Michael Moore on the Rachel Maddow Show - Part 2 (11/3/11)

[filterayok]

How is this a discussion? A DISCUSSION about a tax on wall street that is LESS then 1%!!!??? If I was a wall street trader, I'd feel pretty awesome that the country is going to enter a high fueled debate about weather or NOT to tax me LESS THEN 1%... This is embarrassing. HOW are we so brainwashed that we cant get the bottom 99% to use the POWER BESTOWED ON THEM BY DEMOCRACY to DEMAND the minority submit to OUR best interests. So sad.

[MrDancampbell60]

The "Occupy" movement is a reflection of the general emotions and attitudes of the general popualtion. I support this because it isn't promoting violence and it seems to be the only way ordinary citizens can influence the politicians. I like Obama but he needs to be reminded of the quality of life of the average American. The faith in the "American Dream" is at an all time low. There is nothing wrong with wealth with no social conscience only destroys.

[Glat64]

A quarter of a per cent is ridiculous. It needs to be AT LEAST 5 PER CENT ! Jeeze we everyday folk pay an extra 20 per cent tax on nearly everything we buy in VAT alone, and that's forgetting the aircraft hanger load of taxes we have to pay on top of what we've already paid in income tax. They are even talking about introducing a 'death tax here in the UK as a final insult ! So forget a quarter of a per cent people.. 10 per cent sounds fair enough to me .. generous under the circumstances even !

[lagitballer722]

Thank god, for the pope being on board...yayyy :/



[crazyunkle]

Obama ran in 2008 promising to raise taxes on the rich. He didn't just beat McCain... he decimated him!! That implies the Americans have ALWAYS BEEN FOR raising taxes on the rich.

It's been three years. He hasn't done it. At this point, there is no reason to expect that he ever will.

[lovetownsend]

2:48

"and if the replubicians can't go along with this then-"

then they can go fuck themselves. :)

[bringmethenewhorizon]

A quarter of a cent on the dollar will give the Feds 350 billion? That just tells you the kind of obscene money these Wall Streeters are making. Raise their taxes!

[judyleasugar97]

Michael Moore is a hero in my opinion. Go 99ers! I can't wait for 2012 elections.

[borntobewilder9]

Michael Moore, you fat disgusting fucking douchebag Capitalist jack-ass motherfucker! And a big fuck you, Rachel Madcow disease! Fucking liberTURD assholes!!

[RJWooller]

This is good news because we need to get the deficit down. Cut military spending a lot. 

[NIKKElsix]

*** LuV MoorE ***

...When the 1% purchase/market goods(as in buying/selling stock internationally),

They pay absolutely NO TAXES.

When the 99% buy & sell anything, we pay state tax & income taxes. We pay a 1% international transaction fee charged by VISA when we purchase anything from another country.

CHARGE 1% stocks transaction fee, & TAX the income derived from investments just the same way U tax the 99%'s income derived from hard work*

[suirvale]

close down supermarkets and we will all get jobs in small business, stop the usa guys going to bangladesh for cheap labour , but they products are not so cheap when thei corpratiosn profits are added to the cheap labour costs,,the worls is a shame the poverty it creates,,,now the chinese going crazy for minerals in africa,

[tylertyler82]

So what's the point of adding more revenue if we're blowing it all on widening the highways and building more bridges- we need to start spending our money on WISE INVESTMENT- mass transit, renewable energy, free higher education... these things will pay off tremendously in the long run. The status quo of spending our tax money is killing us all!!

[Kritiker313]

For crying out loud, tax the rich...no double-tax them! Then charge them interest on the taxes they haven't been paying.

It seems odd to me that there's a debate about whether rich people should have to pay their fair share. It's like debating about whether drivers should have to stop at a red light. The need for debate on such rediculous questions symbolizes the "hold" that the rich have over our politicians. It also shows that the public can be "dumbed down" by talk show hosts.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Kritiker313 The rich, when combining local and federal taxes are taxed at over 50%. Liberals like Maher even said that. How much more do you want to tax them? And why tax the people that are actually smart and invest their money?

[XavierMacX]

I love how fair Rachel (usually, but not always) is. You can see it when you criticizes everyone, including the company her funds and runs her network, GM! Her "hi boss" was cute.

