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.

(Opposing Views)   Man fined $75,000 per day for building something on his own property that he got a permit to build   (opposingviews.com) divider line 223
    More: Strange, EPA, Wyoming, ponds  
•       •       •

21967 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 5:12 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-21 06:37:48 PM

Yakk: dkulprit: iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak

Well, the article(s)haven't made it clear if he had the permits to dam a river or if the river he dammed has been undammed. Or if he had a permit to dammit all. Man bad pun.

Here in MI if you use a backhoe to clear beach grasses you could go to jail, I can't imagine what they would do to you if you dammed a waterway. I have to imagine the only way you get that permit (a dam) is if there is a hydroelectric generator or 20 in the mix as well.


You can't even use a rake last I knew.
 
2014-03-21 06:38:15 PM

jst3p: This is why people who don't live in an HOA protected community deserve what they get!


/or something


HOA's Ass
 
2014-03-21 06:38:44 PM

ElLoco: meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.


FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps


link?
 
2014-03-21 06:42:20 PM

Eponymous: mbillips: Somehow, I doubt this is just a pond that fills from rainfall on his land. If it's a waterway, you can't just dam it up and waste most of it through evaporation in order to give your horsies and duckies a drink, and afford your grandchildren an opportunity to drown. Wyoming averages only about 22 inches of rainfall a year; downstream water rights are a big farking deal. This might be just a bureaucratic SNAFU by the EPA, but it very well might not be, too.

CoE was intended to support NAVIGABLE water ways...like most government functions, the CoE and EPA aren't content with their current calling and are constantly seeking to do more and more.   The courts have repeatedly biatch slapped them down multiple times for getting involved in creeks and streams that aren't able to be utilized for military or commercial water transportation.


How exactly did they get biatchslapped? The courts and EPA administrative panels are lateral to each other in hierarchy.
 
2014-03-21 06:43:20 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Bit'O'Gristle: oops..wrong thread...can the mods move this to the "backpack" thread please...thanks.

Nah, let's bully you for a bit first.  Can we get a mod to make all of his posts in pink for a day?


Second this
 
2014-03-21 06:44:06 PM

jst3p: ElLoco: meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.


FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps

link?


I'm not going to give up the guy's address or location, if it's even his for certain... it's a forum rules violation at the least. I used names, the town, and visual cues from various vids to narrow down housing and landmarks.
 
2014-03-21 06:45:18 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: Bondith

macadamnut: My wife and I built the pond together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it.

I'm not surprised the EPA got involved.

Putting water into it would have been a lot easier.


I'm pretty sure

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 480x360]


I have one job.  It's a stupid job, but I'm going to do it, dammit.
 
2014-03-21 06:45:42 PM

rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.


umm...that's how you build stock ponds.   You do realize there is both an inflow to the pond and outflow on the dam, right?  Water comes into a small 3-5 foot pool and flows out on the other side.   The evaporation is minimal, the impact from livestock drinking or walking in it is zero since they would have been drinking or walking thru the creek anyway.   The only real impact is 5-10k gallons of water.  If that's a problem, just have him dump that much water into the creek and call it even.
 
2014-03-21 06:45:58 PM

iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak


It turned out the freegan EPA guy was dickless.
 
2014-03-21 06:46:45 PM

ElLoco: How exactly did they get biatchslapped? The courts and EPA administrative panels are lateral to each other in hierarchy.


Google is a wonderful thing, learn how to use it.
 
2014-03-21 06:47:54 PM

ElLoco: I'm not going to give up the guy's address or location, if it's even his for certain... it's a forum rules violation at the least. I used names, the town, and visual cues from various vids to narrow down housing and landmarks.


Also, the terrain mapping on Google isn't updated at that location to include the constructed pond, but the area cleared is pretty evident and sits in the proper orientation from the housing structures.
 
2014-03-21 06:48:04 PM

toadist: dstrick44: Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention.  In fact, you can do so if you have a permit.  This guy got a permit.  He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

I suspect that most people have never been to Wyoming.  The idea that the Federal government has any interest in a duck pond in Wyoming is zero.  This guy is just caught in the middle of politics he has no control over.

With no Corps permit and untreated water leaving his property he's probably screwed.
When you're dealing with existing water bodies and making changes to the watershed you need multiple permits.
He should have hired a civil engineer.
The he would at least have someone to blame

I agree with you.    You probably would need several permits and any time in this current era you are dealing with water you would need help to stay in bounds.

Granted with Opposing Views website we get almost no correct information.    But the guy is probably screwed.    "I went and got me a dang permit ! "  isn't really a defense for anything these days.


And if he's messing with a stream, it probably goes beyond just getting a permit...there is potentially the need for performing mitigation work, like restoring another section of the stream.  And that's WITH a justifiable purpose and need to do the work in the first place.
 
2014-03-21 06:48:17 PM

ElLoco: jst3p: ElLoco: meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.


FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps

link?

I'm not going to give up the guy's address or location, if it's even his for certain... it's a forum rules violation at the least. I used names, the town, and visual cues from various vids to narrow down housing and landmarks.


Well, the EPA listing of address is wrong anyways
 
2014-03-21 06:48:18 PM

TV's Vinnie: Oh, I am so tired of hearing this stupid story splattered everywhere about this guy and his f*cking pond.


Then click on the red x in the corner
 
2014-03-21 06:48:55 PM

Bondith


I have one job. It's a stupid job, but I'm going to do it, dammit.


Well, then by golly I will hinder you no further. Go, go!

:-)
 
2014-03-21 06:51:26 PM

Ambitwistor: Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention.  In fact, you can do so if you have a permit.  This guy got a permit.  He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

As James! said, he apparently didn't have the right permit:  the EPA claims that he needed to get one from the Army Corps of Engineers, and did not.  If so, I feel bad for the guy:  it's hard to navigate the bureaucracy.  But it doesn't give him a legal right.


I agree it doesnt give him a legal right, but it does mean he should get the maximum leeway allowed.  75,000 a day is not exactly a lot of leeway.
 
2014-03-21 06:51:34 PM

iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak


The EPA is your HOA board with a badge.  They will make their own rules up. and sue you with lawyers paid with your own dues.
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2014-03-21 06:53:10 PM

Eponymous: rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.

umm...that's how you build stock ponds.   You do realize there is both an inflow to the pond and outflow on the dam, right?  Water comes into a small 3-5 foot pool and flows out on the other side.   The evaporation is minimal, the impact from livestock drinking or walking in it is zero since they would have been drinking or walking thru the creek anyway.   The only real impact is 5-10k gallons of water.  If that's a problem, just have him dump that much water into the creek and call it even.


This is his small 3-5 foot pool

i457.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-21 06:56:07 PM

ElLoco: meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.

FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps. It looks like there's maybe 3 miles of headwater prior to the pond, tops, and if the creek was running full bore under a lot of snow melt, it would almost be too wide to hop across.

Also, across the road, there's a much larger man-made pond with a much larger dam on a decent sized (different) waterway sourced by miles of multiple branching tributaries... maybe half a mile or so away from his.


See what you're missing here chief is that its not illegal to dam a river. Its illegal to dam a river without having your plans approved by the Army Corp of Engineers first which is exactly what this guy did. Are you able to appreciate that distinction? Since you're in this thread crying about the big ole' meanies at the EPA I'm going to guess no.
 
2014-03-21 06:56:33 PM

Eponymous: mbillips: Somehow, I doubt this is just a pond that fills from rainfall on his land. If it's a waterway, you can't just dam it up and waste most of it through evaporation in order to give your horsies and duckies a drink, and afford your grandchildren an opportunity to drown. Wyoming averages only about 22 inches of rainfall a year; downstream water rights are a big farking deal. This might be just a bureaucratic SNAFU by the EPA, but it very well might not be, too.

CoE was intended to support NAVIGABLE water ways...like most government functions, the CoE and EPA aren't content with their current calling and are constantly seeking to do more and more.   The courts have repeatedly biatch slapped them down multiple times for getting involved in creeks and streams that aren't able to be utilized for military or commercial water transportation.


ThisEPA are a bunch of communist c^^ksuckers
 
2014-03-21 06:58:00 PM

mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.


I hear it will all make its way down eventually.  You arent taking it.  You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit.   Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water.   A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..
 
2014-03-21 06:58:23 PM

ScaryBottles: ElLoco: meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.

FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps. It looks like there's maybe 3 miles of headwater prior to the pond, tops, and if the creek was running full bore under a lot of snow melt, it would almost be too wide to hop across.

Also, across the road, there's a much larger man-made pond with a much larger dam on a decent sized (different) waterway sourced by miles of multiple branching tributaries... maybe half a mile or so away from his.

See what you're missing here chief is that its not illegal to dam a river. Its illegal to dam a river without having your plans approved by the Army Corp of Engineers first which is exactly what this guy did. Are you able to appreciate that distinction? Since you're in this thread crying about the big ole' meanies at the EPA I'm going to guess no.


Don't be a farktard. I'm not approving or disapproving of anything... simply describing the area where I suspect the pond is located. Chief.
 
2014-03-21 07:00:47 PM

Eponymous: rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.

umm...that's how you build stock ponds.


upload.wikimedia.org

Sorry bubbi but I live in Texas and if we had to rely on existing water sources to fill our stock ponds 98% of the cattle in this state would be dead.
 
2014-03-21 07:01:55 PM

ScaryBottles: Since you're in this thread crying about the big ole' meanies at the EPA I'm going to guess no.


... and since you're still here, Chief... point out this part for me if you don't mind.
 
2014-03-21 07:04:26 PM

Semantic Warrior: boyvoyeur: Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

State Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Federal Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you did damning of a creek you do not own, and that your pond water and runoff is going into other waterways that you also do not own

Landowner - But, but... I got a thought my permit was carte blanche. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

FTFY
He rants on about rights and other right-wing talking points, neglecting that those around him have the right to not be affected by his "dream" pond.


Please post how other people are affected.
 
2014-03-21 07:05:16 PM

macadamnut: My wife and I built the pond together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it.

I'm not surprised the EPA got involved.


It does sound unsanitary at the very least.
 
2014-03-21 07:05:38 PM

ElLoco: ScaryBottles: ElLoco: meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.

FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps. It looks like there's maybe 3 miles of headwater prior to the pond, tops, and if the creek was running full bore under a lot of snow melt, it would almost be too wide to hop across.

Also, across the road, there's a much larger man-made pond with a much larger dam on a decent sized (different) waterway sourced by miles of multiple branching tributaries... maybe half a mile or so away from his.

See what you're missing here chief is that its not illegal to dam a river. Its illegal to dam a river without having your plans approved by the Army Corp of Engineers first which is exactly what this guy did. Are you able to appreciate that distinction? Since you're in this thread crying about the big ole' meanies at the EPA I'm going to guess no.

Don't be a farktard. I'm not approving or disapproving of anything... simply describing the area where I suspect the pond is located. Chief.


Then why mention the dam across the street unless you were implying the EPA was somehow being unfair? Why not just make note of the pond's location and leave it at that? Sorry guy passive aggressive derp is still derp.
 
2014-03-21 07:05:38 PM

Nutsac_Jim: mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.

I hear it will all make its way down eventually.  You arent taking it.  You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit.   Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water.   A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..


It creates a larger surface area for evaporation.
 
2014-03-21 07:07:06 PM

Eponymous: rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.

umm...that's how you build stock ponds.


Not only are there other means, but the damming of the creek is exactly what he needed ACE authorization for but didn't have... he wants to be exempted from that and argues that neglecting how and where run off from his pond is coursed.
 
2014-03-21 07:07:30 PM

ElLoco: ScaryBottles: Since you're in this thread crying about the big ole' meanies at the EPA I'm going to guess no.

... and since you're still here, Chief... point out this part for me if you don't mind.


You aren't fooling anyone Mr. FARK IndependentTM
 
2014-03-21 07:07:34 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Semantic Warrior: boyvoyeur: Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

State Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Federal Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you did damning of a creek you do not own, and that your pond water and runoff is going into other waterways that you also do not own

Landowner - But, but... I got a thought my permit was carte blanche. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

FTFY
He rants on about rights and other right-wing talking points, neglecting that those around him have the right to not be affected by his "dream" pond.

Please post how other people are affected.


My money is someone downstream of him noticed their water flow interrupted or otherwise disturbed, and went and ratted him out.

And as mentioned, water rights are serious farking business in the Western states.
 
2014-03-21 07:07:52 PM

Ambitwistor: I guess what's unclear here is whether the EPA is wrong for saying that he needed an ACE permit, or Wyoming State Engineer is wrong for saying that his permit was sufficient.


I can tell you who would win in a fight...

/Supremacy Clause
//EPA
///Slashies
 
2014-03-21 07:09:35 PM

ScaryBottles: Then why mention the dam across the street unless you were implying the EPA was somehow being unfair? Why not just make note of the pond's location and leave it at that? Sorry guy passive aggressive derp is still derp.


Ok... fair enough. I can see how it might look like that. That was not my intent.
 
2014-03-21 07:09:42 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Semantic Warrior: boyvoyeur: Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

State Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Federal Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you did damning of a creek you do not own, and that your pond water and runoff is going into other waterways that you also do not own

Landowner - But, but... I got a thought my permit was carte blanche. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

FTFY
He rants on about rights and other right-wing talking points, neglecting that those around him have the right to not be affected by his "dream" pond.

Please post how other people are affected.


FTA:  According to the federal agency, Johnson violated the Clean Water Act by damming a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. It also claims that pond water and runoff are being discharged into other waterways.
 
2014-03-21 07:10:02 PM

CourtroomWolf: Nutsac_Jim: mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.

I hear it will all make its way down eventually.  You arent taking it.  You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit.   Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water.   A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..

It creates a larger surface area for evaporation.



Evaporation means less drought
 
2014-03-21 07:10:10 PM

ZAZ: dstrick44

Apparently he is claiming an exemption from permit under CWA section 404(f)(1)(C). (epa.gov)

"the discharge of dredge or fill material ... for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, or the maintenance of drainage ditches ... is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation".

If the exemption does not apply, he needed an ACE permit to build the water body. EPA says he has to prove to their satisfaction that his water body is within the exemption. He says EPA has to prove he is not subject to the exemption.


IF you qualify for an exception, then it would be up to you to prove it.

As it stands now, the EPA can fine him without ever taking him to court.  He would have to work with them to prove he qualifies for the exception to no long be financially responsible for the fines.
 
2014-03-21 07:12:10 PM

Pattuq: Unfortunate, but the truth is that nobody really has their "own property."  Every scrap of land belongs to the government, and "ownership" is more like a bizarre stewardship wherein you pay taxes for the privilege of maintaining it for them.

People who think their "property" is a little kingdom of freedom from the government have no idea of reality.


This is why I hate property taxes and emanate domain.  No one truly owns land in the US.  They are just renting it from the government.
 
2014-03-21 07:15:35 PM

iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak


What can you expect from an agency that hires this guy...

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-21 07:21:09 PM

CourtroomWolf: Nutsac_Jim: mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.

I hear it will all make its way down eventually.  You arent taking it.  You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit.   Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water.   A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..

It creates a larger surface area for evaporation.


And the pond stores up water when it rains too quickly.  This means more steady supply of water downstream.  More usable water.
 
2014-03-21 07:26:52 PM

meat0918: Nutsac_Jim:  
My money is someone downstream of him noticed their water flow interrupted or otherwise disturbed, and went and ratted him out.

And as mentioned, water rights are serious farking business in the Western states.


I agree.   He probably blocked it to fill it as soon as possible rather than keeping his head low.
 
2014-03-21 07:27:02 PM
Little info really... Need to read the issued permit. But just off the article it appears he permitted for the pond. There is many ways to get water into a pond. I don't think I'm out on a limb when I say diverting water from a creek or river (or even pumping from it) is permissible without another authorization. I live near Lake Erie and an acquaintance near me put a sump pump in the county ditch (less than one mile from LE) after the thaw to help fill his pond. He got a talking to but no fines. He just thought, hell, it's only ditch water. My BIL filled his pond the easy way- watched it. It took a couple years, but it's a full acre and 25 feet deep on one end. I permitted for a pond when we built but I haven't dug it yet. Nothing in my paperwork suggests I can use any means to get water. It just allows for the size, location, shape, and depth.
/$.02
 
2014-03-21 07:27:40 PM

tkrispin: While I work for a local government (environmental) agency back east, I do admit that the permitting process can be arduous. Between the county, state, and feds, you may be right with one but not the others, and the onus is on the property owner.


Which is something I would like to see changed.  How the process *SHOULD* work:

You go down to the local office, you tell them what you want to do.  Whatever it is, from opening a lemonade stand to building a nuclear plant, requires *ONE* permit--the onus is on them to pass it along to any other entities that need to be involved.  They have a reasonable period of time to either issue it, deny it or request modifications or additional information--and a failure to act is an approval.  They are permitted reasonable inspections of ongoing work and a reasonable notice period--but again, failure = approval.

cameroncrazy1984: It was probably sufficient for what he asked for, not necessarily what he used it for


This.  I think he requested a permit for only part of the job, likely knowing he couldn't get the rest.
 
2014-03-21 07:28:18 PM
He's not being fined for building the pond. He is fined for damming the stream which also flows across other properties and is needed for drainage and water management.
 
2014-03-21 07:29:46 PM

Semantic Warrior: FTA:  According to the federal agency, Johnson violated the Clean Water Act by damming a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. It also claims that pond water and runoff are being discharged into other waterways.


This one was interesting.   I cant tell whether it is just someone downstream trying to pull some shiat though.

What is he doing, damming it up, and pumping the water up over a hill so it goes to his brothers property?
 
2014-03-21 07:30:46 PM

bangmaid: I'm a big fan of government oversight, AND the environment, but jesus, who cares about a stupid pond in Wyoming?

Maybe go after the industrial waste that's polluting the Gawanus Canal first.


http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/fyi-what-would-happen- if -you-drank-water-gowanus-canal

I see these new people to Brooklyn saying how bad the Gowanus canal is and then I think back to 1987 when I was there and say you guys are farking lucky.
 
2014-03-21 07:31:58 PM
If any of you wonder why it would be a good idea to disband the EPA, this is one fine example.
 
2014-03-21 07:36:30 PM

proteus_b: If any of you wonder why it would be a good idea to disband the EPA, this is one fine example.


So are you a functioning retard, or did someone forget to monitor your internet use?
 
2014-03-21 07:39:45 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: bangmaid: I'm a big fan of government oversight, AND the environment, but jesus, who cares about a stupid pond in Wyoming?

Maybe go after the industrial waste that's polluting the Gawanus Canal first.

/ya, they could do that, but most cooperations have scumbag lawyers that would tie up fines in litigation for years.  Much easier to pick on the little guy and squeeze the last dime out of him.


bangmaid: Because doing two things at once isn't possible?

Bit'O'Gristle: Yep the EPA exists to make money for the government. It all goes back to Nixon, first he invented the framework for Obamacare, then he created the EPA. Damn "small government" Republicans are doing a great job aren't they?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 07:41:55 PM
Whatever it is, from opening a lemonade stand to building a nuclear plant, requires *ONE* permit--the onus is on them to pass it along to any other entities that need to be involved.

This reminds me of Feynman's story about agreeing to give a talk for a fee, but with a strict limit on the number of times he could be asked for his signature on paperwork. They couldn't get him a check with only a dozen of his signatures until somebody bent a rule.
 
2014-03-21 07:41:57 PM

CourtroomWolf: Nutsac_Jim: mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.

I hear it will all make its way down eventually.  You arent taking it.  You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit.   Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water.   A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..

It creates a larger surface area for evaporation.


Increased erosion downstream from his pretty pretty little dam.
 
Displayed 50 of 223 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report