Cow Abuse at Conklin Dairy Farm

[AOW]

I'm a little concerned that you know this. I can't fathom what would make an adult think that this could be considered ok. Another reason I have no use for most people.

Just common sense. Any animal whose mating ritual includes the males butting heads to establish mating rights, have developed very thick skulls to prevent brain damage and harm

[psyco1]

The dude's doing it wrong, you're supposed to beat your own meat.

[jbot]

If a cop comes into your house and shoots your dog, or shoots your lamp -- they are treated equally in the eyes of the law. The State has to pay for civil damages, they aren't charged with murder or cruelty.

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/family-mourns-after-pet-shot-by-cop

And as a CCW holder, you know that you don't have legal justification to shoot someone that is hurting/stealing/killing your pet because they are property.

I don't know how that is off topic?

i thought we already established pets are treated differently than lamp (read back over our conversation). are you going back to saying they ARE treated the same? where are you going with this line of thought?

the reason us CHL holders don't get to kill scumbags that might curb stomp my puppy is because people are valued more highly than puppies. also, cars, light bulbs and even lamp. you do understand that it isn't black and white, right and there is a hierarchy... even if it isn't spelled out, it's understood. michael vick wouldn't have gone to jail for pitting lamp versus flashlight.

And I don't think EITHER BP or Conklin will have an acute impact other than emotional outrage, and here's why. People see the Conklin and BP things and may be disturbed, upset, or outraged, but if anything - human psychology says people are resistant to change. They love the status quo. So, how many people do you think went out of their way to research Conklin/BP connections within the supply chain, write letters to those companies, willing to change their buying habits and preferences (even if it means finding a more expensive substitute) in order to make any sort of economic difference?

That was a rhetorical question - they're not. Look at Toyota - people still buy those cars regardless of the bad press, and the failure-mode there has potential to KILL you.

So, I contend there really isn't 'free market' punishment as people like to think because the "free market" isn't really as free as you like to think. You have limited income and therefore limited options to take your economic/political stand. You are constrained by that, which is why I have a little more optimistic view on regulations and laws (not necessarily the execution of the agencies that enforce them) as a deterrent. There are also a few other benefits from basically having a semi-standardized level playing field for all the industry players.

to answer your "rhetorical question", even though it's actually purely speculative question begging, the fact that even conklin's was exposed is a perfect example of people going out of the way to persuade the free market to punish conklins (as well as legally). you mean, some random person or private organization DIDN'T decide to follow up on suspicions of animal abuse at conklin's, so they DIDN'T plant a confederate inside the farm, and DIDN'T release the footage to a large audience? I'd say that is going out of their way to do work to bring down conklin's in their own way. wanna bet conklin's experiences a dip in sales? although, that's purely speculative question begging, NOT a rhetorical question.

also you use toyota as an example in an attempt to support the idea that free markets don't punish.... why don't you look up toyota's sales figures soon after the buying public found out about the recalls that you describe. for a "for profit" company, if a drop in sales and profit isn't punishment, I don't know what is (in terms of economic "punishment" in a free market setting... which is what we're discussing). if that type of activity isn't a perfect example of why the free market DOES punish companies for fuck ups, then this will have all been for naught because you would have to be oblivious to the basics of economics and finance to not understand my point (which, i know you're not and are actually quite savvy).

as far as "free markets aren't really free", you're absolutely right. a true free market is a myth because there is always someone trying to dick with it. but it's not "not free" because you mistakenly think the principles don't work. they do, and you provided some great examples of how it DOES work.

[max power]

Check out the big brain, serious post from jbot.

[Disclaimer]

i thought we already established pets are treated differently than lamp (read back over our conversation). are you going back to saying they ARE treated the same? where are you going with this line of thought?

No, YOU established they are treated differently. I just concurred that in the instance of abuse, they are. But, conversely, they are also treated the same as an inanimate object, depending on the situation. I'm trying to figure out why they are different in one aspect, but are the same in others. Yes, there is a lot of grey area.

to answer your "rhetorical question", even though it's actually purely speculative question begging, the fact that even conklin's was exposed is a perfect example of people going out of the way to persuade the free market to punish conklins (as well as legally). you mean, some random person or private organization DIDN'T decide to follow up on suspicions of animal abuse at conklin's, so they DIDN'T plant a confederate inside the farm, and DIDN'T release the footage to a large audience? I'd say that is going out of their way to do work to bring down conklin's in their own way. wanna bet conklin's experiences a dip in sales? although, that's purely speculative question begging, NOT a rhetorical question.

