|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Leperflesh was talking about people DYING of dehydration. He didn't mention people who were thirsty. His exact quote was: "literally die of thirst". So, I'm afraid he needs actual deaths due to starvation to prove his point and not look like a fool. Why do you refuse to answer the question? When was the last time you hosed a watermelon? Are you loving one right now?
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I said it, so of course I agree with it. Wait, so you are concerned that if we privatize food producttion it will lead to starvation? Are there any countries out there that have food production in private hands? Maybe we can look at starvation rates in those countries. The USA for example? How many people starved to death in the USA last year? (4th time asked, 4th time ignored). I don't get why this question terrifies you so much? Why is it so scary? quote:There are no countries with completely unregulated food markets. There are no countries with completely unregulated water markets, either. Total abandonment of regulation is a Libertarian fantasy. Regulation is the act of human beings deciding on rules for how to conduct themselves; it's an essential component of government, and by definition there cannot be a "country" without government. Was this aimed at me? I'm not sure who you are replying to with this. No one in the entire thread has ever tried to argue these extremes. It's literally never happened, not even once. Are you familiar with the strawman fallacy? (probably not since you didn't know what tragedy of the commons was). quote:This is extremely easy to back up, because there are peer-reviewed scholarly articles such as this one. This review cites 31 peer-reviewed studies that identified and quantified food deserts in the United States. Now it's your turn: identify any country on Earth that has a completely unregulated market, of any kind, and we'll see how that market is performing. Linking a study you didn't read isn't an answer. I asked you for an address of a home located inside of a food desert. Why are you afraid to give an address? The racist myth of the food desert is extremely easy to debunk, because there are many peer-reviewed studies that actually look at this issue. Here are a few peer reviewed studies and articles about food deserts for you to read (you wont read a single one) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21237/abstract;jsessionid=EFC1CBDCB02CD0B7A96F6BC7147B06F2.f02t02 http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2013/12_0123.htm http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/2/283.abstract https://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/2/283.short http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132076786/the-root-the-myth-of-the-food-desert http://www.rand.org/health/feature/food-environment-obesity.html Are these studies "stupid and wrong" or are you stupid and wrong? Which one is it? I'm going to bet the peer reviewed science is correct here and the guy who didnt know what tragedy of the commons/strawman fallacy was is incorrect. I think that's a pretty safe assumption. I wonder if I will ever get USA starvation death statistics or an address of a food desert? Who wants to bet neither one of these will ever be posted? It's so satisfying to correct the stupid opinions of others with science, data, and facts. It never gets old. GuyDudeBroMan fucked around with this message at 07:57 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
The agricultural sector in the US is hardly private. It basically lives on massive government subsidies. It is private insofar as the government pays for it and private citizens profit . . . but that isn't normally what is meant when people talk about the "Privatized Markets". Free and open it ain't. And that's not counting US involvement in S. America when it comes to sourcing agricultural products. "Banana Republic" is part of the average America's lexicon because of some particularly aggressive interventionist approaches the US government has taken towards agriculture.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The agricultural sector in the US is hardly private. It basically lives on massive government subsidies. It is private insofar as the government pays for it and private citizens profit . . . but that isn't normally what is meant when people talk about the "Privatized Markets". Free and open it ain't. We already went over this. His main argument was "if we dont fully socialize water/food production, the prices will be bid up by the market to such high levels that people will LITERALLY DIE of thirst/hunger. Food and water must therefor be a public good". It's really easy to prove if this is true or if its complete and utter bullshit. This is why we need starvation statistics for the USA. His entire argument depends on this data. Yet, for some strange reason he is refusing to link it. Strange.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
It's not that untenable a thesis. Countries without robust ag subsidies import the majority of their food. So agricultural subsidies somewhere pay for food everywhere. It's like the oil market. And like the oil market, when it breaks down it gets ugly. Right now US Territory Puerto Rico is spending a lot of time and money trying to get a local agricultural market going. Because otherwise if there is a disaster everybody could die. The recent increase in Hurricanes in the Caribbean has already made this happen in a couple countries over the past decade. Plus poo poo like Indonesia. Oh yeah, and how fluctuations in rice prices caused all kinds of problems in SE Asia during the mid '00s. It's easy not to see in Mainland US because we are a huge breadbasket for the world. Because we export so much food, we are insulated from market forces. If we need more staple goods, we just export less. But here is the crazy thing: despite that we still have a food insecurity problem in the US.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Punjabi farmers in India knocked down the entire power grid because the monsoons were late and they couldn't be stopped from using wells to get groundwater because they were too politically powerful. As noted, it would be near impossible to raise food prices to the point where people in America couldn't afford it, because we are so agriculturally productive and (relatively) not densely populated. Still, it's a naive conception of "food" because it's focused on caloric production (hence the continuous gleeful reference to starvation) and not nutritional quality. I'm sure folks from the Rand Institute aren't going to have a problem with the only available food for somebody being a corn-fed beef cheeseburger with white bread buns and a coke and a slice of cherry pie with equal amounts of corn syrup, but I think everybody should have plentiful access to halibut and organic cilantro, not just Bay Area douchebags like me. I can't prove to you that it's better than a McRib, and I don't have any studies to cite, so I guess that makes me a hippie. But this started out as a discussion about water and how a tragedy of the commons couldn't happen if water was privately held, but that's also a naive view of "water". The tragedy of the commons doesn't come from a government preventing people from owning things, that's the silliest thing I ever read, it comes from the nature of certain resources to be allergic to the modern concept of ownership. Gee, I know how to stop overfishing, just sell the ocean. Take your privatization of water. If I really can own all the water I can get my hands on, then how do I get it? Do I pump it non-stop out of the ground? If that's the case, then the tragedy of the commons isn't with "water" but with "aquifers". Groundwater recharge can be permanently disrupted if you pump out enough water and an aquifer collapses. Subsidence and effects on surface water are further knock on effects. Or are you crazy enough to think that private individuals should own aquifers? And that's the water resource most amenable to private ownership. If you are suggesting people be allowed to buy snowpack or rivers, and you don't think there would be any trophic effects of wholesale disruption of these resources, then you're nuts. This isn't the cigarettes or gold coins or conjugal favors of Ayn Rand's naive pure capitalism. These are systems that span hemispheres and operate over thousand year periods, and you think someone should be the CEO of those systems and buy and sell pieces and parts to maximize efficiency.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Guy's been probated, but I'm just gonna have the last word here, anyway. No, I never argued for "total socialization" of anything. I have consistently argued for well-regulated markets. That GuyDude can't recognize or understand the difference is reflective of his conflation of everything that isn't naked "free markets" as the badwrong enemy.GuyDudeBroMan posted:We already went over this. His main argument was "if we dont fully socialize water/food production, the prices will be bid up by the market to such high levels that people will LITERALLY DIE of thirst/hunger. Food and water must therefor be a public good". Strange. Yes. Strange, that I never said that, and never argued it. I argued that completely naked "free markets" - which, by the way, do not exist - create conditions where prices can rise beyond the poorest sector's ability to pay. This is one reason why we create social safety nets, and it's also a reason why we regulate markets, especially markets for goods and services deemed essential. In other words, there isn't a country, anywhere on earth, that has literally no laws regulating production, distribution, and sale of food, or distribution and sharing of water. It is therefore not incumbent on me to find some example of starving people in america, because - as I said - America does not have an unregulated market for food. We have food stamps, we do not tax essential food items, we provide enormous subsidies for numerous food products and their production, and, even if we did none of those things, claiming that a risk is present (which is all I did) is not the same as claiming we are currently experiencing such a crisis. GuyDudeBroMan posted:Wait, so you are concerned that if we privatize food producttion it will lead to starvation? Are there any countries out there that have food production in private hands? Maybe we can look at starvation rates in those countries. The USA for example? I specifically said there weren't unregulated markets. A regulated market is not the same thing as total state ownership. You have just utterly mischaracterized the entire argument, to be about socialism instead of about well-regulated capitalism. You keep trying to do this and it keeps making you look foolish. Of course food production is "in private hands" all over the world - even in communist countries like China, farms are typically privately owned. So? This is a red herring. quote:How many people starved to death in the USA last year? (4th time asked, 4th time ignored). I don't get why this question terrifies you so much? Why is it so scary? The question hasn't been ignored because it's scary, it's been ignored because it has nothing to do with the argument. I argue that some fantasy Libertarian utopian completely unregulated Free Market would create conditions where the poorest can be priced out of their ability to buy essential goods and services, including food and water. You then turn around and somehow think I have to find starving people in America in order to prove this assertion. It makes no sense at all. quote:Was this aimed at me? I'm not sure who you are replying to with this. No one in the entire thread has ever tried to argue these extremes. It's literally never happened, not even once. Are you familiar with the strawman fallacy? (probably not since you didn't know what tragedy of the commons was). You have doggedly refused to argue anything. But it's obvious what you wanted to promote: deregulation, the Libertarian free market utopia. If you refuse to take a position, people are going to look at your bullshit questions and assign a