logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> On the hacked wikileaks emails
Dingo
post Oct 17 2016, 04:35 PM
Post #1


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



I am continually informed by outfits like Fox News that terrible things are revealed by the Russian hacked and Julian Assange distributed emails from the Clinton camp. So far when you remove the hype I am not seeing anything that goes much beyond standard issue backroom political gaming. But I may be missing something, thus this thread.

Here is one person's take on the hacked emails.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe...snap-story.html

QUOTE
Take a deep dive into the more than 10,000 Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks, and here’s what you’ll learn: Hillary Clinton is a careful, methodical, tightly-controlled politician. Her jokes, her tweets and even her purported ad libs are often scripted by aides. She hates to apologize, even when she admits she’s done something wrong, like keeping emails on a home server. She’s a progressive, but not an ideologue; she yearns for “rational, moderate voices” on both sides. Above all, she’s a pragmatist who’s willing to compromise — and to have “both a public and a private position” if that’s what it takes to make a deal.

Fainted yet?

“Politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way,” she told a housing group in 2014. “But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals … then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So you need both a public and a private position.”

In other words, she’s a Clinton — a Democrat who believes in progressive goals, but who’s willing to trim them, postpone them, even throw them under a bus (temporarily, anyway) when practical politics requires.


Questions for discussion

Are there any revelations coming out of the hacked emails that would suggest Hillary is unfit to be POTUS? If so explain.

Just for comparison purposes is there anything revealed that one would rate as worse than say the 40th worse thing offered by Trump? For instance?

Assuming there will be a continuing Trump wing of the republican party does the implicit alliance between them and the Russian government over using the emails to undermine Clinton's candidacy suggest a future where the republican party will be more sympathetic to Russian interests like saying annexing parts of the Ukraine?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 70)
droop224
post Nov 7 2016, 03:46 PM
Post #61


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
The CIA classifies a piece of information. Clinton receives that information (she has a security clearance.) She then discusses that information in an email on an unauthorized, unclassified email server. That's how easy it is to have correspondence originating from Clinton containing information some other Department classified.
So... someone else had to classify the information, correct? If it was classified, someone classified it, correct. If no one has classified a piece of information, then it is not classified, correct?


QUOTE
Didn't read the links and watch the videos, did you? If you had, you wouldn't be saying this.You're joking now, right? You still need to watch the videos.
This is your counter?? I'll address this entspeak "frame of mind" later.

QUOTE
Yes. And, 107 emails contained information that had been classified by someone prior to that email being sent. The fact that the emails themselves were not marked classified is irrelevant - the information those emails contained shouldn't have been shared over that system.
You are right and wrong... because relevancy depends on what we are talking about, doesn't it? And whether on purpose or by accident you are misconstruing what I am saying, because maybe you don't understand this basic fact of life. If we are talking about whether information IS or WAS classified, it is highly irrelevant to a discussion about whether it was marked or not marked classified. If we are discussing whether a reasonable person should have known the classification status of information, it being marked as such becomes HIGHLY relevant. Please tell me you grasp what I am saying here.

QUOTE
Uh. No. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Classification does not work the way you are claiming it does. Someone else classified the information, Droop. Secretary Clinton had access to information classified by other agencies... as part of her job. She does not get to determine, on her own, whether or not that information should be classified. She can not take information classified by the CIA and treat it as though it's not classified. And, given her position, she should know that the information is classified.
Everything you are saying(except what I put in bold), is not what I am saying nor is it my understanding of how classification works... its your straw man. You have even quoted me saying "Someone HAS to classify something for it to be classified." So how you can then turnaround and make it seem like I believe Clinton has sole dominion to classify data is beyond me... it's your straw man... knock yourself out, knocking it down.

Lets discuss the statement in bold real quick. What about her position would make her KNOW that information not marked classified is classified? This is where markings become HIGHLY relevant. If it is unmarked and you don't KNOW it IS classified then you have to FEEL it should be classified. I believe there are cases where Clinton staff thought that they should discuss matter over more secure channels. This happens because we have different mindsets as human beings on what meets the threshold of being marked a certain classification... and we have different political ideals of how we err on keeping secrets from the people.

QUOTE
If I call you and tell you classified information that someone else gave me (and I know the information is classified), is that information no longer classified because I didn't inform you that it was classified? Am I still guilty of sharing classified information even though our phone call wasn't marked classified? If classified information is only classified when "marked," then giving away secrets is easy... just make a telephone call or include it in an email that isn't "marked" classified. Espionage made easy by Droop224. You do see the issue there, yeah?
Hopefully, by now you can grasp what I am saying and apply it to the scenario. If you get classified information, call me and tell me the information, then I go on a message board discussing what I heard... why should I get in trouble. There has to be some way in which I have been told the classified information... is classified, right? You knew it was classified, but if you never told me how did I? That's why we mark classified information, or send it over a secure channel, read someone into a meeting or conference. Because if you just call me "Hey droop, blah blah blah" on my cell phone I am not going to know it was classified, unless I make a determination. So markings is not irrelevant as to whether someone should know something is classified. Basic logic.

QUOTE
But, even though there were no charges, there should have been consequences.
Like what?

QUOTE
You're having enough trouble understanding how classified information works (again, the facts are all available in the links and videos I provided), so, since the Superdelegates are an even greater stretch from the topic of the thread, I'm not going to continue debating that. You've provided no support for the claim that classification works in the way you describe - the support that it works the way I describe is in the videos I linked to.
No I'm really not having trouble understanding how classification works.. nor how you work for that matter. You put up a 1 hour video and a 4 hour video and tell me to "go look at that". No. First I've seen clips of both because I am an avid news watcher. Now the 15 minute clip, no problem. Read the OIG I been did that, but I did read it again... no problem. None of these are contradicting what I am saying, ironically what you are saying is being contradicted.

Comey explains that they were unable to find any historical evidence of when they recommended prosecution for what Hillary did. Yet you say "something should happen" Comey speaks about how the State department in general handled classified document in a lax manner, yet you and others want to put it AAALL on Hillary, even when it was not marked. Comey says unmarked classified emails were sent and received by Clinton, but you state there is no reason to believe that these email originated anywhere BUT Hillary.

This in part is why I keep saying it is a witch hunt. Even when the FBI say in our history we only prosecute when behaviors A, B, and/or C was present... none of these behaviors were exhibited by Sec. Clinton... the response is.. "still... burn that trick anyways!!"

As for Bernie and the superdelegates.. you are right.. way off topic.

Lastly.. was there an investigation to go through ALL of Powell emails or Rice's aides emails upon finding out that they were using these private accounts for government work?













Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Nov 7 2016, 04:38 PM
Post #62


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Hillary Clinton's signed agreement to protect classified information..

She is obligated to protect classified information - marked or unmarked. It is her job to recognize classified information... she was the damned Secretary of State, for chrissakes! If the Secretary of State can't recognize top secret signals intelligence information when she sees it, there's a major problem.

She gave her emails to her lawyers (who, again, did not have the appropriate clearance to handle classified information)... this classified information was put on a USB drive and stored at her lawyers' office. Through her negligence, top secret classified information was removed from its proper place. That is a breach of this agreement and, technically, a violation of the law.

I watched all of the videos (when they aired). I did so because of the amount of misinformation coming from both sides of this issue. Everything I've stated is from those videos and documents.

As for if they are investigating the others, I don't know. The FBI doesn't normally discuss investigations. The only reason we're hearing what we are about this one is because some doofus decided it was okay to go aboard a certain plane and have a half hour private discussion with the person whose responsibility it is to decide whether to charge his wife... and the doofus who had that responsibility let him aboard - thereby calling into public question the impartiality of the DoJ in her case. I know that some in Congress have asked that AOL be subpoenaed to see if they have copies of his emails. As for Rice's aides, using private email wasn't against the rules and they did not use them exclusively as Clinton did, so... being that they followed policy and there is no indication that they sent or received classified email using those accounts, why do they need to be investigated? What is the probable cause? They had probable cause for Clinton because they found classified information in the emails she delivered to State... that's what prompted the Intelligence Community IG to contact the FBI in the first place.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Nov 7 2016, 06:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 7 2016, 06:29 PM
Post #63


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,345
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Huh, it seems you just can't trust claimed wikileaks, not that this has been a problem for me. Of course there's faking going on -- it's freaking electronic ink, after all:

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-electio...morefromreuters

Then there's Comey backing off his questionable act of impacting, maybe unintentionally but obviously nonetheless, the election:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/com...ions/index.html

There are calls for him to resign. Meh, he's a short-timer no matter what after this gigantic splash into Lake O-mee-go-nau. Trump would have him drawn-quartered (use the horses, eh?), and HRC would not give him a second look, unless one of steel-magnolian disdain.

It's getting to be where you don't know what to believe. You know, like always before?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Nov 7 2016, 07:09 PM
Post #64


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 7 2016, 02:29 PM) *
Huh, it seems you just can't trust claimed wikileaks, not that this has been a problem for me. Of course there's faking going on -- it's freaking electronic ink, after all:

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-electio...morefromreuters
The article doesn't claim the fakes came from Wikileaks.

Comey's term is up in 2023.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Nov 7 2016, 07:10 PM
Post #65


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Hillary Clinton's signed agreement to protect classified information..

She is obligated to protect classified information - marked or unmarked. It is her job to recognize classified information... she was the damned Secretary of State, for chrissakes! If the Secretary of State can't recognize top secret signals intelligence information when she sees it, there's a major problem.
Then I guess we got a MAJOR problem entspeak, Because that is precisely what all the evidence points to... ignorance. A crap load of people not just Hillary Clinton that did not know. Now, I could argue that the document you provided is missing key signatures thus it lacks validity. But that is unnecessary unless you want to be uber-technical. Of course Hillary Clinton had an obligation to protect classified information, but no more so than every other federal government employee who holds a clearance.

But lucky for me and any other person that has served or worked for the federal government that the FBI doesn't investigate and prosecute you because you happen to have an email that is classified at a higher level in your inbox. The FBI even stated that there were "employees" that sent and received these emails. Did they get investigated? Are they being prosecuted? Because regardless of what you think, prosecution is not the normal response to a spillage.

QUOTE
She gave her emails to her lawyers (who, again, did not have the appropriate clearance to handle classified information)... this classified information was put on a USB drive and stored at her lawyers' office. Through her negligence, top secret classified information was removed from its proper place. That is a breach of this agreement and, technically, a violation of the law.
Again, you are both right and missing the broader point.

1. If you understand classification like you say you do then you understand that the mishandling does not start with her allowing lawyers to put the information on a USB. At know point does she know there is classified information, because in her mind she doesn't do classified work on her private email. She is just trying to do the right thing from a records management perspective, ensuring that dept of State gets their email, while not giving her personal emails to the State Dept. The minute the classified document got on her server you had a "mishandling of classified materials"... however in the same vein, the minute the information got in the email box of a State Dept employee.. you have "a mishandling of classified materials"

Do you understand what I am saying thus far, and do you have any contentions?

2. If you have time read this https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fiv...ba64_story.html I know you believe I don't understand classification, but the truth is my depth of understanding it far exceeds someone you understands from simply academic standpoint, who has never actually worked with classified documents.

3. Understand this simple truth. If Clinton had never created a domain and added an email server to it, she and her aids would have mishandled classified information to the exact same degree. Because neither Gmail, Hotmail, yahoo, GWB43, or State.gov have email systems classified at a level to send or receive classified data at any level. The mishandling of information you are so upset about happens quite frequently, I wish I could find a statistic on it... but then, that statistic would likely be classified. My point is again the scrutiny and the demand for "something to be done" is what is unique, not the mishandling of information. There is only one aspect of the whole Clinton scandal that I think is quite unique and that is she actually had her own email server. That is "dang, who the freak she think she is moment", but.. nothing about that is illegal, so it is moot.

Even if the FBI admitted that they have never prosecuted someone for the things Mrs Clinton actually did wrong.

QUOTE
I watched all of the videos (when they aired). I did so because of the amount of misinformation coming from both sides of this issue. Everything I've stated is from those videos and documents
I'm asking you to point out what in a 4 hour video discredits what I am saying. If I make a statement and your response is "look at the video" that IMO is inappropriate debating. if there is something that discredits my statements, you should state what it is...or... don't say I am wrong.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Nov 7 2016, 08:34 PM
Post #66


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



I call your choice not to view the videos lazy debating. Getting the facts can be time consuming, yes. But, it is not my responsibility as a debater to spoon feed you the facts. I'm not going to scroll through a 4 hour video to find pull quotes simply because you are choosing not to be fully informed on this particular issue. You have the opportunity to become knowledgeable regarding the particulars of this investigation or you can choose to remain ignorant with regard to them. If you don't know the facts regarding this particular situation, then you cannot credibly debate it. You certainly don't have a leg to stand on coming in to tell me I don't know the facts.

The only source you've cited is an opinion piece by someone who has no clue as to what was in the 107 emails in question, and, therefore, does not actually contradict what I've stated. I agree that it sets the tone for the complications of classification, but since we don't actually know exactly what was classified in those emails, the article doesn't address the issue. The FBI saw the emails. I have no reason to disagree with the facts they presented. He said, given the nature of these emails, that a Secretary of State should've known that particular information was classified. I don't believe Comey lied. You have provided nothing to counter that claim. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion that the negligence law is unconstitutional and I think the case should have gone forward. Her lack of intent and the fact that no actual harm appears to have come from it would, as in other cases of negligence, been a consideration at sentencing - she might simply have been fined or given probation. But, as I said, even if she wasn't charged, this is not "nothing," and there still should have been some form of disciplinary action.

All the necessary signatures are on the document. The witness signature is redacted and not having the accepted signature would mean nothing in a court. She signed it, it was witnessed, the fact that she had the position and received a security clearance is evidence of the government's acceptance. No judge would see that another way. The agreement is perfectly valid. As for the debrief... well, we don't know what happened there, but that's signed when she leaves and has no impact on the validity of the first part of the agreement.

Again, if this was solely about using a private email server, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Her server admin had no security clearance - he didn't even work for the State Department - and she gave him the ability to access these emails. That wouldn't have happened if she used a State.gov address. Her lawyers didn't have the appropriate clearances and she allowed them to take the emails off her server and store them at their offices. That wouldn't have happened if she used a State.gov address. Your argument regarding a claim that she didn't know there was classified information on them is meaningless when it comes to negligence. Many people who engage in negligence "don't know"... that's why the standard is with regard to what a reasonable person in that position should have known. The FBI saw the emails, spoke with the agencies who classified the information contained in them, and came to the conclusion that she should have known. What evidence do you have that their conclusion is wrong? If she knew, that would mean intent and we'd be talking about a different law, not gross negligence.

As for the "employees," they were all part of the investigation... the investigation was not solely restricted to Clinton. As I said earlier, Clinton was not the only person with a clintonemail address... she had people who worked for her who also had email addresses on that account.

I worked for a time at an aerospace company that dealt with government contracts. I am also familiar with how classification works.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Nov 7 2016, 09:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 8 2016, 01:49 PM
Post #67


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,345
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(entspeak @ Nov 7 2016, 03:09 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 7 2016, 02:29 PM) *
Huh, it seems you just can't trust claimed wikileaks, not that this has been a problem for me. Of course there's faking going on -- it's freaking electronic ink, after all:

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-electio...morefromreuters
The article doesn't claim the fakes came from Wikileaks.

Comey's term is up in 2023.

Did you miss the point that electronic ink is insanely easy to fake and alter? Don't believe half of what you read (19th century) and hardly anything claiming to be leaked electronically (21st century).

Some folks are indeed calling for Comey's resignation. Doesn't look very good for him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Nov 8 2016, 03:54 PM
Post #68


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 8 2016, 09:49 AM) *
Did you miss the point that electronic ink is insanely easy to fake and alter? Don't believe half of what you read (19th century) and hardly anything claiming to be leaked electronically (21st century).

Yes, and for Wikileaks to do that would hurt Wikileaks. It makes no sense for them to fake documents. But, again, the article you cite does not claim, nor is there any evidence that the fake documents came from Wikileaks. They claim that the fakes are taking advantage of the Wikileaks dump.

QUOTE
Some folks are indeed calling for Comey's resignation. Doesn't look very good for him.

He has a 10 year term for a reason. I don't think he's going anywhere. He didn't violate policy, he didn't violate the Hatch Act. No need to resign.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 8 2016, 04:56 PM
Post #69


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,345
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(entspeak @ Nov 8 2016, 11:54 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 8 2016, 09:49 AM) *
Did you miss the point that electronic ink is insanely easy to fake and alter? Don't believe half of what you read (19th century) and hardly anything claiming to be leaked electronically (21st century).

Yes, and for Wikileaks to do that would hurt Wikileaks. It makes no sense for them to fake documents. But, again, the article you cite does not claim, nor is there any evidence that the fake documents came from Wikileaks. They claim that the fakes are taking advantage of the Wikileaks dump.

QUOTE
Some folks are indeed calling for Comey's resignation. Doesn't look very good for him.

He has a 10 year term for a reason. I don't think he's going anywhere. He didn't violate policy, he didn't violate the Hatch Act. No need to resign.

Yes there is: Demonstrated foolishness, which pretty much sums up the Republican campaign this season.

Time for a closer look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxmRv50E_nE

Trump can't handle Twitter, and Comey is quite clueless about making statements about the unknown but readily knowable.

If you can't handle Twitter, you can't handle the nuke codes; if you can't understand global electronic searching files of emails, you just might be a red neck.

But you might be right that Comey gets to keep his job in an HRC admin. I just have my doubts, since others have resigned the position before, and it is possible for a sitting POTUS to fire him:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/james-comey-...uence-election/

QUOTE
But only one of those directors was ever fired by a president — William S. Sessions who had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, but who was beset by allegations of ethics violations, such as disguising private vacations as law enforcement business, and using a chauffeured government limousine for personal transportation.

Because firing an FBI director is certain to bring accusations of playing politics with law enforcement against any president who chooses to do so, Clinton repeatedly asked Sessions to resign his post. But Sessions refused to step down.

So in July of 1993, saying that he had been advised by then-attorney general Janet Reno that Sessions “can no longer effectively lead the bureau and law enforcement community,” Clinton fired the FBI director — eventually appointing Freeh in his place.


Huh, HRC's husband did it. Seems to be cause for Comey to sweat up a storm today.

It is kinda strange to talk about wikileaks as if it's a business with product rep to maintain. Here I thought it was just some weired little guy trying to be important in this big old world. You know, lacking anything else like talent and ability.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Nov 8 2016, 05:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 8 2016, 11:12 PM
Post #70


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Hillary can't handle a security clearance.

This is seriously gobsmackingly incompetent** beyond belief.

QUOTE
Santos also had access to a highly secure room called an SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) that diplomatic security agents set up at Whitehaven, according to FBI notes from an interview with Abedin.
From within the SCIF, Santos — who had no clearance — “collected documents from the secure facsimile machine for Clinton,” the FBI notes revealed.
Just how sensitive were the papers Santos presumably handled? The FBI noted Clinton periodically received the Presidential Daily Brief — a top-secret document prepared by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies — via the secure fax.



**Yes, CRIMINALLY so. I can only imagine what would happen to a servicemember who brought a random janitor into a military SCIF and let them run around and grab documents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Nov 9 2016, 05:36 AM
Post #71


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 8 2016, 05:12 PM) *
Hillary can't handle a security clearance.

This is seriously gobsmackingly incompetent** beyond belief.

QUOTE
Santos also had access to a highly secure room called an SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) that diplomatic security agents set up at Whitehaven, according to FBI notes from an interview with Abedin.
From within the SCIF, Santos — who had no clearance — "collected documents from the secure facsimile machine for Clinton," the FBI notes revealed.
Just how sensitive were the papers Santos presumably handled? The FBI noted Clinton periodically received the Presidential Daily Brief — a top-secret document prepared by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies — via the secure fax.



**Yes, CRIMINALLY so. I can only imagine what would happen to a servicemember who brought a random janitor into a military SCIF and let them run around and grab documents.


Good catch Mrs. P.

The standard to which the Clinton's are subject to is not the same standard for everyone else. I am sure most understand that dynamic by now.

Foreign governments pay the Clinton Foundation good money for said briefings. Sanctioned racketeering pure and simple.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 18th, 2018 - 07:26 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.