What's new

BMore Riots?

Economic mobility is much higher in several countries in Western Europe. Meaning, the American Dream is happening in Europe, not America.

Finland's education system is widely considered one of the best in the world. Germany has had to deal with innovation and globalization yet has somehow maintained their manufacturing base.

Most of Western Europe has universal health care. Including much more time for maternity leave and paid vacation. Oh and lower infant mortality rates.

Most western Europeans work fewer hours than Americans yet many Western European countries have longer lifespans.

Most Western European countries are light years ahead of us in energy and infrastructure development.

And some of the happiest countries in the world are located in Western Europe.

So what happened to the American Dream? Why are so many Western Europeans obtaining it?

If Americans want solutions to the plight seen in so many of its cities, why try to reinvent the wheel? Why not look at Europe? Hell why not look at Canada? Have they not had to deal with globalization, ghettos, and racism? Is poverty just an American thing?

Methinks you need to do more research on this subject before you comment further.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I think people fail to account for the security blanket the U.S. provides to western Europe with our massive military capabilities.

What does Europe do if the U.S. war machine vanishes?

Can they afford to provide for their own defense?

Does WWIII break out and the smaller countries get gobbled up?

If we didn't pay for such a huge military we'd have a lot of money to spend on education and health care.

I for one am a huge proponent of drastically reducing and refocusing our military. If we can defend our own boarders I'm happy.

When I was overseas on a U.S. aircraft carrier I felt like I was on the Death Star. It was a giant machine of oppression that was costing the people I signed up to protect tons of money. I didn't feel like a freedom fighter. I felt like we were there showing everyone else who was boss.
 
Economic mobility is much higher in several countries in Western Europe. Meaning, the American Dream is happening in Europe, not America.

Finland's education system is widely considered one of the best in the world. Germany has had to deal with innovation and globalization yet has somehow maintained their manufacturing base.

Most of Western Europe has universal health care. Including much more time for maternity leave and paid vacation. Oh and lower infant mortality rates.

Most western Europeans work fewer hours than Americans yet many Western European countries have longer lifespans.

Most Western European countries are light years ahead of us in energy and infrastructure development.

And some of the happiest countries in the world are located in Western Europe.

So what happened to the American Dream? Why are so many Western Europeans obtaining it?

If Americans want solutions to the plight seen in so many of its cities, why try to reinvent the wheel? Why not look at Europe? Hell why not look at Canada? Have they not had to deal with globalization, ghettos, and racism? Is poverty just an American thing?

Methinks you need to do more research on this subject before you comment further.
yet no europe government fears it citizens, citizen fear the government.
no right to bear arms.

eg NO FREEDOM!
but i think germany is the exception to the rule.
there are kings and royals scattered all over the place.
 
yet no europe government fears it citizens, citizen fear the government.
no right to bear arms.

eg NO FREEDOM!
but i think germany is the exception to the rule.
there are kings and royals scattered all over the place.

What a complete juvenile definition of freedom you have.

What about the freedom of being able to work where you want without fear of going bankrupt for not having health insurance?

What about the freedom to actually go on (paid) vacation and enjoy life?

What about the freedom to live longer than Americans? Or not have your child die under the age of 1? Or not having nearly as high of gun violence? The freedom to get married to who you want? Or to have a college education, stable career, and retirement? The freedom of not having your biology classes overrun with silly creationism nonsense?

Our neighbors to the north enjoy much more overall freedom than we do. In 2008, when many countries saw economic disaster, Canada's finance sector was untouched. Their banks are far more regulated than ours. As a result, the vast majority of Canadians didn't see their retirements evaporate like so many Americans. They can live and retire how and when they want rather than remaining as slaves to our system. When our insurance companies and banks ****ed up our retirements we gave them a bailout to prevent an economic atomic bomb on our country. Canada? Didn't see anything like that. Now to me, that's real freedom... Much more than playing cowboy with pistols.

But yeah let's focus on bitching about gun regulation. Cuz guns are the be all end all measurement of freedom.
 
What a complete juvenile definition of freedom you have.

What about the freedom of being able to work where you want without fear of going bankrupt for not having health insurance?

What about the freedom to actually go on (paid) vacation and enjoy life?

What about the freedom to live longer than Americans? Or not have your child die under the age of 1? Or not having nearly as high of gun violence? The freedom to get married to who you want? Or to have a college education, stable career, and retirement? The freedom of not having your biology classes overrun with silly creationism nonsense?

Our neighbors to the north enjoy much more overall freedom than we do. In 2008, when many countries saw economic disaster, Canada's finance sector was untouched. Their banks are far more regulated than ours. As a result, the vast majority of Canadians didn't see their retirements evaporate like so many Americans. They can live and retire how and when they want rather than remaining as slaves to our system. When our insurance companies and banks ****ed up our retirements we gave them a bailout to prevent an economic atomic bomb on our country. Canada? Didn't see anything like that. Now to me, that's real freedom... Much more than playing cowboy with pistols.

But yeah let's focus on bitching about gun regulation. Cuz guns are the be all end all measurement of freedom.

I think this is about the ultimate ignorance of what "Freedom" means.

Ambrose Bierce, a devoted socialist, if not communist, had a better idea, and a sense of humor about it too.

Freedom, n. Exemption from the stress of authority in a beggarly half dozen of restraint's infinite multitude of methods. A political condition that every nation supposes itself to enjoy in virtual monopoly. Liberty. The distinction between freedom and liberty is not accurately known; naturalists have never been able to find a living specimen of either.

Freedom, as every schoolboy knows,
Once shrieked as Kosciusko fell; [*]
On every wind, indeed, that blows
I hear her yell.

She screams whenever monarchs meet,
And parliaments as well,
To bind the chains about her feet
And toll her knell.

And when the sovereign people cast
The votes they cannot spell,
Upon the pestilential blast
Her clamors swell.

For all to whom the power's given
To sway or to compel,
Among themselves apportion Heaven
And give her Hell.

Blary O'Gary.



* [Ed. note: Kosciuszko, Thaddeus [1746-1817]: American revolutionary.]

Ambrose Bierce [1842-1914] was an American newspaper columnist, satirist, essayist, short-story writer, and novelist. A friend of Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken, Bierce vanished mysteriously during the Mexican Civil War.

Ambrose Bierce, The Cynic's Word Book (New York: Doubleday, 1906), p. 45. Republished as The Devil's Dictionary (New York: Dover, 1958). The Devil's Dictionary is in the public domain and can be read in its entirety on the Web at The Berkeley Digital Library SunSITE.

https://www.swans.com/library/art7/xxx070.html
 
I think this is about the ultimate ignorance of what "Freedom" means.

Ambrose Bierce, a devoted socialist, if not communist, had a better idea, and a sense of humor about it too.



https://www.swans.com/library/art7/xxx070.html

My hell...

Are some of you blind?

Under Canadian/W. European "Socialism":

A. You live longer
B. Your ability to move up and down the economic ladder is greater
C. You have access to affordable health care without worrying about going bankrupt
D. You work less yet earn more
E. You receive a better education
F. Your retirement isn't pissed away by unregulated banks
G. You are happier

If you don't think these aren't examples of freedom then at least admit that they lead to greater freedom.

Talk to your avg Wal-Mart worker. Talk to your average American dad working 50 hrs for $35k and no pension or paid vacation, insurance plan with a high deductible, and 401k that could go away at any minute, and see how "free" he truly is compared to his "socialist" counterparts.

We here in America have a pretty blind idea (like your post only reinforced) of what freedom really is. Why? Because, like the coverage of the Baltimore riots, our media is damn good at distracting us from the core problems and from figuring out any solutions. "Hey look! A preacher is on the corner telling us that we gotta make the gays not get gay merried or else the plight in Baltimore will continue! Lets give him some money! Murika! Guns! USA USA USA!"

or, in your case:

"Hey! Rather than address any of the data provided, I'll provide a quote from made by someone decades before who had nothing to do with the situation and sound real smart! That'll prove that my Murikan way is always da best. Cuz Murika is the best. USA USA USA!"

America in the late 30s until the mid 60s did pretty well under "Socialism." We were far more socialist back then than we are now. Banks were heavily regulated, Murika actually invested in GI Bills, NASA, roads, and domestic projects that have been shot down these days, monopolies were smashed, the President (a former military guy) actually cut defense spending, and the rich were heavily taxed.

Eisenhower hated job creators and redistributed wealth to build his "great society" of freeways. What a commie.
 
Last edited:
yet no europe government fears it citizens, citizen fear the government.
no right to bear arms.

eg NO FREEDOM!
but i think germany is the exception to the rule.
there are kings and royals scattered all over the place.

And we don't here? Americans don't fear their own government?

You're a complete dumbass.
 
My hell...

Are some of you blind?

Under Canadian/W. European "Socialism":

A. You live longer
B. Your ability to move up and down the economic ladder is greater
C. You have access to affordable health care without worrying about going bankrupt
D. You work less yet earn more
E. You receive a better education
F. Your retirement isn't pissed away by unregulated banks
G. You are happier

If you don't think these aren't examples of freedom then at least admit that they lead to greater freedom.

Talk to your avg Wal-Mart worker. Talk to your average American dad working 50 hrs for $35k and no pension or paid vacation, insurance plan with a high deductible, and 401k that could go away at any minute, and see how "free" he truly is compared to his "socialist" counterparts.

We here in America have a pretty blind idea (like your post only reinforced) of what freedom really is. Why? Because, like the coverage of the Baltimore riots, our media is damn good at distracting us from the core problems and from figuring out any solutions. "Hey look! A preacher is on the corner telling us that we gotta make the gays not get gay merried or else the plight in Baltimore will continue! Lets give him some money! Murika! Guns! USA USA USA!"

or, in your case:

"Hey! Rather than address any of the data provided, I'll provide a quote from made by someone decades before who had nothing to do with the situation and sound real smart! That'll prove that my Murikan way is always da best. Cuz Murika is the best. USA USA USA!"

America in the late 30s until the mid 60s did pretty well under "Socialism." We were far more socialist back then than we are now. Banks were heavily regulated, Murika actually invested in GI Bills, NASA, roads, and domestic projects that have been shot down these days, monopolies were smashed, the President (a former military guy) actually cut defense spending, and the rich were heavily taxed.

Eisenhower hated job creators and redistributed wealth to build his "great society" of freeways. What a commie.

All of the other rhetoric aside, I think Thriller's larger point is valid. The US can learn from other countries, which seem to have figured things out differently, and perhaps, better than we have, although it's hard to make direct comparisons because the context is sometimes quite different.

The problem doing this, however, is that it vogue here in the US to think and loudly proclaim that everything the US does is better, inherently, than everything else every other country does. Part and parcel of this type of thinking is to dismiss anything Europe does as European type socialism, which is a short hand way to alleviate us of the burden of considering options outside of those only available within this society and culture. This uncritical, reflexive American exceptionalism is a real stumbling block to opening up the range of possible solutions to the problems we have here. It's frustrating when even otherwise intelligent persons (e.g., Mitt Romney) fall prey to such simplistic thinking. But it is a loud, shrill bombastic strategy employed primarily on the right to shout down any consideration of solutions that our European friends might have to offer. Why, after all, would anyone want to even consider solutions adopted by damned socialists who's every policy is so inherently and obviously inferior to all the great wonderful, beyond reproach best in the world (and it's not even close) policies we have in the US?
 
I invite everyone to come and live in New Zealand. Rated the most 'free' country in the world.

Just tell them fgcamel sent ya ;)
 
What a complete juvenile definition of freedom you have.

What about the freedom of being able to work where you want without fear of going bankrupt for not having health insurance?

What about the freedom to actually go on (paid) vacation and enjoy life?

What about the freedom to live longer than Americans? Or not have your child die under the age of 1? Or not having nearly as high of gun violence? The freedom to get married to who you want? Or to have a college education, stable career, and retirement? The freedom of not having your biology classes overrun with silly creationism nonsense?

Our neighbors to the north enjoy much more overall freedom than we do. In 2008, when many countries saw economic disaster, Canada's finance sector was untouched. Their banks are far more regulated than ours. As a result, the vast majority of Canadians didn't see their retirements evaporate like so many Americans. They can live and retire how and when they want rather than remaining as slaves to our system. When our insurance companies and banks ****ed up our retirements we gave them a bailout to prevent an economic atomic bomb on our country. Canada? Didn't see anything like that. Now to me, that's real freedom... Much more than playing cowboy with pistols.

