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.

(Global Geopolitics)   Iranians begin voting on the next madman to lead their country into suicide   (glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com) divider line 99
    More: Interesting, Iranians, Ahmadinejad, Gulf Arab, Iran, Saeed Jalili, Sunni Islam, outgoing president, LCC  
•       •       •

1124 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jun 2013 at 9:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-14 09:12:47 AM  
As opposed to the sane and decent folk in Israel?
 
2013-06-14 09:14:06 AM  
Totally unimportant.
President of Iran has almost zero power.
Similar to President of Germany. Well, except for the theocracy part.
 
2013-06-14 09:14:46 AM  
Actually, the last madman was mad that the people disqualified his preferred madman successor so it's possible that the new madman will be slightly less mad than the last.

/although unlikely
 
2013-06-14 09:17:53 AM  
iranians are into madmen, too? rad. i love that show man, it ROCKS.
 
2013-06-14 09:19:08 AM  
Nonsense, the Iranian people don't elect the Supreme Leader, the Guardian Council does.

The President of Iran is basically a rubber stamp figurehead to give a very thin veneer of democracy to a fundamentalist Shia Islam theocracy so weird to the rest of the Islamic world that they don't even try to use the term "sharia" to describe it.
 
2013-06-14 09:21:20 AM  
Since when do they get to vote for the Supreme Leader?
 
2013-06-14 09:25:05 AM  
Subby: You realize that the Iranian president is only like...  What, the 14th most powerful person in the country?
 
2013-06-14 09:26:10 AM  
Here's an interesting piece on how Ahmadinejad really changed the position of President dramatically, and the goal of the Supreme Leader in this election is to undo as much of that as possible.  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/12/why_we_will_miss_mah m oud_ahmadinejad_iranian_election?page=full
 
2013-06-14 09:26:56 AM  
Looking forward to the new Jon Stewart movie about how the country is not full of American-hating Islamic maniacs but is mostly comprised of rational people who just want a better life like the rest of us.
 
2013-06-14 09:30:48 AM  
Sadly for the average Iranian, the vote is pointless, since the Ayatollah controls everything.

Wait, the Ayatollah has control?  Since when did they put Chris Jericho in charge?


/Welcome to Iran is Jericho
 
2013-06-14 09:34:32 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Sadly for the average Iranian, the vote is pointless, since the Ayatollah controls everything.

Wait, the Ayatollah has control?  Since when did they put Chris Jericho in charge?


/Welcome to Iran is Jericho


But didn't the US glass parking lot Iran in that show?
 
2013-06-14 09:57:19 AM  
they don't get to vote on the Ayatollah, it is a theocracy.
 
2013-06-14 10:02:30 AM  
Ahmadinejad  leaving office.
Bin Ladin dead.
Chavez dead.

The US is in serious danger of running out of bogeymen.
 
2013-06-14 10:02:49 AM  

lockers: As opposed to the sane and decent folk in Israel?


Everything Israel does seems perfectly logical to me, when I consider the world from their perspective.

When I look at it from the Iranian perspective, I conclude that they really just want to scapegoat jews into a unifying boogeyman so they can continue lusting over their power.  Compare a nation like Iran to say, the UAE and compare their social and economic policies and how its affecting their place in the world today.

Iran seems to be making some incredibly dumb moves... which only make any kind of sense at all if you look at it from the perspective of somebody who is less interested in the good of Iran and instead only care about your own personal power and interests.
 
2013-06-14 10:09:42 AM  

Alonjar: lockers: As opposed to the sane and decent folk in Israel?

Everything Israel does seems perfectly logical to me, when I consider the world from their perspective.

When I look at it from the Iranian perspective, I conclude that they really just want to scapegoat jews into a unifying boogeyman so they can continue lusting over their power.  Compare a nation like Iran to say, the UAE and compare their social and economic policies and how its affecting their place in the world today.

Iran seems to be making some incredibly dumb moves... which only make any kind of sense at all if you look at it from the perspective of somebody who is less interested in the good of Iran and instead only care about your own personal power and interests.


