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.

(Hot Air)   You know how unemployment dipped to 7.8%. There's just one problem with that number. Hint: Don't use fuzzy math and People who give up looking for a job and leave unemployment is not the same as people getting jobs   (hotair.com) divider line 594
    More: Followup, CNBC, Chris Cuomo, warehousing, bright spot, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

9111 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2012 at 3:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-05 06:27:17 PM  

InspectorZero: GAT_00: InspectorZero: If you all really believe unemployment is at 7.8%, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Of course it isn't. Seniors on retirement are not on the rolls. But comparing the U6 today to the U3 in 2008 is also dishonest.

Yes, and those that have given up looking for work, etc. But the real reason the government's cooked numbers show a decrease in unemployment today is because of "part time jobs for economic reasons" : Link


Or is it because of seasonal hires? Now is when some retail stores start prepping.
 
2012-10-05 06:29:38 PM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: Tainted1: Interesting, this same website has a story on it about the NRA endorsing Mitt Romney. Funny thing is though, they kind of forgot to mention that Mitt Romney has signed gun control legislature before making it odd that the NRA would pick him. I'm pretty sure that was a minor oversight and Hot Air is in no way biased or spinning data in a biased fashion.

Hot air indeed

supporting an automatic weapons ban is more gun friendly than a president who armed mexican drug cartels, enabling them to kill 2 americans and hundreds of mexicans.

Remember folks that Obama personally gave weapons to the drug cartels who prior to this were using spitballs and harsh language.


language wasn't even that harsh but then the SOB also taught them the dozens
 
2012-10-05 06:29:40 PM  
They really should start recounting the drug dealers and dick suckers around here as there has been a radical shift in who does what for how much. I have seen a larger number of new DS as opposed to new DD. That shows that the supply has increased or the usage per DS has decreased. It also shows that there is far more employment of DS than employment of DD opportunities as the wealthy DD do not create new jobs,only new servants. OR that the government has allowed an increase in supply to DD to allow a larger number of person to retire from their regular jobs and become DS. It is VERY confusing. It was so much easier when the dollar was based on oil.
 
2012-10-05 06:30:36 PM  

gerrychampoux: I'm sure all this September hiring had nothing to do with retailers hiring temporary employees for Halloween, Thanksgiving, Black Friday and the overall Christmas shopping season.


And Valentine's day
 
2012-10-05 06:33:27 PM  

TheRedMonkey: Or is it because of seasonal hires?


If only they could apply some adjustment for things that happen seasonally?

"Seasonal re-factoring"
"time of year adjustment"
 
2012-10-05 06:33:35 PM  
Actually, underemployment also includes retirees, students, disabled, and those who only have full time jobs. We don't count underemployment because it is worthless.
 
2012-10-05 06:36:47 PM  

mccallcl: Slampig: The unemployed people I know all tend to have something holding them back, like physical issues, drug addiction, or they think they're just too good for whatever job they can get.

If you are reading this and unemployed:

LEARN HOW TO PROGRAM ANDROID APPLICATIONS

You can do it at the library, or with the POS netbook you use to look at porn. It will take two months, then publish your fart app to Google Play. Then update your resume and watch your phone blow up. There is not a single city in the US that doesn't have dozens of android developer jobs open. $65K to start.

There, problem solved.


Found one.

Houston, TX

A cursory glance at dice.com shows 14 listings for "Android", of those 6 look like legit mobile programming jobs. Of those, I'd expect more than 2 months experience is needed.

Of course if you have a better site than dice.com for programming jobs (Linked-In is one I guess, but monster.com is not), I'd love to hear it.

/employed, just always keeping tabs on the market
 
2012-10-05 06:37:49 PM  

Gabrielmot: mccallcl: Slampig: The unemployed people I know all tend to have something holding them back, like physical issues, drug addiction, or they think they're just too good for whatever job they can get.

If you are reading this and unemployed:

LEARN HOW TO PROGRAM ANDROID APPLICATIONS

You can do it at the library, or with the POS netbook you use to look at porn. It will take two months, then publish your fart app to Google Play. Then update your resume and watch your phone blow up. There is not a single city in the US that doesn't have dozens of android developer jobs open. $65K to start.

