[SPL] Round 5 Week 3 Revie…
[GSTL] Week 10 - Prime Tim…
[WCS KR] Innovation vs. Sy…
[WCS AM] Ro16 Group D Prev…
G-1 Champions League LAN F…
TL Site Changes
[WCS EU] Grubby, MMA, Ret …
Pizza: All Tiers Reached
Vici and RisingStars Advan…
Up&Down groups for 2013 WC…
HerO, Revival Interviews -…
[SPL] Round 5 Week 4 Start…
Get 50% off Papa John's pi…
TL Advertising Features
Iron Man 3
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Best way to "move on" af…
GeoGuessr geography game
[TV/BOOK] *SPOILERS* Gam…
TL Site Changes
Team Liquid Greasemonkey S…
San Francisco, CA | Major …
The Automated Ban List
Barcraft DF - WCS Europe F…
The IdrA Fanclub
LG-IM Squirtle Fanclub
[Stream] Winter - Zerg/Rdm…
[Stream] Honeybear
Computer Build Resource Th…
[G] Streaming with OBS (Op…
Getting a new Mouse! Any R…
High FPS but choppy gameplay
Any fix for Twitch tv lag?
Up&Down groups for 2013 …
Suggestions for WCS Chal…
Designated Balance Discu…
[SPL] Flash(KT) & Innova…
[Show] Knockout - Ep 2. …
Pizza: All Tiers Reached
[WCS EU] Challenger League…
[WCS EU] Finals Day 1 Prem…
ESET UK HOTS Showdown - Sj…
Ottawa's Got Game! Estimat…
Numericable M-House Cup 2
The HotS Terran Help Me Th…
[Q] Is Mech weaker then bi…
Rain vs. Flash - TL Strate…
[G] First Overview of HotS…
Simple Questions Simple An…
Simple Questions/Answers
[M] (2) ESV Deep Forest
Map Jam & Challenge #5
Work In Progress Melee Maps
OneGoal: A better SC2 [Pro…
General Discussion
Dota 2 QQ thread
Invites and Qualifiers f…
All Pick - Wong Hock Chuan
DotA 2 Team Recruitment …
G-1 Champions League LAN…
[G-1] LAN Finals
Starladder Season 6
[The International] Easter…
[EU] GAMEFACE Launch Event…
Dota 2 Canada Cup - Featur…
Simple Questions, Simple A…
[G] In-Game Dota Guide for…
[G] Clockwerk, The Offlani…
[H] Night Stalker
[G]uide to Lifestealer
My Review of the Starcra…
DES Sonic Interview 5/18…
TeamLiquid Legacy Starle…
[Update] itemBay SSL Gra…
[D] New BW Server
[SOSPA] Event Matches
Gambit's Cup Season 3 Roun…
Gem League II
D Ranks Teamleague Season 4
[GC S3] Gambit's Cup Semif…
C Ranks Teamleague Season 1
Simple Questions, Simple A…
Increasing APM/EAPM
Practice Partner Thread
Challenger map on Starcraf…
EVE Corporation
TL MMA Pick'em Pool 2013
Android: Netrunner
Tera MMORPG
UFC 160: Velasquez vs Bi…
Carnival Cruise Mafia
[T] Bastard "Mini" Mafia!
Active List of Mafia Games
Running Thread
The Injuries Thread
TL Health and Fitness Init…
Leta - Movie
Michael - skyline
Anytime - Beast
By.Hero - Shuttle
Anytime - Pusan
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads


IRC Web Chat

TeamSpeak 3 (72 users)


Active: 8191 users

President Obama Re-Elected - Page 73

Forum Index > General Forum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here.

The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301
 
 Smat   United States. May 01 2012 10:04. Posts 243
Profile # 

On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:

Show nested quote +



The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.


Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!
Last edit: 2012-05-01 10:04:14
Old Post

 
 Josealtron   United States. May 01 2012 10:05. Posts 216
Profile Blog # 

On May 01 2012 10:04 Smat wrote:

Show nested quote +


Ha you're funny. Everyone's stupid except me!!


Compelling argument.
"If you give up on yourself, you give up on the world."
Old Post

 
 AcuWill   United States. May 01 2012 10:07. Posts 280
Profile # 

On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:

Show nested quote +



The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.