Let's look at it from Iran's perspective.

A major world power has invaded the countries on both your eastern and western borders, displacing the governments, causing wide spread destruction, and initiating long term military occupations. That very same world power has poor relations with you, and has repeatedly invoked the possibility of military intervention against you.

If you were Iran, would it not be logical to seek a military technology that provides a significant deterrent to invasion by that power?
 
2013-06-14 10:09:48 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ahmadinejad  leaving office.
Bin Ladin dead.
Chavez dead.

The US is in serious danger of running out of bogeymen.


Well, we still haven't captured Bokonon.
 
2013-06-14 10:16:39 AM  

Silverstaff: Nonsense, the Iranian people don't elect the Supreme Leader, the Guardian Council does.

The President of Iran is basically a rubber stamp figurehead to give a very thin veneer of democracy to a fundamentalist Shia Islam theocracy so weird to the rest of the Islamic world that they don't even try to use the term "sharia" to describe it.


Well, not quite, but almost.

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-14 10:17:31 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Let's look at it from Iran's perspective.

A major world power has invaded the countries on both your eastern and western borders, displacing the governments, causing wide spread destruction, and initiating long term military occupations. That very same world power has poor relations with you, and has repeatedly invoked the possibility of military intervention against you.

If you were Iran, would it not be logical to seek a military technology that provides a significant deterrent to invasion by that power?


Iranian leaders have actually said that the economy is none of their concern and they don't care what happens to it. Iran is being run by a group who couldn't care less about the welfare of the Iranian people as long as their own interests are met. It hasn't really been about the US or Israel for decades but continual saber rattling is a good way to gain the US' interest and then point to them as the bad guy.
 
2013-06-14 10:18:28 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Let's look at it from Iran's perspective.

A major world power has invaded the countries on both your eastern and western borders, displacing the governments, causing wide spread destruction, and initiating long term military occupations. That very same world power has poor relations with you, and has repeatedly invoked the possibility of military intervention against you.

If you were Iran, would it not be logical to seek a military technology that provides a significant deterrent to invasion by that power?


Again... the motivations of the man in power, and not the good of the people.  Why is it that the world is  so opposed to Iran specifically gaining a nuclear weapon vs other countries like India or hell even Pakistan?  Nobody gives a shiat that Turkey has nukes, right?  Its because Irans been farking up for a very, very long time  without any prospect of nukes.  This isnt specifically about nukes... its about a dangerous unstable nation whose threat will only be  exacerbated by them gaining nuclear weapons.

If everyone thought Iran genuinely would only use nukes for self defense, we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.   Thats the problem.... and its costing the people of Iran everything.

They are literally in a downward spiral into North Korea territory right now with regards to the effect trade embargo's will be having on their populace as a result of their behavior.  There were many paths Iran could have (and still could) take... but they're choosing brinksmanship because the people in power see themselves as having nothing to lose.  Its all or nothing for them.  fark the people.

/My opinion, anyhow.
 
2013-06-14 10:19:39 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ahmadinejad  leaving office.
Bin Ladin dead.
Chavez dead.

The US is in serious danger of running out of bogeymen.


I guess we really *do* miss Dubya.
 
2013-06-14 10:20:19 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Alonjar: lockers: As opposed to the sane and decent folk in Israel?

Everything Israel does seems perfectly logical to me, when I consider the world from their perspective.

When I look at it from the Iranian perspective, I conclude that they really just want to scapegoat jews into a unifying boogeyman so they can continue lusting over their power.  Compare a nation like Iran to say, the UAE and compare their social and economic policies and how its affecting their place in the world today.

Iran seems to be making some incredibly dumb moves... which only make any kind of sense at all if you look at it from the perspective of somebody who is less interested in the good of Iran and instead only care about your own personal power and interests.

Let's look at it from Iran's perspective.

A major world power has invaded the countries on both your eastern and western borders, displacing the governments, causing wide spread destruction, and initiating long term military occupations. That very same world power has poor relations with you, and has repeatedly invoked the possibility of military intervention against you.

If you were Iran, would it not be logical to seek a military technology that provides a significant deterrent to invasion by that power?


Wow - Iran only went insane in 2003?
 
2013-06-14 10:20:33 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Iranian leaders have actually said that the economy is none of their concern and they don't care what happens to it.


Actually funny you mention that, the reality is that the hardliners in this race think that getting nukes and abhorring the west will fix their economy.

Yes, they think that

Yay NPR for the on the ground reporting in Iran this week
 
2013-06-14 10:22:04 AM  

Alonjar: Philip Francis Queeg: Let's look at it from Iran's perspective.

A major world power has invaded the countries on both your eastern and western borders, displacing the governments, causing wide spread destruction, and initiating long term military occupations. That very same world power has poor relations with you, and has repeatedly invoked the possibility of military intervention against you.

If you were Iran, would it not be logical to seek a military technology that provides a significant deterrent to invasion by that power?

Again... the motivations of the man in power, and not the good of the people.  Why is it that the world is  so opposed to Iran specifically gaining a nuclear weapon vs other countries like India or hell even Pakistan?  Nobody gives a shiat that Turkey has nukes, right?  Its because Irans been farking up for a very, very long time  without any prospect of nukes.  This isnt specifically about nukes... its about a dangerous unstable nation whose threat will only be  exacerbated by them gaining nuclear weapons.

If everyone thought Iran genuinely would only use nukes for self defense, we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.   Thats the problem.... and its costing the people of Iran everything.

They are literally in a downward spiral into North Korea territory right now with regards to the effect trade embargo's will be having on their populace as a result of their behavior.  There were many paths Iran could have (and still could) take... but they're choosing brinksmanship because the people in power see themselves as having nothing to lose.  Its all or nothing for them.  fark the people.

/My opinion, anyhow.


So because the Iranian government doesn't care enough about the good of the Iranian people in your opinion, the international community should pass strong sanctions, which harm the Iranian people, and be prepared to take military action that would result in the deaths of large numbers of the Iranian people?
 
2013-06-14 10:26:21 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Philip Francis Queeg: Let's look at it from Iran's perspective.

A major world power has invaded the countries on both your eastern and western borders, displacing the governments, causing wide spread destruction, and initiating long term military occupations. That very same world power has poor relations with you, and has repeatedly invoked the possibility of military intervention against you.

If you were Iran, would it not be logical to seek a military technology that provides a significant deterrent to invasion by that power?

Iranian leaders have actually said that the economy is none of their concern and they don't care what happens to it. Iran is being run by a group who couldn't care less about the welfare of the Iranian people as long as their own interests are met. It hasn't really been about the US or Israel for decades but continual saber rattling is a good way to gain the US' interest and then point to them as the bad guy.


I assume you don't live there, so how is Iran any of your concern? There is absolutely nothing that they can do to affect you if we refuse to engage them.
 
2013-06-14 10:27:38 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So because the Iranian government doesn't care enough about the good of the Iranian people in your opinion, the international community should pass strong sanctions, which harm the Iranian people, and be prepared to take military action that would result in the deaths of large numbers of the Iranian people?


u wot m8?
 
2013-06-14 10:29:33 AM  

vygramul: Wow - Iran only went insane in 2003


Aside from the US and UK propping up the Shah and 2003 it has all been fluffy white coulds in Iran.
 
2013-06-14 10:33:17 AM  

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: Alonjar: lockers: As opposed to the sane and decent folk in Israel?

Everything Israel does seems perfectly logical to me, when I consider the world from their perspective.

When I look at it from the Iranian perspective, I conclude that they really just want to scapegoat jews into a unifying boogeyman so they can continue lusting over their power.  Compare a nation like Iran to say, the UAE and compare their social and economic policies and how its affecting their place in the world today.

Iran seems to be making some incredibly dumb moves... which only make any kind of sense at all if you look at it from the perspective of somebody who is less interested in the good of Iran and instead only care about your own personal power and interests.

Let's look at it from Iran's perspective.

A major world power has invaded the countries on both your eastern and western borders, displacing the governments, causing wide spread destruction, and initiating long term military occupations. That very same world power has poor relations with you, and has repeatedly invoked the possibility of military intervention against you.

If you were Iran, would it not be logical to seek a military technology that provides a significant deterrent to invasion by that power?

Wow - Iran only went insane in 2003?


Actually Iran was in the process of becoming more sane around then. The some dumfark decided saber rattling was a great idea.

www.gwu.edu
 
2013-06-14 10:35:35 AM  

Alonjar: If everyone thought Iran genuinely would only use nukes for self defense, we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.   Thats the problem.... and its costing the people of Iran everything.


Except Iran hasn't been involved in a war of aggression for centuries.

Their nukes would ensure no US or Israeli invasion.
 
2013-06-14 10:46:17 AM  

jakomo002: Alonjar: If everyone thought Iran genuinely would only use nukes for self defense, we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.   Thats the problem.... and its costing the people of Iran everything.

Except Iran hasn't been involved in a war of aggression for centuries.

Their nukes would ensure no US or Israeli invasion.


Israeli invasion of Iran?

Good God that mideast hashish is some slammin' stuff.
 
2013-06-14 10:48:45 AM  

jakomo002: Except Iran hasn't been involved in a war of aggression for centuries.


Except the conflicts via their proxies Hizballah, Hamas, Islamic jihad, The Qods Force, the IRGC, not to mention exporting terrorism throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.

other than that, no sir.
 
2013-06-14 11:00:17 AM  

jakomo002: Alonjar: If everyone thought Iran genuinely would only use nukes for self defense, we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.   Thats the problem.... and its costing the people of Iran everything.

Except Iran hasn't been involved in a war of aggression for centuries.

Their nukes would ensure no US or Israeli invasion.


Define "involved".  Unless you are limiting it to deploying tropps you are very wrong.

You really think Israel would want to invade?

Even when right wing nutjobs were going on about Iran, it was "bomb" not invade.
 
2013-06-14 11:01:02 AM  

vygramul: jakomo002: Alonjar: If everyone thought Iran genuinely would only use nukes for self defense, we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.   Thats the problem.... and its costing the people of Iran everything.

Except Iran hasn't been involved in a war of aggression for centuries.

Their nukes would ensure no US or Israeli invasion.

Israeli invasion of Iran?

Good God that mideast hashish is some slammin' stuff.


Depends on your definition of "invasion". Invasion doesn't require boots on the ground, instead a squadron of Israeli planes flying into Iranian airspace, bombing nuclear sites, certainly is an invasion, even if the planes don't stay there after bombing.
 
2013-06-14 11:03:06 AM  
Beyond the lack of power of the Presidency within the system, this election is even more of a joke because of how strict the Guardian Council was on ballot access to avoid a repeat of 2009. Both Rafsanjani (the former president who spoke in defense of the "green revolution" at the time and urged the release of protestors from jail) and Mashaei (Ahmadenajad's "lieutenant") were told they couldn't run as they could potentially become "pawns of the West" since they aren't in lockstep with Khamenei (Ahmadenajad has been doing some populist moves to endorse Persian identity and culture rather than purely Islamic identity, such as celebrating holidays that had been discouraged after the Iranian Revolution).

In other words, you get to pick from any of the candidates who will defer to Khamenei.
 
2013-06-14 11:03:46 AM  
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, subby, and chuckled. Not strident, paranoid, and war-drum banging enough to be real.

/where's the 'scary' tag?
 
2013-06-14 11:10:21 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: vygramul: jakomo002: Alonjar: If everyone thought Iran genuinely would only use nukes for self defense, we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.   Thats the problem.... and its costing the people of Iran everything.

Except Iran hasn't been involved in a war of aggression for centuries.

Their nukes would ensure no US or Israeli invasion.

Israeli invasion of Iran?

Good God that mideast hashish is some slammin' stuff.

Depends on your definition of "invasion". Invasion doesn't require boots on the ground, instead a squadron of Israeli planes flying into Iranian airspace, bombing nuclear sites, certainly is an invasion, even if the planes don't stay there after bombing.


The common usage, and the Wikipedia definition, is a lot more involved.
 
2013-06-14 11:26:47 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ahmadinejad  leaving office.
Bin Ladin dead.
Chavez dead.

The US is in serious danger of running out of bogeymen.


Assad.
Castro.
The other Castro.
Kim.
Whoever the Iranians elect.

There are always more bogeymen out there to keep the people scared.
 
2013-06-14 11:32:33 AM  

liam76: Unless you are limiting it to deploying troops you are very wrong.


Iran has been deploying troops in Syria for some time now.
 
2013-06-14 11:35:38 AM  

TappingTheVein: liam76: Unless you are limiting it to deploying troops you are very wrong.

Iran has been deploying troops in Syria for some time now.


So has Israel sine 1967. Who has deployed more? Which troops were invited in by the Syrian government?
 
2013-06-14 11:36:15 AM  

liam76: Define "involved".  Unless you are limiting it to deploying tropps you are very wrong.


Invading another country with their military.

TappingTheVein: Except the conflicts via their proxies Hizballah, Hamas, Islamic jihad, The Qods Force, the IRGC, not to mention exporting terrorism throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.

other than that, no sir.


Not invasions of sovereign land.  Not the Iranian military.

vygramul: Israeli invasion of Iran?


READ STUFF. Israel has been threatening it for years.  They would need US help, but they've had a hard-on against Iran for years.
 
2013-06-14 11:38:00 AM  

TappingTheVein: Iran has been deploying troops in Syria for some time now.


And that's illegal?  To support your allies?  You drunk already?
 
2013-06-14 11:40:31 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The US is in serious danger of running out of bogeymen


Don't worry. There are still a lot of "trusted allies" who can become "mad dictators" on the flip of a media switch.
 
2013-06-14 11:53:08 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So has Israel sine 1967. Who has deployed more? Which troops were invited in by the Syrian government?


Of course this is unrelated to the discussion and of course you neglect to mention Syria's attempt to annihilate Israel in 67. Minor details, i know.

jakomo002: Not invasions of sovereign land.  Not the Iranian military.


So conflict by proxy is to be ignored. Got it. Nice backpedaling there.
Your statement was made to show that Iran was not involved in armed conflict for centuries, this is so wrong and stupid so let's just limit it to 'sending an army over the border' because war by proxy is not a war.

jakomo002: Israel has been threatening it for years.


Utter and total bullshiat, everything stated or done by Israel was a result of Iran's own actions.

jakomo002: And that's illegal?  To support your allies?  You drunk already?


No, slaughtering civilians en mass is not illegal, according to you apparently.  it means 'supporting your ally'.
You haven't been following events in Syria, haven't you. but that's not surprising coming from anyone who made the claim that 'Iran wasn't involved in conflict of aggression for centuries' with s straight face.
 
2013-06-14 12:01:33 PM  

jakomo002: vygramul: Israeli invasion of Iran?

READ STUFF. Israel has been threatening it for years.  They would need US help, but they've had a hard-on against Iran for years.


"Invasion" has a common meaning that involves more than sending a few planes over there.
 
2013-06-14 12:23:04 PM  

Alonjar: Philip Francis Queeg: Let's look at it from Iran's perspective.

A major world power has invaded the countries on both your eastern and western borders, displacing the governments, causing wide spread destruction, and initiating long term military occupations. That very same world power has poor relations with you, and has repeatedly invoked the possibility of military intervention against you.

If you were Iran, would it not be logical to seek a military technology that provides a significant deterrent to invasion by that power?

Again... the motivations of the man in power, and not the good of the people.  Why is it that the world is  so opposed to Iran specifically gaining a nuclear weapon vs other countries like India or hell even Pakistan?  Nobody gives a shiat that Turkey has nukes, right?  Its because Irans been farking up for a very, very long time  without any prospect of nukes.  This isnt specifically about nukes... its about a dangerous unstable nation whose threat will only be  exacerbated by them gaining nuclear weapons.

If everyone thought Iran genuinely would only use nukes for self defense, we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.   Thats the problem.... and its costing the people of Iran everything.

They are literally in a downward spiral into North Korea territory right now with regards to the effect trade embargo's will be having on their populace as a result of their behavior.  There were many paths Iran could have (and still could) take... but they're choosing brinksmanship because the people in power see themselves as having nothing to lose.  Its all or nothing for them.  fark the people.

/My opinion, anyhow.


This is not entirely true.  The Iranian nuclear program is very popular among Iranians.  It is a source of national pride.  Ahmadenejad and Mousavi agreed about continuing it.
Mousavi's platform was not at all about making Iran more friendly with the West.  Rather, he was open about wanting to move a specific power, the authority over the police, from the office of the Supreme Leader to the office of the President.  He also wanted to transition Iran from a "tariffs and subsidies" based economy to one based more on income and sales taxes.  Both of these directly reduced the power of the Supreme Leader and his clique, so this is why the election was rigged.  Had Mousavi been elected, the Iranian people might be slightly less repressed, but their governments relations with the West would not have improved.
 
2013-06-14 12:26:32 PM  

jakomo002: liam76: Define "involved". Unless you are limiting it to deploying tropps you are very wrong.

Invading another country with their military.


So the US isn't involved in Syria.  We weren't "involved" with Libya.  We were never "involved" with Cuba.

Haven't really thought this one out, have you?

jakomo002: READ STUFF. Israel has been threatening it for years.


They have never threatened invasion.
 
2013-06-14 12:29:02 PM  

GentDirkly: This is not entirely true. The Iranian nuclear program is very popular among Iranians. It is a source of national pride. Ahmadenejad and Mousavi agreed about continuing it.


nobody has a problem with them havinga  nuclear program.

Where Ahmadenejad and Musavi differ is that Mousavi wanted it to be clear it is a civilian program.
 
2013-06-14 12:38:19 PM  

liam76: GentDirkly: This is not entirely true. The Iranian nuclear program is very popular among Iranians. It is a source of national pride. Ahmadenejad and Mousavi agreed about continuing it.

nobody has a problem with them havinga  nuclear program.

Where Ahmadenejad and Musavi differ is that Mousavi wanted it to be clear it is a civilian program.


Bzzt.  Ahmadenejad and anyone currently in Iranian government would publicly say that this is already, clearly, the case.  Mousavi was not offering anything different there.

The West wants Iran to stop nuclear enrichment.  They have offered Iran arrangements by which they could mine uranium on their land, ship it somewhere else, that the West trusts, to be enriched, and then shipped back in a fuel-grade but not weapons-grade condition, so that Iran could enjoy nuclear power.  Iranians refuse to stop enrichment, and there is broad consensus regarding this.
It would be like asking the US to stop enriching uranium and trust another country to do it for them.  Not going to happen.
 
2013-06-14 12:38:57 PM  

liam76: They have never threatened invasion.


I have a suspicion that people are using "invasion" much like they do "empire" and "terrorism" - so broadly as to virtually strip all distinction in order to appeal to emotions rather than trying to articulate a well-reasoned position.
 
2013-06-14 12:54:15 PM  

GentDirkly: The Iranian nuclear program is very popular among Iranians.


Among all Iranians
 
2013-06-14 12:59:37 PM  

GentDirkly: Bzzt. Ahmadenejad and anyone currently in Iranian government would publicly say that this is already, clearly, the case. Mousavi was not offering anything different there.


Yes he was.  they both may say that is what it was for but he was willing to be more open abotu what they were actually doing.


GentDirkly: Iranians refuse to stop enrichment, and there is broad consensus regarding this.


Peopel are fine with them enriching it.  What they have a problem is them enriching beyond what is needed for nuclear power.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/12/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBRE91B0 D 320130212">http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/12/us-iran-nuclear- idUSBRE91B0D 320130212


GentDirkly: It would be like asking the US to stop enriching uranium and trust another country to do it for them. Not going to happen


Yeah.  It isn't going to happen because the Us makes nuclear weapons.

Economically it make no sense for Iran to continue to futher enrich uranium, yet they keep doing it.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report