There, problem solved.

Found one.

Houston, TX

A cursory glance at dice.com shows 14 listings for "Android", of those 6 look like legit mobile programming jobs. Of those, I'd expect more than 2 months experience is needed.

Of course if you have a better site than dice.com for programming jobs (Linked-In is one I guess, but monster.com is not), I'd love to hear it.

/employed, just always keeping tabs on the market


The catch is you have to live in Houston.

/ducks
 
2012-10-05 06:38:11 PM  
well, when you need tons of hand-out OBAMAPHONES, you gots to hire some people
 
2012-10-05 06:38:38 PM  

LoneWolf343: Actually, underemployment also includes retirees, students, disabled, and those who only have full time jobs. We don't count underemployment because it is worthless.


Oh, and the people who don't have traditional jobs, but earn income anyway, writers, artists, etc...
 
2012-10-05 06:40:40 PM  
BLAST FROM THE PAST:

News: Unemployment goes from 5.4% to 5.3% duringt the Clinton administration. Press reaction: "Halleluja! Greatest President in history! Peace and prosperity and jobs for everyone!"

News: Unemployment goes from 5.2% to 5.3% during the Bush II administration. Press reaction: "Horrible, horrible! Worst downturn since the Great Depression! We're all gonna starve to death!"

So Romney cleans Obama's clock in the debate, and 48 hours later, incredibly good "statistics" emerge. . . .

Suspicious?

Not really, I would say it is more like business as usual.
 
2012-10-05 06:42:10 PM  

Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...


It's a conspiracy!
 
2012-10-05 06:43:00 PM  

olddinosaur: BLAST FROM THE PAST:

News: Unemployment goes from 5.4% to 5.3% duringt the Clinton administration. Press reaction: "Halleluja! Greatest President in history! Peace and prosperity and jobs for everyone!"

News: Unemployment goes from 5.2% to 5.3% during the Bush II administration. Press reaction: "Horrible, horrible! Worst downturn since the Great Depression! We're all gonna starve to death!"

So Romney cleans Obama's clock in the debate, and 48 hours later, incredibly good "statistics" emerge. . . .

Suspicious?

Not really, I would say it is more like business as usual.


You took advantage of that big sale on tin foil at Winn-Dixie too huh?
 
2012-10-05 06:43:13 PM  
I believe the difference between U3 and U6 has been covered, and suddenly U6 is the Republitard talking point.

The fact is, unemployment is going down like subby's mom at the truck stop.
 
2012-10-05 06:44:47 PM  

LoneWolf343: LoneWolf343: Actually, underemployment also includes retirees, students, disabled, and those who only have fullpart time jobs. We don't count underemployment because it is worthless.

Oh, and the people who don't have traditional jobs, but earn income anyway, writers, artists, etc...


FTFM
 
2012-10-05 06:44:54 PM  

jst3p: theknuckler_33: bulldg4life: coeyagi: 1. 30% of Hillary voters support Romney
2. Silent majority
3. I don't remember what #3 was.

I'm kinda upset because, as I sit here, I can't remember what #3 was either....

I've got "let me give you some statisticals
1) 30% of hillary supporters for mccain
2) silent majority
3) palin?

------
I do seem to remember the "if there were three parties, would every state get three senators"

I think it was '7 out of 10 undecideds'?

[www.madmann.com image 750x600]


I wonder what ever happened to pdx...
 
2012-10-05 06:46:37 PM  
Funny thing. I heard the teabag brigade talking about this today. Of course, it was a non-issue when Gov. Walker did the same thing. Then on top of that added a "waiting week" in which you can't get unemployment for what would otherwise be the first week in which you were eligible after losing your job, and decided not to count those people since they weren't collecting an UI claim for that week. But yeah, this time it's totally a scandal.
 
2012-10-05 06:47:33 PM  

olddinosaur: Suspicious?

Not really, I would say it is more like business as usual.


