Where you use credit cards may affect your score

PeteEU · Jan 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Do you not see the difference between a credit card company keeping track of where its credit card is used, and a credit card company snooping in someone's medical/legal/mental background?

Not really.

If I use my credit card in a bad part of town, or to buy 1000 kg of lard, then they could in theory raise my rates or cut my credit, because I have shown "bad judgement" of some sort, depending on what they see as "bad judgement".

The lard could mean I am fat and have health problems. That I am starting a burger joint that they are not aware off does not come into the picture.

The bad part of town, could mean I either frequent the place or come from the place or know someone there.. either way, I am putting myself in danger, which boosts the risk for the company. It could be that I just happen to need gas, the station was in that area...

In principle there is no difference between a credit card company using my spending habits or personal information as I mentioned.. only real difference is that the later is more accurate so to say, but both punish me for my way of life.. or rather how they "see" how I use my life.

Profiling, while useful, can also be very dangerous.

Kandahar · Jan 29, 2009

Goobieman said:
Sure it will - as long as there is cash, you can -always- pay cash.
It might not be as easy as you might like; there is a price for convenience.

And what makes you think A) that there will always be cash, and B) that it will always be a feasible way of doing business?

Goobieman said:
This doesn't shut off anything. You wasnt credit, you can get it.
You just have to play by the rules of the people that give you that credit.
Your choice, one you are free to make.

If they all institute this rule (which they will if they're allowed to do so), then you won't have the choice.

Do you feel the same way about health insurance companies using your DNA against you? Do you feel the same way about potential employers using past arrests (not convictions) against you?

Not ALL abuses of power come from the government...

Goobieman said:
Really.

How does this not imply that I do NOT live in the 21st century, with my backward ways of living, thinking, etc...?

You have two choices: A) whine some more about it, B) address my point that as technology progresses, new laws are necessary.

PeteEU · Jan 29, 2009

Goobieman said:
Its this simple:

You do not have a right to the money the credit card companies loan you.

If you do not like how they determine their interest rates/penalty schedules, do not take their money.

No you dont have a right, I agree.

But unless there in the contract you have with them clearly states that they can use any and all methods to rate your credit, then they should not be using evasive methods like this. And they have to make it very clear that your future shopping habits can be used the determination.

Goobieman · Jan 29, 2009

PeteEU said:
But unless there in the contract you have with them clearly states that they can use any and all methods to rate your credit...

Have you read your credit card contract?

Goobieman · Jan 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
And what makes you think A) that there will always be cash, and B) that it will always be a feasible way of doing business?

None of this addresses the validity of what I said.
If you can pay with cash, then you can pay with whatever replaces it.

If they all institute this rule (which they will if they're allowed to do so), then you won't have the choice.

Sure you will. You can choose to abide by their rules or not -- same choice that you have now.

Do you feel the same way about health insurance companies using your DNA against you? Do you feel the same way about potential employers using past arrests (not convictions) against you?
Not ALL abuses of power come from the government...

Again:
You can choose to abide by their rules or not -- same choice that you have right now.

You have two choices:

False dichotomy.
I can continue to take what you saod as an ad hom, and treat it accordingly.

As to the 'substance' -- its been addressed. You have a choice.

Kandahar · Jan 29, 2009

Goobieman said:
None of this addresses the validity of what I said.
If you can pay with cash, then you can pay with whatever replaces it.

What if credit replaces it?

Goobieman said:
Sure you will. You can choose to abide by their rules or not -- same choice that you have now.

If every single company is doing the same thing then you don't have any choice.

Goobieman said:
Again:
You can choose to abide by their rules or not -- same choice that you have right now.

So should I take that as an acceptance of the right of health insurers to genetically profile you, and employers to use your previous arrests (not convictions) against you?

Hell, why stop with the establishments where you use your credit card? Maybe they should ALSO use data from establishments where you paid by check or used a different credit card. And why only collect data on customers? There are hundreds of millions of POTENTIAL customers to collect data on also! Hell, let's find out where people spend CASH too! Perhaps the credit card companies can partner with private businesses, so that you'll have to give your SSN if you want to pay cash for a stick of gum at the local Speedway. After all, you still have a choice. Even if all credit card companies are collecting information on you and all other companies are supplying them with the information, you still have the choice to live in a mud hut and barter with your neighbors. As a wise man once said: It might not be as easy as you might like; there is a price for convenience. :roll:

Is there no limit to the invasions of privacy which you will tolerate, as long as they are perpetrated by corporations instead of governments? :roll:

Goobieman · Jan 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
What if credit replaces it?