The key to your verbiage is try to persuade -- whereas a regulation/law has immediate real consequences, not just monetary, if they are caught (the key verbiage for me). So our debate now comes down to what method is a more effective deterrent. You believe one way, I believe the other and I'm having a tough time finding supporting data for either. But once again, it was a win-win for both via private/public cooperation.

I can't take that bet on Conklins because we won't ever be able to get the data.

also you use toyota as an example in an attempt to support the idea that free markets don't punish.... why don't you look up toyota's sales figures soon after the buying public found out about the recalls that you describe. for a "for profit" company, if a drop in sales and profit isn't punishment, I don't know what is (in terms of economic "punishment" in a free market setting... which is what we're discussing). if that type of activity isn't a perfect example of why the free market DOES punish companies for fuck ups, then this will have all been for naught because you would have to be oblivious to the basics of economics and finance to not understand my point (which, i know you're not and are actually quite savvy).

http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/document/March_2010_Sales_Chart.pdf

Sales, year over year for Q1 2009 vs. 2010 (Before and After the recall) are up 8.7% for Toyota Group. And I guess if you want to get into specific models - both the Camry and Corolla are up 3.5% and 8.4% respectively.

So, either buying more cars is an odd way of free market punishment, or buyers really are that shortsighted and irrational? Unless I'm missing some extenuating circumstances...???

as far as "free markets aren't really free", you're absolutely right. a true free market is a myth because there is always someone trying to dick with it. but it's not "not free" because you mistakenly think the principles don't work. they do, and you provided some great examples of how it DOES work.

See Toyota Sales figures.

[hollywood3586]

ok we can see that both of you have big balls, no its time to focus on the real problem, these sick fucks that are living in our state!! I say an angry mob to their houses with pitch forks and torches... I'm not sure what to do when we get there but it sounded good..

[jagr]

ok we can see that both of you have big balls, no its time to focus on the real problem, these sick fucks that are living in our state!! I say an angry mob to their houses with pitch forks and torches... I'm not sure what to do when we get there but it sounded good..

Ok I'm with you.

I know where Jrmii lives but someone needs to find Jbots batcave.

These immigrants needs ta go!!! :villagers:

[NinjaNick]

^^:lol:

[jbot]

No, YOU established they are treated differently. I just concurred that in the instance of abuse, they are. But, conversely, they are also treated the same as an inanimate object, depending on the situation. I'm trying to figure out why they are different in one aspect, but are the same in others. Yes, there is a lot of grey area.

The key to your verbiage is try to persuade -- whereas a regulation/law has immediate real consequences, not just monetary, if they are caught (the key verbiage for me). So our debate now comes down to what method is a more effective deterrent. You believe one way, I believe the other and I'm having a tough time finding supporting data for either. But once again, it was a win-win for both via private/public cooperation.

I can't take that bet on Conklins because we won't ever be able to get the data.

http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/document/March_2010_Sales_Chart.pdf

Sales, year over year for Q1 2009 vs. 2010 (Before and After the recall) are up 8.7% for Toyota Group. And I guess if you want to get into specific models - both the Camry and Corolla are up 3.5% and 8.4% respectively.

So, either buying more cars is an odd way of free market punishment, or buyers really are that shortsighted and irrational? Unless I'm missing some extenuating circumstances...???

See Toyota Sales figures.

are you seriously comparing sales figures in the tail end of the perhaps the worst "recession" since the 50's and 80's to recovery of late 2009~ beginning 2010 when anything is an improvement? i think you're the one being a bit shortsighted here.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-02/toyota-u-s-sales-fall-16-after-recall-as-gm-ford-post-gains.html

seriously, you know better than that.

[jbot]

ok we can see that both of you have big balls, no its time to focus on the real problem, these sick fucks that are living in our state!! I say an angry mob to their houses with pitch forks and torches... I'm not sure what to do when we get there but it sounded good..

Ok I'm with you.

I know where Jrmii lives but someone needs to find Jbots batcave.

