Republicans crush payrise


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 400 of 570 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:


...and kept us in the depression until our entry in WW2 pulled us out of the depression.
You believe that the government's deficit spending for WW II is what ended the Great Depression? Interesting, from your earlier posts I had assumed that you were a conservative. That'll teach me!

It was a short term fix that put people to work. There were still economic problems caused by regulation. But the worst of the depression on the poor was over.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:


It was a short term fix that put people to work. There were still economic problems caused by regulation. But the worst of the depression on the poor was over.

Dude, I am not just talking about the depression. I am talking about 80 hour work weeks, company stores that would have mortgaged your soul if they could afford it, child labor, backbreaking work, unsafe work conditions all because of a lack of regulation. It doesn't matter what some vague, ephemeral, quasi existing "the economy" was doing, the effect it had on real, flesh and blood people was atrocious.


Arnwolf wrote:
It was a short term fix that put people to work. There were still economic problems caused by regulation. But the worst of the depression on the poor was over.

So...to recap, the government's deficit spending ended the Great Depression. Got it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:
Minimum wage does not make life better. I believe that it makes it more difficult for unskilled laborers to get entry level positions and get trained cheaply on the job.

These statements are not mutually exclusive. One does not demonstrate the other. How difficult it is for unskilled laborers to get entry level positions is not the only consideration here.

In fact, there are so many competing and interactive considerations that I think its impossible to sit in your chair like a philosopher and say what would happen if there were no minimum wage. There's no NEED to. We had laisez fair capitalism in the 1890s-1930s and it sucked. The businesses colluded, wages were starvation or lower, the corporations rolled in the money and the unwashed masses breathed in asbestos and died like flies.

You want to go back to that so.. what? Billionaires can roll around on more money?

I disagree with you. The 1890s to 1920s were a period of great economic growth. But regulations creeped in during the 1910s and 1920s. The first few years of the Great Depression were not the worse, in fact we were very close to recovering in 1931, but then we elected FDR who regulated everything, everything got worse, and kept us in the depression until our entry in WW2 pulled us out of the depression.

Right now, Switzerland has no minimum wage, also there median income is much higher, and their unemployment around 3%. We could also learn much from their banking system, as they have had the most stable banks and currency in history. There are things I don't like about Switzerland, but banks, minimum wage, currency, and immigration they do well. Just my opinion.

This opinion brought to you by the Liberty University Jesus Reagan School of American History.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Yakman wrote:
I think's there's a legitimate concern that minimum wages can act as an anchor for hourly salaries to gravitate to though.

Yes, and that is why in Sweden the worker's movement have never really tried to get one. Minimum wages are better than nothing, but can stifle wage increases.

However, getting rid of minimum wages in the US would be horrible, as there is no other system.

In Sweden we have historically had very strong unions, and while they've grown yellower and yellower over the years they've still worked better than minimum wages, through the unions basically setting their own minimum wages rather than the state doing it.

However, until the US gets strong union protection laws, removal of minimum wages will just result in a big fat dump on wages overall.

Uuh, didn't you just try to get one... Last week?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Uuh, didn't you just try to get one... Last week?

Well, either I've missed something huge (seeing as I don't know any union or left-wing party in Sweden even arguing for one) or you made the common mistake of mixing up Sweden and Switzerland, who did vote about minimum wage a week ago.

;P

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Uuh, didn't you just try to get one... Last week?

Well, either I've missed something huge (seeing as I don't know any union or left-wing party in Sweden even arguing for one) or you made the common mistake of mixing up Sweden and Switzerland, who did vote about minimum wage a week ago.

;P

Shenanigans!

I don't know anyone who's ever seen Sweden and Switzerland in the same room at the same time!


Krensky wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Uuh, didn't you just try to get one... Last week?

Well, either I've missed something huge (seeing as I don't know any union or left-wing party in Sweden even arguing for one) or you made the common mistake of mixing up Sweden and Switzerland, who did vote about minimum wage a week ago.

;P

Shenanigans!

I don't know anyone who's ever seen Sweden and Switzerland in the same room at the same time!

I have, but only at a distance. It was a big room.

Acquisitives

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:
It was a short term fix that put people to work. There were still economic problems caused by regulation. But the worst of the depression on the poor was over.
So...to recap, the government's deficit spending ended the Great Depression. Got it.

nope. the post-war expansion ended the great depression.

people like to talk about the depression ending with ww2, but when food and clothing is rationed, i find it hard to call that prosperity.

add in the post-war recession, and one could argue that the great depression really, truly, didn't end until 1947.

Liberty's Edge

Yakman wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:
It was a short term fix that put people to work. There were still economic problems caused by regulation. But the worst of the depression on the poor was over.
So...to recap, the government's deficit spending ended the Great Depression. Got it.

nope. the post-war expansion ended the great depression.

people like to talk about the depression ending with ww2, but when food and clothing is rationed, i find it hard to call that prosperity.

add in the post-war recession, and one could argue that the great depression really, truly, didn't end until 1947.

No, no it can't.

Liberty's Edge

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Uuh, didn't you just try to get one... Last week?

Well, either I've missed something huge (seeing as I don't know any union or left-wing party in Sweden even arguing for one) or you made the common mistake of mixing up Sweden and Switzerland, who did vote about minimum wage a week ago.

;P

Shenanigans!

I don't know anyone who's ever seen Sweden and Switzerland in the same room at the same time!

I have, but only at a distance. It was a big room.

Please, that could be anyone. Switzerland, Italy on a bad hair day, Germany in drag. It proves nothing.


Krensky wrote:
Yakman wrote:

add in the post-war recession, and one could argue that the great depression really, truly, didn't end until 1947.

No, no it can't.

If you're not confined by facts and reason, one can argue literally anything. And the right-wing apologists usually do.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Uuh, didn't you just try to get one... Last week?

Well, either I've missed something huge (seeing as I don't know any union or left-wing party in Sweden even arguing for one) or you made the common mistake of mixing up Sweden and Switzerland, who did vote about minimum wage a week ago.

;P

Indeed. Several posts before your were talking about Switzerland and it's lack of minimum wage. My mind told me you were continuing in that discussion. Definitely reading comprehension fail on my part.


Somehow, somewhere...Obama did it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No he didn't. But he did hear about it on the news, though.
Mad as hell, that one.


Kryzbyn wrote:

No he didn't. But he did hear about it on the news, though.

Mad as hell, that one.

Ah, so you're going with the "Obama sucks...because he's not omniscient" offense? Solid choice. Definitely better than "Obama isn't a U.S. citizen."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No, I'm being sarcastic and making light of the 4th or 5th time we've heard that line from Carney.

Chill.


Kryzbyn wrote:

No, I'm being sarcastic and making light of the 4th or 5th time we've heard that line from Carney.

Chill.

*shrug*

The VA sucks under Obama. It sucked under Bush Jr., and Clinton, and Bush Sr., and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, etc., etc., etc.

I get that the buck stops with the president, but the Obama bashing (in general) gets to be a bit much. In fairness, I suppose conservatives felt the say way about Bush.


BigDTBone wrote:


Indeed. Several posts before your were talking about Switzerland and it's lack of minimum wage. My mind told me you were continuing in that discussion. Definitely reading comprehension fail on my part.

In sweden, we joik, in switzerland they yodel.

:P


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:


It was a short term fix that put people to work. There were still economic problems caused by regulation. But the worst of the depression on the poor was over.

Dude, I am not just talking about the depression. I am talking about 80 hour work weeks, company stores that would have mortgaged your soul if they could afford it, child labor, backbreaking work, unsafe work conditions all because of a lack of regulation. It doesn't matter what some vague, ephemeral, quasi existing "the economy" was doing, the effect it had on real, flesh and blood people was atrocious.

I happen to be very familiar with company stores in the state of West Virginia. There prices were never more than 10% more than sold elsewhere, sometimes lower. But the reason they were higher is because of the cost of transporting the goods to a rural area with poor roads. Company Script was not what coal miners were paid, it was an advance on their pay check, that could not be more than 25% of their pay check. Competition for labor was rough, the turnover at coalmines was well over 100% per year, because they could not keep people. Some places paid more than others, some offered schools and paid less to get workers to stay. It was very competitive for companies to get and retain labor. Was the job dangerous, hell yes. And safer companies paid less because safety is not cheap. I also work in the oil field I get ticked if they work me less than 80 hours a week. I prefer around 100 to 110. Some places offer more, some less. But no one likes under 80.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Yakman wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:
It was a short term fix that put people to work. There were still economic problems caused by regulation. But the worst of the depression on the poor was over.
So...to recap, the government's deficit spending ended the Great Depression. Got it.

nope. the post-war expansion ended the great depression.

people like to talk about the depression ending with ww2, but when food and clothing is rationed, i find it hard to call that prosperity.

add in the post-war recession, and one could argue that the great depression really, truly, didn't end until 1947.

No, no it can't.

