Fun with politics and news! Covering Lol Politics and Lol News. Breaking news — lol-style.

 

« Previous | Next »


The Navy votes NO!


Obama Pictures and McCain Pictures

The Navy votes NO! on Proposition 8

Who is that in the picture? Tell us in the Comments

picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: smuffy

» Recaption This

Incorrect source or offensive?
  • Share on Facebook
  • Copy & paste this:

» 408 comments

  1. Candystripe Legs says:

    Now I got “In The Navy” stuck in my head.

  2. faetal says:

    While I disagree with the caption, I support whole-heartedly the image… yummy!

    • RoyBatty says:

      “While I disagree with the caption”

      Always strange when people don’t hide their bigotry in the 21st Century. Makes me wonder if they have a copy of The Protocols of Zion and lawn jockey at home…

      • froofrou says:

        Why should people hide bigotry? It’s still protected under the First Ammendment.

        • Seth says:

          The first amendment also protects people calling out bigotry when they see it. It may be protected under the first amendment, but it is socially unacceptable in most circles these days. The first amendment does not require that I like what you have to say. It just prohibits the government from suppressing speech.

          • lowly grunt says:

            This distinction needs to be made repeatedly, huh? Thanks, Seth for being the one to do it.

          • froofrou says:

            Now hang on…..I’m answering a troll with a troll : )
            -
            It irritates me when people think it’s ok to say inflamatory things, but not ok to protest them, and vice versa. Bigotry, while idiocy in practice, is still a protected right *sigh* Some people (bigots) are just stupid. But that doesn’t mean they always have to hide it.

            • slanagat says:

              Personally I think it’s just as well when bigots are open about it. That way one knows whom to be on guard against.

            • Jim M. says:

              You are the correct one in this argument. “Hate speech” laws are just the left-wing’s way of imposing limits on the First Amendment rights of those who disgaree with the leftist elite’s points of view.

              If one commits an act of assault violence or murders another person, there are already statutes on the books to deal with those crimes, no need for special “hate speech” laws to punish the thought processes behind the crimes. That is just McCarthyism from the left. And in my opinion, Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Generals Douglas MacArthur and George Patton, Ronald Reagan, all the public figures the political left has villified, are heroes who were demonized by the demogogic left-wing as part of their international socialist agenda, which stiill exists today, even after the supposed dissolution of the Soviet Union.

              • soluvrly says:

                Hate speech and crime laws are not anyone’s idea of imposing limits on the First Amendment. The reason these laws are on the books are due to the facts that these crimes are not just directed at the individual victim.

                Take the civil rights movement and the burning of a cross in a black families yard. That is an act not just directed at the family of that house but the entire community to instill the fear that they are not wanted and they shouldn’t have the same rights as the white people and to stop protesting for it. Same applies to a gay bashing.

                And before you even mention that the laws only apply to those of the minority. The law states that a crime is based on a perceived prejudice against the victim based on sex, sexual orientation, religion, race or disability. There is another protection that I forget. So if a gay person was to beat you up screaming anti-heterosexual slurs he or she could be arrested and charged with a hate crime.

                To simplify and reiterate, hate crimes and speech are not directed at an individual but the group that the individual belongs too.

        • Tessie says:

          People (and I want to make absolutely clear that I do NOT mean froo or anybody else here in particular!) should NOT hide bigotry, or stupidity, or hateful attitudes, or attitudes of any kind. They should have them right up front in big, red, glaring, neon letters. Aside from the fact that, yes, people have every right to hold and express their opinions — even opinions that I dislike — I’d rather know what I’m dealing with, be it good, bad, or in-between.

          • froofrou says:

            Exactly! I should have read down a bit further before I posted; you said it better than I did!

          • charro says:

            I agree.. There is nothing quite as awkward and infuriating as meeting someone you click with, think they’re cool and then you go out with them and they suddenly start telling you how they are extremely opposed to something you believe in. It’s a big let down. Plus then you just feel awkward and have to sit there trying to figure a way out of it. Usually I just pretend to faint and get taken away in an ambulance ;-)

            • Radial says:

              I agree; having an exciting conversation with someone when suddenly
              they burst out with something like “DAMN MEXICANS!” is very unpleasant. No, wait, stop, rapport revoked!

              • dissimilitude says:

                Could you forgive that if it was within a week of the time they were broadsided while driving through a green light by an uninsured Mexican woman who spoke absolutely no english? Because I may have said something like that then, although normally I’m in favor of making it easier for people to immigrate here….

                • charro says:

                  Well, it’s all in context. I have a similar “damn mexican” story. But you know, if you’re having a pleasant conversation about.. say.. LOLcats and out of nowhere it’s “DAMN MEXICANS”, that’s a little uncalled for.
                  I mean, I have a similar “damn crackers” story too, and I’m white.

      • The Language of Love says:

        You find it strange? But, you’ve seen things we people wouldn’t believe.

      • faetal says:

        Oh Shut Up!
        I’m Bi, I didn’t say that I aggree’d with Prop 8, I’m rather pissed that it passed, I said I disagree with the Caption not the politics behind it.
        Need some mustard with that crow?
        It really surprises me that the internet has created enough anonymity that people like you can be totally rude without any consequences.

      • xXCaliGirlXx says:

        She means to say the Navy isn’t gay.

        Although that doesn’t mean that’s what the caption intends (although due to the nature of this site we know they meant the Navy is gay).

        Sometimes we don’t think about obvious things… it’s okay, humans have flaws eh? :]

        • wundawomun says:

          That’s what I got from her post on disagreeing with the caption. It’s been a joke in some parts that if someone looks/is gay that they vote no on prop 8 & being that I’ve heard that, I took the caption that way.

          Does that make any sense? I’m at work & I don’t want to be and everyone else is on vacation. :(

      • Selkhit says:

        I’m not really clear on how disagreeing with the caption is bigotry. So, if I think I caption is unfunny, I’m a bigot? Hmm.

      • Nabulsha says:

        Its amazing to me that if someone has a different point of veiw that they are bigets. So how are you opened minded and tolerant if you call someone a biget for disagreeing with your opinion? Learn to tolerate us, we obviously put up with you

        • Seth says:

          So you are saying we have to tolerate intolerance? That is the kind of argument a third grader would make. Not everything deserves tolerance. Like kicking puppies. Am I a bigot if I don’t tolerate puppy kicking? Having a different point of view does not make you a bigot. Calling someone a bigot also does not make you a bigot. Hating gay people makes you a bigot, just like hating blacks, Mexicans, or Catholics makes you bigot.

          • I am intolerant of your intolerance to those who are intolerant.

            All jesting aside, I will say this. I am a bigot towards bigots and damn proud of the fact. Thank you and good night.

            • rhorho says:

              I am intolerant of your intolerance to his intolerance of those who are intolerant.
              .
              Anybody have the news on, btw?

              • Seth says:

                The news referring to the Mumbai situation? Yikes.

                • rhorho says:

                  Couldn’t have said it better.

                  • Seth says:

                    Eighty killed and over nine hundred hospitalized so far in coordinated terrorist attacks against luxury hotels, a restaurant, and a train station. Terrorists looking specifically for westerners to hold hostage. Some previously unknown group, calling themselves the “Deccan Mujahideen.” That’s all I’ve heard so far.

                    • Xavier says:

                      Happy Thanksgiving…

                      Why look in Mumbai? Seems they could find a whole lot more of us, erm, in the actual “West”…not trying to make light of it, of course, but that rationale doesn’t make a lot of sense. :\

                    • bgcmeowrrrr says:

                      Day late & a kopeck short here. Hey Seth, tryin to find you.
                      I hooked up to yr Evolution site but cant seem to lv a msg
                      there. D’OH am reetarddid.

                      OH NOES not another Terrorist gp! L.U.P. (Let Us Pray!)

                      Connect w. me via ICHC profiles if U wish. My spouse & I has
                      been working on similar stuff to you thru Skeptics Soc.

    • moi says:

      i don’t remember what the caption said…i’m still distracted

    • AllyJ says:

      I totally agree….*drools*
      Took me a few mins to even look at the caption

    • Rookie says:

      Word. I realize this isn’t ICHC, but I saw this pic and all I thought was “I can has?”

    • A says:

      wow narrow minded people do still exist!

  3. My dad was in the Navy. He looks nothing like that, and has a wife and 3 kids (me included)

  4. pundy says:

    one could only assume that prop 8 is a clothing requirement….? Either that or there was a missing uniform shipment…. (had to fit one in there somehow) …… either way im hard put to believe they are actually sailors

    • Kuromisa says:

      Here’s the first link I could find that summed it up.

    • phailure@life says:

      Prop 8 knowledge FAIL!

      • Sandi says:

        lol – not everyone in the world knows about USA marriage rules and regulations?

        • Confoozled says:

          But…but…*sputters* Don’t you realize that Amurka is the greatest country that ever, or will ever, exist??
          .
          We probably need to invade your country for your own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (within conservative Christian bounds, of course).

          • rhorho says:

            Whatever you do, Pundy, don’t say the name of your country! Confoozled is serious!!! ; )

          • lawlmaker says:

            WIN!
            -
            Oh, and as far as Sandi goes; I’m a 16 year old Swedish girl, and I know what Prop 8 is. :) But then again, I’m very knowledgeable about/engaged in US politics. On the other hand, if you’re on this site, you probably are too? ;)

            • Lallz says:

              Sweden? Cool. I was going to make a comment about toblerone, before I realised that was the wrong country entirely. EuropeanChocolateFail.

            • charro says:

              Haha or maybe you just like to see Americans making fun of their politics.
              Honestly, I probably wouldn’t have known what prop 8 was if a friend of mine hadn’t told me that if AZ passed prop 102 (basically the same thing as prop 8) he was moving to CA, and if CA passed prop 8 he was defecting to Canada. I have alternating periods where I try to stay away from the news and politics and get really into them.. Mostly politics and the news depress me so I don’t pay attention to them.
              Case in point.. Finding out Prop 8 and Prop 102 passed.. Made me feel sick to my stomach and very depressed.

            • Sandi says:

              Hehe – I know about it too but just saying that not everyone is that informed nor should we expect them all to be :)

            • Sandi says:

              Sigh – original reply has vanished into the ether…
              Is Confoozled invading our little slice of the internet already?
              Or just the conservative Christian parts? :P

              We have just been through the legalise same sex marriages arguments
              ourselves so prop 8 was publicised here too. However, if we hadn’t
              been through it too, I doubt I would have taken that much interest in
              this :D There are much more earth shattering things going on but if
              you are only 16, prob shouldn’t divulge too much about those ;)

  5. Bud Tugly says:

    I am sure it was a “scientific” poll.

  6. Matthew says:

    That’s a hearty batch of seamen semen…
    Whatever

  7. Mao says:

    y hello thar boat full of hot menfolk

    Meet your new admiral~<3

  8. Admiral Obvious says:

    Seaman, your gun is poking me in the beehind. … Thank you.

  9. CCC says:

    I got dibs on the second one from the left, front row.

  10. syron9 says:

    Don’ noes wha’ properzissun deyz against, but da seeneery iz berry, BERRY nice!

    • Kuromisa says:

      Okay, I’m usually pretty good at translating LOLspeak, but this one gave me some trouble.

      • RoyBatty says:

        “Don’t know what proposition they against, but the scenery is very, very nice!”

        Pretty easy one, in fact.

        • Kuromisa says:

          Thanks! I did get it eventually, but it took me a minute. I think it’s because I’m so tired today–I almost passed out in the hallway earlier. Tomorrow starts Thanksgiving break, though, so hopefully I’ll be able to catch up on my sleep and be more coherent. ; )

  11. syron9 says:

    Don’ noez wha’ properz’sun deyz agains’, but the seenorree iz berry, BERRY nice!

    • Apersondude1 says:

      Double post FAIL!

      Also, Prop 8 knowledge FAIL!

      • rhorho says:

        The fail is on PK, not syron9. PK has been eating posts lately, and spitting them out later, or not at all.

        • Jane St.Clair says:

          That’s okay, we can transfer the double post fail to excessive lolspeak in a non lolspeak zone fail. Max darling, where is the failcop when we need him? As to that, where’s Max been anyway?

          • rhorho says:

            In the absence of Max, we can allow a little lattitude here, yes? I’m with you on the lolspeak, mainly because it takes three posts, minimum:
            1. Original lol post.
            2. Request for translation.
            3. Translation provided.
            .
            I’m guilty of the occasional “I can has,” but have never been blessed with a Silver Hammering. In a way, I feel left out. *sniff*

  12. risa says:

    prop 8 or not..they are hot

  13. pundy says:

    Actually, I’m inclined to think they are marines, aside from the haircut, first due to the fact that I you would be very hard pressed to find that many sailors in such good shape on an entire carrier, and secondly due to the black shorts which is a marine recon thing. Either way its still a hilariously absurd photograph.

    • FaileV says:

      i’m inclined to agree with you. i might be projecting but that looks like the marine base of coronado. Also hanging about marine bases while they’re training the newbies makes for some fun summers

    • crmainiac32 says:

      they are navy seals, as a former marine that served with them. I hope for your sake none of them take offense to this…

      • brinnann says:

        Ooooh, hot sweaty muscle-y men wrestling?!?!?!! ‘Scuse me while I grap my popcorn. *drools*

        • !kca says:

          how does one “grap”? Brings to mind some rather… unsightly images…

          • rhorho says:

            Let’s hope it doesn’t involve a grappling hook. First thing, she’ll spill the popcorn…

            • SPCOsborne says:

              This is pretty unrelated, but in D&D, I have had a situation that involved a tug of war over a party member between an alligator’s teeth in his arm and my grappling hook in his….um……yeah.

              But yeah, in the event I get lit up in my next deployment and I’m down in the enemy’s kill zone and all my squadmates have is a hooligan tool (which can be made into a makeshift grappling hook) and 550 cord (makeshift rope)….

              START TUGGING!!!

              • slanagat says:

                Damn. We lose more clerics that way. More arms, too.

                • rhorho says:

                  I played that game once, years ago. It took upwards of two hours to get me prepared to be a half-dwarf thief. I was killed 5 minutes into the game, and never felt the need to play again. The master was a control freak, imho, and had trouble with “girlfriends,” possibly because he never had one.
                  That said, I would prefer tugging you in more of a wrap around belt scenario. The other way sounds a tad painful…

                  • rhorho says:

                    or maybe it was half-elf…

                  • slanagat says:

                    I was hoping you’d prefer tugging me in more of an unwrap the belt scenario. Le sigh……

                    I have a long and somewhat checquered gaming history. The best friend from college and my daughter’s godmother who passed away recently, whom I’ve mentioned in a few posts on gay marriage? Ran what I have reason to believe was the oldest continuously running role playing game in existence. I was in it for 21 years and it had well established history before I got involved – it was loosely Star Wars based and she started running it before Return of the Jedi was released. She ran it with a nice mix of action and character development, so it was a real exercise in creative cooperative storytelling.

                  • PortlandMark says:

                    I quit doing role-playing games when I realized they were interfering with my ability to gain carnal knowledge of all the little hotties at my school. I won’t say I don’t miss it now and then, but it was the best decision I’ve ever made!

        • brinnann says:

          Please forgive me. I was a little distracted by all the beautiful manliness. Meant to say “grab.”

      • Paul says:

        LOL. Thinly veiled threats of violence from people who turn right around and claim to be protecting Americans from terrorism.

        Patriotism fail, kid.

        • rhorho says:

          I’m not unAmerican, but have developed an opinion about this. Some of these guys get off to feeling all powerful and macho, etc., but they also *volunteer* for service. I would rather abide an occasional full-of-himself type than to see my nephews drafted. Does that make sense?

          • Paul says:

            I’m not following you at all.

            Feeling all powerful and macho and volunteering for military service = very good thing. I’m all for it, and obviously grateful to those who do it.

            Attacking Americans while standing inside a U.S. Military uniform (or standing behind claims to have been in the military) = Unpatriotic in the extreme.

            The latter is sadly all too common today, thanks largely to anti-American right-wing talk radio.

            • froofrou says:

              Because right wing talk radio is the source of all of our problems.

            • froofrou says:

              To be honest, any type of anti-American talk radio is bad, whether it’s right wing or left wing. Michael Medved and Al Franken spring to mind as illustrations of the two ends of the spectrum. Anti-American doesn’t apply to most of it. Now, if you want to go through the laundry list of anti-Dem and anti-Repub, then you’ve got something : )

              • rhorho says:

                I don’t get much left-wing radio (for reasons already covered ad nauseum), but I hear right-wing shock jocks calling people on the other side all sorts of hateful names, and making all kinds of terrible, baseless allegations. From what I’ve heard, the right-wing shock jocks tend to take a self-righteous (pun) attitude, whereas the left-wing talkers tend to go the conspiracy theory route. The right-wing guys are much more likely than the left to single someone out for attack, encourage mean spiritedness, and “pump up” the lesser angels listening. The situation may change with the administration, but left-wing guys, at their worst, tend to take a whinier, “poor us” approach. Inciting hatred? I would say the right-wing has that one PWNd.

                • froofrou says:

                  I think your take on right wing radio comes from your left wing stance. The shows I listen to tend not to delve into name-calling, other than illustrating names that ‘the other side’ has called their own people. They do get self-righteous, I’ll give you that, lol. And as far as singling people out for attacks and encouraging mean-spiritedness, what do you mean? I promise I’m not being naive here, I’m really curious. That’s not what I hear at all, unless the only right-wing talkers you’re listening to are Medved and O’Reilly. Medved is an equal-oportunity impailer, and O’Reilly is over the top more often than not. I’m not seeing anyone but Medved inciting hatred.
                  -
                  And I’m glad that you can see the whining that I see on the left. I hope it does change with the new administration, but what I see happening is that the Left (capital L) will start in on the sanctimonious crap while the Right goes for the self-pity.

                  • rhorho says:

                    My statement was more about my general impression of right-wing vs. left-wing radio. The worst right-winger of all is Ann Coulter, but I would never ask you or anyone to defend the likes of her! Radio-wise, it seems like I’m driving a lot during Glenn Beck’s and Rush Limbaugh’s shows. I’ve heard other right-wingers, but usually wind up changing the station before catching the host’s name. (Motivation would be an issue there, too.) I know I’ve heard (Michael?) Medved. Doesn’t he fill in for Limbaugh from time to time? (If not lately, I think he used to.) The only left-wing stuff I can get in town is NPR, which carries neutral stuff most of the times I hear it. I wish I could quote things that I’ve heard Limbaugh say, but, for me, the worst ones are best forgotten, and quickly. I’m sure others can quote most of his famous flamings verbatim, but I can’t. The most recent ones were ad hominem attacks against Obama/Biden, of course, with Hillary Clinton before that. I remember being totally pissed about the disinformation he spewed about global warming, but, again, I can’t quote him. I have heard of his recent accusation that Obama is responsible for the shape the economy is in, but I didn’t hear his rant in context, so that’s not fair. As for other disinformation spewage, weren’t you the one who was worried about the brown shirt brigades? Whoever that was, those “reports” never made the MSMedia, so I figured one of the radio guys was the culprit.
                    .
                    “The shows I listen to tend not to delve into name-calling, other than illustrating names that ‘the other side’ has called their own people.”
                    .
                    The GOP (and right-wing talkers) had a wealth of material to use against the DEMs this time, because the DEM race was so hotly contested. The DEMs didn’t have squat, relatively speaking: Palin wasn’t on record having said anything against John McCain, and Huckabee and Romney were pretty slim pickings, too. I was surprised that McCain didn’t quote Clinton and Biden much more than he did, but there were backfire issues to consider, certainly. (OT, but I wonder if McCain and Obama had a phone call at some point, deciding to trade Rev. Wright for Keating Five.)
                    .
                    Yeah, I’ll say it: There are faults on both sides. Perhaps I’m not standing with my back flattened against the left side wall, after all. …NAH!! ; ) I think your idea that they may switch roles is fun. We can hide and watch until then.

              • Danbala says:

                Being honestly curious here – what would be defined as “anti-American” in American talk radio?

                • ck says:

                  For some, it would be defined as saying anything bad about the current administration, its plans, or its decisions. For some, saying “The Iraq war was a bad idea” translates to “OMG I HATE THE TROOPS!” For some, saying “Bush’s policies are awful” translates to “OMG I HATE AMERICA AND ITS FREEDOMZ!!!”

              • PortlandMark says:

                froo, it’s obvious to me you never listened to Al’s show. He was funny, intelligent, and informative, and reserved his vitriol for the worst offenders on the right: O’Reilly, Coulter, and Rush. He even had a self professed DittoHead on almost every day to explain why Rush’s latest lie was in fact not a lie. (That was always one of my favorite segments! )

                • rhorho says:

                  My rant is long on this one, but radio monopolies have my utmost ire. I will have to pay for radio I want to hear, because my air space is climate con*troll*ed. If you didn’t know it, you are lucky to be able to hear Al (I assume) for free.

                  • PortlandMark says:

                    Better yet, I’m in the home town of my absolute favorite talker: the intelligent and informative Thom Hartmann!

                    For those who don’t know him, I’m sorry. I hope you are lucky to get him on a local station soon.

                    Actually, I’d say he and Rachel Maddow are my two favorite talkers.

                • froofrou says:

                  To be fair, Rush and Hannity have front row seating for Libs every day to explain why it’s alright to be a Lib. Levity for me : )
                  -
                  This is all coming from our different POV’s. I see Al as whiny and idiotic, you see Rush as angry and vitreolic. Ann Coulter we can agree on, although I really think most of it is in jest (doesn’t make it right), and O’Reilly and Medved can go play pitty pat together. : )

            • rhorho says:

              I see what you mean. The guy isn’t worthy of his uniform (imaginary or otherwise) because of his snarling disdain for those practicing the very freedoms he feels he is protecting. If he is telling the truth and keeps up his crappy attitude, someone else (probably another vet) will eventually kick it out of him. Either that, or he’ll go through troubled relationships, etc., for the rest of his days. He may feel patriotic, but may simply lack the understanding of the deeper meaning of it. That may come with age.
              .
              Maybe it’s the difference in our experience, because, as a female, I’m not directly faced with the roostery stuff. However, perhaps that’s why I may be better able to see it for what it is. My thinking is, “Okay, so he’s an arsehole. At least he’s the one taking the bullet instead of my loved one.” That’s selfish of me, but it’s honest.

            • PortlandMark says:

              I think a better way of expressing rorho’s point: Some join the military to defend their nation, some join it for job training, some join for college money. Some, however, join because they’re thugs and they want nothing more than a way to get away with their violent behavior.

          • Danbala says:

            (I wrote this response once already, but it refuses to appear. So if it ends up being double, I apologise.)

            It does make sense, yes, but I tend to see it the other way around – the guys who really want/crave/lust for running around with big guns and feeling macho about that are exactly the type of guy in whose hands I don’t want my society to be sticking said big guns.

            So yeah, it does boil down to a nice little catch-22 in my head – the only people I see suitable for military powers are the ones who really don’t want it. :P

      • bluejade says:

        They all look like they need a good massage.

    • Jude says:

      Actually, they are Navy divers.

      The only easy day was yesterday, dammit.

      • LurkinMerkin says:

        Divers? Even better!

        • Now to sound like an even bigger dork…

          In one of the random roleplaying groups I got into in college, the group we worked was called the Mutant Underground Freedom Fighters. We all snickered like kids and asked if we could all be divers for MUFF.

          *waits to be laughed off the stage*

  14. pundy says:

    Ah, I think I’ll have to retract my previous statement. I believe crmain is correct. Marine recon do wear black shorts but they are silkies, which are shorter… and they would all be wearing them,as opposed to a more hodge podge collection of black shorts. And no, I’m not suggesting that smaller shorter black shorts are better. And that explains the fact that they are in shape.

  15. Kayle says:

    haha, that’s -hot-

  16. n8 says:

    The Lol Fairness Doctrine of ’08 demands that we get a pic of several hot chicks within the next five lols. And no, Sarah Palin does not count. Do not even think of posting a Palin/Malkin/Coulter three way, as this is grounds for immediate ejection from the Internet.

  17. Green Is Good says:

    Naval Salute!

  18. chimpsmirk says:

    that makes my tongue hard.

  19. Pretentious White Girl says:

    Oh my god… All that bare man-flesh… I…

    .

    *swoon*

  20. i_am_#1 says:

    Allow me to quote from an OLD daffy duck cartoon….
    “Drool, drool”

  21. senor says:

    All you asswhipes still pissed about a proposal not passing and troll on people who did support it should be shot. It was a fair propsol, and people are entitled to their opinion. Thank god no one here went on a religious speach, as many of defendents do.
    Also show some support for our troops. They’ve done more then you ever will.

    • TS says:

      Way to totally miss the point.

      • viking gal says:

        Dahlin, we TOTALLY support the troops…and admire the effect of all of that hard exercise! And if they didn’t want us to admire that effect, they wouldn’t be posing, would they?

    • Jane St.Clair says:

      Wow, you fail at life. Congratulations. Please to remove yourself from that high horse you’re riding.

    • Tessie says:

      Yeah, Proposition 8 is a serious issue, and the gentlemen pictured should have a fair opportunity to discuss their opinions with me… in my chambers.

      *sound of door locking*

      • Jane St.Clair says:

        *snicker* Well now Tessie, there’s an awful large amount of them. For effeciency sake I’m pretty sure you’ll need my help. I’ll take half.

        • rhorho says:

          Not so fast, Tootz! *employs unfair use of elbows*
          There are 15 of them, so it’s better to divide by 3, anyway. I get the one who looks like froos husband! *licks him to establish dibs*

          • Tessie says:

            Heck, if I can share bon-bons, I can share hunks. Sharing is nice.

            `

            *unlocks door*
            *has hunks bring snack trays and umbrella drinks to poolside*

            • Jane St.Clair says:

              Superior service you got here, Tess, and your Mama would be proud of the sharing! ; )

              • froofrou says:

                How ironic is it that this comment is number 69? ; )

              • Tessie says:

                Mom has always taught by example, and sharing is no exception. We agree that she has dibs on Sean Connery, and Johnny Depp is all mine. Everybody’s happy.

                • froofrou says:

                  No! Johnny Depp is MINE!!!!
                  -
                  *tackles Tessie*

                  • Tessie says:

                    OOF! Good thing I have enough badonkadonk to cushion my landing. (thinks) What would you say to a Johnny Depp/Jared Leto trade-off on alternate days?

                    • froofrou says:

                      You can keep Leto, his eyebrows are too bushy. What about a Depp/Pitt trade-off? But only if I can have Brad nekkid with a bow around him.

                      • Tessie says:

                        Well, obviously, we’re going to need to have a pool (no pun intended) of er-uh… talent, with schedules and sign-up sheets and so forth. For starters, I suggest Johnny Depp, Jared Leto, Brad Pitt…
                        do we have agreement on George Clooney? He’s a little sassy, but I think he just needs some discipline. Feel free to write in your own suggestion(s).

                        • froofrou says:

                          Clooney you can have too. No argument there *hands over*
                          -
                          But I want total and forever dibs on Dwayne Johnson. Since you mentioned Clooney, what about Noah Wyle?

                        • Tessie says:

                          You can have Dwayne and Noah.
                          `
                          I don’t know if I’d exactly describe him as a hunk, but have you heard/read about this?:
                          `
                          `
                          “The day after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Steve Buscemi, who worked as a firefighter from 1980-1984, showed up at his old fire station, Engine Company No. 55 in the Little Italy section of New York.

                          For the next week he worked 12-hour shifts, digging through the rubble trying to find the bodies of missing firefighters, all the while refusing to do interviews or have his picture taken. “

                        • froofrou says:

                          Steve Buscemi is one of those guys who I’m attracted to, but I have no idea why and won’t admit it in mixed company. I loved him in Armageddon.

                        • froofrou says:

                          Oh, I also want Paul Wingfield!

                        • Tessie says:

                          Steve Buscemi is not only brave, but I heard he has an IQ of 158. Plus, he looks like Batboy from weekly world news.

                        • froofrou says:

                          Does he get to come to No Pants Island [TM]?

                        • rhorho says:

                          While you two sort that schedule thing out, I’m going to go rescue me some “boat people,” okay? : D

                        • Matthew says:

                          Is it too late for dibbs on Paul Rudd?

                        • dissimilitude says:

                          I can’t help but notice nobody’s claimed Clive Owen, so I call dibsies!

                        • I did not know that. Steve, wherever you are, I salute you. *salutes*

                        • wundawomun says:

                          I’ll take Orlando Bloom & Chris Martin. Oh~Takeshi Kaneshiro as well.

                          My friend calls Steve Buscemi her GROT. Gross but hot. I can’t think of one at the moment.

                        • Tessie says:

                          Jeez!

                          We almost forgot Hugh Jackman!

                          AND Viggo Mortensen!

                          Curiosity: Do you suppose Viggo Mortensen spends his spare time hanging around with Ving Rhames?

                        • froofrou says:

                          Who played Cyclops in X-Men? I want him! And Patrick Stewart…..*sigh* Dreamy old guy!

                  • Tessie says:

                    Also, please try to avoid tackling and other horseplay at poolside. It tends to spill the snack trays and umbrella drinks, and then the hunks have to go make more, when we have better uses for their time and energy, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

    • Seiber says:

      Oh, I am supporting the troops.

      I’m very, VERY supportive of the troops. Mmm.

    • ck says:

      Can someone explain to me how Prop8 was “fair”?

    • Seth says:

      Oh my. Where to start? “Wipes” there’s no h in it. PropOsal. SpeEch. DefendAnts. Enough with the syntax, let’s move on to content.

      The proposal was to BAN gay marriage, and it passed. For about the millionth time, we’re a constitutional republic, you can’t pass an unconstitutional law. Nobody should be shot for expressing an opinion, no matter how stupid or uneducated they may be. It was NOT a fair proposal. I’m entitled to my opinion that YOUR opinion sucks. There are plenty of people here who actually practice a religion and discuss it in civil terms. This LOL does not disrespect the troops. And while I salute their courage and bravery, and I honor all our veterans, our troops haven’t done anything recently to make us any safer. Not their fault, of course.

      • inked_hippie says:

        actually it just banned the term “marriage” when referring to a same sex union. They have the same rights under their legally protected “same sex union”, they just can’t call it marriage.

        The whole thing is stupid to me. I’m sick of it already. Both sides. You wanna be with someone? Be with them. End of story.

        • ck says:

          Ya, give everyone marriages and let that floaty guy in the sky sort it out!

        • slanagat says:

          This is wrong in more ways than I’m qualified to enumerate in detail, but Numbers 1 through approx. 1,070 are the rights, privileges and benefits granted to MARRIED couples under Federal law that do not apply to civil unions.

          Make civil union a federally recognized legal status with full rights, privileges and benefits of marriage, and then we’ll talk about what’s stupid.

          • inked_hippie says:

            just so I’m clear…what exactly are the rights, privileges and benefits of marriage??

            honestly. I’m not being a jerk, I swear. I’m just asking. =)

            • Jane St.Clair says:

              Ummm, please to refer back a couple of lols. The one about civil rights movement was the most recent gay marriage fight we’ve had, but we’ve had plenty in the last two weeks. Just browse the previous threads, they’ve been listed.

              • rhorho says:

                Yeah, it’s the one with the black guy holding up the yellow sign with the word “marraige” (misspelled) on it. There really are a lot of legal differences between marriage and civil unions.

            • charro says:

              Well, first you get the right to be miserable until death do you part.. Second you have the privilege to argue about the most inane things until you are in sickness not health.. Third you have the benefit of knowing that everything you have is 50% theirs.
              /end sarcasm
              Personally, I think everyone is entitled to the same recognition under the law.. I think it says that somewhere too.. Law recognizes me and my partner, but ignores my friend and his partner? Blah blah blah so on and so forth. Can’t pick and choose who freedoms apply to just cause someone objects to who you take in your bedroom.

              • Tessie says:

                “Well, first you get the right to be miserable until death do you part.. Second you have the privilege to argue about the most inane things until you are in sickness not health.”

                Tch, tch. So young, and yet so cynical. You also get to write thank you notes for six identical Mr. Coffees received as wedding presents, discuss all the things you ate that day that you shouldn’t have eaten (and the inevitable aftereffects), tell big fat lies to get each other out of boring events that you don’t want to go to… the possibilities are endless.

            • PortlandMark says:

              In Oregon, where I live, the word “marriage” occurs in over two hundred places, where the rights of those who are married are enumerated.

              The phrase “civil unions” only appears in half that number, and not one of those says “shall have all the rights granted to a marriage.”

    • Tessie says:

      “All you asswhipes … should be shot. … people are entitled to their opinion.”

      You gotta love that logic!

      • rhorho says:

        I think baby was definitely upset during that mess! I wonder if he will reread his words after he has calmed down…
        Come on! Logical conclusion: People are entitled to be shot for their opinion???

        • rhorho says:

          I didn’t get this far during the first read, but “Also show some support for our troops. They’ve done more then you ever will.”
          .
          WTF??? We have no military peeps on here? Evidently, the guy has some set attitudes about who we are that don’t bear up well in the light of day.

          • charro says:

            Also.. How does he know that any given non-military peep hasn’t done as much, if not more, for this country? Do we all have bios somewhere that I’m missing? Mine clearly needs to be updated then to say “Cured cancer”, “Saved the world from Pinky and the Brain” and “Single handedly stopped pollution from destroying the ozone layer”. @@
            Seems a little unfair to say that just because someone serves/d in the military that they have done more than someone who hasn’t. That’s pretty much saying “My military service makes me better than you”, and saying nothing afterwards.
            Military service is an admirable admirable thing to do. Many heroic acts are performed by the military. But not having military service in your background doesn’t automatically mean that one cannot, or has not, contributed just as much heroism.

            • rhorho says:

              LOL!!
              He didn’t claim to have been in the military, so I assume that he hasn’t been. In my dealing with this sort, I doubt he would leave that part of his CV out of *any* conversation, otherwise.
              Wow–You have quite an impressive CV! (And here I thought you only went around saying koochie-koochie!)

              • charro says:

                No no, my name has two “r”s in it. That imposter only has 1 “r” because I told her I would sue otherwise ;-)
                Thanks!

              • charro says:

                I made a nice comment to this, but apparently it has been swallowed by the aether.
                Something about my name has two “r”s while the imposters has 1. Sorry if the original comment is spewed out later.

                • charro says:

                  AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA THERE IT IS!!!! This site freaks me out sometimes.

                  • rhorho says:

                    Yeah, it does that. It can *sometimes* be avoided if you don’t use emoticons.
                    I’m sorry for the Charo/Charro mix-up. I wasn’t old enough to spell during “the imposter’s” popularity. ;o)

                    • charro says:

                      But the important part is, now you CAN spell. Seems to be a lost art nowadays…

                      • rhorho says:

                        Yes, and thank you. You seem to get the letters in the right frequency and order, as well. :o )
                        Today was flukey in terms of misspelling. Even “Born to be mild” contained a capitalization error. I giggled when I first saw it, thinking the captioner had possibly chosen smaller words to ensure spelling success. ;o)

                        • charro says:

                          This really has nothing to do with anything but I laughed at myself. I usually don’t pay attention to spelling, grammar, punctualization, etc. while instant messaging with my friends. So, today at work I was telling my friend (or trying to) that my computer was sounding like a jet about to take off (it makes this obnoxious whirring sound every 32 seconds)
                          Except what I TYPED was “my computer sounds like a jew about to take off”. Then I saw what I wrote and just lost it. My next send was “LOL nice typo Charro, sheesh”.
                          I’m still laughing about it. LOL.
                          Enjoy.

                      • ruledbyfantima says:

                        yez, nat menny peepol cin spel thees daiz. tee hee

        • charro says:

          HAHAHAHA!!! Your opinion differs from mine so it’s ok that I now shoot you! Thousands of years of civilization have come to that. Sweet!
          My bosses opinion on my raise differs than mine.. can I shoot him too?

    • Paul says:

      Ooh, a nice collection of name-calling, point-missing, ignorance of current events, childish jingoism, and inability to use words properly. Also some non-sentences, and recitation of pseudo-patriotic right-wing nonsense.

      Chanting ignorant slogans is not patriotism.

    • bluejade says:

      Have another beer.

    • LurkinMerkin says:

      if ur calling people who dont support prop 8 trolls, i suggest you reread your own comment. People are entitled to their opinions, and i think we’re all fine with that, but when they take their opinions and make them into laws that take fundamental rights way from people, thats when we have a problem.
      *disclaimer* if what i read as a typo in the beginning of your comment -all you asswipes still pissed about a proposal **not** passing- was not a typo and you arent meaning what i think you are, then yes, i will have some mustard with my crow.

    • ruledbyfantima says:

      wow. if you’re calling people trolls, you should reread your comment. People are entitled to their opinions, and i support that, but when they take their opinions that exclude people from having fundamental rights and try to make them law, that’s when we have a problem. calling anyone who doesnt support prop 8 names mean that you are lowering yourself to the level of people who stand on the streets with signs saying things like “God hates f*g enablers”. Also, while i agree that our troops are definitely important and support their bravery, i think there are more important things one could do with one’s life than fight wars over oil. Im not implying that i dont support the people fighting, i just dont support the war.

  22. lowly grunt says:

    I have a sudden urge for beef tonight – the h*ll with chicken…..

  23. Missy says:

    There’s a caption!?

    Yummm!

  24. Richard Simmons says:

    “Fleets In !!! Well, HELLO Sailor!”

  25. bootothat says:

    I’m sorry, what did you guys say?
    It’s just that…..I….. can’t….. stop….. looking.
    Delicious, delicious, delicious men.
    I’ll take “omg I need new panties” for a thousand, Alex :)

  26. Psarah says:

    I can only see half of the picture… is that happening to anyone else?

  27. mouse says:

    I’m a proud Veteran of the US Navy and I voted no on prop 8. So bite me “senor.”

  28. SPCOsborne says:

    As a member of the army, I just want to impart this little bit of wisdom upon all of you to think about….actually, 2 bits of wisdom.

    “If you can’t laugh, the terrorists have already won”
    and
    “We’ve all got bellybuttons, so we’ve all got something in common.”

    So just chill out, and relax.

    Oh, and ladies: If you’re looking for a not-as-fit alternative to these guys, just gimme a holler and I’ll start encoding my messages for you to contact me with.

  29. ElbieSee says:

    Hey, Navy guys, I have a couple of propositions that you can’t say no too…

    *rawr!*

  30. notolaf says:

    Go Navy!

  31. pictlady says:

    amendment 8 ? what?
    Who Cares?
    GO NAVY. YUM.

  32. rob says:

    Okay, everyone is missing the irony here.

    A bunch of sweaty muscle men standing around in cheesy tough-guy poses wearing nothing but matching black shorts. That is SOOOOO gay! It really makes one wonder whether they’re posing for women or posing for men.

    • froofrou says:

      Irony FAIL on you, rob. That’s the point of the caption!

      • rob says:

        That’s why I said “everyone is missing” the irony. FAIL for lack of reading comprehension.

        • rhorho says:

          No, you fail. Twice now. Are you going for a record?
          We *all* get it, Rob. That’s a given, so nobody feels the need to explain it.
          Do you really think nobody else understood, except *you?*
          *sigh*

          • froofrou says:

            Rob’s the most smartest man in the whole widest world. And he’s the most handsomest and the most bravest and the most mostest ever!
            -
            /sarcasm. *rolls eyes at rob, points and giggles with rho*

          • rob says:

            Okay, so I missed the “got its” between the women and men drooling and the argument over Prop 8. I’m an idiot and my face sends children & women running away in horror. Even my dog hates me now.

            I hope you charming ladies have a wonderful evening :)

    • LurkinMerkin says:

      The great thing is, it doesn’t matter! Since I can’t really have them anyway, their actual gay-or-straightness isn’t an issue. “It’s my fantasy, fella, get busy!”
      They could all pair off and get married tomorrow and my best wishes to ‘em, but the pic is still hot.
      And funny.
      And politically pertinent.

  33. Rafiq of the many says:

    No “plunder his booty” jokes? Disappointed.

  34. Mallory Knox says:

    makes me miss working around SEAL Team 8 and the MDSU-2 divers….mmmmmmmm. Keep in mind the average sailor is NOT built like these fine specimens…

  35. iamiam80 says:

    Wow… who knew a damn photo with a few words on it would cause so much freakin discussion. That’s an lol in itself if you ask me!

  36. bgcmeowrrrr says:

    Hey everyone on this post thread!

    The stuff you’ve been discussing abt right/left wing bias seems to be an issue that
    has been commented on in this article regarding “the Confirmation Bias”.”

    The Powerful Pull of Belief
    by Michael Shermer

    Op Ed in LA Times 11-18-08

    I want to hear this being bandied about!

  37. phil says:

    they’re SEALs from Coronado, like someone above said. they are men of olympic athletic shape and extremely intelligent. also, they have killed more people than your liberal heads would know what to do with; so shut the fuc* up.

  38. Ben says:

    what is proposition 8?

  39. Danbala says:

    Clicking my name here takes you to a wikipedia article explaining it. In short, it was the Californian proposition that made same-sex-marriage illegal.

  40. Matdredalia says:

    See the two guys with their hands over their junk?

    They’re the only two in that picture that aren’t gay.

    And I’m good with that! HOOYAH!

  41. Bethany says:

    Some of those guys aren’t too bad.

  42. Tom says:

    If they take off their pants I would vote no on propersition 8!!!

  43. Josh says:

    OOOH man those navy guys could kick your ass, good luck running.

  44. lawlmaker says:

    Oh wow. You’re just wrong on so many points. I’m gonna try to answer real quick.
    Firstly: Does it have a huge negative effect? YES. People of the same sex can’t legally get married and can therefore not recieve many benefits their married next door neighbours get – simply because they’re a man and a woman. So, a marriage is something that is strictly between a man and a woman? SAYS WHO? Oh believe you me, I’m somewhat of a language expert, marriage is not the Christians’ word. I don’t even wanna get into all that! If you don’t get my arguments by now, you probably never will.
    Secondly: Should it be an insult? Are you saying you’re better than someone because she happens to have a girlfriend? Is that what you’re saying? That you’re superior? Because if that’s what you’re saying, then your argument makes sense.

  45. Paul says:

    “And please explain how banning something is unconstitutional.”

    Whoever said that banning things is unconstitutional?

    You have no idea what the issue is about.

  46. charro says:

    Wait wait wait. You know, someone COULD make the argument that banning weed HAS had a huge negative effect. As a result of this ban there is a HUGE drug trade supporting countries that produce marijuana. The U.S. has the position that these coutnries are bad, because they produce drugs, yet at a street level that very country derives much of it’s capital from us buying drugs! That makes us “supporters” of the country or countries we condemn! There is a HUGE influx of illegal marijuana that comes into this country. There is NO regulation of the illegal marijuana so there’s no guarantee that what you are buying is “good” much less “safe”. People are making massive amounts of cash distributing illegal marijuana! So in effect, by banning it we created a giant black market. In addition, since it is a schedule 1 drug it is hard to get a research permit on it, and it could have great medicinal benefits. It’s already shown to help out people with glaucoma and help people getting chemo reduce some of the ill-side effects of chemo. One could argue these are huge negative effects. EVERYTHING has a good side and a bad side to it.
    Gay people not allowed to be married? Negative effect is… Gays are less of people than straights. “We don’t like your dirty butt sex so we won’t acknowledge that your love is the same as straight people and provide you the same options straight people have”. What’s next? What do we decide to ban next because we don’t like it? Not drugs, but human rights.
    Besides, um. Banning drugs is way way way different than telling gay people that they are somehow less than straight people because they like and love people of the same sex. Sure, everyone has the right to their opinion, but it’s not right to tell one group of people that because you disagree with how they live their lives you are going to make a law that makes them a second class group of people.

  47. A says:

    thank you roybatty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  48. A says:

    insult in the common man’s eyes????????? wtf? grow up!!!!!!!!!

  49. froofrou says:

    It’s unconstitutional in that it violates equal protection under the law.

  50. Paul says:

    Banning gay marriage does. Banning things in general does not.

    The guy I responded to doesn’t seem to have noticed the difference (as demonstrated in the line of his I quoted).

  51. rhorho says:

    @ Both: You are both right, of course. I’m sorry if this is a silly question, but do you ever wonder how people like this guy *function* IRL, day-to-day?

  52. froofrou says:

    I think he had to push the helmet up from his forehead to see the keyboard well enough to type.

  53. rhorho says:

    When will I learn not to eat or drink while reading your posts?

  54. charro says:

    I don’t think he pushed it up far enough.

  55. froofrou says:

    *hands rho a sticky note to put on her computer that says “Do Not Eat Or Drink While Reading Froofroo’s Posts”*
    -
    : )

  56. rhorho says:

    Wipes remainder of chicken strip off monitor; places post-it note next to fortune cookie insert.

  57. Matthew says:

    Rhorho, if anything comes up in the future, would you please be on my side?

    ~ shudders meekly at the previous retort ~

    ;o)

  58. DOH!!! CURSE YOU PK!!!

    It pasted it twice… -_-

  59. rhorho says:

    That’s okay–It’s good to have a second copy, in case something happens to the first one. *blink, blink*

  60. rhorho says:

    It’s automatic, Dahlink! ;^)

  61. True though it makes the end into a giant run on. I didn’t need any help looking out of it today though I guess I can’t blame PK for helping… *grumble*

    And I liked that post too. Grrr.

  62. charro says:

    I know it’s just a typo, but “copypasta” really made me want some lasagne. Slightly off topic.

  63. Jim M. says:

    This is just about the most concise and precise comment on this subject I have ever read, making the point to those not especially enamored of fondness toward homosexuality at the same time.

    I am a homosexual myself. But even I have an “ick factor” where some men are concerned. Watching two, fat sissy guys with beards smooching is almost enough to induce vomiting in me as well.

    But then when one sees two visages of male beauty, such as maybe a guy who looks like actor Josh Hartnett making love to a guy who looks like actor James Marsden, or looking at the finely chiseled bodies of handsome male gymnasts, then the “ick factor” may become a “lick factor.”

    But thank you for sharing your intelligence. In these times, especially, such is appreciated and very much needed.

  64. Tessie says:

    I could be mistaken, but the original parallel was:

    “Weed is banned. Does it have a huge negative effect? No.
    Gay marriage is banned. Does it have a huge negative effect? No.”

    I interpreted this as, “Weed is banned, even though it [weed] does not have a huge negative effect. Similarly, gay marriage is banned, even though it [gay marriage] does not have a huge negative effect”.

    The ambiguity lies in exactly what “it” refers to, but I think he meant that the banned substances/practices do not have a negative effect, not that the banning itself doesn’t have a negative effect. If so, it makes his premise read substantially differently.

  65. It was intentional, not a typo. Something I picked up from elsewhere when it comes to debating/discussion and the person is acknowledging they are copying and then pasting from another area.

    In keeping with your comments. I have Alfredo sauce with Italian sausage with noddles for my lunch today. I love Lynn. ^_^

  66. charro says:

    Interesting. Learn something new everyday.
    I don’t have a lunch today sadly. I forgot it and my hubby is 1800 miles away :-(
    But maybe I’ll make a tasty batch of lasagne for myself tomorrow. MMmmmmMMMM lasagne.

  67. Good deal, sorry about the hubby location though.

  68. slanagat says:

    Thanksgiving lasagne?

    Whatever turns you on…de gustibus &c.

  69. charro says:

    Thank you. I do miss him terribly. He always made nice lunches for me. :-(

  70. Matthew says:

    I am a conservative Christian on the religious right. Gay marriage won’t be in my life, and yet I have no reason to oppose it.
    I just don’t want to be lumped in with angry or abusive people. Not all Christians (conservative or otherwise) are against it. It’s a non-issue.
    :|

  71. It was copypasta from another LOL comment thread where somebody was talking about the RR being forced. I wasn’t trying to pick on ya and apologize for the misconception. :D

  72. Cuz PK ate my post, I will do this. *hugs* No worries, I wasn’t trying to pick on ya. In the other place this was posted, somebody was making a statement that the RR was being forced on this issue. Apologies for the confusion. Wasn’t targeting you.

  73. rhorho says:

    *needs another post-it note*

  74. rhorho says:

    I read those off-topic distractions the same way you did. Each one is an example of a “Straw Man Fallacy.” Click my name for a good explanation.

  75. rhorho says:

    Sorry–wrong link up there. This one’s better. (Click name.)

  76. charro says:

    *sigh*
    I don’t have anywhere to be for thanksgiving and nuking a turkey tv dinner is just way too depressing. Plus, I like to cook and love lasagne, so I might as well treat myself.

  77. charro says:

    Thanks for that, been meaning to take a refresher on my informal fallacies. Been a while since logic class.
    Though, this one always makes me think of “Burning Man” and then I just get sidetracked.
    I posted something before I left work… 5 hours ago… I think it genuinely was eaten. No smileys either.

  78. Matthew says:

    No problemo! I wasn’t taking it personally, just wanting to show another side of the “right side.”

    Now, that said, I am a bit of a homo myself…

    Thanks for replying though. I’m enjoying this thread!
    :P

  79. slanagat says:

    I bet you’re not anywhere near Connecticut/Rhode Island….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Newsletter Sign-up