[The Succ Zone] I unblocked you, again, to say this: You don't fucking know me. - The Something Awful Forums

The C-Spam Times

Better Posts Aren't Possible

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [The Succ Zone] I unblocked you, again, to say this: You don't fucking know me.

«‹›2987 »

FuriousxGeorge: Aug 8, 2007; We've been the best team all year.

They're just finding out.

SKULL.GIF posted:

https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/891887526482280448

A bad dem after all.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 17:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 07:21

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Informational networks should be public utilities, hth

# ? Jul 31, 2017 17:46

SKULL.GIF: Jan 20, 2017

steinrokkan posted:

Informational networks should be public utilities, hth

# ? Jul 31, 2017 17:46

GalacticAcid: Apr 8, 2013; NEW YORK VALUES

Keep BIG GOVERNMENT off MY FACEBOOK!!!!

# ? Jul 31, 2017 17:47

SKULL.GIF: Jan 20, 2017

https://twitter.com/sarahljaffe/status/892063135489765378

"Nobody will welcome the ghouls back faster than our liberals."

# ? Jul 31, 2017 17:50

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

steinrokkan posted:

Informational networks should be public utilities, hth

# ? Jul 31, 2017 17:50

Man Musk: Jan 13, 2010

Greetings, fellow unemployed Democrats

# ? Jul 31, 2017 17:54

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008

SKULL.GIF posted:

https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/891887526482280448

I mean, saying "we should specifically nationalize these two large corporate entities that always lobby in the wrong direction :mad:

:mad:

" is a very Steve-Bannon take on it

the correct answer is of course "we should nationalize the entire Internet"

# ? Jul 31, 2017 17:54

Man Musk: Jan 13, 2010

Condiv posted:

of course. of loving course obama's inner circle is getting involved in dismantling the concept of an employee

I lust for the death of city taxi cabals

# ? Jul 31, 2017 17:59

Zerg Mans: Oct 19, 2006

SKULL.GIF posted:

https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/891887526482280448

I mean Nazis are fundamentally populists. Its just they use the populism to justify genocide.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:01

Agnosticnixie: Jan 6, 2015

The democratic party is basically validating every joke about the 19th century british liberals being a vapid, ideology-free party for people who wanted to be conservative but pretend to care about the poor.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:01

Man Musk: Jan 13, 2010

Having to use your real name on government-run social media is top china tier

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:04

SHY NUDIST GRRL: Feb 15, 2011; Communism will help more white people than anyone else. Any equal measures unfairly provide less to minority populations just because there's less of them. Democracy is truly the tyranny of the mob.

Doesn't Facebook require your real name

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:07

SKULL.GIF: Jan 20, 2017

Agnosticnixie posted:

The democratic party is basically validating every joke about the 19th century british liberals being a vapid, ideology-free party for people who wanted to be conservative but pretend to care about the poor.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:07

Higgy: Jul 6, 2005; Grimey Drawer

SKULL.GIF posted:

I'm the chill dude just tryin to nap on a solar panel

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:08

Zerg Mans: Oct 19, 2006

Agnosticnixie posted:

The democratic party is basically validating every joke about the 19th century british liberals being a vapid, ideology-free party for people who wanted to be conservative but pretend to care about the poor.

ah yes, those jokes.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:09

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008; Can't post for 6 hours!

Man Musk posted:

Greetings, fellow unemployed Democrats

I'm overemployed.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:10

UHD: Nov 11, 2006

Vox Nihili posted:

I'm overemployed.

quit bogarting the employment dude

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:11

MizPiz: May 29, 2013; by Athanatos

Vox Nihili posted:

I'm overemployed.

Hey Tom Perez

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:12

Concerned Citizen: Jul 22, 2007; Ramrod XTreme

zegermans posted:

ah yes, those jokes.

