If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The National Memo)   Mitt promises 12 million new jobs, eliminate the deficit, & lower taxes. Wall Street investor does the math: "At a 25 percent Federal tax rate on all the new income, the average new job would have to pay a mere $433,333 per year to fill the gap"   (nationalmemo.com) divider line 387
    More: Hero, Mitt Romney, deficits, tax rates  
•       •       •

4035 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 6:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-05 03:34:33 AM

grinnel: This country is being led not by our leaders, because we truly have none, but by only our disagreements being volleyed upon one another.


Actually, no, and you just might want to Google the significant list of accomplishments this administration and Congress of "no leaders" has achieved in the past 4 years next time. Your concern is showing. RON PAUL and all that.

the incumbent, that no one really like

Or not. Derpa derpa derpa doo.
 
2012-10-05 03:44:50 AM

mrshowrules: coyo: TheMysteriousStranger:
And the GOP wants to lower corporate taxes anyways.


This has always puzzled me, since so many of the huge corporations pay nothing at all in taxes.

I don't think corporations should pay any tax.

/Liberal


It depends on whether they are outsourcing jobs overseas or not.
 
2012-10-05 03:46:00 AM

Nem Wan: Romney's performance was aimed squarely at the proud, low-information voter.


It needed to be aimed at undecided voters.
 
2012-10-05 03:47:22 AM

whidbey: grinnel: This country is being led not by our leaders, because we truly have none, but by only our disagreements being volleyed upon one another.

Actually, no, and you just might want to Google the significant list of accomplishments this administration and Congress of "no leaders" has achieved in the past 4 years next time. Your concern is showing. RON PAUL and all that.

the incumbent, that no one really like

Or not. Derpa derpa derpa doo.


I could also find a list of failed accomplishments as well. Did you google "lowest approval ratings"?

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently and promptly
 
2012-10-05 03:50:04 AM

colon_pow: Get 12 million off welfare should help


How do you do that? How do you create 12 million extra jobs - that's extra as in over and above what the economy produces due to population growth anyway. Bring them back from India and China? How?

Or do you propose the poor just be left to sink or swim as best they can? Some will survive and make it back into society, the others will die. And no more poor. That's great if you want to live like a wild animal.
 
2012-10-05 03:51:01 AM
Displayed 347 of 347 comments

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in any of the 347 posts does anyone refute the math in the linked story? Because I didn't see it but I might have missed it.
 
2012-10-05 03:53:23 AM

Mikey1969: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*

Mitt still isn't going to fark you.


He's certainly going to give it a good try.
 
2012-10-05 03:57:19 AM

NYCNative: Displayed 347 of 347 comments

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in any of the 347 posts does anyone refute the math in the linked story? Because I didn't see it but I might have missed it.


The math is incorrect because the author insinuates that Romney is going to reduce the deficit to zero through these means when Romney never stated that
 
2012-10-05 04:04:58 AM

grinnel: I could also find a list of failed accomplishments as well


Not really. But feel free to ignore the lengthy list you clearly aren't willing to.

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently and promptly

You didn't make anything worth proving. The honorable thing to do is admit you're parroting nonsense talking points.
 
2012-10-05 04:18:58 AM

grinnel:

The math is incorrect because the author insinuates that Romney is going to reduce the deficit to zero through these means when Romney never stated that


Are you asserting that the math the guy in the Blog is using will remove the entire debt? Because no, that's not what Romney said, but it's also not what the guy in the Blog asserted.

The budget is currently at $1.3 trillion annual deficit. Romney claims he can make it balanced. He never said he would get us out of debt, just that we would stop spending more than we take in, thereby not increasing our debt.

Say you owe $1000 om a credit card. You seem to think that the math in the article means paying off that $1000. But that's not what the math in the article claims. It says that if Romney is going to stop using the credit card, here is how he has to do it based on his own numbers.

Do you do see the difference?

The article is using the $1.3 trillion defcit; the national debt is over $16 trillion. Which number is the article trying to get to zero?
 
2012-10-05 04:19:35 AM
I never denied any accomplishments accredited to BO. If you perceive me in "dissing" the almighty, it might be that you are supersensitive to any statement concerning the current president, seeing as how you brought in RP.

From my statement, you cannot discern who I support; it is merely a depiction of current and recent elections. I'm sure this pattern is true for the past 200 years, but I have only been alive for a sixth of that and cannot speak for the past.

The nonsense talking point remains that this entire thread is based on math based on an insinuation.

A chef promises to reduce cost by making stock. Cost will not be reduced to zero because you don't farking put bell farking peppers in farking stock, you fark
 
2012-10-05 04:23:43 AM

grinnel: I never denied any accomplishments accredited to BO


Actually, that is what you're doing.

Hence the need to remind you that we do have leadership in Washington, maybe it isn't the kind you want, sorry about that.

The nonsense talking point remains that this entire thread is based on math based on an insinuation.

Pretty sure you were the one making insinuations about the "incumbent nobody likes" and that in terms of leadership, we have "none."

Again, you're welcome to study the list of accomplishments I have reprinted in my profile, and kindly STFU.
 
2012-10-05 04:23:56 AM

ddam: Clutch2013: Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*

I hate those floating things. I don't care if it was some hot chick asking me for a hot night on the beaches in Hawaii all expenses paid.

What's worse, that crap's coming up on damn near every website nowadays.

No, I don't want to fill out your frickin' survey. Just let me get my frickin' cheat code, please, or let me take a closer look at the product I was going to buy from your website until you floated that crap all over the image.

What's even worse is browsing fark at work on IE 7 and having it crash every few minutes due to some of the ads on this site. I don't have a choice in what browser I use :(


That's been happening to me on IE 8 at work this week.
 
2012-10-05 04:26:12 AM

NYCNative: grinnel:

The math is incorrect because the author insinuates that Romney is going to reduce the deficit to zero through these means when Romney never stated that

Are you asserting that the math the guy in the Blog is using will remove the entire debt? Because no, that's not what Romney said, but it's also not what the guy in the Blog asserted.

The budget is currently at $1.3 trillion annual deficit. Romney claims he can make it balanced. He never said he would get us out of debt, just that we would stop spending more than we take in, thereby not increasing our debt.

Say you owe $1000 om a credit card. You seem to think that the math in the article means paying off that $1000. But that's not what the math in the article claims. It says that if Romney is going to stop using the credit card, here is how he has to do it based on his own numbers.

Do you do see the difference?

The article is using the $1.3 trillion defcit; the national debt is over $16 trillion. Which number is the article trying to get to zero?


I never used the word 'debt'. I have been using the same terminology (deficit) as the blogger (whose blog sucks). Romney's words that come up on google are trim, reduce, and cut.
 
2012-10-05 04:45:06 AM
Romney asserted "What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit."

He also said "Look, the revenue I get is by more people working, getting higher pay, paying more taxes. That's how we get growth and how we balance the budget."

How does he cut the deficit doing this? Show your numbers if you think you know better...
 
2012-10-05 04:53:30 AM

grinnel: No takers? Ok, that's fine; a simple google will not show quotes saying Romney will reduce the deficit to zero with these propositions. We will find words like 'trim', 'reduce', and 'cut'. The author of the article, upon which this thread is based, decided to add his own preposition to Romney's words in order to make an incredulous statement.

Truth is, y'all are all full of shiat. A little over four years ago, the elephants showed their dislike for Romney and the donkeys blindly supported a nobody that the media made the grand poobah. In my opinion, admittedly conservative, this is how I saw the last election:
You can be progressive, and open minded, and educated, and not be embarrassed by your decisions when talking to your neighbors at your bbq, and support a nobody senator from corrupt chi-town; a guy no media ever questioned after important senatorial decisions (hell, I never even heard his name before he was a nominee). Or, you can settle for mccain; some old white guy with funny jaw movemet, ho-hum. It was Tigger vs eeyore.

Deja vu. Nine months ago, Obama had one of the lowest approval ratings of all times. Now, here we are again. We have a candidate, the incumbent, that no one really likes and a puppet created from the media. A schism is created upon emotion and nothing else. With all of the "fact findings", it has been shown that each party's candidate's policies feeds off the other. But, we cannot overcome our extremists views that only fall in line with our partition boundaries.

This country is being led not by our leaders, because we truly have none, but by only our disagreements being volleyed upon one another. Drop your political mascot. Nutritionist have shown that food with mascots is unhealthy, it is the same for our nation.
Don't vote out of hate or love or your neighbor. Take the power away from the media; a swinging pendulum keeps those lazy bastards in business. Vote with your own mind for the betterment of tomorrow regardless o ...



That's a hell of a lot of words that basically says nothing

We get it, both sides are bad so vote RON PAUL/GARY JOHNSON
 
2012-10-05 04:54:11 AM

grinnel: I could also find a list of failed accomplishments as well. Did you google "lowest approval ratings"?



What does one have to do with the other?
 
2012-10-05 04:55:31 AM

grinnel: I never used the word 'debt'. I have been using the same terminology (deficit) as the blogger (whose blog sucks). Romney's words that come up on google are trim, reduce, and cut.



You sound concerned

And tired
 
2012-10-05 04:58:54 AM

grinnel: and support a nobody senator from corrupt chi-town; a guy no media ever questioned after important senatorial decisions (hell, I never even heard his name before he was a nominee)



And I don't think anyone gives a shiat if you knew who he was. Why is this important? What does this add? You keep making all these digs at 0bama and try and paint Romney in such a good light. We get it, he's black, from a corrupt city, and everyone only voted for him because he wasn't a weird looking old white guy. He also accomplished nothing and the proof is his low approval rating.

Which by the way isn't "record low" because "record low" was set by your hero George W Bush
 
2012-10-05 05:02:24 AM
Mitt doesn't even imagine for one second that this stuff is true.. he is just going with 'made up bad words other guy, made up good words me' over and over. I mean what does 'I don't want to get rid of jobs, I like jobs, I'm going to create jobs' even farking mean in the context of a platform?

Lets hope he gets the hammering he deserves for this eventually.
 
2012-10-05 05:07:04 AM

Shaggy_C: mediablitz: Romney's ENTIRE DEBATE was about straight up lies.

Too bad he wasn't debating someone who was willing to call him on those lies, eh? The debate was very much a microcosm of the entire United States political dialogue the last decade or so - loudmouthed, smarmy Red Stater who dominates the conversation by getting louder and louder until the reasonable Lib just sort of trails off and stops responding.


I half agree with you. Obama did call him on a couple of the lies. Romney's response was "I will continue lying, and you don't get to say I am lying" (basically). Several of the lies though, Obama said nothing. It was really frustrating. I get the whole "Obama has to avoid coming off as the angry black man" thing from the 2008 debates but jesus, MAN up.

It is my firm belief that had Romney been debating Bill Clinton, we would be talking about how bad Clinton wiped the floor with Romney...
 
2012-10-05 07:15:20 AM

kab: shotglasss: Sorry guys, I actually can't do the math on my own. Brb, logging onto another alt.

Yep, we get it.


LOL, my other alt only posts liberal stuff, and you liberals slobber all over me when I do.
 
2012-10-05 07:50:57 AM
$433k per job...assuming that the multiplier effect magically disappears and you can somehow add 12 million jobs without GDP growth. And that nothing other than the 12 million jobs will be used to completely balance the budget 100%.
 
2012-10-05 08:20:16 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Notice how that first graph of 'total US jobs' only goes up to 2008, completely cutting off 2008 itself. If one showed 2008 -- up to 2009 when Obama actually became president (since Bush was still in office in 2008)...


Have you clowns really fallen to this level? It's called the housing bubble, mouth breather. Look it up. Those homes didn't sprout from magic bush seeds.
 
2012-10-05 08:24:25 AM

InmanRoshi: Mitt offered more magical unicorn farts in one hour of the debate than Obama did in all of 2008 combined.


Right now this is speculation.

However look at Obamas stimulas. Each new job cost $278,000. Thats a fact jack.
 
2012-10-05 08:40:12 AM
Mitt promises 12 million new jobs, eliminate the deficit, & lower taxes.

You mean just like Obama did? Romney cant possibly fail at keeping that promise any worse than Obama did.
 
2012-10-05 08:54:36 AM

tortilla burger: The problem isn't that Romney lied in the debates; it's the voters that are too dumb to know when they're being lied to


Then they are also too dumb to get the references to Dodd Frank, of which he made at least half a dozen mentions in his regulations segment. Then realized he was falling flat and just changed that to regulations good, but not bad ones, those are bad, especially when the president keeps adding more bad ones like he is always doing, even right know. This regulating president has decided that regulations are the solution to all of our ills, I want to unleash the free market but keep them responsibly regulated cause we can't have people lending money out of their garages so regulations are good but also not good vote for me.
 
2012-10-05 08:58:33 AM

pdee: Romney cant possibly fail at keeping that promise any worse than Obama did.


Good point. The Democrats have a better history of putting country above party and would probably work with Romney, unlike the last 4 years of c*ckbl*cking Republicans. They had higher priorities.
 
2012-10-05 10:53:23 AM

TheMysteriousStranger: So give us some numbers. How much taxes are you proposing a creation of a new job will create. How much taxes are you proposing whatever increase in pay the already employed will get from pay increases? Do the math. Is it greater than a trillion dollars.


I don't support Romney, but I'll run some numbers...

Let's look at *just* food stamps. 50 million people are on food stamps, presumably not working or working low enough paying jobs that they are essentially not paying federal income tax.

If we assume through what I like to call "magic" that we can get half of these people some training and then they will get a good paying job, let's say $50k/yr. A fair assumption of what their federal income tax rate would be is about 12%. So.. 25 million people * $50k * .12. That's new tax revenue of 150 Billion using the simplest of calculations.

According to this site: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2226 the cost of SNAP for a family of 4 is $668/mo or $167 per person per month. So.. 25 million people x $167 per month * 12 months = $50.1 Billion

Cost per capita for Medicaid (2008 numbers) is about $15k. If we also assume that each of those people was previously on Medicaid and with their new job they will get insurance (thanks Obamacare) then 15k * 25 million = $375 Billion.

So that's already $575 Billion dollars in savings if *magic* occurs and these people get good jobs. After you account for the velocity of money it's actually going to create additional tax revenues due to the new income circulating in the economy.. I have no idea what that additional money looks like, an economist would have to say. But that's just getting half the people on food stamps a good job.

I'm not saying *magic* is likely to occur, but if it *did* occur and we made some additional cost saving measures like winding down some expensive wars and ritualistic sacrifice of Big Bird it's entirely possible we get that number up to $1 Trillion
 
2012-10-05 10:55:42 AM

Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.


But even putting aside the question of how it could be done, simplifying the tax code would put thousands of accountants out of work. Mitt Romney's coming for your jobs!
 
2012-10-05 01:48:08 PM

intelligent comment below: grinnel: and support a nobody senator from corrupt chi-town; a guy no media ever questioned after important senatorial decisions (hell, I never even heard his name before he was a nominee)


And I don't think anyone gives a shiat if you knew who he was. Why is this important? What does this add? You keep making all these digs at 0bama and try and paint Romney in such a good light. We get it, he's black, from a corrupt city, and everyone only voted for him because he wasn't a weird looking old white guy. He also accomplished nothing and the proof is his low approval rating.

Which by the way isn't "record low" because "record low" was set by your hero George W Bush


I love how you keep assuming you know my opinions and intentions. I haven't said anything good about Romney; in fact I stated that the republicans didn't want him then, why should they want him now. The only reason Obama's name keeps resurfacing is because you won't drop it. My point is either one of the two men that will win the election are not really liked by any of their constituents, but everybody vehemently defends them because of a self-inflicted label. Not saying there will ever be a "perfect candidate", but the line in the sand will ensure we don't come close
 
2012-10-05 04:07:09 PM
Mitt Romney will slash government income (from taxes);
Mitt Romeny will vastly increase government expenditure to create 12,000,000 jobs that the private sector can't be arsed to create now despite record profits and massive piles of cash in hand despite low, low taxes (often sub-zero) and interest rates (sub-zero);
Mitt Romney will then magically balance the budget by adding a string of giant red minuses until they turn into black pluses.

Also, it will rain doughnuts and your sisters-in-law have a funeral today.

I assume that the world's top magicians will be hired as cabinet ministers for $1 a year.

It's not Reaganomics. It's not voodoo. It' Mittgick.

And when monkeys fly out of my arse smoking Fidel Castro's private stock of Cohiba cigars, I will believe in fairies and clap my hands to applaude the Republicans for all this.
 
2012-10-05 04:42:52 PM
Did anybody notice and read the New Scientist article which cites scientific forecasts to show that Obama, baring some major upheaval, has already won for months now?

You see, there's a difference between predictions and forecasts. Predictions, for example, like those based on polling, are based on extrapolation. The polls tell you what the voters would do if the election were today. But it isn't. A forecast is slightly different: some things reliably indicate the way things are and the way they are going. They don't correlate with future events--they cause future events. They are predictions about the past (like weather reports) or preditions about the future (based on assumptions that the future will be more of the same, which it won't), they are active agents in creating the future.

Economic forecasts, for example, are more reliable predictors of the election than polls. The polls tell you about the state of the fickle mind of the masses today. The economic forecast tells you about where the enormous mass of the economy is headed, and gives you a good idea of momentum that won't be changing much over the next month or two, or even years.

In short, the forecasts say that Obama is almost certain to win, while the polls say that it is anybody's race and very tight.

Thing is, the majority of the forecasts (economic, silly or political) have been in Obama's camp for ages, while the media continues to play its little media game (which is to say, to continue to pretend that the outcome is exciting and unexpected and unknowable) when in reality the outcome is dull, strongly probable and easy to determine far enough in advance that the media would lose even more viewers to third rate reality shows if the public weren't deluded and proded by the media.

They can come out and say it, but the electoral process is dull and predictable most of the time, and only very rarely dramatic. In the real world, people can't shift the momentum of the system very much or very fast, so the election may be won or lost before it even starts.

Prior to the election of Brian Mulroney's Conservatives to a majority government (15 minutes after the first Bellweather poll closed in Newfoundland and a long, long night before the polls closed in BC), media computers had predicted a strong majority. This is despite lack-lustre evidence of who would win from polls, tallies of voting intentions, and even exit polls.

If you can't predict the outcome of an election from the exist polls, after the fact, how can you forecast them before the votes are counted. Ah, that is the rub. Forecasts and predictions are totally different kinds of knowledge. One is based on something, the other is based on nothing.

Forecasting can be based on some pretty silly indicators. Hem lines, lipstick sales, the First Lady's cookie recipe, and all manner of things correlate well with outcomes whether they are causes or not. Predictions on the other hand, are almost always based on the mistaken belief that reason is better than unreason and numbers are better than the laws of physics.

My expectation that the local economy is doing OK and will continue to do so is based on the observation that the dresses and handbags in a chic shop in the Mall are nicer looking now than they were last year. When women feel flush with money they're willing to pay high prices for skimpy dresses that haven't changed much if at all since the 1920s, and they will splurge also on leather accessories that look like a million bucks and probably don't cost much less.

These women are leading indicators of the economy, since people with too much money and only a modicum of sense are a leading indicator of where people with too little money and no sense are going to be in the future--whether it is flush or broke.

On the other hand, you can't make hide nor hair out of the business pages. Up, down, all around, they'll always have a dozen explanations of why the markets didn't do what they were supposed to do.

The ladies know how much they can spend and what they should be spending it on, the experts never do. There's just enough experts lucking out to make it look like some of them know what they're talking about some of the time.

If you really want to know where the election is likely to go on election day, I suggest looking at the forecasters, not the predictors. And also look at the forecasts of the electoral college, not the forecasts of voting intentions. That's the real game. The Electoral College was invented to prevent people like you from ever electing the President. It is rigged towards conservatism and thus Republicans, but it produces a regular alternation of Ins and Outs because the Democrats ALWAYS have numbers on their side. Numbers of people who don't necessarily vote like they say they will, if they vote at all.

