Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(KING 5 News)   A majority of voters in Washington decided last night that it would probably just be best to stay ignorant about their food supply   (king5.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, GMO, vote-by-mails, genetically modified food, food supply, Grocery Manufacturers Association  
•       •       •

1823 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2013 at 1:07 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-06 12:24:19 PM  
Why don't they list what fertilizer they use?

I have a right to know that information! I don't want my vegetables grown in horse shiat. Cow shiat is ok, but horse shiat isn't
 
2013-11-06 12:28:09 PM  
So, the horse left the barn 10 years ago and they're debating closing the barn door?
 
2013-11-06 12:29:48 PM  
This is the same state that let Costco convince them that private liquor sales were going to greatly expand the variety of spirits available and then had sticker shock when the middle man they created slapped about 20% on to the cost of a bottle of booze.

The opposition has raised $22 million to defeat I-522 and had spent much of that by Election Day. Hefty contributions came from Monsanto Co., DuPont Pioneer and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which collected millions in donations from the nation's top food companies, including Nestle SA, General Mills Inc., Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.

Oh, I didn't realize the corporations were against it.  Well, they must know what's in my best interest.
 
2013-11-06 12:35:49 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: This is the same state that let Costco convince them that private liquor sales were going to greatly expand the variety of spirits available and then had sticker shock when the middle man they created slapped about 20% on to the cost of a bottle of booze.

The opposition has raised $22 million to defeat I-522 and had spent much of that by Election Day. Hefty contributions came from Monsanto Co., DuPont Pioneer and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which collected millions in donations from the nation's top food companies, including Nestle SA, General Mills Inc., Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.

Oh, I didn't realize the corporations were against it.  Well, they must know what's in my best interest.


They are against it because this law adds burdens for no farking reason that will confuse the consumer.

GMO's are safe. This is scientific consensus. There is no controversy over its safety. There is no difference between eating GMO and non-GMO foods. Conspiracy theorists are the leading group who are pro-GMO labeling because they are paranoid farktards. They have spread false information about its safety. Think about it: you are going to buy food. You heard some shiat about how they merged fish with wheat, so you aren't going to buy that perfectly good food because you fell for alarmist bullshiat

/If Scientists are wrong about GMOs then they must be wrong about Climate Change. Its simple logic. Are you going to tell me that climate change isn't happening?
 
2013-11-06 12:40:48 PM  

cman: GMO's are safe


So labeling them should be a minor issue then.

PA had a chance to label milk as hormone-free, and the AG companies killed that initiative too.

If it's so freaking harmless, let the consumer decide for themselves.
 
2013-11-06 12:42:57 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: cman: GMO's are safe

So labeling them should be a minor issue then.

PA had a chance to label milk as hormone-free, and the AG companies killed that initiative too.

If it's so freaking harmless, let the consumer decide for themselves.


Listen, labels are for food safety, are they not? If there is no safety concerns, why does one need to label it?

Don't take conspiracy theorists seriously. They are the ones who are pushing for GMO labels, to fulfill their paranoid bullshiat
 
2013-11-06 12:49:24 PM  

cman: Marcus Aurelius: cman: GMO's are safe

So labeling them should be a minor issue then.

PA had a chance to label milk as hormone-free, and the AG companies killed that initiative too.

If it's so freaking harmless, let the consumer decide for themselves.

Listen, labels are for food safety, are they not? If there is no safety concerns, why does one need to label it?

Don't take conspiracy theorists seriously. They are the ones who are pushing for GMO labels, to fulfill their paranoid bullshiat


I have political concerns about GMOs more than safety concerns. GMOs are a great way to crush your competition (see Monsanto and the Round-Up gene).  I would rather not support these monsters.

You can't do that if you don't know who they are.
 
2013-11-06 12:49:41 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: So labeling them should be a minor issue then.


Because it says that there is something intrinsically different about a "genetically modified" food over a "natural" food, and that's just not the case when you're talking about the product at a consumer level.

A food that is fit for human consumption is no different whether it was first made by nature, cultivated by man a thousand years ago, or made in a lab last year.
 
2013-11-06 12:51:21 PM  

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: So labeling them should be a minor issue then.

Because it says that there is something intrinsically different about a "genetically modified" food over a "natural" food, and that's just not the case when you're talking about the product at a consumer level.

A food that is fit for human consumption is no different whether it was first made by nature, cultivated by man a thousand years ago, or made in a lab last year.


Unless it contains the Round-Up gene.  Then you owe Monsanto money.
 
2013-11-06 12:52:25 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: You can't do that if you don't know who they are.


So put forward a petition that the product has to have the names of the largest corporate entity that owns the distributor on the package. That way you don't feed into "GMO bad" paranoia.
 
2013-11-06 12:52:59 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: cman: Marcus Aurelius: cman: GMO's are safe

So labeling them should be a minor issue then.

PA had a chance to label milk as hormone-free, and the AG companies killed that initiative too.

If it's so freaking harmless, let the consumer decide for themselves.

Listen, labels are for food safety, are they not? If there is no safety concerns, why does one need to label it?

Don't take conspiracy theorists seriously. They are the ones who are pushing for GMO labels, to fulfill their paranoid bullshiat

I have political concerns about GMOs more than safety concerns. GMOs are a great way to crush your competition (see Monsanto and the Round-Up gene).  I would rather not support these monsters.

You can't do that if you don't know who they are.


Thats bullshiat, dude

You are using an invalid argument to bash corporations.
 
2013-11-06 12:53:22 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Unless it contains the Round-Up gene.  Then you owe Monsanto money.


Not the consumer, they don't owe Monsanto jack.
 
2013-11-06 12:56:19 PM  

cman: They are against it because this law adds burdens for no farking reason that will confuse the consumer.


What's confusing?  They already separate the organic shiat from the other shiat.  Put a GMO label on it and put it over there.  If people want it, they'll buy it.
 
2013-11-06 12:57:10 PM  

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: Unless it contains the Round-Up gene.  Then you owe Monsanto money.

Not the consumer, they don't owe Monsanto jack.


No one pays Monsanto?  I must have missed that part.
 
2013-11-06 12:57:25 PM  

cman: Marcus Aurelius: cman: Marcus Aurelius: cman: GMO's are safe

So labeling them should be a minor issue then.

PA had a chance to label milk as hormone-free, and the AG companies killed that initiative too.

If it's so freaking harmless, let the consumer decide for themselves.

Listen, labels are for food safety, are they not? If there is no safety concerns, why does one need to label it?

Don't take conspiracy theorists seriously. They are the ones who are pushing for GMO labels, to fulfill their paranoid bullshiat

I have political concerns about GMOs more than safety concerns. GMOs are a great way to crush your competition (see Monsanto and the Round-Up gene).  I would rather not support these monsters.

You can't do that if you don't know who they are.

Thats bullshiat, dude

You are using an invalid argument to bash corporations.


Listen

You are taking arguments that have no place in science and are trying to use them to hurt some other party. Thats what conspiracy theorists do. Thats what Republicans do. And you are falling for it.
 
2013-11-06 12:58:51 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: cman: They are against it because this law adds burdens for no farking reason that will confuse the consumer.

What's confusing?  They already separate the organic shiat from the other shiat.  Put a GMO label on it and put it over there.  If people want it, they'll buy it.


See how easy that was?  Simple.

If the food producers want to give us GMO, let them market it to us properly.  Banning GMO labeling is exactly like giving Monsanto an advertising subsidy.

Do I get advertising subsidies from the government?  No, I do not.
 
2013-11-06 01:03:29 PM  
yeah when folks spend 22 million so they can tell me less about what they want to sell me it puts me squarely in the suspect camp.
 
2013-11-06 01:07:25 PM  
Meh... Let me know when they have to list the percentage of uvulas and scrotums in hot dogs.
 
2013-11-06 01:09:54 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: cman: GMO's are safe

So labeling them should be a minor issue then.

PA had a chance to label milk as hormone-free, and the AG companies killed that initiative too.

If it's so freaking harmless, let the consumer decide for themselves.


And Chicken and Pork is labeled Hormone Free, even though federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones in poultry or pork.

Some labels are not to inform, but mislead.
 
2013-11-06 01:12:13 PM  
Looks like Monsanto bought another one.

Other countries think we are insane and for good reason.
 
2013-11-06 01:13:34 PM  
"The campaign over Initiative 522 has been one of the costliest initiative fights in state history, drawing millions of dollars from out of state. "

Move along, nothing to see here folks...
 
2013-11-06 01:14:46 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: cman: They are against it because this law adds burdens for no farking reason that will confuse the consumer.

What's confusing?  They already separate the organic shiat from the other shiat.  Put a GMO label on it and put it over there.  If people want it, they'll buy it.


The organic label is the same thing in the opposite direction. It's just a BS marketing gimmick that doesn't mean anything, and people bought into it big time.

Organic isn't safer, it isn't healthier, and it doesn't mean it is environmentally beneficial.

Likewise, GMO does not mean unsafe, it does not mean unhealthy, and it doesn't not mean environmental damaging.
 
2013-11-06 01:15:04 PM  
Considering the amount of money that monsanto(plus coke pepsi and others) was dumping in to blatantly false information ads, no wonder people derped at the polls.

/Sure is nice when the Supreme Court allowed companies to lie in ads, under the guise of free speech.
//Why yes your GMO food has had 3 coatings of roundup on it, but f*ck you for trying to make it listed on the package.
 
2013-11-06 01:15:29 PM  
Oops, sorry for the accidental double negative.

It does not mean environmentally damaging.
 
2013-11-06 01:15:48 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: cman: Marcus Aurelius: cman: GMO's are safe

So labeling them should be a minor issue then.

PA had a chance to label milk as hormone-free, and the AG companies killed that initiative too.

If it's so freaking harmless, let the consumer decide for themselves.

Listen, labels are for food safety, are they not? If there is no safety concerns, why does one need to label it?

Don't take conspiracy theorists seriously. They are the ones who are pushing for GMO labels, to fulfill their paranoid bullshiat

I have political concerns about GMOs more than safety concerns. GMOs are a great way to crush your competition (see Monsanto and the Round-Up gene).  I would rather not support these monsters.

You can't do that if you don't know who they are.


Additionally, you already know.

If you buy anything with corn products, soybeans, or sugar derived from sugar beets that is not labeled GMO-Free or Certified Organic, you can be sure it has some sources of ingredients that are GMO based.

Nearly all the corn, soybeans, and sugar beets are GMO now.

Anyways, the label would in all likelihood actually cause the GMO containing food to drop in price, which is ok for me because I don't buy much processed food and probably OK for most people that are on a tight food budget, because we can't afford to buy organic anyways.

I'm ok with labeling along the lines of the Kosher label or the one for irradiation.  Make it a G with a circle or triangle or square around it.  If you actually care, you'll look.
 
2013-11-06 01:16:12 PM  
Yum, I could go for some 'GMO pesticide infused' corn.
 
2013-11-06 01:16:36 PM  

AntiNerd: Looks like Monsanto bought another one.

Other countries think we are insane and for good reason.


www.mceades.com

They have been asking the question for some time now
 
2013-11-06 01:17:25 PM  
Yes.  We should've gone with the side whose biggest contributor was Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps (who wasn't a real MD, just homeopathic woo-woo bullshiat).

I'm all for labeling, but this was a badly-designed initiative that catered to the fear-mongerers and the scientifically-illiterate.

// I read the initiative, in its entirety.  Calling it problematic is an understatement.
 
2013-11-06 01:17:42 PM  
GMO's are engineered so roundup can be sprayed on it.

/Not much to do with crop increase.
 
2013-11-06 01:18:15 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: So labeling them should be a minor issue then.

Because it says that there is something intrinsically different about a "genetically modified" food over a "natural" food, and that's just not the case when you're talking about the product at a consumer level.

A food that is fit for human consumption is no different whether it was first made by nature, cultivated by man a thousand years ago, or made in a lab last year.

Unless it contains the Round-Up gene.  Then you owe Monsanto money.


And only if you purposely set out to select for and harvest then replant the seed.

It's bullshiat they can sue over it, and patent law desperately needs to change.

I'd rather congress spent it's time there, but... $$$$$$ talks.
 
2013-11-06 01:18:52 PM  
As a consumer you should have the right to know what is in your food, including which specific pesticides have been used on a crop.

GMOs are safe? Even if the genes inthe food are safe, the growing of GMO food creates a huge rick factor. Roundup Ready Soy is modified so that Roundup weed killer doesn't kill the plant. So most soy grown in this country is saturated in roundup. I guarantee you that that is neither safe or healthy. What are they trying to hide? Why don't they want us to know what is in our food?
 
2013-11-06 01:19:22 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: cman: GMO's are safe

So labeling them should be a minor issue then.

PA had a chance to label milk as hormone-free, and the AG companies killed that initiative too.

If it's so freaking harmless, let the consumer decide for themselves.


This.

I'm not necessarily against GMOs, but I am against Wild Wild West "progress".  Cross breeding to develop certain traits in plants is much different than cutting and pasting.  And right now, apparently, I don't know if the *seeds* I bought are GMO.

But the other side has a lot lot lot of money, so there's that.
 
2013-11-06 01:19:29 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Soup4Bonnie: cman: They are against it because this law adds burdens for no farking reason that will confuse the consumer.

What's confusing?  They already separate the organic shiat from the other shiat.  Put a GMO label on it and put it over there.  If people want it, they'll buy it.

See how easy that was?  Simple.

If the food producers want to give us GMO, let them market it to us properly.  Banning GMO labeling is exactly like giving Monsanto an advertising subsidy.

Do I get advertising subsidies from the government?  No, I do not.


Dude

Do you not understand this?

If you let anti-GMO crowd win, you are accepting their reality of science

You are anti-Corporate. Stick with that. Don't let their paranoid bullshiat pull you in.
 
2013-11-06 01:21:06 PM  
Looks like Monsanto has a shill in here.
Dispute these, Mr. Monsanto

thegoldenlightchannel.com
www.foodrevolution.org
urbanhomestead.org
www.secretsofthefed.com
 
2013-11-06 01:23:09 PM  
The corporations were outspending the pro-labeling types massively on television. They were able to find a lot of whores to do their bidding in what seemed like non-stop anti-labeling commercials.

Anyway, I blame Eastern Washington, as I always do.

/Actually didn't see the breakout of the voting on this issue, but voted for labeling
 
2013-11-06 01:23:29 PM  

cman: Soup4Bonnie: This is the same state that let Costco convince them that private liquor sales were going to greatly expand the variety of spirits available and then had sticker shock when the middle man they created slapped about 20% on to the cost of a bottle of booze.

The opposition has raised $22 million to defeat I-522 and had spent much of that by Election Day. Hefty contributions came from Monsanto Co., DuPont Pioneer and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which collected millions in donations from the nation's top food companies, including Nestle SA, General Mills Inc., Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.

Oh, I didn't realize the corporations were against it.  Well, they must know what's in my best interest.

They are against it because this law adds burdens for no farking reason that will confuse the consumer.

GMO's are safe. This is scientific consensus. There is no controversy over its safety. There is no difference between eating GMO and non-GMO foods. Conspiracy theorists are the leading group who are pro-GMO labeling because they are paranoid farktards. They have spread false information about its safety. Think about it: you are going to buy food. You heard some shiat about how they merged fish with wheat, so you aren't going to buy that perfectly good food because you fell for alarmist bullshiat

/If Scientists are wrong about GMOs then they must be wrong about Climate Change. Its simple logic. Are you going to tell me that climate change isn't happening?


I don't give a fark about the idiot brigade that is the general populace being confused. More information about the products you buy, and especially consume, is always a good thing. Quit coddling people who don't have even a basic understanding of how the world works.
 
2013-11-06 01:23:55 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Marcus Aurelius: cman: GMO's are safe

So labeling them should be a minor issue then.

PA had a chance to label milk as hormone-free, and the AG companies killed that initiative too.

If it's so freaking harmless, let the consumer decide for themselves.

This.

I'm not necessarily against GMOs, but I am against Wild Wild West "progress".  Cross breeding to develop certain traits in plants is much different than cutting and pasting.  And right now, apparently, I don't know if the *seeds* I bought are GMO.

But the other side has a lot lot lot of money, so there's that.


Process of elimination will help you.

Are you a major agribusiness planting corn (sweet, flint, dent, feed, etc), soybeans, sugar beets, or alfalfa?

If not, you're probably fine.  Anyways, the seed packet would tout the GMO with fancy marketing buzzwords.

Sygenta sells the only gmo BT sweet corn I am aware of, and I'd plant it for shiats and giggles, but I don't want the many butterflies we purposely try to attract accidentally killed by incidental pollen exposure.
 
2013-11-06 01:24:23 PM  
Do I have an inherent right to be ignorant? If so, do I have an inherent right to choose to live my life in accordance with my own ignorance?

Those are the only questions that needed to be considered.
 
2013-11-06 01:24:26 PM  

milsorgen: cman: Soup4Bonnie: This is the same state that let Costco convince them that private liquor sales were going to greatly expand the variety of spirits available and then had sticker shock when the middle man they created slapped about 20% on to the cost of a bottle of booze.

The opposition has raised $22 million to defeat I-522 and had spent much of that by Election Day. Hefty contributions came from Monsanto Co., DuPont Pioneer and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which collected millions in donations from the nation's top food companies, including Nestle SA, General Mills Inc., Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.

Oh, I didn't realize the corporations were against it.  Well, they must know what's in my best interest.

They are against it because this law adds burdens for no farking reason that will confuse the consumer.

GMO's are safe. This is scientific consensus. There is no controversy over its safety. There is no difference between eating GMO and non-GMO foods. Conspiracy theorists are the leading group who are pro-GMO labeling because they are paranoid farktards. They have spread false information about its safety. Think about it: you are going to buy food. You heard some shiat about how they merged fish with wheat, so you aren't going to buy that perfectly good food because you fell for alarmist bullshiat

/If Scientists are wrong about GMOs then they must be wrong about Climate Change. Its simple logic. Are you going to tell me that climate change isn't happening?

I don't give a fark about the idiot brigade that is the general populace being confused. More information about the products you buy, and especially consume, is always a good thing. Quit coddling people who don't have even a basic understanding of how the world works.


Ok, then tell go back to post number one, should we label the fertilizer used?
 
2013-11-06 01:24:45 PM  

cman: Why don't they list what fertilizer they use?

I have a right to know that information! I don't want my vegetables grown in horse shiat. Cow shiat is ok, but horse shiat isn't


Damn You sure don't know anything about anything.

You picked a random statement and still get it wrong and the total opposite of reality.

Horse crap makes the very best fertilizer.
 
2013-11-06 01:24:48 PM  
QFTA:

Early polling showed voters favored the measure. But a barrage of TV and radio spots financed by a food industry group and five biotechnology companies has helped narrow the gap. The opposition outspent supporters about 3 to 1.
The opposition has raised $22 million to defeat I-522 and had spent much of that by Election Day. Hefty contributions came from Monsanto Co., DuPont Pioneer and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which collected millions in donations from the nation's top food companies, including Nestle SA, General Mills Inc., Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.


Free speech!!1! Free Speech!!1!

images.huffingtonpost.com

Excellent!
 
2013-11-06 01:26:06 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Marcus Aurelius: cman: GMO's are safe

So labeling them should be a minor issue then.

PA had a chance to label milk as hormone-free, and the AG companies killed that initiative too.

If it's so freaking harmless, let the consumer decide for themselves.

This.

I'm not necessarily against GMOs, but I am against Wild Wild West "progress".  Cross breeding to develop certain traits in plants is much different than cutting and pasting.  And right now, apparently, I don't know if the *seeds* I bought are GMO.

But the other side has a lot lot lot of money, so there's that.


They are different. differently ly in their precision. The Cut and Paste version is extremely precise; very low change f getting a genetic feature which you don't want. Cross-Breeding version creates a ton of variables, and very little control over the genetic expression, which makes it much less precise.

The "wild west" comparison was applied to the wrong one. The wild west was lawless, wild, and uncontrolled. Just like cross breeding. But that does make it more "natural," which a lot of people care about because of some weird sense that natural is better, even though they've never been able to demonstrate it.
 
2013-11-06 01:26:17 PM  

mrlewish: cman: Why don't they list what fertilizer they use?

I have a right to know that information! I don't want my vegetables grown in horse shiat. Cow shiat is ok, but horse shiat isn't

Damn You sure don't know anything about anything.

You picked a random statement and still get it wrong and the total opposite of reality.

Horse crap makes the very best fertilizer.


Horse crap has too much salt in it.

Rabbit or llama shiat FTW.
 
2013-11-06 01:27:50 PM  

Anyone who defends this bullshiat is either an idiot of the highest order, on the payroll, or both

65 Health risks of GMOs

 
2013-11-06 01:28:19 PM  

SuburbanCowboy: As a consumer you should have the right to know what is in your food, including which specific pesticides have been used on a crop.

GMOs are safe? Even if the genes inthe food are safe, the growing of GMO food creates a huge rick factor. Roundup Ready Soy is modified so that Roundup weed killer doesn't kill the plant. So most soy grown in this country is saturated in roundup. I guarantee you that that is neither safe or healthy. What are they trying to hide? Why don't they want us to know what is in our food?


Roundup is a contact herbacide, not pesticide.  Roundup after sprayed breaks down into its native components meaning it doesnt build up in the soil and prevent furure growth in the field, so it is a lot more environmentally safe than traditional herbacides.
 
2013-11-06 01:28:28 PM  

phygz: Anyone who defends this bullshiat is either an idiot of the highest order, on the payroll, or both

65 Health risks of GMOs


Let me guess, climate change isn't happening as well, right?
 
2013-11-06 01:28:35 PM  
whether or not GMO's are dangerous to eat is one argument but I think that misses the point. There are a whole bunch of us out there that would choose not to eat GMOs because of what it allows Monsanto to do to small farmers. And yeah, I would rather my food not be drenched in pesticide as well. So put me in the organic non-GMO paranoid crazy crowd if it makes you feel better
 
2013-11-06 01:28:53 PM  
If you are Anti-GMO, please read this: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference - 3-january-2013/'


Also, please know that you are as embarrassing to the left as the birthers are to the right and the Truthers are to the libertarians.

Thank you.
 
2013-11-06 01:29:40 PM  
I voted yes.  I am not terribly "scared" about GMO food.
But I have problems with the ethics that go into making them.  I also feel that if it is labeled, then there is more awareness of this.

The thing I objected to most though, was listening companies biatch about how much more this was going to cost them while spending millions of dollars fighting it.  Couple that with the insane profits some of these companies are making, and I just stop caring about the fact that they are going to have to spend some money redesigning their current packaging.
 
2013-11-06 01:29:54 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: This is the same state that let Costco convince them that private liquor sales were going to greatly expand the variety of spirits available and then had sticker shock when the middle man they created slapped about 20% on to the cost of a bottle of booze.


Umm the privatisation came with a huge tax on liquor sales.  That's why the price went up.

But don't let reality get in the way of a good story.
 
Displayed 50 of 274 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 »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report