They're real knee-slippers.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:13

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Concerned Citizen posted:

well there's already a standard by which we define who is allowed to be a democratic nominee: a primary. why should the national party dictate who a district is or is not allowed to run for office in a particular area? i think we do too much of that as it is, i don't think it should be extended to having the believe the right things.

yes, i agree that it "dilutes the brand" but i also think that we're a democratic country with a two party system and these kinds of 'tests' kind of short circuit the system and reduce choice

wow, those goalposts move fast. you've gone from "everyone should be equally eligible for funding" to "the national party shouldn't be able to literally deny someone the right to run" in the course of half a page

the "brand" is important because if the brand is meaningless, there's literally zero reason to take it into account when voting. if the only difference between "Democrat" and "Republican" is which pile of empty suits endorses them and which megadonors fill their coffers, why should anyone care about either party?

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:15

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:

Doesn't Facebook require your real name

they've frequently banned trans people for not using their birth names yes

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:16

deadgoon: Dec 4, 2014; by FactsAreUseless

we need a pro-choice purity test so that zergerman's wife will be encouraged to never repeat her mistake

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:17

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008; Can't post for 6 hours!

Condiv posted:

they've frequently banned trans people for not using their birth names yes

That's insanely hosed up. FWIW, they didn't ban the trans people I know who changed their names.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:17

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

deadgoon posted:

we need a pro-choice purity test so that zergerman's wife will be encouraged to never repeat her mistake

i'll panic when CC reveals they have kids

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:18

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008; Can't post for 6 hours!

deadgoon posted:

we need a pro-choice purity test so that zergerman's wife will be encouraged to never repeat her mistake

Jesus dude

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:18

Agnosticnixie: Jan 6, 2015

zegermans posted:

ah yes, those jokes.

Serious post: That the first cry of victory from the bad dems (who still dominate the party) after AHCA was "we need bipartisanship now", especially considering their most bipartisan bills have been for imperial butchery, does help demonstrate what Arendt meant when discussing the inability of bipartisan systems to maintain substantially opposing ideologies, and so instead they just have no claimed ideology.

The democratic party being able to take captive demographics for granted in this process because they're a bit less likely to be bigots just makes it worse since it's not even proving to be enough to protect said groups (after all, O'Malley and Cuomo are dems).

Agnosticnixie has issued a correction as of 18:27 on Jul 31, 2017

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:19

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

like the idea of regulating something isn't terrible and people recoiling with disgust at facebook being regulated is kinda crazy.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:19

GalacticAcid: Apr 8, 2013; NEW YORK VALUES

Big Steve (Milwaukee welder, three kids): I would vote for the Democrats but they remind me of 19th century British liberals

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:21

got any sevens: Feb 9, 2013; by Cyrano4747

Vox Nihili posted:

So only 70% of the nation or thereabouts.

why is our country so crazy? in england it's almost unthinkable to be anti-choice

loquacius posted:

I dunno though, I'm actually ambiguous on this one because the primary is supposed to mean something too

Like, going "ok maybe you won your primary but you're Not A Real Democrat so we've decided you don't count" is basically admitting the primary process is a sham

but at the same time it'd be great if we could just agree once and for all on basic stuff like whether a woman can get such-and-such medical procedure or whether healthcare is a right etc and there isn't really any other way to enforce that

maybe the party shouldnt let people run in the dem primary if they dont adhere to a basic platform?
i thought that was the point of a platform

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:22

Man Musk: Jan 13, 2010

got any sevens posted:

why is our country so crazy? in england it's almost unthinkable to be anti-choice

It's a successful wedge issue with all sorts of cultural baggage

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:26

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008

got any sevens posted:

maybe the party shouldnt let people run in the dem primary if they dont adhere to a basic platform?
i thought that was the point of a platform

I mean, this would be a great idea if the party didn't SUCK

but as it is, allowing the party to police who gets to run under its banners seems like a really good way to allow the establishment to box out outliers (meaning progressives). It's basically what happened in 2016 -- the entire establishment had already decided one way before the primary began, and a significant number of voters disagreed. If they had been allowed to just find some reason to disqualify Bernie from running -- they could have used his independent status (or something something gun rights) as a pretext for this, easy -- then it's done. Bing bang boom, no more Dem civil war, 1000 years of centrism and losing.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:33

punk rebel ecks: Dec 11, 2010; A shitty post? This calls for a dance of deduction.

