Jump to content
Soniman

Jontron

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Tornado said:

And as long as you keep treating both as if they are the same thing, you will keep losing political elections in contested areas.

Ah, so we're back to the "this is why Trump won" line of thinking?

Despite how hard you're looking for "liberal witchunts" that are supposedly only helping the opposition, it's a fact that Trump LOST the popular vote by almost 3 million against a someone who was the target of an actual real witchunt since at least the 1990s, under a nonsensical electoral system that gives less populated areas more political power than places where everyone else lives.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Volphied said:

Ah, so we're back to the "this is why Trump won" line of thinking?

I'm sorry, who the fuck are you?

 

15 hours ago, Volphied said:

Despite how hard you're looking for "liberal witchunts" that are supposedly only helping the opposition,

Fascinating. I'd love to hear your opinion on the 2006 Duke lacrosse case.

 

Quote

it's a fact that Trump LOST the popular vote by almost 3 million against a someone who was the target of an actual real witchunt since at least the 1990s,

Which would be more relevant if the United States elected leaders by popular vote. Unfortunately, how much better Clinton did on the coasts isn't terribly relevant when she actively alienated, and then didn't really bother campaigning in, the industrial base in the country.

 

Quote

under a nonsensical electoral system that gives less populated areas more political power than places where everyone else lives.

No, that's not in fact how the electoral college works.

 

 

 

 

 

Anything else, or are you just going to keep trying for soundbites with your drive by hot takes? Because I'm not terribly impressed with your political science degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tornado said:

No, that's not in fact how the electoral college works.

It's exactly how the electoral college works.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/17/the-electoral-college-badly-distorts-the-vote-and-its-going-to-get-worse/

The electoral college distorts the popular vote, because small states get more votes than populous states. Each state has the same number of votes in the EC as it has representatives in Congress. Sparsely populated states have a minimum of two Senate seats and one House district, so they have at least three votes. The most populated states have a ceiling, since the number of seats in the House of Representatives does not increase.

That means that even the least populous state — Wyoming, with 586,107 residents — gets three electoral college votes. How disproportionate is that? Consider that California, the most populous state, has 39,144,818 residents and 55 electoral college votes.

That means that in the electoral college, each individual Wyoming vote weighs 3.6 times more than an individual Californian’s vote. That’s the most extreme example, but if you average the 10 most populous states and compare the power of their residents’ votes to those of the 10 least populous states, you get a ratio of 1 to 2.5.

16 hours ago, Tornado said:

Anything else, or are you just going to keep trying for soundbites with your drive by hot takes? Because I'm not terribly impressed with your political science degree.

Pot called kettle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you guys think jon will learn from his mistakes and learn to keep his offensive opinions to himself? also im not surprised the game developers dropped him, he's spewing a lot of bad stuff. i wouldnt be surprised if the other game he made a cameo in decided to drop him too. (the company i mean). do you think maybe all this racist stuff jon is saying is why jon left game grumps? bc now that i look back the reasoning he said he left seems fishy...but maybe thats just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Tornado said:

Man, just posting an entire Washington Post article without even trying to correlate it to what you had originally claimed is your hottest take yet.

It correlates perfectly to my claim that less populated areas are given undue weight during elections.

 

Quote

Has any youtuber or famous person thats had opinions like that and played on the defensive constantly ever learned to keep their mouths shut?

None that I can remember. However, I wouldn't be surprised if this incident made other youtubers be more careful.

EDIT: I know that Jim Sterling used to have some horrible views about feminism many years ago. He changed completely after he had a talk with his wife. No joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Volphied said:

It correlates perfectly to my claim that less populated areas are given undue weight during elections.

That wasn't your claim. Let's examine your claim:

On 3/24/2017 at 4:07 AM, Volphied said:

a nonsensical electoral system that gives less populated areas more political power than places where everyone else lives

The electoral college doesn't do that. Your article, which I'm guessing you copy-pasted without actually reading as soon as you saw that the person who wrote it agreed with you, doesn't say that it does. The entirety of the states with more cows than people could band together and California would still destroy them when it came to having any federal representation; nevermind the humongous economic sway that California has on the entire rest of the country going back to the 1970s.