position to you. It's too late now, of course, but all you ever had to do was actually take a position. And again, I taught you about how the tragedy of the commons specifically applies to mismanagement of limited public resources like the water supply. I even quoted the portion of the same article you quoted that specifically references water as a classic example of the tragedy of the commons in action. That you keep insisting you taught me something is further evidence of your insane delusions. quote:Linking a study you didn't read isn't an answer. I asked you for an address of a home located inside of a food desert. Why are you afraid to give an address? I did in fact read that study. It is a good overview of the numerous studies defining and characterizing American food deserts. It refutes your position that food deserts do not exist or are some kind of racist idea. I think identifying multple cities and regions studied more than qualifies as finding "an address". quote:The racist myth of the food desert is extremely easy to debunk, because there are many peer-reviewed studies that actually look at this issue. Here are a few peer reviewed studies and articles about food deserts for you to read (you wont read a single one) LOL. Here we go! #1: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21237/abstract;jsessionid=EFC1CBDCB02CD0B7A96F6BC7147B06F2.f02t02 This study by cancer researchers investigates the causes and prevalence of obesity in America. While the term "food desert" does conveniently appear in the abstract, which is why you linked it, the study is not at all about food deserts. It also does not attempt to "debunk" the idea that food deserts exist. Since you of course have not bothered to even learn what "food desert" means - and here's a hint, it's not an absence of food in an area - you of course can't understand why a study that shows obesity isn't necessarily associated with food deserts does nothing to refute my position. #2: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2013/12_0123.htm Another study of obesity. quote:We found no strong evidence that food outlets near homes are associated with dietary intake or BMI. We replicated some associations reported previously but only for areas that are larger than what typically is considered a neighborhood. A likely reason for the null finding is that shopping patterns are weakly related, if at all, to neighborhoods in the United States because of access to motorized transportation. This study is limited to California (not one of the states where food deserts are most critically reported, in part because of the high levels of personal transportation ownership in the state). It uses obesity as a proxy for healthiness, and relies entirely on data gathred by telephone survey... that is, self-reported data. That people everywhere have ready access to high-calorie food has never been in question. Studies showing that obesity happens at similar rates outside of food deserts is not a refutation of the concept or existence of them. Especially studies like this one, which are just analysis of pre-existing surveys about Body Mass Index. That said, at least this study actually directly addresses food deserts, and its conclusions (that straight-line proximity to grocery stores is not strongly correlated or anticorrelated with BMI) are negative. Not proof, of course, but this is a cogent response, if not an especially convincing one. I'll remind you that the survey I posted covers more than a dozen studies that supported the presence and affect of food deserts. #3: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/2/283.abstract In a single Philadelphia neighborhood previously classified as a food desert, the presence of a new grocery store increased awareness of healthy food options but did not appreciably improve health during the period studied. The papers' own authors conclude: quote:The effectiveness of interventions to improve physical access to food and reduce obesity by encouraging supermarkets to locate in underserved areas therefore remains unclear. Nevertheless, the present findings suggest that simply improving a community’s retail food infrastructure may not produce desired changes in food purchasing and consumption patterns. Complementary policy changes and interventions may be needed to help consumers bridge the gap between perception and action. The authors themselves recognize that a single case-study, while interesting, can only ever be inconclusive. Since nobody here - and certainly not me - has attempted to argue that food deserts are solely and entirely responsible for obesity (which seems to be the tangent you'd prefer to wander down), this study is not actually relevant either. I genuinely have to get some other poo poo done, so let's skim the last few. #4 https://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/2/283.short LOL this is the same article as the previous one, but with a slightly different URL. You literally posted the same study twice, hahahahaha. And you said I wouldn't read them... #5: http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132076786/the-root-the-myth-of-the-food-desert This editorial is not a scientific study. It points out one area where poor people live, obesity is as rampant as usual, but is definitely not a food desert. Thank you, NPR guy, for pointing out that the obesity epidemic isn't entirely due to unavailability of good food choices. Too bad we're not actually talking about obesity: we're talking about what could possibly happen in totally unregulated food markets, and using food deserts as an example of areas where families have reduced choices in healthy food options. Not, and I feel I'm getting pretty repetitive here, an argument that obesity specifically is caused by food scarcity. #6 http://www.rand.org/health/feature/food-environment-obesity.html Yay! A study from RAND. I knew you would come through for us eventually. quote:Are these studies "stupid and wrong" or are you stupid and wrong? Which one is it? I'm going to bet the peer reviewed science is correct here and the guy who didnt know what tragedy of the commons/strawman fallacy was is incorrect. I think that's a pretty safe assumption. I posted a peer-reviewed science study, notably not about obesity, which surveyed more than a dozen peer-reviewed science studies reporting on food deserts. You posted three peer-reviewed studies that raised questions about the association between food deserts and obesity; plus an editorial, a repeat of one of those three studies, and a link to an article on RAND. I think I'm going to stick to my guns on this one. quote:It's so satisfying to correct the stupid opinions of others with science, data, and facts. It never gets old.  Enjoy your time off, you douchebag. Don't come back. This is the California megathread, not a personal platform for you to try (and fail miserably) to promote Libertarian free-market horseshit.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
I still want to know if he was loving that watermelon.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Kenning posted:I still want to know if he was loving that watermelon. You know he was.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Kenning posted:I still want to know if he was loving that watermelon. In California we do not discriminate against people based on sexual preference, regardless of whether they're loving watermelons or the corpse of Ayn Rand.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:In California we do not discriminate against people based on sexual preference, regardless of whether they're loving watermelons or the corpse of Ayn Rand. Watermelon fuckers aren't a protected class so it's not illegal even if we do.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
The worry about food prices isn't starvation, it's revolution. People tend to topple governments who can't provide a steady, affordable source of bread.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Someone just dumped a lot of oil on a concentration of rich people. Again. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-pipeline-santa-barbara-coast-20150519-story.html quote:A ruptured pipeline in Goleta leaked an estimated 21,000 gallons of crude oil Tuesday, some of which flowed into the ocean off Santa Barbara County, authorities said. incoherent fucked around with this message at 06:12 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Someone just dumped a lot of oil on a concentration of rich people. Again. drat, that sucks. Also, I don't think Goleta is particularly rich? It's not like this happened in Montecito or something.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Someone just dumped a lot of oil on a concentration of rich people. Again. My favorite part of the story is the pipeline was shut down a while ago. They just forgot to empty it apparently....
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Goleta is the poors of SB. Montecito is the richies of SB.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:My favorite part of the story is the pipeline was shut down a while ago. They just forgot to empty it apparently.... My favorite part is they dumped oil on the wrong people. Prepare to have your company sued into the ground you fucks.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Was this unexpected? The last time I was in ventura, the beaches covered in little loving oil globs.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Most of that is probably natural seepage. It's a rite of passage for kids who grew up on the Central Coast to come home from the beach and get out the rag and the turpentine for scrubbing the tar of their feet.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Most of that is probably natural seepage. It's a rite of passage for kids who grew up on the Central Coast to come home from the beach and get out the rag and the turpentine for scrubbing the tar of their feet. That and beating up the kids from Delano for daring to come to Pismo Beach and flirt with the local girls.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
The replacement of pro-labor liberals with corporate Democrats in the state senate continues apace.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The replacement of pro-labor liberals with corporate Democrats in the state senate continues apace. My mailbox was absolutely stuffed on a daily basis with ugly negative campaign bullshit from Glazer's campaign for the last month+. It was kind of funny just how much every one of his bullshit flyers made me prefer Bonilla. It's pretty terrible that Glazer won... I'd go farther than calling him a "corporate Democrat." He's straight-up conservative, basically a 1980s-style Republican. The only way he's not a Republican today is because the Republican party has moved so much farther to the right.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Hey, aren't places like Lamorinda basically Democratic strongholds only because the national party embraced the Third Way stuff?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:My mailbox was absolutely stuffed on a daily basis with ugly negative campaign bullshit from Glazer's campaign for the last month+. It was kind of funny just how much every one of his bullshit flyers made me prefer Bonilla. It's pretty terrible that Glazer won... I'd go farther than calling him a "corporate Democrat." He's straight-up conservative, basically a 1980s-style Republican. The only way he's not a Republican today is because the Republican party has moved so much farther to the right. My mailbox was only part of the problem, but I was getting 2-3 phone calls a day from that campaign for the last month, and 50% of the ads on SA were pro-Glazer ads (the remaining being the usual random non-political stuff). I was pretty sad to see that he won, but I assume it was a low-turnout election. I think he also ran for the same spot (or something similar) during the last election and got beat, so he's very persistent. I suspect he's only a Democrat because if he ran as a Republican he'd lose and have no chance of going anywhere, as I don't think our Republican party has really gone that far right socially (they can't) and instead they are just as far right economically as during the Reagan years. Hopefully he gets tossed the next time his seat is up.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:My mailbox was absolutely stuffed on a daily basis with ugly negative campaign bullshit from Glazer's campaign for the last month+. It was kind of funny just how much every one of his bullshit flyers made me prefer Bonilla. It's pretty terrible that Glazer won... I'd go farther than calling him a "corporate Democrat." He's straight-up conservative, basically a 1980s-style Republican. The only way he's not a Republican today is because the Republican party has moved so much farther to the right. Also being a republican canidate in CA is voting day poison, so many of them just switched over to democrat.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:My favorite part of the story is the pipeline was shut down a while ago. They just forgot to empty it apparently.... This was incorrect. (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-probe-california-coastal-oil-spill-pipe-excavation-20150521-story.html) quote:The ruptured pipeline, which can carry up to 6.3 million gallons of crude a day, is operated by Plains All American Pipeline and was built in 1987. It had just undergone a routine inspection, but company officials had not yet been told of its findings, they said.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Oh, the state assembly district Lamorinda and the Tri-Valley are in went Republican for the first time in years last year.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The large Texas-based company
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2015/05/22/oakland-mayor-libby-schaaf-institutes-curfew-on-nighttime-street-protest Oakland police project power by coming down hard on young mothers and children. They are the good guys, right?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
All of California's drought problems are due to people from other countries and the children of immigrants
FCKGW fucked around with this message at 18:00 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:All of California's drought problems are due to people from other countries and the children of immigrants anchor babies stealing all the water. (Just overlook how 80% of the water goes to big agribusinesses)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Since you don't actually burn water to make crops, I'm wondering how much of the water put into fields goes into the groundwater system, how much goes into evapotranspiration, et cetera. I feel like I should already know that, but I don't. And I also feel like there's a difference between that use of water and water that ends up being turned into cow piss, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Can anyone enlighten me?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
etalian posted:(Just overlook how 80% of the water goes to big agribusinesses) If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, use the right statistics. 40-50% of the water goes to agriculture. 70-80% of the developed water goes to agriculture. Do you have a source that breaks down big/small agribusiness by water use in CA? Because I don't. TildeATH posted:Since you don't actually burn water to make crops, I'm wondering how much of the water put into fields goes into the groundwater system, how much goes into evapotranspiration, et cetera. I feel like I should already know that, but I don't. And I also feel like there's a difference between that use of water and water that ends up being turned into cow piss, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Can anyone enlighten me? This gets into a lot of the complicated questions about the water cycle. To begin with consumption and withdrawals are different. For example, rice farmers in the Sacramento River Delta might have large withdrawal numbers, but low consumption because they're flooding and draining their fields. So they're using the water, but not consuming all they use. Then it gets towards the more general focus of your question. The problem with water returns do to evapotranspiration is that from what I understand in most of California the water vapor lost to the air becomes rain over the ocean, which isn't helpful to us. Likewise, I'm sure some major Ag is situated over Aquifers that need recharging, but geology plays such a key role I doubt there's much recharge impact from most Ag. Doesn't help if you're recharging a salt water aquifer for example.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Not to mention all of the statistics that show that poor people (which in California usually equates to mostly immigrants) use vastly, or even probably more like exponentially, less water than rich white fucks.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
It doesn't help that farmers perpetually use the worst irrigation techniques. I thought the evaporative losses of pivot irrigation were bad in the midwest but a lot of CA techniques seem worse. At least the vitners look like they are pretty efficient.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Someone just dumped a lot of oil on a concentration of rich people. Again. My favorite part of the story is that it's not 21,000 gallons anymore...it could be up to 105,000.........................................................
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Rare Indian Burial Ground Quietly Destroyed for Million Dollar Houses http://gizmodo.com/rare-indian-burial-ground-quietly-destroyed-for-million-1567902076
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Rare Indian Burial Ground Quietly Destroyed for Million Dollar Houses I guess they never watched horror movies.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Rare Indian Burial Ground Quietly Destroyed for Million Dollar Houses Now they get to reenact Poltergeist.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Rah! posted:Now they get to reenact Poltergeist. Also when their prize toy dog gets killed it will get a second chance
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 06:13
|
|