GalacticAcid posted:

memories :-)

Do any of these people even know what cuck means?

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:34

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

Why are the democrats so lovely.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:35

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Vox Nihili posted:

That's insanely hosed up. FWIW, they didn't ban the trans people I know who changed their names.

they often don't catch it. I know a couple of people who've used fake names on FB for years for privacy reasons. as long as it's not really obviously made up, FB probably won't notice unless someone reports it or something happens that draws scrutiny. of course, anti-trans bigots know about the FB real name policy and it's an easy way for them to mess with trans people

when the do catch it, FB definitely does initiate disciplinary action against trans people who change their names. typically they're forced to either provide documentation (such as a driver's license) proving that it's their actual legal name, or give FB a detailed explanation of the "special circumstances" that require them to not use their real name. if their "ID verification experience" (as FB calls it) doesn't pass muster, their account gets banned

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:36

docbeard: Jul 19, 2011

I've been lookin' for someone to blame
Campaigns, big banks, close aim, point blank
Bang
Flag raised out the barrel end
Reads "you can't win"
It means y'all can't win
Bang

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:38

UHD: Nov 11, 2006

replace all dem primaries with a Bernie Tribunal where bernie and his hand-picked judges decide if you are worthy of the party brand or not

if a district can't find a candidate that passes then i guess it's a republican district

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:39

Al!: Apr 2, 2010

Vox Nihili posted:

I'm overemployed.

JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:40

Concerned Citizen: Jul 22, 2007; Ramrod XTreme

Main Paineframe posted:

wow, those goalposts move fast. you've gone from "everyone should be equally eligible for funding" to "the national party shouldn't be able to literally deny someone the right to run" in the course of half a page

the "brand" is important because if the brand is meaningless, there's literally zero reason to take it into account when voting. if the only difference between "Democrat" and "Republican" is which pile of empty suits endorses them and which megadonors fill their coffers, why should anyone care about either party?

well no, i'm not talking about the national party literally denying someone the right to run - I mean it's kind of poisoning the well of candidates if the party says "we will not give funding to any candidate that doesn't believe X and Y." the people who make those kinds of decisions are not elected directly by democratic voters, they're unaccountable. their narrow role is to elect as many democrats as possible, and that should be the only thing they do in my opinion. once you open it up, it's kind of a pandora's box that is really more dangerous to the left than the center. imagine, for example, eliminating funding to someone for insufficient support of the president's agenda (like TPP). in other words, i think the solution here is more democracy rather than trying to rig the game one way or another so that only ideologically correct candidates win.

in the US, we have a two party system with weak parties. the party functions as broad banners to unite the center and the left under a single label, and the center and left compete within that arena for elected positions. in the past there have been attempts by the center to marginalize the left, and the truth is that those efforts have always been self-defeating. there is no way to enforce ideological purity under our current system, because your opponents are not going to simply disappear when they lose - they will just become disaffected and sabotage you, just as you sabotaged them. until such time that we reform the american system to one that doesn't punish you for having more parties, we're going to have to learn to live together and accept that we're sometimes an awkward match.

so the function of the national party should be to create as fair and level a playing ground as possible for candidates to compete in primaries, and basically let the people of the district decide without putting a thumb on the scales one way or another. i'm ok in some circumstances for the dccc to endorse a candidate early, but only when there's no competitive primary and not doing so would put the democrat at a disadvantage versus the republican.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 07:21

MizPiz: May 29, 2013; by Athanatos

Al! posted:

JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS

This but it's jobs instead of balls

# ? Jul 31, 2017 18:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [The Succ Zone] I unblocked you, again, to say this: You don't fucking know me.

«‹›2987 »

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.05)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS