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.

(Talking Points Memo)   ♫In the middle of the night, Rand Paul filibustered in his sleep. From the podium of faith, to the rivers so derp, He must've been looking for something. Something sacred we lost. Till the drones came to him. In...the middle of the night♫   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 291
    More: Followup, GOP, deaths, human beings, Majority Leader Harry Reid, senate majority whip, D-IL, Strom Thurmond, American soil  
•       •       •

1495 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2013 at 8:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 11:46:00 AM

PanicMan: The fact he didn't want them, is proof to you that he wanted them.

I wish I could say this is the stupidest thing you've ever said. But it isn't.


Perhaps it was a case of false resistance.  No, no!  Please don't give me these powers.  *wink

Of course I'm wrong though, I mean this is Obama!  The guy is a saint, and is in no way a typical politician who would say one thing but do another.  Not him.
 
2013-03-07 11:47:08 AM

BeesNuts: If he's worried that it will get upheld, it makes sense to keep the provision in Limbo until he and his people can figure out how to lose that SCotUS case while still meeting their obligation to defend the law.


They are fighting the court case because they are afraid if it is heard, it will be upheld?  That might be four dimensional chess.
 
2013-03-07 11:47:14 AM

MattStafford: We elected Obama to do a bunch of things. If, however, Obama did any of those things, Republicans would disagree and try to make Obama look bad. Therefore, Obama shouldn't do any of these things, and the fact that Obama won't do any of these things is the Republicans fault.


oy, I'm not saying that he shouldn't do any of these things. There's a time and place for the battles to be waged. He held off on gay marriage until he knew he had the support, he held off on gun control until he knew he had the support. Most, if not all, will have lockstep Republican opposition to them, there are ways around that if he can convince a few to change sides, but he needs to pick his battles wisely or he risks blowing all his capital and won't be able to get anything at all done for the remainder of his term (see post-Obamacare)

If you understood how the dysfunction in washington worked, if you understood why it takes so long to get some seemingly perfect ideas passed, then you understand why Obama can't just offer up an omnibus super law to Congress to pass that has every agenda item he wants in it and it'll pass and he will have nothing else to do for the rest of his term.

When you understand that, grasshopper, then you will understand why we still prefer him over whatever the GOP offers up as a replacement
 
2013-03-07 11:49:06 AM

BeesNuts: If he's worried that it will get upheld, it makes sense to keep the provision in Limbo until he and his people can figure out how to lose that SCotUS case while still meeting their obligation to defend the law.


Like DOMA
 
2013-03-07 11:50:31 AM

MattStafford: BeesNuts: If he's worried that it will get upheld, it makes sense to keep the provision in Limbo until he and his people can figure out how to lose that SCotUS case while still meeting their obligation to defend the law.

They are fighting the court case because they are afraid if it is heard, it will be upheld?  That might be four dimensional chess.


have you seen what's going up against the SCOTUS? It's not out of the realm of possibility that this court will see it as constitutional to kill civilians.
 
2013-03-07 11:51:24 AM

MattStafford: Wicked Chinchilla: That being said, you have to temper criticism with what is politically possible. There are a LOT of things I would have loved Obama to do and would have heavily criticized him for not doing...if he had a cooperative congress. But that's not our political reality. The appointment of Sec. Def. has never before in our history been opposed. They held it for two weeks. Nothing gets done in this environment without some dirty, nasty dog fight. Should he have done more? Absolutely. Did it have a shot in hell of getting anything done? Nope. Would it have cost him politically to make the attempt and weaken other efforts? Undoubtedly.

Thats why I say "I would like to have seen him do more." I would be a naive little twit if I took him to task for not attempting something he didn't have a shot in hell of completing.

Standing up and saying to the nation "Congress just authorized me to use these powers, and this is explicitly what I am allowed to do with these powers.  I entirely disagree with this, and would like to see Congress repeal these provisions.  Please contact your congress critters and have them repeal these provisions" would be too difficult?

The fact of the matter is this:  Rand Paul, a junior Senator from Kentucky, has just made these serious issues part of the national conversation.  Are you suggesting that Obama, the President of the United States, could not have done the very same thing at some point during the last year, to an even greater extent?


OK, so earlier in the thread you were biatching about the recently passed re-authorization of military force, that gave the president the power to do this drone thing. If it is true that this incarnation of the bill actually expanded the authority of the president to use drones on US citizens on US soil, then WHY did Rand Paul NOT filibuster the bill for 13 hours back before it was passed, instead of doing it now?
 
2013-03-07 11:53:54 AM

somedude210: If you understood how the dysfunction in washington worked, if you understood why it takes so long to get some seemingly perfect ideas passed, then you understand why Obama can't just offer up an omnibus super law to Congress to pass that has every agenda item he wants in it and it'll pass and he will have nothing else to do for the rest of his term.

When you understand that, grasshopper, then you will understand why we still prefer him over whatever the GOP offers up as a replacement


Yeah, that's it.  Obama has just been waiting for the right time to fight for these civil liberties.  It is amazing I haven't been able to see it, what with all of the denials and court fights and ambiguity.  He is so invested in waiting for the right time to fight these battles that he is actively fighting anyone else trying to fight these battles.
 
2013-03-07 11:55:13 AM

orlandomagik: OK, so earlier in the thread you were biatching about the recently passed re-authorization of military force, that gave the president the power to do this drone thing. If it is true that this incarnation of the bill actually expanded the authority of the president to use drones on US citizens on US soil, then WHY did Rand Paul NOT filibuster the bill for 13 hours back before it was passed, instead of doing it now?


That is a good question, I'm not Rand.  I can tell you, however, that he did introduce legislation to specifically remove US Citizens from these provisions that was voted down by the Senate.  He raised these issues back then, as well.
 
2013-03-07 12:00:00 PM

Cheron: BillCo: Dear Obama Supporters,

Please defend the President's position that he can kill U.S. citizens inside our borders without due process.

Sincerely,
The Target

I'm an Obama supporter, and considered myself to be liberal, I don't care for Rand Paul much but after listening to what he said yesterday I think he is right.  We need a bright line when any president can and can not use deadly force.


Where was that bright line when the government ignored the 4th amendment, like with warrantless wiretaps?
Where was that bright line when the government denied due process to American citizens like Jose Padilla?

Citizens are killed all the time by agents of the government, like when a sniper takes out a bomb threat, or a hostage taker. Why would this situation be any different?
 
2013-03-07 12:01:59 PM
profile.ak.fbcdn.net

is not amused by this headline or subby's skank hooker wife
 
2013-03-07 12:04:27 PM

MattStafford: Infernalist: Now, the GOP is harassing him over the same provisions that THEY CAME UP WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE.

First, I wouldn't consider Rand Paul representative of the entire GOP.  I would imagine the majority of the GOP still want these provisions in place.

Infernalist: .It's akin to the President driving the GOP down the highway, and the car is starting to run out of gas. "Let's stop here" he says, pointing to a nice gas station. "No", says the GOP. "Keep going. We want to stop at the next one." "Okay, fine." he says. Running low on gas, the GOP points out a run down, gas station on the edge of town with plenty of vagrants hanging around. "There, stop there." "No, that's a horrible place." "Well, do it or we run out of gas." "Fine, but this is stupid." They stop for gas, and promptly get robbed, and the GOP looks up and says "Why did you stop here? You're stupid for stopping here. This is all your fault.

What a tortured analogy.  Here is a better one:

President and GOP are driving a bus down the highway.  The president wants to listen to indie rock, and the GOP wants pop country. The GOP demands that they put pop country on the radio, or else they aren't handing out sandwiches to the passengers.  The president knows that if the passengers don't get their sandwiches, they're going to be pissed.  So he say fine, they put on the pop country, and hand out the sandwiches.  And from that point on, the president does not fight to change the station back to indie rock - even though he was elected on an indie rock platform.  When a member of the GOP breaks ranks and says "hey, maybe indie rock wouldn't be so bad" - the president is silent on the matter.

There is an analogy for you.

Infernalist: The GOP made this happen and now they're trying to tax the President over it. Could he have been more strident in pointing out what asshats the GOP were being? Sure. Would it have changed anything? No. The whole nation knows the GOP are a bunch of blithering asshats already, ...


How is one person so amazingly terrible at analogies? It is truly mind boggling
 
2013-03-07 12:12:31 PM

MattStafford: BeesNuts: If he's worried that it will get upheld, it makes sense to keep the provision in Limbo until he and his people can figure out how to lose that SCotUS case while still meeting their obligation to defend the law.

They are fighting the court case because they are afraid if it is heard, it will be upheld?  That might be four dimensional chess.


This might be good information for you to have.  Stumbled across this through the other MJ article on here.

In response to your "Obama should tell the American people about this!" remarks, behold!

He did.  Two days ago apparently.  Not gonna blame you for missing it.  Cause I sure as hell didn't notice.

Which is just more evidence supporting the people who are telling you that he can't accomplish anything simply by talking about it publicly.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:51 PM
"I can't ultimately stop the nomination, but what I can do is try to draw attention to this and try to get an answer ... that would be something if we could get an answer from the president ... if he would say explicitly that noncombatants in America won't be killed by drones. The reason it has to be answered is because our foreign drone strike program does kill noncombatants. They may argue that they are conspiring or they may someday be combatants, but if that is the same standard that we are going to use in the United States, it is a far different country than I know about."
 
2013-03-07 12:18:12 PM
 
2013-03-07 12:28:31 PM

somedude210: So what else could Obama do to actual make a worthwhile change to this?


He could feed an undercurrent of rumors and speculation that continues to grow until some idiot Republican Senator takes the bait and stands up and fillibusters for 13 hours over the details.
 
2013-03-07 12:45:59 PM

MattStafford: "I can't ultimately stop the nomination, but what I can do is try to draw attention to this and try to get an answer ... that would be something if we could get an answer from the president ... if he would say explicitly that noncombatants in America won't be killed by drones. The reason it has to be answered is because our foreign drone strike program does kill noncombatants. They may argue that they are conspiring or they may someday be combatants, but if that is the same standard that we are going to use in the United States, it is a far different country than I know about."


Since the GOP came up with most or all of the bill, shouldn't THEY answer those questions? Maybe the president doesn't fully know what the bill would allow him to do. Or better yet, since the judiciary system would be the one to interpret the law, let the SCOTUS handle the verbage with what he can/can't do.
 
2013-03-07 12:54:13 PM

Celerian: Since the GOP came up with most or all of the bill, shouldn't THEY answer those questions? Maybe the president doesn't fully know what the bill would allow him to do. Or better yet, since the judiciary system would be the one to interpret the law, let the SCOTUS handle the verbage with what he can/can't do.


Anyone but Obama.  Not his law, not his problem - that's what I always say.
 
2013-03-07 01:00:08 PM

MattStafford: Celerian: Since the GOP came up with most or all of the bill, shouldn't THEY answer those questions? Maybe the president doesn't fully know what the bill would allow him to do. Or better yet, since the judiciary system would be the one to interpret the law, let the SCOTUS handle the verbage with what he can/can't do.

Anyone but Obama.  Not his law, not his problem - that's what I always say.


well...it's not his law, since he didn't advocate for it (like obamacare) and he was vocal against it because of these provisions, so yes, it is a congressional problem and requires a congressional solution. Direct your anger at them since they have the power to change this and choose not to
 
2013-03-07 01:00:14 PM

SlothB77: "[Barack Obama] has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil," Eric Holder.


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

How does it feel to be a living stereotype?
 
2013-03-07 01:10:02 PM

somedude210: he was vocal against it


Keep telling yourself that.
 
2013-03-07 01:12:24 PM

somedude210: MattStafford: Celerian: Since the GOP came up with most or all of the bill, shouldn't THEY answer those questions? Maybe the president doesn't fully know what the bill would allow him to do. Or better yet, since the judiciary system would be the one to interpret the law, let the SCOTUS handle the verbage with what he can/can't do.

Anyone but Obama.  Not his law, not his problem - that's what I always say.

well...it's not his law, since he didn't advocate for it (like obamacare) and he was vocal against it because of these provisions, so yes, it is a congressional problem and requires a congressional solution. Direct your anger at them since they have the power to change this and choose not to


He's deflecting anyway. I'm not giving Obama a pass as much as I'm saying that the law seems vague and since he didn't write the law, maybe he doesn't know what the intent was. I think the person who wrote the law should provide an interpretation, or the SCOTUS should clarify the law. What Obama thinks it means he can do and what he can actually do according to the law in question could be two very different things.
 
2013-03-07 01:15:23 PM

MattStafford: somedude210: he was vocal against it

Keep telling yourself that.


....so he didn't ask congress to take the provision out? call them out that it was a clearly political dick move to do during an election? He didn't do any of that when the NDAA was up for debate last fall? No? Could it be that the GOP felt threatened that they were up against the only democrat to be considered strong on defense in the last 150 years?
 
2013-03-07 01:30:50 PM
Okay, so it's now politically convenient for Republicans to be against expansive Executive military powers, and there is a hypothetical instance where the President could militarily employ UAV's in the US (Though by AG Holder's words, we're talking 9/11 and Pearl Harbor rarity here).

So...why aren't Republicans working with the hardcore, peacenik liberals to draft up some legislation? Where's the bill to decrease funding to Overseas Contingency Operations (formerly Global War on Terror)? Where's the bill to revise the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan and Iraq? Where's the bill that narrows this language and specifies what the Executive Branch can't do?

There's a legitimate chance to get some bipartisan work done here and make significant changes to our foreign policy. If it's now okay for you to be for it, then why aren't your people in DC doing it, Republicans?
 
2013-03-07 01:36:29 PM
After all, the most important thing we want Obama to do is get up, give a speech, and give up a power, like everyone else and every other president would do.

Seems to me if this was such a big deal, it should have been debated 8 years ago or so.  This is BS.  It was a good conversation to have then.  It's established precedent now.
 
2013-03-07 01:41:23 PM

verbaltoxin: Okay, so it's now politically convenient for Republicans to be against expansive Executive military powers, and there is a hypothetical instance where the President could militarily employ UAV's in the US (Though by AG Holder's words, we're talking 9/11 and Pearl Harbor rarity here).

So...why aren't Republicans working with the hardcore, peacenik liberals to draft up some legislation? Where's the bill to decrease funding to Overseas Contingency Operations (formerly Global War on Terror)? Where's the bill to revise the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan and Iraq? Where's the bill that narrows this language and specifies what the Executive Branch can't do?

There's a legitimate chance to get some bipartisan work done here and make significant changes to our foreign policy. If it's now okay for you to be for it, then why aren't your people in DC doing it, Republicans?


Because just like Democrats we only support civil liberties when our side is arguing for it.

Stop pretending that Democrats are any better. Your argument can be twisted easily in a way that is still a fallacy but makes more sense.. Now that some Republicans support these things, why are Democrats, the actual party in power not reaching out to make policy changes. I will tell you why not. Because both sides care about winning, not your liberties.

Yes I am a Republican.

Slutter McGee
 
2013-03-07 01:43:39 PM

Slutter McGee: Yes I am a Republican.


in fairness, the last time we (republicans) defended civil liberties, it was to give women the right to vote.
 
2013-03-07 01:45:27 PM

Slutter McGee: verbaltoxin: Okay, so it's now politically convenient for Republicans to be against expansive Executive military powers, and there is a hypothetical instance where the President could militarily employ UAV's in the US (Though by AG Holder's words, we're talking 9/11 and Pearl Harbor rarity here).

So...why aren't Republicans working with the hardcore, peacenik liberals to draft up some legislation? Where's the bill to decrease funding to Overseas Contingency Operations (formerly Global War on Terror)? Where's the bill to revise the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan and Iraq? Where's the bill that narrows this language and specifies what the Executive Branch can't do?

There's a legitimate chance to get some bipartisan work done here and make significant changes to our foreign policy. If it's now okay for you to be for it, then why aren't your people in DC doing it, Republicans?

Because just like Democrats we only support civil liberties when our side is arguing for it.

Stop pretending that Democrats are any better. Your argument can be twisted easily in a way that is still a fallacy but makes more sense.. Now that some Republicans support these things, why are Democrats, the actual party in power not reaching out to make policy changes. I will tell you why not. Because both sides care about winning, not your liberties.

Yes I am a Republican.

Slutter McGee


That's all you needed to say.

/Independent, actually, but thanks for assuming.
 
2013-03-07 02:12:11 PM

MattStafford: The fact that Obama's administration won't come out and explicitly state how they use those clauses doesn't trouble you? The fact that the administration (supposedly pro civil liberties) has not brought those clauses to the forefront of the political scene and asked congress to repeal them doesn't trouble you? The fact that they have simply ignored this filibuster, when one would expect, if they truly disagreed with those provisions, they would #stoodwithrood?

Yeah, just keep slobbing that knob and telling yourself that he's different.


The Obama administration hasn't explicitely come out and said they weren't going to take part in the train that's going to be run on your mother this weekend.  What is Obama trying to hide?  Why isn't he denying that he, along with 300 of his closest friends, plans to nail your mother?  Doesn't that trouble you?
 
2013-03-07 02:39:13 PM

Satanic_Hamster: The Obama administration hasn't explicitely come out and said they weren't going to take part in the train that's going to be run on your mother this weekend. What is Obama trying to hide? Why isn't he denying that he, along with 300 of his closest friends, plans to nail your mother? Doesn't that trouble you?


If I elected Obama specifically to speak out and prevent the train from occurring, than yeah - that would trouble me.  I might think I elected someone who lied to me, and wasn't going to follow through on what he promised.
 
2013-03-07 03:07:06 PM

MattStafford: If I elected Obama specifically to speak out and prevent the train from occurring, than yeah - that would trouble me.


wait, so now you're telling me you know why we elected Obama? well shiat, man. It couldn't be because...you know, he wasn't batshiat insane and had a common sense of decency, could it?

there are serious issues in this country that need to be tackled and dealt with now, as of right now, there hasn't been an issue of drone strikes in the US yet, so we're barking up a hypothetical tree while ignoring very real issues in the country right now.

So while I agree that there needs to be a law somewhere that says that we need to cut this shiat out from ever happening, it's a philosophical game right now and we have other shiat we need to work on first, so let's get that shiat down before we move on to hypotheticals.
 
2013-03-07 03:47:58 PM

somedude210: wait, so now you're telling me you know why we elected Obama? well shiat, man. It couldn't be because...you know, he wasn't batshiat insane and had a common sense of decency, could it?

there are serious issues in this country that need to be tackled and dealt with now, as of right now, there hasn't been an issue of drone strikes in the US yet, so we're barking up a hypothetical tree while ignoring very real issues in the country right now.

So while I agree that there needs to be a law somewhere that says that we need to cut this shiat out from ever happening, it's a philosophical game right now and we have other shiat we need to work on first, so let's get that shiat down before we move on to hypotheticals.


Assassinating US citizens without a trial isn't a big deal.  Yeah fark off dude.
 
2013-03-07 04:19:59 PM

MattStafford: Assassinating US citizens without a trial isn't a big deal.


so we're going to the broad assassinating US citizens thing now? I thought this was about using drones on people at home? Now it doesn't have to be on US soil, because that would mean it's hypothetical still? okay then, move the goal posts and lets argue this point now
 
2013-03-07 04:21:57 PM

MattStafford: And again, I don't give a fark.


I see.

So now we can add "liar" to your already impressive list of accomplishments?

MattStafford: The Obama administration refuses to officially acknowledge it, so courts refuse to give anyone standing to challenge it!


Whoa.  That's certainly a "novel" way to ascertain "standing".

And I say "novel" in the sense that "novels" are "totally made-up".
 
2013-03-07 04:33:30 PM

Slutter McGee: Stop pretending that Democrats are any better. Your argument can be twisted easily in a way that is still a fallacy but makes more sense.. Now that some Republicans support these things, why are Democrats, the actual party in power not reaching out to make policy changes. I will tell you why not. Because both sides care about winning, not your liberties.

Yes I am a Republican.

Slutter McGee


Because the GOP will filibuster themselves to prevent the administration from accomplishing anything.
 
2013-03-07 05:16:47 PM

MattStafford: Assassinating US citizens without a trial isn't a big deal. Yeah fark off dude.


Exactly.

If Bush had done the same thing, what would those liberals defending Obama be saying?  They'd be calling for his impeachment.

My hats off to guys like GAT (and again, I can't believe I said that) who have at least been consistent when it comes to civil liberties on this issue.  The rest of you are hypocritical Democratic Party drones.

As a libertarian, the reason that the Democrats especially rub me the wrong way right now is that THEY'RE the party that supposed to stand up for civil liberties...NOT tear them down.  I expect the GOP to be all for this encroachment on civil liberties, not the Democrats.

Shame on all of you Democrats that are defending the Obama administration on this..
 
2013-03-07 05:31:09 PM

slayer199: MattStafford: Assassinating US citizens without a trial isn't a big deal. Yeah fark off dude.

Exactly.

If Bush had done the same thing, what would those liberals defending Obama be saying?  They'd be calling for his impeachment.

My hats off to guys like GAT (and again, I can't believe I said that) who have at least been consistent when it comes to civil liberties on this issue.  The rest of you are hypocritical Democratic Party drones.

As a libertarian, the reason that the Democrats especially rub me the wrong way right now is that THEY'RE the party that supposed to stand up for civil liberties...NOT tear them down.  I expect the GOP to be all for this encroachment on civil liberties, not the Democrats.

Shame on all of you Democrats that are defending the Obama administration on this..


How do you not understand that only Congress can alter an act of Congress? If Congress wants clear restrictions on this power, they are the only ones who can put them in place.

Do you want this power gone for good, or just for Obama? If it's the former, then saying "Why doesn't Obama just stop" is useless.
 
2013-03-07 05:32:04 PM

slayer199: As a libertarian, the reason that the Democrats especially rub me the wrong way right now is that  I'm actually a Republican.



ftfy
 
2013-03-07 05:59:50 PM

qorkfiend: Do you want this power gone for good, or just for Obama? If it's the former, then saying "Why doesn't Obama just stop" is useless.


The issue is that Obama, and the Democrats in general, aren't even fighting it at all!   They are doing literally nothing to protect our civil liberties!
 
2013-03-07 06:51:15 PM

qorkfiend: How do you not understand that only Congress can alter an act of Congress? If Congress wants clear restrictions on this power, they are the only ones who can put them in place.

Do you want this power gone for good, or just for Obama? If it's the former, then saying "Why doesn't Obama just stop" is useless.


Holder was the one that wrote the legal justification for drone strikes on American citizens abroad and is the one that stated they could be used domestically.  Last I heard he was a member of the Obama administration.

Stop defending because you don't have a leg to stand on.

EyeballKid: slayer199: As a libertarian, the reason that the Democrats especially rub me the wrong way right now is that  I'm actually a Republican.


ftfy


Yes because anyone that disagrees with the Obama administration MUST be a Republican.  I've voted the libertarian party for more than 20 years.   Apparently you don't have any reading comprehension and you must be new here because I've consistently attacked the GOP on a wide range of issues from attacks on civil liberties like gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and abortion as well as their unabashed corporatism.

As a libertarian you hope that when Democrats get elected they do more to improve civil liberties.  The Democrats had 2 years of control of Congress and the White House.  Did they do anything to restrict or scale back the Patriot Act?  Nope.  Did the Obama administration do anything to scale back arrests and seizures of medical marijuana clinics?  Nope.  They had no problem passing the HCRA.

What has Obama done with the power granted under the Patriot Act?  He expanded it.  Years ago I would have said that when Republicans get in power you hope they reduce the deficit and spending but that's a pipe dream...they're worse than the Democrats at this point as they'd expand the deficit AND restrict individual liberty.

So yeah, if I bash the Democrats it's because they're the only viable party for civil liberties at this point and other than supporting gay marriage, they haven't done squat.
 
2013-03-07 06:52:38 PM

qorkfiend: Do you want this power gone for good, or just for Obama? If it's the former, then saying "Why doesn't Obama just stop" is useless.


To clarify...I want it gone for good and forever.  The government should not be able to eliminate due process for American citizens...ever.
 
2013-03-08 09:04:02 AM

slayer199: Shame on all of you Democrats that are defending the Obama administration on this..


I guess you feel pretty silly right about now, huh?
 
Displayed 41 of 291 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report