If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.
Old Post

 
 sc2superfan101   May 01 2012 10:07. Posts 2434
Profile Blog # 

On May 01 2012 10:05 Josealtron wrote:

Show nested quote +



Compelling argument.

you pretty much said that the reason people vote for Republicans is because they are stupid.

which is funny, because you are half-right. a big reason why A LOT of people vote for Republicans is because a lot of Democrats think that we're all stupid and aren't that shy about saying it.
My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them.
Old Post

 
 Signet   United States. May 01 2012 10:10. Posts 1664
Profile # 

On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:

Show nested quote +



The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.


Actually the Democratic party typically wins the votes of the least educated people. (they also win the most educated people) Republicans do better among people with roughly average intelligence.

Granted, "average" is still appallingly stupid. For example, I'd wager Palin's IQ is between 95 and 105.
Old Post

 
 Josealtron   United States. May 01 2012 10:10. Posts 216
Profile Blog # 

On May 01 2012 10:07 AcuWill wrote:

Show nested quote +


If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.


There's little evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that a completely free market would lead to a stable and strong economy. If I'm wrong, though, please post it.
"If you give up on yourself, you give up on the world."
Old Post

 
 AcuWill   United States. May 01 2012 10:14. Posts 280
Profile # 

On May 01 2012 10:10 Josealtron wrote:

Show nested quote +



There's little evidence(that I know of) supporting the fact that a completely free market would lead to a stable and strong economy. If I'm wrong, though, please post it.

Please post the evidence that an interventionist market will lead to a stable and strong economy.
Old Post

 
 Josealtron   United States. May 01 2012 10:17. Posts 216
Profile Blog # 

On May 01 2012 10:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:

Show nested quote +


you pretty much said that the reason people vote for Republicans is because they are stupid.

which is funny, because you are half-right. a big reason why A LOT of people vote for Republicans is because a lot of Democrats think that we're all stupid and aren't that shy about saying it.



Actually, people vote Republican because:

-They feel that they are the "small government" party(which is laughably false)
-Religious reasons(in which many Republicans, like Santorum, completely ignore the Bill of Rights)
-They are convinced that lower taxes automatically=better economy(also laughably false)
-They are convinced that lower regulations automatically=better economy(also false)

Republicans are very good at appealing to the common public with these views, because they are simple and easy to understand. But they aren't supported by evidence-one can contrast the 20s(and the depression that followed) and 50s to see that lower taxes does not necessarily mean a better economy. I'm not saying that higher taxes automatically=a better economy either. These issues aren't simple, and Republicans market them as simple, and they do it really well-that is what I mean when I say they are appealing to stupid people. It's harsh, but it's the truth. Not that Democrats don't do it either, of course, but Republicans are much much better at it.
"If you give up on yourself, you give up on the world."
Old Post

 
 SerpentFlame   May 01 2012 10:19. Posts 384
Profile Blog # 

On May 01 2012 10:14 AcuWill wrote:

Show nested quote +


Please post the evidence that an interventionist market will lead to a stable and strong economy.

FDR turned the US into a command economy in World War II, hiking tax rates on the rich to well over 90 percent. Unemployment dropped from 15 percent to 1.6, averaging around 4 percent for the next 15 years. That's about as interventionist as they come.
You're welcome.
Last edit: 2012-05-01 10:20:35
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege
Old Post

 
 Wegandi   United States. May 01 2012 10:25. Posts 921
Profile # 

On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:

Show nested quote +



The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes.



If they did as you said then neither the D's or the R's would ever get elected, and the majority body would be all L's. At least the Republican's don't lie -- you know their MO. Democrats sell you a bill of false goods when they're just as rich and most times richer. So many people stuck in the false dichotomy, if GOP bad then D good, or D bad GOP good. They're both corrupt rotten parties that agree on 95% of the issues and sit back and laugh while the rest of the country fights each other over stupid wedge issues that don't matter squat and all the while they're sitting there counting the loot and all the new powers the dupes have given over to them.
Last edit: 2012-05-01 10:32:50
Old Post

 
 Wegandi   United States. May 01 2012 10:31. Posts 921
Profile # 

On May 01 2012 10:19 SerpentFlame wrote:

Show nested quote +


FDR turned the US into a command economy in World War II, hiking tax rates on the rich to well over 90 percent. Unemployment dropped from 15 percent to 1.6, averaging around 4 percent for the next 15 years. That's about as interventionist as they come.
You're welcome.


Sure, you can completely wipe out unemployment by drafting everyone who is unemployed and sending them off to die. If that is your idea of a healthy economy and political ideal I have nothing else to say to you, but you should really reflect on what you just wrote. Never mind that all the folks back at home could only eat meat once a week or so, had to give a lot of their possessions and property to the military for 'the war effort', rationing of almost everything, price & wage controls, laborious work for not much return as all of it was going into the military. No useful items that increase our standard of living were really being built as all the factories were churning out military equipment to be blown up and destroyed, thus making everyone poorer.

Real nice.
Old Post

 
 SerpentFlame   May 01 2012 10:34. Posts 384
Profile Blog # 

On May 01 2012 10:31 Wegandi wrote:

Show nested quote +



Sure, you can completely wipe out unemployment by drafting everyone who is unemployed and sending them off to die. If that is your idea of a healthy economy and political ideal I have nothing else to say to you, but you should really reflect on what you just wrote. Never mind that all the folks back at home could only eat meat once a week or so, had to give a lot of their possessions and property to the military for 'the war effort', rationing of almost everything, price & wage controls, laborious work for not much return as all of it was going into the military. No useful items that increase our standard of living were really being built as all the factories were churning out military equipment to be blown up and destroyed, thus making everyone poorer.

Real nice.


Subtract the death, rations, and miltiary equipment part. Replace with bridges, infrastructure, and building upgrades.
Tada.
If anything that would improve the economic outlook.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege
Old Post

 
 Leporello   United States. May 01 2012 10:35. Posts 1659
Profile # 

On May 01 2012 10:07 AcuWill wrote:

Show nested quote +


If people actually thought for themselves and researched as you state, they would be Libertarians. They sure as hell wouldn't need the government to take care, think, and decide who gets value through the "crony economics" for them.


Our very first President, George Washington, used government revenue, tariffs, to set up poor houses.

Welfare, in other words.

Thomas Jefferson built a college that offered free tuition. Public education.

Libertarianism wasn't ever considered then as being practical. Only now, when we have the luxury of all of our infrastructure, regulations, and comfortable, government-built society, do we have the luxury of such ideologies. Libertarianism is a fad, an easy-to-understand philosophy that positively crumbles in the face of real-life nuances. I hope it dies, sooner the better.
(\/) (;,,;) (\/) More GG, more White-Ra, more TLO
Old Post

 
 Josealtron   United States. May 01 2012 10:38. Posts 216
Profile Blog # 

On May 01 2012 10:14 AcuWill wrote:

Show nested quote +


Please post the evidence that an interventionist market will lead to a stable and strong economy.


First off, the book "Aftershock-The Next Economy and America's Future" by economist Robert Reich is a great read on this.

This website provides a short summary of the income tax rates throughout the 20th century, I'll use these for reference:
http://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx

Obviously, I'm not going to be able to cover every detail, but I'll go into the main points of why I believe a totally free market is a bad idea.

Let's start with the 20s. The 20s economy was for the most part a laissez-faire economy-the highest income tax rate was 25% by 1925, and there was very little regulation(Coolidge was VERY opposed to it). In the 20s, this seemed great- it was called the roaring 20s and so forth, and the economy seemed to boom. But the problem with the laissez-faire economy was that it was very volatile-and though the beginning/mid 20s saw a boom, the irresponsibility of the deregulated banks combined with a variety of other factors made the economy crash so badly that it resulted in the Great Depression.

Now let's look at the Depression. FDR's presidency brought a massive increase in tax rates on the rich(up to 63%) and new regulations on banks as well as social welfare programs(Social Security). The economy began to recover, but with the deficit increasingly massively, many freaked out about balancing the budget, and Roosevelt initiated spending cuts in 37 which led to the Roosevelt Recession in 37-38. And then the MASSIVE amounts of spending that came from WW2 brought the economy back full swing. And from WW2 up until the early 80s, the tax rates remained high, and the economy more regulated. Of course, the 70s saw stagflation, which was a major issue, but that was a result of the oil crisis, not the high taxes/regulation. Since then we've had a relatively deregulated economy compared to the 40s-70s, and our economy has been much more volatile, which is the problem with a free market.

So that's the basic gist of my argument. I don't really have time to write a massive essay going into every detail.



"If you give up on yourself, you give up on the world."
Old Post

 
 Wegandi   United States. May 01 2012 10:46. Posts 921
Profile # 

On May 01 2012 10:34 SerpentFlame wrote:

Show nested quote +


Subtract the death, rations, and miltiary equipment part. Replace with bridges, infrastructure, and building upgrades.
Tada.
If anything that would improve the economic outlook.



Perhaps we should put you in charge of the politburo so you can run the economy, because all of us lowly commoners are too stupid to know how to spend our own money, how to invest our own money, and how to plan for retirement ourselves. Chinese and Brazilians followed your model. They have ghost cities compltely uninhabited that they spent billions on. Good ol' central planners think they always know what is best for everyone, that they know our own individual wants and desires more than we do. The height of hubris.

Besides, what are these workers going to do after all these infrastructures are built. What work will you have them do then? Perhaps dig a few ditches and fill them back in? They all ready siphon road and infrastructure funds from the supposed taxes we pay for them to keep roads and such in working condition (Gas taxes, DMV fees, etc. etc.), and you then want to hand them more money to dole out to their friends and cronies? I am usually not so much a fan of Milton, but he's dead on here.



The fatal conceit. Thinking the State is some neutral institution, that is benevolent full of angels here to serve. What a load of bullocks in the English tone. Imagine giving say Wal-Mart the ability to tax you and to enforce such taxes they have armed thugs to haul you off to jail if you refuse to be extorted for their 'services'. You think the services they provide would improve in quality and price if they didn't need to care about the customer having to have an incentive to purchase their goods? That's the State in a shell. They don't give a flying fuck. They get your money regardless of the quality of the service, and they have a damn monopoly, which further undermines quality and price. It's ridiculous the price we pay for our shit ass roads and you then want to pay more for 'jobs programs'. They don't warrant the outrageous amount of money we are forced to pay them in the first place that most of it isn't even spent on what it's supposed to do.

That's fraud in the market, but the State has impunity.
Old Post

 
 1Eris1   United States. May 01 2012 10:56. Posts 5797
Profile # 

On May 01 2012 10:35 Leporello wrote:

Show nested quote +



Our very first President, George Washington, used government revenue, tariffs, to set up poor houses.

Welfare, in other words.

Thomas Jefferson built a college that offered free tuition. Public education.

Libertarianism wasn't ever considered then as being practical. Only now, when we have the luxury of all of our infrastructure, regulations, and comfortable, government-built society, do we have the luxury of such ideologies. Libertarianism is a fad, an easy-to-understand philosophy that positively crumbles in the face of real-life nuances. I hope it dies, sooner the better.



You do realize when those two guys were President the Federal Government was a fraction of the size it is today? Very few modern day Libertarians want "no government", they just want less government. It is not a fad of sorts, it has been around for a while and probably first started with Jefferson and Adams and their push for a less-centralized national government.
Known Aliases: Tyragon, Valeric ~MSL Forever, SKT is truly the Superior KT!
Old Post

 
 sc2superfan101   May 01 2012 11:05. Posts 2434
Profile Blog # 

On May 01 2012 10:17 Josealtron wrote:

Show nested quote +



Actually, people vote Republican because:

-They feel that they are the "small government" party(which is laughably false)
-Religious reasons(in which many Republicans, like Santorum, completely ignore the Bill of Rights)
-They are convinced that lower taxes automatically=better economy(also laughably false)
-They are convinced that lower regulations automatically=better economy(also false)

Republicans are very good at appealing to the common public with these views, because they are simple and easy to understand. But they aren't supported by evidence-one can contrast the 20s(and the depression that followed) and 50s to see that lower taxes does not necessarily mean a better economy. I'm not saying that higher taxes automatically=a better economy either. These issues aren't simple, and Republicans market them as simple, and they do it really well-that is what I mean when I say they are appealing to stupid people. It's harsh, but it's the truth. Not that Democrats don't do it either, of course, but Republicans are much much better at it.


ahh see, now we're getting somewhere.

the Republicans are the "small government" party for the most part. the problem that a lot of non-Republicans have understanding this is because they think in terms of black and white (for all that they protest to the opposite). they think "i prefer small government" means "i prefer no government in every single facet of my life" when it actually means what it says: we prefer a small, efficient, precise, government with a lot of checks and balances and we want it as cheap as possible. so people are not stupid for calling the Republicans the "small government" party, nor are they 100% wrong. they are simply speaking in generalities. generally Republicans do prefer and work for a smaller government, especially lately.

religious reasons are a big one, but this cuts into the original "stupid" point. most Democrats are religious, so why would the Republican party seem to have the hold on "religious voters"? precisely because the Democratic party, in general, treats religion like a thing that should be kept in the home, and a sizable minority of the party, a very vocal minority, treats it like a quaint and "stupid" thing. religion is extremely important to a lot of people, and contrary to popular opinion on this site, people are not generally stupid. they can tell when their beliefs are being trivialized or mocked, and they are turned off by it.

it is not that people think lower taxes=better economy, so much as people just want lower taxes and they especially want it when the economy is bad. you can scream and shout at people all day long about the need to pay more, but in general people will want to pay less and will try to find a way to pay less. when the economy is bad, your wallet starts getting slimmer and taxes start looking a lot more like something that you can do with a little less of.

it's the same thing as above with regulation. people don't think less regulation automatically means a better economy. they just don't like burdensome regulations and when the economy gets bad regulations start looking more and more burdensome and more and more expendable. the most common response is that taking away burdensome regulations and lowering taxes a bit would not "fix" the problem, and therefore are not worth it. the answer is that a small cup of water may not save a man dying of thirst, but he's still gonna want it pretty bad.

it's not harsh so much as it is elitist and misinformed. people are not so stupid as you make them out to be, nor are they so easily tricked. they just have concerns that do not necessarily coincide with yours, or even with the "good of society as a whole". when people are hurting economically or believe that they are hurting economically, they are much less tolerant of what they see as unnecessary expenditures out of the government.

it is not that people think the issues themselves are all "simple" (though they usually are), so much as that many of the solutions to the issues are relatively simple to understand, however complex the actual problem may be. most people do not want to concern themselves with every tiny little detail of solving the problem, and rightly so. this doesn't make them stupid, or even uninformed. the whole reason why we elect people to do the job is because not all of us want to do the job. Republicans don't water down their message any more than Democrats do, and neither of them is necessarily wrong in watering the message down, precisely because most people are intelligent enough to understand what they are talking about. seriously though, acting like Democrats don't do this just as much is just... i don't even know. dishonest i guess.

My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them.
Old Post

 
 Smat   United States. May 01 2012 11:07. Posts 243
Profile # 

On May 01 2012 10:38 Josealtron wrote:

Show nested quote +



First off, the book "Aftershock-The Next Economy and America's Future" by economist Robert Reich is a great read on this.

This website provides a short summary of the income tax rates throughout the 20th century, I'll use these for reference:
http://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx

Obviously, I'm not going to be able to cover every detail, but I'll go into the main points of why I believe a totally free market is a bad idea.

Let's start with the 20s. The 20s economy was for the most part a laissez-faire economy-the highest income tax rate was 25% by 1925, and there was very little regulation(Coolidge was VERY opposed to it). In the 20s, this seemed great- it was called the roaring 20s and so forth, and the economy seemed to boom. But the problem with the laissez-faire economy was that it was very volatile-and though the beginning/mid 20s saw a boom, the irresponsibility of the deregulated banks combined with a variety of other factors made the economy crash so badly that it resulted in the Great Depression.

Now let's look at the Depression. FDR's presidency brought a massive increase in tax rates on the rich(up to 63%) and new regulations on banks as well as social welfare programs(Social Security). The economy began to recover, but with the deficit increasingly massively, many freaked out about balancing the budget, and Roosevelt initiated spending cuts in 37 which led to the Roosevelt Recession in 37-38. And then the MASSIVE amounts of spending that came from WW2 brought the economy back full swing. And from WW2 up until the early 80s, the tax rates remained high, and the economy more regulated. Of course, the 70s saw stagflation, which was a major issue, but that was a result of the oil crisis, not the high taxes/regulation. Since then we've had a relatively deregulated economy compared to the 40s-70s, and our economy has been much more volatile, which is the problem with a free market.

So that's the basic gist of my argument. I don't really have time to write a massive essay going into every detail.





So how much more money should the government spend that it doesn't have? Would adding another few trillion to the debt bring us back to the prosperous times of the 40s-70s? When does massive government spending stop helping the economy because its sinking the government?
Old Post

 
 LarJarsE   United States. May 01 2012 11:09. Posts 1323
Profile Blog # 

On May 01 2012 10:19 SerpentFlame wrote:

Show nested quote +


FDR turned the US into a command economy in World War II, hiking tax rates on the rich to well over 90 percent. Unemployment dropped from 15 percent to 1.6, averaging around 4 percent for the next 15 years. That's about as interventionist as they come.
You're welcome.

fdr increased MARGINAL TAX RATES to 94% for the rich
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/20/hoover-fdr-and-clinton-tax-increases-a-brief-historical-lesson/
Last edit: 2012-05-01 11:10:46
since 98'
Old Post

 
 LarJarsE   United States. May 01 2012 11:14. Posts 1323
Profile Blog # 
I'll be voting for Obama. I honestly believe mitt romney is W bush 2.0. The shit that man says....
since 98'
Old Post

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504
Please log in or register to reply.
 

» Recent SC2 Results
» Premier SC2 Tournaments

The Little App Factory