• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Clevinger

Member
PhoenixPause said:
It's absolutely stunning to see the parties virtually switch sides with respect to foreign policy. Liberal senators who slammed the Iraq war and chomping at the bit to attack Syria. When you look at what Kerry, the WH spokesman, and others are currently saying there's zero room for Obama not to greenlight an attack.


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/white-house-responding-to-syrian-gas-attack-in

What the fuck is going on? Meanwhile Ted Cruz is making the argument myself and other liberals made during the Iraq war buildup.


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ted-cruz-dont-intervene-in-syria

The administration doesn't even have a long term plan on this (sound familiar?). We're going to essentially slap Assad right quick and exit the theater. Well what happens if Assad escalates, or if China and Russia get more directly involved? This is not the Obama anyone voted for.
Click to expand...

It figures that the one time he shows a spine it's something that nobody except like McCain and Graham want.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
PhoenixPause said:
It's absolutely stunning to see the parties virtually switch sides with respect to foreign policy. Liberal senators who slammed the Iraq war and chomping at the bit to attack Syria. When you look at what Kerry, the WH spokesman, and others are currently saying there's zero room for Obama not to greenlight an attack.


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/white-house-responding-to-syrian-gas-attack-in

What the fuck is going on? Meanwhile Ted Cruz is making the argument myself and other liberals made during the Iraq war buildup.


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ted-cruz-dont-intervene-in-syria

The administration doesn't even have a long term plan on this (sound familiar?). We're going to essentially slap Assad right quick and exit the theater. Well what happens if Assad escalates, or if China and Russia get more directly involved? This is not the Obama anyone voted for.
Click to expand...

I don't get Ted Cruz's point. He's saying our focus should be on National Security only, but at the same time that we should've intervened earlier to save those Syrians? That has little to do with our national security.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
delirium said:
The thing about spying is you never know what information you need in the future. You are crippling yourself if you aren't vacuuming up everyone iota of information you can.
Click to expand...
The fact that you can't know the future is not a reason not to do a risk reward analysis, in fact, it's exactly the reason why it's important to do such exercise.
Not to mention that you can justify pretty much anything with that approach.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
PhoenixPause said:
It's absolutely stunning to see the parties virtually switch sides with respect to foreign policy. Liberal senators who slammed the Iraq war and chomping at the bit to attack Syria. When you look at what Kerry, the WH spokesman, and others are currently saying there's zero room for Obama not to greenlight an attack.


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/white-house-responding-to-syrian-gas-attack-in

What the fuck is going on? Meanwhile Ted Cruz is making the argument myself and other liberals made during the Iraq war buildup.


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ted-cruz-dont-intervene-in-syria

The administration doesn't even have a long term plan on this (sound familiar?). We're going to essentially slap Assad right quick and exit the theater. Well what happens if Assad escalates, or if China and Russia get more directly involved? This is not the Obama anyone voted for.
Click to expand...

When you have Susan Rice and Samantha Powers undoubtedly advocating for a response coupled with Obama's doofus red line comment last August a response is required if nothing else than to save face. And that is sad. And while I'm generally supportive of Rice and Powers (her book, in particular, is a favorite of mine) and their appeals to prevent genocide there's just no way this ends well.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
thefit said:
Things are shaping up to follow a plan similar to the one used against Libya with France and others on board and US air power with no boots.

I understand how the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have completely turned off Americans to military intervention everywhere and rightly such terrible precedents have a lot of people looking at every future conflict in black and white and its not like that at all there is a lot gray and its much more complicated than an Obama and Bush merged face picture.
Click to expand...

The bold wouldn't surprise me at all. I have a marine friend in Afghanistan so I'd rather not see the guy wind up over there as well.

Incognito said:
When you have Susan Rice and Samantha Powers undoubtedly advocating for a response coupled with Obama's doofus red line comment last August a response is required if nothing else than to save face. And that is sad. And while I'm generally supportive of Rice and Powers (her book, in particular, is a favorite of mine) and their appeals to prevent genocide there's just no way this ends well.
Click to expand...

It's just a matter of deciding which bad ending will be the best one. Even if we do nothing it all ends badly over there. A good ending to all that was shuffled out of the deck a long time ago.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
B-Dubs said:
The bold wouldn't surprise me at all. I have a marine friend in Afghanistan so I'd rather not see the guy wind up over there as well.



It's just a matter of deciding which bad ending will be the best one. Even if we do nothing it all ends badly over there. A good ending to all that was shuffled out of the deck a long time ago.
Click to expand...

No doubt. But recently America hasn't got a good track record of even fashioning the best bad outcome.

PS. And the NYT constantly getting hacked is going to, god help me, push me into the arms of the WSJ.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Incognito said:
No doubt. But recently America hasn't got a good track record of even fashioning the best bad outcome.
Click to expand...

I'd say Libya went fairly well all things considered. To my knowledge it hasn't devolved into an unstable hell hole of a country, has it? It hasn't really been in the news other than the Benghazi stuff though. It's like no one is really writing about it.

Incognito said:
PS. And the NYT constantly getting hacked is going to, god help me, push me into the arms of the WSJ.
Click to expand...

Everyone says the Times got hacked but I was on it just fine at the time of the hacking, reading an article about the Men's National Soccer team.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Incognito said:
No doubt. But recently America hasn't got a good track record of even fashioning the best bad outcome.

PS. And the NYT constantly getting hacked is going to, god help me, push me into the arms of the WSJ.
Click to expand...

I wonder why the NYT is being targeted so much. It's kinda odd.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Incognito said:
When you have Susan Rice and Samantha Powers undoubtedly advocating for a response coupled with Obama's doofus red line comment last August a response is required if nothing else than to save face. And that is sad. And while I'm generally supportive of Rice and Powers (her book, in particular, is a favorite of mine) and their appeals to prevent genocide there's just no way this ends well.
Click to expand...

The red line comment was truly shocking, given Obama's normal hesitation to say anything; he still won't call the Egypt situation a coup. This is not going to be regulated to Syria, like Libya which was a quick job. This could easily lead to Iran doing something stupid.

We're about to make a colossal blunder to save face. It's insane.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Eh, the red line comment is meaningless. It's easy to get past it by not showing evidence that Syria used chemical weapons, or by using the fact that a part of the military did it without authorization.

The "word" of the United States lost its meaning when we went and smashed up a country after lying about it.

You guys aren't really thinking it through if you think he'd commit US military resources to save face.
 
K

Karakand

Member
delirium said:
To me, that reason just seems kind of lazy.

It's the same argument that creationists use when they want creationism to be taught in school along side evolution. Just because RT is the inverse of American news doesn't mean it has the same level of credence as NYTimes or NBC.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it had the credence of either one of those? I watch it to laugh and escape a suffocating air of propriety I consider undeserved, not because I consider it a superior alternative. Like a suburban teen listening to bad political punk rock (redundant -ed.).

Your equivalence is ridiculous and inflammatory, but it's funny that you bring it up since so much of American news is of the "teach the controversy" vein.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
B-Dubs said:
I'd say Libya went fairly well all things considered. To my knowledge it hasn't devolved into an unstable hell hole of a country, has it? It hasn't really been in the news other than the Benghazi stuff though. It's like no one is really writing about it.
Click to expand...

It did. Don't let people tell you it didn't.

The stated mission was to prevent imminent civilian massacres and the end of the Qaddafi regime. The only way it was a failure is by shifting the goal posts and claiming the goal was a perfectly functioning westernized libya in under a years time. It was over in 6th months. Libya was in the middle of a civil war where hundreds were dying daily, while things are not completely peaceful and resolved the butchering of large numbers of people isn't happening. You can't compare libya to the Qaddafi days to now and say it was a failure. We only got involved after the war was at its height.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
But seriously when did GAF go to crap with its Middle East commentary? The Syria thread is insane.

There is no logical thought going on in there. There are good reasons to be against intervening but nobody is using them, they're instead using the stupidest.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Yeah, I'm not sure why I'm dealing with it. Especially since I'm actually against intervention but apparently have been painted as a war-monger somehow.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
APKmetsfan said:
But seriously when did GAF go to crap with its Middle East commentary? The Syria thread is insane.

There is no logical thought going on in there. There are good reasons to be against intervening but nobody is using them, they're instead using the stupidest.
Click to expand...
It's hardly just Syria threads.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
APKmetsfan said:
But seriously when did GAF go to crap with its Middle East commentary? The Syria thread is insane.

There is no logical thought going on in there. There are good reasons to be against intervening but nobody is using them, they're instead using the stupidest.
Click to expand...
Most middle east threads are a carnival of stupid, but that thread, damn, I want to grab some of those posters shake them and ask - "tell me your life story, I demand to know how you came to be the person that you are!".
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Chichikov said:
Most middle east threads are a carnival of stupid, but that thread, damn, I want to grab some of those posters shake them and ask - "tell me your life story, I demand to know how you came to be the person that you are!".
Click to expand...

Do you really want to know? Do you?

GAF is better off anonymous, I suppose. It'd be hard to interact with some posters in real life.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Tamanon said:
Yeah, I'm not sure why I'm dealing with it. Especially since I'm actually against intervention but apparently have been painted as a war-monger somehow.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're in there. I can't see why we don't discuss it here since it is a US political issue.

I don't know where I stand. The thing is people against intervention seem to not realize how much of a mess Syria is already. The worst case is here, its kinda hard for it to get worse.

It could be come a hotbed of terrorism? It isn't already?
It could engulf other countries? Did you miss the bombings in Lebanon?
People will die? Like they haven't or won't continue to?
We don't know who we're supporting? (I think this isn't as true as people claim but I'll still use it) And this changes by not intervening how?
The Military Industry Complex wants it? Yes because there hasn't be openings for us to get involved for the past two years?
Why would the 'winning side use horrible weapons'? Because they're not winning? Because they thought they wouldn't be caught?

Best to just forget and hym's drive-by lists of conspiracy links with no coherence.

I don't see anything that suggests this is anything more than what the Administration is saying it is. A signal to prove that when there is a norm against chemical weapons its serious and there are repercussions to it.

The only way I think it can get 'worse' is by not having a clear goal on what these strikes are for and where they stop. Right now I am a bit worried Obama doesn't know the answer to this so I can't be said to support the strikes. Its what mad iraq such a quagmire but libya work, we knew what the end goal was in libya. That's the clear argument against, but to be honest I think its more an argument for outlining a limited and firm goal than an argument against strikes. And the whole 'lets spend money on helping them, not bombing them"'forgets the fact that they're already being bombed and spending money on the Red Cross isn't going to stop that. Its a false choice, a red herring. The question is let them be bombed or bomb the people bombing them. Which saves more lives? Its a debatable question and I don't think everything is pointing to intervention being the best answer but lets get the question right at least.

And to PD who thinks Obama has changed on this, here's his Nobel Prize Speech:

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
Click to expand...
For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
Click to expand...

To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.
Click to expand...

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
Click to expand...

He's always been a proponent of interventionism on moral grounds. This was before libya too. And in his Iraq War speech he stated:

I don't oppose all wars.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Click to expand...

I do agree that the lack of an objective is worrying and I don't think obama needs to say we're threatened directly, because were not. Though we are threatened indirectly in a world were international norms can be tossed aside for political expedience
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
The Michigan Senate voted Tuesday to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, extending health coverage to more than 400,000 low-income residents, but not without a little legislative drama first.

The GOP-controlled chamber approved the bill by a 20-18 vote at about 8 p.m. Tuesday after being in session for more than eight hours, much of it spent in caucus debating how to get the expansion passed. Eight Republicans finally joined 12 Democrats to pass the bill.

The House, which had already passed an expansion bill, will soon take a concurring vote, and Gov. Rick Snyder’s office confirmed to TPM that the governor would sign the legislation when it reaches his desk.

Before the bill ultimately passed, the legislation was stuck in parliamentarian limbo for more than two hours.

The bill needed 20 votes out of the 38-member Senate to pass. On its first vote at about 5:30 p.m., it received 19 yea votes and 18 nay votes in a floor vote, but Republican Sen. Patrick Colbeck, who is vehemently opposed to expansion, abstained from voting. If he had cast a nay vote, leaving a 19-19 tie, then Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Calley could have cast the tiebreaking vote to pass the bill, as Calley has pledged to do.

But because Colbeck didn’t vote, the bill failed when it didn’t reach the 20-vote threshold. The Senate then immediately voted 21-17 to reconsider the vote and went into recess so the party caucuses could meet. It took more than two hours before the Senate reconvened and finally passed the bill.

Sen. Tom Casperson, a Republican, switched his vote after securing an amendment that reformed hospital payments for uncompensated care for the uninsured. According to tweets from local reporters, Casperson had been expected to vote for the expansion initially, but unexpectedly voted nay on the first floor vote. His yay on the second floor vote made Calley’s tiebreaking vote unnecessary.
Click to expand...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ves-obamacares-medicaid-expansion.php?ref=fpa

Good.
 
T

thefit

Member
APKmetsfan said:
But seriously when did GAF go to crap with its Middle East commentary? The Syria thread is insane.

There is no logical thought going on in there. There are good reasons to be against intervening but nobody is using them, they're instead using the stupidest.
Click to expand...

Its never a good idea to post on anything posted in the OT especially politics I do sneak a peak though and always leave baffled.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Also is there a logical explanation why every single military action is constantly proclaimed as the beginning of WWIII? Seriously its insane how everything is thought to lead to nukes flying... Do people not read history books any more? Or do they think by predicting it every time they'll just get lucky.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
APKmetsfan said:
Also is there a logical explanation why every single military action is constantly proclaimed as the beginning of WWIII? Seriously its insane how everything is thought to lead to nukes flying... Do people not read history books any more? Or do they think by predicting it every time they'll just get lucky.
Click to expand...

You're going to be nothing but frustrated if you assume people should have as much knowledge about foreign affairs as you do.

I've come to realize people have very little knowledge of world history, especially non-Euro history. It's generally not worth discussing it unless the person clearly does.

And thanks to Bush's horrible handling of Iraq, the dialogue has changed drastically.

The same people were predicting WWIII before the intervention in Libya too. It will always happen.

It's why I've made a conscious effort to largely stop talking about most international politics, specifically anything middle-east related. it's filled with too much emotion and people talking just cuz they want to talk, not because they are in any way informed.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
PhoenixPause said:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ves-obamacares-medicaid-expansion.php?ref=fpa

Good.
Click to expand...

That's good news.

APKmetsfan said:
Also is there a logical explanation why every single military action is constantly proclaimed as the beginning of WWIII? Seriously its insane how everything is thought to lead to nukes flying... Do people not read history books any more? Or do they think by predicting it every time they'll just get lucky.
Click to expand...

It plays into the end of the world fantasy some people have. It's why stuff like The Walking Dead is so popular. A lot of writers are to blame as well I'm afraid, they don't do the proper research or are just lazy and when they put out books or movies or games they make it seem like WWIII could be just around the corner when in fact a very large number of things would have to go wrong all at once for it to happen.

There's a reason I tend to stay away from most post-apocalyptic fiction.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
350.org is starting a petition to name hurricanes after climate change deniers.

The video is fucking hilarious.

jHfy5qU.png
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Chichikov said:
350.org is starting a petition to name hurricanes after climate change deniers.

The video is fucking hilarious.

jHfy5qU.png
Click to expand...

This is stupid. Hurricanes didn't start with climate change. I know they make them worse but this is embarrassing. Is the left not capable of doing anything besides cute PR campaigns? Organize and actually advocate policy. Facebook and twitter shares aren't going to save the world.

Bill Mckibben is smart guy but this...
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Chichikov said:
350.org is starting a petition to name hurricanes after climate change deniers.

The video is fucking hilarious.

jHfy5qU.png
Click to expand...

That is amazing. Seriously, this needs to happen so badly. So badly.

APKmetsfan said:
This is stupid. Hurricanes didn't start with climate change. I know they make them worse but this is embarrassing. Is the left not capable of doing anything besides cute PR campaigns? Organize and actually advocate policy. Facebook and twitter shares aren't going to save the world.

Bill Mckibben is smart guy but this...
Click to expand...

Gotta get people on your side first and there are a whole lot of deniers to convert and or shame.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
APKmetsfan said:
This is stupid. Hurricanes didn't start with climate change. I know they make them worse but this is embarrassing. Is the left not capable of doing anything besides cute PR campaigns? Organize and actually advocate policy.

Bill Mckibben is smart guy but this...
Click to expand...
This is a PR campaign meant to draw attention in humorous ways to the fact that there are many influential policy makers who are climate change deniers, which is fucking appalling.
Anything to call attention to those idiots is welcomed in my mind, and not that I think it has a chance to ever coming through (I'm pretty sure the people who started it don't expect it either) but if you have a chance to get people on the weather channel to talk about the eye of Michelle Bachmann, you got to take that chance, however small it is.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
APKmetsfan said:
This is stupid. Hurricanes didn't start with climate change. I know they make them worse but this is embarrassing. Is the left not capable of doing anything besides cute PR campaigns? Organize and actually advocate policy. Facebook and twitter shares aren't going to save the world.

Bill Mckibben is smart guy but this...
Click to expand...

The current strategy is to make the deniers seem unreasonable. Kind of like the gun control stuff.

Right now it's about convincing people to be on your side and forcing representatives to not say crazy things. It's not like policy can pass the House so either you have to change the House by making it obvious these people are crazy or actually changing the elected people's opinions.

I think they're right to go for the former. Remember, we aren't dealing with people who accept facts or solid scientific reasoning.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
B-Dubs said:
Gotta get people on your side first and there are a whole lot of deniers to convert and or shame.
Click to expand...

People believe in climate change, and those that don't are doing so for political reasons not that they've not seen the science, this changes nobody's opinion about responses which need to be a priority.

They did good on keystone. Why can't they try on the state level or looking to get politicians that agree with them?
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
APKmetsfan said:
People believe in climate change, and those that don't are doing so for political reasons not that they've not seen the science, this changes nobody's opinion about responses which need to be a priority.

They did good on keystone. Why can't they try on the state level or looking to get politicians that agree with them?
Click to expand...

I think they're trying to make it the norm that climate-denial is crazy. Once they win that battle, you change the dialogue or the people being elected.

You're trying to skip a step somehow.
 
B

bonercop

Member
APKmetsfan said:
Also is there a logical explanation why every single military action is constantly proclaimed as the beginning of WWIII? Seriously its insane how everything is thought to lead to nukes flying... Do people not read history books any more? Or do they think by predicting it every time they'll just get lucky.
Click to expand...

blame stuff like this


Though to be honest, I do believe there is reason to be concerned about the current nuclear-weapon situation. it's kind of frightening how many close calls we've had in the past and how willing some leaders have seemed in reports to pretty much blow up the planet. It's kinda amazing and sort of inspiring that we haven't done so yet, honestly.

expecting WW3 over Syria is dumb as fuck, though. political instability in pakistan seems like a much bigger cause for concern to me right now.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Conservatives strike a major blow against Big Hollywood:

'Butler' Box Office Sales Plummet by One-Third

The movie "Lee Daniels' The Butler" saw its weekend box office receipts plummet by nearly a third, from $24.6 million in its opening week to $17 million last week, after a storm of protests from Republican and veterans groups.

The film depicts a White House butler who served eight presidents, and has come under fire for its portrayal of former President Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy as being racially insensitive and for casting Jane Fonda as the first lady.

Supporters of President Reagan and veterans groups especially have criticized the film, with some calling for boycotts....
Click to expand...

http://nation.foxnews.com/
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
bonercop said:

blame stuff like this


Though to be honest, I do believe there is reason to be concerned about the current nuclear-weapon situation. it's kind of frightening how many close calls we've had in the past and how willing some leaders have seemed in reports to pretty much blow up the planet. It's kinda amazing and sort of inspiring that we haven't done so yet, honestly.

expecting WW3 over Syria is dumb as fuck, though. political instability in pakistan seems like a much bigger cause for concern to me right now.
Click to expand...
I do think the risk of Nuclear weapons is real. But it would be accidental not intentional.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Oblivion said:
Conservatives strike a major blow against Big Hollywood:



http://nation.foxnews.com/
Click to expand...
I was not following this closely as it looked like The Help 2: The House is Also White Now, plus Precious sucked (and for real, Lee Daniels get to be in the title with an apostrophe now? fuck that) but the mention of Jane Fonda got me to look at the cast, and holy stuntcasting batman!
JesseEwiak said:
That is hilarious, especially considering most studios would sell their child into slavery for only a 33% second week drop.
Click to expand...
They would, but I'm sure will be a magical soft spoken and articulate black person to tell them that slavery is bad, mmmmmkay?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X (twitter) is now worth 9.4 billion
Business 2
98
4K
SlimySnake replied
Jensen Huang's net worth passes Intel's market cap
Business
34
2K
Hawking Radiation replied
Any deals on LG OLED 77" C1 vs C2?
6
675
The Infectious Paradox replied
LTTP: Dead Space 3 (2013) via PS3 Ultra Slim
17
536
WoJ replied
"Gonna be worth tuning into the Xbox Tokyo game show stream next week" says Tom Warren
Rumor 2 3 4
163
7K
Tiago Rodrigues replied
Top Bottom