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.

(Hardball Talk)   Need more proof that the MLB Hall of Fame balloting by the BBWAA is a disgrace? Deadspin was able to buy a ballot   (hardballtalk.nbcsports.com) divider line 67
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1443 clicks; posted to Sports » on 28 Nov 2013 at 8:30 AM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-28 05:27:32 AM
 
2013-11-28 07:52:05 AM
The HoF's a worthless laughingstock as long as Pete Rose isn't in, let alone Bonds et. al.  Put as many embarrassing facts and allegations on their plaques as you want, but they're a huge part of the history of the game, and history is the only good reason for the HoF to exist at all.

/well done, deadspi
 
2013-11-28 07:52:48 AM
ADDENDUM: n
 
2013-11-28 08:10:34 AM
The Hall of Fame is a great facility in a cool little town and a nice road trip near some great breweries like Ommegang.

The Baseball Writers who vote on Hall of Fame induction can fight over the single, forlorn, undercooked, poorly-seasoned hobo dick in the bottom of a dirty bucket.

Based on this http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Hall_of_Fame_Voting_Percent a ges there are (or were) baseball writers who looked at players like Ted Williams, Wilie Mays, Mike Schmidt, et al, and said "Well, they were *good* but not good enough for *my* holy vote." Now, that first class I can understand why players like Ruth and Cobb may not have been unanimous since that first class was making up for decades, but how can you claim to even be a baseball FAN, let alone an "expert" and say "No way Musial gets my vote?"
 
2013-11-28 08:13:47 AM
So a writer sold his vote to Deadspin and it's somehow the fault of the BBWAA?
 
2013-11-28 08:33:21 AM
Are they going to make a GIF of it?  Because it wouldn't be Deadspin without a GIF.
 
2013-11-28 08:39:04 AM
that wasn't the point?
 
2013-11-28 08:59:04 AM

dookdookdook: The HoF's a worthless laughingstock as long as Pete Rose isn't in, let alone Bonds et. al.  Put as many embarrassing facts and allegations on their plaques as you want, but they're a huge part of the history of the game, and history is the only good reason for the HoF to exist at all.

/well done, deadspi


Pete Rose violated the sanctity of the game and a rule that is posted in every clubhouse.  He walked past a posting of that rule thousands of times.  I like the guy, too, and I think he was a great player, but he turned the game over to gamblers.  (And should have known better after the 1919 World Series scandal.)

I suppose you could make an argument for Bonds and Clemens outside of steroids, but what about Palmiero?  What would he have done had he not been shooting steroids for a decade?  How many fellow players did he screw over in those years?
 
2013-11-28 08:59:19 AM
The Daily News' Bill Madden stated the sale of the HOF ballot is "one of the most despicable things I can ever think of."

"Literally worse than the Holocaust," added Madden, who also stated that he's not one for hyperbole.
 
2013-11-28 09:12:37 AM
...based on a voter pole? Jake delhomme.

Okay okay. David eckstein
 
2013-11-28 09:17:03 AM

gimmegimme: Pete Rose violated the sanctity of the game and a rule that is posted in every clubhouse. He walked past a posting of that rule thousands of times.


Doesn't matter.  He was one of the greatest and most historically significant players ever, and the fact that he's not in the HoF only diminishes the HoF's importance, not Rose's (though I suppose it diminishes Rose's earning power).  The HoF needs to recognize all the great players, not just the ones that a bunch of old white dudes happen to morally approve of.

Bonds was the most productive home run hitter ever, period.  The fact he was chemically enhanced doesn't change that.  Even if MLB vacates every record and accomplishment of his career, he was still a huge part of baseball history who can't be swept under the rug by any organization that wants to be taken seriously.
 
2013-11-28 09:27:49 AM
The Baseball Hall of Fame is a complete joke to begin with.  They're missing their all time hits leader and all time home runs leader.  So what's the point?
 
2013-11-28 09:29:29 AM

gimmegimme: Pete Rose violated the sanctity of the game and a rule that is posted in every clubhouse. He walked past a posting of that rule thousands of times. I like the guy, too, and I think he was a great player, but he turned the game over to gamblers. (And should have known better after the 1919 World Series scandal.)


So he's TOO famous to be in the hall of fame?
 
2013-11-28 09:31:27 AM

dookdookdook: The HoF needs to recognize all the great players, not just the ones that a bunch of old white dudes happen to morally approve of


After all, they don't call it "The Hall of Good Behavior".
 
2013-11-28 09:44:52 AM
Pete Rose was banned from baseball for life. Induct him after he dies.
 
2013-11-28 09:47:22 AM

dookdookdook: gimmegimme: Pete Rose violated the sanctity of the game and a rule that is posted in every clubhouse. He walked past a posting of that rule thousands of times.

Doesn't matter.  He was one of the greatest and most historically significant players ever, and the fact that he's not in the HoF only diminishes the HoF's importance, not Rose's (though I suppose it diminishes Rose's earning power).  The HoF needs to recognize all the great players, not just the ones that a bunch of old white dudes happen to morally approve of.

Bonds was the most productive home run hitter ever, period.  The fact he was chemically enhanced doesn't change that.  Even if MLB vacates every record and accomplishment of his career, he was still a huge part of baseball history who can't be swept under the rug by any organization that wants to be taken seriously.


I would tend to agree with you; however, "character" is specifically mentioned in HOF voter guidelines, so I suppose a voter could claim moral high ground when doing the voting.

That said, if you, as a voter, are going to claim moral high ground, then you, as a voter, need to claim it across the board.
 
2013-11-28 09:52:19 AM

dookdookdook: Doesn't matter. He was one of the greatest and most historically significant players ever, and the fact that he's not in the HoF only diminishes the HoF's importance, not Rose's (though I suppose it diminishes Rose's earning power). The HoF needs to recognize all the great players, not just the ones that a bunch of old white dudes happen to morally approve of.


When he does get in they should put his plaque right next to that of Mario Soto, the man whose career he wrecked through his gambling.
 
2013-11-28 10:07:36 AM

dookdookdook: The HoF's a worthless laughingstock as long as Pete Rose isn't in, let alone Bonds et. al.  Put as many embarrassing facts and allegations on their plaques as you want, but they're a huge part of the history of the game, and history is the only good reason for the HoF to exist at all.

/well done, deadspi


There's a museum right next door and they can put all kinds of Rose memorabilia in there, with a display discussing how much of a disgrace he is.

I'm not vehemently opposed to putting Rose in the Hall, but I wonder about people who make it their cause to passionately advocate for that cocksucker.
 
2013-11-28 10:11:56 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: The Hall of Fame is a great facility in a cool little town and a nice road trip near some great breweries like Ommegang.

The Baseball Writers who vote on Hall of Fame induction can fight over the single, forlorn, undercooked, poorly-seasoned hobo dick in the bottom of a dirty bucket.

Based on this http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Hall_of_Fame_Voting_Percent a ges there are (or were) baseball writers who looked at players like Ted Williams, Wilie Mays, Mike Schmidt, et al, and said "Well, they were *good* but not good enough for *my* holy vote." Now, that first class I can understand why players like Ruth and Cobb may not have been unanimous since that first class was making up for decades, but how can you claim to even be a baseball FAN, let alone an "expert" and say "No way Musial gets my vote?"


Every year, there's somewhere between 2-7 people that hand in blank ballots. At the very least, if you hand in a blank ballot, you ought to have to explain yourself.
 
2013-11-28 10:34:15 AM
The HoF voting process will continue to be a travesty if they don't induct Jack Morris in.
 
2013-11-28 10:47:09 AM
Oh, hey, here's one of the blanks from last year, Howard Bryant of ESPN.  Bryant was basically so disgusted by the steroid candidates that he went ahead and punished everybody, whether they had anything to do with steroids or not.

He also mentions that the ballot is only counted in the total if you actually mail it back in. If you don't want to vote for anyone and just use your ballot as fireplace kindling, they just lower the ballot count by one. So not only do you have to think nobody's good enough, you have to actively get up on a soapbox and DECLARE that you don't think anybody's good enough.

Other blank ballots I could turn up:

*Jay Mariotti, 2010. He blanked out because he won't vote for anyone on their first ballot (even though he had voted for Rickey Henderson the previous year), so he certainly cannot choose the wine glass in front of him. He also wouldn't ote for Bert Blyleven and Andre Dawson because they had been on the ballot so long (even though he had voted for THEM the previous year), so he certainly cannot choose the wine glass in front of you.

*Lisa Olson was reported in 2010 to hand in a blank ballot every year, as she doesn't believe it's ethically sound for a journalist to have this kind of direct impact on what they cover and blank ballots are her form of protest. But apparently that wasn't quite right. She in fact sits on her ballot and doesn't turn it in, meaning it doesn't get included in the total. So she's not really deserving of any vitriol.

*Mark Faller, last year. Same reasoning as Bryant: punish everyone, for that one year, for the sins of the juicers. He figured he's not jeopardizing anyone because there wasn't anyone he'd normally vote for that was on their 15th year.

*Phil Pepe, 1988. This one was a protest against reduced standards in the Hall. As it happened, that year the blanks made the difference: there were nine blanks that year and Jim Bunning came up four votes short. "I think the Hall of Fame is too crowded. When you vote on people you've seen play, you see the warts. I never saw Babe Ruth pop up with the bases loaded, although I'm sure he did. The people on the ballot now are people I've seen fail."
 
2013-11-28 11:25:03 AM
I immediately ask they buy all the votes, and ensure that Bonds, McGwire and Clemens fall below the threshold, make Greg Maddux a unanimous first-ballot inductee, and make Tom Glavine just barely miss induction for that foolery in 1994 and when he went to the Mets.
 
2013-11-28 11:26:26 AM

gimmegimme: dookdookdook: The HoF's a worthless laughingstock as long as Pete Rose isn't in, let alone Bonds et. al.  Put as many embarrassing facts and allegations on their plaques as you want, but they're a huge part of the history of the game, and history is the only good reason for the HoF to exist at all.

/well done, deadspi

Pete Rose violated the sanctity of the game and a rule that is posted in every clubhouse.  He walked past a posting of that rule thousands of times.  I like the guy, too, and I think he was a great player, but he turned the game over to gamblers.  (And should have known better after the 1919 World Series scandal.)

I suppose you could make an argument for Bonds and Clemens outside of steroids, but what about Palmiero?  What would he have done had he not been shooting steroids for a decade?  How many fellow players did he screw over in those years?


You seem to forget something, scandals and baseball have been together since the game began, watch the Ken Burns Series on baseball, you learn players have done anything since baseball began to cheat..
While I don't agree with what Pete Rose did, keeping him out is a farking joke - so he bet on baseball? who gives a damn he didn't throw a game - my only problem with what he did is he bet on his OWN team which is a fark up.

As for steroids I really don't care either, fact is cheating has gone on for a hundred years and will continue - We can say "But Babe did it on hot dogs and beer!" says who? absolute certain he wasn't taking anything? I don't know, I just refuse to blame one ERA of baseball when the other era's were not so clean themselves - or simply they were not "caught".

/Sure I want cheating banned, but lets just say for fact we know Bonds was on steroids - how does he still get a HOF chance and pete rose don't? - guess this argument can go on forever, I say pete will probably get his HOF chance after he dies and someone lightens up.
 
2013-11-28 11:26:44 AM
Kids these days
 
2013-11-28 11:39:54 AM

Dinobot: The HoF voting process will continue to be a travesty if they don't induct Jack Morris in.


One World Series game does not make a HoF career.
 
2013-11-28 11:54:23 AM

Dinobot: The HoF voting process will continue to be a travesty if they don't induct Jack Morris in.


Trolling or bad at stats?
 
2013-11-28 11:55:42 AM
I've been saying this for decades -- if Joe Pepitone ain't in it, nobody deserves to be in it.
 
2013-11-28 11:56:11 AM

Gosling: I never saw Babe Ruth pop up with the bases loaded, although I'm sure he did.


I'd never seen that quote before, but what's really weird is that Babe Ruth did something much, much worse than popping out with the bases loaded...and I would've figured every baseball writer had seen it.

Of course, I can't find a video of it right now (thanks, MLB copyright ninjas!) but I'm talking about his caught stealing to lose the 1926 World Series.

Here's a picture, at least:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-11-28 12:31:45 PM

Misconduc: /Sure I want cheating banned, but lets just say for fact we know Bonds was on steroids - how does he still get a HOF chance and pete rose don't? - guess this argument can go on forever, I say pete will probably get his HOF chance after he dies and someone lightens up.


Good luck with that. Shoeless Joe and Eddie Cicotte are still serving "lifetime" bans. Shoeless Joe would absolutely go in, Cicotte would probably be borderline and bleed votes due to his more active role in the Black Sox scandal.
 
2013-11-28 01:09:50 PM

LucklessWonder: Pete Rose was banned from baseball for life. Induct him after he dies.


Which makes the HOF an order of magnitude lamer.
 
2013-11-28 01:38:32 PM
The fact that this SOB is in, but then the voters (way different generation I know) play the "character card" on Rose, Bonds, Clemens, etc makes the whole thing laughable and I'm glad Deadspin was able to procure a vote.

Oh and said voters today have already reserved a spot for David Ortiz, yet they're gonna keep Edgar Martinez out? FARK THAT.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-11-28 02:49:12 PM

square028: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x1156]


If Cobb were on the ballot today, he'd be waiting for at least a little while. They'd eventually relent and put him in, but standards are way different now than they were when Cobb was elected. When Cobb was elected, the color barrier was still up. In his day, many people considered him a better ballplayer than Babe Ruth. In his day, his rampant racism and bigotry wasn't nearly as reviled because a lot of people agreed with him. Now, he'd have a media circus around him constantly. He probably wouldn't even be able to exist on the Tigers given the size of the black population in Detroit. He'd end up having to be on the Braves or the Rockies or the Rangers or, really, somewhere more white than Detroit.
 
2013-11-28 02:59:00 PM
I agree with the people saying that steroid users have to be let in. Especially in the case of players like Bonds and Clemens who are no doubter first ballot types if you only look at their on-field performance. I'd be ok with voters applying some kind of steroid 'discount' to candidates the though were borderline and who were  proven (for real, no "Mike Piazza had backne!" crap) users. Between possibly unfairly improved performance and the character clause, I can definitley see a case for keeping borderline candidates out if they cheated. Sammy Sosa, for example, is kind of a borderline candidate even with steroid-aided performance. I'd be ok with him missing the cut.

Peter Rose, though, should  never get in. Cheating to gain an edge, by corking your bat, taking geenies or using steroids, is bad for the game. That said, it has always happened and always will, and at least you know that the players on the field are doing everything within their abilities to win. Once gambling gets involved, though, the validity of the sport is in question. What allows a sport to work is the assumption that the teams are putting forth their best effort to win. Take that away, and the whole exercise is pointless. The Black Sox scandal called the competitiveness of pro baseball into question. If people lose faith in the competitivenes of the sport, it becomes no different from WWE wrestling. Given that, I think you have to have a zero tolerance policy for gambing. Even if Pete Rose never threw a game, he behaved differently in order to win bets. Maybe that cost the Reds games, and maybe it ruined Mario Soto's career. It definitly created a situation where his goal was something other than winning as many games for the Reds as possible. If baseball is to work as a sport, that's unacceptable.
 
2013-11-28 03:58:41 PM
Perhaps Bonds and Clemens and everyone will one day go in.

But they need to have to have a long, long period of penance. They need to be told no enough times to get the message across to them and to everyone who follows them. If they go in first-ballot or after only a few years of wait, there will be no credibility ever again in punishing anyone else who ever gets hit with a steroid scandal, because they'll be able to say 'well, so-and-so did steroids and they put him in the Hall on the first ballot' and what will anyone be able to say to them in response? If they go in, they cannot go in on the writers' ballots, I think. I think they should have to wait long enough that it falls to the Veterans Committee to put them in at whatever pace they see fit. If they want to wait so long that the player dies first, they can go ahead and do that as far as I'm concerned.

But it cannot be a fast 'throw open the doors and give them their plaque quick' coronation. The length of the wait is crucial here. It needs to be established that no one player is so big that the game cannot do without them.
 
2013-11-28 05:57:21 PM

You're the jerk... jerk: Dinobot: The HoF voting process will continue to be a travesty if they don't induct Jack Morris in.

Trolling or bad at stats?


I think a little bit of Column "A" and a little bit of Column "B".

That being said, you can argue Morris is a legitimate HOF candidate on the basis of his win-loss record, post-season performances, and general consistency over a long period of time.  What hurts him, however, is his lack of hardware (no Cy Young Awards) and--especially--his high career ERA (3.90).  Generally, no matter how good their records are, there's almost no chance the HOF will elect a pitcher with a career ERA above 3.50.  Early Wynn (ERA 3.54) is an exception as likely will be Tom Glavine (ERA 3.54 also) but both won at least 300 games and Glavine's got a couple Cy Youngs.  Morris' ERA is well past the cut-off line.

As for the thread topic, Bill James wrote an interesting book back in the 90s on the baseball HOF selection process called Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame: The Politics of Glory.  In particular, he pointed out that the BBWA is biased against those who cover baseball from such "new-fangled" media as radio and TV so they rarely have members who work outside the world of print.  I think much of what he said then is still true today.
 
2013-11-28 08:36:46 PM

Dinobot: The HoF voting process will continue to be a travesty if they don't induct Jack Morris in.


This. More wins in the 80s than anyone else.
 
2013-11-28 09:02:25 PM

Principal Clarinet: The followup:

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/27/madden-the-deadspin-hal l- of-fame-vote-buy-is-one-of-the-most-despicable-things-i-can-ever-think -of/


From that link---If and when this person is kicked out of the BBWAA it will be well-deserved and a totally valid thing for the BBWAA to do.

What exactly would that mean? If it's something like 'no locker room/presser pass' that might be an issue, but if it's just "we're taking away your BBWAA membership", BFD.
 
2013-11-28 09:10:04 PM
Put Rose in as a player, but make note of his gambling as a manager on the plaque. Works for me. Do the same sort of explanation for the steroid gang, and replace Ty Cobbs plaque with a reference to him being a racist sadistic asshole.
 
2013-11-28 09:56:56 PM

thesharkman: Dinobot: The HoF voting process will continue to be a travesty if they don't induct Jack Morris in.

This. More wins in the 80s than anyone else.


sigh

Anyway, I love how people will say stuff like this, then turn around and make fun of hypothetical "stat guys" for supposedly saying stuff like "Oh, this guy hits .50 points better in domes on Tuesdays."
 
2013-11-28 09:57:25 PM

John Buck 41: Put Rose in as a player, but make note of his gambling as a manager on the plaque. Works for me. Do the same sort of explanation for the steroid gang, and replace Ty Cobbs plaque with a reference to him being a racist sadistic asshole.


Unfortunately, you don't get to denigrate someone on their plaque. It is a complete positive whitewash every single time. Teaching the controversy is strictly prohibited, as this is supposed to be the sport's highest honor and nothing less. If you can't make your peace with that, don't hand out a plaque.
 
2013-11-28 10:00:40 PM

Dinobot: The HoF voting process will continue to be a travesty if they don't induct Jack Morris in.


FTFY. Morris was insanely overrated.
 
2013-11-28 10:31:48 PM
Jack Morris and Burt Blyleven are HoF guys period, since we are considering the era in which they played..  I would also vote for Rose, Bonds and Clemens.  Do you think Jordan, Malone and Kidd are going to be denied for whatever their version of Canton is?
 
2013-11-28 10:39:13 PM

MNguy: Jack Morris and Burt Blyleven are HoF guys period


Maybe in a world where the HOF has room for 100 pitchers or so. But in this world, Jack Morris would absolutely be one of the worst pitchers in the Hall.
 
2013-11-28 10:43:10 PM
So let's exclude pitcher who happened to play from 81-90
 
2013-11-28 10:46:48 PM
Doc Gooden was a great, but kind of Liriano.  Morris was a reliable first starter for over 15 years and was one of the best pitchers of the era.  Minus Nolan, who was farking superman, he was good enough...shiat, I'm talking myself out of it now...


Anyway.  You have to compare him to others of his era and basically discount Nolan Ryan as a statistical anomaly.
 
2013-11-28 10:49:48 PM

MNguy: So let's exclude pitcher who happened to play from 81-90


Let's say random non sequiturs.

MNguy: You have to compare him to others of his era


Ok, let's do that! I'll be right back.
 
2013-11-28 10:53:39 PM

DeWayne Mann: MNguy: So let's exclude pitcher who happened to play from 81-90

Let's say random non sequiturs.


No, we'd have to exclude all pitchers from 81ish to 90ish.  He was one of the best of the decade.


MNguy: You have to compare him to others of his era

Ok, let's do that! I'll be right back.


Please do.  Bated breath and all that.
 
2013-11-28 11:12:44 PM
Ok, here's a bunch of players who debuted between 1975 and 1979. Let's play "Which one is the obvious HOF candidate":

A. 17 years, 506 G (462 GS), 3092 IP, .591 W%, 3.47 ERA (106 ERA+)
B. 16 years, 443 G (413 GS), 2895 IP, .562 W%, 3.44 ERA (122 ERA+)
C. 14 years, 398 G (347 GS), 2302 IP, .617 W%, 3.23 ERA (118 ERA+)
D. 23 years, 692 G (562 GS), 3999 IP, .559 W%, 3.70 ERA (106 ERA+)
E. 18 years, 549 G (527 GS), 3824 IP, .577 W%, 3.90 ERA (105 ERA+)
F. 14 years, 368 G (323 GS), 2392 IP, .651 W%, 3.29 ERA (119 ERA+)

Now, I cheated on one of those, but I assure you it only had the effect of making him look worse.

So. Which guy there is the clear choice for HOF, and why?
 
2013-11-29 12:44:00 AM

DeWayne Mann: Ok, here's a bunch of players who debuted between 1975 and 1979. Let's play "Which one is the obvious HOF candidate":

A. 17 years, 506 G (462 GS), 3092 IP, .591 W%, 3.47 ERA (106 ERA+)
B. 16 years, 443 G (413 GS), 2895 IP, .562 W%, 3.44 ERA (122 ERA+)
C. 14 years, 398 G (347 GS), 2302 IP, .617 W%, 3.23 ERA (118 ERA+)
D. 23 years, 692 G (562 GS), 3999 IP, .559 W%, 3.70 ERA (106 ERA+)
E. 18 years, 549 G (527 GS), 3824 IP, .577 W%, 3.90 ERA (105 ERA+)
F. 14 years, 368 G (323 GS), 2392 IP, .651 W%, 3.29 ERA (119 ERA+)

Now, I cheated on one of those, but I assure you it only had the effect of making him look worse.

So. Which guy there is the clear choice for HOF, and why?


Probably not the intended audience for this, but I'll have a go at it all the same...

All of them have a long enough career to be noteworthy, but D has a heck of a case to be made for primacy at 23 years.

Next win rate, F has a clear advantage here but I'm not going to sleep on C either. None of them seem to be disqualified by win rate alone.

ERA - C and F again have a clear advantage. D nearly disqualifies himself here, but his high ERA might be forgivable if it tailed up at the end of his career.

At the end of the day, I'd call F my first choice (effectiveness), D my second (longevity), and C my third (effectiveness). I would pass on B and E by these stats, but I would probably vote for A as well unless I had a clear disqualifying reason.

So, who did I send to Campton?
 
2013-11-29 01:03:01 AM

Major Malfunction: Probably not the intended audience for this, but I'll have a go at it all the same...


I'm assuming he had Morris's stats more or less memorized, so you're probably a better audience anyway.

Major Malfunction: At the end of the day, I'd call F my first choice (effectiveness), D my second (longevity), and C my third (effectiveness). I would pass on B and E by these stats, but I would probably vote for A as well unless I had a clear disqualifying reason.

So, who did I send to Campton?


Well, you've made a decent first choice here in F. Not my personal selection, but your choice lasted 9 years on the ballot (though he never got more than 8.8% of the vote). Notable other aspects of his career include the 1978 AL Cy Young, 5 Gold Gloves, 4 all-star games and 2 World Series rings.

You're now the proud owner of a Hall of Fame that includes Ron "Gator" Guidry! Which is apparently also in someplace named Campton.

I'll save the rest of the names for now in case someone else wants to play.  I'll post them eventually, though.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report