Posted by: graemebird | November 5, 2006

No Justice To See Here.

Prodeo is back at it with their nauseating fascist-talk.

Here’s Phil claiming that the trial of Saddam was a SHOW-TRIAL.

Phils blatantly fascist knee-jerk reaction was as predictable as it was sickening.

How long does your average show-trial last?

What would the Iraqis have had to do so that the fascist Phil wouldn’t have accused them of running a show-trial?

Actually they would have had to kill the fascist Phil. Because the hateful bastard was ALWAYS going to claim it was a show-trial.

We must never let the people over at Prodeo fantasise that they are not fascists.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/11/06/sentenced-to-hang/#comment-184441

Just in case you don’t believe what fascists these guys are here is Mark Banisch… the head fascist. indirectly blaming Islamo-fascism on the guys who are fighting Islomo-fascism. A pretty good way to support the fascists I would have thought.

“I can’t help wondering if the frequent Currency Lad Clinton blamin’ on sundry blog threads has inspired something over in America. Not just the GOP’s “don’t blame us for Iraq/terrorism/Al Qaeda, it’s all Bill’s fault” refrain.”

How is it the GOP’s fault Mark? You really have to fucking explain that one fella?

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/11/05/its-all-bill-clintons-fault/

How is Al Quaeda the GOP’s fault?

The current administration has already destroyed Al Quaeda. As the organsation that it was in 2001. Its gone. They did not create it. They destroyed it. So how was Al Quaeda their fault?

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Lawyers killed, Judges politically pressured, guilty verdict so coincidently a few days before the US midterm elections—naah

    Would have been better if they had the trial at the Hague. That way Saddam could have exposed all the countries who sold him chemical weapons, but Georgie Peorgie wouldn’t have that.

    Re; “indirectly blaming Islamo-fascism on the guys who are fighting Islomo-fascism”

    Ever heard of nationalists trying to evict occupiers Birdy?

  2. “That way Saddam could have exposed all the countries who sold him chemical weapons”

    You mean like the fucking treacherous Frogs? Game on.

  3. I am afraid there is nothing that will make these leftys happy, they will always defer taking responsibity for their actions.

    Imagine all this stuff about “marxism is dead, long live social democracy” – I can see the public purse being opened up for more culturally sustainable social ecology.

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/11/06/is-social-democracy-the-end-of-history/

  4. Graeme, the GOP didn’t create AQ, but they haven’t really destroyed it either. In fact, despite spend hundreds of billions and have a few thousand people killed, and turned the US into a psuedo-police state, they haven’t really achieved much.

    People who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. Benny Franklin.

    And before you refer to others as fascist (ie national socialist), perhaps you should check to see if you may be guilty of supporting hugely expensive and totally useless government spending projects defended primarily on the grounds of foreign aid. You commie bastard you.

    As for the supposed enemy — I would suggest that they are better described as “islamic socialists” rather than fascists because that (1) confuses AQ with the right wing in average minds; and (2) better describes them because they have clearly different aims to the fascists but the same means (socialism).

    But they are a largely irrelevant little bug which can be ignored. Unless you’re a taxeating government-loving fearmongering risk-averse paternalistic socialist of course.

    Game on.

  5. “And before you refer to others as fascist (ie national socialist), perhaps you should check to see if you may be guilty of supporting hugely expensive and totally useless government spending projects defended primarily on the grounds of foreign aid.”

    No I’m not guilty of that one. I supported the invasion. I was luke-warm on the firrst Gulf War. But you have to finish what you start. And since Saddam violated the ceasefire after about three weeks the war was still on. So it was important to finish that war by ending the Baathist regime. And it was important to punish all the terrorist supporting states for 9/11.

    I supported the invasion. But I didn’t support the way it was done (putting Americans in the front lines rather then air and proxy warfare) and I didn’t support them hanging round within a defined terroritory waiting to be blown up by people being assisted by the other terrorist states. See my other threads for clarification.

    “But they are a largely irrelevant little bug which can be ignored. Unless you’re a taxeating government-loving fearmongering risk-averse paternalistic socialist of course.”

    No they cannot be ignored. Since they are merely one part of the military wing of jihadist societies and regimes. Well yes they can be ignored to this extent. If you want to either:

    1. End all of the jjihadist regimes…. then you could probably ignore these bugs.

    2. Punish all the regimes and then quickly bring your troops home and springload to punish them again should they perpetrate more attacks.

    So yeah if you were projecting force against regime leadership you could thereafter probably get away with treating the actual terrorists like random variables as is your habit.

  6. An often overlooked factoid is that it was the Soviets who ‘created’ Al Qaida by invading Afghanistan in 1989. This radicalised bin Laden – up til then a typical hypocritical sybarite – and caused him to establish the organisation as a a rallying point for international Islamists to drive the godless communists from the Dar ul Islam.

  7. John always goes that extra step too far. How has the US become a police state? Why wasn’t bombing Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan a good idea? Speak softly and carry a big stick, but the stick has to whack some flies occasionally …

  8. Yeah well its a big problem. If he’s the guy we are hanging all our hopes on in this new party…….

    I mean if you have been busy doing a PHD its understandable that you might not have broadened your outlook.

    But if he’s going to be a politician there isn’t an awful lot of time to gain that further intellectual capital on the job.

  9. Well, of all of us you agree with c8to the most. So maybe you should try and stage a coup in the LDP to get c8to to the top:-)

  10. Coup away boys and girls… I don’t run things anymore. I’m just one of the soilders these days.

    I have no desire to be in politics and have no need to justify myself to somebody who has done nothing to fight the good fight except use CAPS LOCK all the time. I’ll stand to promote ideas that I believe in — drug legalisation, tax/welfare reform, IR reform, free trade & getting the government out of everyday life. I hope a few people hear the ideas… but after that I will go back to my own pursuit of happiness. If it’s all to hard for you, fine. Stay at home. Do your knitting. Use your caps lock.

    Jason — I used “psuedo” for a reason. There is a problem when the police can detain without charge for an extended period of time. There is a problem when you can justify not having a trail because the suspects are obviously guilty! There is a problem when newly created military trails fail western legal benchmarks. There is a problem when you can’t get on a plane without battling the nail-clipping and water-bottle nazis. There is a problem when you undermine traditional rights to privacy. There is a problem when a state can use fear to justify all of this… as well as huge increases in tax. Of course many other countries are worse.

    I don’t have a big problem with the Afghani war. I would have had even less of a problem if all they did was bomb AQ sites. Iraq annoys me much more because it is impossible for an intellegent & honest libertarian to support it. But some do. It’s embarassing.

  11. Graeme — so you support taking many hundreds of billions of dollars coercively from taxpayers to defend UN resolutions! It just gets better…

    Yeah, yeah… lots of things are important in life. Do it without my money. The only reason ever for stealing my money and taking my liberty is if you can show a significant net benefit to my society (Jason, you’re a utilitarian, help me out explaining this one).

    With the war on terror, and especially Iraq, you can’t. If you want to keep in your bubble of government-loving fear-mongering, you shouldn’t even try — because it’s impossible to justify this sad statist welfare-warfare joke.

    Then you go on with the famous socialist “I supported the government measure, but they just did it wrong”. Same is true for defenders of the Soviet Union. As I try to explain to you government-lovers… the choice isn’t between freedom and a perfect government. The choice is between freedom and a meddling, incompetent, self-serving changing set of politicians and bureaucrats with a complex set of competing priorities and agendas. If you had a clue about public policy you had to factor in the sorts of mistakes that were made… you had to factor in an eventual Democrat win in the US… you had to factor in Americans getting tired of the war… you had to factor in Iranian influence over the shi’ite majority in Iraq… you had to factor in all of this and then assume they’ll make another 100 mistakes. They’re government FFS.

    As for ignoring terrorists, I admit I’m overstating my point. We of course need to maintain our national defence internally as best we can and keep up a strong dissincentive. But if we skipped all the government-loving melodrama of the WoT then it would make little difference to our safety. Don’t be scared Graeme.

  12. For future lessons, please go to: http://www.bigbirdbrain.wordpress.com

  13. trails = trials

    opps

  14. Of course it was a show trial: Does it not seem strange that the verdict coincided with America’s Mid Term elections? Thus illustrating the Republicans aren’t just responsible for an unpopular war, paedophilia, corruption, unemployment & debt.

    The bad news was that the smoke screen wasn’t successful, eh Birdy?

  15. I would ask that on a solemn note, that as a mark respect, a moment of good thought be directed at the passing little Milty Freidman.

  16. “Iraq annoys me much more because it is impossible for an intellegent & honest libertarian to support it. But some do. It’s embarassing.”

    Not thats idiotic.

    Saddam broke the ceasefire. His country was a supporter of jihadism. And he was almost definitely involved with 9/11 in some capacity. If not the driving force behind it. We ought to stop being silly about this.

    The regime had to go but the soldiers didn’t have to stay. Nor were they needed for the front lines. Nor was it necessary for the Americans to allow the neighbouring countries to murder coalition soldiers and Iraqi civilians with impunity.

  17. Oh dear, this is embarrasing.

    Your first sentence doesn’t make sense. Is it English?

    Who cares if Saddam broke some old UN resolution? Not me.

    Iraq’s support of “jihadism” is marginal at best.

    Iraq had nothing to do with S11 and even Bush & friends have admitted that.

    And more to the point — the invasion gave little benefit to the west. Certainly nothing to match the huge price tag and growth in government. The only winners from the invasion are the government-lovers and tax-eaters.

    You should follow your own advice and stop being silly about this. You seem to be desperately searching under your bed for monsters in the hope that something will justify your increasingly shrill and irrational fear.

    And again you fall back on “gee, I wish the government did things better” argument. Wow. Here’s a headline for you: “Government makes mistake”. Well, fuck me. Who would have thought?

  18. “Who cares if Saddam broke some old UN resolution? Not me.”

    When the ceasefire is broken the war is still on. That the ceasefire agreement was backed by the UN is neither here nor there.

    And no I’m afraid you have not been able to alibi the regimes from involvement in 9/11 and least of all the Iraqi regime.

    This was simply a leftist/CIA tribal position that swallowed everything. There was nothing behind it at all.

  19. “And again you fall back on “gee, I wish the government did things better” argument. Wow. Here’s a headline for you: “Government makes mistake”. Well, fuck me. Who would have thought?”

    By the way thats a very good point. I mean its very easy to see how you could win these things. Reagan particularly was so effective he made it look easy. But in nearly every other case they’ve just made a hash of it.

  20. Breaking the details of the ceasefire does not need to lead to war. Indeed, violating some of the deails of ceasefires seems to be the rule rather than the exception. After WW1 the Turks were allowed to defend Turkish territory (which was supposed to be given up). After the Crimean War the Russians eventually started to build a navy in the Black Sea (which was specifically forbidden as part of the ceasefire). Etc, etc & blah blah. Breaking a ceasefire is a legal excuse for war, but you still shouldn’t fight unless there is a benefit. There wasn’t.

    The best opinion of those who know best suggest Iraq had no role in S11. The much more likely culprits was AQ & Osama. You say I haven’t alibied Iraq. Conversly, you haven’t given reason to convict and I find it hard to believe because it wasn’t in Iraq’s interest. It was exactly what AQ wanted to do and the evidence points overwhelmingly to them.

    If the “Saddam was behind S11” argument is the best you have left, you’ve almost admitted defeat.

    And given the shrinking quality of your pro-war arguments, perhaps it is time you started to give more consideration to the costs from war. Not just the trillions of tax money being eaten and the liberties being surrendered… but the way that war is the lifeblood of governments and always helps the statists.

  21. John
    Graeme believes that the CIA is run by Leftists. He’s really beyond redemption on this issue.

  22. “Breaking the details of the ceasefire does not need to lead to war.”

    It wasn’t the details Humphrey. And it was no slow evolution with a new Czar slowly buiding up a nuclear power industry of something like that.

    It was a state of war on both sides. With the Clinton administration bombing and trying on assasination attemps. And before that Saddam attempting to assasinate George Bush the Elder.

    You notice that the many attacks Saddam made that were thwarted…… Well of course thats a CIA success. But when attacks succeed well of course….. they acted alone.

    This was an ongoing war by both parties. You occupy two-thirds of Australian air-space, have UN bastards snooping around Australia, and you try bumping off John Howard… You are at war with Australia. Same goes the other way too.

    We are so motivated now to consider 9/11 coming out of a clear blue sky as a result of some homeless people. Cave-dwellers. Cave-dwellers linking up with a childrens crusade.

    This is MEDIEVAL in its stupidity. Although one admits that it might even be true. But whats stupid is to automatically take that as your default position.

    It used to be when an act of war like this happened you would look around and say to yourself…. “Who are we currently at war with?”

    But thats just a little bit TOO intelligent a question for this generation to be asking.

  23. I would say it was a detail. The main point of Iraq1 was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. They’re still out of Kuwait. And they were maintain a military capacity of some 10% the level of their 1991 capacity, so they weren’t really re-building in any dangerous way. Violations such as slow responses to UN weapons inspector requests is a detail.

    There was no real war between the US & Iraq before 2003. A few bombings and assasinations attempts should be seen as stand alone activities evaluated on their own merits.

    You make good points about why Iraq would continue to distrust the west (no-fly zone, UN spies etc). But these ongoing UN resolutions do not need to lead to an invasion. The invasion is still a stand alone act that should be judged on it’s own merits. It wasn’t inevitable. It was a choice.

    I don’t think S11 came out of the clear blue sky. Unlike many of the johnny-come-lately anti-terrorist types I have been well aware of the ongoing conflict with islamic socialism since well before 2001. There are plenty of terrorist strikes on the west every year and plenty of attempts at big strikes with low success rates but big consequences. S11 wasn’t a change in the conflict or an increase in risk, it was just one of the many big-but-unlikely attacks finally hitting home. If a 1 in 100 event happens once in 100 years that doesn’t prove a massive increase.

  24. No thats not right.

    It was pretty much a continuous war that the Clintonistas were playing down to the max.

    They were bombing all the time.

    Then playing up this SAUDI BILLIONAIRE JIVE. But Bin Ladens inheritance was only 7 million and it was all ripped off him in 96 in any case.

    He was a servent of the terrorist regimes. There can be no doubt about this because his act takes money, territory, protection and all the things only regimes can get you.

    Actually the most peaceful time of it was probably the early Bush the younger administration.

  25. This is a symantics debate. Doesn’t change the fact that the invasion was a stand alone decision that didn’t need to be taken. It should be defended on the basis of the consequences of the decision.

    The fact that the US was previously bombing Iraq does not create an extra benefit to the pro-invasion argument. It make no difference.

    btw — check out http://www.climateaudit.org for the best group of GW skeptics I’ve found on the net. I’m almost inspired enough to follow Jase’s advice to you and write an article for the Sketpics.

  26. Hey bird-bath… you owe me a beer. I’ve found all you could ever want to know about the whole watts per metre squared JIVE.

    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.htm

  27. hahaha
    you’ve got everyone talking like you now, Bird.

  28. “Doesn’t change the fact that the invasion was a stand alone decision that didn’t need to be taken.”

    Define “NEED”.

    Something is not the wrong thing to do on the basis that WE DON’T NEED TO DO IT.

    Something is the wrong thing to do…… in comparison to other alternatives. Staying home wasn’t an end of policy.

    No its by no means a semantic thing either.

    You cannot NOT be at war simply by changing the wording. Actually its JUST THIS ATTITUDE that led to 9/11 and is now getting all those people killed in Iraq these days. This notion that you can pretend you are not at war and war will pretend he’s not at you.
    >>>>>>>>>>

    Yeah thanks for the websites.

  29. Damn.

    Its pre-empted a thread I was going to start here. Its called: A planet where the air calls the oceans….

    Now I wasn’t going to say for a fact that the air cools the oceans on THIS planet (because I didn’t know the answer). Instead I was going to set up a hypothetical planet where this WOULD be the case for purposes of instruction.

    I’ll go through with it anyhow. But I want you to know that I was thinking of it all day today before I read that junk-science-thread.

  30. Junk-science things the same way as me then. That this watts per metre square JIVE is all a bit dubious.

    But they lack my BILE about it.

    I mean this is really stupid stuff.

    Can you guys now see why Lambert decided to run and hide?…. throwing a diversionary lie over his shoulder?

  31. “Note that we are concentrating on global mean temperature, as is the current fashion, although there is no evidence this is a particularly useful metric.”

    Yeah here’s an example. Whereas they just say this I’ll be walking around at work thinking…. Why is THAT the be all and end all with these morons?

    I’ve been thinking that they must be acting as if its a flat earth, always noon, and far enough away from the sun to get one quarter of the suns rays but with the exact same profile through the spectrum.

    So there are these dumb bastards. And their workings out, whether they know it or not…. would make sense on this flat-earth, always noon, far far away planet and WHERE THERE WAS NO OCEAN but yet the same amount of water vapour averaged out and constant through-out the flat earth.

    And then they send in the extra CO2 and YIPPY…… up comes the temperature just as you would expect in this make-believe world.

    And I’m just so fucking furious about this tax-eater science-worker alarmist stupidity.

    But I’ve been sitting on these suspicions for such a long time because I cannot prove that this is a fair representation of what the dumb bastards were doing.

    And its only because of what Humphries said in the two posts above that led me to think it would be worthwhile communicating why it was I was getting so pissed off with these alleged scientists who should know better.

    Now this is not to say that my made-up-example is a fair representation of what these CLOWNS are up to.

    But by Allah I know that there is a lot of dubious science going on here. Dressed up and hidden in lies, damn lies, statistics, and Lamberting.

  32. “Something is not the wrong thing to do on the basis that WE DON’T NEED TO DO IT.”

    I never said it was. I said it was wrong because it had more costs than benefits. I was responding to your argument that we needed to invade because Saddam wasn’t living up to the ceasefire.

    “This notion that you can pretend you are not at war and war will pretend he’s not at you.”

    I’ve never said that ignoring violence, terrorism, war, whatever will make it go away. My point was simply that the threat was so low (especially from Saddam) that it wasn’t worth the trillions of taxpayers dollars spent on a government program that would probably be screwed up anyway.

  33. “I never said it was. I said it was wrong because it had more costs than benefits”

    No no no. Just hang on there.

    You are responding to a retort I made to something YOU said.

    Yet you respond as though I was talking about your main ACCOUNTANTS-ONLY theme.

    If some states are at war with us and we don’t fight back then they can set up bases and project that war closer to home.

    Now you are dropping the context here. You are claiming that the threat was low?

    The threat is low WHEN?

    Are you saying that THE-THREAT-IS-LOW in that world where we project force against those regimes……. In that world where we project force and INTENTION against the regimes with enough virulence to control the battlespace?

    That we force the field of battle (psychological and physical) to where THEY are and not have it anywhere near where WE are?

    Or are you saying that THE-THREAT-IS-LOW in the world where we take your advice and pretend that these regimes are not part of a movement that wants us dead or converted to Islam or under their sway……

    We cannot disaggregate Saddam from all this. He was surely the most important individual in this symphony. Whereas Iran probably AS A COUNTRY was likely a more consistent terrorist practitioner all up.

    On the other hand Saudi Arabia was spending more money then anyone exporting hate incitement throughout the Middle East and the world. And on the other hand it was Pakistan that was nuclearising the Middle East.

    So its an whole hydra. And to atomise one part of it and claim that FOR THIS ATOMISED PART war wasn’t justified….

    Well if you take that approach you are going to get our people killed or under their sway.

  34. Graeme, you remind of me a small child you has just discovered the world is made of jelly. The real adults tell you that the world isn’t made of jelly but you’re not listening because you’re too busy insisting that you’re right. You will never learn that way.

    You’ve changed your argument again, which isn’t suprising because you don’t actually have a serious adult argument. Now you’re saying that Iraq was at war with the west. Funny. Look at the little scared boy and his fake jelly-world. Aren’t you cute.

    Iraq wasn’t at war with the west. It was America & friends that decided to start the war in 2003. Everyboy except you and your jelly-world-friends know this.

    You ask when the threat was low. If you mean the threat from terrorism against the west the answer is that it has been low since we started measuing it and probably long before that aswell.

    Sure, some people might want us to convert to Islam (though that’s not what the terrorists generally call for). And others want us to accept vegetarianism as the only truely evolved path for humns until we are saved by a race of super-intellegent aliens. If anybody wants to violate the laws of our country we do what we can to stop them. What we DON’T do is to then implement bad public policy that gives more costs than benefits simply because Graeme is scared shitless and wants to impose his irrational fear on us through his liberty-hating and tax-eating policies.

    Saddam was nothing like the most important person behind terrorism. You are delusional. He was behind no strikes against the west; has no substantive ties to any group that had struke the west; was the most effective leader in wiping out terrorism groups in his country (because the terrorist cells were anti-Saddam); and had only marginal contact with any terrorists (in giving money to the dead widows of Palestinian suicide bombers).

    You certainly can atomise each act. It is perfectly possible for American not to have gone into Iraq (do you seriously think it wasn’t?). You compare the “invade” with the “non-invade” world and find out which is better. The debate is over. The answer is in. The invasion was bad policy. Only the weird little boys in their fake jelly-world don’t know.

  35. Which terrorist cells were anti-Saddam?

    And on what basis did you figure that one out?

    Lets see a defense policy fella.

    Claiming that the terrorists were anti-Saddam doesn’t even begin to become a defense policy.

  36. “Saddam was nothing like the most important person behind terrorism. You are delusional. He was behind no strikes against the west; has no substantive ties to any group that had struke the west; was the most effective leader in wiping out terrorism groups in his country (because the terrorist cells were anti-Saddam); and had only marginal contact with any terrorists (in giving money to the dead widows of Palestinian suicide bombers).”

    “Saddam was nothing like the most important person behind terrorism……”

    Wrong. Saddam was wiithout a doubt, the most important INDIVIDUAL behind terrorism since the fall of the wall and the death of Ayatollah Komenei, No-one else even comes close.

    ” You are delusional……”

    Putting your head in the sand is no defense policy…..’

    “He was behind no strikes against the west….”

    Wrong.

    “…. has no substantive ties to any group that had struke the west….”

    Not merely wrong but delusional..”

    “… was the most effective leader in wiping out terrorism groups in his country (because the terrorist cells were anti-Saddam)……”

    Which group was THAT for fuchsakes? What are you taklking about? If you are the most important terrorist enabler and everyone in the region is in fear of you it is not surprising that you don’t have much of a terrorist problem yourself. But who on earth are you talking about in your latest head-in-the-sand fantasy. Which is not a defense policy.

    “,,,, and had only marginal contact with any terrorists (in giving money to the dead widows of Palestinian suicide bombers)……”

    No thats all make-believe.

  37. “You certainly can atomise each act. It is perfectly possible for American not to have gone into Iraq (do you seriously think it wasn’t?). You compare the “invade” with the “non-invade” world and find out which is better. The debate is over. The answer is in. The invasion was bad policy. Only the weird little boys in their fake jelly-world don’t know.”

    No you cannot atomise things in this way if you want to win a war.

    What is your defense policy?

    You are being an idiot. You cannot win by atomising things in this way.

    Name a single war thats been won by taking this approach?

    Name a single war thats been won using your head-in-the-sand technique.

  38. Sorry little lost jelly boy but I just can’t bring myself down to your standard any longer. You are free to go and pollute the world with your incoherent ramblings. Most of what you write is simply fiction, based on socialist assumptions, love of government and disregard for liberty. Your mind is so committed to defending your beloved government programs that rational thought now seems to you like the enemy.

    For example, of course you can atomise the Iraq war. Here’s how. You have a choice between invading Iraq or not. Simple. Even the fairy penguins that inhabit the dark corners of your jelly mind know this. But somehow you deny it. How pathetic. Your not even trying to make sense. You now seem to pride yourself on how idiotic you can sound.

    “look at me, I’m graeme and I believe it was impossible for america not to invade Iraq… it’s the laws of physics you see… they were just walking along and WOOPS, there they were in Iraq. Not their fault at all. Unavoidable”

    And then you pretend you haven’t heard of the conflicts between Saddam & the terrorist cells in Iraq. You pretend Saddam is behind anti-western terrorism. You pretend he was the biggest terrorist threat. All absolute jokes and you obviously have no evidence for the existence of your jelly world. You may as well tell me that the aliens up your arse have shown you that the pope and queen are infesting our children with drugs by putting fluride in the water. You don’t even want to know the truth.

    Fact: US didn’t have to invade Iraq. Fact: invading Iraq created a net cost for the west. Fact: the government shouldn’t do things unless it benefits the people. Clear consequence of logical thought: US governmet shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. The only way to disagree is if you think the government should spend money when it makes people worse off. This proves you’re a socialist government-loving tax-eating commie-wannabe sick excuse for a comedy.

    Surely you are just doing a parody of a really stupid, lying, inconsistent, confused government loving wanker? Surely no person with any self-respect would stoop to such levels of incoherence? You’re an embarassment Graeme. An absolute joke.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: