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.

(Everlasting GOPstoppers)   Hey Utards, this is how you do it. "Houston man pays delinquent lunch accounts for 60 elementary school kids"   (theeverlastinggopstoppers.com) divider line 346
    More: Hero, Pepto Bismol, high-deductible health plan, Sudafed, KPRC, runny nose  
•       •       •

10287 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2014 at 2:49 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-06 04:09:52 PM

iheartscotch: I've been kind of wondering why they couldn't do an account inquiry using SQL. All you'd have to do is select the balances, with student IDs, and where clause out any positive balances.


Ha ha, you actually think proprietary databases designed for the educational-administration market will let you program in the back-end with SQL.

/NTTAWTT
 
2014-02-06 04:09:56 PM

error 303: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.

How much do you think it costs to process a wage garnishment? How much time do you think it takes? At what point do you think that process is cost effective?

Because if you think it's cost effective to process wage garnishment for a $30 school lunch bill, I don't know what to tell you....


Cost doesn't matter to people like this.  It's like losing money on drug tests for welfare recipients.  As long as ONE person gets caught, they feel that the system is worth it.
 
2014-02-06 04:10:04 PM

iheartscotch: If you can overcome the whole selfishness thing; I'll start sowing red flags with stars, hammers and sickles. Until then, I'll stick with the current version of capitalism.


Translated: "I like my stature in life.  I know the planet is capable of feeding everyone, but if some people have to go hungry in order for me to have a quality life, fark 'em."
 
2014-02-06 04:10:39 PM

ongbok: Why can't the schools just provide free lunch and breakfast to all students? I'm sure the money is there for it. Wouldn't this be better than having hungry kids or school officials punishing kids by embarrassing them because they have poor parents or parents that are inattentive assholes? Trust me, you take it out on a kid because their parent is an asshole, you will end up with a kid who is an asshole.


You may find the answer here
 
2014-02-06 04:11:35 PM
www.fluffinbrooklyn.com
 
2014-02-06 04:12:49 PM

iheartscotch: whidbey: iheartscotch: / plus, socialism creates an oligarchy worse than the bourgeoisie it vilifies.

wut

humans are selfish.

So they are. Somehow we still created a society that's addressing these issues. It's time to take it to the next level.

What that means is:

Somebody has to run your perfect government. Unless you've got a robot, that is. That person will likely favor their family and friends. Then, it's raw turnips and vodka for the rest of us.

If you can overcome the whole selfishness thing; I'll start sowing red flags with stars, hammers and sickles. Until then, I'll stick with the current version of capitalism.


You might stick with it, but I think you're going to find the rest of us are sick of it, and are going to start demanding public ownership of services. A lot sooner than you think.
 
2014-02-06 04:12:53 PM

jaybeezey: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

I'm glad to know that there are no hungry kids in China. It must be a real paradise there. Perhaps you can go there and live there and enjoy the people's free lunches while you ride the people's bus to your new job building smart phones.


Hey look everybody, another idiot that doesn't know the difference between socialism and communism. Look at him and laugh. Maybe if he had free school lunches when he was a kid he wouldn't be too hungry to pay attention when this was taught in school
 
2014-02-06 04:13:46 PM

FarkedOver: iheartscotch: If you can overcome the whole selfishness thing; I'll start sowing red flags with stars, hammers and sickles. Until then, I'll stick with the current version of capitalism.

Translated: "I like my stature in life.  I know the planet is capable of feeding everyone, but if some people have to go hungry in order for me to have a quality life, fark 'em."


Hunger? Is there a hunger problem anymore?
 
2014-02-06 04:13:48 PM
Well done, sir.
 
2014-02-06 04:14:32 PM

TomD9938: INeedAName: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.

How old are you?


AIP
The difference between a 43yr old being able to go hungry for a while and a 12yr old is night and day. Maybe they should just chew on your old boot straps?


A kid's at school 7 hours a day.

Even if he's only fed on either side of that seven hours, he's fine.

BTW, you all are defending parents with money (probably ebil repuglicans at that) who are flipping the bird at the public school system by not forking over the $10.00 wk, even after they've been warned repeatedly.


Okay, so before he wakes up, he's been asleep for (conservative guess) 7 hours. Kid probably ate 2-3 hours before sleeping. Now we have 10 hours before kid arrives to school. 7 more hours before leaving school, which now gives said kid's stomach a nice 17 hour break from food. In your world, 'he's fine', right?

Not every kid gets fed breakfast, might only have one meal a day - regardless of the parental role, no kid should have to go any significant amount of time without food, ever.

Why don't you eat once a day and report back on how fine you feel?
 
2014-02-06 04:14:40 PM
Also.
What would Jesus do?
He sure as hell wouldn't let children to hungry because you think their parents are lazy.
 
2014-02-06 04:15:11 PM

HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.

Do you imagine this system will save money vs. just feeding the kids a proper meal?


"Hello Mr. Jones.  I see you're here to renew your Utah drivers license for another four years."

"Ok, that'll be $80.00 for the license renewal, $30.00 for the school lunch lien on file and another $40.00 filing fee to cover the transfer of said debt from the education to the transportation department."

"Will that be cash or charge?"

There are no savings, just as there are no profits on the people who do pay.
 
2014-02-06 04:15:35 PM
thepoliticalforums.com
 
2014-02-06 04:15:40 PM

ongbok: Why can't the schools just provide free lunch and breakfast to all students? I'm sure the money is there for it. Wouldn't this be better than having hungry kids or school officials punishing kids by embarrassing them because they have poor parents or parents that are inattentive assholes? Trust me, you take it out on a kid because their parent is an asshole, you will end up with a kid who is an asshole.


It shouldn't have to be free. I don't have children but I have no issue with paying a little more taxes so the kids in my community can have hot lunches.
The assholes in Utah who threw that food away instead of just letting the kids eat what was on their trays are serious low-lifes who need savage beatings.
 
2014-02-06 04:15:41 PM

Raktastic: This thread makes me fear for our children's future. If people can get off their soapbox and listen to the teachers here, you all wouldn't sound like idiots.


Their future was threatened the moment we stopped questioning politicians and allowed them free reign.
 
2014-02-06 04:16:08 PM

ongbok: Why can't the schools just provide free lunch and breakfast to all students? I'm sure the money is there for it. Wouldn't this be better than having hungry kids or school officials punishing kids by embarrassing them because they have poor parents or parents that are inattentive assholes? Trust me, you take it out on a kid because their parent is an asshole, you will end up with a kid who is an asshole.


Because, by God, we had to trudge to school with our lunches and our dads would rather literally cut their own heads off than let us have a lunch paid for by the state god damn it!  If you give kids free healthy, warm breakfasts and lunches with a variety of foods, protein and fresh produce, they'll most definitely decide to drop out of school and go on welfare and get everything for free! Study it out!  It's the parents responsibility and if they drop the ball on that responsibility, why then, the kids should definitely pay the price!
 
2014-02-06 04:16:57 PM

DECMATH: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

And of course the companies who sell them "cable and 40s and smokes" use their profits to buy publicity via ad agencies.  Anyone else think it would be in their best interest to sponsor school lunches with some of their profits instead, and wring some good publicity from that "community investment"?


Up-thread SubBase49 said the school serves 2000 free meals a day, yet the kids have cell phones and Beats headphones.

Imagine Dr. Dre doing an ad about how a portion of the profits from every sale of Beats goes to help an underprivledged kid get a nutritious breakfast.  Picture a kid receiving said breakfast while wearing Beats.
 
2014-02-06 04:16:57 PM

rkiller1: FarkedOver: iheartscotch: If you can overcome the whole selfishness thing; I'll start sowing red flags with stars, hammers and sickles. Until then, I'll stick with the current version of capitalism.

Translated: "I like my stature in life.  I know the planet is capable of feeding everyone, but if some people have to go hungry in order for me to have a quality life, fark 'em."

Hunger? Is there a hunger problem anymore?


Yes. Just because there are fatasses out there doesn't mean that there aren't still people starving.
 
2014-02-06 04:17:16 PM

SilentStrider: Also.
What would Jesus do?
He sure as hell wouldn't let children to hungry because you think their parents are lazy.


And neither did the school district.
 
2014-02-06 04:19:35 PM

tricycleracer: He's actually arguing for state confiscation of wages.  I bet he calls him self a "small-government conservative", too.



You can address me directly, you know.  And I am arguing for confiscation by the state in this case.

You should also understand that small-government doesn't equal no government.

Whoever taught you otherwise was blowing smoke up your ass.
 
2014-02-06 04:20:38 PM

rkiller1: FarkedOver: iheartscotch: If you can overcome the whole selfishness thing; I'll start sowing red flags with stars, hammers and sickles. Until then, I'll stick with the current version of capitalism.

Translated: "I like my stature in life.  I know the planet is capable of feeding everyone, but if some people have to go hungry in order for me to have a quality life, fark 'em."

Hunger? Is there a hunger problem anymore?


Yes, yes it is.  At this point I'm confident you're just being a contrary a-hole, but I'll beat my head against the wall anyway.
 
2014-02-06 04:21:03 PM

SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


Just because they do not qualify for the free or reduced lunch program does not mean they can afford to pay for school lunches.

Here, if you have 2 kids, you will be paying $5/day (2.50 x 2) which is $35/week. That adds up.
 
2014-02-06 04:21:11 PM

fappomatic: Raktastic: This thread makes me fear for our children's future. If people can get off their soapbox and listen to the teachers here, you all wouldn't sound like idiots.

Their future was threatened the moment we stopped questioning politicians and allowed them free reign.


hurr wut
 
2014-02-06 04:21:44 PM

rkiller1: SilentStrider: Also.
What would Jesus do?
He sure as hell wouldn't let children to hungry because you think their parents are lazy.

And neither did the school district.


No, they just threw away food that taxpayers already paid for and then gave the kids different food.
 
2014-02-06 04:22:44 PM

bluenovaman: There is also a petition to make taking and throwing lunches away on children illegal.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/illegalize-throwing-away-s tu dent-lunches-due-debt/MSZdvBZ4


Done and re-posted.
 
2014-02-06 04:24:14 PM

The_Hound: Why don't you eat once a day and report back on how fine you feel?


By "either side", I meant both sides of the school day, not just one.

/ should have typed that instead
// might be a regional thing (language-wise)
 
2014-02-06 04:24:32 PM

bluenovaman: We are the richest country in the world.  We spend more money on our military than the next 10 nations combined yet we can not provide breakfast and lunch to all children ensuring that they will grow up strong and healthy.  We buy tanks and airplanes only to send them to the desert to rot away.  GOP is doing their damnedest to turn me into a socialist and it's working.


We also don't give everyone a Cadillac.
We've been to the Moon, but don't give everyone a spacesuit.
We spend money on the military but don't give children their own gun.
 
2014-02-06 04:25:43 PM

what_now: SubBass49:

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

I don't know. But starving the children certainly isn't one of them.


The appropriately twisted punishment would be to reduce the parent's income to the level where the kids are getting the free hot lunches.  No matter how much the parent's make, they should be reduced to that amount.  Or one dollar above that amount so they can't qualify for other subsidies.  If they want their kids to live the poor lifestyle, they should also.  Oh, and the confiscated earnings go to upgrading the quality of food for all the kids in the free lunch program (and not appropriated for some sort of general fund).  Only way out of the punishment is hari kari, or the kids graduate high school (GED doesn't count).  If the kids never graduate, then the parents never get to earn more money.
 
2014-02-06 04:26:56 PM
Why don't they just teach the f*ckin' kids how to fish?
 
2014-02-06 04:27:25 PM

durbnpoisn: According to my math...  $.40 per day for 180 days is $72.  Multiply that by 60 kids, you get $4,320.

It's not like this guy put up some chmp change.  That's a LOT of money!!

Good for him!!


I though the just paid off the negative balances.  So he put them all at $0.  So the kids will go to school tomorrow and still have no money in their accounts to get lunch?
 
2014-02-06 04:27:28 PM

Dadburns: Dirtybird971: damphool

Whatchoo Talkinbout: utard


LOL. Subby must be from Wyoming. That is the only place where I have heard the term "Utards." In case you guys are serious about not getting the reference, it's a derogatory reference to the residents of Utah. It's like those of us in the great State of Kansas referring to the bastard land to our east as "Misery" or the "Show Me... How to Drive" State.

Those of us from civilization call all those states "fly over" states.

/jk

Joplin Mo. resident here; "You be trollin'...  I be goin' for the hook!" lol


DirtyBird971: Definitely better to fly over than drive through (I-70 from Salina, Ks to Denver, Co is like being trapped in a 7 hour animated gif of farm land).  Besides, we gotta keeps all you foreigners offs our land!
Dadburns: Hehe, ya caught me trollin there.  I love Missouri... Every time I go I feel so much less depressed about living in Kansas. =)
 
2014-02-06 04:28:07 PM
img.fark.net

Marge, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, communism works. In theory.
 
2014-02-06 04:29:07 PM

AugieDoggyDaddy: DECMATH: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

And of course the companies who sell them "cable and 40s and smokes" use their profits to buy publicity via ad agencies.  Anyone else think it would be in their best interest to sponsor school lunches with some of their profits instead, and wring some good publicity from that "community investment"?

Up-thread SubBase49 said the school serves 2000 free meals a day, yet the kids have cell phones and Beats headphones.

Imagine Dr. Dre doing an ad about how a portion of the profits from every sale of Beats goes to help an underprivledged kid get a nutritious breakfast.  Picture a kid receiving said breakfast while wearing Beats.


You got to love people like him. If someone says that the school serves free lunch to underprivileged that means to them that every kid in the school is poor, and therefor if he see's one kid with something expensive, then that means that all of those poor kids receiving free lunch are gaming the system because there could be noway possible that the kid with the cellphone isn't one of the poor kids.
 
2014-02-06 04:29:55 PM

TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.

Do you imagine this system will save money vs. just feeding the kids a proper meal?

"Hello Mr. Jones.  I see you're here to renew your Utah drivers license for another four years."

"Ok, that'll be $80.00 for the license renewal, $30.00 for the school lunch lien on file and another $40.00 filing fee to cover the transfer of said debt from the education to the transportation department."

"Will that be cash or charge?"

There are no savings, just as there are no profits on the people who do pay.


Wait, you trust the DMV to competently do something?  Why do I feel that this runs contrary to your normal views of government agencies?
 
2014-02-06 04:29:56 PM
media.tumblr.com
Hey u-tards!
 
2014-02-06 04:31:31 PM

KidneyStone: Nice gesture, but now the parents will just wait until someone else pays off the account.


Yeah, the parents won't learn anything!  Starve their kids some more until the parents learn!  That seams totally reasonable.
 
2014-02-06 04:32:15 PM

SubBass49: Lunch period is over now...I hear the seagulls circling as we speak.  Time to go earn my money that I support my family of four on...barely.

/will check back later today and see how much shiat hits the fan in here...


Do you work on a garbage scow?
 
2014-02-06 04:32:33 PM
The horror of a cheese sandwich! When my son was in elementary school, that's what he TOOK from home for his lunch. He wouldn't eat anything from the cafeteria and hated lunch meat or even PB&J. I suppose I was abusing him by sending food he would actually eat. Bad mom.
 
2014-02-06 04:32:41 PM

tricycleracer: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.

Do you imagine this system will save money vs. just feeding the kids a proper meal?

"Hello Mr. Jones.  I see you're here to renew your Utah drivers license for another four years."

"Ok, that'll be $80.00 for the license renewal, $30.00 for the school lunch lien on file and another $40.00 filing fee to cover the transfer of said debt from the education to the transportation department."

"Will that be cash or charge?"

There are no savings, just as there are no profits on the people who do pay.

Wait, you trust the DMV to competently do something?  Why do I feel that this runs contrary to your normal views of government agencies?



You are a one trick pony.
 
2014-02-06 04:34:10 PM

what_now: a large group of kids were getting "reduced lunches," of cold cheese sandwiches because of negative balances on their accounts.

WHAT THE FARK IS WRONG WITH YOU?????


Man, my family wasn't even poor and that was basically what I got in my sack lunches and from the cafeteria line.  Bread, cheese, and maybe whatever vegetable was lying around.

I'm kind of curious what the standard school lunches are like if this is the reduced version.  For all the grousing there must have been some pretty significant improvements made since I was a kid.

Alicious: Just because they do not qualify for the free or reduced lunch program does not mean they can afford to pay for school lunches.

Here, if you have 2 kids, you will be paying $5/day (2.50 x 2) which is $35/week. That adds up.


Um... how is that not pretty much a sunk cost anyhow?  Do you just... not farking feed your kids when they aren't in school or something?  Because that's kind of what you're sounding like there.

For reference, to not qualify for reduced lunches in the 48 contiguous states with a household size of 3 you have to be making upwards of 37k$/year (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEG_Table-032913 .p df).  I don't think asking you to sink about 1500$ of that a year into  feeding your farking children is entirely unreasonable as legal financial obligations go.
 
2014-02-06 04:34:12 PM

SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


Give the kid lunch, create a tab, and call in a social worker. But even if that's not an acceptable solution, making the kids go hungry isn't. We're a civilized nation. If we don't feed our children (and yes--they are all ours), then we don't have the right to call ourselves that.
 
2014-02-06 04:34:48 PM
You Americans.
My daughter goes to a public school here in socialist-paradise-where-everything-ca n-kill-you-land and even she doesn't get free school lunches. I make them for her.
Maybe if 50 million Americans weren't permanently entrenched below the poverty line then they could provide for their farking kids? Pay your slaves a decent wage FFS it's good for the economy.
 
2014-02-06 04:38:19 PM

durbnpoisn: According to my math...  $.40 per day for 180 days is $72.  Multiply that by 60 kids, you get $4,320.

It's not like this guy put up some chmp change.  That's a LOT of money!!

Good for him!!


According to my logic, you did not read the article.  Or have a comprehension problem.
 
2014-02-06 04:38:25 PM

limboslam: So the parents can't affor $8 bucks a month? I woder if they have smart phones.


img.fark.net
 
2014-02-06 04:43:55 PM
submitter your blog sucked
 
2014-02-06 04:44:17 PM

whidbey: You might stick with it, but I think you're going to find the rest of us are sick of it, and are going to start demanding public ownership of services. A lot sooner than you think.

we want to take your stuff by force.

Corrected. Good luck on that.
 
2014-02-06 04:44:22 PM

Jim_Callahan: Man, my family wasn't even poor and that was basically what I got in my sack lunches and from the cafeteria line.  Bread, cheese, and maybe whatever vegetable was lying around.

I'm kind of curious what the standard school lunches are like if this is the reduced version.  For all the grousing there must have been some pretty significant improvements made since I was a kid.


And how long has it been since you were a kid?
 
2014-02-06 04:44:41 PM

Jim_Callahan: I'm kind of curious what the standard school lunches are like if this is the reduced version.  For all the grousing there must have been some pretty significant improvements made since I was a kid.


Dude, unless you're like in your 60s or something, school lunches have been hot, cafeteria-style, and more like a meal for least 40 years or more. Not sure if serious.
 
2014-02-06 04:46:55 PM

INeedAName: wambu: Will he do it next month? And after that? What about all the other kids in need every day?

/not likely to do it again

//what seems like a nice gesture fails to actually help

Kids who eat better, do better in school. Education fights poverty. Keeping kids fed gives them a better education, and helps them get out of poverty. Sounds like it helps to me.


Agreed. Well-fed kids do better in school. No dispute there.

Or do you believe that by not feeding these kids, the parents will learn a valuable lesson that will lead to sweeping lifestyle changes and they'll get all boot strappy?


That may be what is happening in your head, but it's not close to what I said or even implied.

Some parents can't afford to pay for things and some parents choose not to. Punishing the parents that can't, because some parents don't isn't a way to run a civilized nation.

Way to go far astray, Sparky.

My point was that the wrong person was paying, his resources were not adequate to address the problem and would not ever solve the problem. He's good for some feel-good headlines and makes it easy for some people to smugly assume that "things are being done for the children" while the problem continues unabated. Well, maybe "fixed" for the briefest of moments, but not in any substantive manner. In that sense, he might have done more harm than good for these children.
 
2014-02-06 04:49:18 PM

SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


BUT EVIL GOP AND DERP!!!!!
 
Displayed 50 of 346 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