I love this pope. . The promise was that when' the glass was full, " would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is f I love this pope The promise was that when' the glass full " would overflow benefitting poor But what happens instead is when f
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (219)
[ 219 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#2 - theannoyingFJguy
Reply +322 123456789123345869
(04/02/2014) [-]
New Pope is best Pope.
#7 to #2 - hillbillypowpow
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Does he wear the big hat? I've never seen him with his big hat on
#18 to #7 - airforceman
Reply +41 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
The new pope actually made many reformations since the beginning of his term. He got rid of a lot of ornate things, including his giant hat.
Some other changes include:
- getting rid of the red carpet leading up to his chair
- wearing his priest robes under his pope robes to remind himself that he is just another priest
- got rid of a lot of the jewelry and staff
- downgraded the giant chair he used to sit in to a simple wooden chair
- being more excepting to the poor and downtrodden
New pope is best pope.
User avatar #66 to #18 - Sethorein
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
I'd give him a comfy chair... he's an old guy... what's the harm in a simple lazy boy...
#97 to #66 - airforceman
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
I think it would be a pretty cool spectacle to see the frickin' pope in a La-Z-Boy.
#114 to #66 - anon id: fabf6bd3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
#30 to #18 - dscrim
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
didn't the pope also have a pair of fancy red shoes or something and changed them for regular black shoes?
#82 to #30 - anon id: bde50275
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
He also, when elected pope, stayed and lived in his little home and he made everything himself, cooked for him self etc, when he could have had maids if he went in the more expensive Batican thing. He is VERY humble
#47 to #30 - airforceman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
That is also true. Couldn't think of every change off the top of my head, but that is one I left out.
User avatar #48 to #47 - dscrim
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
he also sneaks out at night and volunteers in soup kitchens with his priest buddy. he's like a religious super hero.
#49 to #48 - airforceman
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
I really wish someone would create a pope superhero. I would love that picture.
#50 to #49 - dscrim
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
#51 to #50 - airforceman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
IT'S BEAUTIFUL! GO POPE!
#143 to #48 - anon id: a1ea64d6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
The one luxury he ever had, iirc, was a bitchin Harley. Which he sold for charity funds. Because he's awesome.
#159 to #2 - anon id: 1fd01d94
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
He's so far performed a bunch of symbolic gestures that do absolutely nothing. He has still changed absolutely nothing about church doctrine, doesn't want to let gay marriage happen, hasn't done anything about the pedophiles that are still protected by the church, excommunicated an Australian priest for advocating for female priests and gay marriage, and has generally been a total asshole where it counts.

Acting like a nice guy is part of what he does. He's the PR guy for one of the most powerful organisations on Earth, of course he's going to try to make the church look better. But in the end, where it counts in matters like rights, money, morality, he's still looking out for the Catholic Church's best interests.

I don't usually put my neckbeard and fedora on for religion anymore, but this sheer level of Popewankery is annoying.
#177 to #159 - somekindofname
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Could you source that? I want info please.
#26 to #2 - gangbangtime
Reply +65 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Yeah, sucks that he doesn't have sith powers though.
User avatar #11 to #2 - shipin
Reply +76 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
***** got goat simulator?
#5 - kulamia
Reply +253 123456789123345869
(04/02/2014) [-]
As an atheist(normal fag, not a neckbeard "hurr durr im enlightened") I have to say it warms my heart to see this pope out and about, spreading a message of tolerance and unity. If everyone on Earth with half as nice as this man then wars would be abhored, poor/homeless would at least get attention, and everyone would respect each other.

New pope is indeed best pope. Good day friends.
#61 to #5 - enjoytheredthumbs
Reply -35 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Shut up Kulamia no one cares
#183 to #61 - anon id: fdeb8825
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
#70 to #61 - anon id: fb7b766c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Just read his name
User avatar #180 to #61 - kanyesfishsticks
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
After reading your name, I had a good laugh. I will thumb you down only to contribute to the joke, not because I didn't enjoy your comment.
#212 to #180 - enjoytheredthumbs
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
I thank you for those kind words. I would give you a green thumb but I need to stay in character
User avatar #140 to #5 - merrymarvelite
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Hell, I'm glad to see someone calling out trickle down economics.
#167 to #5 - cannibalvegan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
He may be cool, but he will never be this cool.
He may be cool, but he will never be this cool.
#111 to #5 - uzaki
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Emperor Palpatine was best pope!
#10 - anon id: a02283a8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
except in the case of america our capitalist tendencies resulted in the largest economy in the world as well as the highest standard of living. ******* magic cups
#87 to #10 - swagbot
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#88 to #87 - swagbot
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Lemmie fix that for you:

except in the case of america our capitalist Free Market tendencies resulted in the largest economy in the world as well as the highest standard of living.

Let's just agree on terminology:
Capitalism = Free Trade = Mercantilism = Colonialism.
... A system used by Aggressive Empires throughout the centuries (most recently notably by the British in their Imperial Era) to extract wealth, instead of building it.

Free Market = Unregulated Economic Liberty

Nobody is complaining about Productive People becoming Rich by Effort and Ingenuity.
Many Super-Rich are that way nowadays because of Corrupt government Graft - using the force of government to extract wealth... That's extraction, not productivity.
#94 to #10 - alexanderh
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Except your standard of living is nowhere near the highest in the world.
User avatar #78 to #10 - predictablepeter
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
"Former" largest economy in the world. Maybe you haven't realized it's been going downhill since the Nixon administration.
#13 to #10 - Gewdaism
Reply +151 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Extreme wealth inequality is a cancer to capitalism, it discourages consumption by the lower classes and leads to greater and more frequent recessions
#15 to #13 - infinitereaper
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
I recommend this documentary, Robert Reich talks about a lot of very interesting economic stuff, think he's an economist and was former secretary of labor
#191 to #13 - quantumjunc
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#196 to #191 - userusernameexists
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
that's correct, if you're a believer in the liberal economic theories..
User avatar #156 to #13 - problematique
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
but isn't extreme wealth inequality the product of capitalism?
User avatar #28 to #13 - nibbero
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Glorious Kansas master race.
User avatar #29 to #28 - wulphshadowtail
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Fellow kansan here, where you from?
User avatar #31 to #29 - nibbero
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Wichita/Maize area
User avatar #35 to #31 - wulphshadowtail
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Hell, you're even a ninjasexbang and game grumps fan too.
User avatar #37 to #35 - wulphshadowtail
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Ninjasexparty* what the **** is my auto correct thinking
User avatar #33 to #31 - wulphshadowtail
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Im pretty damn close! Colwich here.
User avatar #36 to #33 - nibbero
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Small world. Which school?
User avatar #38 to #36 - wulphshadowtail
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Andale.
User avatar #40 to #38 - nibbero
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Maize
User avatar #42 to #40 - wulphshadowtail
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Figured. No one would volentarily go to school in andale.
User avatar #44 to #42 - nibbero
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
We should probably delete some of this stuff. Hackers might get a hold of it.
User avatar #45 to #44 - wulphshadowtail
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Nah, hackers would need more than just city and state. No need to be paranoid.
User avatar #46 to #45 - nibbero
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
We said school though
#186 to #13 - anon id: fdeb8825
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
I lived in colorado for a long time and arizona, i feel a bit proud and awful when looking at this chart. Not related to wealth but rather me just thinking it is insanely beautiful country.
User avatar #145 to #13 - bannor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Texas, **** yeah! Let those dirty 1%ers have Idaho.
#68 to #13 - majordraco
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
User avatar #65 to #13 - Sethorein
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
eh it's like a sinusoid. First we enjoy a massive economy with incredible wealth with income inequality, then we get a depression, then social programs are put forward that bring us out of the depression, then we enter the wealth stage but without too much inequality, then the inequality steadily grows... etc. etc.

As long as the blacks are kept out of our country clubs the country will be fiiiiiiine
#109 to #65 - metalmind
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Only one problem: The inequality in America is growing ever since the end of the 1950s', and the cycle, if there is in fact a regular one, it would span over 150 years, but there is not enough economic data to show what would be a whole cycle.
#112 to #109 - metalmind
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
And here the median inflation adjusted income increase since 1979.
User avatar #21 to #13 - TheFek
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
****, I don't want to live in Texas
User avatar #92 to #13 - goldenglimmer
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
See, here's the problem with that picture:
You can't compare monetary wealth to landmass.
Why? Well first, it's political ******** typical to the Occupy movement, where 99 % of the participants are self rigtheous progressives who don't know **** about economy, and second, it's utterly retarded.

In a capitalist system where there's free market that follows a Laissez-faire model (to a certain degree, of course), there isn't a given amount of wealth up for grabs (even though that's the image that you and the cronies in the Occupy movement are painting). Wealth is generated, created and cultivated; it is multiplied and divided. It's not like all rich people are scoundrels who have "taken so much money for themselves because hurr durr they're so greedy! #occupy #equality #ifeelsogoodaboutmyself", it's because they've actually contributed a substantial amount of either innovation, ingenuity, investment or service to the market and the economy. That's how it works. Productivity is rewarded with wealth; hard work is rewarded with personal gain and fulfillment, and risk can yield great reward.

"Extreme wealth inequality is a cancer to capitalism..." I have no idea where you've heard that. Poverty and lack on incentive are cancer to capitalism, but wealth inequality will correlate to the value any individual contributes to the market. Why is wealth inequality bad? It's good! Wealthy individuals are more than likely CEOs, investors, venture capitalists and others that help grow and reguvinate the market. Without rich people, there will be nobody to expand the economy, and there will be a stagnation. You know, the kind we've observed in EVERY COMMUNIST AND GENUINELY SOCIALIST SOCIETY EVER?
Every productive job in the world exists in the private sector. Period. Government branches are funded by government subsidization, which is nothing more than reallocated tax money from the private sector. Redistribution of wealth by the government is a market killer.
#95 to #92 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Wealth inequality is vital to capitalism, yes, but only to a degree.  Extreme wealth inequalities are not.  It's a precarious system, and can't be summed up with a couple paragraphs or any set rules.   
Wealthy people are more likely to create jobs, but when they have too much wealth that can be a dangerous thing.  The wealthier a person is, the more likely he/she is to save a larger percentage of their money instead of spending it.  This is especially true with the very wealthy, often hiding that money in untaxable offshore accounts.  This is detrimental to the value of the dollar, and the economy as a whole.   
One of the very fundamental problems with the ideology of communism is that the equality does not hold in reality, leading to severe wealth inequality.  And there has never been a real socialist state.  All the ones that claimed to be so were marxist.
Wealth inequality is vital to capitalism, yes, but only to a degree. Extreme wealth inequalities are not. It's a precarious system, and can't be summed up with a couple paragraphs or any set rules.
Wealthy people are more likely to create jobs, but when they have too much wealth that can be a dangerous thing. The wealthier a person is, the more likely he/she is to save a larger percentage of their money instead of spending it. This is especially true with the very wealthy, often hiding that money in untaxable offshore accounts. This is detrimental to the value of the dollar, and the economy as a whole.
One of the very fundamental problems with the ideology of communism is that the equality does not hold in reality, leading to severe wealth inequality. And there has never been a real socialist state. All the ones that claimed to be so were marxist.
User avatar #102 to #95 - goldenglimmer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
See comment #93. Your first sentences are redundant to this conversation.

It goes without saying that capitalism as an economic philosophy and system is extremely complex and brings with it a myriad of implications. Considering this, it is obvious that the system can't be summed up "with a couple of paragraphs". I don't exactly see your point (actually I suspect it was really just a rhetorical introduction to set the mood for the rest of your comment), being that I simply pointed out a monetary phenomenon relating to capitalism.

"Wealthy people are more likely to create jobs". Er, no. They are the only ones who create jobs.To create any job at all, you need a moderate amount of wealth. Small businesses paying minimum wage have a small amount of wealth, and are trying to accumulate more, for such is the nature of human endeavouring. Ergo, wealth is a prequisite for jobs, so unless you are a person who is in possession of wealth (of varying degree, naturally), you aren't going to contribute to the economy in the form of jobs.

"The wealthier a person is, the more likely he/she is to save a larger percentage of their money instead of spending it", and now we've entered the core problem, haven't we?
What do you think motivates a wealthy person to shield his/her wealth? The prospect of losing it. A wealthy person is, most likely, a skilled person, and good at taking risks and aquiring wealth. Why would they hide away their fortune? Well, letr's have a look at government regulations. When the government "levels the playing field" major players recoil because industries that previously were profitable become too costly to invest in. It's all a game about risk vs. reward, and the government creates an imbalance between these two. Just look at the numbers of today: following this Keynesian model that we have currently, wealthy people are less likely to spend their money, it's simple fact.
User avatar #104 to #102 - goldenglimmer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
There is a virulent hatred for wealthy people. I'm not going to psycho analyze this social phenomenon, but I do find it fascinating. There is a fundamental mistrust of the wealthy, and it manifests itself in movements like Occupy Wallstreet.
Wealthy people are people too, and they do a lot of good. Of course, people aren't perfect, and capitalism is not a perfect system, so there will always be bad eggs who abuse it. However, it's not a philosophy that lends itself to abuse like communism does, so it's entirely superior.

Oh, yeah, and about your reaction picture: shove it up your ass, dude. You immediately lost all my respect when asserting yourself intellectually superior to someone who, actually has, read a decent amount regarding the subject. I also have a lot of practical experience with it, and have been exposed to social and political economics all my life. Arrogance only undermines your own position.
User avatar #105 to #102 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
you really need to work on your arguments. I was just countering your points and going into slightly more depth because you were over simplifying them to fit your needs. The majority of things you're saying don't really support your central argument at all, you're just talking. I don't really care about this argument so don't bother, just trying to help you out
User avatar #107 to #105 - goldenglimmer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
What? Countering my points? Even if you did (which you didn't, you just presented new problems with the capitalistic system regarding wealth), I replied to you just now, and you tell me to "work on my arguments"? Uh, okay... did you even read my comments?

I like how you take on the sage-role pretending to be all enlightened, when your grasp of economics both on a political and a social scale really doesn't appear all that commendable, at least to me. Also, these aren't "my arguments", these are the arguments of the market; unequivocal facts concerning the nature of the economy, and I am not the first by far to observe them.

If you don't wish to engage in this discussion, then that's fine, but don't resign with a patronizing comment about "trying to help me out" that is absolutely misplaced, simply to compensate for your retreat. I will say it again in case you didn't read it in my previous comment: arrogance only undermines your own position.
#146 to #92 - durkadurka
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
PEOPLE: Wealth is NOT a zero sum gain. One person's gain is not automatically another person's loss.    
   
Like goldenglimmer has said, wealth is created. Market exchanges benefit both parties. Simply because a few people have a large amount of wealth does not mean everyone hasn't benefited massively. We tend to lose sight of the fact that our poorest are actually pretty well off in a global context. Wealth is measured in more than just what you have in the bank. We are all constantly getting wealthier  Example: I couple years ago I didn't have a computer that could fit into my pocket. Now I do, and I'm wealthier as a result.     
   
What you people are probably taking issue with is the use of government to gain an unfair advantage in the market. Large corporations actually LIKE regulation because it makes it harder for smaller businesses to remain competitive, or for new businesses to start up. They also like to work the tax code in their favors and generally collude with government.    
   
The solution is NOT more government. The solution is less. The goal should be to have as few regulations as possible while setting ground rules that everyone must play by. Government does not create wealth because it uses the wealth of others to function and so it makes sense to limit it as much as is possible.
PEOPLE: Wealth is NOT a zero sum gain. One person's gain is not automatically another person's loss.

Like goldenglimmer has said, wealth is created. Market exchanges benefit both parties. Simply because a few people have a large amount of wealth does not mean everyone hasn't benefited massively. We tend to lose sight of the fact that our poorest are actually pretty well off in a global context. Wealth is measured in more than just what you have in the bank. We are all constantly getting wealthier Example: I couple years ago I didn't have a computer that could fit into my pocket. Now I do, and I'm wealthier as a result.

What you people are probably taking issue with is the use of government to gain an unfair advantage in the market. Large corporations actually LIKE regulation because it makes it harder for smaller businesses to remain competitive, or for new businesses to start up. They also like to work the tax code in their favors and generally collude with government.

The solution is NOT more government. The solution is less. The goal should be to have as few regulations as possible while setting ground rules that everyone must play by. Government does not create wealth because it uses the wealth of others to function and so it makes sense to limit it as much as is possible.

User avatar #93 to #92 - goldenglimmer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
If what you mean by "extreme wealth inequality" is, well, like a king and his peasants, then I will concur.
If what you mean is like a 19 year old art student receiving $18 000 a year off welfare compared to, say, a 43 year old CEO of a software development company whose salary is $1 200 000, then I'll have to say that I do not concur. At all.

User avatar #27 to #13 - hawaiianhappysauce
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
But those rich people donate a ton of money for a greater cause. Bill Gates is trying to wipe out polio and Warren buffet donated about 50% of his wealth (as in he could have been the richest guy on the planet with about 80 billion, but donated about 27 billion everywhere). These people took risks and it paid off, they earned the money.

People win lotteries too, so i guess those people shouldn't have that money either even though they probably threw hundreds of dollars into the system and had a 1/10000000 chance of making it big anyway.

Another reality is that when people have less money to spend, companies are forced to sell things cheaper...

Think of it this way... why do you think it's so expensive to live now? The answer will surprise you, but it's women joining the workforce. When women didn't work, people had less money because only one family member worked. In today's world, you need to make 6 figures to pay off a mortgage for a decent home without money problems alone.

This is why many people who are stuck living at home are single because they don't have the income to afford housing on their own and they were expected to be married at this point, but marriages are dropping, so there you go.
#16 - kennyh
Reply -36 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
He thinks he is dissing capitalism. But it is a good metaphor for the Catholic Church too.
#34 to #16 - anon id: 5f20f6d7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
What's the context of the quote? Pope Francis has openly addressed issues with the Church. I wouldn't be surprised if this is supposed to apply to the Vatican also.
#58 to #16 - veryspecialagent
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
That was pretty clever; too bad it was so wrong.

I don't mean to get in a fight, I just wish people would look things up before they just assume that they're correct. (it's a pet peeve of mine)
User avatar #41 to #16 - shadowsynergy
Reply +91 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
In the quote he was specifically talking about the church.
#14 - infinitereaper
Reply +41 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
#63 - kgfsjholis
Reply +37 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Old but always relevant on posts about this glorious man.
User avatar #142 to #63 - merrymarvelite
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Well, he certainly seems less... you know... evil... than the last guy.
User avatar #147 to #63 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Yeah, he's cool. Better than Emperor Palpatine at least.
#178 to #63 - anon id: 388a591f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
User avatar #181 to #63 - kanyesfishsticks
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Yes. I like all good people.
#128 to #63 - paradoxander
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Even the devil speaks the truth sometimes.
User avatar #79 to #63 - ednakrababbal
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
yes
#53 - mehmachine
Reply +33 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Pope is dope
Pope is dope
#69 to #53 - friedpotatoes
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Dat Doomguy
User avatar #19 - vilememory
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
It is going to suck when they kill him, I really liked him. But he is making far too many waves and he is going after the Vatican bank that is heavily infected with mob money.
#151 to #19 - anon id: 988ad741
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Meh John Paul II was shot he made it
User avatar #179 to #151 - vilememory
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Yes that is true, but that was the work of a fall guy. They still aren't sure why Mehmet Ali Agca he did it, he has given a wide variety of conflicting reasons. But this is the money he is ******* with, you don't **** with the money. They have killed Presidents and toppled countries because they threatened the money.
#22 to #19 - wardogmac
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
It's ok...He'll make 'em an offer they can't refuse.
#71 - royalunicorn
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
User avatar #115 - zombiefeelings
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
Ah yes, let's quote the new ''liberal'' yes-man elected specifically to distract people from all the recent scandals involving the church. because it's so inspiring and makes me want to condone the corruptions of the church.
#187 to #115 - garymotherfingoak
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
User avatar #122 to #115 - skeptical
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
wake up america
#129 to #115 - MysticTomatoe
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(04/03/2014) [-]
There's no pleasing you people