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)   For whatsoever the Tea Party soweth, that shall Republicans also reap. It's looking like Democrats may harvest the farm vote   (theatlantic.com) divider line 48
    More: Interesting, tea party, Democrats, Republicans, Politics of Brazil, pork barrel spending, American Farm Bureau Federation, labor shortage, texas gop  
•       •       •

3460 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jan 2014 at 2:26 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-27 02:32:55 PM
Nice try, Subby, but what are the Democrats going to do with rural undereducated white people? They're all about minorities, and workers, and cappuccino.
 
2014-01-27 02:36:01 PM
I've thought for a while that this is possible.  Actual farmers have a history of progressivism, working together, working with government, getting screwed over by big(ger) business, etc.

The problem is... they're a really insignificant demographic any more.

Even in some of the farmiest districts out there (Steve King in Iowa, Huelskamp in Kansas, etc), there are far more not-farmers in smallish towns than there are farmers or even people directly in the ag-related businesses.  Indirectly, sure, the cafe owner and Walmart manager are tied to the farm economy, but not necessarily enough to sway votes.

The farm bill stuff is a reflection of this fact.  The 'farm' vote simply isn't large enough to sway anything anymore. The GOP is willing to stop fighting for it.  Besides that, post-Citizens United, the Monsanto/ADM/Cargill dollar (which is not necessarily aligned with the farmer-in-the-field's interest) is probably more important to rural legislators.
 
2014-01-27 02:37:13 PM

rjakobi: Nice try, Subby, but what are the Democrats going to do with rural undereducated white people? They're all about minorities, and workers, and cappuccino.


From the article, it doesn't look so much like the Democrats are choosing the farmers as much as the farmers are choosing the Democrats. With their fingers pinching their noses.

Also of interest - farmers don't seem to have wanted food stamps removed from the farm bill.
 
2014-01-27 02:38:19 PM

Lawnchair: I've thought for a while that this is possible.  Actual farmers have a history of progressivism, working together, working with government, getting screwed over by big(ger) business, etc.

The problem is... they're a really insignificant demographic any more.

Even in some of the farmiest districts out there (Steve King in Iowa, Huelskamp in Kansas, etc), there are far more not-farmers in smallish towns than there are farmers or even people directly in the ag-related businesses.  Indirectly, sure, the cafe owner and Walmart manager are tied to the farm economy, but not necessarily enough to sway votes.

The farm bill stuff is a reflection of this fact.  The 'farm' vote simply isn't large enough to sway anything anymore. The GOP is willing to stop fighting for it.  Besides that, post-Citizens United, the Monsanto/ADM/Cargill dollar (which is not necessarily aligned with the farmer-in-the-field's interest) is probably more important to rural legislators.


But the GOP has a shrinking demographic. Can they afford to lose even a small one like farmers?
 
2014-01-27 02:38:47 PM

rjakobi: undereducated


Your modern farmer/rancher is a whole lot more likely to have gone to college (one of the 'ag schools') than his small-town non-farm counterpart.  It's far from just tractor time.
 
2014-01-27 02:42:36 PM

Lawnchair: I've thought for a while that this is possible.  Actual farmers have a history of progressivism, working together, working with government, getting screwed over by big(ger) business, etc.

The problem is... they're a really insignificant demographic any more.

Even in some of the farmiest districts out there (Steve King in Iowa, Huelskamp in Kansas, etc), there are far more not-farmers in smallish towns than there are farmers or even people directly in the ag-related businesses.  Indirectly, sure, the cafe owner and Walmart manager are tied to the farm economy, but not necessarily enough to sway votes.

The farm bill stuff is a reflection of this fact.  The 'farm' vote simply isn't large enough to sway anything anymore. The GOP is willing to stop fighting for it.  Besides that, post-Citizens United, the Monsanto/ADM/Cargill dollar (which is not necessarily aligned with the farmer-in-the-field's interest) is probably more important to rural legislators.


Doesn't matter.  "American Farmer" is a meme with damn near all people from the common clay of the new west, even if is about as real as bootstrappyness and economic mobility.   If there is one small farm out there not owned by Kroger/ConAgra/Monsanto these days, that one farmer will influence a whole lot of votes, because America, Jesus, Apple Pie, and Patriots.
 
2014-01-27 02:45:13 PM
I know a lot of these people, both professionally and personally.  90% of them will STILL never vote for a Democrat, no matter how much and blatantly Republicans are screwing them over.

HOWEVER

When it comes to election day, a fair number of them will just stay at home.  This won't hurt GOP in the House but will matter to them in Senate/state wide races.
 
2014-01-27 02:48:21 PM

Satanic_Hamster: I know a lot of these people, both professionally and personally.  90% of them will STILL never vote for a Democrat, no matter how much and blatantly Republicans are screwing them over.

HOWEVER

When it comes to election day, a fair number of them will just stay at home.  This won't hurt GOP in the House but will matter to them in Senate/state wide races.


The House of Clowns Gerrymandering Representatives is the primary problem, IMO. That's the wingnut stranglehold that needs to be broken the most.
 
2014-01-27 02:48:40 PM

DeaH: But the GOP has a shrinking demographic. Can they afford to lose even a small one like farmers?


A good question.  A lot of red congressional-seat level areas, they can afford to lose 10% and still be the supermajority party.  The danger is in Senate races (and presidential votes) in states like MN, IA, WI, OH, and PA.  Even ND and MT (consider Jon Tester or Brian Schweitzer).

If the Dems want that marginal pick-up, I'd put Tester and Schweitzer up front in the party.
 
2014-01-27 02:50:31 PM

MadCat221: The House of Clowns Gerrymandering Representatives is the primary problem, IMO. That's the wingnut stranglehold that needs to be broken the most.


State houses as well.
 
2014-01-27 02:53:10 PM
Michelle Bachmann won re-election in a reasonably progressive "blue" state.  Let that sink in for all of you who think the GOP is holding on to any shred of power by means OTHER than gerrymandering.
 
2014-01-27 02:56:03 PM
It's also worth mentioning that the national/state Farm Bureaus are just about as big-corp'ed up as useless to the smaller farmer as the national/state Chambers of Commerce are to smaller business owners.  The former are far more into lobbying for giant confined-feeder lots and against crackdowns on illegal immigrant labor than any small-farmer concern.
 
2014-01-27 03:01:37 PM
I know this is complete bullshiat... because if that was true, my home state of Nebraska would suddenly turn purple.  There's less people here than Iowa and probably more farmers, so it would literally make more difference here than the swing state.  I'll believe that when I see it.
 
2014-01-27 03:05:46 PM
$8 a galleon... yea right, good luck selling at that price.
 
2014-01-27 03:11:38 PM

KellyX: $8 a galleon... yea right, good luck selling at that price.


People will buy, but even if everyone managed to stop purchasing milk over night, it's still bought on an industrial scale to make countless products. All of that will be getting more expensive as well.
 
2014-01-27 03:12:31 PM

KellyX: $8 a galleon... yea right, good luck selling at that price.


Seems pretty cheap for a large ship to me.
 
2014-01-27 03:14:07 PM

DeaH: Also of interest - farmers don't seem to have wanted food stamps removed from the farm bill.


Why would they?  The federal assistance increase demand for farmers' products.
 
2014-01-27 03:17:59 PM

HotWingConspiracy: People will buy, but even if everyone managed to stop purchasing milk over night, it's still bought on an industrial scale to make countless products. All of that will be getting more expensive as well.


Major substitution effects in play.  If cheese prices went up enough (and they're already a pretty big line item at the national pizza chains), more people would shift to non-cheese Mexican or Chinese takeout.  At least until one of the pizza chains goes back to the (cringe) totally-artificial stuff.
 
2014-01-27 03:22:31 PM
potentially sending milk prices skyrocketing to as much as $8 per gallon.

GOOD.

If you want to subsidize food, do it at the consumer level.

People need to understand what foods actually cost. If you want to give poor people "milk stamps" or "beef stamps" (that sounds a little dirty) then let's do that. Giving the money directly to farmers (and Monsanto) is regressive as hell. I don't mind paying an extra $5.00/month for milk... it's better than now where I'm paying $2.50 directly and the rest of it through the IRS.
 
2014-01-27 03:35:01 PM
"Because of the tremendous productivity of American farming-and the support provided it by the federal government ..."


Yeah, I guess I can see farmers not relating to the teaparty.    Government handouts are very tempting to keep going after year after year.

Easier for the farmers if they stick to not voting for any fiscal conservative types.
Really, if they vote for more and more government handouts through farm subsidies they make out better.
 
2014-01-27 03:39:37 PM

DeaH: rjakobi: Nice try, Subby, but what are the Democrats going to do with rural undereducated white people? They're all about minorities, and workers, and cappuccino.

From the article, it doesn't look so much like the Democrats are choosing the farmers as much as the farmers are choosing the Democrats. With their fingers pinching their noses.

Also of interest - farmers don't seem to have wanted food stamps removed from the farm bill.


Meh. Farmers aren't choosing Democrats. Especially when you get to the part of the article where the Duck Dynasty guy comes in with a large round of applause when he mentions various abstract  sensibilities of "Faith, family, and the fact that metropolitan people don't have a clue as to the important stuff in life."

Sure, they might choose to vote for less-republicany Republicans. But they are more than happy to vote for reduction of food stamps for those inner-city heathens...as long as they don't realize that it might affect them.
 
2014-01-27 03:45:35 PM
If the farm folk turn against the repubs they are so boned, they would lose a lot of house seats and some senate seats as well.

That said i will believe it when i see it.
 
2014-01-27 03:45:46 PM

Lawnchair: I've thought for a while that this is possible...


It's a perfect storm waiting to happen.

People in the agricultural sector  generally speaking could give a damn less about the hill the GOP has chosen to die on -- social issues. You'll run into a  very vocal handful who are fundies, but really that's about it.  What they do care about are farm subsidies, agribusiness tax breaks, and lax immigration policy -- all three of which the GOP has effectively blockaded through House obstruction over the last two terms. And, you'll bedamn hard-pressed to find people in the agriculture sector -- at least, among those who know what they're talking about -- who support KeystoneXL, since it heaps on the externalitiesand will jack up gas prices in the corn belt.

The article is right, in that the GOP has largely abandoned farmers and rural Americans in favor of, the admittedly more numerous and wealthy, suburban boomer demographic. The former demographic is one that was staunchly Democratic in the past and only re-affiliated in the '60s and '70s, and it's entirely likely for them to drift left again. I doubt it will happen in 2014 or 2016, but past that it's a demographic that could be very much in play.
 
2014-01-27 03:49:21 PM

snowshovel: DeaH: rjakobi: Nice try, Subby, but what are the Democrats going to do with rural undereducated white people? They're all about minorities, and workers, and cappuccino.

From the article, it doesn't look so much like the Democrats are choosing the farmers as much as the farmers are choosing the Democrats. With their fingers pinching their noses.

Also of interest - farmers don't seem to have wanted food stamps removed from the farm bill.

Meh. Farmers aren't choosing Democrats. Especially when you get to the part of the article where the Duck Dynasty guy comes in with a large round of applause when he mentions various abstract  sensibilities of "Faith, family, and the fact that metropolitan people don't have a clue as to the important stuff in life."

Sure, they might choose to vote for less-republicany Republicans. But they are more than happy to vote for reduction of food stamps for those inner-city heathens...as long as they don't realize that it might affect them.


But they want food stamps. The article quotes someone bemoaning the lack of real politic in the current Republican party, and removing food stamps from the bill is seen as a minus.
 
2014-01-27 03:59:54 PM
I guess at the end of the day, the question the agriculture industry has to answer is: do you put your money behind the guys who can't see past abortion, guns, gays, and 50 more attempts to de-fund Obamacare? Or do you put it towards people who might actually pass something with a hope of making it past the Senate and the President?
 
2014-01-27 04:10:38 PM

DeaH: rjakobi: Nice try, Subby, but what are the Democrats going to do with rural undereducated white people? They're all about minorities, and workers, and cappuccino.

From the article, it doesn't look so much like the Democrats are choosing the farmers as much as the farmers are choosing the Democrats. With their fingers pinching their noses.

Also of interest - farmers don't seem to have wanted food stamps removed from the farm bill.


Oddly enough, modern farming requires a fair degree of education today. It shows a bit when someone wants to portray folks who farm as being ill educated, and when they do so, and thumb their noses at Democrats at the same time, it shows fair much exactly why a lot of farmers are throwing their lot in with folks who want to see more than subsidies go to large agribusiness...
 
2014-01-27 04:15:11 PM

Lawnchair: I've thought for a while that this is possible.  Actual farmers have a history of progressivism, working together, working with government, getting screwed over by big(ger) business, etc.

The problem is... they're a really insignificant demographic any more.

Even in some of the farmiest districts out there (Steve King in Iowa, Huelskamp in Kansas, etc), there are far more not-farmers in smallish towns than there are farmers or even people directly in the ag-related businesses.  Indirectly, sure, the cafe owner and Walmart manager are tied to the farm economy, but not necessarily enough to sway votes.

The farm bill stuff is a reflection of this fact.  The 'farm' vote simply isn't large enough to sway anything anymore. The GOP is willing to stop fighting for it.  Besides that, post-Citizens United, the Monsanto/ADM/Cargill dollar (which is not necessarily aligned with the farmer-in-the-field's interest) is probably more important to rural legislators.


It'll help in the Senate races.  Individual house races, not so much.
 
2014-01-27 04:16:22 PM

Lawnchair: It's far from just tractor time.


Even tractor time has radically changed.  Many commercial farms now compile efficiency reports on their fields, utilizing historical crop returns and current soil data.  They program it into a computer that controls seed dispersal, using GPS to detect where in the field they're at.  It takes a bit of knowledge to understand how to use that equipment.


Eddie Adams from Torrance: If you want to subsidize food, do it at the consumer level.  People need to understand what foods actually cost.


I agree.  Food subsidies should be on the back side, limited to purchasers with an eligible low income.  Being on the front side as they are today, everyone gets the subsidy.  It just wastes tax dollars.


FTA: House Republicans also have blocked farmers' other major priority, immigration reform, resulting in labor shortages, unpicked crops, and even farms abandoned when there weren't enough workers to reap their harvest.

That's an issue for which I don't have a lot of sympathy for the farmers.  The rampant use of illegal foreign labor drove down wages.  So did legal foreign migrant labor, although to a lesser degree.  Domestic pickers who used to follow the season moved into other trades.  Now the pool of domestic labor has shrunk.  Farmers are going to have to either offer wages that re-attract new blood or they're going to have to mechanize where possible.

Reap what you sow.  As farmers, you should get that concept for than anyone else.
 
2014-01-27 04:19:08 PM
FTA: As a result, a growing season marked by drought, snowstorms, and record cold temperatures had passed without the disaster relief on which farmers have traditionally relied.

If anthropogenic climate change is indeed producing more extreme weather as well as climate zone shifts, then the farmers will be at one of the first points where the GOP denial will run into reality's notorious liberal bias.
 
2014-01-27 04:29:10 PM

Lawnchair: DeaH: But the GOP has a shrinking demographic. Can they afford to lose even a small one like farmers?

A good question.  A lot of red congressional-seat level areas, they can afford to lose 10% and still be the supermajority party.  The danger is in Senate races (and presidential votes) in states like MN, IA, WI, OH, and PA.  Even ND and MT (consider Jon Tester or Brian Schweitzer).

If the Dems want that marginal pick-up, I'd put Tester and Schweitzer up front in the party.


I've got a vested interest in MN but it's purple-state is highly questionable to me as a representative; sure the Teatard counties will send some massive assholes to DC or Saint Paul but in any office that really matters since Bush left office Dems have had a pretty easy* time picking up seats.

*Far easier than what was predicted, even Franken beating Coleman.
 
2014-01-27 04:30:49 PM

hubiestubert: DeaH: rjakobi: Nice try, Subby, but what are the Democrats going to do with rural undereducated white people? They're all about minorities, and workers, and cappuccino.

From the article, it doesn't look so much like the Democrats are choosing the farmers as much as the farmers are choosing the Democrats. With their fingers pinching their noses.

Also of interest - farmers don't seem to have wanted food stamps removed from the farm bill.

Oddly enough, modern farming requires a fair degree of education today. It shows a bit when someone wants to portray folks who farm as being ill educated, and when they do so, and thumb their noses at Democrats at the same time, it shows fair much exactly why a lot of farmers are throwing their lot in with folks who want to see more than subsidies go to large agribusiness...


To be fair to rjakobi, there are a contingent of rural folks who are undereducated. They are not the farmers. I went to Junior High and High School in rural American. Most of the guys I knew who were going to be running the family farms went to BGSU or Ohio State for there agricultural programs. Ohio State has a fine Agricultural Technical Institute.
 
2014-01-27 04:32:23 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Lawnchair: DeaH: But the GOP has a shrinking demographic. Can they afford to lose even a small one like farmers?

A good question.  A lot of red congressional-seat level areas, they can afford to lose 10% and still be the supermajority party.  The danger is in Senate races (and presidential votes) in states like MN, IA, WI, OH, and PA.  Even ND and MT (consider Jon Tester or Brian Schweitzer).

If the Dems want that marginal pick-up, I'd put Tester and Schweitzer up front in the party.

I've got a vested interest in MN but it's purple-state is highly questionable to me as a representative; sure the Teatard counties will send some massive assholes to DC or Saint Paul but in any office that really matters since Bush left office Dems have had a pretty easy* time picking up seats.

*Far easier than what was predicted, even Franken beating Coleman.


Change that to "resident" and find me an explanation for that, I can't even use my "I typed this on an iPhone" excuse (I used my work HP laptop :( )
 
2014-01-27 04:32:30 PM
FTFA: "It is only because a small minority of Americans-less than 1 percent-continue to toil at farm work that the rest of the population has the freedom to pursue its dreams elsewhere, Vilsack said. "And folks, that ought to be celebrated,"

Get down off your pedestal.  Aside from the fact that most farming in America is done by huge agribusiness, you are not a unique and special snowflake because of your occupation.  The wheels of modern society require all sorts of professions to keep turning, and yours is not somehow special because you get your farking hands dirty.
 
2014-01-27 04:42:32 PM

lilplatinum: FTFA: "It is only because a small minority of Americans-less than 1 percent-continue to toil at farm work that the rest of the population has the freedom to pursue its dreams elsewhere, Vilsack said. "And folks, that ought to be celebrated,"

Get down off your pedestal.  Aside from the fact that most farming in America is done by huge agribusiness, you are not a unique and special snowflake because of your occupation.  The wheels of modern society require all sorts of professions to keep turning, and yours is not somehow special because you get your farking hands dirty.


The agribusiness guys do a fantastic job of making people think that this

1.bp.blogspot.com

is this.

coromandal.files.wordpress.com


//But don't you fark with food prices, or the city folk will riot in the street
 
2014-01-27 04:55:41 PM

DeaH: To be fair to rjakobi, there are a contingent of rural folks who are undereducated. They are not the farmers.


So, what do the undereducated rural folk tend to do to (figuratively) acquire their daily bread?
 
2014-01-27 05:30:11 PM

abb3w: DeaH: To be fair to rjakobi, there are a contingent of rural folks who are undereducated. They are not the farmers.

So, what do the undereducated rural folk tend to do to (figuratively) acquire their daily bread?


Well, in my day, they worked at auto factories. Usually, it was a half hour to forty-five minute commute, but the jobs paid pretty well. My niece, who currently teaches in a rural school district, says that meth is awfully big in her area. She also has students who aspire to be on assistance like mom or dad. She regularly has students who have one or more parents in jail. Many of the parents work in multiple low-paying minimum wage jobs. Oddly, most of them also vote Republican.

There are also a few students who come from more upper-middle class families who own big, relatively cheap McMansion-type houses. Those students have parents who work management jobs. They are also not undereducated. They tend to be scornful of farmers.
 
2014-01-27 05:31:50 PM

abb3w: So, what do the undereducated rural folk tend to do to (figuratively) acquire their daily bread?


Meth.
 
2014-01-27 05:45:54 PM
So...am I supposed to be for or against farm subsidies this time?
 
2014-01-27 05:46:01 PM

abb3w: DeaH: To be fair to rjakobi, there are a contingent of rural folks who are undereducated. They are not the farmers.

So, what do the undereducated rural folk tend to do to (figuratively) acquire their daily bread?


Where I grew up these days if you aren't working in one of the local prisons you're probably heading for them.
 
2014-01-27 05:58:03 PM

Lawnchair: The farm bill stuff is a reflection of this fact. The 'farm' vote simply isn't large enough to sway anything anymore. The GOP is willing to stop fighting for it. Besides that, post-Citizens United, the Monsanto/ADM/Cargill dollar (which is not necessarily aligned with the farmer-in-the-field's interest) is probably more important to rural legislators.


But isn't agriculture still a huge chunk of our economy. Wouldn't ignoring the plight of farmers lead to more economic issues and much higher food prices?
 
2014-01-27 06:23:33 PM

DeaH: abb3w: DeaH: To be fair to rjakobi, there are a contingent of rural folks who are undereducated. They are not the farmers.

So, what do the undereducated rural folk tend to do to (figuratively) acquire their daily bread?

Well, in my day, they worked at auto factories. Usually, it was a half hour to forty-five minute commute, but the jobs paid pretty well. My niece, who currently teaches in a rural school district, says that meth is awfully big in her area. She also has students who aspire to be on assistance like mom or dad. She regularly has students who have one or more parents in jail. Many of the parents work in multiple low-paying minimum wage jobs. Oddly, most of them also vote Republican.

There are also a few students who come from more upper-middle class families who own big, relatively cheap McMansion-type houses. Those students have parents who work management jobs. They are also not undereducated. They tend to be scornful of farmers.


Here where I live, there are a lot of small farmers. And I mean, small - here in the Appalachian mountains, a 20 acre bottom is considered a rare prize. Lots of folks that still do farm (far less than when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's) do so on small patches that total up to what anyone in the Midwest would call a flyspeck. It's all truck farming - most is still sold at the GA state farmer's market south of Atlanta. LOTS of these folks are poor, under educated, and, yep, fundies. There are exceptions, sure, but not many. No way they vote Republican. Anyhow, not 1 in 20 gets any kind of farming subsidy in any event - that's for the big peanut or corn farmers in south GA. The actual, real "family farms" aren't likely to vote for anything that smacks of "big city godless libruls". Sadly.
 
2014-01-27 08:37:01 PM

rjakobi: Nice try, Subby, but what are the Democrats going to do with rural undereducated white people? They're all about minorities, and workers, and cappuccino.



You clearly DNRTFA. These "rural undereducated white people" are actually well-oiled, well-connected and live in sprawling houses. It ain't  the Duke boys and Uncle Jessie who  spend "more than $100 million each year to influence Congress."
 
2014-01-27 10:53:08 PM

KellyX: $8 a galleon... yea right, good luck selling at that price.


I might not buy a galleon at that price, but I'd buy a good caravel if it had high enough forecastles.
 
2014-01-27 11:03:13 PM
As someone who lives in farm country, grew up around farms, and knows a good chunk about agriculture, it's amazing to see the local farmers complain about anything that hurts the price of corn.

"It'll put family farms out of business!"

"YOU put family farms out of business, by buying up 100 acre plots and demolishing the buildings."

Things like a 6 lane interstate are terrible when running through prime cropland, but when it's time to get hogs to Chicago for slaughter, no one wants to take trucks on 20 mph back roads. And the fact that state build projects pay anywhere between twice to ten times the price per acre. Quite a few sons of the soil decided that at $7000 an acre, they can move to Florida.
 
2014-01-27 11:09:58 PM

Gyrfalcon: KellyX: $8 a galleon... yea right, good luck selling at that price.

I might not buy a galleon at that price, but I'd buy a good caravel if it had high enough forecastles.


...must resist forecastle joke...must resist forecastle joke...must...resist...

/I am so far from good people...
 
2014-01-28 07:04:41 AM
www.uwec.edu

Does that mean I get to subsidize America's obesity crisis less or more? I can't tell from the article.
 
2014-01-28 12:31:13 PM
[grumpy cat_good.jpg]
 
2014-01-28 01:31:37 PM

super_grass: [www.uwec.edu image 769x769]

Does that mean I get to subsidize America's obesity crisis less or more? I can't tell from the article.


That food Pyramid is 100% bullshiat and is a large part of why Diabetes is on the rise. it has 0% to do with actual nutritional science and a lot to do with farm marketing.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report