*favorite - red*
"Paranoid idiot unaware of the "hostile media effect""
 
2012-10-05 06:47:56 PM  

whidbey: Citations nee--

Oh HAI o5iiawah!


I dont need to cite anything. The white house invoked executive privilege in the Fast and Furious investigation. That means they were involved or had knowledge of the operation. Go fail somewhere else.

BSABSVR: Guns don't kill people.


They dont have to. You can be found partially liable for a crime if you were an accessory to or willfully aided and abetted those who committed the crime.

whidbey: OH.....*SNAP*


your "Oh snap" was just rebutted with a fact - for the 100th time. Just keep acknowledging that they are the same program. It makes you look even dumber.

Christian Bale: Gee, and who is it that hates stimulus and didn't want any more? (the Republicans)


Because we cant sustain an economy by printing and pumping $2Tn into it every single year? The stimulus was supposed to keep people off the breadlines. As far as a long-term sustainable economy, you cant run that off stimulus. We've had Auto bailouts, bank bailouts, green projects and infrastructure stimulus along with QE 1,2,3.

If it worked....then it would be working.
 
2012-10-05 06:48:07 PM  

impaler: TheRedMonkey: Or is it because of seasonal hires?

If only they could apply some adjustment for things that happen seasonally?

"Seasonal re-factoring"
"time of year adjustment"


Or just compare the numbers to last year. I think they had Halloween and Christmas in 2011 too.

Season hires being more than last year is a great sign. It means that businesses expect people to be buying more stuff than last year. Which means people are doing better than last year, since when people are doing better, they buy more stuff. And when people buy more stuff, our economy gets better. And when the economy gets better, people get more money. And when they have more money, they buy more stuff. And when they...

Sorry.

As far a manufacturing jobs go, people don't get it yet. If some piece of plastic cost 5c to make and sells for $1.99, only 5c of that goes to manufacturing. The money that goes for licensing, for trucking, for advertising, for the store...all of that is considered service, and all of that is here. So the Chinese do the work but 95% of the money stays here.

The Chinese have figured this out, incidentally. And they're not happy about it. People who you treat like slaves because their choices are work for pennies or starve are not going to be thankful.
 
2012-10-05 06:48:43 PM  
Clinton unemployment:

1-1993 7.3%
1-1997 5.3%
1-2001 4.2%
Bush

1-2001 4,2%
1-2005 5.2%
1-2009 7.7%
 
2012-10-05 06:52:59 PM  
Here are two tales, both using government data.

The case for recovery, showing employed people as a percent of the people who want to be employed, with the determination of who wants to be employed calculated in complex but well accepted ways:

research.stlouisfed.org

The case for no recovery at all, showing employed people as a percent of the civilian population, with the size of the civilian population determined by the US census:

i359.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-05 06:53:20 PM  

RyogaM: Clinton unemployment:

1-1993 7.3%
1-1997 5.3%
1-2001 4.2%
Bush

1-2001 4,2%
1-2005 5.2%
1-2009 7.7%


Your numbers are off a tad:

1-1993 7.3%
1-1997 5.3%
1-2001 4.2%

Bush

1-2001 4,2%
1-2005 5.3%
1-2009 7.8%
 
2012-10-05 06:54:41 PM  

SomeAmerican: The case for no recovery at all, showing employed people as a percent of the civilian population, with the size of the civilian population determined by the US census:


Is this the new stupid talking point? That a trend started under Bush is now Obama's fault.

Why, it's almost as if an entire segment of the population is reaching the age of retirement.
 
2012-10-05 06:55:07 PM  
I only job I was ever laid off from was during Obama's term, so Obama must be responsible.

/ Was hired for that job during Clinton's run, so, thanks Bubba !
 
2012-10-05 06:55:50 PM  
Cruzan speaking for me tonight. Pay little attention.
 
2012-10-05 07:00:56 PM  

downstairs: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Your claim is that you are employed but not REALLY employed because you don't make as much money as you would like?

Hell, if that's the metric, the employment percentage rate of the WORLD is microscopic.


Read my second post.  I'm not bitter here, this has nothing to do with what I "want".  I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.  That's not good for the economy.  Hell, take me out of the equation if you have a problem with me making this personal.  Lots of people are in my situation.


By that metric, *everyone* is unemployed. I'm a grad student, I make a grad student salary, and my current salary and my potential job offers all pay less than what I'm worth. I'm sure if you asked anyone, they would say that they're making less than they're worth.

Serious question, in the ideal world where people like you (or I) were counted as "unemployed", how would you even quantify "how much someone's worth"?
 
2012-10-05 07:12:56 PM  

OrygunFarker: [i1151.photobucket.com image 511x327]


It is a little be clear on this chart:

wegoted.com
 
2012-10-05 07:16:27 PM  
Economic recovery? Or terrorist job jab?
 
2012-10-05 07:17:24 PM  

SomeAmerican: The case for no recovery at all, showing employed people as a percent of the civilian population, with the size of the civilian population determined by the US census:


Isn't that just showing that more people are retired now because of a large number of folks born around 1945-1950? That's not a useful graph.
 
2012-10-05 07:18:53 PM  

SomeAmerican: The case for no recovery at all, showing employed people as a percent of the civilian population, with the size of the civilian population determined by the US census:


So you're saying that the "case for no recovery" means that all old people, children, and college students must work in order for there to be a recovery?

Well, that's dumb.
 
2012-10-05 07:20:52 PM  
I stopped looking at the unemployment rate a long time ago. The economy is going to grow naturally at about 2% due to population growth. The workforce participation rate is the number I watch now. Its the only consistent number I can rely on to give an accurate gauge.
 
2012-10-05 07:22:52 PM  

Thrag: Cry more.


what? why? But I'm not even a democrat

 
2012-10-05 07:25:44 PM  
Go learn Linux. We can't find employees. Nestec too. We have a hundred or so job openings.

/difficulty: must also be able to communicate with customers and not sound like a mole-person
//also, lets face it, some jobs aren't coming back, even with a good economy. They weren't really needed in the first place
 
2012-10-05 07:26:13 PM  

mrshowrules: RyogaM: Clinton unemployment:

Your numbers are off a tad:

1-1993 7.3%
1-1997 5.3%
1-2001 4.2%

Bush

1-2001 4,2%
1-2005 5.3%
1-2009 7.8%


Thanks for the correction.
 
2012-10-05 07:28:07 PM  

RyogaM: 1-2009 7.8%

Thanks for the correction.


The last one is small difference but having it match today's number eliminates a key speaking point for Conservatives.
 
2012-10-05 07:29:19 PM  

SomeAmerican: The case for no recovery at all, showing employed people as a percent of the civilian population, with the size of the civilian population determined by the US census:


i359.photobucket.com

If you ignore the increasing population of retiring people.
growlersoftware.com
 
2012-10-05 07:30:30 PM  
A conspiracy of 2,000 Census employees to lower the unemployment rate. Right.

Republicans make Truthers look sane at this point.
 
2012-10-05 07:32:27 PM  
So, two honest questions:

1. How do we view/account for UNDERemployment as well as Unemployment? Or is someone with a shiatload of experience and qualifications and a degree losing their job in their industry and being forced to work part time at Home Depot not counted?

2. What percentage of the jobs filled are with people overqualified for their jobs?

It's great to throw out all these statistics, but unless you're growth also includes an upward trend in pay and so forth, then there's also something wrong.

Also, our economy and level of consumerism cannot be sustained if the population continues to trend downwards in pay scale and such.
 
2012-10-05 07:34:00 PM  
So by the logic of if you run out of benefits = you are no longer looking...

If we follow the GOP plan and cut off all unemployment benefits we reach 0% unemployment.
 
2012-10-05 07:41:46 PM  

theknuckler_33: indylaw: tomWright: It could be legitimate, it could be politically shaded. The timing is suspicious

In other words, it's suspicious because it doesn't favor your narrative.

Indeed. A slow, but stead downward trend in the unemployment rate that has been going on for about two years has *gasp* continued. Very suspicious.


A slow steady down-ward trend would also continue if the people were no longer longer employee because they kept falling off the unemployment count.

Either way it doesn't matter. Obama promised that with the Recovery Plan we would be at ~5.6% unemployment and we aren't even close. If you think he deserves a second chance at getting employment down to 5% then vote for him, if not then vote him out.
 
2012-10-05 07:43:27 PM  

Kit Fister: So, two honest questions:

1. How do we view/account for UNDERemployment as well as Unemployment? Or is someone with a shiatload of experience and qualifications and a degree losing their job in their industry and being forced to work part time at Home Depot not counted?

2. What percentage of the jobs filled are with people overqualified for their jobs?

It's great to throw out all these statistics, but unless you're growth also includes an upward trend in pay and so forth, then there's also something wrong.

Also, our economy and level of consumerism cannot be sustained if the population continues to trend downwards in pay scale and such.


Honestly? At this time, we don't. We are still trying to get full employment, about 5%. Once you get closer to full employment, you'll see pressure for higher wages, and an inability to find the right employees which will lead to greater job mobility and a lessening of underemployment. It's a process. Fortunately, we've seen a drop from 10% in Oct.'09 to 7.8% today for Sept. '12, a drop of 2.2% in three years. If we maintain this growth, in three years time we could be at 5.6%, and starting to see underemployment fading and see pressure for higher wages. Think of this, corporate profits are at a historic high right now, but there is no pressure for them to share those profits with their employees, in the form of higher wages, because of the high employment. Give it time, and that will change.
 
2012-10-05 07:49:10 PM  

Lt_Ryan: theknuckler_33: indylaw: tomWright: It could be legitimate, it could be politically shaded. The timing is suspicious

In other words, it's suspicious because it doesn't favor your narrative.

Indeed. A slow, but stead downward trend in the unemployment rate that has been going on for about two years has *gasp* continued. Very suspicious.

A slow steady down-ward trend would also continue if the people were no longer longer employee because they kept falling off the unemployment count.

Either way it doesn't matter. Obama promised that with the Recovery Plan we would be at ~5.6% unemployment and we aren't even close. If you think he deserves a second chance at getting employment down to 5% then vote for him, if not then vote him out.


Citation needed.
 
2012-10-05 07:49:15 PM  
So, since the jobless numbers are very obviously bullshiat to make Obama's job numbers look good ahead of the election, are any Obama voters actually pissed off about this?

I'm guessing not, but it is nice to hope some of those people aren't completely naive.
 
2012-10-05 07:50:12 PM  

PerilousApricot: downstairs: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Your claim is that you are employed but not REALLY employed because you don't make as much money as you would like?

Hell, if that's the metric, the employment percentage rate of the WORLD is microscopic.


Read my second post.  I'm not bitter here, this has nothing to do with what I "want".  I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.  That's not good for the economy.  Hell, take me out of the equation if you have a problem with me making this personal.  Lots of people are in my situation.

By that metric, *everyone* is unemployed. I'm a grad student, I make a grad student salary, and my current salary and my potential job offers all pay less than what I'm worth. I'm sure if you asked anyone, they would say that they're making less than they're worth.

Serious question, in the ideal world where people like you (or I) were counted as "unemployed", how would you even quantify "how much someone's worth"?


I'm not an economist, so I can't give you a specific formula (though I'd hope one could be created.)  At best, I'm giving everyone here anecdotal evidence of someone that is being hurt deeply by the economy at this specific moment, and is not counted in any stats.  No bitterness, no blame... just saying the stats aren't accurate.  The stats including me or being more accurate doesn't HELP me, so this really isn't a personal thing.
 
I guess I'm going to kinda frustrate you with my answer to your honest question... in that its really going to boil down to something close to "I don't know".  But I'll give it a try...
 
Ok, you have your unemployment figures.  That's the base.
 
Then, I think you need to take average or median salaries for people with X experience in Y industry at Z position/job.  Then count the people with said qualities and see what they're making.
 
Lets say for arguments sake I have 11 years experience in IT management of some sort.  We can get close to saying I should probably be making $80k - $100k (I'm pulling the numbers out of my arse, but I'm close... but that doesn't matter.  Call it $25k if you want.)
 
Now by "should be making" what I mean is in a healthy economy.  A normal economy.  Not a boom or bust.  I do believe we can come up with this number in real time.
 
But we aren't in a healthy economy.  So now I'm working at a car wash (using a poster's comment above) making, what, $20k full time?
 
So at the very least notch me as one person "underemployed".  Or better yet, use the $90k - $20k to come up with the fact that I'm $70k underemployed.
 
Ok, none of this is perfect.  And it may take so much work its an exercise in futility.  I don't know.  I'm just saying the situation exists:
 
In a healthy economy someone WOULD hire me for $90k because of my experience/skillset.  But because the economy is farked I can only make $20k.
 
Again not perfect, and I'm not claiming the above is a complete scientific formula.  But SOMETHING like this should be included in any stats dealing with how people are doing.
 
/Also, none of the above is my specific situation.
 
2012-10-05 07:50:21 PM  

GORDON: So, since the jobless numbers are very obviously bullshiat to make Obama's job numbers look good ahead of the election, are any Obama voters actually pissed off about this?


You're right. It's a conspiracy. Wake up sheeple!
 
2012-10-05 07:51:29 PM  

Kit Fister: So, two honest questions:

1. How do we view/account for UNDERemployment as well as Unemployment? Or is someone with a shiatload of experience and qualifications and a degree losing their job in their industry and being forced to work part time at Home Depot not counted?

2. What percentage of the jobs filled are with people overqualified for their jobs?

It's great to throw out all these statistics, but unless you're growth also includes an upward trend in pay and so forth, then there's also something wrong.

Also, our economy and level of consumerism cannot be sustained if the population continues to trend downwards in pay scale and such.


The U3 is just one indicator. It isn't the GDP, poverty rate, average income, mean income, foreclosures etc... etc... It is just one indicator but it has been measured the same way historically and also across other countries. It is 7.6% in Canada for instance. It was 7.7% in October 1976 in the US for another example. It generally reflects how hard it is to get work if you want work. That's it. It is a limited indicator but it is pretty darn accurate and good for comparative purposes.

What is really interesting is that it is the economic indicator that the GOP latched on to very aggressively when Obama took over as proof that the DNC were farking everything up. Also, it was one of the last indicators the GOP was clinging to when all the other indicators were improving. There are still other indicators (food stamps for instance) that you can use to show Obama sucks but this was the last one they have been using consistently.

In summary, it is becoming easier for Americans who want work to find work today. Also the rate at which the rate is dropping is also hopeful. However, the U3 by itself does not indicate the health of the economy.
 
2012-10-05 07:54:27 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing: Corvus: So do you have any proof these numbers were rigged?

If the numbers are based on not counting those no longer receiving benefits or the underemployed they are rigged.  It benefits both parties.  It does not benefit those still looking but not counted.  Also unemployment benefits are being scaled back in the time people are covered, so they are dropping out of the figures faster.  If you choose not to count a large segment of the population, then the numbers are skew the figures.  Also people on welfare are not counted as unemployed.  But that is a thornier issue.
 
Again, it benefits both parties.

 


So you must be one of those people too abysmally stupid to actually read anything longer than a headline.

The number of people entering the workforce grew by a significant margin above what was expected. So far from dropping out, people instead actually started working. So your point is not only wrong, but paints you as an absolute cretin.
 
2012-10-05 07:54:59 PM  

GORDON: I'm guessing not, but it is nice to hope some of those people aren't completely naive.


Soooo.... you realize, there's not just one, but TWO whole threads discussing why your understanding of this situation is wrong, bad, and foolish, right?
 
2012-10-05 08:01:24 PM  

keylock71: skullkrusher:
no, do I sound mad?

[deepian.com image 296x304]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


Heh... Looks like you've earned your Fark "I've got a Stalker!" badge. Well done.

*sniff* I can remember when you first got hear... *wipes tear*



Are you kidding? That loser stalks me all the time. I just returned the favor by pointing out that troll sounded just like skullkrusher, and magically he appears a minute later to deny
 
Displayed 50 of 594 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report