Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 02, 2015, 11:36:18 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  International General Discussion (Moderators: Peter, afleitch)
| | |-+  Is Netanyahu destroying a "special relationship" to win an election?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Is Netanyahu destroying a "special relationship" to win an election?  (Read 543 times)
Indy Texas
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5923


View Profile
« on: February 28, 2015, 09:42:12 pm »
Ignore

Jeffrey Goldberg, not exactly someone who can be accused of being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist, thinks so.

Quote
Bibi is facing an existential threat to his career, and Boehner is staging for him the ultimate campaign rally, 6,000 miles away from home.

Quote
Netanyahu is engaging in behavior that is without precedent: He is apparently so desperate to stay in office that he has let the Republicans weaponize his country in their struggle against a Democratic president they despise. Boehner seeks to do damage to Obama, and he has turned Netanyahu into an ally in this cause. It's not entirely clear here who is being played.

Quote
[AIPAC's] leaders are privately fuming about Netanyahus end-run around the White House. Even though AIPACs leadership leans right, the organization knows that support for Israel in America must be bipartisan in order for it to be stable. Dermer and Netanyahu dont believe that Democrats are capable of being pro-Israel, which is crazy for a lot of reasons, but one of the main reasons is that most Jews are Democrats, one veteran AIPAC leader told me.

What Israel and the Israel Lobby should be concerned about is that Netanyahu and the House GOP are turning support for Israel into a "Blue versus Red" issue. This may have been inevitable in the long-term as the Republican Party relies more heavily on a staunchly pro-Israel constituency in the form of Evangelical Christians, while the Democratic Party's longtime Jewish constituency ages and is replaced by a younger generation of Jews who don't necessarily view Israel as integral to their identity in the way their grandparents and great-grandparents (who experienced, directly or indirectly, the Holocaust and societal antisemitism) did. There is also the matter of the ascendancy of Hispanic Americans, who for a variety of reasons tend to be relatively indifferent to Israel, in the Democratic coalition.

Israel is starting to look like a tool the Republicans are using to delegitimize and undermine a Democratic President. Consider how much of an affront it would seem to African-American politicians and voters to see the GOP invite a foreign leader into the halls of Congress to lambast the nation's first black president. The Congressional Black Caucus already tends to be cool towards Israel, and this would not help matters. Consider how much of an affront it would seem to anyone who considers themselves a Democrat.

The more Bibi engages in this kind of behavior, the more Israel comes across less as a friend of the United States and more as a friend of the Republican Party and the Christian Right. This is, inauspiciously, very similar to the position that South Africa found itself in by the late 1980s, as mainstream Americans no longer viewed having an anti-communist government in power in southern Africa as worth the cost of aiding and abetting an inhumane regime, while the American Right continued to futilely cling to support for a white government.
Logged

Walker Republican
Ray Goldfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1190


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2015, 10:08:12 pm »
Ignore

Roughly 80% of the Democratic Party is going to show support for Netanyahu here, and it's since become clear that it's Boehner who holds the blame for breaking protocol, not Netanyahu. The only person who has the ability to destroy the "special relationship" is Obama, with heavy-handed punitive steps that would ring bells that can't be unrung.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29493
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2015, 10:35:14 pm »
Ignore

Netanyahu has bet, and for the short and even medium term correctly I think, that what he does won't undermine the special relationship.  As ugly as Israel can be at times, the Palestinians have tended to be uglier and the US feels the need to be involved in the region.  Israel has no reason to fear that the US (or even the Democratic Party) will start to favor the Arabs.*  What Israel has to fear is that the US decides to stop caring about who is blowing up whom in the Middle East.  American apathy is a real albeit remote possibility.