What the electoral college does in the present time is make it so large metropolitan areas on the coast, which have different governmental needs than a good 80% of the rest of the country even if they have 80% of the people, don't have so much overwhelming influence on the Presidential election that candidates don't even have to pretend to give a shit about everything north of Texas. Hilary Clinton didn't lose the election because people in Wyoming didn't vote for her, and to act like stripping electoral power from the midwest would have changed things in her favor when Clinton lost powerful, populous states that hadn't voted Republican since Reagan was in office is imply astounding. Plus, shocker, the electoral college isn't a "nonsensical" blight on the American government just because you liked a shitty candidate who ran a shitty campaign in a spectacularly shitty election cycle and didn't win; which I say because at this point of this thread and US politics thread I'm pretty sure that is the extent of the thought you've actually put into the matter.

 

 

And I'll make something else clear to you, since unsurprisingly you still haven't gotten it yet: Just because you throw 5 buzzwords of righteous indignation into every one of your posts doesn't make them the enlightened tautologies that you think that are. Just because you post something that someone else said in an Op Ed piece or an interview you found on the internet doesn't mean you're actually contributing anything. And, most obviously, since you've been doing it in response to pretty much everything I've said in this thread, just because you frame your posts in the context of "can you believe the stupid shit you just said" doesn't actually mean what you are saying is true. The fact that you keep doing it is why I noted that no one gives a shit that you took a political science course and just have all the answers for us, and why the attempt to go "I know you are but what am I" was so laughable. Unlike your posts cherry picking a sentence or two in posts to act outraged at while ignoring everything else, or only responding to things if you can find some article on the internet to parrot and conspicuously avoiding responding to things that aren't already written for you, other people in this thread were actually having a discussion. None of the political threads on SSMB are circle jerking contests, no matter how much you want them to be; and members on here are a bit more nuanced in their political beliefs than "if you don't agree with whatever is currently being whined about on Huffington Post than how does it feel to be a Trump supporter".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2017 at 2:37 PM, Tornado said:

That'd be why I didn't respond to that; or most of the stupid shit he said for that matter. I also haven't actually seen the stream and since most of the things Jon said are being paraphrased in that article/comments instead of quoted, it seemed moot anyway.

Also not really racist. Oh, for sure, they certainly can be; and they are definitely things held by people who are. But there are people in the country who just don't see evidence of these things, and since it doesn't effect them don't have reason to seek it out. For the latter one, since it's specifically an anti-Arab sentiment even if whoever saying it might be pretending to be more vague, you could swap out any Western country with "America" and you will have people in that country who have it because it was pounded into their heads for the past 15 years that Muslim = Terrorism.

My point is that there are contexts where someone can believe those but not be a guy walking at a Neo Nazi rally, but when these sorts of things flare up any nuance on a person's actual views are lost. Regardless of how probably-racist, definitely-alt-right-idiot Jon is, the wide brush people are painting to purport that everything he said in that stream points towards racism is dangerous. It collectively forms a pretty strong narrative when someone goes on a rant that includes everything when they also happen to have a history of some kind of shitty things, but when you insist racism on all of these individual statements?

 

 

Listen to a local radio station whenever some national story with a racial element makes headlines. The typical white guy in America is extremely uncomfortable with the idea that a white cop shot a black kid because he was black. They know racism is bad. They are terrified of being viewed as racists. The idea that institutional racism is in effect in the local police force or courts isn't something they want to believe, because that is understandably scary of an idea. So when it comes out that the black kid was a criminal or was resisting arrest or had a legitimate history of bad behavior, you can practically here the collective sigh of relief from the people calling in; because now there was possibly a legitimate reason for what happened that doesn't scare them.

That's ignorance, to be sure, but I have a hard time believing it is borne out of the racist beliefs they secretly hold, and it's dangerous to assume it is. The stupid shit people in the comment section for that article are saying are why people like Hilary Clinton, potential presidential candidates, are confident enough at political rallies to claim that people who merely associate with those views (even if they don't hold them themselves or reject them but feel more strongly about other ones) are deplorable human beings. And that's how people like Donald Trump become successful presidential candidates and the party traditionally responsible for protecting disenfranchised groups are comprehensively thrown out of office in an election they thought they had in the bag so much that they stopped campaigning.

