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.

(Fox News)   Obama's lack on involvement in the Benghazi scandal makes it even more of a scandal. Or something   (foxnews.com) divider line 387
    More: Followup, President Obama, Benghazi, Martin Dempsey, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, M.I.A., dereliction of duty, scandals, interest rates  
•       •       •

1026 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Feb 2013 at 3:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-11 03:46:06 PM

SkinnyHead: So when that 3AM phone call came in, nobody answered.  Well that comes as no surprise.


According to TFA, it as 5PM, and Obama's response was "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."
How dare Barry depend on the CIA and DoD to do whatever they could!  He should have shouldered a rifle and personally saved those men Lonestar-style!
 
2013-02-11 03:46:38 PM
If he were George Bush, he would face ridicule and condemnation, at the least.
 Well, Lord knows if there are two things Obama has been able to avoid in all this, its ridicule and condemnation.
 
2013-02-11 03:46:41 PM

halfof33: lilbjorn: Because it's UTTERLY FARKING STUPID to go around broadcasting details of how the State Department, CIA, and military respond to terrorist situations.

I think you meant: didn't respond.

And what is particularly interesting is the key lie (that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest) had nothing to do with "responding to terrorist situations."  But Obama was busy, so any old lie in a crisis, a re-election crisis.

\m/


I want you to say, in exact, specific words, what you are looking for.
 
2013-02-11 03:46:47 PM

Headso: The good part about  Benghazi is if you hear someone talking about it like it's a conspiracy you know they are a farking moran of the highest order and you can ignore everything they say.


Damn straight!  It ain't no conspiracy, we know all the facts, all we need now is the why.

Why did they lie?

Solid post headso.
 
2013-02-11 03:47:16 PM

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 468x351]


lol
 
2013-02-11 03:47:52 PM

Mikey1969: An honest chronology would have revealed the president's shocking behavior during the most successful attack against Americans by foreigners since 9/11.

Well, except for the ENTIRE Iraq war and the ENTIRE Afghanistan war, sure those 4 deaths are a lot...


Hey, don't forget the Riyadh bombing - 9 Americans killed in 2003.

Or..... five other Americans killed in Saudi in 2004.

But this is the worst, because a person of color / Kenyan / Muslim / Foreigner / Maoist / Communist / Stalinist / Leninst / Kruschevist / Alinskyist / Community Organizer / Socialist / Fascists / Nazi / Hitlerist / Dog-Eater / Reagan Boyhood Home Destroyer / Arugla-Eater / Grey Poupon Consumer / Yuengling Afficianado / Terrible at Bowling Bowler / Approver of His Daughters Eating Edamame on 12-7 / Non-Flag Pin Wearer / User of Chintzy Binder Clips / Non-Sportjacket Wearer in the White House / Warmonger Against X-mas.... is in office.
 
2013-02-11 03:48:01 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-11 03:48:46 PM
I actually think that the fact the right wing derp-o-sphere hasn't found anything else to cry about means Obama is doing an excellent job.
 
2013-02-11 03:48:52 PM
I have come up with definitive proof that teh 0bama Administration has been lying and covering up the entire Benghazi Scandal

i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-11 03:49:16 PM

halfof33: Headso: The good part about  Benghazi is if you hear someone talking about it like it's a conspiracy you know they are a farking moran of the highest order and you can ignore everything they say.

Damn straight!  It ain't no conspiracy, we know all the facts, all we need now is the why.

Why did they lie?

Solid post headso.


heh, this guy is a tard
 
2013-02-11 03:49:39 PM

SkinnyHead: So when that 3AM phone call came in, nobody answered.  Well that comes as no surprise.


The 3AM call in the political ad was about a diplomatic security incident?  I had no idea.  I always thought it was like Putin invading Europe or something like that.

Where is Bush reading to school children when you need him?
 
2013-02-11 03:49:43 PM

dookdookdook: FTA:According to Panetta, President Obama checked in with his military team early on during the attack, then checked out for the rest of the night.

In the interest of presenting the liberal (i.e. true) side of this:

(tldr, "You didn't build that" all over again)

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/07/conservative-media-selectivel y -crop-panettas-co/192580

Conservative media are pushing selectively cropped footage of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey as evidence that President Obama was "AWOL" the night of the Benghazi attack. In reality, Panetta and Dempsey emphasized that Obama's involvement was appropriate and that the White House was kept "well-informed" throughout the night.

...

Both The Weekly Standard  and Fox News' video cuts off just as Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was also testifying, corrected Ayotte as to the White House's focus the night of the Benghazi attack. Gen. Dempsey attested to the fact that although Obama did not personally follow up with him, Obama's staff was engaged "pretty constantly through the period, which is the way it would normally work."

...

Panetta also testified to the fact that Obama was in contact with military officials and was "well-informed" during the attack on our consulate, another part of the testimony that was ignored by conservative media. Special Report aired a portion of Sen. Lindsey Graham's questioning, but cut off Panetta's defense of Obama.


Well, I'm sure when the average FOX viewer finds out that editing was used to manipulate their perception of this story, they'll be outraged.
 
2013-02-11 03:50:14 PM

halfof33: Why did they lie?


Exactly.

How could the White House possibly have benefited from a lie when they gave all the facts in due course.

If they wanted to benefit, surely they would have held the information beyond, say, the presidential elections or some other important deadline -- but, they didn't...so, what would they possibly have gained by acting in the way they did?
 
2013-02-11 03:52:22 PM

eraser8: ow could the White House possibly have benefited from a lie when they gave all the facts in due course.


"Due Course."  Uh, they gave the facts only after being ridiculed for persisting in a preposterous lie for two weeks.
 
2013-02-11 03:53:35 PM

CPennypacker: I think all of this top-down derpitude is a massive conspiracy by NewsCorp and conservative media to get more democrats in power so that they can continue to make piles of money

Either that or they are dumber than a box of hair

One of those things.


Can't both answers be true to some degree?
 
2013-02-11 03:53:44 PM
Here you go 16.5...
ct.politicomments.com
 
2013-02-11 03:53:47 PM

halfof33: Headso: The good part about  Benghazi is if you hear someone talking about it like it's a conspiracy you know they are a farking moran of the highest order and you can ignore everything they say.

Damn straight!  It ain't no conspiracy, we know all the facts, all we need now is the why.

Why did they lie?

Solid post headso.


So, go ahead and tell us why.

Why would the president go to all this trouble of creating the largest international conspiracy in human history--involving the entire global media and ALL of the US national security apparatus--when the "reality" that he is supposedly covering up is by all accounts more politically expedient than the message his administration has delivered?

Ask any prosecutor or investigator:  if you have no motive, you have no case.
 
2013-02-11 03:53:54 PM

Mikey1969: An honest chronology would have revealed the president's shocking behavior during the most successful attack against Americans by foreigners since 9/11.

Well, except for the ENTIRE Iraq war and the ENTIRE Afghanistan war, sure those 4 deaths are a lot...



See also:

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.
September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.
March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

/And someone should 've pointed out the typo in the headline by now.
 
2013-02-11 03:54:22 PM

born_yesterday: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?

I don't even think they know anymore.


The scandal is the goal. The whole point is to have some talking point they can use to turn public opinion against Obama. Like Bush had with Katrina, the Iraq War, water boarding, Guantanamo, and so on. They can't point to obviously issues like that with Obama so they have been forced to invent something.

The problem is they can't sell it because their Benghazi scandal isn't all that scandalous so neither they nor the public is all that invested in it. They won't give up until it either sticks as a talking point against Obama or they find a real scandal they can use instead.
 
2013-02-11 03:54:41 PM

Antimatter: His job is to say yes or no, when a plan is laid before him.  That's it.  Everything else is left to people who plan stuff like this for a living.


It's interesting, isn't it, that, according to Republicans, the president had NOTHING to do with killing bin Laden but EVERYTHING to do with the deaths in Benghazi.

If I didn't know better (from listening to Fox "News"), I'd have to assume that Republicans are nothing more than unctuous, scheming, lying jackasses.
 
2013-02-11 03:55:18 PM

randomjsa: Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.


The city of New Orleans would like a word with you. Something about a disengaged president and defining 'disaster'.
 
2013-02-11 03:55:58 PM

halfof33: Headso: The good part about  Benghazi is if you hear someone talking about it like it's a conspiracy you know they are a farking moran of the highest order and you can ignore everything they say.

Damn straight!  It ain't no conspiracy, we know all the facts, all we need now is the why.

Why did they lie?

Solid post headso.


Perhaps you should suggest something that makes a damned bit of sense? If there isn't any kind of logical reason, it doesn't make sense to call what happened 'lies'.
 
2013-02-11 03:56:25 PM

Blues_X: That poor chicken...


THIS. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
 
2013-02-11 03:56:28 PM
It's real easy for 16.5 to ignore all of us.

We all just have to mention the CIA's role in this and he'll block us forever!
 
2013-02-11 03:56:54 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen... MILLHOUSE IS IN THE HOUSE!

/let's give him a big hand
 
2013-02-11 03:57:32 PM

hugram: Here you go 16.5...
[ct.politicomments.com image 480x496]


Awesome!  I love it when liars post that lie.

Now had the mutts who made that added the African Embassy attacks in 1998, and the several attacks During the Obama ADMINISTRATION, it might be effective.

Instead it serves to highlight that IN THIS CASE, the bozos at the Administration lied through their teeth about it.

That is why Benghazi is different and that is why I LOVE IT when morans post that bullshiat graphic.

Thanks BRO!
 
2013-02-11 03:58:06 PM

halfof33: eraser8: ow could the White House possibly have benefited from a lie when they gave all the facts in due course.

"Due Course."  Uh, they gave the facts only after being ridiculed for persisting in a preposterous lie for two weeks.


What exactly was the lie?

See, we've been over this again and again, and every claim you've made about Obama lying has been refuted every time. Yet you keep showing up posting the same nonsense.
 
2013-02-11 03:58:12 PM

HotWingConspiracy: President Obama killed bin Laden. That's what this is all about.


Now it all makes sense. He made their guy look bad by being competent, both in killing bin Ladin and not screwing up a hurricane. Now he has to pay and his legacy must be tarnished. At all costs. This is the price of making Republicans look bad.

This is why they lost.
 
2013-02-11 03:58:15 PM

Godscrack: [img9.imageshack.us image 359x374]
[img26.imageshack.us image 579x601]

The Christians on Facebook know the real truth.


"Are we really this stupid?" No. You're much, much stupider than that.
 
2013-02-11 03:58:40 PM

udhq: halfof33: Headso: The good part about  Benghazi is if you hear someone talking about it like it's a conspiracy you know they are a farking moran of the highest order and you can ignore everything they say.

Damn straight!  It ain't no conspiracy, we know all the facts, all we need now is the why.

Why did they lie?

Solid post headso.

So, go ahead and tell us why.

Why would the president go to all this trouble of creating the largest international conspiracy in human history--involving the entire global media and ALL of the US national security apparatus--when the "reality" that he is supposedly covering up is by all accounts more politically expedient than the message his administration has delivered?

Ask any prosecutor or investigator:  if you have no motive, you have no case.


Well you see, the reason that 0bama had to blame this attack on youtube was that he had just spent months telling voters that he had personally shot bin Laden in the head and was solely responsible for the killing of every terrorist in the world.  If Benghazi had been attacked by terrorists instead of just a bunch of rowdy kids, then his great lie would be exposed, he would lose the election, Sarah Palin would become president, and Obamacare would be repealed.

Of course, the problem with that theory is that Obama saying he had ended terrorism, much like people calling him the messiah, was something that only occurred in the fever dreams of conservatives like 16.5 here.
 
2013-02-11 03:58:54 PM
This thread caught the ass burgers.
 
2013-02-11 03:59:46 PM
i780.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-11 03:59:56 PM

halfof33: Why did they lie?


The MBA program at Harvard found a way to monetize stupidity about midway through 2003. Since exhausting the resources of the 9/11 truther movement they've been getting by on the birther movement, but they realized in the workup to the election that it wouldn't last too much longer. While looking for a suitable replacement, they conspired with the Obama Administration to make Benghazi a scandal, offering a portion of the proceeds to the treasury in return for the hassle it would cause.

They never imagined they'd find a source as rich as you. That's why they're not concerned with actually making any spending cuts; the debt is actually completely paid and we're running a surplus. They just don't want to reveal that until the program is over, as it could potentially disrupt some of the weaker sources they're harvesting on the side.

Thanks,  halfof33, you've unwittingly saved our great nation.
 
2013-02-11 03:59:58 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


Boss Graham:  Obama!  Come here.
[OBAMA WALKS OVER TO BOSS GRAHAM.  BOSS GRAHAM DRAWS A SQUARE IN THE DIRT WITH HIS CANE]
Boss Graham:  Boss McCain say that's his ditch. I tol' him that their dirt is yore dirt. What's yore dirt doin' in his ditch?
Cool Hand Obama:  I don't know, Boss.
[A SHOVEL IS TOSSED AT OBAMA'S FEET]
Boss Graham:  You git yore dirt outa his ditch, boy!
[COOL HAND OBAMA BEGINS TO DIG.  LATER, BOSS MCCONNELL SHOWS UP]
Boss McConnell:  Obama, what you think you doin'?
Cool Hand Obama: Diggin' my dirt outa Boss McCain's ditch, Boss.
Boss McConnell:  Be damned iff'n you gonna put your dirt in mah yard. You hear me?
Cool Hand Obama:  Yes, Boss.
Boss McConnell:  Then git it out there. Roll it, heah?

...... or ......

i78.photobucket.com

"Lt. Saavik and the Kobayashi Maru."
 
2013-02-11 04:00:18 PM

Zasteva: ee, we've been over this again and again, and every claim you've made about Obama lying has been refuted every time.

Yawn, another lie:
There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 - nearly a month after the attack.Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 - five days after the attack - that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
 
2013-02-11 04:01:05 PM

halfof33: eraser8: ow could the White House possibly have benefited from a lie when they gave all the facts in due course.

"Due Course."  Uh, they gave the facts only after being ridiculed for persisting in a preposterous lie for two weeks.


And, you've still failed to explain how the White House could have possibly benefited from spreading a false report.

Also, you've failed to explain why the White House was so quick to correct original reporting if it had an interest in concealing the truth?   Keep in mind that the Bush administration maintained its obvious lies through the 2004 election, to obvious electoral advantage.

You have yet to demonstrate any advantage the Obama administration would have gained from keeping secrets (that they didn't actually keep, considering they made corrections as soon as practicable).

So, what's you answer?
 
2013-02-11 04:01:57 PM

eraser8: DeaH: That is one of the reason Nancy Pelosi was supposed to fly on Air Force Two when she was speaker.

The only way a House speaker can fly on Air Force Two is if he or she is flying with the vice president.

Air Force Two is not a specific aircraft; it's a call sign.

For your further enlightenment, he's Snopes' take on the Speaker's transportation: Jet Set


My understanding on Air Force 2 is that it is any plane secure enough to carry the president or vice president. If the plane is carrying the president, it become Air Force 1. If it carries anyone else, it is Air Force 2. But I did learn something new about Pelosi from your Snope post. She didn't necessarily travel in planes considered secure enough for the president, although they were a lot more secure than commercial.  And Boehner is still an ass for the trouble he causes by traveling commercial.
 
2013-02-11 04:02:44 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


The goal, inherently, it to find a leverage point for which the President will be deemed a failure or disgrace.

They tried this with Clinton and gave Ken Starr a blank check investigate the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  But at the end it backfired and there was more sympathy for Hillary and his legacy stood out with America's prosperity rather than getting blown by an intern.

With Obama, he's a young guy.  If he succeeds were going to have that same thundering applause every time he steps out on page at the DNC convention and then some.  And he's got a few decades in him if everything turns out.

The GOP can't operate on the merits of the philosophy of their own party.  The last time they had a shot at that they got eight years of sheer embarrassment   So as a result they need to try and discredit someone else in an attempt that it will become an "issue" and will overshadow the legacy.

Is Benghazi a "thing?"  Sure.  In the same way that Iran/Contra was a "thing" or the Saving and Loan Scandal was a "thing."  The more you repeat it the more you hope that it will stick in the minds of the general public.  By all GOP metrics the past four years have been a success, and they just can't have that happening under a Democrat, especially a black Democrat.  And that's what burns their biscuits to the absolute core.  That's why the goalposts get moved, the political advisory committees come up with numbers out of thin air and filibusters happen.
 
2013-02-11 04:02:45 PM
8th Street Latinas, part of the G.O.P. Bang Bros Network.

delicious-cooks.com

//the MAN took away P-shop at work
 
2013-02-11 04:03:27 PM

halfof33: hugram: Here you go 16.5...
[ct.politicomments.com image 480x496]

Awesome!  I love it when liars post that lie.

Now had the mutts who made that added the African Embassy attacks in 1998, and the several attacks During the Obama ADMINISTRATION, it might be effective.

Instead it serves to highlight that IN THIS CASE, the bozos at the Administration lied through their teeth about it.

That is why Benghazi is different and that is why I LOVE IT when morans post that bullshiat graphic.

Thanks BRO!


1998?  I don't see no stinking 1998 in that graphic.  Which can only mean one thing:
www.examiner.com

Why you lie 16.5?  What you trying to cover up?
 
2013-02-11 04:04:04 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: halfof33: lilbjorn: Because it's UTTERLY FARKING STUPID to go around broadcasting details of how the State Department, CIA, and military respond to terrorist situations.

I think you meant: didn't respond.

And what is particularly interesting is the key lie (that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest) had nothing to do with "responding to terrorist situations."  But Obama was busy, so any old lie in a crisis, a re-election crisis.

\m/

I want you to say, in exact, specific words, what you are looking for.


He'll know when he finds it.
 
2013-02-11 04:04:55 PM

birchman: I want you to say, in exact, specific words, what you are looking for.

He'll know when he finds it.


So... porn?
 
2013-02-11 04:05:31 PM

Karac: 1998? I don't see no stinking 1998 in that graphic. Which can only mean one thing:


EXACTLY!  As I said, it is missing! Of course, I didn't create that lie.  Thanks for having my back big guy!
 
2013-02-11 04:08:26 PM

DeaH: My understanding on Air Force 2 is that it is any plane secure enough to carry the president or vice president.


Your understanding is incorrect...or, at least, incomplete.

The name of the jet customarily used by the vice president is the C-32.  Its call sign is Air Force Two only when the vice president is aboard.  If the vice president is travelling on a  C-37A (a Gulfstream V), that aircraft is Air Force Two.  ANY Air Force Aircraft that carries the vice president is designated Air Force Two.
 
2013-02-11 04:09:22 PM

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 322x305]


I'm really glad I"m not at work while seeing that, because if I had been, I'd be getting really odd looks right now.
 
2013-02-11 04:10:24 PM

halfof33: EXACTLY! As I said, I lie. Thanks

!

Too many words, fixed now.
 
2013-02-11 04:10:59 PM

halfof33: Karac: 1998? I don't see no stinking 1998 in that graphic. Which can only mean one thing:

EXACTLY!  As I said, it is missing! Of course, I didn't create that lie.  Thanks for having my back big guy!


What the hell is your point? That because the 1998 attack isn't on there (which is missing the point anyway considering it's pointing out things that happened under a Republican president), that means that none of those other attacks happened?
 
2013-02-11 04:11:30 PM

halfof33: Zasteva: ee, we've been over this again and again, and every claim you've made about Obama lying has been refuted every time.
Yawn, another lie:
There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 - nearly a month after the attack.Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 - five days after the attack - that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.

 I heard about Benghazi through several different sources on 9/11, most notably NPR, Rueters, and AP, and I was perfectly clear from the start that it was a terrorist attack.  NPR had a guest on the next day (9/12) who berated his interviewer for simply using the word "protest" in the story.

It seems your entire argument centers around the fact that YOU were ignorant of what was really going on, YOU didn't do enough to seek out the correct information to clear up your own ignorance, and now you want to blame that shortcoming of yours on the government.
 
2013-02-11 04:15:16 PM

birchman: That because the 1998 attack isn't on there (which is missing the point anyway considering it's pointing out things that happened under a Republican president), that means that none of those other attacks happened?


It means that the graphic is grossly misleading, because the response to the attacks was not driven by partisan garbage, but rather because in the Benghazi case the administration told a series of incompetent lies. It highlights the problem at Benghazi is the lies.

this ain't brain surgery, so turn yours on.
 
2013-02-11 04:15:29 PM

halfof33: Karac: 1998? I don't see no stinking 1998 in that graphic. Which can only mean one thing:

EXACTLY!  As I said, it is missing! Of course, I didn't create that lie.  Thanks for having my back big guy!


If the graphic depicts 2002 onward, how is it a lie to exclude 1998?

I'm not even sure which chicken you're currently farking here.  Apparently all of them.
 
Displayed 50 of 387 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report