Shut 'em Down!

言語: JP EN DE FR
2010-06-21
New Items
users online
Shut 'em down!
First Page 2 3 ... 32 33 34 ... 99 100 101
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 12:12:19  
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Siren.Flavin said: »
Just because you see it as rotten doesn't make it so... It has already been through the gauntlet too... Should the government shut down every time the other side does something they don't like?
No, they shouldn't.

But when you pass a bill that the opposing side had no say or even had a chance to contribute to because the other side had a super-majority (Dems had a super-majority in both the House and Senate in 2009-2010, just in case you forgot) and could effectively pass any bill they want with ZERO opposition (which is the only way Obamacare actually got passed), then don't blame the other side for taking any and all routes available to them.

This is just one route they have/had taken.
lie
What part? That the 111th congress didn't have 59 Dem Senators or 255 Dem Reps? (Compared to 41 Republican Senators or 179 Republican Reps)

That Obamacare was passed with zero votes from Republicans?

That Obama didn't even allow Republicans to contribute to Obamacare, because he knew he had to get this passed as quickly as possible before the public really can see what's going on?

Or is that all fabricated by Limbaugh and Fox News and Bush? That never really happened and they are all lying to make the liberals look bad?

Fabricated is exactly the right word. In fact, it was deliberated and changed with the help of both senate and house republicans for nearly 9 months before it was signed into law.

Have any of you even read the short and sweet versions of what ACA does? or do you only focus on the part that fox and rush hammer on about thinking it's all there is to it?
Forbes cliff's notes on ACA
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 12:13:23  
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Someone conveniently forgets the massive "kick the bums out" movement of the 2010 midterms.

You mean the kick the bums out movement that put the incumbency rate to it's lowest point in 4 years?! The truth is, the 2012 election incumbency rate was only slightly below the historical average, still over 90% and higher than the 50 year low of the 2008 elections.

history of reelection in the house and senate.

Quit digging your own hole. Congress passed this monstrosity, then suffered the lowest incumbancy rate when 61 seats changed hands in the house during the 2010 election. That's more than any other election in the last 30 years (and I only looked back 30 years).

Should have looked back 4 years, then you'd have found one lower.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-10 12:14:42  
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Siren.Flavin said: »
Just because you see it as rotten doesn't make it so... It has already been through the gauntlet too... Should the government shut down every time the other side does something they don't like?
No, they shouldn't.

But when you pass a bill that the opposing side had no say or even had a chance to contribute to because the other side had a super-majority (Dems had a super-majority in both the House and Senate in 2009-2010, just in case you forgot) and could effectively pass any bill they want with ZERO opposition (which is the only way Obamacare actually got passed), then don't blame the other side for taking any and all routes available to them.

This is just one route they have/had taken.
lie
What part? That the 111th congress didn't have 59 Dem Senators or 255 Dem Reps? (Compared to 41 Republican Senators or 179 Republican Reps)

That Obamacare was passed with zero votes from Republicans?

That Obama didn't even allow Republicans to contribute to Obamacare
, because he knew he had to get this passed as quickly as possible before the public really can see what's going on?

Or is that all fabricated by Limbaugh and Fox News and Bush? That never really happened and they are all lying to make the liberals look bad?
That one.

Meh... probably not "technically" true, I'm sure someone at some point said something that could be counted as a contribution. But lets be real here, none of them voted for it, how much could they have really contributed?
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 12:14:57  
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Siren.Flavin said: »
Just because you see it as rotten doesn't make it so... It has already been through the gauntlet too... Should the government shut down every time the other side does something they don't like?
No, they shouldn't.

But when you pass a bill that the opposing side had no say or even had a chance to contribute to because the other side had a super-majority (Dems had a super-majority in both the House and Senate in 2009-2010, just in case you forgot) and could effectively pass any bill they want with ZERO opposition (which is the only way Obamacare actually got passed), then don't blame the other side for taking any and all routes available to them.

This is just one route they have/had taken.
lie
What part? That the 111th congress didn't have 59 Dem Senators or 255 Dem Reps? (Compared to 41 Republican Senators or 179 Republican Reps)

That Obamacare was passed with zero votes from Republicans?

That Obama didn't even allow Republicans to contribute to Obamacare
, because he knew he had to get this passed as quickly as possible before the public really can see what's going on?

Or is that all fabricated by Limbaugh and Fox News and Bush? That never really happened and they are all lying to make the liberals look bad?
That one.
Prove me wrong.

What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?

You're the one contesting the facts, the burden of proof is on you.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-10 12:18:48  
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Someone conveniently forgets the massive "kick the bums out" movement of the 2010 midterms.

You mean the kick the bums out movement that put the incumbency rate to it's lowest point in 4 years?! The truth is, the 2012 election incumbency rate was only slightly below the historical average, still over 90% and higher than the 50 year low of the 2008 elections.

history of reelection in the house and senate.

Quit digging your own hole. Congress passed this monstrosity, then suffered the lowest incumbancy rate when 61 seats changed hands in the house during the 2010 election. That's more than any other election in the last 30 years (and I only looked back 30 years).

Should have looked back 4 years, then you'd have found one lower.

4 years?

2010 Repubs gained 63 in house and 6 in senate
2008 Dems gained 21 in house and 8 in senate
2006 Dems gained 31 in house and 6 in senate

Your facts are incorrect bud, sorry!
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 12:22:47  
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Someone conveniently forgets the massive "kick the bums out" movement of the 2010 midterms.

You mean the kick the bums out movement that put the incumbency rate to it's lowest point in 4 years?! The truth is, the 2012 election incumbency rate was only slightly below the historical average, still over 90% and higher than the 50 year low of the 2008 elections.

history of reelection in the house and senate.

Quit digging your own hole. Congress passed this monstrosity, then suffered the lowest incumbancy rate when 61 seats changed hands in the house during the 2010 election. That's more than any other election in the last 30 years (and I only looked back 30 years).

Should have looked back 4 years, then you'd have found one lower.

4 years?

2010 Repubs gained 63 in house and 6 in senate
2008 Dems gained 21 in house and 8 in senate
2006 Dems gained 31 in house and 6 in senate

Your facts are incorrect bud, sorry!

you're talking about seat changes by party, that's a different metric than incumbency. You can't prove that there was a lower incumbency rate in 2012, because there wasn't. So, you take a different metric to make your case. Yes, more seats changed party in 2012, but I was talking about incumbency rate. And more total seats were retained in 2012 than 2008.
Offline
Posts: 9772
By Zerowone 2013-10-10 12:24:51  
Siren.Flavin said: »
Should the government shut down every time the other side does something they don't like?


It shouldn't but from 1976 to the present, it does so quite a bit:


Asura.Kingnobody said: »

But when you pass a bill that the opposing side had no say or even had a chance to contribute to because the other side had a super-majority (Dems had a super-majority in both the House and Senate in 2009-2010, just in case you forgot) and could effectively pass any bill they want with ZERO opposition (which is the only way Obamacare actually got passed), then don't blame the other side for taking any and all routes available to them.

This is just one route they have/had taken.

You must have meant "Full opposition" because the voting tally is definitely not indicative of "ZERO opposition"

H R 3590 RECORDED VOTE 21-Mar-2010 10:49 PM Tally 219 Y to 212 N it barely passed and there were 34 democrats who voted nay.
 Siren.Mosin
Offline
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
user: BKiddo
By Siren.Mosin 2013-10-10 12:25:17  
you guys are silly, it was a republican plan in the first place, how much more *** input do you need, man!!??!
[+]
 Ragnarok.Hevans
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Hev
Posts: 15273
By Ragnarok.Hevans 2013-10-10 12:29:16  
Your level of ignorance, delusion, and self-righteousness is astounding.
[+]
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-10 12:29:50  
D.C. city democrats starting to get pretty antsy over Obama's shutdown politics.

DC democrats have their own funding to run their city but are not permitted to do so because of shutdown politics. Needless to say they are getting kinda fed up with it. Reid told them today "Don't screw it up!". Screw what up Reid?

YouTube Video Placeholder


I guess their suffering is "good for the collective". Sorry DC, you get the shaft cause we're too busy playing politics.

Didn't they try something like this in the USSR once?

(Not Godwin's law either Pleebo!)
 Shiva.Nikolce
Offline
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Nikolce
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2013-10-10 12:30:59  
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
[What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?

they actually wrote most of it...it was called Romneycare.

which was a *** child/direct result of Hillarycare.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 9772
By Zerowone 2013-10-10 12:32:02  
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
[What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?

they actually wrote most of it...it was called Romneycare.

which was a *** child/direct result of Hillarycare.

It was originally drafted to oppose Hillarycare in the 90's... its more like Hillarycares less corporate dependent evil twin.
[+]
 Siren.Mosin
Offline
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
user: BKiddo
By Siren.Mosin 2013-10-10 12:34:37  
Ragnarok.Hevans said: »
Your level of ignorance, delusion, and self-righteousness is astounding.

hey! *** you too, buddy!
[+]
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-10 12:35:16  
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Someone conveniently forgets the massive "kick the bums out" movement of the 2010 midterms.

You mean the kick the bums out movement that put the incumbency rate to it's lowest point in 4 years?! The truth is, the 2012 election incumbency rate was only slightly below the historical average, still over 90% and higher than the 50 year low of the 2008 elections.

history of reelection in the house and senate.

Quit digging your own hole. Congress passed this monstrosity, then suffered the lowest incumbancy rate when 61 seats changed hands in the house during the 2010 election. That's more than any other election in the last 30 years (and I only looked back 30 years).

Should have looked back 4 years, then you'd have found one lower.

4 years?

2010 Repubs gained 63 in house and 6 in senate
2008 Dems gained 21 in house and 8 in senate
2006 Dems gained 31 in house and 6 in senate

Your facts are incorrect bud, sorry!

you're talking about seat changes by party, that's a different metric than incumbency. You can't prove that there was a lower incumbency rate in 2012, because there wasn't. So, you take a different metric to make your case. Yes, more seats changed party in 2012, but I was talking about incumbency rate. And more total seats were retained in 2012 than 2008.

Right so, congress passed this law and suffered the lowest incumbency rate in 2010 cause we "threw the bums out" (63 seats changed) they all were elected to stop obamacare and then maintained a higher incumbency rate in the 2012 election.

As I said quit digging your own hole!
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 12:36:38  
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
I guess their suffering is "good for the collective". Sorry DC, you get the shaft cause we're too busy playing politics.

Didn't they try something like this in the USSR once?

(Not Godwin's law either Pleebo!)

Oh wow, did you just compare a famine to a partisan temper tantrum? You're talking about two VERY different things.
[+]
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-10 12:39:59  
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
I guess their suffering is "good for the collective". Sorry DC, you get the shaft cause we're too busy playing politics.

Didn't they try something like this in the USSR once?

(Not Godwin's law either Pleebo!)

Oh wow, did you just compare a famine to a partisan temper tantrum? You're talking about two VERY different things.

Aye was hyperbole, that comment to Pleebo should have been the hint...

But the logic of it's the good of the party can have some disastrous effects if left unchecked
Offline
Posts: 9772
By Zerowone 2013-10-10 12:42:45  
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »

Aye was hyperbole, that comment to Pleebo should have been the hint...

But the logic of it's the good of the party can have some disastrous effects if left unchecked

http://on.cc.com/15mkcQa
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 12:47:54  
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Someone conveniently forgets the massive "kick the bums out" movement of the 2010 midterms.

You mean the kick the bums out movement that put the incumbency rate to it's lowest point in 4 years?! The truth is, the 2012 election incumbency rate was only slightly below the historical average, still over 90% and higher than the 50 year low of the 2008 elections.

history of reelection in the house and senate.

Quit digging your own hole. Congress passed this monstrosity, then suffered the lowest incumbancy rate when 61 seats changed hands in the house during the 2010 election. That's more than any other election in the last 30 years (and I only looked back 30 years).

Should have looked back 4 years, then you'd have found one lower.

4 years?

2010 Repubs gained 63 in house and 6 in senate
2008 Dems gained 21 in house and 8 in senate
2006 Dems gained 31 in house and 6 in senate

Your facts are incorrect bud, sorry!

you're talking about seat changes by party, that's a different metric than incumbency. You can't prove that there was a lower incumbency rate in 2012, because there wasn't. So, you take a different metric to make your case. Yes, more seats changed party in 2012, but I was talking about incumbency rate. And more total seats were retained in 2012 than 2008.

Right so, congress passed this law and suffered the lowest incumbency rate in 2010 cause we "threw the bums out" (63 seats changed) they all were elected to stop obamacare and then maintained a higher incumbency rate in the 2012 election.

As I said quit digging your own hole!

You're talking about less than 10% of congress, also forgetting that nearly 40 members of congress didn't seek reelection and 9 of the seats won were unopposed. That's not throwing the bums out, it's also not significantly different than ANY election in the past 50 years. If you want a "throw the bums out" election, look back to the 180 years before that where the incumbency rates were in the teens.
[+]
 Shiva.Nikolce
Offline
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Nikolce
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2013-10-10 12:55:59  
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
[What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?

they actually wrote most of it...it was called Romneycare.

which was a *** child/direct result of Hillarycare.

Right so if you are sitting there scratching your head wondering why the tea party is opposed to a bill the republicans wrote in the first place... the answer is the individual mandate which was fine on the state level but on the federal level goes against their basic anti federalist instincts.
[+]
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 13:03:08  
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
[What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?

they actually wrote most of it...it was called Romneycare.

which was a *** child/direct result of Hillarycare.

Right so if you are sitting there scratching your head wondering why the tea party is opposed to a bill the republicans wrote in the first place... the answer is the individual mandate which was fine on the state level but on the federal level goes against their basic anti federalist instincts.

It's absolutely an affront to libertarianism. But instead of talking about it as what it is, they demonize it as socialism, marxism, unconstitutional, government takeover, claim it's going to kill small businesses (which are the ones NOT effected by it), make up jail sentences for violators, wildly exaggerate individual cost, etc.
 Shiva.Nikolce
Offline
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Nikolce
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2013-10-10 13:05:24  
Odin.Jassik said: »
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
[What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?

they actually wrote most of it...it was called Romneycare.

which was a *** child/direct result of Hillarycare.

Right so if you are sitting there scratching your head wondering why the tea party is opposed to a bill the republicans wrote in the first place... the answer is the individual mandate which was fine on the state level but on the federal level goes against their basic anti federalist instincts.

It's absolutely an affront to libertarianism. But instead of talking about it as what it is, they demonize it as socialism, marxism, unconstitutional, government takeover, claim it's going to kill small businesses (which are the ones NOT effected by it), make up jail sentences for violators, wildly exaggerate individual cost, etc.

no one paid any attention to them when they made sense...

BORING!!!!
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-10 13:11:06  
Odin.Jassik said: »
Fabricated is exactly the right word. In fact, it was deliberated and changed with the help of both senate and house republicans for nearly 9 months before it was signed into law.

Have any of you even read the short and sweet versions of what ACA does? or do you only focus on the part that fox and rush hammer on about thinking it's all there is to it?
Forbes cliff's notes on ACA
No, I actually read the law.

A good portion is *** (amendments to previous laws) while the actual "Obamacare" law was pretty much a new list of taxes and regulations. Nothing about making healthcare affordable.

But you wouldn't believe me though. You only focus on the part that MSN and Washington Post hammer on about thinking that is all to it...
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-10 13:12:54  
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Siren.Flavin said: »
Just because you see it as rotten doesn't make it so... It has already been through the gauntlet too... Should the government shut down every time the other side does something they don't like?
No, they shouldn't.

But when you pass a bill that the opposing side had no say or even had a chance to contribute to because the other side had a super-majority (Dems had a super-majority in both the House and Senate in 2009-2010, just in case you forgot) and could effectively pass any bill they want with ZERO opposition (which is the only way Obamacare actually got passed), then don't blame the other side for taking any and all routes available to them.

This is just one route they have/had taken.
lie
What part? That the 111th congress didn't have 59 Dem Senators or 255 Dem Reps? (Compared to 41 Republican Senators or 179 Republican Reps)

That Obamacare was passed with zero votes from Republicans?

That Obama didn't even allow Republicans to contribute to Obamacare
, because he knew he had to get this passed as quickly as possible before the public really can see what's going on?

Or is that all fabricated by Limbaugh and Fox News and Bush? That never really happened and they are all lying to make the liberals look bad?
That one.
Prove me wrong.

What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?

You're the one contesting the facts, the burden of proof is on you.
I have supplied my facts, I was called out on one, the burden of proof is on Pleebo to make my fact into an untruth.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-10 13:13:24  
Odin.Jassik said: »
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
[What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?

they actually wrote most of it...it was called Romneycare.

which was a *** child/direct result of Hillarycare.

Right so if you are sitting there scratching your head wondering why the tea party is opposed to a bill the republicans wrote in the first place... the answer is the individual mandate which was fine on the state level but on the federal level goes against their basic anti federalist instincts.

It's absolutely an affront to libertarianism. But instead of talking about it as what it is, they demonize it as socialism, marxism, unconstitutional, government takeover, claim it's going to kill small businesses (which are the ones NOT effected by it), make up jail sentences for violators, wildly exaggerate individual cost, etc.

Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.

Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.


Keep digging!
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-10 13:17:09  
Zerowone said: »
You must have meant "Full opposition" because the voting tally is definitely not indicative of "ZERO opposition"

H R 3590 RECORDED VOTE 21-Mar-2010 10:49 PM Tally 219 Y to 212 N it barely passed and there were 34 democrats who voted nay.
Thank you for supporting my whole point.
 Shiva.Nikolce
Offline
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Nikolce
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2013-10-10 13:19:05  
You have to keep in mind that the "tea party" didn't actually evolve from a child's tea party with feather boas and stuffed animals with fancy sounding names like His Royal Majesty Fluffyionicus III

NO, It gets it's name from the historical "boston tea party" where participants dressed up like native americans, stormed a ship and threw all the tea overboard because they didn't like the tax england imposed on them to pay for the bills they racked up during the french and indian wars.

shutting down the government makes about as much sense as throwing tea overboard but if you understand the historical context then you should have seen it coming and not taunted them with "you don't get to shut the government down because you didn't get what you wanted" to which they responded by blowing raspberries and wearing underwear on their heads in protest

The lesson, if there is one to be learned is,

NEVER LEAN ON WEIRD/CRAZY PEOPLE!!!

They will tell you to cram it sideways and then take all their marbles and go home.
[+]
 Shiva.Nikolce
Offline
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Nikolce
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2013-10-10 13:24:04  
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
the burden is on Pleebo to make all of our dreams come true


Save us Pleebo!!! You're our only hope!!!
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-10 13:34:41  
>.>
 Caitsith.Zahrah
Offline
サーバ: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
user: zahrah
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2013-10-10 13:35:27  
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
the burden is on Pleebo to make all of our dreams come true

Save us Pleebo!!! You're our only hope!!!

This will have to hold us over for now...

[+]
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Offline
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2013-10-10 13:37:35  
[+]
First Page 2 3 ... 32 33 34 ... 99 100 101
Log in to post.