But yeah let's focus on bitching about gun regulation. Cuz guns are the be all end all measurement of freedom.

all that is meaningless if you cannot defend yourself. it is instinct and a right for every living being to protect themself.
but hey cant even use a screwdriver to protect myself.

btw the healthinsurance thing is overrated.
i am forced to buy a healtinsurance, that i dont need.
paying 100's of euros each year. but since 2003 i went 2 the doctor twice.
1 for std test which i had to pay for myself, the other for a minor broken nose. which cost about 50-100 dollars.
yet i pay 1000's a dollar each year so that people can smoke and become fat get cancer and get treated on my dime?

is that freedom, me paying thousands of dollars a year so smokers who get cancer, and fat people who get sick can go to doctor. while i love a healthy livestyle? yeah i feel free for this health insurance crap.


can even get my multiple time broken nose corrected because it is considered a cosmetic surgery. since i breathe just fine out of it.

but some douche bag can go around smoking and destroying his live on my dime.



btw std test are free for teh gays, because they are in what you call a risk group.
but for me they are not?
so they can take their healthcare system and shove it up their ***.



what pisses me off more, the amount of tax they collect on alcohol and tabaco is not used in the healthcare industry.

yet i know a guy who got alcohol poisoning 6 times in a year. he had to go to hospital 6 times most of em where an overnight stay. who pays for that. healthy people like me who take care of our health.


yeah freedom! me paying hard earned money so people can destroy their health on my dime!

need to adress your other issues, but yeah im to lazy. and some you are 100% right
 
all that is meaningless if you cannot defend yourself. it is instinct and a right for every living being to protect themself.
but hey cant even use a screwdriver to protect myself.

btw the healthinsurance thing is overrated.
i am forced to buy a healtinsurance, that i dont need.
paying 100's of euros each year. but since 2003 i went 2 the doctor twice.
1 for std test which i had to pay for myself, the other for a minor broken nose. which cost about 50-100 dollars.
yet i pay 1000's a dollar each year so that people can smoke and become fat get cancer and get treated on my dime?

is that freedom, me paying thousands of dollars a year so smokers who get cancer, and fat people who get sick can go to doctor. while i love a healthy livestyle? yeah i feel free for this health insurance crap.


can even get my multiple time broken nose corrected because it is considered a cosmetic surgery. since i breathe just fine out of it.

but some douche bag can go around smoking and destroying his live on my dime.



btw std test are free for teh gays, because they are in what you call a risk group.
but for me they are not?
so they can take their healthcare system and shove it up their ***.



what pisses me off more, the amount of tax they collect on alcohol and tabaco is not used in the healthcare industry.

yet i know a guy who got alcohol poisoning 6 times in a year. he had to go to hospital 6 times most of em where an overnight stay. who pays for that. healthy people like me who take care of our health.


yeah freedom! me paying hard earned money so people can destroy their health on my dime!

need to adress your other issues, but yeah im to lazy. and some you are 100% right

Freedom is not what Thrilled is looking for, or even Jimmy. Any good dictionary, even The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce recognizes that freedom or liberty involves actual choice available to an intelligent person. When you come to a fork in the road, or a roundabout say, you can make that decision about where you will go from there.

Offhand, it seems to me that people who love "socialism" or other top-down planned economic systems, consider "freedom" to be the privilege to sit on your bottomside and have something handed to you. "More Freedom" in the comparison is simple better provisions by the establishment.

I believe the stories we're being told about how much better more socialist countries' provisions are, in the examples cited, are inherently false arguments, philosophically-speaking, but also are not factual. Propaganda read from someone who disregards the actual facts in creating the website page, or the news article.

Logically, the argument is also false because of the assumption that what "'Merika" does is not socialist. Utah is an example of an extremely "socialist" State, I think largely because of the socialist nature of Mormonism, regardless of what a lot of people assume about Mormonism. King Benjamin, the fictional character of the Book of Mormon, was a socialist. Most Mormons consider his speech about caring for the poor and one another as something other than socialism, and may note that the sort of charity advocated is "voluntary", which is factually different from European ideals of "socialism" which assume a role for the government as the primary care-giver. At least Mormonism makes it a personal obligation for those who can help others. But it still looks at the world as comprised of two classes, and assigns the "haves" the responsibility to care for the "have-nots".

So I observe that Utah is "socialist" because in addition to State charities, there is the very significant Church charity, which also functions as a societal leveler, inserting a sort of ideological system of governance called a "Church" which is also "elitist", and also functions by accruing controlling interests in land, business enterprises, and banks, and a sort of "tax" in incomes of the individuals.

European socialism is a politically successful sort of fascism which "connects" the leadership of government with the leadership of business. Mormonism draws on the same class of successful elites to staff it's Church, and justifies it's existence by pointing to the services and goods it redistributes to the dependent feudal class, along with the societal values it passes down from on high.

Freedom is still entirely another subject.
 
I don't necessarily disagree with you but I think people fail to account for the security blanket the U.S. provides to western Europe with our massive military capabilities.

What does Europe do if the U.S. war machine vanishes?

Can they afford to provide for their own defense?

Does WWIII break out and the smaller countries get gobbled up?

If we didn't pay for such a huge military we'd have a lot of money to spend on education and health care.

I for one am a huge proponent of drastically reducing and refocusing our military. If we can defend our own boarders I'm happy.

When I was overseas on a U.S. aircraft carrier I felt like I was on the Death Star. It was a giant machine of oppression that was costing the people I signed up to protect tons of money. I didn't feel like a freedom fighter. I felt like we were there showing everyone else who was boss.

I find some sympathy for this view. I would state it differently. . . . your "Death Star" really doesn't serve "American" interests, but essentially a class of international elites whose common interests are served with the "status quo".

At that level of "common interests", Russia serves as government whose purpose is largely a strategic resource reservation mechanism that enhances the value of other cartel holdings. Britain is a tiny country, but still has a commanding corporate cartel interest in world resources. Competition from countries not directly owned by international cartels is reduced by political governance that precludes competitors from being successful.

If we pulled out our military presence in Europe, the socialist nations of Europe would have to provide their own defense, and might forge other alliances that might encourage economic competition. Russia likely would not militarily "invade" so much as economically flood the region with convenient resources. This competition would reduce the pre-eminence of western corporates.

also, I consider our education and medical establishments anti-competitive as well, and much more costly than such things need to be. Hooray for the corporate elites. We pay their price. We float their "Death Star" boats, and their cartel economic "Death Stars" as well.
 
Baltimore and Detroit seem to have been under majority democratic ruling since like forever.
is it a coincidence that these 2 cities are "****ty"and poor. or am i looking at it too simple?


would have wanted to make an own thread, but did not wanna be considered trollingFive of our poorest cities have been led by Democrats for more than 45 years. The two other cities on the list, Miami, FL and El Paso, TX have never had Republican mayors. Not ever.
 
Last edited:
Baltimore and Detroit seem to have been under majority democratic ruling since like forever.
is it a coincidence that these 2 cities are "****ty"and poor. or am i looking at it too simple?


would have wanted to make an own thread, but did not wanna be considered trolling

I would take this tangent off into the sunset, discussing the Indian Reservation system administered by the US. Dept. of Interior's BIA, "Bureau of Indian Affairs". I've never seen it discussed in mainstream media as a prototype for socialism, that has been run by the US govt since the 1830s when we did the Indian removals from east of the Mississippi to "clear the land" for whites.

After the Civil War, the whole idea of freedom for the blacks, the "former" slaves, has been largely misrepresented. The supposedly anti-slavery white carpetbag government officials who went south with federal appointments or to run for Southern State elected office never did give the blacks their "rights". The blacks became, in feudal English style", sharecroppers. Instead of being owned by the whites, they were "owned" by "The Man". They were similarly edged out of the "polite" society. And it was the Democratic party of that era that the southern whites turned to to keep the blacks on the "out", while the carpetbag, largely white Republicans that supported the economic part of the opportunity "out". But that's old history.

In the twentieth century, the "blue dog" or southern democrats have been "outed" from the Democratic Party, along with the real idea of Unions in the workplace. The Democratic Party has sold out entirely. Today's "Unions" are management puppets, a sort of "good cop" in the corporate good cop/bad cop structure of things at work. Democrats like Bill and Hillary, and Obama, are "wholly-owned subsidiaries" of the Rockefeller corporate structure. And the blacks are being kept on a sort of political "Reservation" under conditions of economic dependence.

One thing about the whole idea of importing fresh slave labor. . . . well. . . . substandard wage labor. . . . from places like Mexico. . . . and the so-called "Free Trade" pacts. . . . is that our corporates can access labor at reduced costs. And who suffers most from this as a racial class? The minorities. . . . the blacks, particularly the inner city blacks.

So, folks, Baltimore and Detroit are the result of sell-out Dems and RINO repubs having their way with our government. Indeed, the blacks in Baltimore are right to say it's "The Man".
 
Baltimore and Detroit seem to have been under majority democratic ruling since like forever.
is it a coincidence that these 2 cities are "****ty"and poor. or am i looking at it too simple?


would have wanted to make an own thread, but did not wanna be considered trollingFive of our poorest cities have been led by Democrats for more than 45 years. The two other cities on the list, Miami, FL and El Paso, TX have never had Republican mayors. Not ever.

States with the highest number of food stamp recipients are red states.

States that take more federal money in than produce are red states.

If you want a lesson on how to run your state into the ground check Wisconsin, Kansas, or Louisana out right now. All 3 are red states who have had republican governors run their states into the ground

Detroit and Baltimore are the results of really crappy CEOs failing to adjust to innovation and a country failing to protect its own workers. The situation is complicated in that it requires a balancing act of holding business accountable while protecting American interests.
 
Last edited:
States with the highest number of food stamp recipients are red states.

States that take more federal money in than produce are red states.

If you want a lesson on how to run your state into the ground check Wisconsin, Kansas, or Louisana out right now. All 3 are red states who have had republican governors run their states into the ground

Detroit and Baltimore are the results of really crappy CEOs failing to adjust to innovation and a country failing to protect its own workers. The situation is complicated in that it requires a balancing act of holding business accountable while protecting American interests.


Did you know that Wisconsin voted overwhelming democrat in the last two presidential elections? It has one democratic and one republican senator. The govenor is a republican, but the democrats were able to gain enough support to force two recall elections. The state flip flops back and forth between the two parties so much that Wisconsin is commonly referred to as a purple state.

10.1 % of Kansas population received food stamps in 2013, Maryland was 11.2%, New York 15.8, California about 9.4 Texas 14.1. I don't think there is a correlation between party preference and food stamps received. See governing.com for food stamp data. https://www.governing.com/gov-data/food-stamp-snap-benefits-enrollment-participation-totals-map.html


Maybe there is more at work than the contrived blue v red power struggle?
 
And we don't here? Americans don't fear their own government?

You're a complete dumbass.

YOU ARE THE COMPLETE DUMBASS THINKING GOVERNMENTS GRANT FREEDOM?

governments take freedom away they dont grant it.

they dont have the right too.

but i am the dumbass..


hahahahahaha comming from someone who thinks governments grant freedom

hahahahahahhaha
 
What a complete juvenile definition of freedom you have.

What about the freedom of being able to work where you want without fear of going bankrupt for not having health insurance?

What about the freedom to actually go on (paid) vacation and enjoy life?

What about the freedom to live longer than Americans? Or not have your child die under the age of 1? Or not having nearly as high of gun violence? The freedom to get married to who you want? Or to have a college education, stable career, and retirement? The freedom of not having your biology classes overrun with silly creationism nonsense?

Our neighbors to the north enjoy much more overall freedom than we do. In 2008, when many countries saw economic disaster, Canada's finance sector was untouched. Their banks are far more regulated than ours. As a result, the vast majority of Canadians didn't see their retirements evaporate like so many Americans. They can live and retire how and when they want rather than remaining as slaves to our system. When our insurance companies and banks ****ed up our retirements we gave them a bailout to prevent an economic atomic bomb on our country. Canada? Didn't see anything like that. Now to me, that's real freedom... Much more than playing cowboy with pistols.

But yeah let's focus on bitching about gun regulation. Cuz guns are the be all end all measurement of freedom.


The way I see freedom is that it does not place a burden on anyone else. Freedom is essentially a lack of restriction.

The kind of freedom you're talking about requires forcing people to provide things to people regardless of their own free will and at their expense.
 
The way I see freedom is that it does not place a burden on anyone else. Freedom is essentially a lack of restriction.

The kind of freedom you're talking about requires forcing people to provide things to people regardless of their own free will and at their expense.

exactly!
this healthcare system is aburden on me and my healthy livestyle.

but i'm the dumbass so dont mind my opinion.

goverments shall provide freedom! derp
 
Hey Dutch, what kind of thug gangsters are rioting in Jerusalem?
 
Back
Top