April Auspol: Better Nate than Lever!!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > April Auspol: Better Nate than Lever!!

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Gough Suppressant posted:

whichever is greater.

Also isn't $100k cap basically the greens policy?

Wait isn't it illegal to be paid less than minimum wage?

Or will part time workers be able to get the full time minimum wage?

# ? Apr 30, 2014 01:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 00:11

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

The Australian Human Rights Commissioner has some words for you plebs: stop being so uppity and don't you understand how hard it is to be white, male, and making six figures a year telling you to stop being so uppity?

quote:

Tread softly on race act reform

TIM WILSON
The Australian
April 30, 2014 12:00AM

Print
Save for later

7

ANY changes to the Racial �Discrimination Act must address significant inconsistencies with human rights.

The deadline for feedback on the government�s exposure draft of amendments to the act closes today. Set against the background of the worthy aspiration of tackling racism, the current law makes it unlawful to speak if it is reasonably likely to �insult, �offend� or �humiliate�.

Even if such is deeply unacceptable, making it unlawful significantly restricts free speech.

Many have argued that these words have been interpreted by the courts at a higher bar than the law establishes and does not cover �mere slights�.

But that is an argument for change on the basis courts may be reading it down in recognition of just how broadly the law can be used to limit free expression.

Even then it is not always the case, as demonstrated by the case against News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt. That case established just how broadly the law can be interpreted with consequences for the free speech of every Australian. That�s why reasonable voices accept change can be made.

Recently, the head of the Prime Minister�s indigenous council, Warren Mundine, criticised the proposed changes, but recognised �there is no doubt we need to amend the act and make sure it�s focused�.

The NSW Rabbinical Council acknowledged the laws make it hard for rabbis to �get up and make a pronouncement on certain moral issues (because they) � might insult (someone)�.

Similarly, Jewish community leader Mark Leibler has said �there is a possibility of working out a solution which will be a �sensible compromise� while �arguing for minimal change.

The question is not if the law should be changed, but how. Any revised proposal needs to keep two fundamental components of the current proposal on the table. First, it must remove restrictions on speech that may �insult, �offend� or �humiliate�.

Human rights are about �people protecting the individual�s right to own their own lives and exercise their faculties to pursue their opportunities and enterprise. Restrictions on free speech can exist when its exercise �impinges on others� human rights, such as explicit incitement to violence, but deference should always be towards the most limited form of restriction.

Restricting speech that �offends, insults or humiliates simply doesn�t cut it. Humiliation can unintentionally occur for numerous culturally based reasons, and mockery that can lead to humiliation can be the basis of humour. The importance of keeping expression free and open on matters of race is �particularly important considering the powers granted to the commonwealth parliament.

Under the Constitution, the parliament has the power to make race-specific laws. If the parliament can legislate on it, we must be free to talk about it.

Even from an international law approach, the relevant sections of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights argue only for restrictions on �advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence�.

Depending on the final drafting, the government�s proposal to include a targeted definition of vilification is likely to be consistent with both freer speech and international human rights law.

Second, to preserve equality before the law, the test of �whether speech can be limited should be based on a reasonable member of the Australian community. The current interpre�tation is based on the attitudes of the group affected by the speech. Their attitudes can vary depending on whether a person is a part of that group, or not.

Subjective attitudes operate regularly within social conventions and norms. For example, it is understood that gay and lesbian people can use the term �queer� to describe themselves, but it is socially unacceptable for others to use this traditionally derogatory term.

The same principles cannot apply in law without undermining equality before the law.

It is unjust that two persons, standing side-by-side can be acting in precisely the same fashion, but because one is part of the group that their actions refer to it is legal, and for others it is not �because they come from outside that group.

These problems are exacerbated by the �insult� and ��offend� low bar. It is corrected in the current proposal, but should adopt the language included in other anti-discrimination laws to have �regard to all the circumstances� so contextually relevant details can be considered. Some have argued that exemptions protect free speech and solve the problems with the law. But exemptions are an admission that free speech is being violated and courts need an �out�.

The current law requires that speech be exercised reasonably and in good faith. But speech cannot be restricted simply because it is unreasonable. Equally, good faith requirements are unjustified because public debate, rightly or wrongly, is often conducted with degrees of bad faith to convince others of the merit of the speaker�s argument and the weaknesses of their opponent.

If the law only restricts speech when it conflicts with other human rights there is minimal need for exemptions because the law will be set at the right level.

Tim Wilson is Australia�s Human Rights Commissioner. His submission to the Attorney-General�s exposure draft can be found at https://www.humanrights.gov.au.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 01:25

bell jar: Feb 25, 2009

Can we just tax everyone a fuckload more than we already do, already, and pump that loving money into good infrastructure and poo poo

Is it that hard

# ? Apr 30, 2014 01:27

Seagull: Oct 9, 2012; give me a chip

Yes, roads for the road god, tax cuts for the rich god.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 01:28

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

Heard Warren Mundine talking about cuts to Aboriginal services. Talking about efficiency and greater benefits from it. Really stuck in my craw hearing him towing the liberal line.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-26/mundine-talks-about-fears-for-indigenous-budget-next-month/5412894

Mr Mundine has told the ABC he expects there will be cuts to Indigenous funding in the budget as the number of program areas is reduced from about 150 to five as part of a "realignment" of spending.

Realignment

# ? Apr 30, 2014 01:45

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Just in case you'd foreotten what a poo Campbell Newman is:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/qld-juvenile-crime-laws-face-mounting-criticism/5420058

quote:

The Newman Government's crackdown on youth crime has seen a 13-year-old boy with no criminal history hauled before the courts for stealing two cigarette lighters.

The case has reignited criticism of Queensland's new juvenile justice laws, which have been described as the most draconian in Australia.

Reminder: Also Name and Shame, Mandatory detention, 17 years olds in adult prisons.

----------------------//-------------------

Due to an accidental death Korean Prime Minister Resigns.

Responsible for a death of someone in their care Tony Abbott accepts the bouquets of an adoring nation.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 01:48

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Word is that the debt levy is going to instead be rolled into temporary marginal tax rate increases for the top two brackets. If only we could remove the word temporary.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 01:50

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Cartoon posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/qld-juvenile-crime-laws-face-mounting-criticism/5420058

That kid probably has a bike, case closed.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 01:51

Kegslayer: Jul 23, 2007

Gough Suppressant posted:

Word is that the debt levy is going to instead be rolled into temporary marginal tax rate increases for the top two brackets. If only we could remove the word temporary.

This is a better option than just a levy. At least the extra revenue can go into other areas instead of just paying off our debts.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 02:00

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

With all that extra revenue we could afford another tax cut.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 02:01

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Turns out the guy who made Stop Tony Meow voted for the LNP :frogout:

# ? Apr 30, 2014 02:11

Endman: May 18, 2010; That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even anime may die

Instead of a marginal tax increase for the top two income brackets that will only be temporary... we could have a corporate/mining super-profits tax. You know. And probably a space program and at least a thousand joint strike fighters.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 02:14

adamantium|wang: Sep 14, 2003; Missing you

quote:

Allegations that Health Services Union (HSU) whistleblower, Kathy Jackson, ran a slush fund have been sent to the royal commission into union governance and corruption.

Fairfax newspapers are reporting that Ms Jackson ran a secretive union slush fund that siphoned off $285,000 of members' money to help support the political and factional campaigns of her allies between 2004 and 2010.

Craig McGregor, the secretary of the Victorian HSU number 3 branch, says an investigation of internal banking records has confirmed that large sums of money were transferred into an account called the National Health Development Account.

"We've referred this matter to the relevant authorities, being the royal commission of course, and to Fair Work," he said.

"I would think that something like this would need to be disclosed to the membership.

Its all happening :suspense:

# ? Apr 30, 2014 02:17

MysticalMachineGun: Apr 5, 2005

adamantium|wang posted:

Its all happening

It's slush funds all the way down (except Gillard's, that one wasn't real).

# ? Apr 30, 2014 02:32

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

adamantium|wang posted:

Its all happening

"Everyone was doing it, I just wanted to be popular." - Kathy Jackson

# ? Apr 30, 2014 02:43

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

# ? Apr 30, 2014 02:46

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

The ABC FactCheck has FactChecked George Brandis' belief that "Australians have a right to be bigots". The results may surprise you.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 02:47

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Jesus Christ Factcheck gently caress off.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 02:52

MonoAus: Nov 5, 2012

Senator Brandis's view is ill-informed.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 03:02

Mr Chips: Jun 27, 2007; Whose arse do I have to blow smoke up to get rid of this baby?

Lid posted:

The ABC FactCheck has FactChecked George Brandis' belief that "Australians have a right to be bigots". The results may surprise you.

it's a free country, mate

# ? Apr 30, 2014 03:12

The Before Times: Mar 8, 2014; Once upon a time, I would have thrown you halfway to the moon for a crack like that.

Possibly the best image I've seen all week.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 03:32

CrazyTolradi: Oct 2, 2011; It feels so good to be so bad.....at posting.

Cartoon posted:

Just in case you'd foreotten what a poo Campbell Newman is:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/qld-juvenile-crime-laws-face-mounting-criticism/5420058

Reminder: Also Name and Shame, Mandatory detention, 17 years olds in adult prisons.

----------------------//-------------------

Due to an accidental death Korean Prime Minister Resigns.

Responsible for a death of someone in their care Tony Abbott accepts the bouquets of an adoring nation.

It's not just Newman, it's also his P-plater Attorney-General Bleije. Between the two of them, they have cooked up the most half-baked legislation this state has seen.

Seriously, who thought a 30 year old (He was 30 when made Attorney-General) with only a handful of years (about 4) of legal experience would make a good AG? It's just mind baffling, but this is the LNP we're talking about.

CrazyTolradi fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Apr 30, 2014

# ? Apr 30, 2014 03:35

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

urseus posted:

Or just sink a few? You would lose some initially but people would sure stop coming. Statistically lose less to drownings over the long run.

Why do people make the giant trip from places like Iran all the way to Australia? Aren't there closer countries that they can apply for refugee status that are also signatories?

Just wondering, would you be ok with immigration/customs officers to take similar measures at airports? If the officer was not convinced that the arrival had legitimate documentation, a valid/appropriate visa, the means to support themselves or any other issue that would cause detainment leading to deportation, we should just shoot and kill the person? In the eyes of the law these people aren't any different from people entering by boat. We have to detain, question and do all the paperwork to give cause for deporting them. That adds up to a lot of money and a waste of everyone's time.

It would serve a similar purpose, that people should only enter a country if they are following their visa requirements to the letter. It would stop the people who arrive with no money and a tourist visa from wasting our time and resources. Likewise for people who fit a profile for overstaying (does not have touristy luggage, itinerary, evidence of accommodation, no return flight or a sufficient explanation of what they are doing during their stay).

# ? Apr 30, 2014 03:45

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Mithranderp posted:

Possibly the best image I've seen all week.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 03:54

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

A follow up to the taxi lobby getting mad story a few days ago

quote:

Ride-sharing apps ruled out by NSW government

Date
April 30, 2014 - 12:35PM

Jacob Saulwick and Ben Grubb

Transport for NSW appears to have ruled out smartphone apps that allow motorists who are not taxi or hire car drivers to receive money for offering lifts.

In response to a new low cost "ride-sharing" service offered by Uber, which allows non taxi drivers to offer a taxi-like service, the state's transport department said on Wednesday that all drivers needed to be accredited under the Passenger Transport Act.

This would rule out Uber's ride-sharing service, though not apps that make it easier for taxi customers to book an authorised cab or hire car.

"The law is clear and has not changed: if a NSW driver is taking paying members of the public as passengers, the driver and the vehicle must operate in accordance with the Passenger Transport Act," Transport for NSW said in a statement on Wednesday morning.

"Under the Act, such services must be provided in a licensed taxi or hire car, by an appropriately accredited driver, authorised by Roads and Maritime Services," the statement said.

"A person who carries on a public passenger service in breach of the Act may face prosecution and fines of up to $110,000.

"However, these laws do not apply to, for example, a group of friends sharing expenses or a car pooling arrangement between colleagues sharing a ride to the office.�

Despite Transport for NSW's statement, Uber Sydney general manager David Rohrsheim said he was confident Uber was building "the safest, most reliable, most affordable transportation option for consumers".

"We�ve had regular positive discussions with the NSW Government for some time," he said.

"We know they are watching this ride-sharing trial very closely, and they will be very interested to hear the feedback from customers. Early feedback from drivers and passengers has been overwhelmingly supportive."

Until now, Uber has only let Australian users ride in taxis and private hire cars in Sydney and Melbourne. It only recently began quietly branching out into the ride-sharing market to let anyone ferry users around who is 24 years old, has their own car that has at least four doors and is a 2005 model or newer, has comprehensive insurance, no criminal record and a licence.

Transport for NSW's response follows a similar statement from the Victorian Taxi Service Commissioner, Graham Samuel, who said the services didn't appear to be complying with Victorian law.

Last week, NSW Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian and her department sent mixed messages over whether the ride-sharing apps were legal in NSW.

Ms Berejiklian's department said on Wednesday last week that NSW's Roads and Maritime Services had requested a meeting with Uber to discuss how the NSW Passenger Transport Act applied to the service, and how Uber would respond to its obligations under the act.

But in a radio interview on Thursday night, Ms Berejiklian appeared to concede that there was no problem unless Uber called itself a "taxi service".

"You don't want to limit people's choice because, at the end of the day, it does come down to choice," Ms Berejiklian said on 2GB.

The NSW Taxi Council has called on the government to intervene and regulate the ride-sharing apps.

"This has to be dealt with before it gets out of hand," NSW Taxi Council chief executive Roy Wakelin-King said last week.

In other news: http://backseat.me/

# ? Apr 30, 2014 03:55

Negative Entropy: Nov 30, 2009

ABC radio has launched Double J, Triple J for old (30+) people.
For those who remember 'when triple j was good'

Its on Digital Radio, digital TV or online.

http://doublej.net.au/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.thisisaim.abcradio

The launch is just finishing up.

Negative Entropy fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Apr 30, 2014

# ? Apr 30, 2014 03:57

Drugs: Jul 16, 2010; I don't like people who take drugs. Customs agents, for example - Albert Einstein

So how is the taxi industry not a cartel?

# ? Apr 30, 2014 03:57

Tirade: Jul 17, 2001; Cybertron must act decisively to prevent and oppose acts of genocide and violations of international robot rights law and to bring perpetrators before the Decepticon Justice Division; Pillbug

hooman posted:

Realignment

Goddamnit, gently caress this newspeak poo poo. When I get my tires realigned they don't take two of them away.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 03:58

You Am I: May 20, 2001; Me @ your poasting

adamantium|wang posted:

Its all happening

loving finally. Kathy Jackson is well known for being dodgy and it's good to see the Liberal's cheer girl for this Royal Commission being taken down

# ? Apr 30, 2014 04:01

Tirade: Jul 17, 2001; Cybertron must act decisively to prevent and oppose acts of genocide and violations of international robot rights law and to bring perpetrators before the Decepticon Justice Division; Pillbug

Lid posted:

A follow up to the taxi lobby getting mad story a few days ago

In other news: http://backseat.me/

Worst start-up company name I've seen in a while.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 04:03

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

Haters Objector posted:

So how is the taxi industry not a cartel?

Because it would be a public cartel (licensed and regulated by the government); they have to act according to the whims of public interest. A private cartel on the other hand does not have to answer to the public. I don't think the government is saying Uber can't run a taxi business, they just need to be licensed by the government to do so.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 04:08

bell jar: Feb 25, 2009

Dan Nolan: Literally Cat Terrist

# ? Apr 30, 2014 04:13

i got banned: Sep 24, 2010; lol abbottwon

This has nothing to do with Australia (sort of) but Sterling was just banned for life by the NBA for racist comments he made. People are still angry here that Goodes told off a 12 year old kid because she didn't know any better.

Lid posted:

In other news: http://backseat.me/

I can't wait to pick up strangers who may or may not be total weirdos that enjoy collecting human skin

i got banned fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Apr 30, 2014

# ? Apr 30, 2014 04:37

norp: Jan 20, 2004; TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

let's invade New Zealand, they have oil

Tokamak posted:

Because it would be a public cartel (licensed and regulated by the government); they have to act according to the whims of public interest. A private cartel on the other hand does not have to answer to the public. I don't think the government is saying Uber can't run a taxi business, they just need to be licensed by the government to do so.

Of course the government allows taxi licenses to be owned as property, and limits their availability meaning the drivers have to pay a taxi plate owner for the privilege of earning a barely liveable wage.
The reason Uber and other rideshare systems are so much cheaper is because they aren't paying massive rents to the owners of the taxi plates.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 04:44

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

Paul Sheehan has declared the triumph of Tony Abbott "tweaking" his PPL scheme that was to never be touched and was fundamental as being the greatest legacy this cpountry has ever seen and proven how Abbott is the greatest person in history and how he loves him... or something like that.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-tweak-that-abbott-had-to-make-20140430-zr1ta.html - If you're a masochist.

i got banned posted:

I can't wait to pick up strangers who may or may not be total weirdos that enjoy collecting human skin

Considering some taxis I've been in this would not be too far from the norm. A twenty minute drive hearing about how he had withdrawn all his money from banks and spent it on gold bullion he had buried.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 04:45

Redeye Flight: Mar 26, 2010; God, I'm so tired. What the hell did I post last night?

Incidentally every time someone mentions Howard-Costello I have to do a double take. How the hell do you not realize that putting someone named Costello as the second item on your ticket is a recipe for hilarious disaster?

And yeah, the Sterling ruling was a real pleasant surprise. In terms of money nothing the NBA has room to do will hurt Sterling at all--there's no fine they could levy at him big enough and the odds that he won't get a huge payout from the sale of the team is low. But in terms of prestige, they torpedoed the fucker right in the magazine. He has been publicly humiliated and stripped of his pride and joy--a team he raised from the income basement to a proper first-line NBA franchise--and that will be his legacy. Being a hugely racist gently caress who couldn't control his own hatred enough not to get drummed out of THIS society, of all societies.

He's eighty, so I doubt he'll be having much time to work that fucker off, either.

Redeye Flight fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Apr 30, 2014

# ? Apr 30, 2014 04:51

Bent Wookiee: Feb 23, 2007; AAAHHH!!?

Tokamak posted:

Just wondering, would you be ok with immigration/customs officers to take similar measures at airports? If the officer was not convinced that the arrival had legitimate documentation, a valid/appropriate visa, the means to support themselves or any other issue that would cause detainment leading to deportation, we should just shoot and kill the person? In the eyes of the law these people aren't any different from people entering by boat. We have to detain, question and do all the paperwork to give cause for deporting them. That adds up to a lot of money and a waste of everyone's time.

It would serve a similar purpose, that people should only enter a country if they are following their visa requirements to the letter. It would stop the people who arrive with no money and a tourist visa from wasting our time and resources. Likewise for people who fit a profile for overstaying (does not have touristy luggage, itinerary, evidence of accommodation, no return flight or a sufficient explanation of what they are doing during their stay).

The purpose (as framed by urseus) is to stop deaths at sea. The purpose you're describing is to prevent people seeking asylum.

The real purpose is to appease a subset of racist Australians while simultaneously not completely alienating the rest of Australia. That rules out killing people outright (which would also be a serious foreign affairs problem) and treating them humanely (processing locally, flying them over from Indonesia). As a result, you end up with the current situation which is lovely enough that racists are satisfied, yet not quite heinous enough that Joe ACA-watcher is perturbed.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 04:59

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

norp posted:

Of course the government allows taxi licenses to be owned as property, and limits their availability meaning the drivers have to pay a taxi plate owner for the privilege of earning a barely liveable wage.
The reason Uber and other rideshare systems are so much cheaper is because they aren't paying massive rents to the owners of the taxi plates.

Yeah, the licenses are rented out yearly at around 1/20th of the purchase cost. The question remains why the licenses have a large upfront cost but low ongoing cost. I wouldn't expect the cost of a taxi license would be significantly cheaper if it had a lower financial barrier to entry, but realistic annual fee.

For example, the government could price it licenses to have a start-up fee of a few grand plus an ongoing rate of $15,000 (based on current rates) or at a level which reflects a taxi's impact on public services (I would be surprised if its significantly cheaper).

Besides the currant system benefits Uber way more then it does its drivers. What's stopping Uber from picking up enough taxi licenses to cover their operators? That way they could at least argue that they are operating in good faith via. per-seat licensing; currently they are not even doing that. They are whining that a driver's government subsidised, private use licenses aren't suitable for business use; well no poo poo.

Tokamak fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Apr 30, 2014

# ? Apr 30, 2014 05:08

Seemlar: Jun 18, 2002

Lid posted:

Paul Sheehan has declared the triumph of Tony Abbott "tweaking" his PPL scheme that was to never be touched and was fundamental as being the greatest legacy this cpountry has ever seen and proven how Abbott is the greatest person in history and how he loves him... or something like that.

Trying to paint the narrative as it being some noble decision they made last week and announnced today make's Barnaby Joyce's meltdown on ABC Radio this morning pretty funny.

Although him stumbling around knowing nothing about the PPL paled in comparison to him basically mentallly short circuiting when pushed over the deficit levy :psyduck:

# ? Apr 30, 2014 05:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 00:11

norp: Jan 20, 2004; TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

let's invade New Zealand, they have oil

Lid posted:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-tweak-that-abbott-had-to-make-20140430-zr1ta.html - If you're a masochist.

Ughhh

He takes a sentence fragment from the book that is basically meaningless and uses it to rebut the "myth" that Abbott has 1950's views on women? It's Abbott's book, not the bible you shitheel.

# ? Apr 30, 2014 05:09

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > April Auspol: Better Nate than Lever!!

«‹›98 »