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.

(WHAS 11 Louisville)   Kentucky legislator wishes to pass a 0% Gun Tax until 2018 to increase sales. Er, to emphasize the importance of the 2nd amendment. Yeah, that one   (whas11.com) divider line 323
    More: Obvious, 2nd amendment, Kentucky, tax exemption, gun laws, sales taxes  
•       •       •

692 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Dec 2013 at 9:25 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-12 09:15:07 AM
The poor second amendment, it never gets any attention.  There should be a group or something dedicated to supporting it.

/Starting a group to protect the Third.
 
2013-12-12 09:28:48 AM
exempt any legal gun from Kentucky's sales tax

Illegal guns still have to pay tax.

he opted to change the law exempting guns until 2018Forever

Once a tax cut expires it is raising taxes and we can't have that.
 
2013-12-12 09:31:17 AM
If you want to increase sales, just introduce a bill that will ban guns.
 
2013-12-12 09:32:27 AM
i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-12-12 09:34:28 AM

EvilEgg: The poor second amendment, it never gets any attention.  There should be a group or something dedicated to supporting it.

/Starting a group to protect the Third.


Coincidentally I view the 2nd Amendment in basically the same terms I view the 3rd.

A "right" that made sense in the context of Revolutionary times but which doesn't have much relevance in today's world.

We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).
 
2013-12-12 09:35:09 AM

Arkanaut: If you want to increase sales, just introduce a bill that will ban guns.


The electing of the blah-man as POTUS has done more for the sales of all the gun, ammo, and food storage companies than they could have ever imagined.
 
2013-12-12 09:36:45 AM
if sales tax is a deciding factor in whether or not you make a purchase, you can't afford it

hth
 
2013-12-12 09:38:32 AM

Doc Daneeka: We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).


Yeah, this right here. If the US military wants to take something from you, you are pretty much screwed. Back in they day, you and your military adversaries had the exact same weapons (other than maybe a cannon, which is next to useless anyways). Tanks, fighter jets, drones, cruise missiles, mounted machine guns, grenades, bombs, etc.....you don't stand a chance with your little AR-15.
 
2013-12-12 09:38:44 AM
Just have the next president be a full blooded black person, like Cory Booker, then you'll get a huge increase in gun sales.

/I'm curious why the GOP haven't played the "comforting race card" with Obama
//When he does something the GOP hates, he's half-black
///When he does something the GOP actually might admit to liking, he's half white!
 
2013-12-12 09:43:13 AM

Jackson Herring: if sales tax is a deciding factor in whether or not you make a purchase, you can't afford it

hth


This. What a fiscal genius this guy is.
 
2013-12-12 09:44:18 AM
Rep. David Floyd, (R-Bardstown) says he originally only wanted to exempt the guns from the tax on July 4th.

Well it's nice to learn that Kentucky legislators have the same mindset at "Honest" Carl's Integrity Auto Finance Group.
 
2013-12-12 09:44:19 AM

kidgenius: Doc Daneeka: We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).

Yeah, this right here. If the US military wants to take something from you, you are pretty much screwed. Back in they day, you and your military adversaries had the exact same weapons (other than maybe a cannon, which is next to useless anyways). Tanks, fighter jets, drones, cruise missiles, mounted machine guns, grenades, bombs, etc.....you don't stand a chance with your little AR-15.


Ask the Taliban about a militia fighting the U.S. military.  Not to say they are winning, they aren't, but they are making things difficult.  Unless the kid gloves come off and the military are willing to go with a scorched earth policy, a militia can be fairly effective.
 
2013-12-12 09:47:57 AM

kidgenius: Arkanaut: If you want to increase sales, just introduce a bill that will ban guns.

The electing of the blah-man as POTUS has done more for the sales of all the gun, ammo, and food storage companies than they could have ever imagined.


thepoliticalcarnival.net
 
2013-12-12 09:49:35 AM

EvilEgg: kidgenius: Doc Daneeka: We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).

Yeah, this right here. If the US military wants to take something from you, you are pretty much screwed. Back in they day, you and your military adversaries had the exact same weapons (other than maybe a cannon, which is next to useless anyways). Tanks, fighter jets, drones, cruise missiles, mounted machine guns, grenades, bombs, etc.....you don't stand a chance with your little AR-15.

Ask the Taliban about a militia fighting the U.S. military.  Not to say they are winning, they aren't, but they are making things difficult.  Unless the kid gloves come off and the military are willing to go with a scorched earth policy, a militia can be fairly effective.


