I/P: post-semitism in the desert of the deal

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > I/P: post-semitism in the desert of the deal

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

Iran is presently the US' de facto ally in opposing the spread of the Islamic State to the point where we both have 'advisers' visiting the same shia militias around Baghdad in between their bouts of ethnic cleansing while trying to avoid being in the room at the same time like an international relations sitcom.

Thomas Friedman is stupid enough to think we should be arming ISIS instead because they hate Iran like poison, but neither Hillary Clinton nor Jeb Bush do. They both could easily end up starting a ground war in the middle east, but not Iran.

# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 09:03

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

DaveWoo posted:

For someone who doesn't want to repeat his brother's foreign policy mistakes, he sure is using an awful lot of his brother's foreign policy advisers.

That's just who republicans hire for foreign policy. Those were the same geniuses who ran Romney's FP shop.

# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:09

MeLKoR: Dec 23, 2004; by FactsAreUseless

Torrannor posted:

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan together had more than 100 million people, while the US had only half it's current population. I'm not seeing a reason why the USA couldn't occupy Iran, at least if it was willing to invest as many resources as it did in WW2.

It would still be a terrible, terrible idea.

Making IEDs in the 1940's wasn't nearly as easy as it is today.

# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:10

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

MeLKoR posted:

Making IEDs in the 1940's wasn't nearly as easy as it is today.

Hahaha, yes it was. Various Partisan groups in occupied Europe made use of them.

# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:15

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

But yeah the Iraq War went terrible for George W Bush oh wait no he experienced literally no consequences for war crimes.

Just because he should be rotting at the Hague and isn't, doesn't mean that it won't be, the bold lettered headline to his legacy as president. You don't think he knows that?

# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:15

SpiderHyphenMan: Apr 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

mcmagic posted:

Just because he should be rotting at the Hague and isn't, doesn't mean that it won't be, the bold lettered headline to his legacy as president. You don't think he knows that?

Why do you think he cares? Why do you think his brother is any better?

# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:18

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

Why do you think he cares? Why do you think his brother is any better?

I'm pretty sure all Presidents care about their legacies. And I don't think his brother would be "better" just that he wouldn't invade Iran...

mcmagic fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Mar 18, 2015

# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:20

SpiderHyphenMan: Apr 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

mcmagic posted:

I'm pretty sure all Presidents care about their legacies.

I still remember this from 2010

quote:

President George W. Bush says that when he heard Kanye West say, �George Bush doesn�t care about black people,� �it was one of the most disgusting moments in my presidency.�

Bush has taped an interview with Matt Lauer that will air on a special prime-time Matt Lauer Reports on NBC Nov. 8. It�s to promote his forthcoming book, Decision Points. The subjects of the interview are wide-ranging, but the former president is very passionate on the subject of West�s criticism of the way Bush handled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. NBC has released some quotations from the interview.

�He called me a racist,� Bush tells Lauer. �And I didn�t appreciate it then. I don�t appreciate it now. It�s one thing to say, �I don�t appreciate the way he�s handled his business.� It�s another thing to say, �This man�s a racist.� I resent it, it�s not true.�

Lauer quotes from Bush�s new book: �Five years later I can barely write those words without feeling disgust.� Lauer adds, �You go on: �I faced a lot of criticism as president. I didn�t like hearing people claim that I lied about Iraq�s weapons of mass destruction or cut taxes to benefit the rich. But the suggestion that I was racist because of the response to Katrina represented an all-time low.�

President Bush responds: �Yeah. I still feel that way as you read those words. I felt �em when I heard �em, felt �em when I wrote �em, and I felt �em when I�m listening to �em.

Lauer: �You say you told Laura at the time it was the worst moment of your presidency?�

Bush: �Yes. My record was strong, I felt, when it came to race relations and giving people a chance. And it was a disgusting moment.�

Lauer: �I wonder if some people are going to read that, now that you�ve written it, and they might give you some heat for that. And the reason is this � �

Bush [interrupting]: �Don�t care.�

Lauer: �Well, here�s the reason. You�re not saying that the worst moment in your presidency was watching the misery in Louisiana. You�re saying it was when someone insulted you because of that.�

Bush: �No, and I also make it clear that the misery in Louisiana affected me deeply as well. There�s a lot of tough moments in the book. And it was a disgusting moment, pure and simple.�

# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:27

dorkasaurus_rex: Jun 10, 2005; gawrsh do you think any women will be there

emanresu tnuocca posted:

http://z.ynet.co.il/short/content/2015/elections_map2015/

Hover over any city to see voter turnout percentages, click on a city to see election results in the particular city, Zionist union in red, Likud in Blue, Teal for joint arab list.

Can't find an equivalent site or one that summarizes all the data in English. It looks like blue cities have higher voter turnout but only marginally so.

The most peculiar thing from this map is how the druze towns in the north have apparently voted overwhelmingly for Liberman, of all people.

This is incredibly informative and useful. Thanks.

Clearly, some Israeli pollsters will have to rework their methodology after this. To wit:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/18/israel-election-pollsters-idUSL6N0WK1MQ20150318

quote:

Embarrassed at failing to predict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's election victory, Israeli pollsters said on Wednesday they were blindsided by reticent rightist voters and may have unwittingly prodded waverers to back the incumbent.

Netanyahu's Likud won 30 of parliament's 120 seats in Tuesday's ballot, against 24 for the centre-left Zionist Union - upsetting opinion surveys that as recently as Friday gave the challenger a four-seat lead.

Exit polls also proved unreliable. Israel's top three television stations, airing first returns as voting booths closed, found the parties close or tied. Had that been borne out, either could have potentially headed the next government.

Instead, during overnight counting, Likud's tally went from 27 seats to 30 and the Zionist Union's from 27 to 24.

Grilled on the discrepancy, Channel 2 TV's veteran pollster Mina Tzemach said many Likud voters declined to take part in replicating their vote in the dummy ballot boxes set up by survey-taking companies outside voting stations.

Even though exit polls are anonymous, she suggested such reticence might have cultural roots for Israelis originally from countries with different political regimes in which they worry about sharing their private voting choices.

"In certain voting stations, voting stations in places where there are a lot of new immigrants, pro-Likud ballot boxes, the percent of those who voted (in the exit polls) was especially low," Tzemach told Israel's Army Radio.

Fellow survey-taker Camil Fuchs agreed, saying final counts from voting stations he had monitored showed that a significant number of Likud supporters had not participated in exit polls.

If they did participate, they may also not have been honest about the way they voted and as exit polls close earlier than the real polls, a last-minute surge in Likud votes, in response to a call from Netanyahu, may have been missed, he said.

"Some people don't say (in exit polls) what they really voted, and the exit polls close about two hours before the voting booths," Fuchs told Israel Radio.

Israeli election forecasts have been wrong before - in 1981, when the Likud narrowly won; in 1992 about the return to left-wing Labour party rule; and in 1996, when Netanyahu toppled Labour incumbent Shimon Peres for his first term in office.

Recent reliance on Internet-based studies has thrown another spanner in the works, according to Avi Degani, an Israeli pollster who says he conducted telephone surveys exclusively. Since last month, he has been the only one consistently predicting a victory for Netanyahu.

Degani said Web-based "panels," made up of tens of thousands of pre-selected respondents, rarely reflect Israeli society accurately as they favour the tech-savvy, educated and urbane.

"The Internet does not represent the State of Israel or the people of Israel. (It is) biased strongly toward Tel Aviv," Degani told reporters in a conference call arranged by the Israel Project advocacy group, referring to Israel's second largest city and financial capital.

"People who are in the periphery ... and have a stronger tendency to vote Likud are, I think, very poorly represented."

In separate remarks to Reuters, Degani said Israeli pollsters were always bedevilled by some 30 percent of citizens whose votes are unknowable - either because they waver until the last minute or end up backing fringe parties that do not muster enough support to enter parliament and are nixed from the tally.

"We are talking about 20 parliament seats that could go either way. It is almost impossible to tackle statistically."

Still, Degani said he anticipated Netanyahu's win by finding that at least half of wavering voters would choose Likud, adding that some of those respondents viewed themselves as rallying against Zionist Union's strong showing in opinion polls.

"It is a highly emotional matter in Israel, and the Likud had the added advantage of being the last party, with the possible exception of (liberal) Meretz, of having a defined ideology. The rest are just about personalities," Degani said. (Writing by Dan Williams; editing by Anna Willard)

So the pollsters basically gave Netanyahu a boost by underreporting his support.

# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:31

Forums Terrorist: Dec 8, 2011

Hello, shy Tory effect.

# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:41

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

mcmagic posted:

I don't think it's that simple. Yes, the neo con's surrounding Bush 43 wanted to invade Iraq from the beginning but they were both stupid and evil. As was Cheney. I'm sure he really thought that we would be greeted as liberators and that the war would be over in 2 weeks. And the incompetence they displayed in managing the war once is started was almost beyond belief. They also had 9-11 happen which they were able to use to get the war started. The US public has no appetite for another iraq war and I'm sure Jeb Bush knows that. He really seems more like the typical tool of the rich republican who is pretty much there to help out his rich pals and the corporations they run than a guy who has an ideological mission for middle east regime change..

quote:

"Would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran in order to prevent them from producing a nuclear weapon?"

Favor: 58%
Oppose: 37%
Unsure: 5%

CNN/ORC Poll. March 15-17, 2013. N=1,021 adults nationwide. Margin of error � 3.

If Israel were to attack Iran to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, then what should the United States do? Should the United States support Israel's military action, or should the United States not get involved?"

Support: 49%
Not get involved: 49%
Unsure: 2%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

# ? Mar 18, 2015 22:57

New Division: Jun 23, 2004; I beg to present to you as a Christmas gift, Mr. Lombardi, the city of Detroit.

I wouldn't worry about a war with Iran right now. I don't think Bibi intends to trigger a war there. I'd be much more concerned by the potential collapse of the PA and the West Bank blowing up.

# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:00

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

mcmagic posted:

Yeah but Cheney wasn't the president and is also a psychopath who doesn't give a poo poo about his legacy. I don't think Jeb falls into that category. He saw what the Iraq war did to his brother's presidency and I really don't think he would want to repeat that. Unless he's more of a neo con fundy than I think he is...

Didn't Cheney make a ton of money off the Iraq War due to all his Halliburton stock? Smart move for him.

# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:01

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Fangz posted:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

Give it a month of ramp-up to bombing, when Iran renews its nuclear program after it walks away from an acceptable deal, and then we'll see how much of America favors bombing Iran in order to preserve mideast peace and stability.

# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:10

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

If the next president actually is stupid enough to invade Iran then the American people will line up to support it. Maybe the executive just needs to establish the framing of the issue in the media, or maybe they just up and fabricate evidence wholesale like the GWB administration did, but I don't think anybody is arguing the POTUS is incapable of launching such an invasion.

# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:12

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

My Imaginary GF posted:

Give it a month of ramp-up to bombing, when Iran renews its nuclear program after it walks away from an acceptable deal, and then we'll see how much of America favors bombing Iran in order to preserve mideast peace and stability.

Recent history has shown that if America wants to preserve mideast peace and stability, then the country they have to bomb is the USA themselves.

# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:31

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...-process-394310
The Abbas administration has announced that it doesn't care who the next Israeli Prime Minister will be, and that they will work with any Israeli government that supports the two-state solution.

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Palestinian-court-upholds-decree-stripping-Abbas-rival-of-immunity-394352
The PA courts have upheld, on procedural grounds, Abbas' presidential decree stripping his chief political rival of his parliamentary immunity. This leaves him open to charges of graft from the anti-corruption committee set up by Abbas. How convenient that his main rival and the only person in Fatah capable of challenging him for the presidency is in such trouble!

# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:38

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Fangz posted:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

I don't buy that saying you support "military action" is the same thing as saying that you support a full scale Iraq style invasion and occupation...

# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:42

New Division: Jun 23, 2004; I beg to present to you as a Christmas gift, Mr. Lombardi, the city of Detroit.

Main Paineframe posted:

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...-process-394310
The Abbas administration has announced that it doesn't care who the next Israeli Prime Minister will be, and that they will work with any Israeli government that supports the two-state solution.

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Palestinian-court-upholds-decree-stripping-Abbas-rival-of-immunity-394352
The PA courts have upheld, on procedural grounds, Abbas' presidential decree stripping his chief political rival of his parliamentary immunity. This leaves him open to charges of graft from the anti-corruption committee set up by Abbas. How convenient that his main rival and the only person in Fatah capable of challenging him for the presidency is in such trouble!

Abbas really should go ahead and resign. He's a tired old relic and is widely hated by the people he supposedly represents.

# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:55

Rincewinds: Jul 30, 2014; MEAT IS MEAT

gently caress You And Diebold posted:

He is working off of outdated info

Hahahaha... ha.. gently caress, I could see you guys doing it again for "reasons".

# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:59

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

DaveWoo posted:

For someone who doesn't want to repeat his brother's foreign policy mistakes, he sure is using an awful lot of his brother's foreign policy advisers.

mcmagic posted:

That's just who republicans hire for foreign policy. Those were the same geniuses who ran Romney's FP shop.

... that's not really a refutation of DaveWoo's point, it just means that in the hypothetical bad universe of President Romney the US would be gearing up for an invasion of Iran right about now. Man, you think our timeline has had some bad poo poo, I don't even want to imagine that one. :ohdear:

Again, look at the guy in the middle in dark red ~~blood~~: Paul loving Wolfowitz. They guy who was literally the first person to bring up Iraq after 9/11 happened.

You have far, far more faith in Jeb Bush not starting Iraq War 3/Iran War 1 than I do, I'm working under the assumption that that invading Iraq/Syria/Iran is a given with president Jeb Bush.

E: Jeb Bush would also mean all the progress with Iran is erased, and all the "progress" with the US/Israeli relationship is reset back to what it was in 2000-2008.

fade5 fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Mar 19, 2015

# ? Mar 18, 2015 23:59

Kim Jong Il: Aug 16, 2003

emanresu tnuocca posted:

Binational state was more of a pipe dream of people who consider it to be a historical inevitability, it was never 'on the cards' as far as Israel, the US or any western nation was concerned, if anything for those who believe that there's only one way for the cookie to crumble Netanyahu's dismissal of the 'peace process' is considered to be a step in the right direction.

"Why I�m relieved Netanyahu won - Ali Abunimah" - http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/why-im-relieved-netanyahu-won

These accelerationists are loving morons. Just look at any Peace Now map. The map for any Palestinian state inevitably shrinks over time and that's not going to change. Plus, Abunimah will get another Cast Lead every two years, and it's amazing how he can handwave how Oslo brought legitimate quality of life improvements. Hillary and a GOP Congress will be a rubber stamp for eight years.

Oh and Paineframe raises a good point too. Fatah will just follow Arafat's example and rob everyone blind with Israel's tacit support. That's pretty much what Hamas is doing in Gaza too, look at the wealth that Mashaal and Haniyeh have accumulated.

Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Mar 19, 2015

# ? Mar 19, 2015 00:18

New Division: Jun 23, 2004; I beg to present to you as a Christmas gift, Mr. Lombardi, the city of Detroit.

A Cast Lead every two years? I bet they make it yearly from now on. Maybe they can sell advertising like a sports playoffs.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 00:25

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

fade5 posted:

... that's not really a refutation of DaveWoo's point, it just means that in the hypothetical bad universe of President Romney the US would be gearing up for an invasion of Iran right about now. Man, you think our timeline has had some bad poo poo, I don't even want to imagine that one.

Again, look at the guy in the middle in dark red ~~blood~~: Paul loving Wolfowitz. They guy who was literally the first person to bring up Iraq after 9/11 happened.

You have far, far more faith in Jeb Bush not starting Iraq War 3/Iran War 1 than I do, I'm working under the assumption that that invading Iraq/Syria/Iran is a given with president Jeb Bush.

E: Jeb Bush would also mean all the progress with Iran is erased, and all the "progress" with the US/Israeli relationship is reset back to what it was in 2000-2008.

I don't think not believing he'd start world war 3 is a very high bar. Of course he would be a disaster on multiple levels.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 00:38

Avshalom: Feb 14, 2012; by Lowtax

loving jews!

# ? Mar 19, 2015 00:39

Kim Jong Il: Aug 16, 2003

Avshalom posted:

loving jews!

No one can tell the Israeli people whom to choose as a government. Likud is not a terrorist organization. Regardless of whether I disagree with Likud, the international community cannot mediate neutrally if it starts to label the organizations of the Israelis as illegitimate.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 00:52

emanresu tnuocca: Sep 2, 2011; by Athanatos

Kim Jong Il posted:

No one can tell the Israeli people whom to choose as a government. Likud is not a terrorist organization. Regardless of whether I disagree with Likud, the international community cannot mediate neutrally if it starts to label the organizations of the Israelis as illegitimate.

I mean, ok, but surely you see the double standard here? Israel and the US get to dictate which parties palestinians get to choose as their own representatives.

Besides, I haven't seen anyone in the west that actually challenged the legitimacy of the Likud administration as the legal government of Israel, the worst western administrations have done so far is raise their figurative eyebrows at Netanyahu openly opting out of the two state solution understandings, and let's face it, even whilst Israelis may choose their own representatives it is fine for the world to express malcontent and even (hopefully one day) take action based on certain policy decisions Israel chooses to commit to, and why not, the US has thrown itself behind the Oslo agreements and supported Israel based on certain understandings, treaties and commitments made be a series of Israeli administrations, can't just renege on international agreements and go 'internal politics, back the gently caress off'. Although that is definitely what's going to happen right now but still, it's obviously completely hypocritical.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:14

1337JiveTurkey: Feb 17, 2005

That sounds like it was originally referencing Hamas.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:18

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Remember another country with an overcrowded parliamentary ticket that was overcome with race-nationalism :godwin:

# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:19

emanresu tnuocca: Sep 2, 2011; by Athanatos

Yeah I guess my poes law detector is off. It's late.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:19

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Likud is a democratically elected government. There's no particular reason to call it illegitimate.

On the other hand, Hamas being a legitimate, democratically-elected government didn't stop the US from demonizing it. Both Israel and Palestine know the US isn't much of an unbiased observer already, though, and no one else's opinion really matters.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:21

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Main Paineframe posted:

Likud is a democratically elected government. There's no particular reason to call it illegitimate.

On the other hand, Hamas being a legitimate, democratically-elected government didn't stop the US from demonizing it. Both Israel and Palestine know the US isn't much of an unbiased observer already, though, and no one else's opinion really matters.

Democratic election does not, by itself, make a government legitimate. Individuals are free to elect an illegitimate government, if they wish to make such a mistake.

Likud is a democratically elected government willing to work within a framework of acceptable state policy. That's what makes them legitimate.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:29

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

My Imaginary GF posted:

within a framework of acceptable state policy.

Drawing formal distinctions between people based on their blood is acceptable?

# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:33

Fuck You And Diebold: Sep 15, 2004; by Athanatos

My Imaginary GF posted:

Democratic election does not, by itself, make a government legitimate. Individuals are free to elect an illegitimate government, if they wish to make such a mistake.

Likud is a democratically elected government willing to work within a framework of acceptable state policy. That's what makes them legitimate.

acceptable by whom?

# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:33

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

gently caress You And Diebold posted:

acceptable by whom?

"Death to Israel" is not an acceptable policy framework from which to pursue an agenda that promotes peace and stability in the mideast.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:48

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

My Imaginary GF posted:

"Death to Israel" is not an acceptable policy framework from which to pursue an agenda that promotes peace and stability in the mideast.

Hasn't Likud just explicitly ruled out promoting peace and stability in the Middle East?

# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:52

SNAKES N CAKES: Sep 6, 2005; DAVID GAIDER
Lead Writer

Darth Walrus posted:

Hasn't Likud just explicitly ruled out promoting peace and stability in the Middle East?

They're working towards the one state solution now.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:55

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

SNAKES N CAKES posted:

They're working towards the one state solution now.

Possibly in a very definitive manner.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 01:57

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Darth Walrus posted:

Hasn't Likud just explicitly ruled out promoting peace and stability in the Middle East?

Hamas' continued pursuit of unacceptable policy has killed what was left of Oslo, and Israel has elected a government that recognizes this failure while seeking to move forward with future policy.

The voters of Israel have spoken, and they have elected a coalition that views a one-state solution as a more tenable policy for implementation towards the goal of peace and stability in the mideast than the continuation of outdated, decades-old, dead accords.

The responsible position for elected members in America to take is to accept that the accords have failed and move forward with real-world, workable policies, rather than idealistically looking back on the impossible and hoping that, this time, they'll work.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 02:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 09:03

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

I would love to be pleasantly surprised with Bibi offering full citizenship to everyone in the West Bank. Maybe Egypt can do the same for the Gaza Strip. Tear down these walls.

# ? Mar 19, 2015 02:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > I/P: post-semitism in the desert of the deal

«‹›260 »