10 Reasons You Should Buy This Stock Today

• Report this Comment On November 21, 2009, at 4:01 PM, kerrity wrote:

  remember, PM is a drug company, making and selling a drug that kills people. Lawyers love that, and that does not spell s-e-c-u-r-i-t-y in the long run.

• Report this Comment On November 21, 2009, at 6:28 PM, jcrigby wrote:

  why would you state that PM is a drug company? any thing that a person abuses could be harmful. Breathing is harmful to some, food is an addiction and harmful IF you as the consumer wish to misuse it. So think before you open mouth and are forced to put your foot in it.

  PS I AM NOT A SMOKER-TRIED IT DID NOT LIKE NOR DO I WORK FOR THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY. I happen to think outside of the box before I make a fool out of myself. Is the point taken????????

• Report this Comment On November 21, 2009, at 7:23 PM, blesto wrote:

  It may be a "sin stock" but it's hard to argue with those 10 points. It's all about the money and those Lawyers are just in the U.S.

• Report this Comment On November 21, 2009, at 10:39 PM, tkell31 wrote:

  Seriously? Do some of you sit at home thinking of stupid things to say? JC congrats on your gem of idiocy which I believe deserves nomination for the dumbest thing ever posted here:

  "Breathing is harmful to some"

  Really Einstein? Want to take a stab at explaining that galactically stupid statement. You then....ah what's the point? or should I say point???????????

• Report this Comment On November 22, 2009, at 3:59 AM, Machavelli wrote:

  It is morally reprehensible for the Motely Fool to recommend buying Phillip Morris Stock for one reason:

  It sells an addicting harmful product, mostly to youngsters in Third world countries. I am truly amazed that this recommendation. But I guess according to the Motely Fool being rich more important. I

• Report this Comment On November 22, 2009, at 12:30 PM, just4cliks wrote:

  The Question: Money (i.e. the amount you are likely to make) vs the lives of those who become addicted and the health consequences for those people you know and don't know (first hand and second hand consequences)...not to mention the cost to all of us, due to the effects of being addicted that translates into Healthcare costs (at least in the US). I would think if you care at all about the latter, even the part about how this is going to cost you, the taxpayer, to cover the rising cost of healthcare, that you could find other companies to invest in that would translate into acceptable earnings for your portfolio.

• Report this Comment On November 22, 2009, at 1:13 PM, mountain8 wrote:

  Oh wonderful. The horror of investing in sin stocks. How terribly immoral. Anybody invest in defense stocks? Anybody contribute to politicians? Anybody cheat on their taxes. Hippocrites.

• Report this Comment On November 22, 2009, at 4:09 PM, TMFGebinr wrote:

  The issue of social responsibility and investing is a thorny one. Should you or should you not invest in a company that sells a product that hurts people and/or the environment (all that cigarette smoke certainly contributes to airborne pollution)?

  For me, the question really boils down to two things. First, where do you draw the line? For instance, suppose you hate strip mining for what it does to the environment. Obviously, mining companies should not be allowed in your portfolio. But what about all those companies that use metal in their business? Car makers and airplane makers are obvious, but the ones that are not so obvious include computer makers (the metal frames and metal in the circuitry) and electric utilities (the wires to transmit the power, at least). Why is holding shares of Duke more acceptable than those of Southern Copper? Where do you draw the line?

  For cigarette makers and other "sin" stocks like alcohol, yes, people abuse those products. But people get addicted to pharmaceutical drugs, too. Should you avoid investments in companies like Pfizer because of that? Where do you draw the line?

  For me, each person has to determine that for him- or herself and it will probably be different for each.

  The second reason is that refusing to invest in the stock of a company whose products or practices you find repugnant doesn't really do much except make you feel better. For one thing, you cannot influence the way the company does business through shareholder activism. For all that they hate what chicken producers like Pilgrim's Pride do, PETA owns (or at one time owned) shares in order to put forth a shareholder proposal (see http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2006/05/22/fe....

  But refusing to own shares isn't making a statement. The company and the shares couldn't care less if you own them or not and why. Instead, refusing to own shares is refusing to face the problem. The way to get a company to change its practices is by organizing a boycott, writing letters to the editor, getting a law passed. Stuff like that. In other words, how society views the company or practice.

