept I never conceived of before him. And now we learn that he thinks sex criminals should have the right to raise children.

I change my mind. As my grandad used to say. Never hit 'em. Kick 'em. It hurts worse.


Even the right wingers I know who hate on me for voting Obama agree he is punchable.
 
2013-01-13 12:42:50 AM

clowncar on fire: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: It will be a paper win only- a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to.

Where does it say that?

clowncar on fire: Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines, don't you think?

Given the mindset of the people who write this shait I wouldn't doubt their motivations.

It doesn't say that, but to be a society of choice, the woman should be given final say. Think of the suit as a "waiting period" before the final decision is made. Again, the suit should only be used a legal formality in that the father to be is given a legal audience to present his rational for allowing the child to come to full term. Regardless of the rational, the final decision of the woman is to be respected. I don't believe this law would have - nor should have-- any merit should it be in any way used as a tool to compel a woman to have an unwanted child.


So you're talking about something other than what the bill is supposed to do. If they wanted a mandatory "cooling off" or waiting period they wouldn't have attempted to classify all life beginning at fertilization or give fathers legal action to stop the abortion.
 
2013-01-13 12:43:45 AM
Anyone bothered by the fact this really doesn't do any of the things claimed? Anyone at all?

Yeah, well have fun. Remember last one to cum eats the cracker.
 
2013-01-13 12:45:07 AM

Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: It will be a paper win only- a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to.

Where does it say that?

clowncar on fire: Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines, don't you think?

Given the mindset of the people who write this shait I wouldn't doubt their motivations.

It doesn't say that, but to be a society of choice, the woman should be given final say. Think of the suit as a "waiting period" before the final decision is made. Again, the suit should only be used a legal formality in that the father to be is given a legal audience to present his rational for allowing the child to come to full term. Regardless of the rational, the final decision of the woman is to be respected. I don't believe this law would have - nor should have-- any merit should it be in any way used as a tool to compel a woman to have an unwanted child.

So you're talking about something other than what the bill is supposed to do. If they wanted a mandatory "cooling off" or waiting period they wouldn't have attempted to classify all life beginning at fertilization or give fathers legal action to stop the abortion.


I'm presenting the bill in the only way it could ever stand a chance in passing. If it could be used as a tool to block an abortion and forces the mother to carry the child to full term- I hope to god it never passes.
 
2013-01-13 12:45:23 AM

clowncar on fire: When this is the case, shouldn't daddy at least have some say.


No. It's not his body that is required to go through approximately 40 weeks of physiological and neurological changes that requires at some point almost every aspect of day-to-day life to be adjusted to accommodate those changes and end that length of time with an event that carries with it a non-negligible risk of death.
 
2013-01-13 12:46:43 AM

Johnny Swank: You Catholics are farking nuts. Every damn one of you. WTF?


That's not entirely fair. My family is catholic and not a single one of them would agree with this idiocy about rape.

Not all catholics are batshiat insane about rape and abortion. The leadership, perhaps, but not all of the laymen.
 
2013-01-13 12:47:45 AM
The Republicans have forgotten that all pregnancies start from rape, haven't they?
 
2013-01-13 12:49:01 AM

heinekenftw: The leadership, perhaps, but not all of the laymen.


Why would people stay with an organization that's leadership is batsh*t insane? It isn't particularly difficult to stop affiliating with one church and go to another.
 
2013-01-13 12:50:56 AM

Frank N Stein: James F. Campbell: Peter von Nostrand: LOL, so I'm a right winger now?

I should hope that if you weren't a right-winger, you'd be intelligent enough to avoid even the possibility of being mistaken as defending this anathematic grandstanding -- which, so far, you have not avoided at all.

Do you do anything besides hate Republicans?


It's a very worthy activity.
 
Displayed 50 of 356 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report