What if a asteroid hits us and we all die?

If every single company is doing the same thing then you don't have any choice.

You do. You can choose to not have a credit card.
Nothing -forces- you to have a credit card.

So should I take that as an acceptance of the right of health insurers to genetically profile you, and employers to use your previous arrests (not convictions) against you?

What part of "you can choose to abide by their rules or not -- same choice that you have right now" do you not understand?

If I don't like what my health insurance company does, I get a new one.
My choice.

For whatever reason, you're equating "choice" with "choices that I like". Many of us living past our experience in kindergarten understand that you not liking the choices presented to you doesn't mean you don't have a choice.
:mrgreen:

winston53660 · Jan 29, 2009

Goobieman said:
What if a asteroid hits us and we all die?

:

Cards are already replacing cash.

Kandahar · Jan 29, 2009

Goobieman said:
What if a asteroid hits us and we all die?

:rofl
Are you suggesting that credit replacing cash is about as likely as an asteroid destroying the earth? Right after you just finished huffing and puffing at the idea that you don't live in the 21st century? Really? :lol:

Goobieman said:
You do. You can choose to not have a credit card.
Nothing -forces- you to have a credit card.

Credit is quickly becoming an economic necessity, as the current recession clearly demonstrates. See my previous example re: all companies feeding information about your spending habits to the credit bureaus. Nothing -forces- you not to build your own mud hut and barter with your neighbors for survival. However, that is not the way that most people in 21st century America want to live.

Goobieman said:
What part of "you can choose to abide by their rules or not -- same choice that you have right now" do you not understand?

If I don't like what my health insurance company does, I get a new one.
My choice.

What if ALL health insurance companies require you to submit your genetic profile?

Goobieman said:
For whatever reason, you're equating "choice" with "choices that I like". Many of us living past our experience in kindergarten understand that you not liking the choices presented to you doesn't mean you don't have a choice.
:mrgreen:

Many of us understand that when all companies set the same rules, you really don't have any choice if you want their product (in this case, credit). It's why monopolies and trusts are illegal.

Goobieman · Jan 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
Are you suggesting that credit replacing cash is about as likely as an asteroid destroying the earth?

No.
I am saying that, because of its likelyhood, your suggestion isn't worth discussing

Credit is quickly becoming an economic necessity

Nothing -forces- you to have a credit card.
You CHOOSE to have a credit card.

What if ALL health insurance companies require you to submit your genetic profile?

Presuming that I do not agree with this to the point of not being willing to accept that condition, then I'd choose to not have insurance.
Choice, see...

Many of us understand that when all companies set the same rules, you really don't have any choice if you want their product...

You have a choice:
-Choose to accept the requirements necessary to get what you want
-Choose to not get what you want.
Not liking the choices presented to you doesn't mean you don't have a choice.

Kandahar · Jan 29, 2009

Goobieman said:
No.
I am saying that, because of its likelyhood, your suggestion isn't worth discussing

If you can't see that credit will soon replace cash (and already is), then I really don't know what to say to you, other than you're completely wrong as usual. If you are this far removed from technological reality, then you have very little insight to offer in this debate.

Goobieman said:
Nothing -forces- you to have a credit card.
You CHOOSE to have a credit card.

Nothing -forces- you not to forsake all ties with the civilized world. You CHOOSE to do so.

Goobieman said:
Presuming that I do not agree with this to the point of not being willing to accept that condition, then I'd choose to not have insurance.
Choice, see...

I can only take solace in knowing that REAL conservatives aren't as fond of giant corporations controlling their lives as you are. You'd never accept the GOVERNMENT doing these things.

Goobieman said:
You have a choice:
-Choose to accept the requirements necessary to get what you want
-Choose to not get what you want.
Not liking the choices presented to you doesn't mean you don't have a choice.

So you're against all monopoly and trust laws too? If you don't want to pay eight bucks per gallon for gasoline (if Shell-BP-Speedway-Amoco-Marathon-Mobil-Citgo-Exxon agree to set $8 as a price floor) then you can always just go without gasoline. It's their choice to set their prices as they want, and your choice to pay it or not. Right? :roll:

RightinNYC · Jan 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
By the same logic, do you have a problem with them charging blacks higher interest rates, since blacks have lower credit scores on average? Should their be a box on the credit card application to mark your ethnicity, or should your banker just make his best guess?

That is illegal, as it clearly violates all sorts of civil rights legislation because it is making a lending decision based explicitly and entirely on race. I don't think that's at all the same thing as making lending decisions based in some small part on some information that the company already has access to that in some ways could kind of be related to race.

Kandahar said:
No. Maybe Acme Children's Hospital is one of the places on their ****list of places where low-credit people shop. In fact, it probably is. :roll:

And again, it would be stupid for a credit card company to stop giving credit to a person with a great financial history simply because they spend their money at a place where other low-credit people do. In fact, I think that would be so stupid, that I doubt credit companies will give that information much weight at all.

winston53660 said:
That also gives the credit card co. access to medical records if the card is used.

What? How do you figure?

new coup for you said:
Yeah that's a very good point, you use your credit card for medical bills which would allow them to take a pretty good guess at your health.

Like say a 15,000$ bill from The Cancer Ward for People Who Will Die Soon might indicate a future inability to make payments.

They already have that exact same information. They're not collecting anything more than they already have.

Kandahar said:
Those records are mostly A) for the consumer's convenience, and B) for their statistical data. When they actually try to modify consumer behavior then they have crossed the line. It's one thing to punish people for not paying their bill on time and holding a big balance on their credit card. It's another thing to punish responsible people for using the card at a hospital, or a marriage counselor, or even a strip club...ESPECIALLY when they won't tell the consumers where they can and can't use the card without incurring a penalty.

Again, I highly doubt they'll be significantly punishing people because of where they shop, because as everyone has pointed out, the correlation is very low. Of course, the fact that it's not that useful doesn't mean it's not useful at all.

I think that people who purchase Hyundai Sonata's probably have better histories of making payments than people who purchase Cadillac Escalades. Shouldn't a company be able to use that information in determining what type of risk they're facing when they make the loans to purchase those vehicles?

You act as though access to credit is just any fungible product with an endless array of options available. If this is not banned, in a few years it will be impossible to get a credit card that doesn't do these things. And if you allow this, then the credit system will become progressively more and more invasive.

If it turns out to be that big a deal and to really affect people, I have absolutely no doubt that Congress will pass laws regulating this. I just don't see the need for knee-jerk action before we have any inkling that this will cause harm.

PeteEU said:
Not really.

If I use my credit card in a bad part of town, or to buy 1000 kg of lard, then they could in theory raise my rates or cut my credit, because I have shown "bad judgement" of some sort, depending on what they see as "bad judgement".

The lard could mean I am fat and have health problems. That I am starting a burger joint that they are not aware off does not come into the picture.

The bad part of town, could mean I either frequent the place or come from the place or know someone there.. either way, I am putting myself in danger, which boosts the risk for the company. It could be that I just happen to need gas, the station was in that area...

In principle there is no difference between a credit card company using my spending habits or personal information as I mentioned.. only real difference is that the later is more accurate so to say, but both punish me for my way of life.. or rather how they "see" how I use my life.

Profiling, while useful, can also be very dangerous.

And again, I doubt the company is going to tank your credit score (or even change it) based on those individual examples. As so many people have pointed out, this isn't a perfect metric. It doesn't have to be.

RightinNYC · Jan 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
So you're against all monopoly and trust laws too? If you don't want to pay eight bucks per gallon for gasoline (if Shell-BP-Speedway-Amoco-Marathon-Mobil-Citgo-Exxon agree to set $8 as a price floor) then you can always just go without gasoline. It's their choice to set their prices as they want, and your choice to pay it or not. Right? :roll:

Is there any indication that the credit card companies are conspiring to implement this in violation of anti-trust laws? If not, then why don't people just choose a different card provider?

Kandahar · Jan 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
That is illegal, as it clearly violates all sorts of civil rights legislation because it is making a lending decision based explicitly and entirely on race. I don't think that's at all the same thing as making lending decisions based in some small part on some information that the company already has access to that in some ways could kind of be related to race.

I realize that, but my point is that there's really no fundamental difference. Both involve profiling the debtor based on the financial characteristics of OTHER members of his group...whether they be African-Americans or marriage counseling customers.

RightinNYC said:
And again, it would be stupid for a credit card company to stop giving credit to a person with a great financial history simply because they spend their money at a place where other low-credit people do. In fact, I think that would be so stupid, that I doubt credit companies will give that information much weight at all.

But as you said:

It's another way for credit card companies to assess the risk involved in lending cardholders credit. I see no reason why they shouldn't be entitled to use whatever information they have available in making their decisions.

The credit card companies likely feel the same way, and will use any and all information available to them to assess risk, as long as it is legal to do so. I wouldn't count on them not giving it any weight...especially if it leads to even MORE invasive risk-assessment techniques.

RightinNYC said:
Again, I highly doubt they'll be significantly punishing people because of where they shop, because as everyone has pointed out, the correlation is very low. Of course, the fact that it's not that useful doesn't mean it's not useful at all.

I think that people who purchase Hyundai Sonata's probably have better histories of making payments than people who purchase Cadillac Escalades. Shouldn't a company be able to use that information in determining what type of risk they're facing when they make the loans to purchase those vehicles?

Sure. But the key difference is that in your example, the risk-assessment is limited to the loan for the product in question. On the other hand, I don't think a person who drives up to the bank in a Cadillac Escalade to get a home loan or a credit card should be penalized.

RightinNYC said:
If it turns out to be that big a deal and to really affect people, I have absolutely no doubt that Congress will pass laws regulating this. I just don't see the need for knee-jerk action before we have any inkling that this will cause harm.

Such processes are always rapid enough to invade privacy, but gradual enough that by the time Congress notices the perpetrators will be able to argue that it's essential to their business.

RightinNYC said:
And again, I doubt the company is going to tank your credit score (or even change it) based on those individual examples. As so many people have pointed out, this isn't a perfect metric. It doesn't have to be.

It sets a very ugly precedent for corporations to invade privacy while the government stands by and does nothing...health insurance companies requiring you to submit your DNA, prospective employers checking to see if you've been arrested (even if you weren't convicted), internet service providers monitoring your web history and your emails, etc.

Goobieman · Jan 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
If you can't see that credit will soon replace cash (and already is), then I really don't know what to say to you....

If your argument had a leg to stand on, then you WOULD know what to say to me...

other than you're completely wrong as usual.

Keep thinking that. See below.

Nothing -forces- you not to forsake all ties with the civilized world. You CHOOSE to do so.

You say that as if it nullifies my statement.
The fact that you have to revert to such silliness indicates that you recognize that you cannot counter what I said.

I can only take solace in knowing that REAL conservatives aren't as fond of giant corporations controlling their lives as you are. You'd never accept the GOVERNMENT doing these things.

Again:
You say that as if it nullifies my statement.
The fact that you have to revert to such silliness indicates that you recognize that you cannot counter what I said.

So you're against all monopoly and trust laws too?

Nothing in my sstatement logically leads to this conclusion.
As above, the fact that you have to revert to such silliness indicates that you recognize that you cannot counter what I said.

Given that, we're done here. I hope you have a great day.

But, one final tidbit for you to ponder:
Having the freedom to choose doesn't in any way mean you have the right to expect choices that you like.
Once you accept that truth, you'll feel much better.

Kandahar · Jan 29, 2009

Goobieman said:
Having the freedom to choose doesn't in any way mean you have the right to expect choices that you like.
Once you accept that truth, you'll feel much better.

So if every major gas station operator in America agrees to charge $8 per gallon, you have the choice of not buying gasoline if you don't like it. And therefore such collusion shouldn't be illegal. Right? :roll:

Kandahar · Jan 29, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Is there any indication that the credit card companies are conspiring to implement this in violation of anti-trust laws? If not, then why don't people just choose a different card provider?

No, they aren't conspiring with one another. But information technology will ultimately lead them all to this same policy if it isn't banned. My point wasn't that the credit card companies were colluding, my point was that when ALL companies in an industry have the same policies the consumer doesn't REALLY have any choice, which is why collusion/trusts/monopolies are illegal.

Goobieman · Jan 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
So if every major gas station operator in America agrees to charge $8 per gallon, you have the choice of not buying gasoline if you don't like it. And therefore such collusion shouldn't be illegal. Right? :roll:

Aside from the fact that you're now arguing apples and oranges - another sure sign that you know you cannot counter what I said....

...you seem to have a -real- problem with the idea that having the freedom to choose doesn't in any way mean you have the right to expect choices that you like.

Kandahar · Jan 29, 2009

Goobieman said:
Aside from the fact that you're now arguing apples and oranges - another sure sign that you know you cannot counter what I said....

...you seem to have a -real- problem with the idea that having the freedom to choose doesn't in any way mean you have the right to expect choices that you like.

So then you're answer is yes. In that case, we've pretty much established that A) you have no problem with companies doing anything they want under any circumstances as long as the consumer supposedly has a "choice," and B) you have absolutely no understanding of technology or economics since you are unaware that credit is quickly replacing cash and are unwilling to consider the ramifications of that.

Yep, you're right. Our conversation is finished. Kthxbai. :2wave:

Goobieman · Jan 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
So then you're answer is yes. In that case, we've pretty much established that A) you have no problem with companies doing anything they want under any circumstances as long as the consumer supposedly has a "choice," and B) you have absolutely no understanding of technology or economics since you are unaware that credit is quickly replacing cash and unwilling to consider the ramifications of that.

Agahn, keep thiking that.

When you can address/counter what I actually post, rather than put up straw men, please get back to me.

I'll not hold my breath.

danarhea · Jan 29, 2009

Indy said:
I'm against this for a different reason. I don't give a rat's ass about the privacy non-issue, but what I DO have a problem with is the profiling. I think it would be fair to say that as a general rule African Americans have a worse credit score than Caucasian Americans based solely on the fact that the average income is less and therefore a lower credit score average is almost certain. With that in mind, with lower income comes less available housing options and a greater density of that specific group than would otherwise exist. With such a high population density you are undoubtedly going to see similar shopping patterns because so many people live in the same neighborhood with the same stores. So, at the end of the day, what's to keep these credit card companies from starting to ding peoples credit because they shop at the same neighborhood grocery store? People are going to start being punished for living in specific neighborhoods before long. THAT I have an issue with.

If credit card companies want to profile you, that is OK with me. They can do whatever they want. On the other hand, YOU have the right to close your account if you don't like it. That is what I did, after one of my credit card companies, First USA, raised their interest rate. I just closed my account, and am paying my balance at the old rate. Once it is paid off, they will solicit me for another card, and here is where this "freedom to do as one wishes" comes into play again - I will have the right to give them a big fat middle finger and tell them to **** off. :mrgreen:

Goobieman · Jan 29, 2009

danarhea said:
If credit card companies want to profile you, that is OK with me. They can do whatever they want. On the other hand, YOU have the right to close your account if you don't like it.

:agree:ws:yt:applaud

RightinNYC · Jan 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
I realize that, but my point is that there's really no fundamental difference. Both involve profiling the debtor based on the financial characteristics of OTHER members of his group...whether they be African-Americans or marriage counseling customers.

But that doesn't violate civil rights laws.

But as you said:
The credit card companies likely feel the same way, and will use any and all information available to them to assess risk, as long as it is legal to do so. I wouldn't count on them not giving it any weight...especially if it leads to even MORE invasive risk-assessment techniques.

I agree, but I really just don't see how this is that bad. If a lot of people are opposed to it, they can use a company that doesn't do it or see about getting the law changed. I just don't think it's a huge deal.

Sure. But the key difference is that in your example, the risk-assessment is limited to the loan for the product in question. On the other hand, I don't think a person who drives up to the bank in a Cadillac Escalade to get a home loan or a credit card should be penalized.

But should it be limited to the loan for the product in question? Say you're a credit card lender who has two customers with an equivalent income/history, one of which buys an Escalade while the other buys a Corolla. Say they use their credit cards for the down payments, which are equal, but pay the rest of the loans themselves, so their credit utilization rate remains the same at the beginning. Isn't it completely valid (and common sense) that the card company will be a bit more leery about extending additional credit to the guy who purchased the Escalade, if only because it means he has taken on a significantly larger financial burden? Why shouldn't they be able to use that information in deciding who should get a larger credit line?

Such processes are always rapid enough to invade privacy, but gradual enough that by the time Congress notices the perpetrators will be able to argue that it's essential to their business.

According to a cursory reading of that article, this isn't anything new either.

It sets a very ugly precedent for corporations to invade privacy while the government stands by and does nothing...health insurance companies requiring you to submit your DNA,

What's wrong with some companies choosing to do this? If I were someone without genetic predisposition toward a set of diseases, why shouldn't I be able to join an insurance plan with similarly situated people? It's only a problem when people are forced to join such plans.

prospective employers checking to see if you've been arrested (even if you weren't convicted),

I just signed a consent form for a full background check this morning. I didn't have to if I didn't want to, but I like the job, so I did.

internet service providers monitoring your web history and your emails, etc.

I'm unaware of any that do this, but there are plenty of other providers out there if people don't want to deal with that.

shiznit770 · Jan 29, 2009

Jokes on them....I only use credit cards that pay me rewards and pay off my full balance every month....

Your desire to ban this credit card practice is a slippery slope. Just by going on the internet you're opening yourself up to prying eyes. You think google just helps you find things? Yeah right.

RightinNYC · Jan 31, 2009

Article in Saturday's NYT discussing this exact issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/y...debit-cards/31money.html?em=&pagewanted=print

You probably know that credit card companies have been scrutinizing every charge on your account in recent years, searching for purchases that thieves may have made. Turns out, though, that some of the companies have been suspicious of your ownspending, too.

In recent months, American Express has gone far beyond simply checking your credit score and making sure you pay on time. The company has been looking at home prices in your area, the type of mortgage lender you’re using and whether small-business card customers work in an industry under siege. It has also been looking at how you spend your money, searching for patterns or similarities to other customers who have trouble paying their bills.

In some instances, if it didn’t like what it was seeing, the company has cut customer credit lines. It laid out this logic in letters that infuriated many of the cardholders who received them. “Other customers who have used their card at establishments where you recently shopped,” one of those letters said, “have a poor repayment history with American Express.”

It sure sounded as if American Express had developed a blacklist of merchants patronized by troubled cardholders. But late this week, American Express told me that wasn’t the case. The company said it had also decided to stop using what it has called “spending patterns” as a criteria in its credit line reductions.

“The letters were wrong to imply we were looking at specific merchants,” said Susan Korchak, a company spokeswoman. The company uses hundreds of data points in making its decisions, she said, adding that the main factor in determining credit lines “has always been and still is the overall level of debt, relative to the card member’s financial resources.”

A spokesman for Citigroup says that it is using some mortgage data to help it make credit decisions, but it is not using specific store data or looking at types of merchandise purchased. A spokeswoman for Capitol One said that geography was one of many factors it considered and that it, too, did not make decisions based on where people shop.

American Express wouldn’t have been the first company to try cordoning off certain industries. Last year, CompuCredit, a subprime lender, got in trouble with the Federal Trade Commission for failing to disclose that it could reduce customers’ credit lines for using their cards at various establishments.

What was on CompuCredit’s no-go list? Marriage counselors, tire retreading and repair shops, bars and nightclubs, pool halls, pawnshops and massage parlors, among others.

American Express has also been looking at the health of the industries where its small-business cardholders work. If you’re a dentist, say, you may have less trouble with the card company than if you work in construction or finance. Al Kelly, the company’s president, said in a presentation in August that it had made changes in credit limits “by looking at industries that are facing, or might face, incremental stress.” The “might face” could encompass all sorts of industries of the company’s choosing.

Where you use credit cards may affect your score

PeteEU

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

PeteEU

Goobieman

Goobieman

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Goobieman

winston53660

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Goobieman

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

RightinNYC

Girthless

RightinNYC

Girthless

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Goobieman

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Goobieman

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Goobieman

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Goobieman

RightinNYC

Girthless

shiznit770

RightinNYC

Girthless