[DoMadrid]

It's becoming apparent that someone's waiting for the other shoe to drop, whatever that may be/mean/result in. Something big is on the horizon.

[allgoo19]

If we have to choose one demand, it'd be real campaign fund and any political donations (bribe) reform. Specially for the court judges, and specially supreme court justices.

Isn't that obvious this shouldn't be allowed in the first place?

Make the voting only thing that counts in the politics.

[PleaseStayTuned]

Michael illustrates a thinking that needs to change in America, when he states "is that too much to ask for?" Our government is supposed to work for us, we do not need to ask or beg for what we want. We need to demand what we want and expect to get it if this is really our country.

[PeaceProfit]

Such actions produce the same OLD results with NO central demand allowing Media & Government to frame the debate RATHER THAN discussing the REAL ISSUE of HOW OUR MONEY IS SPENT By taking CONTROL of the situation with Nonviolent Marches to Occupy the Hearts & Minds unable to participate in the movement yet support it's goals GAIN MASS APPEAL & Media attention to Reframe the debate under One*Demand + Individual Directed Capitalization My*1040 YOUR SAY IN HOW 65% of YOUR Tax Contribution IS SPENT.

[zekest]

seems like a good guy

[LaurenLVideos]

I'm in the 99%! Thank you M Moore for supporting the 99%!

[self0asis]

I am hoping to hear more spoken regarding environmental concerns. We need to push the use of free energy technology which has been supressed. To eliminate the use of oil and gas (oil spills) Chemtrails, pollution of water, and now radiation, most of it is also caused by corporate greed. We need to shout loudly regarding this too and create accountability and change! I sincerely appreciate all the work you have down for all of us Michael Thank you very much!

[FlowerClown]

Taxing gambling is wrong......?

[SonofCimmeria]

But who are you going to replace President Obama with? A Republican? If someone more progressive entered the race, then I'm all for President Obama leaving office. But I won't support replacing a democrat with some insane repug.

[whyamimrpink78]

@SonofCimmeria Yes because democrats have such a great track record when it comes to the economy.

[JejuLee]

Obama needs to go. The damage he has done up to this point by protecting Wall Street (remember Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke?) is profound and permanent. To forgive him now because he realizes he can't continue to get away with his RICO activities is just not reasonable. When the history is written, Obama will be seen as the villian he is. He has done exactly the opposite of most everything he promised--especially the things most important to the American worker.

[gigicats6]

Thank you for posting these videos on OWS, it keeps updated.

[RegioLunar]

Maybe Obama should this time listen to the pope(?), his allies, the PEOPLE of america as even a serious 1%ter is in with this(!) and not Geithner...

After all these years of deterioration it´s realy unbelievable what´s happening.

[suirvale]

i worked for 2 usa corporation they drove me mad with their programs and braniwashing techniques, i am so glad i am out of them,.i was not a company man and now to be self employed is such a pleasure,.i wonder if more employess left the corporations how much better the usa will be,.seminars and wastign money was the order of the day with usa corporations and they had so much managers my god doign nothing, all clamouring for money,.

[RegioLunar]

@suirvale It happened i read Dilbert before and LMAO before i sat in one of those friday noon sesions.

:D

[dangerouslytalented]

The banksters hate it, because it is a tax on speculation, it is a tax on those who microtrade and those who use such short term trades to push prices up.

[IcyKitty]

I don't know why the media keeps repeating "No one knows what the Occupy Our Streets want".... we want our voice to be heard. Flat out. It doesn't matter if it because I want a higher tax on the rich or more regulations on Corporations or Universal Health Care.... We the People who are the Government are not having our voice heard, period. The politicians are listening to the big donors/lobbyists and not we who vote for them

[PlanetMother]

@IcyKitty To pretend to 'don't know' is also a way to ignore and ridiculize people... don't you see, the same thing happend with Hippies in the 70's, they were called crazy, strange and making fun of...that seems easier than to try to understand people.

[IcyKitty]

@PlanetMother too true, but why is Rachel, who should know better, spitting out the Conservative's talking points?

