I'm not sure a strong leader is the same as someone who states other reasons for the war when his first reasons proved to be untrue, and who's too stubborn and pig-headed to admit when he's wrong, but instead would drive straight ahead and off the cliff when everyone states there's a turn in the road.
Michael Moore
- Thread starter Goblin
- Start date
Consider the facts presented in Stephen F. Hayes's book, The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of the last chapter (pp. 177-78) sums up some of the evidence:
Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...
Hayes is a writer for The Weekly Standard and much of his writing on the Saddam/Osama connection is available there for free; simply use the search engine and look for articles by Hayes.
According to Laurie Mylroie, a former Harvard professor who served as Bill Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign (during which Vice-Presidential candidate Gore repeatedly castigated incumbent President George H.W. Bush for inaction against Saddam), the ringleader of the World Trade Center bombings, Ramzi Yousef, was working for the Iraqi intelligence service. Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2d rev. ed. 2001).
Although Saddam never threatened the territorial integrity of America, he repeatedly threatened Americans. For example, on November 15, 1997, the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein's son Uday) ordered: "American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces." (Stephen Hayes, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004), p. 94.) On November 25, 2000, Saddam declared in a televised speech, "The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests everywhere and target those who protect these interests."
On the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a weekly newspaper owned by Uday Hussein said that Arabs should "use all means-and they are numerous-against the aggressors...and considering everything American as a military target, including embassies, installations, and American companies, and to create suicide/martyr [fidaiyoon] squads to attack American military and naval bases inside and outside the region, and mine the waterways to prevent the movement of war ships..."
Moreover, the Saddam regime did not need to make verbal threats in order to "threaten" the United States. The regime threatened the United States by giving refuge to terrorists who had murdered Americans, and by funding terrorists who were killing Americans in Israel. Saddam gave refuge to terrorists who had attacked the United States by bombing the World Trade Center. In addition:
In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more…
.Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam….On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition’s presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)
Hitchens, Slate. The cited article is David E. Sanger & Thom Shanker, "A Region Inflamed: Weapons. For the Iraqis, a Missile Deal That Went Sour; Files Tell of Talks With North Korea, New York Times, Dec. 1, 2003.
As French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin stated on November 12, 2002, "The security of the United States is under threat from people like Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and biological weapons." (Hayes, p. 21.) De Villepin's point is indisputable: Saddam was the kind of person who was capable of using chemical weapons, since he had actually used them against Iraqis who resisted his tyrannical regime. As de Villepin spoke, Saddam was sheltering terrorists who had murdered Americans, and was subsidizing the murder of Americans (and many other nationalities) in Israel.
Oh, BTW, we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan first, before turning to Iraq. We destroyed the primary Al Qaeda network, liberated a nation, and reduced the ability of the terrorists to do major damage, before turning to iraq to both reduce international terrorisme more AND deal with a nation that had already invaded a neigboring countyr and violated 14 UN resolutions. AND had repeatedly shot at (and therfore attempted to kill) American and british pilots enforcing the "no fly zone" over portions of Iraq, which were set in place after Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...
Hayes is a writer for The Weekly Standard and much of his writing on the Saddam/Osama connection is available there for free; simply use the search engine and look for articles by Hayes.
According to Laurie Mylroie, a former Harvard professor who served as Bill Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign (during which Vice-Presidential candidate Gore repeatedly castigated incumbent President George H.W. Bush for inaction against Saddam), the ringleader of the World Trade Center bombings, Ramzi Yousef, was working for the Iraqi intelligence service. Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2d rev. ed. 2001).
Although Saddam never threatened the territorial integrity of America, he repeatedly threatened Americans. For example, on November 15, 1997, the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein's son Uday) ordered: "American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces." (Stephen Hayes, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004), p. 94.) On November 25, 2000, Saddam declared in a televised speech, "The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests everywhere and target those who protect these interests."
On the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a weekly newspaper owned by Uday Hussein said that Arabs should "use all means-and they are numerous-against the aggressors...and considering everything American as a military target, including embassies, installations, and American companies, and to create suicide/martyr [fidaiyoon] squads to attack American military and naval bases inside and outside the region, and mine the waterways to prevent the movement of war ships..."
Moreover, the Saddam regime did not need to make verbal threats in order to "threaten" the United States. The regime threatened the United States by giving refuge to terrorists who had murdered Americans, and by funding terrorists who were killing Americans in Israel. Saddam gave refuge to terrorists who had attacked the United States by bombing the World Trade Center. In addition:
In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more…
.Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam….On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition’s presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)
Hitchens, Slate. The cited article is David E. Sanger & Thom Shanker, "A Region Inflamed: Weapons. For the Iraqis, a Missile Deal That Went Sour; Files Tell of Talks With North Korea, New York Times, Dec. 1, 2003.
As French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin stated on November 12, 2002, "The security of the United States is under threat from people like Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and biological weapons." (Hayes, p. 21.) De Villepin's point is indisputable: Saddam was the kind of person who was capable of using chemical weapons, since he had actually used them against Iraqis who resisted his tyrannical regime. As de Villepin spoke, Saddam was sheltering terrorists who had murdered Americans, and was subsidizing the murder of Americans (and many other nationalities) in Israel.
Oh, BTW, we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan first, before turning to Iraq. We destroyed the primary Al Qaeda network, liberated a nation, and reduced the ability of the terrorists to do major damage, before turning to iraq to both reduce international terrorisme more AND deal with a nation that had already invaded a neigboring countyr and violated 14 UN resolutions. AND had repeatedly shot at (and therfore attempted to kill) American and british pilots enforcing the "no fly zone" over portions of Iraq, which were set in place after Saddam invaded Kuwait.
member5726
Banned
georges said:
When people say bad thing about Bush and his presidency its all lies and untrue... but when people say bad thing about Kerry, its all right and true... come try to be objective at least...
Their experts! Youre calling experts whose job it was to find out if there was a connection liars!? You have never made a post that so truly showed that you dont know what youre talking about like the one you just made! Youre not an expert and they are so you dont know shit and have no right to say otherwise!
All this talk doesn't change that the reason they told they would go to war, that there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was not true. This is just the usual Conservative propaganda. Revision of history. First you give one reason, when it shows to not be true, you try to revise history and say that it wasn't the reason, but this was instead, and so on, etcetra, etcetra. Give it a break, and just admit you were wrong about them. If Liberals and Socialdemocrats are men enough to admit when they're wrong, why aren't the Conservatives?
Brino said:
you too you only used some biased sources in order too show that kerry was that brilliant which is not the case.
John Kerry claims the VVAW never attacked average soldiers of the Vietnam war. Yet this flyer published by John Kerry says otherwise. I guess when John was printing these out in the 1970s he didn’t think anyone would save it. (please modd accept the file)
National guard duty is still a position that may be called to combat at any time. there area LOT of ANG members who would take issue with your assertation that it's effectively "playing." Bush signed up in an ANG unit that was actively deploying fighter pilots to Vietnam to shadow migs and bombers. meaning that when GWB signed up for that particular unit, it was pretty much a given that he WOULD be seeing combat! In fact, he requested duty IN combat6 with that unit! I posted on this and will again, as you seem to have missed it.
Air National Guard was called up into combat during Nam dipshit. In 1965 they started supply runs into Nam. Eleven squadrons were called up in 68 when the US Navy ship Pueblo was seized. The 120th, 174th, 188th and 136th were all deployed to Nam and 85% of the 3755th squadron were Guardsmen. Air Force commander had this to say about the ANG units:
"I had ... five F-100 Air National Guard squadrons ... Those were the five best F-100 squadrons in the field. The aircrews were a little older, but they were more experienced, and the maintenance people were also more experienced than the regular units. They had done the same work on the weapon system for years, and they had stability that a regular unit doesn't have.
Attachments
Last edited:
For all the nay-saying, I find that its very interesting that Kerry's "supporters" are giving him very little support at all. Since the beginning, most of the people who would vote for him are doing so only because he's not Bush.
Kerry has had plenty of opportunity to talk about himself in a substantive manner. He has refused and instead insisting on campaigning on a 30 year old fictional record. Notice that he hasn't really discussed his experience in the Senate beyond the most banal generalities? The GOP and other non-Kerry groups are showing that the guy may have been a senator for 20 years, but he doesn't take the job seriously because he wasn't even there for 90% of the votes. Think of it like this, you have a coworker that only shows up on Tuesday afternoon for a couple hours. Yet he gets paid the same as you, and is now up for a promotion. Not right, is it?
He knows his ultra-liberal record won't hold up with most mainstream voters. Now his claims regarding his Vietnam service and his anti-war activies afterward are crumbling under national scrutiny.
He's on the run and resorting to help from lawyers who would stifle the opinions and claims of others who bore direct witness to Kerry's ignominious past.
The difference between Kerry's political activism is that his was in the spotlight. He was the outspoken, wealthy son that went to war, came back decorated and and went on Dick Cavet's show, testified before Congress about supposed war crimes, and then, to add insult to injury, threw his medals, medals that heroes before and after him received for their valor, away, to publicly protest what he thought was a wrong war. Mind you, this was all done after our pull-out.
Bush, OTOH, was in the Texas ANG flying fighter jets over the Gulf of Mexico, not a safe, desk job like Al Gore had in Japan. He was doing a very dangerous job, since it ain't easy to be a driver. takes a lot of skill, both physical and mental. (no idiot becomes a fighter pilot.) In fact, his unit was one that was regularly called on to fly active duty in Vietnam at the time GWB signed up, and then Dubya became a top pilot, not something an idiot would do OR someone trying to get out of combat duty).
Kerry was getting shot at in the Brown Water Navy. Bush was flying jets in the ANG. But Bush wasn't out protesting against the war, and effectively flipping off the country.
Now, check this link, from a paper not normally considered an outspoken Bush supporter:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/10/do1002.xml
Kerry has had plenty of opportunity to talk about himself in a substantive manner. He has refused and instead insisting on campaigning on a 30 year old fictional record. Notice that he hasn't really discussed his experience in the Senate beyond the most banal generalities? The GOP and other non-Kerry groups are showing that the guy may have been a senator for 20 years, but he doesn't take the job seriously because he wasn't even there for 90% of the votes. Think of it like this, you have a coworker that only shows up on Tuesday afternoon for a couple hours. Yet he gets paid the same as you, and is now up for a promotion. Not right, is it?
He knows his ultra-liberal record won't hold up with most mainstream voters. Now his claims regarding his Vietnam service and his anti-war activies afterward are crumbling under national scrutiny.
He's on the run and resorting to help from lawyers who would stifle the opinions and claims of others who bore direct witness to Kerry's ignominious past.
The difference between Kerry's political activism is that his was in the spotlight. He was the outspoken, wealthy son that went to war, came back decorated and and went on Dick Cavet's show, testified before Congress about supposed war crimes, and then, to add insult to injury, threw his medals, medals that heroes before and after him received for their valor, away, to publicly protest what he thought was a wrong war. Mind you, this was all done after our pull-out.
Bush, OTOH, was in the Texas ANG flying fighter jets over the Gulf of Mexico, not a safe, desk job like Al Gore had in Japan. He was doing a very dangerous job, since it ain't easy to be a driver. takes a lot of skill, both physical and mental. (no idiot becomes a fighter pilot.) In fact, his unit was one that was regularly called on to fly active duty in Vietnam at the time GWB signed up, and then Dubya became a top pilot, not something an idiot would do OR someone trying to get out of combat duty).
Kerry was getting shot at in the Brown Water Navy. Bush was flying jets in the ANG. But Bush wasn't out protesting against the war, and effectively flipping off the country.
Now, check this link, from a paper not normally considered an outspoken Bush supporter:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/10/do1002.xml
Come on, Georges, now you're being silly... What are you thinking on everytime you hear or read something you don't agree with? "Liberal propaganda"? You're starting to sound a lot like all those Commies I discuss against on another discussion board. They claim almost everything is Liberal propaganda and the tools of the Capitalism. It sounds ridiculous, and now you seem to be the same but from the other direction, the right wing. Do you believe everything you don't agree with is Liberal and Communistic propaganda?
Last edited:
Brino said:
i stay on the subject and i have concrete facts but you don't
An intelligent person can twist the known fact that Saddam harbored and aided Abdul Rahman Yasin (who mixed teh chemicals fo the 1993 WTC bombings) into a "fact" that Sadddam had no ties to Al Qaeda? It's your contention that an intelligent person could simply look at iraqi intelligence documents in 1992 that list bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset, and more, and conclude that there is no actual connection?
There is no way in hell I'm reading all this thread, so I'm just gonna quote a few....
Why does kerry only criticize Bush, and only talk about his purple hearts?
Come on, if anyone's beaten a dead horse its Kerry. At least bush is continually talking about something THAT HAS SOME IMPORTANCE. If we're at war, then I dont have a problem with the pres. talking about it. Seems like a pretty legit thing to talk about, right?
How do you know who is more dangerous than who? It is pathetic how you and everyone else against bush put ALL the blame on him. Have you ANY idea how many people made the decision to go to war?
It isn't like what he says goes.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES. We went to war with iraq. All you democrats are bitching about how we should have gone after osama. Dont you think the United States, one of the most technologically advanced, and 'top of the food chain' countries in the world, HAD A REASON? There is SO much that goes on behind closed doors, its pathetic. Yet you guys watch liberal TV and media, and think we went to war with them for the hell of it.
How hard is this to understand? THERE ARE MANY SECRETS THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS FROM US....GET OVER IT.
The 'economy is so bad now, it is bad for small business' ' arguement is bullshit.
IF the economy is bad, which it isn't, it would be from the aftermath of the clinton administration.
My dad has his own (small) business. NEVER has his business been as good as this year. He is prospering beyond belief. He does restaurant repair, at big name, expensive restaurants(Red lobster, applebees, longhorn, pizza hut, etc)
THEY are all doing GREAT as well. In his line of work, he sees and talks to ALOT of people.
The economy isn't the BEST it's ever been. But it is not NEAR as bad as people talk it up to be.
Starman said:
Why does kerry only criticize Bush, and only talk about his purple hearts?
Come on, if anyone's beaten a dead horse its Kerry. At least bush is continually talking about something THAT HAS SOME IMPORTANCE. If we're at war, then I dont have a problem with the pres. talking about it. Seems like a pretty legit thing to talk about, right?
Brino said:Answer me this georges, what the fuck is Bush doing to get rid of all the other dictators in the world most of whom are more dangerous Saddam!? Your argument is bullshit because Bush is doing nothing about those other dictators!
How do you know who is more dangerous than who? It is pathetic how you and everyone else against bush put ALL the blame on him. Have you ANY idea how many people made the decision to go to war?
It isn't like what he says goes.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES. We went to war with iraq. All you democrats are bitching about how we should have gone after osama. Dont you think the United States, one of the most technologically advanced, and 'top of the food chain' countries in the world, HAD A REASON? There is SO much that goes on behind closed doors, its pathetic. Yet you guys watch liberal TV and media, and think we went to war with them for the hell of it.
How hard is this to understand? THERE ARE MANY SECRETS THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS FROM US....GET OVER IT.
foxfilm said:
The 'economy is so bad now, it is bad for small business' ' arguement is bullshit.
IF the economy is bad, which it isn't, it would be from the aftermath of the clinton administration.
My dad has his own (small) business. NEVER has his business been as good as this year. He is prospering beyond belief. He does restaurant repair, at big name, expensive restaurants(Red lobster, applebees, longhorn, pizza hut, etc)
THEY are all doing GREAT as well. In his line of work, he sees and talks to ALOT of people.
The economy isn't the BEST it's ever been. But it is not NEAR as bad as people talk it up to be.
Certainly true. But then it´s still (or even more) bold to expect the people to follow their leader like a bunch of lemmings.
The "nobody really knows what´s going on there, so let´s just trust the guys in the know" argument is pretty dangerous because it removes our right to think, judge and decide for ourselves and puts us into the position of a silent, stupid mass. That´s not the idea of freedom and democracy is it?
Dolman said:There is no way in hell I'm reading all this thread, so I'm just gonna quote a few....
Why does kerry only criticize Bush, and only talk about his purple hearts?
Come on, if anyone's beaten a dead horse its Kerry. At least bush is continually talking about something THAT HAS SOME IMPORTANCE. If we're at war, then I dont have a problem with the pres. talking about it. Seems like a pretty legit thing to talk about, right?
How do you know who is more dangerous than who? It is pathetic how you and everyone else against bush put ALL the blame on him. Have you ANY idea how many people made the decision to go to war?
It isn't like what he says goes.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSES. We went to war with iraq. All you democrats are bitching about how we should have gone after osama. Dont you think the United States, one of the most technologically advanced, and 'top of the food chain' countries in the world, HAD A REASON? There is SO much that goes on behind closed doors, its pathetic. Yet you guys watch liberal TV and media, and think we went to war with them for the hell of it.
How hard is this to understand? THERE ARE MANY SECRETS THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS FROM US....GET OVER IT.
The 'economy is so bad now, it is bad for small business' ' arguement is bullshit.
IF the economy is bad, which it isn't, it would be from the aftermath of the clinton administration.
My dad has his own (small) business. NEVER has his business been as good as this year. He is prospering beyond belief. He does restaurant repair, at big name, expensive restaurants(Red lobster, applebees, longhorn, pizza hut, etc)
THEY are all doing GREAT as well. In his line of work, he sees and talks to ALOT of people.
The economy isn't the BEST it's ever been. But it is not NEAR as bad as people talk it up to be.
Very good post:thumbsup:
bibo said:I´m a realist too actually. A dictator is a dictator for me. A terrorist is a terrorist. And an idiot is an idiot.
Hell, this world is simple if you think about it.
I know that you were indirectly flaming me Bibo.:fight: I can see taht through your post easily.If you think that you are Mr Knowitall then think about the last comment that you made about the idiot.
Flaming you? You really think you´re that important?
There´s a saying where I live, georgie boy. They say "if the shoe fits you, wear it".
I honestly don´t know why I should think about my comment about the idiot again though. It´s true. For me, and idiot is indeed an idiot. I would lie if I would say something different.
There´s a saying where I live, georgie boy. They say "if the shoe fits you, wear it".
I honestly don´t know why I should think about my comment about the idiot again though. It´s true. For me, and idiot is indeed an idiot. I would lie if I would say something different.
Similar threads
- Locked
