Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[Iceberg_slim]

The same reason they claim that the USPS is a failure!!!

 

[JRK]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

Hmmm. Let's see. They're now publicly supporting the Syrian and Iranian governments. Well, you know those wild and whacky Shia's!

Yeah. Big success!

So your stating that the 62% that voted in the last election in Iraq voted to support the country of Iran and Syria?
do you have proof of that?

 

[JRK]

There was nothing to justify the invasion and conquering of Iraq.

Nope not at all.....JUST FAKE REASONS FORCED UNTO THE SHEEP IN THIS COUNTRY WHO BOUGHT IT

well with the exception of resolution 1441
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. (fact)

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." (500 munitions found after invasion as well as 550 tons of yellow cake)

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. (also found to be true as many have killed in Iraq sense)
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (fact)
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
[edit]Passage

An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002, statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[4][5]
Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush's requests,[6] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 sponsored by Rep. Hastert & Rep. Gephardt and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 sponsored by Sen. Lieberman were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
United States House of Representatives
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3
126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

 

[BlindBoo]

There was nothing to justify the invasion and conquering of Iraq.

Nope not at all.....JUST FAKE REASONS FORCED UNTO THE SHEEP IN THIS COUNTRY WHO BOUGHT IT

well with the exception of resolution 1441The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. (fact)

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." (500 munitions found after invasion as well as 550 tons of yellow cake)

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. (also found to be true as many have killed in Iraq sense)
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (fact)
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
[edit]Passage

An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002, statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[4][5]
Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush's requests,[6] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 sponsored by Rep. Hastert & Rep. Gephardt and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 sponsored by Sen. Lieberman were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
United States House of Representatives
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3
126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

Wrong again as ususal.

http://lcnp.org/global/CNDLegalOpinion.pdf

The language of SCR 1441 is clear that the only actions that members would take if the inspectors found any of the alleged WMD or if they were hindered in their search was for the SC to reconviene to determine what to do. That is the only way several countries would sign off on it.

 

[Kevinthedog]

We shouldn't have intervened in Iraq or Libya. That's the reality. The Left and Neocons are just playing games and arguing over petty semantics. They actually agree on so much. So it is funny watching them pretend they disagree with each other. Our current President should have gone to our Congress for approval of the Libyan War though. I firmly stand behind my feelings on that. It's time for a truly humble Foreign Policy. No more awful Foreign Interventions. Time to fix our own broken Nation.

Neocons are tea partiers are republicans. same players, same voters. They dont fool me.

I am an isolationist. The middle east is crazy. We should NOT be involved with them, much less have our forces over there.

There is very little difference between a Socialist/Progressive and a Neocon. They're both Big Government Nanny Staters in the end. And they both love all these Foreign Interventions. They like to pretend they disagree so much but they really do agree on most issues. So who will be bombing & killing next? Stay tuned.

You're pretty good at making up stuff.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Neocons are tea partiers are republicans. same players, same voters. They dont fool me.

I am an isolationist. The middle east is crazy. We should NOT be involved with them, much less have our forces over there.

There is very little difference between a Socialist/Progressive and a Neocon. They're both Big Government Nanny Staters in the end. And they both love all these Foreign Interventions. They like to pretend they disagree so much but they really do agree on most issues. So who will be bombing & killing next? Stay tuned.

You're pretty good at making up stuff.

I stand by what i stated. There is very little difference between a Socialist/Progressive and Neocon. They agree on much more than they disagree on. They both just love these stupid Foreign Interventions. Watching them squabble over petty semantics is pretty hilarious. What are they really arguing about?

 

[JRK]

Nope not at all.....JUST FAKE REASONS FORCED UNTO THE SHEEP IN THIS COUNTRY WHO BOUGHT IT

well with the exception of resolution 1441The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. (fact)

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." (500 munitions found after invasion as well as 550 tons of yellow cake)

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. (also found to be true as many have killed in Iraq sense)
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (fact)
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
[edit]Passage

An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002, statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[4][5]
Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush's requests,[6] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 sponsored by Rep. Hastert & Rep. Gephardt and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 sponsored by Sen. Lieberman were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
United States House of Representatives
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3
126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

Wrong again as ususal.

http://lcnp.org/global/CNDLegalOpinion.pdf

The language of SCR 1441 is clear that the only actions that members would take if the inspectors found any of the alleged WMD or if they were hindered in their search was for the SC to reconviene to determine what to do. That is the only way several countries would sign off on it.

and the US being a member found over 500 of them
I am just kidding
your trying to convince the world the UN had jurisdiction over the US and defending its self
There is nothing I can do to comment on that
its to big of a joke, with respect to it being a joke
i am, serious
this country is not going to defend its self if the UN says it can

 

[Kevinthedog]

There is very little difference between a Socialist/Progressive and a Neocon. They're both Big Government Nanny Staters in the end. And they both love all these Foreign Interventions. They like to pretend they disagree so much but they really do agree on most issues. So who will be bombing & killing next? Stay tuned.

You're pretty good at making up stuff.

I stand by what i stated. There is very little difference between a Socialist/Progressive and Neocon. They agree on much more than they disagree on. They both just love these stupid Foreign Interventions. Watching them squabble over petty semantics is pretty hilarious. What are they really arguing about?

Give me a break. everyone who was a neo con and supported them are now big tea partiers. I just call them republicans and keep it easy. The right wing keeps trying to re-invent itself as it denies what it has done in the past. I fully expect all repubs to embrace the tea partiers...they are already doing it! different name, same folks.....PS-there are no socialists.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

Hmmm. Let's see. They're now publicly supporting the Syrian and Iranian governments. Well, you know those wild and whacky Shia's!

Yeah. Big success!

So your stating that the 62% that voted in the last election in Iraq voted to support the country of Iran and Syria?
do you have proof of that?

You better go check the Iranian polling. You were told this would happen as the result of an illegal war against Iraq, but you would not believe it.

You are as culpable as the Bush administration.

 

[JRK]

From JRK's link wikilink.....

Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. Indeed, at the time 1441 was passed, both the U.S. and UK representatives stated explicitly that 1441 contained no provision for military action. As the New York Times noted about the negotiations,

'There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution,’ [stated then U.S. Ambassador Negroponte] ‘Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.’[79]

The British ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock concurred,

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" - the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as one of. the co-sponsors of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution.[80]

The UN itself never had the chance to declare that Iraq had failed to take its "final opportunity" to comply as the U.S. invasion made it a moot point

what does the UN have to do with the US congress and the terms it set forth to attack?
Saddam did not meet HR-1441
we invaded
again you have shown nothing in our constitution that states the UN has jurisdiction in the matters that concern our country, its congress nor its president

The UN was specifically mentioned in the resolution. The UN was set up to stop wars of aggression.

to start with the UN did not do there job
every-one who has spun this speaks of the over 500 munitions found that met the criteria of a WMD as being old and not udefull
The terms of the agreement made no mention of age nor condition and it should be noted the shape of those munitions in the 90s would not reflect the condition they were in 2003

To document there being: they failed
to document there destruction: they failed
same with the large amount of yellow cake found

 

[Uncensored2008]

Give me a break. everyone who was a neo con and supported them are now big tea partiers.

Utter bullshit.

The amazing shit you fascists will claim..

First Tea Party I attended was aimed against Bush and McCain for their amnesty drive - you know, the fucking neocons.

I just call them republicans and keep it easy.

Why not call them "infidels?" It better showcases your mindset and attitude?

The right wing keeps trying to re-invent itself as it denies what it has done in the past. I fully expect all repubs to embrace the tea partiers...they are already doing it! different name, same folks.....PS-there are no socialists.....

The Tea party is normal Americans - of course you hate them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No WMDS of any signficance or threat were found; if they were, the administration would have announced such, and such was announced.

The war was not illegal.

End of story, JRK. You lose, and the senior Bushies will never travel to western Europe again.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Saddam Hussein's dead and soon Gaddafi will be too. And that's what all you Socialists/Progressives & Neocons wanted. So what are you really arguing about? You both got what you wanted. So just STFU and quit your bitchin. You both just love aggressive Foreign Interventionism. You're both the same entity in my opinion...Just Big Government Globalist Nanny Staters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lib, shut up yourself. You are a right-wing progressive, who is out of his depth here.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Lib, shut up yourself. You are a right-wing progressive, who is out of his depth here.

ROFL

It that right little fascist?

 

[JRK]

You're pretty good at making up stuff.

I stand by what i stated. There is very little difference between a Socialist/Progressive and Neocon. They agree on much more than they disagree on. They both just love these stupid Foreign Interventions. Watching them squabble over petty semantics is pretty hilarious. What are they really arguing about?

Give me a break. everyone who was a neo con and supported them are now big tea partiers. I just call them republicans and keep it easy. The right wing keeps trying to re-invent itself as it denies what it has done in the past. I fully expect all repubs to embrace the tea partiers...they are already doing it! different name, same folks.....PS-there are no socialists.....

In this countries history the GN event was as pure of a socialist event
BHO ignore congress
he ignored contract law and used tax payers wealth with-out congress approvig to use tax payers wealth to do it with

and as far the GOPs history
5% UE with deficits adding up to be less than 4 trillion from the 80s with RR, the 90s with the GOP congress uo untill 2007 in which UE was below 5% and we were within 163 billion of a balance budget
the debt did climb more than the 4 trillion due to interest, but as defeicit spending goes we created 40 million jobs while adding about 200 billion a year in deficts with the last 4 years having 2 wars going against those yearly deficits]

now we are talking trillion+ in a year with 9+% UE
you really want to compare these facts?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lib, shut up yourself. You are a right-wing progressive, who is out of his depth here.

ROFL

It that right little fascist?

You are the right extremist fascist, Uncensored, and we will keep pointing you out every time your run your mouth stupidly.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Seriously,Hussein is dead and soon Gaddafi will be too. So you Socialists/Progressives & Neocons both got what you wanted. You should both be rejoicing instead of bitching so much. And you both have a lot more in common than you like to believe. I see very little differences in Socialist/Progressive and Neocon policies. You're all just a bunch of Big Government stooges in my opinion. Only Constitutional Conservatism can save us now. You both have failed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are the right extremist fascist, Uncensored, and we will keep pointing you out every time your run your mouth stupidly.

I think you got so excited that you pissed yourself, moron.

 

[JRK]

You are the right extremist fascist, Uncensored, and we will keep pointing you out every time your run your mouth stupidly.

I think you got so excited that you pissed yourself, moron.

jake has nothing to offer but anger
I have him on ignore
u might want to do the same