These immigrants needs ta go!!! :villagers:

oh and sorry to the haters. justin hasn't had anyone to play with, so i'm filling in til pauly realizes how much he hates his shiny new FZ6

[Disclaimer]

are you seriously comparing sales figures in the tail end of the perhaps the worst "recession" since the 50's and 80's to recovery of late 2009~ beginning 2010 when anything is an improvement? i think you're the one being a bit shortsighted here.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-02/toyota-u-s-sales-fall-16-after-recall-as-gm-ford-post-gains.html

seriously, you know better than that.

So they slid 16%, for a month or two because of their choice to take some of their own vehicles off the market. GM and Ford are obviously going to fill that gap. Short-sighted would be reading a single blip on the radar, like one month January sales, and thinking that's sufficient. Like my prior link shows... a couple months later, sales are back up like nothing ever happened.

Want comparisons? GM, still #2 behind Toyota, overall was only up 6.4% YOY in comparison (8.7% Toyota, 6.4% GM). So, apple-to-apples, same market dynamics (recession and recovery), but without any recalls... and Toyota still beat them.

Like I said... consumers are the short-sighted ones. The free market doesn't punish anyone because people are apathetic, forgetful, and/or don't have the means.

oh and sorry to the haters. justin hasn't had anyone to play with, so i'm filling in til pauly realizes how much he hates his shiny new FZ6

Thanks for keeping me entertained and not sadpanda.

Edited June 1, 2010 by JRMMiii

[jbot]

So they slid 16%, for a month or two because of their choice to take some of their own vehicles off the market. GM and Ford are obviously going to fill that gap. Short-sighted would be reading a single blip on the radar, like one month January sales, and thinking that's sufficient. Like my prior link shows... a couple months later, sales are back up like nothing ever happened.

Want comparisons? GM, still #2 behind Toyota, overall was only up 6.4% YOY in comparison (8.7% Toyota, 6.4% GM). So, apple-to-apples, same market dynamics (recession and recovery), but without any recalls... and Toyota still beat them.

Like I said... consumers are the short-sighted ones. The free market doesn't punish anyone because people are apathetic, forgetful, and/or don't have the means.

Thanks for keeping me entertained and not sadpanda.

the way I see it, what it comes down to is: for a company that exists for the sake of profit, you believe that even a short term drop in sales and market share isn't punishment, and I do. I believe that the fact that the drop is short term doesn't refute the probably tens of millions lost that otherwise would've been gained due to consumers is a punishment for a company... because that's the point of their existence (to make money). And that's just speaking short term.

as far as toyota beating GM and Ford... that's been happening for like the past decade, mostly due to the incompetence of GM/Ford and Toyota not screwing it up too bad (until more recently). The strong response by Toyota to regain consumer confidence (huge surge in marketing, unprecedented incentives for a japanese car co) reflects well on toyota's marketing, not poorly on the market's ability to react to offenses by companies.

and it's always fun thread jacking.

[Disclaimer]

the way I see it, what it comes down to is: for a company that exists for the sake of profit, you believe that even a short term drop in sales and market share isn't punishment, and I do.

Ok, fine. Then I suppose the question is, why do you believe this? And, how is it sufficient? There are companies that have short terms sales drop through no-fault of their own (like when the economy tanks), why should they be punished when the circumstances are external and beyond their control vs. internal and within their control? Or are "punishment" and "down market" interchangeable terms used to describe an unfortunate events affecting sales figures?

You seem to be taking punishment as a meaning a dip in sales/profit due to something within a companies control, and I've already shown that your "punishment" has had little to no affect on the overall operating income of Toyota relative to the industry. Which leads me to believe my conclusions regarding consumers + free markets is an illusion, especially when dealing with companies of that magnitude.

I believe that the fact that the drop is short term doesn't refute the probably tens of millions lost that otherwise would've been gained due to consumers is a punishment for a company... because that's the point of their existence (to make money). And that's just speaking short term.

I'm sure there were some opportunity costs lost because of the recall, but on the grand scheme it hasn't affected the Toyota Way. A slap on the wrist and a $16M fine for not being truthful with the US gov't compared to 89 (at last count, I believe) human deaths that may've been attributed to their products.

as far as toyota beating GM and Ford... that's been happening for like the past decade, mostly due to the incompetence of GM/Ford and Toyota not screwing it up too bad (until more recently).

Beating them on a relative/percentage basis, but not on a volume basis. Toyota wanted the global market and it took them 20 years to go from a 5% to 10% share, they needed to increase their production capacity an addition 50% in less than 5 years to hit the 15% global market they were aiming for to overtake GM. (At least I think that's what I remember from watching this last night - http://www.cnbc.com/id/36939747/)

Regardless, that should be independent of the recall issue and the free market "punishment" doled out with regards to Toyota. That's the issue I have, business momentum shouldn't just give Toyota free reign to do what it will as it wills for the sake of profit. The snowball for Toyota is so large at this point it's an avalanche. "You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette" is the tacky cliche that applies to Toyota and BP and Conklins here, like the general public just needs to accept that some shittiness occurs to have the things we have. I can agree with that from an R&D standpoint, but due diligence still needs exercised when lives are at stake.

The strong response by Toyota to regain consumer confidence (huge surge in marketing, unprecedented incentives for a japanese car co) reflects well on toyota's marketing, not poorly on the market's ability to react to offenses by companies.

So, if you can talk your way out of a situation, it makes it OK? It's especially sweet for Toyota because they don't really have to answer to the 89 people killed or their families... they just have to answer to the little gov't oversight they have (NTHSA) and the rest of the market which is >> the victims. I guess I'm for that from a natural selection standpoint. If you know you're being sold snakeoil and still buy it, that's on you. But it still doesn't make it right or ethical. It's easy to armchair quaterback this because there's no one I personally know affected by this, but my tune may change if it happened to me.

and it's always fun thread jacking.

[jbot]

Ok, fine. Then I suppose the question is, why do you believe this? And, how is it sufficient? There are companies that have short terms sales drop through no-fault of their own (like when the economy tanks), why should they be punished when the circumstances are external and beyond their control vs. internal and within their control? Or are "punishment" and "down market" interchangeable terms used to describe an unfortunate events affecting sales figures?

You seem to be taking punishment as a meaning a dip in sales/profit due to something within a companies control, and I've already shown that your "punishment" has had little to no affect on the overall operating income of Toyota relative to the industry. Which leads me to believe my conclusions regarding consumers + free markets is an illusion, especially when dealing with companies of that magnitude.

if you can't distinguish between when the market or even a specific industry as a whole is hostile versus a specific company suffering from negative press/"fucking up really bad" then we've got more problems than just not seeing eye to eye. Of course there is a difference, and of course negative market reaction is just a little bit different than a shitty economy. why does this need to be explained?

re: the numbers you present. they show nothing more than the fact that the automotive industry is rallying. and minus the recall, toyota has set the standard for how to make cars for the masses, and it shows... people buy their cars. this isn't like a brand new economic idea, where one company gets more sales if they're better at something.

I'm sure there were some opportunity costs lost because of the recall, but on the grand scheme it hasn't affected the Toyota Way. A slap on the wrist and a $16M fine for not being truthful with the US gov't compared to 89 (at last count, I believe) human deaths that may've been attributed to their products.

addressed 2 para. down

Beating them on a relative/percentage basis, but not on a volume basis. Toyota wanted the global market and it took them 20 years to go from a 5% to 10% share, they needed to increase their production capacity an addition 50% in less than 5 years to hit the 15% global market they were aiming for to overtake GM. (At least I think that's what I remember from watching this last night - http://www.cnbc.com/id/36939747/)

yeah, i'm not a detail guy. toyota's number 1, but i'm sure they've been tradin' paint for a while.

Regardless, that should be independent of the recall issue and the free market "punishment" doled out with regards to Toyota. That's the issue I have, business momentum shouldn't just give Toyota free reign to do what it will as it wills for the sake of profit. The snowball for Toyota is so large at this point it's an avalanche. "You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette" is the tacky cliche that applies to Toyota and BP and Conklins here, like the general public just needs to accept that some shittiness occurs to have the things we have. I can agree with that from an R&D standpoint, but due diligence still needs exercised when lives are at stake.

I thought we discussed this up already... are you thinking that the economic reaction should somehow also encompass the loss of life/injury and any criminal charges (as in, are you mixing legal matters with economic and government)? If that's what you're thinking, we need to clear that up because we're speaking strictly as a consumer economic reaction, NOT criminal or civil legal action. Any people who were injured or family members killed will take up their dispute in court as well as any criminal matters. There is a whole different forum for that sort of "punishment" to take place... it's called the courthouse. don't confuse "economic punishment" with "legal damages". I'm guessing that the civil suits alone will greatly outweigh any fines set by the gov. or loss in sales in the short term. Not sure if any criminal negligence took place, so who knows where that will go.

So, if you can talk your way out of a situation, it makes it OK? It's especially sweet for Toyota because they don't really have to answer to the 89 people killed or their families... they just have to answer to the little gov't oversight they have (NTHSA) and the rest of the market which is >> the victims. I guess I'm for that from a natural selection standpoint. If you know you're being sold snakeoil and still buy it, that's on you. But it still doesn't make it right or ethical. It's easy to armchair quaterback this because there's no one I personally know affected by this, but my tune may change if it happened to me.

I address this in the above paragraph. you can't keep mixing up legal and economic matters.

[Disclaimer]

if you can't distinguish between when the market or even a specific industry as a whole is hostile versus a specific company suffering from negative press/"fucking up really bad" then we've got more problems than just not seeing eye to eye. Of course there is a difference, and of course negative market reaction is just a little bit different than a shitty economy. why does this need to be explained?

I get it, but my point still is "negative press" has a very short term effect (if any), and is merely a slap on the wrist compared to the market whims that they don't control. Companies lose more money in the market in general than they do for hiding information or making mistakes within their control. So while the concept of free market punishment makes sense, it's not a reality because once a company gets so large and embeds itself culturally - it becomes monopolistic or oligarchical and is no longer subject to the market given the competitive landscape, barriers to entry, and switching costs.

re: the numbers you present. they show nothing more than the fact that the automotive industry is rallying. and minus the recall, toyota has set the standard for how to make cars for the masses, and it shows... people buy their cars. this isn't like a brand new economic idea, where one company gets more sales if they're better at something.

It shows that all else equal in the industry, the recall for Toyota has no lasting effects.

I thought we discussed this up already... are you thinking that the economic reaction should somehow also encompass the loss of life/injury and any criminal charges (as in, are you mixing legal matters with economic and government)? If that's what you're thinking, we need to clear that up because we're speaking strictly as a consumer economic reaction, NOT criminal or civil legal action. Any people who were injured or family members killed will take up their dispute in court as well as any criminal matters. There is a whole different forum for that sort of "punishment" to take place... it's called the courthouse. don't confuse "economic punishment" with "legal damages". I'm guessing that the civil suits alone will greatly outweigh any fines set by the gov. or loss in sales in the short term. Not sure if any criminal negligence took place, so who knows where that will go.

Are not civil lawsuits a form of economic punishment? But, I understand in the context of our little discussion that we're using the term economic punishment to refer to 'vote with your dollars' -- and using the numbers I've shown, people have voted. It appears they don't care that 89 people have died.

Just like I doubt people really care about Conklin's Dairy Farm contracts... has anyone here changed their buying habits regarding dairy products? I haven't. That video makes me sick, but I still buy the same brand of milk every week from the same place.

I address this in the above paragraph. you can't keep mixing up legal and economic matters.

They are synergistic... enforcing the law costs money, playing in the market costs money. The difference is the law doesn't function strictly on a cost vs. benefit curve because that wouldn't serve justice. Kind of like how they'll use $1000 in resources to pursue someone with a $100 speeding ticket. You could still make an economic argument, but the LAW doesn't make for a very efficient case.

I'm just at a loss on the appropriate way to handle issues like this -- should Toyoda be held criminally liable as the CEO/figurehead if it turns out his company was negligent? Or, should Toyota corp just be civilly liable? Maybe I'm the only one that has this feeling, but it seems that "corporations" can get away with doing a lot of shady things because they're a separate legal entity vs. an individual or sole proprietor. Luckily there has been some criminal responsibility assigned to the execs in cases like Enron, but that's usually not the norm for larger corps. What should happen to the BP execs?

Edited June 1, 2010 by JRMMiii

[jarvismb]

this has been the nerdiest showing of e-penii ever on OR...

[Disclaimer]

Yea, but who's do you want to put in your mouth?

[jarvismb]

as is the case with us jews, i tend to have the yellow fever, sooo.....

[redkow97]

I'm a little concerned that you know this. I can't fathom what would make an adult think that this could be considered ok. Another reason I have no use for most people.

didn't a bunch of people in this thread just conclude that it was ok to be cruel to Billy Joe Gregg because of his acts towards animals?

abuse is abuse. torture is torture. What someone has done to 'deserve' it only makes people feel better about their actions; it doesn't make their actions any better.

[Disclaimer]

Everyone has their preferences...

I wouldn't swallow though, I know jbot eats pork.

[jbot]

I get it, but my point still is "negative press" has a very short term effect (if any), and is merely a slap on the wrist compared to the market whims that they don't control. Companies lose more money in the market in general than they do for hiding information or making mistakes within their control. So while the concept of free market punishment makes sense, it's not a reality because once a company gets so large and embeds itself culturally - it becomes monopolistic or oligarchical and is no longer subject to the market given the competitive landscape, barriers to entry, and switching costs.

It shows that all else equal in the industry, the recall for Toyota has no lasting effects.

My only point has been (regarding our current line of discussion) that there are tangible effects of the principles of a free market. So, other than recessions and economic up/downs (since ALL of the market is subject to it), for Q1 of 2010, the great Toyota suffered from lost sales and market share in a way they've never seen before... I mean, when was the last time Toyota was down when everyone else was up? Probably never. So, even if it WAS only for a quarter... that IS significant. Temporary, but significant.

Are not civil lawsuits a form of economic punishment? But, I understand in the context of our little discussion that we're using the term economic punishment to refer to 'vote with your dollars' -- and using the numbers I've shown, people have voted. It appears they don't care that 89 people have died.

Just like I doubt people really care about Conklin's Dairy Farm contracts... has anyone here changed their buying habits regarding dairy products? I haven't. That video makes me sick, but I still buy the same brand of milk every week from the same place.

They are, but it muddies the waters, and besides, that would only help my case anyway. After several years have passed and the cases are decided/settled, the total losses for toyota will be much higher than what it is now. Will anyone at Toyota get shot as a result of the court decisions? probably not. Is that right or not? I don't know, but especially with criminal cases, that gets away from economic theory/systems.

re: your shopping habits, i dunno, maybe you just really like getting the same thing over and over again. Haven't you been eating the same thing for lunch for like a year? You disgust me. I'm telling my kitchen aid to make my sammich out of something other than conklin's products. She might fail, but I'll at least do some basic research into who sells what. Some people will do this, some people won't.

They are synergistic... enforcing the law costs money, playing in the market costs money. The difference is the law doesn't function strictly on a cost vs. benefit curve because that wouldn't serve justice. Kind of like how they'll use $1000 in resources to pursue someone with a $100 speeding ticket. You could still make an economic argument, but the LAW doesn't make for a very efficient case.

re: the law, gov. and, economy. of course they are synergistic (everything affects everything and all that), but when discussing economic systems, one keeps to economic systems and not go all over the place. this discussion would have no direction if we couldn't keep it to a singular topic. and you've pointed out exactly why legal theory doesn't necessarily jive with economic theory.

I'm just at a loss on the appropriate way to handle issues like this -- should Toyoda be held criminally liable as the CEO/figurehead if it turns out his company was negligent? Or, should Toyota corp just be civilly liable? Maybe I'm the only one that has this feeling, but it seems that "corporations" can get away with doing a lot of shady things because they're a separate legal entity vs. an individual or sole proprietor. Luckily there has been some criminal responsibility assigned to the execs in cases like Enron, but that's usually not the norm for larger corps. What should happen to the BP execs?

In some respects, I agree with you that big companies get away with a lot of things the normal populace would probably never get away with, but you can say that about government and the church, and many other things that have a lot of influence. it comes with the territory. Is it right? No. But I hope these guys get what's due in court.... and punitive measures when it comes to personal injury and the like, that's where it belongs.

As for did their shares drop enough, or did they lose enough sales or market share? I dunno. But I don't want to be the one to tell people it is or isn't... they should decide. not another czar or another branch of the gov. if people say fuck it, toyota is a good deal right now, they'll buy one, that is their choice. i'm not for forcing them to buy a hyundai or GM instead. Although, hyundai are so much betterer than japperwockies.

[jbot]

as is the case with us jews, i tend to have the yellow fever, sooo.....

Everyone has their preferences...

I wouldn't swallow though, I know jbot eats pork.

i'll fuck anything

also, gang bang?

[Gump]

huh

[jarvismb]

i'm totally here for the gang bang.

[Disclaimer]

Too late, I'm done beating my meat.