  Not owning shares of a company because you find its products or practices distasteful does nothing more than allow a person to brag about their moral position. And in the meantime, what about those Apple or Microsoft or ExxonMobil or Fortune Brands shares you own?

  Thanks for reading my article.

  Jim

• Report this Comment On November 22, 2009, at 4:11 PM, TMFGebinr wrote:

  The link should be http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2006/05/22/fe...

  Jim

• Report this Comment On November 22, 2009, at 7:10 PM, georcole wrote:

  Jim,

  I agree. I put my money where it will perform well and my body where it will perform well. If that means that I invest in sin stocks so that my money can perform well, so be it. I take my body to the gym and don't smoke or drink so that it will perform well. I did smoke for 11 years, but I have been smoke free for about 7 years now. I smoked when I wanted to and quit when I wanted to. I'm not saying that quitting was easy, but it wasn't that hard once I made the decision to do it. That was the key for me and is the key to success in all areas of life. You can't just hope you can quit smoking and try. You MUST make a decision to quit. As an aside, I quit smoking after reading a MF article that mentioned Warren Buffett talking about his best piece of advise that he would give to a young person just starting out. He said that you should imagine that you could have any car in the world that you wanted, but it would be the only car you would ever have. How would you treat that car? You would do all of the regular maintenance and take it to the shop to get fixed, or fix it yourself if you have the talent, for even the smallest things. You would treat that car like gold. Well, your body is that car. It is the only one you will ever have, so take care of it.

  Anyway, I see no reason to not invest in a company that produces something that I personally don't use. Other people CHOOSE to use their products. If I CHOOSE to invest in those companies, it's because I'm looking out for my financial well being. If I make money on somebody else's choices, that's OK. They can invest in gyms and such and make money off of my choices.

• Report this Comment On November 24, 2009, at 8:47 AM, madmilker wrote:

  Jim...you left one out.

  People smoke when times are good....but people smoke more when times are bad.

• Report this Comment On November 27, 2009, at 11:12 AM, blurpy1 wrote:

  TMFGebinr: As a stock picker, you may be fine, but your ethics in this case are stupendously simplistic. Where to draw the line? Are you kidding? This is a variant of 'He did it first!', like one used to say in the schoolyard.

  How about considering social value, as a start? Is there social value in a plane or a computer or in the transmission of electricity that can be weighed against the social ills of such products and activities or their sources? How about smoking cigarettes? How about marketing cigarettes to children in countries where the laws do not protect them? How about the addictive qualities of nicotine? Do these activities or effects contribute positively to society, despite the damage they cause?

  Nothing is absolute--one can (and should) evaluate similarly respecting energy stocks, batteries for hybrid vehicle stocks, chemical stocks, etc.--and there are few clear answers. In the case of a company that makes, markets and sells an addictive substance that kills many people each year, I think the evaluation is a bit easier.

  I know, this is america, where might always makes right and 'show me the money' is the only valid criterion for deciding what to do. And yes, we are all hypocrites in someone's eyes if we own a car or a house, but none of that relieves us of the obligation to consider where the dividend and price appreciation came from in the case of PM.

  Enjoy the money. Buy a boat or something.

• Report this Comment On November 27, 2009, at 3:26 PM, teisho wrote:

  I think a very important point has been missed by some here. Yes, you may find the idea of investing your money in a company that produces "immoral" products (in your view, at least) repugnant, but that isn't the issue. The issue is making money. And, if you find the idea of investing in PM reprehensible, how about this ... buy the stock, collect the dividends, make the capital gain ... and give the proceeds to the American Cancer Society! I'm sure they won't ask where you got it from ... and even if they did, they wouldn't refuse the donation.

  In Canada, we can donate shares to charity and not only get a tax receipt for the donation, but the capital gain is tax-free! So, if you're a Canadian resident, you can buy the stock, let it appreciate and donate it to the Cancer Society or the Lung Association and get a tax credit and no capital gain.

• Report this Comment On November 27, 2009, at 4:09 PM, SocialRespInvest wrote:

  Teisho is right, the issue is making money. And if you are the kind of person who goes through life looking out for number one no matter how many other people are hurt, and the world is a worse place for you having passed through, but you don't care because wow did you get rich, then buy this stock. [Of course, many of us would like you to lose your shirt due to lawsuits if you do buy it.]

  As for buying it and then donating to the Cancer Society, oh, isn't that sweet? Make a profit from giving someone a deadly disease and then imagine yourself to be a generous soul and give to charity in their name [or memory].

  But if you put your money where you mouth is, and care about other people, then of course don't go anywhere near this disgusting stock. This company has killed and maimed many millions of people and seeks to addict children before they are old enough to know better to commit to a life of sickness. Frankly, if you buy this stock, my guess is that you are a Republican supporter of people like Dick Cheney. If that makes you proud, go right ahead.

• Report this Comment On November 27, 2009, at 5:25 PM, nwjh wrote:

  There was a time when it was thought that a business had some responsibility to the society in which it existed, but that notion was replaced some years ago by shareholder value being the only criterion.

  Almost all activities involve trade-offs. I want the advantages of personal transportation, but I must deal with road deaths and pollution. I want to keep the house warm, and must deal with hydrocarbon depletion and pollution. I'm sure you can find plenty of other examples. The key here is weighing the common good against the common bad consequences.

  Tobacco has very few things leading to enhancement of the common good, beyond a profit and a handful of jobs. But it has a huge downside. Cars are more complex, as they provide huge economic and personal freedom returns to the common good, in addition to the down sides.

  Most people who have a concern about their fellow humans ahead of their own wealth recognize that wealth from tobacco comes via the long-term death and suffering of others, and the short-term exploitation of markets like third-world children. It's hard to find anything good from tobacco that isn't using the money from its sale.

  So it comes down to people vs money. Make your choice, but don't complain if you later become a victim of the same mentality.

• Report this Comment On November 28, 2009, at 1:21 PM, foolishfoolhead1 wrote:

  The issue is not just making money. It's also how you make the money.

  Is there a difference between making a thousand dollars from investing in a tobacco company that kills millions, and making a thousand from investing in a company that helps people? That's like asking if there is a difference between making money by selling crack to kids, and making money by working in a hospital.

  Wanting to make money is fine, but should you do it by supporting a product that targets children to make them addicted? Should you be making money by investing in a product that kills millions?

  When you buy shares of a company, you are helping to capitalize that company. You are helping its product by investing in it. Buying shares of a tobacco company is supporting and condoning what that company does, in this case, targeting children and killing millions.

  If you are willing to sell your honor and your morals because you are too lazy to find another good stock, then by all means, buy this stock, and good luck sleeping at night.

• Report this Comment On November 28, 2009, at 1:25 PM, NinjaTrader wrote:

  lol... - iamninjatrader

• Report this Comment On November 28, 2009, at 1:55 PM, radicalaccountin wrote:

  Some of the above posters express themselves so well.

  Motley Fool acts as if it holds itself to some kind of social value standard, but this article, along with the one on payday loan stores, say otherwise.

• Report this Comment On November 28, 2009, at 3:23 PM, TMFGebinr wrote:

  Thank you, everyone, for your comments. My point about "where do you draw the line?" above met with some resistance. Let me make another attempt to get my point across.

  If you are a user of electricity from coal-powered plants, then you are partially responsible for the black lung disease and many deaths that are part of coal mining. If you buy products made overseas, then you are partially responsible for the labor issues, including forced child labor, of the countries where those products were manufactured. And, if you are a user of government-provided benefits, such as education and roadways, then you are a user of tax dollars generated from tobacco sales and are thus tied to the marketing practices and products sold by tobacco firms. I think I've managed to include everybody in this country among those three groups.

  "Where you draw the line" involves weighing benefits against costs, as several comment writers pointed out. The benefits of computers arguably outweigh the costs of extracting the metal and oil (source of plastic) from the ground. But, please do not believe that you are not connected to the strip miner. Or to tobacco companies. You most certainly benefit from their activities.

  Investing in a tobacco company creates a more direct relationship between benefit and disturbing costs than many people are comfortable with. But for those who are comfortable with that, it can help make you money. And for those who are not comfortable, you can make money elsewhere. Nobody is forcing you to invest. Just please don't call the decision not to do so morally superior.

  Jim

• Report this Comment On November 28, 2009, at 3:41 PM, ozzfan1317 wrote:

  I do invest however tobacco companies are my one major exception. At least for me I would rather make a little less with a clear conscience than help fund a company that markets a addictive deadly product that makes no positive contribution to society.

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 11:46 AM, blurpy1 wrote:

  TMFGebinr: You persist in a block-headed argument. Why? Strawmen and red-herrings won't win this for you.

  There is a great difference between driving down a road funded by public money that derives in part from tobacco taxes, and investing directly in a tobacco company for personal profit. The taxes, you see, are largely there to make smoking more expensive, and thus to discourage it, and to assist with public funding to deal with the health consequences. Social engineering 101. There are many who look forward to the day when there is no tax money derived from tobacco because no one smokes anymore. Dream on, of course.

  You are correct that living in modern america involves a series of compromises with an infrastructure that was set up before anyone realized (or cared about) the social and environmental costs. That is why as a society we are searching for alternatives. To turn on a dime, however, would be more destructive so we change our habits gradually (some would prefer those habits change more quickly).

  So you're right, we're all hypocritical in some respect just by going about our daily lives, though there are many small choices one can make to mitigate those hypocrisies.

  None of this relieves you of the obligation to consider whether there is ANY social good in the manufacture, marketing and sale of cigarettes. I'm sorry, but you just don't get a free pass on this one.

  If you remain unable or unwilling to understand the distinction, then you simply demonstrate once again that Upton Sinclair was right.

  Btw, since you seem so concerned about dirty aquifiers and black lung, I am sure you are very supportive of implementing a carbon tax regime that helps to phase out coal-produced electricity. You are not, I presume, deterred by the false arguments about the economic cost of raising energy taxes.

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 12:03 PM, djkumquat wrote:

  people choose to drink, smoke, eat fast food, do extreme sports, etc... i just see this stock as a good transfer of wealth. money goes from those who make unwise choices to those who will (hopefully) make wise choices. my fellow fools, keep making money off of fools. it's how progress works. the rest of you, wise up.

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 12:13 PM, wolfhounds wrote:

  As I read these comments I truly wonder why many of you bother subscribing to this site. If you detest sin stocks, especially tobacco, you should also detest defense stocks, prison stocks, HMO stocks....where does it end. Buy a socially responsible mutual fund and save the ranting. Some of us actually realize that buying or NOT buying certain stocks has not one iota of difference on how those companies do business.

  I own, PM,GD,HON,UTX,ITT,CRN among other not so socially popular companies that just make lots of money.

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 12:14 PM, blurpy1 wrote:

  That's right, transfer wealth from third-world children and other unfortunates to you, the wise one.

  Stupid children. Fool on!

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 12:22 PM, wolfhounds wrote:

  Hmmmm, 'the wise one". Thank you. I've never considered that title applying to me. I'll take for granted that you, blurpy, are far wiser and have solid facts to support that third children are transferring their wealth to me. Never thought of that. Let me see; if a third world child has the money to buy a Marlboro then that child has some means of supporting itself. Of course, we all aren't as wise as you to extrapilate that all of PM's revenue comes from third world children. But thanks for the info.

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 12:33 PM, blurpy1 wrote:

  wolfhounds: My comment wasn't intended for you, but clearly you missed that.

  I don't think i'll convince you or the kumquat or even TMFGebinr, but perhaps someone else will read this exchange, someone who has the ability and willingness to consider shades of grey, and who will thus conclude that investing in PM is not for them.

  No, the income of PM derives from unfortunates all over, not just third- (and second-) world children.

  Just remember, not everyone starts out in the same place as those of us who can afford to be wise and prudent. We have a responsibility to them...

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 12:35 PM, djkumquat wrote:

  right on, wolfhounds. these companies are going to exist and make money with or without you. owning shares does nothing to support the business. if you're really concerned about the morality of a particular company, don't lend them any money. but owning and lending are two different things. i can own PM without ever buying a pack of smokes. but someone's going to buy a pack of smokes. i'll take the profit and continue to buy carrots. eventually, the foolish will wise up and quit the habit they started, or they will likely die early. and more people will grow carrots. that's how capitalism pushes along social evolution, progress, and innovation.

  oops, did i just inject evolution into this thread?

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 12:38 PM, djkumquat wrote:

  sorry, blurpy, wisdom is not an affordability issue.

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 12:39 PM, djkumquat wrote:

  sorry, blurpy, wisdom is not an affordability issue.

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 12:49 PM, wolfhounds wrote:

  Yo blurpy, sorry you took my comments personally. If you read my post again you'll see it was intended for all posters with a certain bent. I must be getting old. I actually remember a time when investors understood what and why they were investing in. To make money. I forgot to mention that I dislike nuclear power, but I invest in EXC. An excellent utility. I do draw the line at Tasr.

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 2:47 PM, TMFGebinr wrote:

  blurpy,

  Thank you for the debate. I most certainly do realize that one of the reasons taxes are imposed upon tobacco is to discourage its use and that there is a correlation between increasing the tax rate and cutting down on the number of people smoking. Social engineering 101, as you wrote.

  But that is far from the only reason governments tax tobacco. A reason at least as important as getting people to quit is the revenue those taxes generate. When governments get into financial binds, increasing the tobacco tax is a popular choice for raising more revenue, especially because it can be couched in "we're discouraging smoking" rhetoric. But believe me, that is not the primary reason. Governments want those tax dollars.

  The executives at Philip Morris certainly know this and have expressed amazement that the governments in the countries it sells in have not raised tobacco taxes very much during this global recession. Look at the last two or three quarterly earnings conference calls.

  (It would be interesting to note, given the financial difficulties facing many cities and states today, how many of them will turn to raising the tax rate on cigarettes.)

  As for a social benefit from tobacco sales, I can name one right off the top of my head. My doctoral thesis project was on the repair of DNA within cells. And a major cause of damaged DNA (which is what leads to cancer) is the chemicals contained in tobacco smoke. Today, we would not know as much about the damage and repair of DNA, and the mechanisms branching off of that (such as the processes leading to cancer), not to mention the many cancer drugs out there, if there had not been companies such as Philip Morris selling cigarettes. It was the rise in cancer rates caused by smoking that led to government funding for such research. (The funds for my research were from the National Institutes of Health.)

  Not the most direct connection, but a connection of a social benefit to a horrible product, nonetheless.

  I am not saying that everyone should invest in Philip Morris or casinos or defense contractors or alcohol producers or any of the other "sin" stocks. I'm just trying to explain my reasons for why I believe that using one's investment portfolio as some sort of moral statement does not make sense.

  Invest as you see fit. But please do not pass moral judgment on those who decide to invest in sin stocks.

  Best regards,

  Jim

  P.S. I am in favor of a carbon tax and the phasing out of coal-fired electric plants. But the alternatives to energy generation are not to everyone's taste -- hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear each have their own less-than-obvious costs, some of them quite damaging.

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 3:35 PM, deltafox2 wrote:

  To return to the stock fundamentals: the PM dept/equity ratio is 2.25 which is pretty awful. This will certainly bite into the earning once the cost of financing returns to normal levels again.

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 4:18 PM, TMFGebinr wrote:

  Hi deltafox,

  The primary reason for that high a D/E ratio is because equity has shrunk quite drastically as the company has purchased a lot of shares. Look at the Treasury Stock line in the equity portion of the balance sheet. This also inflates the ROE number. However, with the huge amount of cash flow this company produces, they could rather easily pay off the debt. I'm not worried about this.

  Cheers,

  Jim

• Report this Comment On November 29, 2009, at 10:03 PM, rowley916 wrote:

  At times analysis just doesn't do it. Why not recommend cocaine? The ROI there must be superior.

  This crap is killing people. It simply does not desreve support. This "value-free" approach to investing got our conomy to where it is today.

• Report this Comment On November 30, 2009, at 12:23 PM, webeefools wrote:

  You know what, I am really fed up with hearing from all of you sanctimonious crusaders about how you have the solutions to all of the worlds ills. Some of you, when tobacco companies where pumping loads of cash to your favorite charities, or colleges, or medical centers, or whatever, well you didn't have much to say about it then. But now, you have a bandwagon to ride on, so now it's kill the golden goose because you are soooo righteous. Most people smoke because they want to. They drink because they want to. They raise hell because they want to. It's really not any of your business. It's about time you got your nose out of other peoples business. If you don't want to invest in a tobacco company, then don't. If you don't want to smoke, then don't, but leave me the hell alone about it. Tobacco companies have done more to contribute positively to peoples Life, Liberty, Property, and Pursuit of Happiness than people like you have ever done, because people that want to brand an industry for all of the worlds ills, are cut from the same cloth as those fascio-marcists in Washington D.C. who are trying to totally destroy my families freedom to choose how to live. I don't care what you do, outside of violating my rights, and I don't need you caring about me and mine. What you people need is a good drink of Canadian whisky and a Marlboro: maybe that will jolt you back to reality. It has never mattered when you go, only if you are ready to go. You stick to worrying about yourself, I can take care of myself, thank you very much!

• Report this Comment On November 30, 2009, at 12:36 PM, hiuno1 wrote:

  A harsh but practical view of this is that the major problem we face today is world overpopulation. Maybe PM is doing the world a favor by selling cigarettes anywhere it can.

• Report this Comment On November 30, 2009, at 2:48 PM, blurpy1 wrote:

  Jim: I make no moral judgement about you personally, but am merely trying to convince you and others not to invest in PM. I still don't like your argument in defense of your position, but we can agree to disagree. Reading back over the exchange I can see that I used language that may have been a bit strong, so I apologize for that.

  webeefools: Would it be a violation of your rights if I took actions, over both the short- and long-term, that caused your medical insurance bills to rise due to rising medical costs?

• Report this Comment On November 30, 2009, at 4:09 PM, webeefools wrote:

  Maybe it would be best if you just stayed in bed everyday so I won't have to pick up the tab for that bus that you will walk out in front of, or that flight that you will go down on, or that heart treatment that you will have to have from all of those unhealthy food choices you make, or that bullet you caught, or . . . maybe you should move to Massachusetts, or Canada, or England, or France, where you don't have to worry about picking up the bill for other peoples actions. Oh yea, about the rights thing, it would be a violation of my rights, as well as every other American citizen, to be jailed for not purchasing health insurance that I don't want. I may not agree with what every American citizen does, but as a natural born American citizen, I would give my life defending their right to do it. There is one thing more important that your pocketbook, or mine, L-I-B-E-R-T-Y, aka freedom.. My rights are contained in a 17-page document that has stood the test of time, not a 2094-page healthcare bill. You do what you want blurpy1, because I sure am :)

• Report this Comment On December 01, 2009, at 10:39 AM, blurpy1 wrote:

  webeefools: I too sometimes respond with anger when I do not understand what is happening around me, and under those circumstances I might tend to retreat into a categorical insistence on simple questions and simple answers, like you or anyone else. It is just part of the human condition, I guess, but it is probably not the best approach, and certainly not a reflection of the rational part of human nature.

  Have fun at your next tea party. Give 'em hell.

• Report this Comment On December 04, 2009, at 12:22 PM, sept2749 wrote:

  I'm buying PM today and marijuana stock tomorrow if it becomes available. For Christ sake anyone who owns a pharm. stock must be aware that they sell morphine and a great many other products that may pose serious risks to their users. How about the "war stocks" is that ok? I find those particularly reprehensible as we help fund this crazy no win situation (war). Vietnam all over again. Too many judgemental fools for me! How about everyone buys what they like and others keep your nasty comments to yourself. Great article Jim. Thank you!

• Report this Comment On December 04, 2009, at 12:25 PM, jamminjamy wrote:

  Can someone help me clear up a question that I have?

  If I invest in PM, they do not receive any of my money. The only money they receive is from their initial public offering and any new stock they may offer afterwards. The shares I buy through my online brokerage account transfers money to the previous shareholder and not PM. The only way PM is affected by my purchase is if I give a positive/negative proxy vote or if my purchase helps drive up their share price.

  Is this right or am I missing something?

  If their share price rises because of many people buying their stock how does this benefit them as a company?

  Thanks for your time… I’m just trying to fill in some missing pieces to my puzzle.

  Thanks for the interesting article and comments.

• Report this Comment On December 22, 2009, at 6:16 PM, ccrashcup wrote:

  Get a life you facist do gooders. They didn't say you HAD to buy.

Add your comment.