• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Negativism & Defeatism

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
June 28, 2005
Negativism at Home Could Produce Defeat Of U.S. Policy in Iraq
By Mort Kondracke

Unless they can't help themselves, it strikes me as political madness for Democrats to declare that the Iraq war is an "intractable quagmire" or a "grotesque mistake."

If the war turns out to be a disaster - and let's pray it doesn't - then voters will repudiate Republican foreign policy in 2006 and 2008, and Democrats will be the beneficiaries.

So why should some Democrats now be acting as though they want to see their country lose a war? Why should they say things that may undermine the morale of U.S. forces and our Iraqi allies and contribute to a U.S. defeat?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
If the war turns out to be a disaster - and let's pray it doesn't - then voters will repudiate Republican foreign policy in 2006 and 2008, and Democrats will be the beneficiaries.
Not their fault this war was started and I sure hope that the American public realizes this.
So why should some Democrats now be acting as though they want to see their country lose a war? Why should they say things that may undermine the morale of U.S. forces and our Iraqi allies and contribute to a U.S. defeat?
I don't want the Americans defeated, I want them to finsih the job quickly and get out.
And why should they reinforce the image of their party as being so hopelessly force-averse that it can't be trusted to lead on foreign policy?
The path to peace is never through violence. Don't remember which philosopher said that, but it rings true. Why must we be the police of the world. Let the UN be reformed or whatever and let them do the policing.
It's one thing for a Democrat like Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) to harshly criticize the way the Bush administration is conducting the war and then recommend constructive steps for winning it.
Which is why I like him so much and hope that he is going to run for president because I feel that he is a man I can trust to offer me options.
But what Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have done with their "quagmire" and "grotesque mistake" talk is to declare that the war is, in effect, a lost cause.
That is their opinion just like it is your opinion they are traitors.
Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are demanding that President Bush come up with a new strategy, but they are offering none of their own.
It is the job of the president to set policy and it is the job of the Congress to enact it.
Democrats of all stripes go out of their way to declare that they support U.S. troops, but Kennedy and Pelosi are implying that those men and women are fighting and dying in vain.
You think that there are not pointless deaths every day, you think that there aren't in Iraq? You think we are doing the right thing? Sign up so that it isn't in vain. I wish that the troops would finish the mission and come home so they will again be safe.
The logic of the Kennedy-Pelosi position should lead them to call for immediate withdrawal, but they aren't doing that either.
Because, they, like me, realize the need to complete the mission, but they just want to get out, unlike the Bushies.
To be sure, they aren't alone in defeatism. Democrats are gleefully quoting Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), who says that "the reality is that we're losing in Iraq." Hagel, though, is virtually the only public Republican naysayer, while it's hard to find a Democrat who supports the war.
Yeah, this is always a partisan battle with you. Who cares? Support is at an all-time low, yet it is only the Democrats who criticize it and use defeatism.
One is that they are taking advantage of polls showing that the public has turned sharply negative on the war.Another is that they want to claim vindication amid rising casualty rates.And a third is that they just want to keep saying what they think - that the war is a loser.
Politicians take polls into account, Democrat or Republican-valid point. I don't think it is the second because nobody is that evil and mirthless. And I would hope that the third is the most true.
In this week's hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) said with some alarm that support is flagging even in South Carolina - "the most patriotic state I can imagine."
So to be patriotic is to always support ones country, yeah, SC displays taht perfectly.
Rumsfeld gave Graham a good answer: This is "the time that leadership has to stand up and tell the truth. If you're facing a head wind, you've got two choices. You can turn around and go downwind or you can stand there and go into the wind, and that's what needs to be done."
What wind is this. This is the man who keeps saying that we are defeating them and that they are dying off. Now is he admitting that he in fact was wrong and they are not dying off?
The danger is that defeatism at home will create a defeatist dynamic in Iraq. As Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, told the committee that among "our troops and the troops we're training in the Iraqi and Afghan security forces, I never sensed the level of their confidence higher."
So, basically, we are supposed to fall in line and be good little soldiers and not dissent...gotcha
He added that, "when my soldiers ... ask me the question whether or not they've got the support from the American people, that worries me. And they're starting to do that.
The troops will always have the support of the American public, no matter what. We admire them for the noble spirit even if we don't like actions that are taken by the military.
Obviously, it's up to President Bush to run the war well and to rebuild domestic support for his policies. He has some progress to show: increasing numbers of Iraqis trained, a constitutional process under way, the decision of some Sunnis to take part in politics, aggressive new action against the enemy.
And he also has so many against.
Bush's policies may fail on their own because they were misconceived or badly executed. What shouldn't happen is for U.S. policy to fail because Americans lose their will. Bush's critics, the Democrats, should tell him how to win, not declare that the cause is lost.

Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call.
Well, however much you want them to give options, this war wasn't started by the Dems. It was started by a neo-con administration that wanted war and wouldn't stop for anything. It is not their duty to present policy, though they can if they wish. That is purely the job of the president, who still is yet to present an Iraq stategy to end the war faster and train enough troops. I am not even talking exit strategy, I am talking strategy in general for winning the war, because all we have right now is "head into the wind."
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ShamMol said:
Well, however much you want them to give options, this war wasn't started by the Dems. It was started by a neo-con administration that wanted war and wouldn't stop for anything.
I suppose it's easy to forget that congress voted & gave approval prior to the start of the war.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
I suppose it's easy to forget that congress voted & gave approval prior to the start of the war.
Out of all that, this is how you respond. No, I don't forget, but I also know that the war would not have gone forward at the rapid pace through "diplomacy" that it did without the neo-cons. That resolution also called for war as a last resort, which some congressmen probably feel was betrayed by the administration, and I think I even remember some Dems saying that on the floor or stump.

And on another note, could you make the text a little smaller in your sig area? It is a tad annoying.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
^Yes, that was an interesting meeting that he had with that committee, it was broadcast on cnn and on c-span on full.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What you guys are forgetting here is that Democrats' words have special magical, mystical powers beyond those of mere mortals.
See, if I say that attacking Iraq was a mistake that was sold to the American public using information that was known to be faulty and worse, nothing happens. See? Nothing.
But everytime a Democrat says it, a soldier somewhere loses 10% of his hit points. Get enough of you Democrats saying stuff like that and pretty soon soldiers start ending up dead.
Democrats cast spells with their spooky powers whenever they open their mouths. It's part of the deal that they have to make with Satan when they pledge their soul to Liberalism.

I hope that clears some things up.

Sincerely,

Simon
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What you guys are forgetting here is that Democrats' words have special magical, mystical powers beyond those of mere mortals.
See, if I say that attacking Iraq was a mistake that was sold to the American public using information that was known to be faulty and worse, nothing happens. See? Nothing.
But everytime a Democrat says it, a soldier somewhere loses 10% of his hit points. Get enough of you Democrats saying stuff like that and pretty soon soldiers start ending up dead.
If you haven't read "Useful Idiots" yet, you should. It explains in detail what the anti-war rhetoric does for the oppositions cause. Just as what Newsweek said about the Koran caused riots and deaths, what the anti-war crowd says causes deaths. If the left is so apposed to our people getting killed, why would they knowingly participate in anything that may result in it? I don't think they give a damn, personally. The object for them is to unseat the Republicans and nothing else matters.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Squawker said:
If you haven't read "Useful Idiots" yet, you should. It explains in detail what the anti-war rhetoric does for the oppositions cause. Just as what Newsweek said about the Koran caused riots and deaths, what the anti-war crowd says causes deaths. If the left is so apposed to our people getting killed, why would they knowingly participate in anything that may result in it? I don't think they give a damn, personally. The object for them is to unseat the Republicans and nothing else matters.
Or, perhaps the objections to Team Bush and their screw ups are rational and necessary.
Team Bush is getting soldiers killed.


Why are Democratics' words objecting to the mendacity that led to the invasion have a more powerful effect than the words of those who support the invasion?

Second, how can anyone be expected to sit quietly by when their nation's armed forces are put in harm's way for some "policy wonk's brain fart?"
It would be the utmost of pinnacle of hating America to sit on your hands when your country needs you as much as it does now.

The whole pitch that the article makes is just cry-baby talk. The author's upset that there are red-blooded Americans with the balls enough to call bullshit when they see bullshit.

It's our patriotic duty to point out the misdeeds of our politicians. When their misdeeds result in the deaths of men and women in the armed forces that obligation is more imperative than ever.
 
Last edited:

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why are Democratics' words objecting to the mendacity that led to the invasion have a more powerful effect than the words of those who support the invasion?
Isn't that obvious? The terrorist, Bathists, whatever name you want to use, wants us out of Iraq, so they can take the country over. They can't win the war by military means, so their only chance is turn peoples support for the war against it.
Second, how can anyone be expected to sit quietly by when their nation's armed forces are put in harm's way for some "policy wonk's brain fart?"
It would be the utmost of pinnacle of hating America to sit on your hands when your country needs you as much as it does now.
People can write letters to their Representatives and local Newspapers, and chat in forums. No one needs to make a public statement to the world via Al Jezeera. Our Representatives should never make public statements that aid the enemy in thought or action. Someone said to me our leaders should represent everyone. I think they meant in the US Government. They can't say we support our troops, then give verbal ammunition to our enemy.
It's our patriotic duty to point out the misdeeds of our politicians.
Not if it gives aid and comfort to our enemy during a time of war that results in more lives lost. That isn't patriotic, that is self serving.
 
Last edited:

matay_brit

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
82
Reaction score
2
Location
England, Britain, European Union
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
squacker ur talkin ****, u can't just rip up peoples rights like that, free speech is very important, i'm sure it'll be in your constitution somewhere.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Squawker said:
Isn't that obvious? The terrorist, Bathists, whatever name you want to use, wants us out of Iraq, so they can take the country over. They can't win the war by military means, so their only chance is turn peoples support for the war against it.
It isn't just former regime people, it isn't just terrorists, it is a whole mess of people. In his speech tonight, Bush basically called all people fighting against the US terrorists. No, they are insurgents who are fighting against an occupying force. That is the definition of many of those people (including the former regime people). The terrorist network is there too, but don't lump the insurgents in with them.

The theory behind a popular movement or an insurgent movement is to get hatred towards those who are occupying them so to get new recruits and more popular support from the masses. Whether we like it or not, it is smart warfare.
People can write letters to their Representatives and local Newspapers, and chat in forums. No one needs to make a public statement to the world via Al Jezeera. Our Representatives should never make public statements that aid the enemy in thought or action. Someone said to me our leaders should represent everyone. I think they meant in the US Government. They can't say we support our troops, then give verbal ammunition to our enemy.
Basically, any dissent shown in public is unpatriotic. That is ridiculous Squawker, we have something called free speech and it is a tried and true practice of this nation to question our government at any time. Your Republicans didn't have any problem when we were in Bosnia, or any of those other places during an occupation criticizing the president-but now! Now, it is unpatriotic! Bah!
Not if it gives aid and comfort to our enemy during a time of war that results in more lives lost. That isn't patriotic, that is self serving.
Alright, by that token, the conservatives were wrong when we were in Bosnia, ripping into Clinton every single bloody day. That, by your standards, gave comfort to the enemy. I agree that it is our patriotic duty to question our goverment. We can't just blindly trust it to do the right thing, because some of the time, it just won't. I think we have seen that several times during this war.
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ShamMol said:
And on another note, could you make the text a little smaller in your sig area? It is a tad annoying.
I have to stare at all these elaborate pictures & what not in the signatures of others & you want me to make my font smaller because it's annoying?

I will make my font smaller & I'll even change my signature as it has already created enough hoopla. Sure hope you like my new one.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
I have to stare at all these elaborate pictures & what not in the signatures of others & you want me to make my font smaller because it's annoying?

I will make my font smaller & I'll even change my signature as it has already created enough hoopla. Sure hope you like my new one.
I don't want you to get rid of it, just wanted it in 5 font instead of 7, you know, just a little smaller. And you should do a picture, it is really fun that way.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
June 28, 2005
Negativism at Home Could Produce Defeat Of U.S. Policy in Iraq
By Mort Kondracke

Unless they can't help themselves, it strikes me as political madness for Democrats to declare that the Iraq war is an "intractable quagmire" or a "grotesque mistake."

If the war turns out to be a disaster - and let's pray it doesn't - then voters will repudiate Republican foreign policy in 2006 and 2008, and Democrats will be the beneficiaries.

So why should some Democrats now be acting as though they want to see their country lose a war? Why should they say things that may undermine the morale of U.S. forces and our Iraqi allies and contribute to a U.S. defeat?
Um they have been hoping on the war failing since the Election! Which planet are you from again? Because I'm "Mr Burns" and I will happly send you a ship to your planet if you need it! :rofl
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
matay_brit said:
squacker ur talkin ****, u can't just rip up peoples rights like that, free speech is very important, i'm sure it'll be in your constitution somewhere.
Aparently your not from America! Let me exercise my "Free Speech Rights" by saying "Byte My Shiney Metal A**!"
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Squawker said:
Isn't that obvious? The terrorist, Bathists, whatever name you want to use, wants us out of Iraq, so they can take the country over. They can't win the war by military means, so their only chance is turn peoples support for the war against it.
The Iraqi people. If the Iraqis stop supporting the insurgency, it'd end tomorrow.

Squawker said:
Our Representatives should never make public statements that aid the enemy in thought or action.
American opposition to being led into mismanaged war with a campaign of misinformation is the lifeblood of the insurgency?

Squawker said:
Not if it gives aid and comfort to our enemy during a time of war that results in more lives lost. That isn't patriotic, that is self serving.
Give "aid and comfort?" Have you considered the implications of associating First Ammendment rights with a crime punishable by execution? Just curious.
Even if exercising our First Ammendment rights to fulfill our obligations to prevent even more troops from being sent to die in unecessary wars could, in some meaningful (not merely hysterical and rhetorical) way lend aid and comfort to the Iraqi insurgency There's still an obligation to the US troops who haven't been sent to fight extraneous wars.
If we sit silently for this ****up, then future Admins're more likely to engage in more needless wars.

American opposition to sending its sons and daughters to die unnecessarily is the price that comes with sending America's sons and daughters to die unnecessarily.
Team Bush et al responsible must accept responsibility for it.

It's is horrific to expect that Americans sit quietly by and watch their loved ones be sacrificed unnecessarily.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
I have to stare at all these elaborate pictures & what not in the signatures of others & you want me to make my font smaller because it's annoying?
I agree. I turned off the display of such things in my user control panel so I don't have to see them.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Give "aid and comfort?" Have you considered the implications of associating First Ammendment rights with a crime punishable by execution?
Execution may be going a bit too far, but I do think Durbin should step down. He is a US Senator and should have kept his mouth shut publicly. He gave Al Jezeera ammunition to use against our troops, did he not?
Just curious.
Even if exercising our First Ammendment rights to fulfill our obligations to prevent even more troops from being sent to die in unecessary wars could, in some meaningful (not merely hysterical and rhetorical) way lend aid and comfort to the Iraqi insurgency There's still an obligation to the US troops who haven't been sent to fight extraneous wars.
This looks like an unfinished thought, but the unnecessary war is your opinion only.
If we sit silently for this ****up, then future Admins're more likely to engage in more needless wars.
Your protest to this war will have very little impact on future wars. It only shows our enemies how easily we can be divided, and gives them a propaganda tool to use against us.

American opposition to sending its sons and daughters to die unnecessarily is the price that comes with sending America's sons and daughters to die unnecessarily.
Team Bush et al responsible must accept responsibility for it
It's is horrific to expect that Americans sit quietly by and watch their loved ones be sacrificed unnecessarily. .
That is once again your opinion. The texture of the Middle East will be changed forever, so I expect in twenty years President Bush will get no credit for it. Reagan doesn’t get credit for his contribution for ending the cold war either, so what else is new?
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Squawker said:
Execution may be going a bit too far...
Then why use the phrasing from the definition of treason?

Squawker said:
He gave Al Jezeera ammunition to use against our troops, did he not?
I'm sure that our troops are made of sterner stuff than to be injured by al Jazeera reporting that an American Senator objected to the inhumane treatment of some prisoners in American custody. I expect that many in the ME found his objections to show a positive, human side of America and prob'ly bolstered the case of friendly and moderate Muslims in the ME.
As a matter of fact, the resulting teapot tempest prob'ly did more to justify and reinforce the image that terrorist recruiters paint of America than Mr. Durbin's objections did. Americans coming down on Mr. Durbin for his hyperbolic rhetoric surely enabled many extremists to be able to say, "See, I told you so."

I truly fail to see how Mr. Durbin's objections to inhumane treatment were harmful to our troops.
If anything decrying him til we were blue in the face was harmful to our troops because it made the terrorist look like they know what they are talking about.

Squawker said:
This looks like an unfinished thought, but the unnecessary war is your opinion only.
Me, about one hundred fifty million Americans and untold hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of people world-wide.
Without a credible threat to the US from Iraq, it doesn't fit what most reasonable people would consider a necessary war. It certainly doesn't rise to the level to be a pre-emptive war.

For more discussion see Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time"

Squawker said:
Your protest to this war will have very little impact on future wars.
It will force politicians to have to think twice before they start more damn fool wars.

Squawker said:
It only shows our enemies how easily we can be divided, and gives them a propaganda tool to use against us.
First, I think this statement of yours is hogwash. However, even if it were true, Team Bush should've thought about that before they began their campaign of denial and deception to sell the invasion to the American electorate.
If this was a necessary war, the level of protest would be much lower. The tolerance for casualties and costs would be much greater.

Just can't fool all the people all the time.

Squawker said:
The texture of the Middle East will be changed forever, so I expect in twenty years President Bush will get no credit for it.
He'll prob'ly get plenty of credit. Just as UbL and al Qaeda grew out of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan there'll be a group that grows out of the American invasion of Iraq. When they stage their version of 9-11 I'm sure Bush's names will be on many lips.

Squawker said:
Reagan doesn’t get credit for his contribution for ending the cold war either...
I'm not sure why you think that. From what i can tell in the neighborhood of one in eleven sites that mention Reagan also mention the cold war.
Here's an MSM take on the issue:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/10/eveningnews/main622398.shtml

Ronald Reagan's greatest achievement, ending the Cold War, is most remarkable because he had waged the Cold War so aggressively.

Perhaps the misplaced persecution complex that's used to sell popular "conservatism" these days has clouded your perception.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Squawker said:
Execution may be going a bit too far, but I do think Durbin should step down. He is a US Senator and should have kept his mouth shut publicly. He gave Al Jezeera ammunition to use against our troops, did he not?
Lots of Democrats have said stuff in the Senate that have been used on Al Jezeera that have been to the detriment of the US abroad, but that still doens't meant hat that they should not be said. They need to be said otherwise the American public won't know what is really happening.
This looks like an unfinished thought, but the unnecessary war is your opinion only.
As is yours. That is what you never seem to realize, you always think you are right (no pun intended I swear). You never think to realize, hey, I might be wrong about his war in Iraq. No, not never.
Your protest to this war will have very little impact on future wars. It only shows our enemies how easily we can be divided, and gives them a propaganda tool to use against us.
A propaganda tool is freedom of speech eh? Well, then I am glad we have the propaganda tool. It should never be taken away. The fact that we bicker always comes back to the two party system and its flaws. Blame that, not fricking freedom of speech.
That is once again your opinion. The texture of the Middle East will be changed forever, so I expect in twenty years President Bush will get no credit for it. Reagan doesn’t get credit for his contribution for ending the cold war either, so what else is new?
I think Reagan gets lots of credit, he sure did in my history book, but we now add to that definition of how the cold war ended. The USSR was on that path to destruction via not reforming for years before Reagan came. Krus got in there and that was the end, no matter what, even if Reagan hadn't been there. But, he did help a lot because he did bankrupt them. But I digress. I think that if this successful, then Bush will get a lot of credit, but there will always be a little asterisk-he started a war on false pretenses and never said sorry.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
matay_brit said:
ur ass is well and truly bitten. yum
Well I was exercising my free speech rights.

By the way you have some metal in your mouth! :rofl
 
Top Bottom