I was under the impression that the ration cards, victory gardens and price- and wage-controls during WWII (not to mention the no-strike pledges) were more for convincing the American populace that "we" were on war footing and to get the labor movement back under control than indicative of the state of the American economy at that time.

But it's been a while since I trawled through all of that stuff.

(Edited)

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I was under the impression that the ration cards, victory gardens and price- and wage-controls during WWII (not to mention the no-strike pledges) were more for convincing the American populace that "we" were on war footing and to get the labor movement back under control than indicative of the state of the American economy at that time.

But it's been a while since I trawled through all of that stuff.

(Edited)

That depends, are we talking reality or right-wing mythology?


Arnwolf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:


It was a short term fix that put people to work. There were still economic problems caused by regulation. But the worst of the depression on the poor was over.

Dude, I am not just talking about the depression. I am talking about 80 hour work weeks, company stores that would have mortgaged your soul if they could afford it, child labor, backbreaking work, unsafe work conditions all because of a lack of regulation. It doesn't matter what some vague, ephemeral, quasi existing "the economy" was doing, the effect it had on real, flesh and blood people was atrocious.
I happen to be very familiar with company stores in the state of West Virginia. There prices were never more than 10% more than sold elsewhere, sometimes lower. But the reason they were higher is because of the cost of transporting the goods to a rural area with poor roads. Company Script was not what coal miners were paid, it was an advance on their pay check, that could not be more than 25% of their pay check. Competition for labor was rough, the turnover at coalmines was well over 100% per year, because they could not keep people. Some places paid more than others, some offered schools and paid less to get workers to stay. It was very competitive for companies to get and retain labor. Was the job dangerous, hell yes. And safer companies paid less because safety is not cheap. I also work in the oil field I get ticked if they work me less than 80 hours a week. I prefer around 100 to 110. Some places offer more, some less. But no one likes under 80.

So this is some more Houston Derek trolling?


Dude, I live in west Virginia. I know how the system works. The coal mines have allowed hard working people to go to work for generations so they could buy a farm with just a few short years of hard work and get out if we wanted too. My dad did it, his dad did it, and several of my brothers did it. Now that the liberals have been destroying the coal industry it is pretty much the oil fields we are going too. We do that because it pays very well. It does now and it did over a hundred years ago, because that is how my family got their homes and farmland. Me, I am a little greedier than they are, I been staying in longer to pad my 401K and IRA. So I know the coal industry paid its workers well because I and my family worked for them for generations.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
Now that the liberals have been destroying the coal industry...

Let me guess...climate change is a liberal conspiracy?

Seriously though...the Tragedy of the Commons. Look into it. Cost externalization. Look into it. Maybe even take an econ course? Assuming you can survive that bastion of liberal evil known as "college."


bugleyman wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:
Now that the liberals have been destroying the coal industry...

Let me guess...climate change is a liberal conspiracy?

Seriously though...the Tragedy of the Commons. Look into it. Cost externalization. Look into it. Maybe even take an econ course? Assuming you can survive that bastion of liberal evil known as "college."

Climates always change. And yes it is the biggest conspiracy out there that is completely blown out of proportion. The USA contributes about 5% of the worlds pollution. We have more trees in the USA than we did a 100 years ago. Clean coal is a reality. And sadly runoff water from trees contribute more to the acid in lakes than pollution does. The science of global warming is very inaccurate, and I say this because of the scientific data. Wind mills use diesel and kills birds, you don't see animal rights activists complaining about eagles being killed by wind mills, and solar energy is a joke.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't even know where to start.
"Coal mining pays very well"? Do you know why it pays well?

It pays well because coal miners fought and died to form unions. If your ancestors were coal miners in WV, they were union and part of that struggle. (Or they were scabs, but I wouldn't accuse anyone's family of that.)


Now to be fair, I am biased. My family makes their living by coal and oil. When people talk about banning it, they are talking about taking the livelihood away from my family. And I grew up listening to people in the 60s and 70s talking about us entering a new ice age. They also showed pictures to us in school of New York and coastal cities being underwater by the year 2000. In the 80s the ozone layer was going to kill us. And it turned out all those things were false.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
Now to be fair, I am biased. My family makes their living by coal and oil. When people talk about banning it, they are talking about taking the livelihood away from my family. And I grew up listening to people in the 60s and 70s talking about us entering a new ice age. They also showed pictures to us in school of New York and coastal cities being underwater by the year 2000. In the 80s the ozone layer was going to kill us. And it turned out all those things were false.

You know, I grew up in the 70s too and I don't even remember the "new ice age" thing. It was around, but it was a few scientific speculations and a lot of media hype. The scientific consensus is much much more solidly behind global warming.

As for the ozone layer, that problem went away because we acted.

It's always the way of it: Point out a problem and fix it and you get no credit because nothing bad happened so it couldn't really have been a problem.
Not going to happen with climate change, I guess. We'll be able to point and say "See what happens when you don't listen!". Small comfort.


But the thing is Global Warming is just media hype also and their are still all the holes in the ozone layer, it's a natural phenomenon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
Now to be fair, I am biased. My family makes their living by coal and oil. When people talk about banning it, they are talking about taking the livelihood away from my family. And I grew up listening to people in the 60s and 70s talking about us entering a new ice age. They also showed pictures to us in school of New York and coastal cities being underwater by the year 2000. In the 80s the ozone layer was going to kill us. And it turned out all those things were false.

This entire post is 100% lies.


What we have is people who want to champion a cause very badly. And saving the Earth is a very seductive cause to champion. People like to feel outraged and victimized. People like to feel like a champion for injustices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:
Now to be fair, I am biased. My family makes their living by coal and oil. When people talk about banning it, they are talking about taking the livelihood away from my family. And I grew up listening to people in the 60s and 70s talking about us entering a new ice age. They also showed pictures to us in school of New York and coastal cities being underwater by the year 2000. In the 80s the ozone layer was going to kill us. And it turned out all those things were false.
This entire post is 100% lies.

That's probably not true.

I'm willing to believe what he says about his family. And that he's biased.
There was even a thing about a new Ice Age, though it was much less serious than he makes it out to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
Now to be fair, I am biased.

Oh thank goodness. I never would have realized if you hadn't told us.


Did they show you slides in school of New York and coastal cities being under water? They showed them to us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
But the thing is Global Warming is just media hype also and their are still all the holes in the ozone layer, it's a natural phenomenon.

Except it's not media hype. If anything the media is far behind the scientific consensus at this point. While I can't find anything about "new Ice Age" back then that comes close to rivaling the consensus on warming today. The actual scientific reports (or summaries of them) are essentially saying "There's this trend over the last 30 years. We don't know if it'll continue. We don't really understand why it's happening. Here's some speculation." Which the media picked up on an d amplified to "Oh mi god we're all going to freeze."

Surveys of the literature from back then don't show anything like a consensus about whether the cooling even existed, at least globally. And some voices were already talking about warming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
Did they show you slides in school of New York and coastal cities being under water? They showed them to us.

No.

No idea what the mechanism for that would be anyway. Sea levels drop during an Ice Age.

Sure those weren't already predictions of warming? :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
and their are still all the holes in the ozone layer, it's a natural phenomenon.

No it's not. The reduction of ozone into individual oxygen atoms by UV is, (O3 + UV -> O + O + O) but left to its own devices the individual oxygen atoms will recombine to reform ozone. That's how it protects us from UV light. It absorbs the UV but reforms afterward.

When you add chlorofluorocarbons (man-made!) into the mix, they are also broken up, but then the individual chlorine atoms grab ahold of an oxygen atom, and leave only 2 oxygen atoms to make O2 thus depleting O3. O2 doesn't absorb UV so we now have a hole in our UV protection where there didn't use to be.

The ozone hole is not natural. It's caused by us.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
Dude, I live in west Virginia. I know how the system works. The coal mines have allowed hard working people to go to work for generations so they could buy a farm with just a few short years of hard work and get out if we wanted too. My dad did it, his dad did it, and several of my brothers did it. Now that the liberals have been destroying the coal industry it is pretty much the oil fields we are going too. We do that because it pays very well. It does now and it did over a hundred years ago, because that is how my family got their homes and farmland. Me, I am a little greedier than they are, I been staying in longer to pad my 401K and IRA. So I know the coal industry paid its workers well because I and my family worked for them for generations.

Dude, half my family is from Luzern county in PA, and that's pretty much a crock of shit. Coal mining was hard, dangerous, and impoverished until the UMW, Knights of Labor, and JP Morgan broke Gowan and the other mine owners.


There is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. Many scientists disagree with it. Many scientists disagree with collecting temperature data from satellites. Many scientists believe you have to measure the temperature and water levels on the ground because the error rate is too high from satellite. Temperature locations can't be cherry picked. Urban locations have higher temperatures than rural because of population density that can throw off data.

There is no consensus. Political groups choose the scientists they want to promote their ideologies. And too many scientists give data to support the groups that give them funding. It's a very sad situation.

And the scariest thing out their is environmentalist policies being used to attack private businesses because it is easier to shut them down using an environmentalist policy than to shut them down because you want government to control the industry.

It is very dangerous to give a government agency the ability to shut down an industry without a congressional decision or the decision of a jury because government employees can not lose their job very easily.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What is this 1994? Why are we discussing these environmental issues like some vague mystery? The only place these issues are "disputed" is among right wing politicians in the US (and perhaps Australia- thanks Rupert Murdoch).

While your welcome to believe the Earth is flat, coal is "clean" or evolution is a myth, don't pretend your beliefs are based on anything close to science.

EDIT: One more thing, capitalism has failed so badly several times in the last century that government had to come and rescue it. If you keep asking for a free market, you are going to get it in the form of people deciding to ditch capitalism in favor of a system that works much better. It would have happened in the 1930's. A "free market" only keeps going if the government forces people to keep accepting it after it has nearly destroyed itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:

There is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. Many scientists disagree with it. Many scientists disagree with collecting temperature data from satellites. Many scientists believe you have to measure the temperature and water levels on the ground because the error rate is too high from satellite. Temperature locations can't be cherry picked. Urban locations have higher temperatures than rural because of population density that can throw off data.

There is no consensus. Political groups choose the scientists they want to promote their ideologies. And too many scientists give data to support the groups that give them funding. It's a very sad situation.

And the scariest thing out their is environmentalist policies being used to attack private businesses because it is easier to shut them down using an environmentalist policy than to shut them down because you want government to control the industry.

It is very dangerous to give a government agency the ability to shut down an industry without a congressional decision or the decision of a jury because government employees can not lose their job very easily.

Scientists 100% agree that climate change is happening. Scientists 98% agree that the causes are man-made. Just because Fox News will give the other 2% of scientists 90% of the air time they spend on this topic does not mean that a consensus doesn't exist.


I'm not a Republican, but the EPA is out of control with power.


I'm not a Republican, a religious person, but the EPA is out of control with power. It is like they worried about angering the fire gods. The one thing nobody has been able to do is give an alternative to coal and oil. Wind Power and Solar just can not produce the energy needed for civilization. I like driving a car and having a warm house in the winter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
I'm not a Republican, a religious person, but the EPA is out of control with power. It is like they worried about angering the fire gods. The one thing nobody has been able to do is give an alternative to coal and oil. Wind Power and Solar just can not produce the energy needed for civilization. I like driving a car and having a warm house in the winter.

Sounds like you are very confused in a variety of ways. Wind and solar can do just fine. There could easily be enough of both to power everything with relatively little effort. Compare the cost of things like wars in the Middle East, to putting solar panels on every house and business, and the answer is obvious. I like a warm house and driving, but I would be willing to jump through a hoop or two to get it without my friends getting shot up in Iraq.

Oil isn't just for energy, but that is a bigger issue.


I understand people disagreeing with me on Global Warming. We all read various authors and make our own opinion based on the information presented to us. But to say there is a consensus is a joke.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-fin ds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Now I can do this all day with links, as I am sure my opposition can. So it is silly to say there is a consensus in the issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
Did they show you slides in school of New York and coastal cities being under water? They showed them to us.

Did you see the slides of NY subways getting flooded during Sandy? Did you see the tunnels getting filled with water? Did you see the tens of thousands of homes and business getting washed away or damaged? The power station blowing up? Half the city in the dark, and many without power for weeks? The blocks of houses on fire?

If you are using the New York as an example of things being high and dry, you are going to be about as popular around here as someone saying skyscrapers can't be damaged by planes.

Knock it off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The motto of Forbes magazine is "The Capitalist Tool".

I could not have put it better myself.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:

I understand people disagreeing with me on Global Warming. We all read various authors and make our own opinion based on the information presented to us. But to say there is a consensus is a joke.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-fin ds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Now I can do this all day with links, as I am sure my opposition can. So it is silly to say there is a consensus in the issue.

From that study

Quote:
To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.
And from the authors of the study, in response to that Forbes article
Quote:
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions.

Edit: I want to emphasize that. This isn't dueling studies. This isn't my interpretation of the study. This isn't my claim that it's biases. This is the authors of the study saying that it can't be used for the generalizations James Taylor drew from it.

These are the lengths you have to go to find support for the "skeptic" position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Seriously no, Global Warming is not hype.

351 to 400 of 570 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Republicans crush payrise All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.