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.

(Yahoo)   National poll reflects that the 20-week-ban bill may actually be a victory for Republicans - who have succeeded in bringing the abortion debate away from the difficult rape-and-incest exceptions in which Democrats insist on exclusively framing it   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 275
    More: Followup, Republican, Democrats, abortion rights, Late termination of pregnancy, Democratic Coalition, Marsha Blackburn, House Republicans, two-thirds vote  
•       •       •

1261 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2013 at 12:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-26 05:45:57 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Ranger Rover: For fun? Because we just hate women so much and want to take away their rights to make choices?

For some? Yes.

Because an abortion is just like their right to choose any other medical procedure?

Yes.

Because there are no countervailing societal priorities at issue?

Every bit of good evidence shows that freely available abortion is a societal good.


Yeah, this is not really going to go anywhere. Conclusory statements based on personal beliefs. I can make 'em too. (And often do).

For fun? Because we just hate women so much and want to take away their rights to make choices?

For some? Yes.

For all? No.

Because an abortion is just like their right to choose any other medical procedure?

Yes.

No.

Because there are no countervailing societal priorities at issue?

Every bit of good evidence shows that freely available abortion is a societal good.


Evidence that you collected, and to you? Ever heard anyone with the opposite opinion? And with their own "evidence"? Like half this country?
 
2013-06-26 05:48:01 PM

un4gvn666: Ranger Rover: Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?

You clearly don't pay much attention to current events.

Not helpful.

A Dark Evil Omen: Ranger Rover: Good points, although I'm not sure I understand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?

Yes.

Helpful! Thanks, I'll check 'em out. I had heard of these things happening in a bioethics class I was in last semester, but we didn't really focus on the issue too much. Definitely not a good thing, and not anything I support.
 
2013-06-26 05:48:19 PM

Ranger Rover: ohioman: Ranger Rover: ohioman: Ranger Rover: skullkrusher: Ranger Rover


Both sides can play tricks with words too. If pro-life is just another term for anti-choice, is pro-choice just another term for pro-abortion?

No, you are the one playing tricks with words.

Pro-choice is about the woman being able to choose between terminating her pregnancy or carrying it to term. Pro-life is about eliminating one of those options

No, YOU are. And I'm rubber and you're glue.....or something.
Look, you didn't respond to my actual point. If you can say I'm against choice, sweepingly, without asking me, because I identify as pro-life (which, sure, I will, for purposes of this argument) than I can can say you're pro-abortion, sweepingly, without asking you, because you identify as pro-choice. You are in favor of abortions every bit as much as I'm against choice, in the imaginary world you've created.
And: "Eliminating one of those options." For fun? Because we just hate women so much and want to take away their rights to make choices? Because an abortion is just like their right to choose any other medical procedure? Because there are no countervailing societal priorities at issue?


the issue has and always will be about CHOICE

if you are pro life good for you, don't have an abortion
 
2013-06-26 05:48:31 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Ranger Rover: Good points, although I'm not sure I understand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?

Yes.


Kansas has them too.
 
2013-06-26 05:48:52 PM

Ranger Rover: For some? Yes.
For all? No.

Because an abortion is just like their right to choose any other medical procedure?

Yes.
No.

Because there are no countervailing societal priorities at issue?

Every bit of good evidence shows that freely available abortion is a societal good.

Evidence that you collected, and to you? Ever heard anyone with the opposite opinion? And with their own "evidence"? Like half this country?


Scientific evidence, supported by such agencies as the AMA and the APA.
 
2013-06-26 05:50:30 PM

ohioman: the issue has and always will be about CHOICE

if you are pro life good for you, don't have an abortion


I won't. And I also won't seek legislative to make you NOT have one, within limits. Do you always just repeat a statement incessantly when it's being challenged, or is it just today?
 
2013-06-26 05:53:39 PM
The evil genius of social conservative legislation is the tendency to lump frontpage, but 50/50 item A along with tiny print heinous items B and C. This forces the opposition to either say "Even granting A, this is still an awful bill" which conservatives take to admit A; or "A is a terrible idea" which conservatives respond to with polls showing it's 50/50 and that means all items in the bill are 50/50.

Item A = abortion ban after 20 weeks
Item B = impossible clinic requirements
Item C = ban on medical abortions outside of clinics
 
2013-06-26 05:55:33 PM

RminusQ: The evil genius of social conservative legislation is the tendency to lump frontpage, but 50/50 item A along with tiny print heinous items B and C. This forces the opposition to either say "Even granting A, this is still an awful bill" which conservatives take to admit A; or "A is a terrible idea" which conservatives respond to with polls showing it's 50/50 and that means all items in the bill are 50/50.

Item A = abortion ban after 20 weeks
Item B = impossible clinic requirements
Item C = ban on medical abortions outside of clinics


The democrats spent a substantial amount of time trying to put in an amendment exempting rape victims from the 20 week limit.  Would they have done that if B and C were the "real problems"?
 
2013-06-26 05:56:37 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Every bit of good evidence shows that freely available abortion is a societal good.

Evidence that you collected, and to you? Ever heard anyone with the opposite opinion? And with their own "evidence"? Like half this country?

Scientific evidence, supported by such agencies as the AMA and the APA.


Cite? To studies that say that freely available abortion is unequivocally a "societal good"? This is what I have the issue with. I would agree that there are societal benefits to abortions in certain situations. But to say, whenever, wherever, at any stage, and anyone that opposes it runs against the manifest weight of "evidence" that abortion is a wonderful thing in American society is pretty conclusory and radical to me. I would also be surprised if a majority of American doctors/scientists felt this way. A few peer-reviewed studies would advance the argument, but they would by no means sell me on the idea that the scientific community as a whole adores abortion and wants it available on demand.
 
2013-06-26 05:59:32 PM

Ranger Rover: ohioman: the issue has and always will be about CHOICE

if you are pro life good for you, don't have an abortion

I won't. And I also won't seek legislatively to make you NOT have one, within limits. Do you always just repeat a statement incessantly when it's being challenged, or is it just today?


FTFM
 
2013-06-26 06:17:08 PM

Ranger Rover: Cite? To studies that say that freely available abortion is unequivocally a "societal good"? This is what I have the issue with. I would agree that there are societal benefits to abortions in certain situations. But to say, whenever, wherever, at any stage, and anyone that opposes it runs against the manifest weight of "evidence" that abortion is a wonderful thing in American society is pretty conclusory and radical to me. I would also be surprised if a majority of American doctors/scientists felt this way. A few peer-reviewed studies would advance the argument, but they would by no means sell me on the idea that the scientific community as a whole adores abortion and wants it available on demand.


A "wonderful thing". Look, if you're not even going to have an honest discussion there's no point in talking to you. The AMA has a general position (section 500) in favor of abortion rights and does not support legislative restrictions. The APA has some research showing that abortion is less psychologically injurious than delivering an unwanted child. Legalization of abortion in the US had a massive effect in reduction of unwanted children. Can you show me any evidence of any sort showing that forcing women to carry unwanted children to term has a positive societal effect? Any? Any at all?
 
2013-06-26 06:31:57 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: The AMA has a general position (section 500) in favor of abortion rights and does not support legislative restrictions


Do they elaborate on their definition of "appropriately trained physicians" anywhere?  If not they should.  Would be a good ender to at least part of this argument.
 
2013-06-26 06:38:07 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: A "wonderful thing". Look, if you're not even going to have an honest discussion there's no point in talking to you. The AMA has a general position (section 500) in favor of abortion rights and does not support legislative restrictions. The APA has some research showing that abortion is less psychologically injurious than delivering an unwanted child. Legalization of abortion in the US had a massive effect in reduction of unwanted children. Can you show me any evidence of any sort showing that forcing women to carry unwanted children to term has a positive societal effect? Any? Any at all?


I'm not sure that you're not changing the terms of the discussion. Sure, a "wonderful thing," is stretching your words from a "societal good" - so, my bad, but it's not stretching it too far, is it? You clearly think abortion is a good thing and want it to be widely available under (I'm assuming, now) probably the majority of circumstances. I made it clear, painstakingly clear, that what I had an issue with is unrestrained access to abortion at any point. Thanks for the cites, and I will check them out. What this will come down to, in the end, as it probably always does, is where you think life begins - a question that I am myself completely unsure about. It will be quite easy to show you evidence of any sort that preventing the unnecessary ending of human life has a positive societal effect - first and foremost would be the overwhelmingly uniform adoption throughout the civilized word of laws designed to prevent or restrict such ending of life, whether outside or inside the womb. See what happens when I turn "forcing women into carrying unwanted children to term" into "seeking to (within reason) prevent the needless loss of human life?"
Does a fetus have any value to you when it is inside the womb? Do you believe it is a human life, in some form? Does a human life have any value to you in terms of society and shared interests and ethical ties and community? If yes, then we probably don't disagree that much on the basic issues, it's just that I have no idea where to draw the line, and you've made a decision on where to draw that line that you stick with (more power to you). If no, we're never going to agree, but these discussions can still be fun (and huge time-wasters).
 
2013-06-26 06:43:55 PM

Ranger Rover: A Dark Evil Omen: A "wonderful thing". Look, if you're not even going to have an honest discussion there's no point in talking to you. The AMA has a general position (section 500) in favor of abortion rights and does not support legislative restrictions. The APA has some research showing that abortion is less psychologically injurious than delivering an unwanted child. Legalization of abortion in the US had a massive effect in reduction of unwanted children. Can you show me any evidence of any sort showing that forcing women to carry unwanted children to term has a positive societal effect? Any? Any at all?

I'm not sure that you're not changing the terms of the discussion. Sure, a "wonderful thing," is stretching your words from a "societal good" - so, my bad, but it's not stretching it too far, is it? You clearly think abortion is a good thing and want it to be widely available under (I'm assuming, now) probably the majority of circumstances. I made it clear, painstakingly clear, that what I had an issue with is unrestrained access to abortion at any point. Thanks for the cites, and I will check them out. What this will come down to, in the end, as it probably always does, is where you think life begins - a question that I am myself completely unsure about. It will be quite easy to show you evidence of any sort that preventing the unnecessary ending of human life has a positive societal effect - first and foremost would be the overwhelmingly uniform adoption throughout the civilized word of laws designed to prevent or restrict such ending of life, whether outside or inside the womb. See what happens when I turn "forcing women into carrying unwanted children to term" into "seeking to (within reason) prevent the needless loss of human life?"
Does a fetus have any value to you when it is inside the womb? Do you believe it is a human life, in some form? Does a human life have any value to you in terms of society and shared interests and ethical ties and community? If ...


Thanks again for the cite. I don't see anything directly about their stance on legislative controls, except for the fact that they do state it should remain within the discretion of the physician, so I guess that's the latent assumption. It does appear that they have some ethical issues with late abortions, however. I certainly don't think they would espouse them as a societal good.
 
2013-06-26 06:59:13 PM

Ranger Rover: ohioman: the issue has and always will be about CHOICE

if you are pro life good for you, don't have an abortion

I won't. And I also won't seek legislative to make you NOT have one, within limits. Do you always just repeat a statement incessantly when it's being challenged, or is it just today?


within limits? so you are seeking legislation. Which is why it is and will always be about choice.
 
2013-06-26 07:13:55 PM

ohioman: Ranger Rover: ohioman: the issue has and always will be about CHOICE

if you are pro life good for you, don't have an abortion

I won't. And I also won't seek legislative to make you NOT have one, within limits. Do you always just repeat a statement incessantly when it's being challenged, or is it just today?

within limits? so you are seeking legislation. Which is why it is and will always be about choice.


Oh, for God's sake, you really are a broken record, aren't you? I've never argued that choice is not a part of this, or even not an important part. I'm simply saying it's not the only thing at issue - to many of us, who believe that the potential rights of another potential person are at issue. If it's your unequivocal belief that no other rights are involved and that even viable fetuses, or those who are not viable but may be able to feel pain, possess no rights and are totally removed from the discussion, then articulate it, rather than just inanely repeating the word "choice" and sometimes capitalizing it for good measure.
Choice is good, and freedom from government is good. But it's not always possible. Overwhelmingly, civilized countries tend to agree that choice and freedom to take certain actions extends to the limit where it starts hurting another in tangible, recognized ways. That's why I can't just walk down the street and choose to steal a car, even if that's a choice I want to make and even if freedom from government and the imposition of other people's morals on me is generally a good thing. For people that recognize that there might be another life at issue at here, potentially one capable of subsistence outside of a womb, a woman's right to choose runs up against these other rights, and provides us with another element to the debate to which we need to give consideration. I'm not sure to what extent I believe this, but I do at least recognize that is a real debate.

I await the word choice again, maybe this time in bold, or in a special, fun and flirty color.
 
2013-06-26 07:15:40 PM

Ranger Rover: tand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?


I meant that your desire to get rid of the Todd Akin types is made harder to to the Todd Akin types shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with them.  The current rush is to prove that you are a harder-core republican than your neighbor, not a smarter or more pragmatic one.

And aside from the link given above, several states now have to tell women that abortion  increases your chances of breast cancer (it doesn't), clinical depression (unproven, but unlikely), or various other ailments including infertility.
 
2013-06-26 07:24:44 PM

Ranger Rover: Sure, a "wonderful thing," is stretching your words from a "societal good" - so, my bad, but it's not stretching it too far, is it?


Yes, it is. They are not the same in any way.

Ranger Rover: Thanks again for the cite. I don't see anything directly about their stance on legislative controls, except for the fact that they do state it should remain within the discretion of the physician, so I guess that's the latent assumption. It does appear that they have some ethical issues with late abortions, however. I certainly don't think they would espouse them as a societal good.


You don't understand what a societal good even  is. There are many things that are societal goods that aren't very much fun. In the context of the modern capitalist state, taxes are a societal good. Police and military are generally considered societal goods. They are considered net beneficial to society.

Would it be better if there were no abortions? Probably. Is general availability of abortion a net benefit to society? Absolutely. As noted, it is both physically and psychologically healthier than carrying an unwanted child to term, and women who get abortions do not have psychological problems worse than the rest of society (meaning that the possibility of regret later is not impactful enough to counteract the positive effects). In addition, it reduces the number of unwanted children around, which reduces strain on public systems like SNAP and the foster system and keeps the number of adoptable children - and there's already a gap between the number of adoptable children and available homes - lower and more manageable.

The way for there to be no (or at least nearly no) abortions is to make birth control generally and freely available, to make quality sex education generally and freely available and to make quality healthcare generally and freely available. Banning abortion is simply further victimizing people who are already at a disadvantage.  Beyond that, you have not provided a compelling reason for restricting abortion; "make the legal code shorter" does not qualify and certainly does not counterbalance any of the points I've made.
 
2013-06-26 08:01:05 PM
A Dark Evil Omen:
 Would it be better if there were no abortions? Probably. Is general availability of abortion a net benefit to society? Absolutely. As noted, it is both physically and psychologically healthier than carrying an unwanted child to term, and women who get abortions do not have psychological problems worse than the rest of society (meaning that the possibility of regret later is not impactful enough to counteract the positive effects). In addition, it reduces the number of unwanted children around, which reduces strain on public systems like SNAP and the foster system and keeps the number of adoptable children - and there's already a gap between the number of adoptable children and available homes - lower and more manageable.


All of these points are good ones and form part of the reason why I remain as neutral as possible on the subject of abortions before viability - I'm not a fan by any means, but I do understand that the question is not just as simple as baby or no baby - it involves a lot of complex physical and psychological factors, not least of which, by any means, is what do to with unwanted children. So, we do have some common ground (I also hope you get the snark on the subjects we don't agree on - I think this is an okay argument compared to some other ones I've seen and been involved in in this thread).

The way for there to be no (or at least nearly no) abortions is to make birth control generally and freely available, to make quality sex education generally and freely available and to make quality healthcare generally and freely available.

Another thing we agree on. So much I bolded it, for fun.

Beyond that, you have not provided a compelling reason for restricting abortion; "make the legal code shorter" does not qualify and certainly does not counterbalance any of the points I've made.

Really? No compelling reason? The potential that what we're dealing with here could be a human life (and past the stage of viability is to my knowledge almost universally recognized to be one), and that those have value regardless of their circumstances or whether or not they were desired, is not a compelling reason at all? Is infanticide an okay solution for unwanted babies that are already born and are a drain on our resources and cause physical and psychological strain to their mothers, fathers, and families? Is the real debate here that you simply will not recognize a humanity or a value to life when a fetus is still in the womb? The second to last question, by the way, is only hyperbole because I would assume you don't feel that way. The third question is a real question that may get at the heart of why we disagree about this.

I'm not aware that I made a "make the legal code shorter" argument; if I did I didn't mean to, or am misunderstanding what you mean by it.
 
2013-06-26 08:06:00 PM
Alright guys, I'll keep checking occasionally, but it's late in the thread, I'm outnumbered (there were a few like-minded earlier, but they went back into the cornfields), still swinging, and getting tired. I did enjoy these debates, though. I say good game for now, got to get some studying done. A Dark Evil Omen, I know I asked you some questions, so I will check back for your answer.
 
2013-06-26 08:29:55 PM

what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.


Tell it like it is, sister.
STFO of my medical decisions.
 
2013-06-26 09:20:42 PM

BSABSVR: Ranger Rover: tand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?

I meant that your desire to get rid of the Todd Akin types is made harder to to the Todd Akin types shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with them.  The current rush is to prove that you are a harder-core republican than your neighbor, not a smarter or more pragmatic one.


Absolutely. It's a real problem, and I hope it's their undoing. It needs to be.

And aside from the link given above, several states now have to tell women that abortion  increases your chances of breast cancer (it doesn't), clinical depression (unproven, but unlikely), or various other ailments including infertility.

Ah, okay, this is also a real problem. I did think it could potentially affect later fertility; is this old intel? I was, before being corrected, under the impression that most of what they tried to do in these pre-procedure counseling etc requirements was to caution about psychological effects, and this stuff would be hard to prove or disprove as bad science in a lot of ways, so I was curious about it.

As far as the abortion-infertility connection, I did a cursory google to see if there was an obvious answer one way or the other, and there doesn't seem to be, which I guess is a frustrating and natural outgrowth of such a hot-button issue so subject to selection bias and other biases from both sides. However, I did skim Planned Parenthood's article on the subject, and I legitimately believe it may have been written by a bot. It's not a valid source of information for anyone, regardless of the side of the debate. Seriously, whoever wrote that must not be able to claim English as a native language. Among other gems that it contains is this unbelievably magical sentence: "It may or may seem that it will definitely fall into a case to case basis depending on how strong a woman's body can be."

Really. I promise. There are no typos. I cut and pasted that sentence. If you have a sec, see if you can get through it, if for no other reason than amusement.

http://www.ppsv.net/can-abortions-cause-infertility/
 
2013-06-26 09:38:55 PM

TheMysticS: what_now: skullkrusher: nice subject change.

You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?

No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.

Tell it like it is, sister.
STFO of my medical decisions.


Good thing for society and the unborn that that is not like it is. Do whatever you want with your body as long as you're not killing another person. When you're killing another person, we're gonna have to restrict you and make sure you have good reason. Thanks.
 
2013-06-27 12:06:07 AM

Ranger Rover: BSABSVR: Ranger Rover: tand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?

I meant that your desire to get rid of the Todd Akin types is made harder to to the Todd Akin types shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with them.  The current rush is to prove that you are a harder-core republican than your neighbor, not a smarter or more pragmatic one.

Absolutely. It's a real problem, and I hope it's their undoing. It needs to be.

And aside from the link given above, several states now have to tell women that abortion  increases your chances of breast cancer (it doesn't), clinical depression (unproven, but unlikely), or various other ailments including infertility.

Ah, okay, this is also a real problem. I did think it could potentially affect later fertility; is this old intel? I was, before being corrected, under the impression that most of what they tried to do in these pre-procedure counseling etc requirements was to caution about psychological effects, and this stuff would be hard to prove or disprove as bad science in a lot of ways, so I was curious about it.

As far as the abortion-infertility connection, I did a cursory google to see if there was an obvious answer one way or the other, and there doesn't seem to be, which I guess is a frustrating and natural outgrowth of such a hot-button issue so subject to selection bias and other biases from both sides. However, I did skim Planned Parenthood's article on the subject, and I legitimately believe it may have been written by a bot. It's not a valid source of information for anyone, regardless of the side of the debate. Seriously, whoever wrote that must not be able to claim English as a native language. Among other gems that it contains is this unbelievably ...


Wow that is quite the article

Yet for the pro-choice groups, who believe that pregnancy can be a choice, abortions to them if done safely and properly, especially with a help of a doctor cannot become infertile because the procedure has been carefully done with the guidance of skilled hands. Firmly they agree that whether abortions cause infertility is a false belief.

I....um....yes?
i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-06-27 02:57:15 AM

BSABSVR: Ranger Rover: BSABSVR: Ranger Rover: tand what you mean about my first and last sentence. I definitely get what you're saying in general, though; may not agree with it all, but I see it. What is the misinformation provided? Are there laws out there that mandate women be given questionable scientific information relating to abortion or pregnancy?

I meant that your desire to get rid of the Todd Akin types is made harder to to the Todd Akin types shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with them.  The current rush is to prove that you are a harder-core republican than your neighbor, not a smarter or more pragmatic one.

Absolutely. It's a real problem, and I hope it's their undoing. It needs to be.

And aside from the link given above, several states now have to tell women that abortion  increases your chances of breast cancer (it doesn't), clinical depression (unproven, but unlikely), or various other ailments including infertility.

Ah, okay, this is also a real problem. I did think it could potentially affect later fertility; is this old intel? I was, before being corrected, under the impression that most of what they tried to do in these pre-procedure counseling etc requirements was to caution about psychological effects, and this stuff would be hard to prove or disprove as bad science in a lot of ways, so I was curious about it.

As far as the abortion-infertility connection, I did a cursory google to see if there was an obvious answer one way or the other, and there doesn't seem to be, which I guess is a frustrating and natural outgrowth of such a hot-button issue so subject to selection bias and other biases from both sides. However, I did skim Planned Parenthood's article on the subject, and I legitimately believe it may have been written by a bot. It's not a valid source of information for anyone, regardless of the side of the debate. Seriously, whoever wrote that must not be able to claim English as a native language. Among other gems that it contains is this ...


Coming from a "conservative" - whatever that word means anymore - Sarah Palin quote is......apt analogy. Yet another valid invocation of "Is English really your native language....because I......just...but just....oh, God."

/Glad to no longer have to say, "Are you really representing my party?"
//Ain't my party anymore. ^^^^
 
Displayed 25 of 275 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report