[PlanetMother]

@IcyKitty It depends on wich side the money comes from...one day they're democrat, next day conservative...bottom line; you can't trust them, sad but true

[whyamimrpink78]

@IcyKitty Well, that is the problem we have. The government is so big with taxes, regulations, health care, etc. that us as citizens have to work multiple jobs so we don't have time to stay healthy or become educated or educate our kids. They make us work harder so we don't have time to be informed and become good comrades. You want big federal government so you got it and this is the result.

[senortonyful]

@IcyKitty All the issues you're talking about can be condensed into one issue, "Get money out of politics!" All the major problems I can think of are directly attributable to big money having their hand in politics.

[LAPDP92]

#OccupySouthPark

[MrCaltec]

I like the "six weeks old and already talking" bit. However, this baby has been growing malnourished for more like 3 to 4 years. Its finally talking.

[car22ization]

Hold on, Michael wants more money going to the government...the same government that started these illegal wars in the first place? Yeah let's give them more money, that would be brilliant.

[Boomer1949]

@car22ization Washington is crying "broke" and cutting programs that the older and disabled population depend on to pay for the military industrial complex. If more money is coming in through taxes, the "broke" part is taken care of, and with the peoples voice, the cutting of social programs will stop. With more out cry from the people, the wars will stop and the massive military budget will decrease, allowing for the rebuilding and upgrading of our infrastructure and education system.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Boomer1949 Taxes are at a all time high because of social programs. Because of that people have to work multiple jobs and don't have time to educate themselves or stay healthy so the expect the government to do it meaning more taxes. The federal government created these programs to control us and make us dependent on them. You wanted big government so you got it and look at the result. We are becoming good comrades the will now depend on Big Brother.

[woostopalypse]

@whyamimrpink78 What are you talking about? Taxes are not at an all time high. They are at an all time low. The bush tax cuts were the lowest tax cuts for the rich in our history. 60 years ago we taxed the rich over 60%. I repeat. 60%! Now we tax the just 34%. Many corporations don't pay any taxes at all.

[whyamimrpink78]

@woostopalypse When you combine local and federal taxes then they are at an all time high. Also, if you add the fact that now all money is accounted for, then taxes are at an all time high. 60% may have been the rate years ago for the rich, but how much did the rich really claim? A millioniare could have easily claim a few hundred thousand. Now all earnings are accounted for. No need for those high tax percent wise. Taxes are at an all time high.

[Lodatzor]

@whyamimrpink78

In case you hadn't noticed, Big Brother works for Exxon.

We have to work multiple jobs because the private sector has driven down wages and raised the cost of living. Government could have prevented this, but we've hamstringed our government consistently by granting them fewer and fewer powers within commerce and reducing corporate taxes to well below half what they were only 35 years ago.

Wake up. Reagan's revolution did this to us, not 'big government'.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Lodatzor It is because of big federal government that wages were lower and prices went up. Democrats passed policies claiming that companies can afford them but the truth is is that they can't, especially small businesses. As a result of high regulations and taxes companies had to increase prices and lower wages. Keep blaming big businesses, that is what the big government wants. While you are blaming the wrong person the real enemy is screwing you over.

[Lodatzor]

@whyamimrpink78

"While you are blaming the wrong person the real enemy is screwing you over."

Right back atcha. Who do you think the policies were intended to benefit? Small businesses, or big businesses? If you lobby government to hamstring small business then you automatically transfer their market to bigger business.

"As a result of high regulations and taxes"

Really? Just when was this? Was this when Reagan was slashing taxes in half, or when Bush was disempowering regulatory agencies?

[whyamimrpink78]

@Lodatzor So why do you support politicians that hurt small businesses? Under democrat control small businesses suffer. Under democrat policies small businesses suffer. High taxes and regulations are because of democrats, starting with FDR up to Obama. When republicans are in control of congress things are fine. When dems. take control things become crap, especially with a dem. president. Keep supporting Big Brother, they are there for you while you blame Emmanueal Goldstein.

[Lodatzor]

@whyamimrpink78

"So why do you support politicians that hurt small businesses?"

I don't. Let's not play the Jump To Conclusions game, when we started off so civil?

What I support is the removal of corporate interests from government wholesale, and I personally advocate the $100 spending limit per person on both campaign and lobbying contributions. Our government is supposed to representative of the public; it has not been for a long time. Ending corporate personhood is a matter of urgency.

[Lodatzor]

It is not a case of R vs D, although it cannot be denied that the R's are now wholly bought and paid for. I don't want the lesser of two evils but there is still a distinction that is valid and relevant to highlight.

"High taxes and regulations are because of democrats, starting with FDR up to Obama."

Correct, and the country has been, unfailingly much stronger and robust that when otherwise. You talk as though higher taxes upon the wealthy/corporations is a bad thing for the economy. It isnt.

[Lodatzor]

@Lodatzor

"When republicans are in control of congress things are fine."

Erm, excuse me? Try the 1980s when our national deficit skyrocketed due to a combination of slashed taxes and an expanded military budget. Try the same thing in the 2000s. Things are demonstrably, undeniably even, worse under Republican congresses than Democrat, economically speaking. This is the lesson of the last 30 years.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that life under Democrats is rosy. Far from it.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Lodatzor In the 80s democrats were in control of congress. In the 90s under Clinton republicans were in control and we had a surpluss. We would of had a surplus in the second Bush years if they didn't cut taxes during a time of war. We were on budget but we had a war so we didn't create a surplus.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Lodatzor Last time I check cooperations were part of the public. When you start adding things like spending limits on campaign or lobbying contributions you are creating an unfair federal government that is interested in only a certain group of people. if you don't want politicians that support cooperations then don't vote for them, simple. Or you can run against them. That is a problem. People want a federal government that picks and chooses who they are for when they are for everyone.

[Lodatzor]

@whyamimrpink78

"Last time I check cooperations were part of the public."

Then you would be incorrect.

You see, the persons making up a corporation /already have their rights/. These rights are not denied to any person within a corporation. These right do not vanish in the process if incorporation. But the way things are being handled, incorporation creates an artificial person which is being extended ANOTHER SET OF RIGHTS to which the members are not entitled.

This is a travesty.

[Lodatzor]

And this is entirely the problem. Corporations are people. Corporations are socialized entities that DO NOT EXIST outside of the bounds of legislature. They ave no person from which to derive rights. The only way this process would be considered 'fair' is if the members of a corporation waive their personal rights in order to obtain the rights extended to the corporation.

Clearly, this does not happen.

Indeed, corporate personhood is constitutionally illegal.

[Lodatzor]

"When you start adding things like spending limits on campaign or lobbying contributions you are creating an unfair federal government that is interested in only a certain group of people."

Um, it's the complete opposite, in fact. When you place spending limits upon campaign or lobbying contributions, then every single person is able to contribute an equal amount (should they so choose), and no special interests are catered to.

Democracy is about votes, not monetary spending power.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Lodatzor We don't live in a democracy. A democracy is where 51% tells 49% what to do, even if that 51% is wrong. We more or less elect politicians with democracy but they deal with the important issues because, in theory, that is there job to be informed on them. 57% support this OWS even though most don't know what is really going on. If we had your system where campaign money was capped then the 57% would get their way and we will be is terrible shape.

[Lodatzor]

@whyamimrpink78

Ah, so in other words, people need other people who 'know better' to tell them what to do? Good to know.

Also, what you are describing is direct democracy, not democracy wholesale. But yes, if we had my way, the vast majority of people would get what they want, and we would be in much better shape.

That's democracy. That's 'of the people, by the people and for the people'. If you are bashing that ideal, then you are admitting outright that you favor having masters.

[Boomer1949]

@whyamimrpink78 What taxes are you referring to? Federal taxes, or all taxes including sales, income, state and property? If it's the latter and you live in NY or Cal, I agree with you. But if you're referring to just Fed, your full of shit. I'm on SS and don't feel controlled at all. I worked and paid into this system more than any generation prior and I'm glad I have it to help support me.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Boomer1949 If you include all taxes that a person pays then they are at an all time high unless you live in WY or NV where state taxes are low. But they are still high over all. And you are old enough where you don't see the effects of SS and other federal government programs are controlling us. Your generation is fine because your generation planted the seed. Now my generation has to suffer.

[Boomer1949]

@whyamimrpink78 How old are you to feel you have been betrayed by my generation, 10? Don't blame me or my generation for the lazy and inattentive stance that has brought this country to it's current situation. My generation paid attention. It was my generation that brought the Vietnam War to an end, helped usher in Civil Rights & Woman's rights. Social Security and Medicare were the Greatest Generations creation, not baby boomers.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Boomer1949 No, I am in my mid 20s. What I see is that your generation created fed. govern. programs that were design to help us but now the fed. govern. is using to control us. SS and medicare were just another tax on us and another program to make us dependent on the government. Your generation did some great things but they also gave the fed. govern. so much power that now we can't control it. My generation is getting screwed now because of it.

[Boomer1949]

@whyamimrpink78 SS and Medicare is not forced on you. You must apply to receive it, pay into it to get any benefits. So, if you think these programs are too controlling, don't apply when you become illegible. And once again, these programs were created by my parents generation, not my generation, although I'm very happy that they were.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Boomer1949 Yes, SS and medicare are forced on you. The take money out of my paycheck to fund it. Also, if you qualify for medicare they force you to be one it instead of going private or they fine you. The program is just another tax on us. If I don't want to participate in it I shouldn't have to pay into it. That is how they are controlling. They take your money and only give it back only when you become eligable. Plus, it is unconstitutional. States can run it but not the federal government.

[Boomer1949]

@whyamimrpink78 Well, I don't know what to say. I think when you reach my age you'll be happy that SS and Medicare are there for you. Until then I guess you'll have to just suck it up.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Boomer1949 Yes, when I reach your age I will be happy to take back the money that the US has stolen from me with an unconstitutional program. That is if I don't have an accident and die first meaning I will never get to see that hard earn money of mine.

[Lodatzor]

@whyamimrpink78

The US has stolen nothing from you. Taxation is not theft. You appears to be very confused about a great number of things regarding terminology.

The problems of today have been caused by the last 30 years of right-ward tailspin, not by 'big government'. You are unable to point to any aspect of the government that is far larger than it was before 1980. Indeed, government power has been weakened by private interests.

Do you like this? Does this fit your idea of having masters?

[whyamimrpink78]

@Lodatzor Taxes are stealing when they are unconstitutional and unfair to the states and citizens. You are confused on how this country was developed. We were developed to have the states govern themselves and the fed. govern. is there to give US citizens the ability to control government. The fed. govern. can only pass policies to give the US citizens the ability to control government and the fed. govern. can't use to gain in power.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Lodatzor The federal govern. is there for everyone, not a select amount. The fed. govern. can't take money from someone just because they are rich and give it to someone just because they are not as well off. I bet a lot of people want a nice home and a nice car with nice health care. That doesn't mean that the government should just give it to them. People have to earn it. While state governments can have social policies to help people out, the federal government can't.....

[Lodatzor]

@whyamimrpink78

"just because they are rich and give it to someone just because they are not as well off."

That's now how any program in the government actually works. Public enterprise and public programs are available to everyone.

"People have to earn it."

According to what system? Where in any constitutional writings is this sentiment given any voice whatsoever? You are describing your understanding of capitalism, not the system of government established by the Founding Fathers.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Lodatzor The Founding Fathers wanted the states to govern themselves. They wanted the federal government to give rights to the US citizens to give them the ability to control governments. That doesn't mean health care, education, welfare, etc. Those "rights" the federal government can use to gain power which is why they should be left to the states. All these public programs you support are great if you can control the government. If you can't then they are dangerous.

[judyleasugar97]

@whyamimrpink78: The founding fathers didn't forsee the extent of corporate influence today. They would definitely have objected to that. And the founding fatjers were VERY supportive of education in particular. Creating public education was a priority, and up until recently a college education was within reach for most people. I believe they would have supported public health care, but back then medicine was so ineffective. Think doctors were still using leeches.

[whyamimrpink78]

@judyleasugar97 The founding fathers wanted people to have control of governments. That is what the federal government is there for, to give US citizens the ability to control governments. State government control coporations and support education and we control the state governments. The founding fathers did forsee a time when politicians would get in office and try to control the people so they set up a system to prevent that. The problem is is that we are going against that syteem.

[whyamimrpink78]

@judyleasugar97 Above everything else the foudning fathers wanted the people to control governments. Government programs are need which is why the establish state rights but people always need to control the government. The founding fathers would be against federal education, or federal health care or federal regulations.

[judyleasugar97]

@whyamimrpink78: if you read the Constitution you would know the founding fathers were concerned about "The welfare of the people," in other words what is best for the people. It follows that public education and health care is the welfare of the people. What the founding fathers would have been opposed to is special consideration going to a small percentage of the people, the one percent.

[whyamimrpink78]

@judyleasugar97 Yes, they were concerned with the welfare of the people. That means they want people to control the government. Public education and health care are great until the government uses to their advantage. That means special consideration would be going to a small percent of the people only in this case it is the government. That is why they wanted the federal government to be there as a means for the people to control governments, meaning state and local governments.

[judyleasugar97]

@whyamimrpink78: How does the government use health care and education to its advantage? What? You don't make sense.

[whyamimrpink78]

@judyleasugar97 For health care, they can decide what types of food you can eat, what types of car you can drive. Anything that can potentially raise the cost of health care they will control. When health care becomes too expensive or scarce they will cut from your benefits but not their own. The politicians will receive better care. With education they can control what your kids learn and how they think. The can develop a society of people who can't think for themselves.....

[whyamimrpink78]

@judyleasugar97 .....because a population of free independent thinkers is hard to control. Mix in with high taxes so that people are spending so much time working and living pay check after pay check parents don't have time to teach their kids so the government does it for them. I know this sounds extreme and radical but it is a real possibility that we must avoid. They control the dumb people and overwork they intelligent ones so they can't rebel.

[oneirishpoet]

@whyamimrpink78 not only are you illiterate but you're a fucking moron and have NO idea what the 'founding fathers' would be for or against, asshole

[whyamimrpink78]

@oneirishpoet How am I illiterate. Because I have poor writing skills which I admit I do(I have a physics degree, not engilsh, I admit I am a poor writer). And also this is a comment section, not an essay that I would take more seriously. You use profanity and attack me means you don't know anything yourself. The founding fathers wanted the people to control government. If you don't know that then you are the ignorant one. They all said that and they set up the government that way.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Lodatzor ......It gives the federal government too much power and creates an unfair system of government in our country. If you don't mind living off of the ideas of having masters (federal govrernment) then by all means support communism. I like the ability of controling government and developing a fair system of government. Our problem is that we have gone away from that. Big federal government is our problem.

[Lodatzor]

@whyamimrpink78

"If you don't mind living off of the ideas of having masters"

This is coming from the person who believes that having an overlord class of capitalist supremacists is a good thing. You have already detailed that you are not in favor of democracy, so I realize I am probably talking to a brick wall here, but what part of 'by the people' do you not understand?

What, exactly, precisely, specifically, does anyone in government gain by being in office?

[whyamimrpink78]

@Lodatzor I am not in favor of complete democracy. Democracy means 51% tells 49% what to do, even if that 51% doesn't know better. People have a lot to gain by being in office. Control over everyone, power. It has been happening all throughout time. People get into office, pass bills claiming they benefit you but really the benefit themselves and then they have control. They will give handouts to the idiots and the smart ones they keep occupy with work so the can't revolt.

[whyamimrpink78]

@Lodatzor It is happening to you. You trust the government is going to be there for you but really they are there for themselves. Plus, by the people means everyone. The federal government is there for everyone. That is why the federal government is there for two things, foreign affairs and to give people the ability to control governments. The states are to govern themselves and US citizens have the federal government to control the states. That is what by the people means.

[Lodatzor]

@Boomer1949

What he fails to realize is that these programs were working just fine, and the country/economy were robust when these things were being paid for. Because of the increased financial security, people were able to take more risks in the private sector and create their own prosperity. Without them, we all live paycheck to paycheck, our incomes dictated by the private sector, 84% of which is owned by the wealthiest 10%.

He does not understand these implications, sadly.

[Boomer1949]

@Lodatzor I don't think this young person cares about history or facts. I'm old enough to remember when Medicare was passed and my parents often spoke about SS being enacted when they were young. My Dad would say "it's not much but it'll keep us out of the poor house". In other words, save money for old age too. The system worked for my Grandfather's and my Parents. And now it's my turn. What this child lacks is the sense of "pulling together" that I was raised on.

[car22ization]

I like how this woman arrogantly screams at the audience as if one exists.

[jackerx5]

yea mike!

[ManicExpression1980]

Occupy till we win!