 

That's not the only thing Jim was focusing on. His article was based around three main points:

  • YouTubers are legitimate celebrities now as well, and thus are completely open to actual regular journalist outlets reporting on them staying stupid shit.

Which is fine, because... well, yeah, it's true.

  • YouTubers enjoy and try to force a double standard by wanting to be celebrities but not wanting to deal with scandals when they say stupid shit like real celebrities do.

That's mostly true as well, except Jim supported it by a hypothetical premis, which was the framework for the entire article, that simply has not happened multiple times:

Remember when Mel Gibson's career was over? Remember when Schwarzenegger's career was over? Remember when Alec Baldwin's career was over? Remember fucking Donald Trump, the 45th fucking President of the United States? Remember when his career was over? For fuck's sake, the last one is such a mess that two of the other ones are now media heroes because they have spent the last year taking shots at him. Jim is asserting that PDP and Jon are big celebrities, bigger in some ways than actual long known public figures and movie stars; but then acting like them escaping controversy or getting rabid defenders when they do stupid shit is different from when big celebrities do the same thing and the same thing happens.

But yeah, Michael Richards has gotten one less failed television show then everyone else on Seinfeld because he said stupid racist shit at a comedy club, so the math checks out.

 

This segues nicely into the final thing touched on in his article:

  • YouTubers being reported on when they say stupid shit isn't a result of journalists looking to push a narrative but just them reporting things

And, fuck. It should be obvious that that happens, and Jim ridiculously brought up an example of when it did happen to suggest that media outlets don't do it.

 

 

 

 

 

And?

Oh, I see.

 

*whoosh*

 

 

 

Well I would say I wouldn't be surprised if Trump gets a shorter term if he continues in the fashion he's been doing so far. He's already failing on his big selling points and loosing support big time. It's not that much of a stretch to assume he could get booted after "winning".

 

regarding the whole "YouTubers are more popular than celebs" thing. I think he's referring to younger generations when he says that. I mean Vine stars and YouTubers I see on the front cover of teen magazines more than anyone else nowadays. I'd say, at least regarding kids and teens, they're some of the largest icons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That demographic specific popularity is what he was referring to in regards to popularity, which is something I have no problem with him pointing out because I have no doubt Richard Gere's fame is lost on a lot of people who follow YouTubers. But Jim also directly compared how a regular celebrity going on a hypothetical rant similar to Jon's would destroy their career, making the response to what Jon did seem (for lack of a better word) entitled. Except, well...

Mel_Gibson_booking_photo_of_March_17_201

 

That's obviously not something you can just assume will happen to someone legitimately famous; and that it did happen when Michael Richards did is irrelevant when it is probably safe to say that Richards' career as an actual celebrity (rather than just a guy people recognized) was functionally over by his meltdown anyway. Jerry Seinfeld is still famous. Jason Alexander, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Michael Richards were famous because they knew Jerry Seinfeld, and not going on a racist rant at hecklers in a comedy club hasn't made those two any more successful than Richards has been since he did.

Basically, my issue is that his entire point of comparison for his hypothetical was built on a fairly faulty premise.

 

 

 

 

 

As far as Trump goes, I wouldn't expect him to last past his second year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for my personal thoughts, this  probably won't kill his career. Make him more notorious perhaps, but probably won't, unfortunately, effect him that much.  Look at the shit that went down with the Fine Bros, and they still are some successful fuckers. YouTube as a media doesn't have nearly as many consequences for saying and doing controversial things compared to a celeb that have more risks and legal pressures to keep their mouths shut. YouTubers by contrast don't have those pressures nearly as much and given how reactive/defensive the fanbases can be and "not caring" due to the focus on younger demographics, and the "separate art from artist" mentality being far more common on that platform more than any, the idea of YouTubers being legitimately harmed by what they say seems not that likely. Especially when they do those "apology" videos making them come off as remorseful 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tornado said:

What the electoral college does in the present time is make it so large metropolitan areas on the coast, which have different governmental needs than a good 80% of the rest of the country even if they have 80% of the people, don't have so much overwhelming influence on the Presidential election that candidates don't even have to pretend to give a shit about everything north of Texas.

The electoral college is a nonsensical electoral system that gives less populated areas more political power than places where everyone else lives.

From the article I linked: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/17/the-electoral-college-badly-distorts-the-vote-and-its-going-to-get-worse/?utm_term=.12d48e737544

The electoral college distorts the popular vote, because small states get more votes than populous states.

That's literally what I said. And the example for that from the article:

That means that even the least populous state — Wyoming, with 586,107 residents — gets three electoral college votes. How disproportionate is that? Consider that California, the most populous state, has 39,144,818 residents and 55 electoral college votes. That means that in the electoral college, each individual Wyoming vote weighs 3.6 times more than an individual Californian’s vote. That’s the most extreme example, but if you average the 10 most populous states and compare the power of their residents’ votes to those of the 10 least populous states, you get a ratio of 1 to 2.5.

Why is the ratio now so much more distorted? It’s because Americans are, increasingly and rapidly, moving into big cities. According to the Census Bureau, urban populations increased 12 percent between 2000 and 2010. Cities are growing especially in the biggest states, where each individual vote means the least: in California, New York, North Carolina, Illinois and New Jersey.

And it means the residents of the increasingly sparsely populated Southern and Midwestern states have electoral college votes that are growing in power.

Therefore my claim that less populated states get more political power is backed by the article I linked.

Quote

Hilary Clinton didn't lose the election because people in Wyoming didn't vote for her, and to act like stripping electoral power from the midwest would have changed things in her favor when Clinton lost powerful, populous states that hadn't voted Republican since Reagan was in office is imply astounding. Plus, shocker, the electoral college isn't a "nonsensical" blight on the American government just because you liked a shitty candidate who ran a shitty campaign in a spectacularly shitty election cycle and didn't win; which I say because at this point of this thread and US politics thread I'm pretty sure that is the extent of the thought you've actually put into the matter.

Again, the article directly disproves you:

The electoral college has overruled the popular vote for the second time in the last five presidential elections. If all votes were weighed evenly, Clinton would have received 259 votes in the electoral college. Trump would have 256. Candidates from other parties would also have received electoral college votes.

More and more, the United States is likely to elect presidents who haven’t won the popular vote — awarding the presidency to a party that has no popular mandate. The compromises behind the U.S. election system are failing at their goals.

Clinton was much more popular than Trump. Over 3 million more people preferred her to Trump.

The current electoral college is a blight, according to the article:

That distortion will be even greater in the 2020 presidential election. Most voters’ votes will increasingly count for less. Or to put it more clearly, the electoral college devalues most American votes.

Quote

And I'll make something else clear to you, since unsurprisingly you still haven't gotten it yet: Just because you throw 5 buzzwords of righteous indignation...

Right, I'm done responding to you. Just because you pepper your responses to me with ultra-hostility and constant cursing and swearing, you think it will make you automatically right? I'm open to changing my view, as long as you can back up your arguments with concrete research, such as links and citations. On the other hand, verbal abuse is not gonna change my, or anyone else's, view.

17 hours ago, KHCast said:

As for my personal thoughts, this  probably won't kill his career. Make him more notorious perhaps, but probably won't, unfortunately, effect him that much.  Look at the shit that went down with the Fine Bros, and they still are some successful fuckers. YouTube as a media doesn't have nearly as many consequences for saying and doing controversial things compared to a celeb that have more risks and legal pressures to keep their mouths shut. YouTubers by contrast don't have those pressures nearly as much and given how reactive/defensive the fanbases can be and "not caring" due to the focus on younger demographics, and the "separate art from artist" mentality being far more common on that platform more than any, the idea of YouTubers being legitimately harmed by what they say seems not that likely. Especially when they do those "apology" videos making them come off as remorseful 

Never say never, I personally believe that we might soon see a gradual change to how youtube celebrities can behave. Between Google being punished by advertisers for hosting racist stuff, and youtubers discovering that even the Wall Street Journal suddenly cares about them, I believe many other youtubers are right now watching closely.

And regarding JonTron's career. Sure it's not "dead", but I'd say it did get crippled. He'll definitely become a persona non grata among more aware and less forgiving youtubers and even game developers. And that's gonna hurt. Hell, he was already hurting before this latest fracas.

tumblr_inline_naoilf4HEd1qh3v7l.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technicallywhat you just said "is" the reason for the system regarding votes. California should not dictate elections if your trying to use the more voted for her rule. it's exactly why it was out in place to give everyone a say across the use and not what one area wants for everyone else . but this year more young people were upset cause it was their first time voting. Losing and not knowing how to deal with a lose besides griping that's it's unfair  Also take away anyone not a legal resident that again voted in california. Add some that were denied voting in some red stares .  and I think it be a little more fun an election. But regardless the elections been over awhile now no amount of well she won the popular us going to change that. 

 

And his career was not hurting as much as he did not have the humor many of us followed him for which was games. A few movie things were funny but overall he has moved away from classic game funny reviews to odd non funny live action skits that make me want to take a keyboard to my head. Hell he was better on game grumps to a extent.  but the famegot to him and stopped being frequent with uploads. 3 months a wait? Hell no. That's pitiful 3ven a weekly update would have helped. But now it seems his golden tower is slowly crumbling around him. I think the yoko  laylee  thing hurt him the most inside

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meta77 said:

...moved away from classic game funny reviews to odd non funny live action skits that make me want to take a keyboard to my head. Hell he was better on game grumps to a extent, but the fame got to him and stopped being frequent with uploads. 3 months a wait?

You're acting like this stuff didn't exist before...for seriously. The only difference now is...he has a set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StaticMania said:

You're acting like this stuff didn't exist before...for seriously. The only difference now is...he has a set.

No go look at his page. It won't burn your eyes lol. He had like maybe 3 live shows from banjo down. He is a few movie reviews bit most all his stuff to starcade was games like bubsy and aquaman. Starcade was when I stopped caring ad it started to get boring from their on out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Meta77 said:

No go look at his page. It won't burn your eyes lol. He had like maybe 3 live shows from banjo down. He is a few movie reviews bit most all his stuff to starcade was games like bubsy and aquaman. Starcade was when I stopped caring ad it started to get boring from their on out

That's not the point, the point was the live action skits and slow uploading rate...these were already there. And he had 4 non-Video Game reviews before StarCade. Now he has 12 total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

That's not the point, the point was the live action skits and slow uploading rate...these were already there. And he had 4 non-Video Game reviews before StarCade. Now he has 11 total.

Looking at the upload dates I'll give you that cookie. But the fact you can watch early stuff compared to later things. You can easily see the change.  it was forced funny

 His early stuff just flowed better.  so you don't get that cookie.  :^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Meta77 said:

But the fact you can watch early stuff compared to later things. You can easily see the change.  it was forced funny.

(-_-):I can see change, but whether or not it's still funny is up to personal preference...and that is deadlocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Volphied said:

The electoral college is a nonsensical electoral system that gives less populated areas more political power than places where everyone else lives.

Protip: Repeating something because you claimed it is true once doesn't make it more true after it is challenged. Get over yourself.

Quote

That's literally what I said. And the example for that from the article:

No, what you literally said was what I quoted you above as saying, and that is not what the article is talking about. The first thing I started this post quoting is much closer to what you literally said than what you're quoting from the article, and even that sentence from the article isn't supported by the article. More proportionate power per individual vote than equivalent states is not the same thing as those states literally having more power in an electorate. The article is talking about the former, rather explicitly at that. I haven't done the math, but I'm guessing you could take any ten of the states that barely register on the electoral college that banded together behind Trump after his tireless campaigning in the region, and it would have less electoral representation than the three states on the west coast that Clinton never had to even show up at. Or, for that matter, the one big one she didn't even have to show up in to win. You don't get to claim that what you posted is something different from what you posted, even if it would be more convenient because someone else was already able to make the argument for you.

Quote

Therefore my claim that less populated states get more political power is backed by the article I linked.

Again, the article directly disproves you:

The current electoral college is a blight, according to the article:

Dude, it's a fucking op ed piece in the Washington Post. You didn't post a peer reviewed study published in National Geographic talking about global warming or whatever; and you didn't actually post it in relation to anything I've actually said. I could link something someone said on this forum in a different thread and it could have just as much value as proof as what you're trying to wave in my face.

Quote

Clinton was much more popular than Trump. Over 3 million more people preferred her to Trump.

Doing wonders on rebutting the "I only think this is bad because it didn't turn out the way I wanted" bit with excerpts like this. By the way, you also said this once, and the thing from above applies here too.

5 hours ago, Volphied said:

 I'm open to changing my view, as long as you can back up your arguments with concrete research, such as links and citations.

I've seen the concrete research you've put forward in this thread and the actual American politics thread. A few pages ago, you posted some unsourced statistics with no context to actually know how they were calculated to try and force them to prove a point that they didn't actually seem to prove, even if the person reading them didn't follow terrorist incidents enough to question whether they were accurate. In the US thread at around the same time you tried to basically shut down a discussion by saying "this person is an expert, so you're wrong" to some of the most politically active members on this board. Now you're trying to ramrod an opinion piece down my throat under the same pretext, as if I should hold the author in such unquestionable regard that I should fall over in shame for doubting it. Again, nothing you've posted goes against the sense that the only requirement you hold for whether something is a source is if it agrees with you.

 

You say you're open to changing your view, but the extent of your views seem to be whatever someone has already packaged for you to rant about on message boards, so I'm doubtful.

Quote

Right, I'm done responding to you.

And that's different how? You haven't actually responded to me once in this thread. You posted a bunch of statistics about terrorism that I took issue with and commented on (multiple times), to which you've strangely not responded once (perhaps you don't have an article someone already wrote about it that you can post the entire thing of?). This entire ridiculous tangent you've dragged this topic onto was after I posted a detailed breakdown for why I disagreed with parts of an article Jim Sterling wrote that was actually about the topic of this thread and the context that the article was posted in this thread for, and continued it with other members; and you sussed out a a single sentence post and two words from the detailed one that you quoted to mock as if the mere fact that I said them was laughable. You then kept referencing them, still as if saying them alone should make a person reading take pause, and still without any justification for obvious condescension even after I mentioned one example where I felt it happened and one where it inarguably happened. When I decided to respond to some of the things that you took issue with but actually almost tried to debate, you ignored what my actual responses were and just started carpet bombing the thread with an article you found on the internet that happened to agree with something that is almost what you originally said.

Even now, when I gave you the benefit of the doubt and explained what my opinion was on why the electoral college remains important (to say nothing of why I need to defend a claim you brought up in a thread not evenly remotely related to it), why what you said and what the article said were similar but distinct points, what contributed to Clinton's loss beyond "it's so unfair people from North Dakota can vote without being completely drowned out by people living in Los Angeles" and why the electoral college weaknesses of the powerhouse states are offset by other things the smaller states can't hope to compete on, you didn't even acknowledge that I had said anything at all. Instead you just doubled down on something you had already linked and block quoted in this thread as if you thought maybe if you just drowned out everyone in text they would stop questioning you; or maybe if you posted it again people would see the inherent truth to it this time and fall on their sword.

 

 

 

By all means don't bother responding anymore. It isn't as if posting a single sentence and then a bunch of paragraphs from a webpage is really straining you in the first place. But when you keep saying debatable points as if they were empirical truths and I keep responding to them, it isn't as if I'm the one who is going to lose out by ignoring everything. But I will say, and this is as a moderator, that if you want to go on extended discussions about whatever injustice you perceive in the United States, either attempt to relate it to what this thread is about or take it to the actual thread where it is relevant. I'd be happy to respond to whatever you want to claim is an objective viewpoint there, even if you're going to continue pretending I've done nothing of the sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

(-_-):I can see change, but whether or not it's still funny is up to personal preference...and that is deadlocked.

Ah I can agree to that. But for me he isn't funny anymore. You give me monster party.  mighty mac. Good stuff. Whatever the heck was recently released nope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.