UKMT M'aidez 2019 - "That's it. It's there. There future is in your hands."

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT M'aidez 2019 - "That's it. It's there. There future is in your hands."

«‹›348 »

Will Brexit happen by 31 October 2019? This poll is closed.
Yes - We'll fall out no deal in June	51	6.98%
Yes - Some kind of deal will be in place by October	26	3.56%
Yes - Technical Brexit (EU Flag has a gold fringe)	29	3.97%
No - There'll be a general election	77	10.53%
No - There'll be a #PeoplesVote	27	3.69%
No - Queen's dugs will stop it	11	1.50%
Other - Bah Gawd is that Sinn Fein's Music?	93	12.72%
gently caress Knows	264	36.11%
Piss Flaps	153	20.93%
Total:	731 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

mehall: Aug 27, 2010

I am at work today, but largely because I'm off for a fortnight from monday, as I turn 30 on Tuesday.
E; goddamnit missed the first page.

2 - weeks is how long I'm off work for

# ? May 1, 2019 06:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 09:59

abelwingnut: Dec 23, 2002

so from what i can gather of this whole mess may is safe for a while? when�s the next possible time the knives might come out? near the eu elections?

# ? May 1, 2019 06:43

DesperateDan: Dec 10, 2005; Where's my cow?

Is that my cow?

No it isn't, but it still tramples my bloody lavender.

communism bitch posted:

Who's loving off work for May Day?

Me, I'm gonna sit in my undies and play a computer game, maybe even have a beer in the garden later

# ? May 1, 2019 06:50

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Happy May Day comrades!

# ? May 1, 2019 06:51

Firos: Apr 30, 2007; Staying abreast of the latest developments in jam communism

Pilchenstein posted:

I should probably apologise for piling on over the Jonathan Pie thing, I had you pegged as a wind up merchant and I'm happy to say I was wrong.

Very on brand for this thread tbh.

# ? May 1, 2019 06:59

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Ms Adequate posted:

Sorry, I may be remembering the response on your James O'Brain and Jonathan Paedophile Information Exchange questions more than the questions themselves! (I voted LD in 2010 as well, being a student who wanted a change from FPTP, so gently caress me raw I guess )

If voting LD in 2010 was a disqualifier for this thread it would be pretty loving empty.

# ? May 1, 2019 07:48

SixFigureSandwich: Oct 30, 2004; Exciting Lemon

Abel Wingnut posted:

so from what i can gather of this whole mess may is safe for a while? when�s the next possible time the knives might come out? near the eu elections?

I'm guessing knives will come out after the EU elections. Also there's that Conservative CLP meeting set for some time in June where they'll do a nonbinding confidence vote in her.

# ? May 1, 2019 07:52

Cluncho McChunk: Aug 16, 2010; An informational void capable only of creating noise

Hey friends, checking in in the thread on the first day as I'll fall behind and never catch up shortly after. I'm at work today, which is incredibly uncool.

u brexit ukip it posted:

I'm guessing knives will come out after the EU elections. Also there's that Conservative CLP meeting set for some time in June where they'll do a nonbinding confidence vote in her.

I'm looking forward to that, but I expect it's just yet another thing that would sink any other prime minister that May will just utterly ignore.

# ? May 1, 2019 07:57

DesperateDan: Dec 10, 2005; Where's my cow?

Is that my cow?

No it isn't, but it still tramples my bloody lavender.

Aye there's no point booting her after they get hammered tomorrow, might as well wait for the absolute pasting they are gonna get on the 23rd and then chuck her, but I expect a lot more wailing and gnashing of teeth from friday onward

Be a good chuckle won't it

# ? May 1, 2019 08:12

ronya: Nov 8, 2010; I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

Josef bugman posted:

These things may well be true, but give no-one a means to affect change. Can you think of other things that are possible?

well - the change you are asking for is "I wish every dissenter on the NEC would know better than to stage bad-faith public challenges to the Leadership that are intended to mobilize their own factional supporters rather than as good-faith motions to change the direction of the party". This is intrinsically going to be difficult to achieve outside of structural reform.

there are certainly ways to achieve it. Labour is not centralist. It could reform to become more so, without necessarily becoming authoritarian (it is after all still subject to the ultimate test at the ballot box). So you, personally, could campaign for a more powerful party central committee. It could gain greater whipping powers than the somewhat toothless status quo of handing out minor ministerial posts and then threatening to revoke them (Watson is shadow DCMS; Corbyn can't fire his deputy but he can unilaterally kick him off the shadow cabinet at any time, and you'll notice that he's not doing so). It could be dissolved and elected as a full slate simultaneously rather than as delegates/appointees from various party bodies and affiliated societies elected at different times; the latter method is certain to install NEC members who feel answerable to different moods in the party and have every reason to speak out when those tendencies feel that they can gain by doing so.

one can also go in the opposite direction - let the NEC run riot but render dissenters irrelevant by moving the NEC's various powers elsewhere. The NEC meeting only mattered because the NEC produces the manifesto. For European elections it doesn't even have to consult the PLP , NPF, or other bodies - it has total power over the manifesto. It doesn't have to have that power. If it didn't, Tom Watson could be let alone to talk to a wall harmlessly.

on a "how we got here" note (from Dennis Kavanagh, "Labour Party General Election Manifestos 1900-1997")...

quote:

The politics of manifestos

For much of Labour�s history there have not been battles over manifestos, not withstanding stormy conferences and divisions between left and right factions. In the 1970s and the 1980s, however, internal battles within the party between the left and the right were bitter and were about political power. The divisions coincided substantially with the extra-parliamentary party and PLP, respectively strongholds of the left and the right. The question was: who decides party policy and how could the party guarantee that the manifesto would be implemented when Labour was in office? Traditionally a majority on the NEC had worked in close liaison with and conference supported the parliamentary leadership. The Labour leaders could rely on getting their way over the manifesto. This easy alliance began to break down in the late 1960s, as conference was increasingly at odds with Harold Wilson�s Labour government. On trade union reform, incomes policy and US intervention in Vietnam, party conference stridently repudiated the government�s policies. As the executives of some of the major trade unions were moving towards the left, conference became more difficult to �manage� because the unions controlled 90 per cent of the conference vote. Wilson�s defiant reply to hostile votes was that the duty of the government was to govern. From 1976 onwards, Mr Callaghan�s government was also defeated by conference on policies for public spending, price and income, public ownership, and economic strategy. Increasingly, the party spoke with two voices, one from the Labour government, the other from conference and the NEC.

It was inevitable that the lack of policy consensus and a complex party structure made the writing of the manifesto a more fraught exercise. Increasingly the NEC, or rather the Research Department, prepared its own draft manifesto, prior to the Clause 5 meeting. It wanted to tie the leadership down to detailed radical policies. The NEC was within its constitutional rights to insist on its role.

Lacking authority, the Labour leadership adopted various ruses for outflanking the NEC. One tactic was simply to delay formal consideration of a manifesto until a general election had been announced. By convention, it is up to the party leader to summon the clause 5 committee. In 1964, 1966, and 1970 Mr Wilson convened this only at the end of the parliament, when many members were impatient to be away to their constituencies. Pressure of time enabled him to present the meeting with what, to all intents and purposes, was a fait accompli. If in 1970 the manifesto had a �hasty and chaotic birth�, according to Butler and Pinto-Duschinsky the same could be said in 1979.

A second ruse was to write a draft manifesto within the leader�s office. Mr Wilson usually managed to get his own draft presented as the working document. In 1979 Mr Callaghan�s draft excluded most of the subjects on which the NEC and Cabinet working groups had not agreed, as well as some on which the groups had agreed but which he found objectionable, for example abolishing the House of Lords.

The third tactic was to use a veto. In 1979 Mr Callaghan observed that the manifesto had to be agreed between the NEC and the parliamentary leadership. He interpreted this to mean that if he did not agree with a proposal then it could not be included. Many leftwingers at the meeting were furious at this veto but it was politically difficult to challenge the leader on the eve of the election. Mr Callaghan also softened proposals for compulsory planning agreements with large firms and public ownership of the construction industry.

A final device was to impose a guillotine on the clause 5 meeting. Both Mr Wilson in 1970 and Mr Callaghan in 1979 had arranged in advance to hold a press conference which would fall on the day of the joint NEC Cabinet meeting. In 1966, the meeting began at 10:30am and the press conference was scheduled for 6pm. In 1970 the group met at 10am and the press conference was arranged for 2pm. The same pattern occurred in 1979. Pressure for delay usually comes from those who want additional or more specific pledges. But prolonging the meeting beyond the allotted time publicises disagreements when there is great pressure for unity and an inclination to rally behind the party leader.

James Callaghan and the PLP paid a heavy price following Labour�s election defeat in 1979. The party conference in October voted (by 3.9 million votes to 3.1 million votes) to give exclusive control for preparing the manifesto to the NEC. This would have required an amendment to Clause 5 and tilted the balance of power towards the extraparliamentary party and away from the PLP. The left had already won the battle to have the leader elected by the work party, not just MPs, and for mandatory reselection of MPs in the lifetime of a parliament In June 1980 a party constitutional commission suggested that an electoral college, drawn from MPs, trade unionists, constituency party representatives and other organs of the movement, should prepare the manifesto. A few months later, at the 1980 party conference the status quo was retained by 3.6 to 3.5 million votes. The membership drew away, just, from the spectacle of the parliamentary leadership having the task of implementing and defending a programme which was largely drawn up by another body.

The legacy of this culture shift in the party was reflected in the making and contents of the 1983 election manifesto. The Clause 5 meeting was one of the shortest in the party�s history as Michael Foot, the party leader, forced it through in an hour or so. The radical document Labour�s Programme 1982, was taken on board. There was no alternative version drawn up in the leader�s office. This time the left was able to use the Wilson/Callaghan ruses against the right wing. Only hours remained if the manifesto was to be printed in time. Gerald Kaufman wished to reopen the issues but found little support. He called the document �the longest suicide note in history�. It was the party�s most left-wing manifesto in the post-war period. It promised that under a Labour government Britain would leave the EEC in the lifetime of the next parliament, move towards a non-nuclear defence policy, have a massive rise in public spending and a new price commission which could order price freezes and reductions. Assets privatised under the Conservatives would be taken back into public ownership with no guarantee of full compensation and the Conservative measures on the sale of council houses and trade union reforms would all be reversed. The party would also abolish the House of Lords. Ironically, at 22,000 words, the 1983 document was double the normal length of Labour manifestos.

Under Neil Kinnock the parliamentary leadership had begun the process of clawing back much of the autonomy which it had lost as a result of the constitutional changes of the early 1980s. The 1987 manifesto was agreed with little fuss and marked a step back to the middle ground. The parliamentary party and the NEC joint policy committees had already agreed a series of policy statements before the Clause 5 meeting. Mr Kinnock took votes to cut through the discussion and show the strength of his support. On the left Dennis Skinner and Tony Benn wished a future Labour government to withdraw from NATO and close down American bases in Britain but were comprehensively outvoted. Compared with the 1983 programme there were now no proposals to abolish the House of Lords, withdraw from the European Community, close down American nuclear bases in Britain or take over private hospitals. The party still proposed a minimum wage and a substantial increase in old age pensions for couples, a wealth tax and restoration of some state ownership of British Gas and British Telecom.

In 1992 the party moved even further to the metaphorical centre. A Kinnock-inspired policy review after the 1987 election defeat dropped the electorally unattractive policies of unilateral nuclear disarmament, restoring trade union legal immunities and extending public ownership. When Benn and Skinner tried to push matters to a vote at the Clause 5 meeting they were often in a minority of two. The manifesto now proposed no state ownership, referred to the European Community in more positive terms, and advocated constitutional reform.

Tony Blair had no problems over policy. Indeed he insisted that a draft manifesto actually be put to a ballot of the members in October 1996, in spite of NEC objections that it would undermine the sovereignty of party conference. It also emulated the Contract With America of Newt Gingrich in the United States in 1994. Not surprisingly the party membership overwhelmingly approved the draft manifesto: it was a take it or leave it ballot. There were therefore few surprises when it was unveiled for the 1997 general election. At the heart of New Labour: Because Britain Deserves Better were five key pledges, including units in class sizes for under five year olds and in NHS waiting lists, and removing 250,000 under 25 year olds off benefit and into work. Crucially, it also promised to accept the Conservative public spending plans for the next two years and existing income tax rates. The themes of �newness�, �change� and �modernisation� were littered throughout the document.

of course today the NEC is already solidly under party left control: it has a majority that can comfortably see off any challengers despite considerable unease within its faction. Yesterday it mobilized that majority and defended its turf successfully. What you are asking for is an even tougher standard than the Blair years: not only must there be a majority, it must be an overwhelming one, or a total consensus. Blair had Dennis Skinner (and Mark Seddon) on the NEC, who certainly did not hesitate to brief against the leadership in the media during the New Labour years.

# ? May 1, 2019 08:18

Niric: Jul 23, 2008

Cluncho McChunk posted:

I'm looking forward to that, but I expect it's just yet another thing that would sink any other prime minister that May will just utterly ignore.

Yeah, May seems pretty much immovable until at least the next possible Tory party VoNC (December, I think?). For all the tory leadership jockeying it would probably be much better for them electorally to keep May until closer to the next election. That way they can blame her for everything bad and promote Boris/I can't believe it's not boris/Amber rudd as a bold new dawn without the inconvenience of them having done nothing new.

Which now I think about it is what May tried to do in 2016 in relation to Cameron. So that might put them off if they're scared of a 2017 election re run, but it was supposedly very popular for a short amount of time, if polls and newspapers are to be believed

# ? May 1, 2019 08:20

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

ronya posted:

of course today the NEC is already solidly under party left control: it has a majority that can comfortably see off any challengers despite considerable unease within its faction. Yesterday it mobilized that majority and defended its turf successfully. What you are asking for is an even tougher standard than the Blair years: not only must there be a majority, it must be an overwhelming one, or a total consensus. Blair had Dennis Skinner (and Mark Seddon) on the NEC, who certainly did not hesitate to brief against the leadership in the media during the New Labour years.

Now you see, by bringing this up what you have effectively done is answer the question by answering a completely different question.

You've been able to point out a lot of the points of contention, but through your framework you've kind of proved that 1) There is not really much of a division and 2) That the issue is one of media amplification as opposed to actual processes. So kudos, you managed to get things done. Thank you.

# ? May 1, 2019 08:32

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Happy international worker's day.

Might bunk off work, though going in would make the rest of the week easier. Decisions decisions.

# ? May 1, 2019 08:34

Mugsbaloney: Jul 11, 2012; We prefer your extinction to the loss of our job

Didn't get a chance to ask in the previous thread, but what is the problem with references to The Rothschilds?

# ? May 1, 2019 08:40

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

They're like a big rich (banking, I think?) yank family but they're also Jewish and generally when people go on about them, and it's usually just them it's because they mean (((Rothschilds))).

They're a big target for conspiracy theorists and a lot of the stuff is kinda close to blood libel.

Which I mean is entirely reasonable if applied to basically any member of the upper class because yes all rich people are freaks, but generally it's a good idea to be extremely suspicious when that's the first name that comes up, and often the only name.

# ? May 1, 2019 08:41

Mugsbaloney: Jul 11, 2012; We prefer your extinction to the loss of our job

So focusing on the Jewish part rather than the Banking Dynasty part, got it.

# ? May 1, 2019 08:44

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Kinda yeah. Like people don't bring up all the other rich american dynasties half as much.

# ? May 1, 2019 08:45

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Plus they're the subject of so many conspiracy theories (that often started out as 19th century Anti-Semite League or hardcore Nazi poo poo), that it's like the Trilateral Commission or George Soros, you can absolutely have a discussion about those people, but without careful qualifiation you might come off a bit
~~ :10bux:

George $oro$ :lron:

# ? May 1, 2019 08:46

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Mugsbaloney posted:

Didn't get a chance to ask in the previous thread, but what is the problem with references to The Rothschilds?

It's because the name is used to propose that people with wealth who are Jewish are secretly running the world. The very anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. It's used as shorthand BY racist anti-capitalists.

It was also extremely common in 19th century leftist circles, which is a pity.

Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 09:00 on May 1, 2019

# ? May 1, 2019 08:46

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

You see a more modern incarnation of it towards the clintons with the pizzagate thing though again that's mostly motivated by political factionalism rather than actual critique of wealth. Sadly the ideas always seem to be through the vehicle of satanism/blood libel rather than "maybe all these rich sociopaths are systemically loving everyone else over".

# ? May 1, 2019 08:48

namesake: Jun 19, 2006; "When I was a girl, around 12 or 13, I had a fantasy that I'd grow up to marry Captain Scarlet, but he'd be busy fighting the Mysterons so I'd cuckold him with the sexiest people I could think of - Nigel Mansell, Pat Sharp and Mr. Blobby."

I believe the Rothschild bank is just another medium sized financial institution at this point and while the Rothschild family are still incredibly rich with at least one member in the top 50 richest people on the planet specifically blaming them for anything (unless they literally did do something) is either ignorance or dogwhistling.

# ? May 1, 2019 08:49

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Like, do not be this guy:

Josef bugman posted:

It was also extremely common in 19th century leftist circles, which is a pity.

I could almost excuse someone in Germany, especially a Jewish writer in Germany, because a Rothschild might be the only person with wealth that they'd ever heard of who wasn't a Baron or Bishop (whose wealth usually took a much less liquid form). But in Britain there were dozens of industrialists and bankers of non-Jewish descent (stealing the term rent goys here).

OwlFancier posted:

Sadly the ideas always seem to be through the vehicle of satanism/blood libel

I think the Church of Satan, weird libertarian edgelords that they are, is about the only large organized religion that hasn't done a pedo coverup at this point.

# ? May 1, 2019 08:56

Jose: Jul 24, 2007; Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer

Lol

https://twitter.com/sonicscanf/status/1123321422556934151?s=19

They're such incredible cunts

https://twitter.com/cyclingkev/status/1123479458227343363?s=19

# ? May 1, 2019 09:00

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

otoh he saved the families from a lifetime of debt for baby saving, so maybe the insurance companies are the real baby murderers.

# ? May 1, 2019 09:04

Miftan: Mar 31, 2012; Terry knows what he can do with his bloody chocolate orange...

Merry international worker's day, comrades!

# ? May 1, 2019 09:06

Sanford: Jun 30, 2007; ...and rarely post!

Thread I need help. I've mentioned here before that my neighbours argue, a lot. I don't know what about because they do it in Chinese. There is a long-standing agreement in place that the two boys can come and knock on my door any time of the day or night if they need to get out of the house. That's why I was outside talking to a 13 and a 7 year old about gardening at quarter to ten last night. A few years ago I called the police because the boys "didn't know" if anyone was hurt and when I went round the dad was holding a loving massive knife. Since then things have settled down a bit, but recently seem to have got worse.

I just got this message from my neighbour, please excuse the poor English (she isn't English). Can anyone advise me on anything else I can do? I don't want to make things worse but doing nothing is not something I feel I can live with.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? May 1, 2019 09:10

Jedit: Dec 10, 2011; Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

Local council has now appointed count staff for the EU elections.

# ? May 1, 2019 09:12

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

I don't know what's best though personally I'd see if you can talk to her, might help her to make a decision if she feels like someone has her back. But looking after the kids is a good thing you're doing.

# ? May 1, 2019 09:14

Jose: Jul 24, 2007; Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer

Corbyn has apparently been anti-Semitic again?

It's this

https://twitter.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1123478808303161344?s=19

Jose fucked around with this message at 09:18 on May 1, 2019

# ? May 1, 2019 09:15

bessantj: Jul 27, 2004

Miftan posted:

Merry international worker's day, comrades!

Right back at you.

Pretty cool vid of a child of immigrants talking about her life in Wales, in Welsh (I haven't checked the auto generated subs so not sure what they're like.). Good reminder that immigrants integrating doesn't mean they have to lose their own culture completely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IluDDGvttDU

# ? May 1, 2019 09:17

Captain Fargle: Feb 16, 2011

Sanford posted:

Thread I need help. I've mentioned here before that my neighbours argue, a lot. I don't know what about because they do it in Chinese. There is a long-standing agreement in place that the two boys can come and knock on my door any time of the day or night if they need to get out of the house. That's why I was outside talking to a 13 and a 7 year old about gardening at quarter to ten last night. A few years ago I called the police because the boys "didn't know" if anyone was hurt and when I went round the dad was holding a loving massive knife. Since then things have settled down a bit, but recently seem to have got worse.

I just got this message from my neighbour, please excuse the poor English (she isn't English). Can anyone advise me on anything else I can do? I don't want to make things worse but doing nothing is not something I feel I can live with.

The only thing I can think of is looking into domestic violence support charities.

# ? May 1, 2019 09:20

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

OwlFancier posted:

I don't know what's best though personally I'd see if you can talk to her, might help her to make a decision if she feels like someone has her back. But looking after the kids is a good thing you're doing.

Yeah, authorities can't do much without her on board (except perhaps remove kids, but that often helps nobody.)

You could see if she needs help setting up a separate bank account or something, because that's often underappreciated and also often more difficult for ESL people.

Jose posted:

Corbyn has apparently been anti-Semitic again?

It's this

https://twitter.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1123478808303161344?s=19

Nick Clegg also praised the guy but that was different.

# ? May 1, 2019 09:20

Jose: Jul 24, 2007; Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer

https://twitter.com/SolHughesWriter/status/1123505997685952512

# ? May 1, 2019 09:35

NinpoEspiritoSanto: Oct 22, 2013

https://twitter.com/NinpoUK/status/1123505681246584833

Check out the tweet Tom is replying to, I'm still dying :laffo:

# ? May 1, 2019 09:36

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Jose posted:

Corbyn has apparently been anti-Semitic again?

It�s even harder to quit than smoking

# ? May 1, 2019 09:39

Communist Thoughts: Jan 7, 2008; Our war against free speech cannot end until we silence this bronze beast!

this poll misses the option of one or two further extensions then finally no deal next February in time for my birthday

although actually thinking about it the current no deal deadline would fall during me visiting my greek fam so that might happen to

basically im reasonably sure the world revolves around me

# ? May 1, 2019 09:44

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/SolHughesWriter/status/1123505997685952512

tbh "Tony Blair involved in antisemitic plot" is more believable than "Jeremy Corbyn involved in antisemitic plot."

# ? May 1, 2019 09:47

Jedit: Dec 10, 2011; Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

Cerv posted:

It’s even harder to quit than smoking

I don't know, I'm down to five Jews a day no problem.

# ? May 1, 2019 09:48

NinpoEspiritoSanto: Oct 22, 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUfXdm9i63Q
:lol:

# ? May 1, 2019 09:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 09:59

Chucat: Apr 14, 2006

Mugsbaloney posted:

Didn't get a chance to ask in the previous thread, but what is the problem with references to The Rothschilds?

Momentum actually did a video about this but I have no idea how the hell to find it. Especially since googling it leads to the obvious thing happening.

# ? May 1, 2019 09:52

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT M'aidez 2019 - "That's it. It's there. There future is in your hands."

«‹›348 »