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.

(The Atlantic)   "If a drone strike hit an American wedding, we would ground the fleet"   (theatlantic.com) divider line 159
    More: Stupid, Americans, American Wedding, Hellfire missile, San Clemente  
•       •       •

2008 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2013 at 9:36 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-16 10:43:02 AM

jso2897: Yep. American foreign policy sucks rancid donkey balls - has for near 70 years.
Nice that so many people seem to finally be noticing it.
I wonder what it was that finally got it across to them?


Probably the guy who should be impeached for Presidenting while Black.
 
2013-12-16 10:44:06 AM
Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
 
2013-12-16 10:45:58 AM

Weaver95: Depends on who got blown up. If we just wasted a bunch of hillbilly red necks or black people then odds are nobody would give a damn. If a rich, cute white girl had her wedding nuked from orbit tho, you can bet the country would be outraged.


Been awhile since I've agreed with you.  I'd add that if it was a Hollywood wedding, we'd be okay with it too.  Like if Alec Baldwin remarries.
 
2013-12-16 10:46:42 AM
Somacandra
A lot of people forget Obama's openly stated policy goals. Some of us voted for him because of his openly stated policy goals.

The Obama campaign won the marketing industry award for 2008. Yes, you're right that "some" people voted for Obama because of what he actually stands for- the rest voted for him because of what it was suggested he stands for. Words are cheap. He could have, and, as you just said, actually did, come right out and said that he was going to keep up the drone strikes, in addition to other programs that a large swath of his base finds abhorrent like ACA without single-payer or even public option, letting the banksters off the hook for looting the economy, supporting Keystone XL and continuing the facilitation of other environmentally-destructive extraction, being open to cutting Social Security... but it doesn't matter because they had a psychologically-manipulative ad campaign that, like all good marketing, made people's higher cognitive functions shut down.
 
2013-12-16 10:47:18 AM

Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.


Considering after we launch a missile and kill people, any male aged 15 or older is automatically considered a militant, I wouldn't put too much stock into the claims of the administration
 
2013-12-16 10:48:05 AM
I imagine I would be so much happier if I had the ability to focus on one aspect of an issue, but be able to completely ignore any other facets of that issue.
Then I could be like the article writer, and everything would be rainbows and unicorns in my life.
 
2013-12-16 10:50:01 AM

I_C_Weener: I'd add that if it was a Hollywood wedding, we'd be okay with it too.  Like if Alec Baldwin remarries.


i.imgur.com

"ALL OF THE BALDWINS ARE DEAD?"
 
2013-12-16 10:53:47 AM

machoprogrammer: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

Considering after we launch a missile and kill people, any male aged 15 or older is automatically considered a militant, I wouldn't put too much stock into the claims of the administration


Anyone who runs is a militant. Anyone who stands still is a well-trained militant. GET SOME!
 
2013-12-16 10:54:04 AM

machoprogrammer: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

Considering after we launch a missile and kill people, any male aged 15 or older is automatically considered a militant, I wouldn't put too much stock into the claims of the administration


So you really believe that we just randomly launch missiles at large groups of civilians just because that's what the terrorists' press release says?
 
2013-12-16 10:55:22 AM
If it were a B1 that dropped a smart bomb on the party, it'd be different, said nobody ever.

It's not like it was an accident.  They chose to attack that party and because of it they killed 5 terrorists and 9 innocent people.  The problem isn't the drones, it's the intelligence and decision making processes of the people giving the orders.
 
2013-12-16 10:55:46 AM

jso2897: Yep. American foreign policy sucks rancid donkey balls - has for near 70 years.
Nice that so many people seem to finally be noticing it.
I wonder what it was that finally got it across to them?


The rest of the world has known for a very long time, some Americans are only waking up to it now.

Those nameless, faceless people massacred in drone strikes DO have names.  And families.  And communities.  And to their families and communities, they were not accidentally killed, they were murdered.  So any of those people who liked America before now blame America for murdering their friends or family.  Any who hated America now have their opinion vindicated.

You're aware that the USA uses a "doubletap" strategy where they hit the same area directly afterwards, to kill people trying to save the injured from the initial strike, right?  Adds more hatred.
 
2013-12-16 10:56:13 AM

RanDomino: in addition to other programs that a large swath of his base finds abhorrent like ACA without single-payer or even public option


Do you really think "abhorrent" is the correct term to use there?

RanDomino: supporting Keystone XL


It seems like his "support" of Keystone XL amounts to "let the process continue". Additionally, I doubt most people would even know or care what Keystone XL was if the GOP hadn't brought it up in the first place.

RanDomino: letting the banksters off the hook for looting the economy


We're sorry the DOJ didn't prosecute and jail some of the richest and most powerful people in the country fast enough for something that largely wasn't illegal at the time.

RanDomino: being open to cutting Social Security


This one, yes. Putting Social Security cuts on the table was a massive mistake.
 
2013-12-16 10:56:24 AM

Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

Considering after we launch a missile and kill people, any male aged 15 or older is automatically considered a militant, I wouldn't put too much stock into the claims of the administration

So you really believe that we just randomly launch missiles at large groups of civilians just because that's what the terrorists' press release says?


I don't. I just think we give zero farks about collateral damage because there appear to be no repercussions for it. I mean, Amnesty International has labeled our drone strikes as "war crimes," but you have to pay attention to foreign media sources to find out about that.
 
2013-12-16 10:57:37 AM

RanDomino: The Obama campaign won the marketing industry award for 2008. Yes, you're right that "some" people voted for Obama because of what he actually stands for- the rest voted for him because of what it was suggested he stands for.


As opposed to 2000, when everyone voted for nation-building and against more Star Wars.

Or 2010, when everyone voted for Representatives with a laser-like focus on jobs abortion, rape, "fark the libs", "screw the poor", and repealing Obamacare.
 
2013-12-16 11:01:58 AM

seniorgato: It's not like it was an accident.  They chose to attack that party and because of it they killed 5 terrorists and 9 innocent people.  The problem isn't the drones, it's the intelligence and decision making processes of the people giving the orders.


SUSPECTED terrorists with no names, and the proof they're terrorists is Top Secret and will never be released.  That, to me, is the most salient fact.

Executed with no proof of wrongdoing, no actual trial or evidence presented before or after the execution.  Just killed and ignored.  Not a whiff of any due process.
 
2013-12-16 11:02:01 AM
This is why I never RSVP 'yes' when Al Qaeda's #2 guy invites me to a wedding.
 
2013-12-16 11:03:14 AM
If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.
 
2013-12-16 11:06:05 AM

Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.


So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?
 
2013-12-16 11:07:58 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Any President  in my lifetime since Truman could have stopped policies that kill and injure innocent civilians. None have.
I'm curious as to what has made you come to perceive this at this point in time.
 
2013-12-16 11:10:28 AM

jso2897: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Any President  in my lifetime since Truman could have stopped policies that kill and injure innocent civilians. None have.
I'm curious as to what has made you come to perceive this at this point in time.


I will continue to point out that Obama is in charge and responsible for things that liberals hate.  They seem incapable of making that connection without my help.
 
2013-12-16 11:11:11 AM

jso2897: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Any President  in my lifetime since Truman could have stopped policies that kill and injure innocent civilians. None have.
I'm curious as to what has made you come to perceive this at this point in time.


We are not at war with Yemen. This policy is to carry out extra-judicial executions of people determined to be terror threats by the Administration. Perhaps you should focus your concerns more on the policy being criticized than trying to make the critics the issue.
 
2013-12-16 11:11:22 AM

bigsteve3OOO: I will continue to point out that Obama is in charge and responsible for things that liberals hate.


Liberals will continue to point out Obama isn't a liberal.
 
2013-12-16 11:11:38 AM

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.

So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?



Only if I can mark you down as both fiscally conservative and in favor of invading and occupying Iraq.
 
2013-12-16 11:13:51 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.



Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.
 
2013-12-16 11:14:05 AM

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.

So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?


Only if I can mark you down as both fiscally conservative and in favor of invading and occupying Iraq.


You can mark me down whatever you want if it helps you avoid actually discussing the policy being discussed in the article.
 
2013-12-16 11:16:01 AM

Nabb1: We are not at war with Yemen Iraq. This policy is to carry out extra-judicial executions of people determined to be terror threats by the Administration. Perhaps you should focus your concerns more on the policy being criticized than trying to make the critics the issue.



Circa 2002. Don't worry. I remember you cheerleading the invasion/occupation even if you don't.
 
2013-12-16 11:16:03 AM
Americans bombing random brown people, nothing to see here, move on people.
 
2013-12-16 11:16:34 AM

Lord_Baull: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.


Nope.  Obama.  Good or bad he is my president and he is the commander in chief.  The buck stops with him.  NSA = Obama.  Killing OBL = Obama.
 
2013-12-16 11:17:31 AM

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.

So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?


Only if I can mark you down as both fiscally conservative and in favor of invading and occupying Iraq.

You can mark me down whatever you want if it helps you avoid actually discussing the policy being discussed in the article.



And you can mark me down for being continually amazed of your cognitive dissonance when the other team does it.
 
2013-12-16 11:18:04 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Lord_Baull: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.

Nope.  Obama.  Good or bad he is my president and he is the commander in chief.  The buck stops with him.  NSA = Obama.  Killing OBL = Obama.


Don't forget the Benghazi...
 
2013-12-16 11:19:07 AM

Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

Considering after we launch a missile and kill people, any male aged 15 or older is automatically considered a militant, I wouldn't put too much stock into the claims of the administration

So you really believe that we just randomly launch missiles at large groups of civilians just because that's what the terrorists' press release says?


Not at all, but it isn't unheard of that some Pakistani local doesn't like a rival tribe, so he informs the CIA that they got them there terrorists. Even though that tribe had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or terrorism, they still get missiled
 
2013-12-16 11:19:24 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-dead l y-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

More and more, while the overall frequency of strikes has fallen since a Nato attack in 2011 killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and strained US-Pakistan relations, initial strikes are now followed up by further missiles in a tactic which lawyers and campaigners say is killing an even greater number of civilians. The tactic has cast such a shadow of fear over strike zones that rescuers often wait for hours before daring to visit the scene of an attack.


"These strikes are becoming much more common," Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who represents victims of drone strikes, told The Independent. "In the past it used to be a one-off, every now and then. Now almost every other attack is a double tap. There is no justification for it.
 
2013-12-16 11:19:35 AM

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.

So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?


Only if I can mark you down as both fiscally conservative and in favor of invading and occupying Iraq.

You can mark me down whatever you want if it helps you avoid actually discussing the policy being discussed in the article.


And you can mark me down for being continually amazed of your cognitive dissonance when the other team does it.


Still don't want to discuss the issue, do you? That's fine. Not everyone has the capacity to discuss actual policy issues. These things can get complicated sometimes.
 
2013-12-16 11:20:37 AM
qorkfiend
Do you really think "abhorrent" is the correct term to use there?

I could have gone with "atrocious" or "frankly, evil,".

fast enough

implying it happened at all?

mistake

"mistake"


Dr Dreidel
As opposed to 2000, when everyone voted for nation-building and against more Star Wars.

Or 2010, when everyone voted for Representatives with a laser-like focus on jobs abortion, rape, "fark the libs", "screw the poor", and repealing Obamacare.


I never mentioned them, but my point applies to them as well. People don't vote based on actual policy, but on image and feeling. In 2010 the Democrats appeared to be failures (they had just had total filibuster-proof legislative power for months and did essentially nothing with it) and the Republicans were riding a wave of appearing strong and ascendant; who wouldn't want to join the winning team? 2000 is a special case- it was so close because there seemed to be (and, likely, were) so few substantive and image differences, so it came down to flipping a coin a hundred million times.
 
2013-12-16 11:20:57 AM

jakomo002: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-dead l y-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

More and more, while the overall frequency of strikes has fallen since a Nato attack in 2011 killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and strained US-Pakistan relations, initial strikes are now followed up by further missiles in a tactic which lawyers and campaigners say is killing an even greater number of civilians. The tactic has cast such a shadow of fear over strike zones that rescuers often wait for hours before daring to visit the scene of an attack.


"These strikes are becoming much more common," Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who represents victims of drone strikes, told The Independent. "In the past it used to be a one-off, every now and then. Now almost every other attack is a double tap. There is no justification for it.


At least we know Obama watched Zombieland.
 
2013-12-16 11:21:25 AM

monoski: bigsteve3OOO: Lord_Baull: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.

Nope.  Obama.  Good or bad he is my president and he is the commander in chief.  The buck stops with him.  NSA = Obama.  Killing OBL = Obama.

Don't forget the Benghazi...


Is this the new math I've been hearing so much about? Glad we can simplify the complex machinery of international extrajudicial actions and mulit-state diplomacy down to "Obama=X." Really saves time.
 
2013-12-16 11:21:37 AM

monoski: bigsteve3OOO: Lord_Baull: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.

Nope.  Obama.  Good or bad he is my president and he is the commander in chief.  The buck stops with him.  NSA = Obama.  Killing OBL = Obama.

Don't forget the Benghazi...


If I knew what happened I could say if it was a problem or not.  I still do not know what happened and either do you.  Yes; however, whatever happened in Benghazi was the responsibility of the State department that reports directly to Obama.  So once again good or bad Benghazi = Obama.
 
2013-12-16 11:21:59 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: Is this the new math I've been hearing so much about? Glad we can simplify the complex machinery of international extrajudicial actions and mulit-state diplomacy down to "Obama=X." Really saves time.


Yes we can

Thanks Obama
 
2013-12-16 11:23:34 AM

RanDomino: qorkfiend
Do you really think "abhorrent" is the correct term to use there?

I could have gone with "atrocious" or "frankly, evil,".


You would prefer the pre-ACA status quo to an ACA without a public option? To the point where you would use terms like "abhorrent", "atrocious", and "frankly, evil" to refer to the ACA?
 
2013-12-16 11:24:32 AM
jakomo002
"These strikes are becoming much more common," Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who represents victims of drone strikes, told The Independent. "In the past it used to be a one-off, every now and then. Now almost every other attack is a double tap. There is no justification for it.

A tactic pioneered by al-Qaeda-style terrorists themselves, who occasionally use two car bombs- one to kill a crowd, one to kill first responders.
 
2013-12-16 11:25:26 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: monoski: bigsteve3OOO: Lord_Baull: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.

Nope.  Obama.  Good or bad he is my president and he is the commander in chief.  The buck stops with him.  NSA = Obama.  Killing OBL = Obama.

Don't forget the Benghazi...

Is this the new math I've been hearing so much about? Glad we can simplify the complex machinery of international extrajudicial actions and mulit-state diplomacy down to "Obama=X." Really saves time.


When you are in charge everything is on you.  He picked the department heads.  What they do is a result of that pick.  He is supposed to monitor them and guide them.  If he does not monitor effectivly then their actions are his fault.  You cant be in charge and not be responsible.
 
2013-12-16 11:27:54 AM
Look, some of us really hate weddings, okay? DON'T JUDGE ME!
 
2013-12-16 11:28:51 AM
qorkfiend
You would prefer the pre-ACA status quo to an ACA without a public option?

If Obama had wanted it, there was support for public option at the very least. Not having it means millions of people without insurance, and thousands of them will die for it. Yes, I think the deaths of thousands counts as "atrocious".
 
2013-12-16 11:29:20 AM

bigsteve3OOO: jso2897: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Any President  in my lifetime since Truman could have stopped policies that kill and injure innocent civilians. None have.
I'm curious as to what has made you come to perceive this at this point in time.

I will continue to point out that Obama is in charge and responsible for things that liberals hate.  They seem incapable of making that connection without my help.


Well, fine, but having achieved the education of liberals, perhaps we could move on to the issue of what is so fundamentally wrong with our foreign policy. Neither Obama nor any other President should get a pass for continuing these bad policies. But Obama is a lame duck no one will ever have another chance to vote against, and in 2017 he'll be replaced by some other guy (or gal) who will enact some version of the exact same policies - unless somebody (like us) demands that something change.
From the end of WWII to today, we have crafted a foreign policy that consists of interfering in the affairs of other nations in order to achieve our own policy ends. That has brought some good things to be (arguably, anyway), but it has had a terrible cost, and there will also be a point of sharply diminishing returns - one I think we are reaching now.
More paranoia, more expense, more risk - and less real; security seems to be what we're actually getting.
Nobody  (with any brains) expected Obama to change this - he's a Reagan Democrat, FFS.
If we want our foreign policy to change we need to elect some VERY different leaders.
 
2013-12-16 11:31:04 AM

RanDomino: A tactic pioneered by al-Qaeda-style terrorists themselves, who occasionally use two car bombs- one to kill a crowd, one to kill first responders.


Bingo.  Making it hard to differentiate drone strikes from state-sponsored terrorism.  Just the sound of a drone could mean your house is about to get hit, and innocence doesn't stop you and your family from being blown to bits.

It's disgusting and Americans deserve better from their governments.
 
2013-12-16 11:32:17 AM

RanDomino: qorkfiend
You would prefer the pre-ACA status quo to an ACA without a public option?

If Obama had wanted it, there was support for public option at the very least. Not having it means millions of people without insurance, and thousands of them will die for it. Yes, I think the deaths of thousands counts as "atrocious".


Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and their health insurance company-lined vaults would beg to differ.
 
2013-12-16 11:34:01 AM
Serious Black
Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and their health insurance company-lined vaults would beg to differ.

Right, I should have been clear that I meant public support.
 
2013-12-16 11:34:13 AM
WE?Who is we? It's they. They run the drones, not we.
 
2013-12-16 11:34:45 AM

jakomo002: RanDomino: A tactic pioneered by al-Qaeda-style terrorists themselves, who occasionally use two car bombs- one to kill a crowd, one to kill first responders.

Bingo.   Making it hard to differentiate drone strikes from state-sponsored terrorism.  Just the sound of a drone could mean your house is about to get hit, and innocence doesn't stop you and your family from being blown to bits.

It's disgusting and Americans deserve better from their governments.


Duh, drones are more expensive and shinier.  It's like you have no experience at all being part of an evil empire.
 
2013-12-16 11:35:30 AM

jso2897: bigsteve3OOO: jso2897: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Any President  in my lifetime since Truman could have stopped policies that kill and injure innocent civilians. None have.
I'm curious as to what has made you come to perceive this at this point in time.

I will continue to point out that Obama is in charge and responsible for things that liberals hate.  They seem incapable of making that connection without my help.

Well, fine, but having achieved the education of liberals, perhaps we could move on to the issue of what is so fundamentally wrong with our foreign policy. Neither Obama nor any other President should get a pass for continuing these bad policies. But Obama is a lame duck no one will ever have another chance to vote against, and in 2017 he'll be replaced by some other guy (or gal) who will enact some version of the exact same policies - unless somebody (like us) demands that something change.
From the end of WWII to today, we have crafted a foreign policy that consists of interfering in the affairs of other nations in order to achieve our own policy ends. That has brought some good things to be (arguably, anyway), but it has had a terrible cost, and there will also be a point of sharply diminishing returns - one I think we are reaching now.
More paranoia, more expense, more risk - and less real; security seems to be what we're actually getting.
Nobody  (with any brains) expected Obama to change this - he's a Reagan Democrat, FFS.
If we want our foreign policy to change we need to elect some VERY different leaders.


^^^^^^^^^^this.  This is indeed a rare find on Fark.  An ideology without partisan noise cluttering up the post.  Well done.  I agree with you mostly.  I am a fan of isolationist policies.  Our current policy is to defend corporate interests at the expense of American lives and reputation.
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report