Look at what happened in Iraq once we decided to stop standing around with our dicks in our hands and implemented "the surge"? Iraq went from being a hell-scape to merely a hell-hole, and of course it's not like everything is sunshine and daises, but its way better than it was*. As you mention, it's not a matter of capabilities, but of commitment.
*was: being the time from pre-surge to today, not pre-Hussein to today.
 
2013-12-12 09:50:51 AM

EvilEgg: Ask the Taliban about a militia fighting the U.S. military. Not to say they are winning, they aren't, but they are making things difficult. Unless the kid gloves come off and the military are willing to go with a scorched earth policy, a militia can be fairly effective.


I think there's just a tiny bit of difference between a living in a constant civil war for the last 30 or so years vs some hoverround-riding, 300-pound, 50 something teatard with his Bushmaster mounted on the dashboard of his scooter.
 
2013-12-12 09:52:22 AM

pueblonative: EvilEgg: Ask the Taliban about a militia fighting the U.S. military. Not to say they are winning, they aren't, but they are making things difficult. Unless the kid gloves come off and the military are willing to go with a scorched earth policy, a militia can be fairly effective.

I think there's just a tiny bit of difference between a living in a constant civil war for the last 30 or so years vs some hoverround-riding, 300-pound, 50 something teatard with his Bushmaster mounted on the dashboard of his scooter.


Not to mention, a lot of the Taliban received proper military training. The prepper gang usually are just self-training based on whatever Michael Bay movie came out last summer.
 
2013-12-12 09:55:28 AM
Bud's Gunshop is in Kentucky so this is a pretty good deal for Kentucky Farkers. They're essentially the Wal-Mart of online gun sales, so they tend to have really good prices.

Hell, I'd take it and just throw the sales tax I saved at a new Boresnake or ammo or mags. It's win/win!
 
2013-12-12 09:55:47 AM

EvilEgg: kidgenius: Doc Daneeka: We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).

Yeah, this right here. If the US military wants to take something from you, you are pretty much screwed. Back in they day, you and your military adversaries had the exact same weapons (other than maybe a cannon, which is next to useless anyways). Tanks, fighter jets, drones, cruise missiles, mounted machine guns, grenades, bombs, etc.....you don't stand a chance with your little AR-15.

Ask the Taliban about a militia fighting the U.S. military.  Not to say they are winning, they aren't, but they are making things difficult.  Unless the kid gloves come off and the military are willing to go with a scorched earth policy, a militia can be fairly effective.


Just look at how unarmed like minded people can derail Obamas 1st and 2nd terms by planting their feet firmly on the ground and saying "No"
 
2013-12-12 10:01:06 AM
frightening RWers into giving you their money is big business these days.


just look at what the RW sites linked here on fark are advertising, lots of BS books to make you feel better about all the BS chicken little stories...oh, and lots of tips !!LIBERALS!! don't want you to know.

it seems like we've boiled these patriots down to mostly mentally ill folks, kinda sad.

/stay afeard brave ones
 
2013-12-12 10:04:07 AM

Doc Daneeka: EvilEgg: The poor second amendment, it never gets any attention.  There should be a group or something dedicated to supporting it.

/Starting a group to protect the Third.

Coincidentally I view the 2nd Amendment in basically the same terms I view the 3rd.

A "right" that made sense in the context of Revolutionary times but which doesn't have much relevance in today's world.

We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).


The Peace of Paris was signed in 1983, and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, so was it still "Revolutionary times"?

Members of the military are "armed citizens." If ordered to attack civilians, it is unlikely that compliance will be 100%.

In an era with the DHS, TSA, increased militarization of police, and massive NSA spying (just to name a few) is the hypothetical tyranny all that far-fetched?
 
2013-12-12 10:15:28 AM

give me doughnuts: Doc Daneeka: EvilEgg: The poor second amendment, it never gets any attention.  There should be a group or something dedicated to supporting it.

/Starting a group to protect the Third.

Coincidentally I view the 2nd Amendment in basically the same terms I view the 3rd.

A "right" that made sense in the context of Revolutionary times but which doesn't have much relevance in today's world.

We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).

The Peace of Paris was signed in 1983, and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, so was it still "Revolutionary times"?

Members of the military are "armed citizens." If ordered to attack civilians, it is unlikely that compliance will be 100%.

In an era with the DHS, TSA, increased militarization of police, and massive NSA spying (just to name a few) is the hypothetical tyranny all that far-fetched?


