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.

(Breitbart.com)   The Duck Dynasty kerfuffle is now most definitely about violating the 1st Amendment   (breitbart.com) divider line 461
    More: Followup, Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson, 1st amendment  
•       •       •

6981 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Dec 2013 at 3:56 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-22 11:15:46 AM  
The Duck Dynasty kerfuffle is now most definitely about violating the 1st amendment corporate profits

FTFY
 
2013-12-22 11:18:58 AM  
bullsh*t

/but you're free to say it
//I'm free to say breitbart and generalissimo Francisco Franco still have one thing in common
 
2013-12-22 11:22:11 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: bullsh*t

/but you're free to say it
//I'm free to say breitbart and generalissimo Francisco Franco still have one thing in common


Did you RTFA?
 
2013-12-22 11:26:31 AM  

vygramul: MaudlinMutantMollusk: bullsh*t

/but you're free to say it
//I'm free to say breitbart and generalissimo Francisco Franco still have one thing in common

Did you RTFA?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

OK... what part?
 
2013-12-22 11:33:00 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: vygramul: MaudlinMutantMollusk: bullsh*t

/but you're free to say it
//I'm free to say breitbart and generalissimo Francisco Franco still have one thing in common

Did you RTFA?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

OK... what part?


Maybe the headline from Breitbart will get you to change your mind:

"GEORGIA SHERIFF: A&E NO LONGER WELCOME IN HIS COUNTY"
 
2013-12-22 11:37:16 AM  
vygramul: MaudlinMutantMollusk: vygramul: MaudlinMutantMollusk: bullsh*t

/but you're free to say it
//I'm free to say breitbart and generalissimo Francisco Franco still have one thing in common

Did you RTFA?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

OK... what part?

Maybe the headline from Breitbart will get you to change your mind:

"GEORGIA SHERIFF: A&E NO LONGER WELCOME IN HIS COUNTY"

And how does that relate to the first amendment? You think Congress would support him? Well.... I'm sure a few of them will, but pass a law?

/seriously... some dumbass redneck acting out is a big deal?
 
2013-12-22 11:40:50 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: vygramul: MaudlinMutantMollusk: vygramul: MaudlinMutantMollusk: bullsh*t

/but you're free to say it
//I'm free to say breitbart and generalissimo Francisco Franco still have one thing in common

Did you RTFA?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

OK... what part?

Maybe the headline from Breitbart will get you to change your mind:

"GEORGIA SHERIFF: A&E NO LONGER WELCOME IN HIS COUNTY"

And how does that relate to the first amendment? You think Congress would support him? Well.... I'm sure a few of them will, but pass a law?

/seriously... some dumbass redneck acting out is a big deal?


A government official making decisions about supporting a business based on its speech isn't a first amendment issue?
 
2013-12-22 11:42:13 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: vygramul: MaudlinMutantMollusk: vygramul: MaudlinMutantMollusk: bullsh*t

/but you're free to say it
//I'm free to say breitbart and generalissimo Francisco Franco still have one thing in common

Did you RTFA?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

OK... what part?

Maybe the headline from Breitbart will get you to change your mind:

"GEORGIA SHERIFF: A&E NO LONGER WELCOME IN HIS COUNTY"

And how does that relate to the first amendment? You think Congress would support him? Well.... I'm sure a few of them will, but pass a law?

/seriously... some dumbass redneck acting out is a big deal?


You do realize the fourteenth amendment makes the first amendment binding on all government officials, right?
 
2013-12-22 11:45:32 AM  
Perfect. Sounds like Jesusy sheriff is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm ok with this.
 
2013-12-22 11:48:13 AM  
vygramul:
gilgigamesh:


OK... you win. I sit corrected

/just doesn't seem like that big a deal to me
//and breitbart hyperventilates a lot for a dead guy
 
2013-12-22 12:01:47 PM  

vygramul: A government official making decisions about supporting a business based on its speech isn't a first amendment issue?


If he's anything like the foul mouthed machine gun shooting sheriff in central PA, his ass is about to get fired.
 
2013-12-22 12:09:16 PM  
1. Hire guy to market to his demographic.
2. Guy gets off the script and gives interview representative of his demographic.
3. Corporate realizes the USA mostly isn't like that demographic.
4. Fire his ass.
 
2013-12-22 01:00:52 PM  
What is the deal with County Sheriff's suddenly trying to out attention whore each other?

/also, what's the deal with ovaltine
//the jar isn't an oval
///the glass isn't an oval
 
2013-12-22 01:15:42 PM  
Hmm, I don't think agents of the government arrested Phil Robertson for making the statement...so no, it's not about he 1st Amendment dumbasses.
 
2013-12-22 01:27:29 PM  
"A&E has suspended Phil Robertson for talking about his conservative Christian beliefs," Sheriff Miller wrote. "None of us are without sin and I am not judging anyone. I am sure A&E made what they believe is a good business decision. Many people who disagree with A&E might choose to remain silent and there was a time when I might have done the same, but no longer. In my mind the punishment is unreasonable."
Miller continued saying, "I know it will not matter to A&E, but it will make me feel better. A&E has produced more than a half dozen programs with the assistance of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office. They will not do any more with my assistance while I am sheriff. It is time for someone other than Hollywood and the news media to stand up for what is right!"

A&E has not filmed Duck Dynasty in Sheriff Miller's county in Georgia, of course, but the cabler has filmed several projects in Douglass County, including scenes from the series Beyond Scared Straight.


Less about free speech, than assisting production. The headline in the article itself is a lot more inflammatory than the actual statement. But then again, let's look at the source...
 
2013-12-22 01:29:04 PM  
This thread will be a study in "spot who didn't rtfa"
 
2013-12-22 01:35:48 PM  
Well, A&E hasn't violated anyone's rights, and I don't think this sheriff is prohibiting A&E from filming there. I don't think that his office can prohibit them from doing so, legally, but I don't know that they are required to provide whatever assistance they may have been giving, either.
 
2013-12-22 01:40:58 PM  

hubiestubert: "A&E has suspended Phil Robertson for talking about his conservative Christian beliefs," Sheriff Miller wrote. "None of us are without sin and I am not judging anyone. I am sure A&E made what they believe is a good business decision. Many people who disagree with A&E might choose to remain silent and there was a time when I might have done the same, but no longer. In my mind the punishment is unreasonable."
Miller continued saying, "I know it will not matter to A&E, but it will make me feel better. A&E has produced more than a half dozen programs with the assistance of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office. They will not do any more with my assistance while I am sheriff. It is time for someone other than Hollywood and the news media to stand up for what is right!"

A&E has not filmed Duck Dynasty in Sheriff Miller's county in Georgia, of course, but the cabler has filmed several projects in Douglass County, including scenes from the series Beyond Scared Straight.

Less about free speech, than assisting production. The headline in the article itself is a lot more inflammatory than the actual statement. But then again, let's look at the source...


I don't care if assistance of the sheriff's office was giving directions to the caterer. Choosing to deny assistance because of the content of A&E's speech is still an actual violation.
 
2013-12-22 01:42:25 PM  

Nabb1: Well, A&E hasn't violated anyone's rights, and I don't think this sheriff is prohibiting A&E from filming there. I don't think that his office can prohibit them from doing so, legally, but I don't know that they are required to provide whatever assistance they may have been giving, either.


It's not a matter of whether they're required. Consider this from the same amendment: the sheriff's office will lend assistance to Christians but not Muslims. Legit?
 
2013-12-22 01:44:50 PM  

vygramul: Nabb1: Well, A&E hasn't violated anyone's rights, and I don't think this sheriff is prohibiting A&E from filming there. I don't think that his office can prohibit them from doing so, legally, but I don't know that they are required to provide whatever assistance they may have been giving, either.

It's not a matter of whether they're required. Consider this from the same amendment: the sheriff's office will lend assistance to Christians but not Muslims. Legit?


Probably not, depending on what that "assistance" entails, but ll things being equal I'm leaning towards no. But that's not the issue here. I don't know that simply not providing assistance to their filming of whatever show they are filming rises to that level. And I'm from the Hugo Black school of First Amendment law.
 
2013-12-22 01:47:53 PM  

Nabb1: vygramul: Nabb1: Well, A&E hasn't violated anyone's rights, and I don't think this sheriff is prohibiting A&E from filming there. I don't think that his office can prohibit them from doing so, legally, but I don't know that they are required to provide whatever assistance they may have been giving, either.

It's not a matter of whether they're required. Consider this from the same amendment: the sheriff's office will lend assistance to Christians but not Muslims. Legit?

Probably not, depending on what that "assistance" entails, but ll things being equal I'm leaning towards no. But that's not the issue here. I don't know that simply not providing assistance to their filming of whatever show they are filming rises to that level. And I'm from the Hugo Black school of First Amendment law.


It is irrelevant whether it's required. The sheriff's office has to treat everyone equally. Allowing the police to render assistance selectively, based on politics, is flat-out wrong.
 
2013-12-22 01:51:23 PM  

Nabb1: Well, A&E hasn't violated anyone's rights, and I don't think this sheriff is prohibiting A&E from filming there. I don't think that his office can prohibit them from doing so, legally, but I don't know that they are required to provide whatever assistance they may have been giving, either.


I don't think they are required to provide assistance, but if they deny assistance to A&E solely based on this issue when they would offer others the same assistance, it seems they could get themselves in hot water.
 
2013-12-22 01:54:39 PM  

cmunic8r99: Nabb1: Well, A&E hasn't violated anyone's rights, and I don't think this sheriff is prohibiting A&E from filming there. I don't think that his office can prohibit them from doing so, legally, but I don't know that they are required to provide whatever assistance they may have been giving, either.

I don't think they are required to provide assistance, but if they deny assistance to A&E solely based on this issue when they would offer others the same assistance, it seems they could get themselves in hot water.


Probably, but as I said, I don't know what this "assistance" entails. Is it meaningful or just token?
 
2013-12-22 01:55:42 PM  

cmunic8r99: Nabb1: Well, A&E hasn't violated anyone's rights, and I don't think this sheriff is prohibiting A&E from filming there. I don't think that his office can prohibit them from doing so, legally, but I don't know that they are required to provide whatever assistance they may have been giving, either.

I don't think they are required to provide assistance, but if they deny assistance to A&E solely based on this issue when they would offer others the same assistance, it seems they could get themselves in hot water.


Though now that I think about it (and read others' replies), would this be a 1st Amendment issue or a 14th Amendment issue (equal protection)?
 
2013-12-22 01:56:47 PM  

Nabb1: cmunic8r99: Nabb1: Well, A&E hasn't violated anyone's rights, and I don't think this sheriff is prohibiting A&E from filming there. I don't think that his office can prohibit them from doing so, legally, but I don't know that they are required to provide whatever assistance they may have been giving, either.

I don't think they are required to provide assistance, but if they deny assistance to A&E solely based on this issue when they would offer others the same assistance, it seems they could get themselves in hot water.

Probably, but as I said, I don't know what this "assistance" entails. Is it meaningful or just token?


Likely, it's interviews, access to case files, etc.
 
2013-12-22 01:59:42 PM  

Nabb1: cmunic8r99: Nabb1: Well, A&E hasn't violated anyone's rights, and I don't think this sheriff is prohibiting A&E from filming there. I don't think that his office can prohibit them from doing so, legally, but I don't know that they are required to provide whatever assistance they may have been giving, either.

I don't think they are required to provide assistance, but if they deny assistance to A&E solely based on this issue when they would offer others the same assistance, it seems they could get themselves in hot water.

Probably, but as I said, I don't know what this "assistance" entails. Is it meaningful or just token?


That's like asking whether a thief stole $10 or $1000. That might affect the penalty, but it doesn't change that it's wrong.
 
2013-12-22 02:00:20 PM  

cmunic8r99: Nabb1: cmunic8r99: Nabb1: Well, A&E hasn't violated anyone's rights, and I don't think this sheriff is prohibiting A&E from filming there. I don't think that his office can prohibit them from doing so, legally, but I don't know that they are required to provide whatever assistance they may have been giving, either.

I don't think they are required to provide assistance, but if they deny assistance to A&E solely based on this issue when they would offer others the same assistance, it seems they could get themselves in hot water.

Probably, but as I said, I don't know what this "assistance" entails. Is it meaningful or just token?

Likely, it's interviews, access to case files, etc.


I don't think they could deny them access to case files on those grounds alone.
 
2013-12-22 02:04:41 PM  

vygramul: Nabb1: cmunic8r99: Nabb1: Well, A&E hasn't violated anyone's rights, and I don't think this sheriff is prohibiting A&E from filming there. I don't think that his office can prohibit them from doing so, legally, but I don't know that they are required to provide whatever assistance they may have been giving, either.

I don't think they are required to provide assistance, but if they deny assistance to A&E solely based on this issue when they would offer others the same assistance, it seems they could get themselves in hot water.

Probably, but as I said, I don't know what this "assistance" entails. Is it meaningful or just token?

That's like asking whether a thief stole $10 or $1000. That might affect the penalty, but it doesn't change that it's wrong.


No, but it does matter for assessing whether or not the speech is being restricted. I mean, if they simply stop providing a detail officer to man the catering table that A&E has to pay for anyway, that's probably a de minis sort of thing.
 
2013-12-22 02:06:44 PM  
De minimis. Stupid autocorrect.
 
2013-12-22 02:07:51 PM  

vygramul: I don't care if assistance of the sheriff's office was giving directions to the caterer. Choosing to deny assistance because of the content of A&E's speech is still an actual violation.


This wouldn't be an issue if the Sheriff had kept his mouth shut.  He could have simply said, "Sorry, we can no longer provide you any resources."  Because he made an issue out of it and openly stated why he was making it an issue, now it comes into question...though I'm not sure it ventures into 1st Amendment constitutional territory (since providing assistance is optional or did they set a precedent by formerly offering assistance).  I'd really love to see how this plays out in court but I'm pretty certain it will be resolved before it gets to that point.
 
2013-12-22 02:10:13 PM  

Nabb1: De minimis. Stupid autocorrect.

www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-12-22 02:10:17 PM  

slayer199: vygramul: I don't care if assistance of the sheriff's office was giving directions to the caterer. Choosing to deny assistance because of the content of A&E's speech is still an actual violation.

This wouldn't be an issue if the Sheriff had kept his mouth shut.  He could have simply said, "Sorry, we can no longer provide you any resources."  Because he made an issue out of it and openly stated why he was making it an issue, now it comes into question...though I'm not sure it ventures into 1st Amendment constitutional territory (since providing assistance is optional or did they set a precedent by formerly offering assistance).  I'd really love to see how this plays out in court but I'm pretty certain it will be resolved before it gets to that point.


I think if he had kept his yap shut, it wouldn't be an issue, since there wouldn't be a way to prove he was basing his decision on a speech issue. But, he had to make a stink, so he may have painted himself into a corner. Even then, I doubt A&E would push the issue.
 
2013-12-22 02:10:53 PM  

vygramul: Nabb1: De minimis. Stupid autocorrect.
[www.bitlogic.com image 300x225]


LOL
 
2013-12-22 02:11:40 PM  

slayer199: vygramul: I don't care if assistance of the sheriff's office was giving directions to the caterer. Choosing to deny assistance because of the content of A&E's speech is still an actual violation.

This wouldn't be an issue if the Sheriff had kept his mouth shut.  He could have simply said, "Sorry, we can no longer provide you any resources."  Because he made an issue out of it and openly stated why he was making it an issue, now it comes into question...though I'm not sure it ventures into 1st Amendment constitutional territory (since providing assistance is optional or did they set a precedent by formerly offering assistance).  I'd really love to see how this plays out in court but I'm pretty certain it will be resolved before it gets to that point.


I am not comfortable with the notion of government agencies differentiating, no matter how little, between members of the public based on their political position.
 
2013-12-22 02:13:17 PM  

Nabb1: slayer199: vygramul: I don't care if assistance of the sheriff's office was giving directions to the caterer. Choosing to deny assistance because of the content of A&E's speech is still an actual violation.

This wouldn't be an issue if the Sheriff had kept his mouth shut.  He could have simply said, "Sorry, we can no longer provide you any resources."  Because he made an issue out of it and openly stated why he was making it an issue, now it comes into question...though I'm not sure it ventures into 1st Amendment constitutional territory (since providing assistance is optional or did they set a precedent by formerly offering assistance).  I'd really love to see how this plays out in court but I'm pretty certain it will be resolved before it gets to that point.

I think if he had kept his yap shut, it wouldn't be an issue, since there wouldn't be a way to prove he was basing his decision on a speech issue. But, he had to make a stink, so he may have painted himself into a corner. Even then, I doubt A&E would push the issue.


With all of that, I can agree. But it would probably have been beneath his notice if he HADN'T wanted to make a public display of support for Duck Dynasty.
 
2013-12-22 02:20:39 PM  
Duck tails ... oo-OO-oo
funnyasduck.net
 
2013-12-22 02:24:07 PM  
I thought that a person could not be fired for a lack of religios beliefs. Or fired for religious beliefs for that matter.
 
2013-12-22 02:28:55 PM  

gopher321: The Duck Dynasty kerfuffle is now most definitely about violating the 1st amendment corporate profits

FTFY


Thank God we haven't't gotten into dress codes yet.
 
2013-12-22 02:43:09 PM  
What is it with all these "Sheriffs"? In my state, the Sheriff is basically in charge of warrants and court dates and things like that. We have a county executive and county council that is actually in charge of things.

I guess it is different in Georgia, what does every county have a Sheriff that runs everything, like farking Boss Hogg?
 
2013-12-22 02:47:36 PM  

vygramul: I am not comfortable with the notion of government agencies differentiating, no matter how little, between members of the public based on their political position.


I would agree with that...but unfortunately it happens.
 
2013-12-22 02:57:20 PM  

hubiestubert: "A&E has suspended Phil Robertson for talking about his conservative Christian beliefs," Sheriff Miller wrote. "None of us are without sin and I am not judging anyone. I am sure A&E made what they believe is a good business decision. Many people who disagree with A&E might choose to remain silent and there was a time when I might have done the same, but no longer. In my mind the punishment is unreasonable."
Miller continued saying, "I know it will not matter to A&E, but it will make me feel better. A&E has produced more than a half dozen programs with the assistance of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office. They will not do any more with my assistance while I am sheriff. It is time for someone other than Hollywood and the news media to stand up for what is right!"

A&E has not filmed Duck Dynasty in Sheriff Miller's county in Georgia, of course, but the cabler has filmed several projects in Douglass County, including scenes from the series Beyond Scared Straight.

Less about free speech, than assisting production. The headline in the article itself is a lot more inflammatory than the actual statement. But then again, let's look at the source...


He's jumping into something that he has no business in. Further he has no right to deny assistance to anyone based on the actions making him feel better. For instance, what if he decided he didn't like that the Pope said people need to be concerned less about gays or his recent remarks about the prosperity gospel types and had said this:

"I know it will not matter to the Vatican, but it will make me feel better. The Catholic Church has charity programs with the assistance of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office. They will not do any more with my assistance while I am sheriff. It is time for someone other than the Vatican and the news media to stand up for what is right!"

This entire thing is getting so dumb it's mind boggling. The f'ing guy wants off the damn show. In addition, the guy is also providing tacit approval that he thinks black were better under segregation, let alone the remarks about gays
 
2013-12-22 03:00:53 PM  
Don't give those f*cks a click.  Here's TFA:

Now that A&E has suspended Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson over his recent comments about homosexuality in GQ magazine, one Georgia county sheriff has told the network that they are no longer welcome to film in his county.
Sheriff Phil Miller of Douglas County, Georgia posted a message to his Facebook page saying that he understands that A&E has made a business decision, but their actions have caused him to make a business decision of his own. He is halting all assistance to film crews from the cable network.
"A&E has suspended Phil Robertson for talking about his conservative Christian beliefs," Sheriff Miller wrote. "None of us are without sin and I am not judging anyone. I am sure A&E made what they believe is a good business decision. Many people who disagree with A&E might choose to remain silent and there was a time when I might have done the same, but no longer. In my mind the punishment is unreasonable."
Miller continued saying, "I know it will not matter to A&E, but it will make me feel better. A&E has produced more than a half dozen programs with the assistance of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office. They will not do any more with my assistance while I am sheriff. It is time for someone other than Hollywood and the news media to stand up for what is right!"
A&E has not filmed Duck Dynasty in Sheriff Miller's county in Georgia, of course, but the cabler has filmed several projects in Douglass County, including scenes from the series Beyond Scared Straight.
Sheriff Miller's personal https://www.facebook.com/phil.miller.562?fref=ts">Facebook page is set to private, but the group Douglasville & Douglas County for Civic Action posted a A local newspaper, the Douglas County Sentinel, contacted Sheriff Miller, and he said that he feels it is wrong for the network to punish Robertson.


i595.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-22 03:02:44 PM  

gilgigamesh: This thread will be a study in "spot who didn't rtfa"


Pretty much.  I even figured there had to be a twist because of how the headline was written.
 
2013-12-22 03:05:17 PM  

vernonFL: What is it with all these "Sheriffs"? In my state, the Sheriff is basically in charge of warrants and court dates and things like that. We have a county executive and county council that is actually in charge of things.

I guess it is different in Georgia, what does every county have a Sheriff that runs everything, like farking Boss Hogg?


A local sheriff has an incredible amount of power if the local DA is in cahoots with him, but even if the DA isn't helping him he can still make your life hell.  He can detain you for 24 hours without charge, or just simply follow you around until you inevitably trip up and break some meaningless law he can then charge you with.
 
2013-12-22 03:07:58 PM  
Hmm.  Fark ate the comments I put next to the picture of TFA's author up there.  Just to alleviate any confusion, it's not like I have some thing where I haphazardly toss around pictures of random mustachioed weirdos in Fark threads.  There actually were comments.  I alluded to the fact that he may have either been the guy who made Pinocchio or the dude credited as 'Stunt Cock 2' in 1970s porn flicks.  Six to one, half-dozen to the other really.
 
2013-12-22 03:12:19 PM  
A&E would no longer be welcomed to film or produce any of its programs or series with the help of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office or its facilities.

Is A&E paying for the police assistance or is this one of those bullshiat corporate-welfare things?
 
2013-12-22 03:20:47 PM  

Gulper Eel: Is A&E paying for the police assistance or is this one of those bullshiat corporate-welfare things?


Doesn't the economics always grossly favor the entertainment companies? How much should you a charge a movie studio to shut down a major road for three days?
 
2013-12-22 03:26:30 PM  
static2.wikia.nocookie.net

ALL ACCORDING TO PLAN!

Also, picture of the Sharif.

31.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-12-22 03:45:16 PM  
Yet the Duck Dynasty folks believe in Free Speech so strongly, they keep deleting my posts on their Facebook page........
 
2013-12-22 03:49:03 PM  
Net result: A&E films "Beyond Scared Straight" somewhere else. Plenty of prisons to choose from.

Real losers: any businesses in Douglas County that had A&E crew people as customers.
 
Displayed 50 of 461 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report