Obama is leading in the cupcake poll, the Halloween Poll, the cookie poll, the lipstick poll, the hamburger and many others that have as much or more to do with causation as correlation, although nobody is quite sure if this is coincidence or fact, and not understanding how it works despite working for a generation or two at a time, at least.

The common element of most of these, as the article points out, is the Wisdom of Crowds--they are so random nobody can consult public opinion or even their friends, and they are so indirect that even cheaters can't really cheat because they don't know the rules of the game well enough to figure out what exactly constitutes cheating. Should they be wearing an Obama maske or a Romney mask or Ron Paul or Godzilla? Does Michelle Obama count? What about sexy Tinker Bell constumes and Furries? Nobody knows what the truth and what the lie is, so they have to vote alone, in a little booth in the costume store, just like they vote in a little booth in a school or church basement a little bit later. By the time they vote with their masks, they have already voted in their hearts, but won't tell anybody the results until after they see who wins.

Randomness is a higher form of order. It trumps reason and it trumps strategy and tactics.

This is why it doesn't much matter who you put up against stock brokers in picking stocks: they are going to win about half the time or better, and that's good enough to justify your stupid article. Chimpanzees do it, psychics do it, small children, and even octopi do it. Let's predict the future!
 
2012-10-05 04:52:15 PM

wippit: TheMysteriousStranger: Lets have more fun.

Cut funding to PBS, and you save 0.012% on the budget.


Let's put that in perspective...
 
2012-10-05 05:12:08 PM

brianbankerus: wippit: TheMysteriousStranger: Lets have more fun.

Cut funding to PBS, and you save 0.012% on the budget.

Let's put that in perspective...


I've always found the best way to put that in perspective for people is to tell them to get a calculator (or calc.exe or a calc app on their phone) and multiply their yearly salary by 0.00012. Then, when it comes back with an amount that wouldn't even buy them a value meal at McDonalds, they hopefully get the idea that cutting funding for PBS is an utterly pointless political gesture.
 
2012-10-05 05:40:46 PM

Teufelaffe: brianbankerus: wippit: TheMysteriousStranger: Lets have more fun.

Cut funding to PBS, and you save 0.012% on the budget.

Let's put that in perspective...

I've always found the best way to put that in perspective for people is to tell them to get a calculator (or calc.exe or a calc app on their phone) and multiply their yearly salary by 0.00012. Then, when it comes back with an amount that wouldn't even buy them a value meal at McDonalds, they hopefully get the idea that cutting funding for PBS is an utterly pointless political gesture.


I could buy a Happy Meal... but just barely.

You know we each paid $7 for the Curiosity Rover... totally worth it.

Not quite as thrilled with my share of the Iraq war; $1022.,. as of 2008. (so higher than that.) That would buy a lot of Happy Meals.
 
2012-10-06 11:58:25 AM

brianbankerus: Teufelaffe: brianbankerus: wippit: TheMysteriousStranger: Lets have more fun.

Cut funding to PBS, and you save 0.012% on the budget.

Let's put that in perspective...

I've always found the best way to put that in perspective for people is to tell them to get a calculator (or calc.exe or a calc app on their phone) and multiply their yearly salary by 0.00012. Then, when it comes back with an amount that wouldn't even buy them a value meal at McDonalds, they hopefully get the idea that cutting funding for PBS is an utterly pointless political gesture.

I could buy a Happy Meal... but just barely.

You know we each paid $7 for the Curiosity Rover... totally worth it.

Not quite as thrilled with my share of the Iraq war; $1022.,. as of 2008. (so higher than that.) That would buy a lot of Happy Meals.


wippit: TheMysteriousStranger: Lets have more fun.

Cut funding to PBS, and you save 0.012% on the budget.


It would be like a family spending $50,000 per year (and making somewhat less than that) that is in debt over their heads deciding that they can get out of debt by having one child not go to one matinee movie ($6 ticket) that s/he would normally see at one point during the year.
 
Displayed 37 of 387 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report