It's about as likely as an 'armed revolt' over possession of guns.
 
2013-12-12 10:17:35 AM

Doc Daneeka: We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).


The 2nd was also conceived of, drafted, and written by men who thought standing armies were the greatest threat to liberty possible in government.

So the choice was either an armed citizenry or State-maintained local armories. Now that we've realized their greatest fear, I'm not sure the toothpaste horse fits back in this particular barn tube.
 
2013-12-12 10:18:11 AM

Arkanaut: If you want to increase sales, just introduce a bill that will ban guns.


If we have learned anything in the past 20 years it's that the potential gun-buying populace don't need a bill.  They don't even need to hear rumors of it, a whisper campaign or a badly worded editorial by a right-wing schitzo off his meds.  All they need is another Democrat in the office to trigger a rush.  And this behavior appears to be nearly infinitely sustainable.
 
2013-12-12 10:18:40 AM

kidgenius: Doc Daneeka: We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).

Yeah, this right here. If the US military wants to take something from you, you are pretty much screwed. Back in they day, you and your military adversaries had the exact same weapons (other than maybe a cannon, which is next to useless anyways). Tanks, fighter jets, drones, cruise missiles, mounted machine guns, grenades, bombs, etc.....you don't stand a chance with your little AR-15.


Which just means that the 2nd has been infringed too much.  Time for parity.
 
2013-12-12 10:22:08 AM

give me doughnuts: Doc Daneeka: EvilEgg: The poor second amendment, it never gets any attention.  There should be a group or something dedicated to supporting it.

/Starting a group to protect the Third.

Coincidentally I view the 2nd Amendment in basically the same terms I view the 3rd.

A "right" that made sense in the context of Revolutionary times but which doesn't have much relevance in today's world.

We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).

The Peace of Paris was signed in 1983, and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, so was it still "Revolutionary times"?

Members of the military are "armed citizens." If ordered to attack civilians, it is unlikely that compliance will be 100%.

In an era with the DHS, TSA, increased militarization of police, and massive NSA spying (just to name a few) is the hypothetical tyranny all that far-fetched?


Ironically, those are things the tea party gun nuts support.
 
2013-12-12 10:22:44 AM
Just more evidence in favor of the notion that some people's obsession over firearms is a kind of religious fervor.
 
2013-12-12 10:23:05 AM

Skarekrough: Arkanaut: If you want to increase sales, just introduce a bill that will ban guns.

If we have learned anything in the past 20 years it's that the potential gun-buying populace don't need a bill.  They don't even need to hear rumors of it, a whisper campaign or a badly worded editorial by a right-wing schitzo off his meds.  All they need is another Democrat in the office to trigger a rush.  And this behavior appears to be nearly infinitely sustainable.


You would think at some point they would be comfortable with the number of guns they own, ban or no ban.
 
2013-12-12 10:29:05 AM
This makes sense, unless you are a supporter of poll taxes and therefore a racist.
 
2013-12-12 10:30:55 AM

kidgenius: Doc Daneeka: We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).

Yeah, this right here. If the US military wants to take something from you, you are pretty much screwed. Back in they day, you and your military adversaries had the exact same weapons (other than maybe a cannon, which is next to useless anyways). Tanks, fighter jets, drones, cruise missiles, mounted machine guns, grenades, bombs, etc.....you don't stand a chance with your little AR-15.


I used to think this as well, but after over 10 years in Afghanistan, I'm not so sure.
 
2013-12-12 10:30:56 AM

EvilEgg: The poor second amendment, it never gets any attention.  There should be a group or something dedicated to supporting it.

/Starting a group to protect the Third.


If only there were some organization, a union perhaps, dedicated to protecting the enumerated civil liberties of all Americans.

I wonder what it would be called....
 
2013-12-12 10:31:46 AM

EvilEgg: Skarekrough: Arkanaut: If you want to increase sales, just introduce a bill that will ban guns.

If we have learned anything in the past 20 years it's that the potential gun-buying populace don't need a bill.  They don't even need to hear rumors of it, a whisper campaign or a badly worded editorial by a right-wing schitzo off his meds.  All they need is another Democrat in the office to trigger a rush.  And this behavior appears to be nearly infinitely sustainable.

You would think at some point they would be comfortable with the number of guns they own, ban or no ban.


Ya gotta feed the machine or it's going to turn on you....
 
2013-12-12 10:38:22 AM

NeverDrunk23: give me doughnuts: Doc Daneeka: EvilEgg: The poor second amendment, it never gets any attention.  There should be a group or something dedicated to supporting it.

/Starting a group to protect the Third.

Coincidentally I view the 2nd Amendment in basically the same terms I view the 3rd.

A "right" that made sense in the context of Revolutionary times but which doesn't have much relevance in today's world.

We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).

The Peace of Paris was signed in 1983, and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, so was it still "Revolutionary times"?

Members of the military are "armed citizens." If ordered to attack civilians, it is unlikely that compliance will be 100%.

In an era with the DHS, TSA, increased militarization of police, and massive NSA spying (just to name a few) is the hypothetical tyranny all that far-fetched?

Ironically, those are things the tea party gun nuts support.



Even more ironic is that it was something Obama was against when he campaigned against George Bushs third term.

Weird how people change ain't it?
 
2013-12-12 10:38:28 AM
EvilEgg: Skarekrough: Arkanaut: If you want to increase sales, just introduce a bill that will ban guns.

If we have learned anything in the past 20 years it's that the potential gun-buying populace don't need a bill.  They don't even need to hear rumors of it, a whisper campaign or a badly worded editorial by a right-wing schitzo off his meds.  All they need is another Democrat in the office to trigger a rush.  And this behavior appears to be nearly infinitely sustainable.

And Kentucky (somehow) has a Democrat in the governor's mansion...


You would think at some point they would be comfortable with the number of guns they own, ban or no ban.

What if you have so many guns, you need to protect your gun collection with more guns?
 
2013-12-12 10:41:35 AM
Another Republican adding to the deficit. No news here.
 
2013-12-12 10:50:30 AM

kidgenius: EvilEgg: kidgenius: Doc Daneeka: We are not in imminent danger of a tyrant quartering soldiers in our houses, nor is it likely we will need an armed citizenry to form up into militias to throw off said tyrant (as if armed citizens would have a prayer against the modern US military in any event, in the far-fetched event that the US government became tyrannical).

Yeah, this right here. If the US military wants to take something from you, you are pretty much screwed. Back in they day, you and your military adversaries had the exact same weapons (other than maybe a cannon, which is next to useless anyways). Tanks, fighter jets, drones, cruise missiles, mounted machine guns, grenades, bombs, etc.....you don't stand a chance with your little AR-15.

Ask the Taliban about a militia fighting the U.S. military.  Not to say they are winning, they aren't, but they are making things difficult.  Unless the kid gloves come off and the military are willing to go with a scorched earth policy, a militia can be fairly effective.

Look at what happened in Iraq once we decided to stop standing around with our dicks in our hands and implemented "the surge"? Iraq went from being a hell-scape to merely a hell-hole, and of course it's not like everything is sunshine and daises, but its way better than it was*. As you mention, it's not a matter of capabilities, but of commitment.
*was: being the time from pre-surge to today, not pre-Hussein to today.


Yes, I am sure that the US military would start leveling entire city blocks full of civilians without any sort of backlash.

This is assuming that those kids in the military would start killing their fellow Americans in the first place.

Of course, I'd be far, far away from this country by the time I thought that people were going to take up arms.
 
2013-12-12 10:51:12 AM

edmo: Another Republican adding to the deficit. No news here.


Another leftist insisting all spending is mandatory.
 
2013-12-12 10:51:56 AM

Shryke: edmo: Another Republican adding to the deficit. No news here.

Another leftist insisting all spending is mandatory.


You should not have to be leftist to find this asinine.
 
2013-12-12 10:54:09 AM

edmo: Another Republican adding to the deficit. No news here.


Yeah, the deficit is all the Republicans fault.  It's not the fault of the spend like there's no tomorrow liberals.  Nope.  Not at all.
 
2013-12-12 10:58:41 AM

metatronarchetype: edmo: Another Republican adding to the deficit. No news here.

Yeah, the deficit is all the Republicans fault.  It's not the fault of the spend like there's no tomorrow liberals.  Nope.  Not at all.


Have you ever considered not just retorting "NO U" with a stereotype, and actually familiarizing yourself with who passes what spending? You might be surprised.
 
2013-12-12 10:59:50 AM

EvilEgg: Skarekrough: Arkanaut: If you want to increase sales, just introduce a bill that will ban guns.

If we have learned anything in the past 20 years it's that the potential gun-buying populace don't need a bill.  They don't even need to hear rumors of it, a whisper campaign or a badly worded editorial by a right-wing schitzo off his meds.  All they need is another Democrat in the office to trigger a rush.  And this behavior appears to be nearly infinitely sustainable.

You would think at some point they would be comfortable with the number of guns they own, ban or no ban.


If you know how many guns ya have, you don't have enough. Next you're going to tell me I don't need 40 hammers.
 
2013-12-12 11:02:53 AM

give me doughnuts: Members of the military are "armed citizens." If ordered to attack civilians, it is unlikely that compliance will be 100%.


TheYeti: Yes, I am sure that the US military would start leveling entire city blocks full of civilians without any sort of backlash.

This is assuming that those kids in the military would start killing their fellow Americans in the first place.


Well, if the US government became tyrannical, but you both suggest that the military would side with the people rather than the tyrant, then why do civilians need to be armed exactly?  What good would they do, next to the firepower that the military possesses?  Under that scenario, it seems most likely that the tyrant would be removed by military coup, rather than a revolt of armed citizens.
 
2013-12-12 11:04:59 AM

EvilEgg: The poor second amendment, it never gets any attention.  There should be a group or something dedicated to supporting it.

/Starting a group to protect the Third.


By the way.
 
2013-12-12 11:12:21 AM

LasersHurt: Shryke: edmo: Another Republican adding to the deficit. No news here.

Another leftist insisting all spending is mandatory.

You should not have to be leftist to find this asinine.


The proposal is stupid and unnecessary, but I do not believe that it reaches the quality of "asinine".
 
2013-12-12 11:28:24 AM

Doc Daneeka: Well, if the US government became tyrannical, but you both suggest that the military would side with the people rather than the tyrant, then why do civilians need to be armed exactly?


So only the millitary should have the right to defend themselves?  the citizens may not be as able or well equiped as the millitary, but that does not take away their right of being able to defend themselves in the best way possible.
 
2013-12-12 11:29:01 AM

Dimensio: LasersHurt: Shryke: edmo: Another Republican adding to the deficit. No news here.

Another leftist insisting all spending is mandatory.

You should not have to be leftist to find this asinine.

The proposal is stupid and unnecessary, but I do not believe that it reaches the quality of "asinine".


Stupid and unnecessary doesn't reach Asinine? Stupid, Mindless, and Senseless are offered as synonyms when you look up asinine.
 
2013-12-12 11:30:30 AM

Kome: Just more evidence in favor of the notion that some people's obsession fear over firearms is a kind of religious fervor.


/just as applicable
 
2013-12-12 11:34:47 AM

HeadLever: Kome: Just more evidence in favor of the notion that some people's obsession fear over firearms is a kind of religious fervor.

/just as applicable


Not really. I don't see any of the gun grabbing politicians trying to enact laws regarding firearm ownership or purchasing that mirrors how we treat any religious institution.
 
2013-12-12 11:35:55 AM

LasersHurt: Dimensio: LasersHurt: Shryke: edmo: Another Republican adding to the deficit. No news here.

Another leftist insisting all spending is mandatory.

You should not have to be leftist to find this asinine.

The proposal is stupid and unnecessary, but I do not believe that it reaches the quality of "asinine".

Stupid and unnecessary doesn't reach Asinine? Stupid, Mindless, and Senseless are offered as synonyms when you look up asinine.


Normally, malice is a part of 'asinine'.  It needs to not only be stupid, but maliscous, too.  Though I suppose...guns, Kentucky, no taxes...meh...probably a case to be made.
 
2013-12-12 11:36:47 AM

HeadLever: Doc Daneeka: Well, if the US government became tyrannical, but you both suggest that the military would side with the people rather than the tyrant, then why do civilians need to be armed exactly?

So only the millitary should have the right to defend themselves?  the citizens may not be as able or well equiped as the millitary, but that does not take away their right of being able to defend themselves in the best way possible.


Considering that we live in a democratic republic, we have far more effective ways to defend ourselves from tyranny.  The ballot box, political activism, donations to civil liberties organizations, judicial challenges - and in extreme cases, civil disobedience.

Waiting until the government becomes tyrannical and then going out with your gun to try to take it on is not a very effective way of defending against tyranny.  On the contrary, it's a method of "defense" that's likely to achieve little else besides getting your killed or imprisoned.
 
2013-12-12 11:39:22 AM
I don't know about most farkers on here, but I'm of the opinion that one should be paying the same for guns, as well, say, toilet paper.
 
Displayed 50 of 323 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report