* That isn't to sat there won't be individual Democratic politicians who will favor the Arabs, but they won't be setting policy unless Israel starts ethnically cleansing the Palestinians instead of merely cooping them up in ghettos as they do now.
Logged

did the Speaker spend his entire winter in a tanning salon, hibernating?
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.
Indy Texas
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5923


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2015, 10:52:50 pm »
Ignore

Roughly 80% of the Democratic Party is going to show support for Netanyahu here, and it's since become clear that it's Boehner who holds the blame for breaking protocol, not Netanyahu. The only person who has the ability to destroy the "special relationship" is Obama, with heavy-handed punitive steps that would ring bells that can't be unrung.

What heavy-handed punitive steps has he taken? Please don't act as though Netanyahu is blameless and merely ignorant of the workings of American politics. Netanyahu lived and worked in the US for several years. His current and most recent ambassadors to the US are both former Americans themselves. Bibi knows very well what the ramifications of this are. He could have declined. He could have suggested the speech happen at a later date. He did none of these things.

Netanyahu has bet, and for the short and even medium term correctly I think, that what he does won't undermine the special relationship.  As ugly as Israel can be at times, the Palestinians have tended to be uglier and the US feels the need to be involved in the region.  Israel has no reason to fear that the US (or even the Democratic Party) will start to favor the Arabs.*  What Israel has to fear is that the US decides to stop caring about who is blowing up whom in the Middle East.  American apathy is a real albeit remote possibility.

* That isn't to sat there won't be individual Democratic politicians who will favor the Arabs, but they won't be setting policy unless Israel starts ethnically cleansing the Palestinians instead of merely cooping them up in ghettos as they do now.

It's not an Israel-or-the-Arabs issue. We let Israel get away with despicable behavior all the time. We also let Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE get away with despicable behavior all the time.

The country Israel is most concerned about isn't an Arab country at all - it's Iran. At this juncture, a reasonable argument for a "tilt" towards Tehran can be made. This is something Israel doesn't want and it's something that most Arab countries don't want. My personal opinion is that it would be beneficial to ease up on Iran as a way to give them more wherewithal to indirectly or directly attack the Islamic State and to perhaps "scare" Israel and the Gulf States into behaving more compliantly.

Israel is not an asset in destroying ISIS. They cannot be involved in any kind of coalition because they have such poor relations with their neighbors. Most of their intelligence is about Hamas and Hezbollah - neither of which are a threat to the United States and both of which oppose ISIS. By continuing to attention-whore and insist that there is no difference between Hamas and Hezbollah and ISIS, and trying to sabotage negotiations with a major country that acts as a counterweight to Sunni Arabs, Israel is acting as a liability in American strategic interests.
Logged

Walker Republican
Ray Goldfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1190


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2015, 11:01:18 pm »
Ignore

Roughly 80% of the Democratic Party is going to show support for Netanyahu here, and it's since become clear that it's Boehner who holds the blame for breaking protocol, not Netanyahu. The only person who has the ability to destroy the "special relationship" is Obama, with heavy-handed punitive steps that would ring bells that can't be unrung.

What heavy-handed punitive steps has he taken? Please don't act as though Netanyahu is blameless and merely ignorant of the workings of American politics. Netanyahu lived and worked in the US for several years. His current and most recent ambassadors to the US are both former Americans themselves. Bibi knows very well what the ramifications of this are. He could have declined. He could have suggested the speech happen at a later date. He did none of these things.


He hasn't. Ergo, the relationship isn't destroyed.

There's clearly a deep personal dislike between these two leaders. However, despite the occasional wildly irresponsible suggestions from armchair pundits and even the occasional Obama adviser, Obama hasn't escalated the tension in ways that would cause permanent damage beyond this administration - IE, using the UN as a cudgel.

Yes, Netanyahu could have denied the speech, and might have if he had been informed by Boehner that this was without Obama's knowledge. But he wasn't told that at first, and he likely found out about it from Obama's over-the-top reaction. Once that happened, to back down would make him look cowed by a President who is less than popular in Israel.

Plus, to be blunt, I am REALLY unsympathetic towards any complaints about protocol violations from a President who unilaterally declared the Senate in recess so he could make illegal appointments.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32842


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2015, 11:07:03 pm »
Ignore

Hopefully

Israel is not an asset in destroying ISIS. They cannot be involved in any kind of coalition because they have such poor relations with their neighbors. Most of their intelligence is about Hamas and Hezbollah - neither of which are a threat to the United States and both of which oppose ISIS. By continuing to attention-whore and insist that there is no difference between Hamas and Hezbollah and ISIS, and trying to sabotage negotiations with a major country that acts as a counterweight to Sunni Arabs, Israel is acting as a liability in American strategic interests.

Exactly, having Israel go after ISIS would be the best thing that ever happened to ISIS. Having a Sunni Muslim country like Jordan go after ISIS hurts ISIS.

Plus, to be blunt, I am REALLY unsympathetic towards any complaints about protocol violations from a President who unilaterally declared the Senate in recess so he could make illegal appointments.

LOL, what.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 11:09:28 pm by ○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└ »Logged
Walker Republican
Ray Goldfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1190


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2015, 11:15:15 pm »
Ignore


Plus, to be blunt, I am REALLY unsympathetic towards any complaints about protocol violations from a President who unilaterally declared the Senate in recess so he could make illegal appointments.

LOL, what.


You know how many of those were done while the Senate was technically in session under other administrations?

Zero. Which is why the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Obama had no right to do it.
Logged
useful idiot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3693


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2015, 11:45:02 pm »
Ignore

The Democratic party's shift away from being  as pro-Israel as the GOP has little to do with an increase in Hispanics or young Jews forgetting the Holocaust.  I'm a generally pro-Palestinian quasi-Republican, so take this for what it's worth, but I think it has more to do with:

Primarily:
- A pro-Islam/anti-Islam polarization between Democrats, who have taken on a role as the defenders of Islam and Muslims, and Republicans, who run the gamut from people who oppose Islamist repression to conservative Christians who oppose Islam for religious reasons to racists who dislike people from Muslim societies.
- Israel becoming a more conservative place in the post-Rabin era, with leaders who more naturally gravitate towards Republican politicians and who are less interested in compromise. This has reached a head with Netanyahu, who is essentially a Republican and whose American friends are all Republicans, and a Democratic president with whom he personally does not get along.

Secondarily:
- The Holocaust fading into history for people generally, and having less weight in the minds of liberals who want to stand by those who have been historically wronged
- The Democrats simply falling into line with other center-left to left wing parties around the industrialized world who see the Palestinians as more deserving of their sympathy than the Israelis
- The religious divide between Republicans and Democrats. Secular or irreligious Democrats don't have the same kind of filial relationship with Judaism that older Democrats who might have been religiously conservative but politically liberal would have.

Given these factors, I don't think what we're seeing is surprising at all. Netanyahu's speech isn't creating the divide, it's merely a symptom of an already growing divide. Nevertheless, the Democratic party is still more pro-Israel than it is pro-Palestinian/Arab, and a Clinton administration will smooth over most of the current tension. All in all, I don't think what is going on is actually that unhealthy. Israel doesn't need to be our priority right now, and a moderate amount of tension with them probably benefits us in dealing with current crises.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29493
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2015, 11:51:20 pm »
Ignore


Plus, to be blunt, I am REALLY unsympathetic towards any complaints about protocol violations from a President who unilaterally declared the Senate in recess so he could make illegal appointments.

LOL, what.


You know how many of those were done while the Senate was technically in session under other administrations?

Zero. Which is why the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Obama had no right to do it.

True.  However, it is indisputable that Congress has been using pro forma sessions specifically to block the recess power.  That's the reason each president since Reagan has done fewer of them than the one before.
Logged

did the Speaker spend his entire winter in a tanning salon, hibernating?
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.
MalaspinaGold
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 644


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2015, 11:53:20 pm »
Ignore

I think a more interesting question is how supportive of Israel will Republicans be when Shelly Adelson dies?
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5923


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2015, 01:55:08 am »
Ignore

The Democratic party's shift away from being  as pro-Israel as the GOP has little to do with an increase in Hispanics or young Jews forgetting the Holocaust.  I'm a generally pro-Palestinian quasi-Republican, so take this for what it's worth, but I think it has more to do with:

Primarily:
- A pro-Islam/anti-Islam polarization between Democrats, who have taken on a role as the defenders of Islam and Muslims, and Republicans, who run the gamut from people who oppose Islamist repression to conservative Christians who oppose Islam for religious reasons to racists who dislike people from Muslim societies.
- Israel becoming a more conservative place in the post-Rabin era, with leaders who more naturally gravitate towards Republican politicians and who are less interested in compromise. This has reached a head with Netanyahu, who is essentially a Republican and whose American friends are all Republicans, and a Democratic president with whom he personally does not get along.

Secondarily:
- The Holocaust fading into history for people generally, and having less weight in the minds of liberals who want to stand by those who have been historically wronged
- The Democrats simply falling into line with other center-left to left wing parties around the industrialized world who see the Palestinians as more deserving of their sympathy than the Israelis
- The religious divide between Republicans and Democrats. Secular or irreligious Democrats don't have the same kind of filial relationship with Judaism that older Democrats who might have been religiously conservative but politically liberal would have.

Given these factors, I don't think what we're seeing is surprising at all. Netanyahu's speech isn't creating the divide, it's merely a symptom of an already growing divide. Nevertheless, the Democratic party is still more pro-Israel than it is pro-Palestinian/Arab, and a Clinton administration will smooth over most of the current tension. All in all, I don't think what is going on is actually that unhealthy. Israel doesn't need to be our priority right now, and a moderate amount of tension with them probably benefits us in dealing with current crises.

I am tired of viewing the Israel-Palestine issue in such an Islamocentric framework, as though one has any bearing on the other. Disliking Israel does not make one pro-Islam and vice versa.

I dislike the Israeli government because they have habitually and brazenly disregarded the human rights of millions of people for no reason other than the fact that they are the wrong religion.

On the flip side, however, I go one step beyond merely disliking Islamism and will say, unapologetically, that I do not view mainstream Islam as compatible with secular, progressive Western values. I do not think one can be both a practicing Muslim and a good liberal, in the American sense of the word. If the attacks in France did not hammer that point home, I don't know what will. And I am getting tired of listening to people, including Barack Obama, serve as apologists for a religion that is so regressive.

The American Right dislikes Islam not because it is regressive, but because it is not their brand of regressivism. Furthermore, while fundamentalist Christianity has its own special problems, I hate any liberal attempt to create a false equivalency between the two when the scope and severity of Islamic fundamentalists' harm to society is so much greater. When people with guns and bombs start saying "Jesus is Lord" when they shoot civilians and blow up buildings, then we can talk about that. But they don't say that. They only say one thing, and that is "Allahu Akbar." Pointing that out does not make me intolerant of other cultures or make me some sort of Western cultural chauvinist.
Logged

Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1466
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2015, 02:05:14 am »
Ignore

Of course many people have their own individual reasons for opposing Israeli policy (many of them valid) but in general I would say the recent break in public opinion towards the Palestinians has to do with the rise of intersectionalism, specifically the idea that anyone lacking privilege can never do anything to harm someone with privilege, the same idea that gives a pass to minorities to be racially prejudiced because "Black people can't be racist."

The Palestinians, by virtue of being oppressed, are incapable of doing anything wrong and if you do cite something indisputably evil they've done (like when they get lucky and their rockets kill a civilian), it's actually the rich White Israelis who drove them to do it.

The Israelis are rich, have houses, and have internet connections. The Palestinians are poor and don't. The Israelis, by virtue of being richer, are automatically wrong regardless of either sides' reasons for fighting in the eyes on many on the left.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 02:09:29 am by Famous Mortimer »Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32842


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2015, 02:08:27 am »
Ignore

On the flip side, however, I go one step beyond merely disliking Islamism and will say, unapologetically, that I do not view mainstream Islam as compatible with secular, progressive Western values. I do not think one can be both a practicing Muslim and a good liberal, in the American sense of the word. If the attacks in France did not hammer that point home, I don't know what will. And I am getting tired of listening to people, including Barack Obama, serve as apologists for a religion that is so regressive.

It's worth noting that the most populous majority Islamic country is listed as free by Freedom House. However, it might be the only Islamic country in that category.
Logged
MW Rep BaconBacon96
BaconBacon96
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1854
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2015, 04:59:37 am »
Ignore

On the flip side, however, I go one step beyond merely disliking Islamism and will say, unapologetically, that I do not view mainstream Islam as compatible with secular, progressive Western values. I do not think one can be both a practicing Muslim and a good liberal, in the American sense of the word. If the attacks in France did not hammer that point home, I don't know what will. And I am getting tired of listening to people, including Barack Obama, serve as apologists for a religion that is so regressive.
This is, quite frankly, a ridiculous statement. Do you seriously expect Obama and other leaders to get up and to start attacking the religion itself? To start antagonizing people? If Islam is to be attacked for being regressive (which it is in a lot of ways, to be honest) than it is hypocritical to not attack all the other religions that don't express good liberal values, which includes large sections of the population. That is politically untenable.

It is also ridiculous to suggest that one cannot be a practicing Muslim and a liberal. Obviously the religion would have an affect on one's beliefs about a lot of things. Regardless, it is wrong to say that a Muslim cannot hold liberal beliefs. Islam is not a monolithic entity and opinions within it differ.
Logged

On Chris Christie-
He can eat his opponets and achieve a unified field.
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32472
France


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2015, 05:37:10 am »
Ignore

No, because no US politician has the guts to seriously call him out for his bullsh*t.
Logged

useful idiot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3693


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2015, 09:27:18 am »
Ignore

The Democratic party's shift away from being  as pro-Israel as the GOP has little to do with an increase in Hispanics or young Jews forgetting the Holocaust.  I'm a generally pro-Palestinian quasi-Republican, so take this for what it's worth, but I think it has more to do with:

Primarily:
- A pro-Islam/anti-Islam polarization between Democrats, who have taken on a role as the defenders of Islam and Muslims, and Republicans, who run the gamut from people who oppose Islamist repression to conservative Christians who oppose Islam for religious reasons to racists who dislike people from Muslim societies.
- Israel becoming a more conservative place in the post-Rabin era, with leaders who more naturally gravitate towards Republican politicians and who are less interested in compromise. This has reached a head with Netanyahu, who is essentially a Republican and whose American friends are all Republicans, and a Democratic president with whom he personally does not get along.

Secondarily:
- The Holocaust fading into history for people generally, and having less weight in the minds of liberals who want to stand by those who have been historically wronged
- The Democrats simply falling into line with other center-left to left wing parties around the industrialized world who see the Palestinians as more deserving of their sympathy than the Israelis
- The religious divide between Republicans and Democrats. Secular or irreligious Democrats don't have the same kind of filial relationship with Judaism that older Democrats who might have been religiously conservative but politically liberal would have.

Given these factors, I don't think what we're seeing is surprising at all. Netanyahu's speech isn't creating the divide, it's merely a symptom of an already growing divide. Nevertheless, the Democratic party is still more pro-Israel than it is pro-Palestinian/Arab, and a Clinton administration will smooth over most of the current tension. All in all, I don't think what is going on is actually that unhealthy. Israel doesn't need to be our priority right now, and a moderate amount of tension with them probably benefits us in dealing with current crises.

I am tired of viewing the Israel-Palestine issue in such an Islamocentric framework, as though one has any bearing on the other. Disliking Israel does not make one pro-Islam and vice versa.

I dislike the Israeli government because they have habitually and brazenly disregarded the human rights of millions of people for no reason other than the fact that they are the wrong religion.

On the flip side, however, I go one step beyond merely disliking Islamism and will say, unapologetically, that I do not view mainstream Islam as compatible with secular, progressive Western values. I do not think one can be both a practicing Muslim and a good liberal, in the American sense of the word. If the attacks in France did not hammer that point home, I don't know what will. And I am getting tired of listening to people, including Barack Obama, serve as apologists for a religion that is so regressive.

Fine, but you're not the Democratic party, and the liberal establishment (academia, the socially liberal media, politicians including the President himself) wouldn't agree with you, hence the divide. Most of the terrorists and Islamists around the world invoke the Israel-Palestine conflict and they aren't Palestinians, many of them not even Arab; when they are Arab they're invoking Islam, not Pan-Arabism. Gaza is run by Islamic extremists, unfortunately, not Abbas and the PLO, who seem to be forgotten in all of this. Naturally the pro-Islam bent of modern liberalism is going to bring them into some kind of greater solidarity with the Muslim on the Israel question.

Quote
The American Right dislikes Islam not because it is regressive, but because it is not their brand of regressivism. Furthermore, while fundamentalist Christianity has its own special problems, I hate any liberal attempt to create a false equivalency between the two when the scope and severity of Islamic fundamentalists' harm to society is so much greater. When people with guns and bombs start saying "Jesus is Lord" when they shoot civilians and blow up buildings, then we can talk about that. But they don't say that. They only say one thing, and that is "Allahu Akbar." Pointing that out does not make me intolerant of other cultures or make me some sort of Western cultural chauvinist.

I don't disagree, but I think you're agreeing with my assessment that this is at issue in the limited cooling of the Dems toward Israel. I don't think it's totally unnatural though, given that corners of the Right are irrationally anti-Muslim, that liberals would defend Muslims on some level. As usual, however, they go overboard and only fuel talk-radio and the GOP base when they present Islam as some sort of pure and undefiled thing or act like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is just the Muslim Rick Warren.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5923


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2015, 12:24:59 pm »
Ignore

Only 30% of American voters think the invitation for Netanyahu to speak was appropriate. 48% disapprove of it.

And it's becoming a very partisan issue:

Quote
Some 47% [of Republicans] said they approved of the action, compared to just 12% of Democrats who approved.

Quote
In the latest poll, 49% of Republicans said they had a positive view of Mr. Netanyahu, up from 36% in August. Democrats view of him has stayed fairly consistent, down to 12% from 13% in August.

Americans like Israel far more than they like its prime minister.

Quote
Nearly half of Americans47%said in the new survey that they had a positive view of the country, compared to 17% who held a negative view.

Netanyahu's argument that he has something his opponents don't - better access to America's political establishment - doesn't hold up if he makes one of the country's two major parties completely despise him.

David Cameron would not behave like this. Stephen Harper would not behave like this. Angela Merkel would not behave like this. Just what is Bibi trying to prove?
Logged

PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5928
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2015, 12:39:37 pm »
Ignore

David Cameron would not behave like this. Stephen Harper would not behave like this. Angela Merkel would not behave like this. Just what is Bibi trying to prove?

That knee-jerk support for the Likud vision for Israel (which in the case of American white evangelicals, for instance, has more to do with scary End Times theology, along with a more-than-healthy dose of  the view that Palestinians are obviously all  terrorists who hate the West's 'Judeo-Christian' way of life, but I digress) ought to be actively demanded of the United States in 2015.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32842


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: Today at 01:22:35 am »
Ignore


And yet most "Democrats" in Congress seem to be planning on attending. Joke party.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines