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!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> 5 felony indictments- yet no outrage?, Where are the calls for resignation?
CruisingRam
post Oct 30 2005, 12:07 AM
Post #1


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

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



One of the great turning points in my life politically was the continueing and ongoing witchhunt by Ken Star and Rush Limbaugh and right wing radio and TV. It really disgusted me- and disgusted me even more that we spent 88 million dollars to find out that Clinton lied about sex- big whoop. When you mention this to somebody that really gets worked up about Clinton- they always wring thier hands and cry "it is about sullying the office, it is about lying"-

Well, here we have 5 FELONY indictments dealing with actual TREASONOUS things like outing a spy! Hello- how much worse could it actually be than lying about sex?

Yet- all the moralizers of the Clinton era are strangely quiet about calling for impeachment against GW and Cheney, and all too willing to wait for the trial to play out etc- something they were absolutely NOT willing to do with Clinton.

Carlitoesway said this in fact- in a tongue in cheeck quote that shows how unconcerned he was about the whole thing "The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation. "

Not near as bad as lying about sex eh? LOl w00t.gif

So my question is this:

Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?

Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?

If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 33)
TedN5
post Nov 1 2005, 04:46 PM
Post #21


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
(Amlord)
He was "throwing sand in the eyes" to confuse his role in the Plame outing. That's what I got out of the Fitzgerald press conference.

Fitzgerald cannot determine if the outing was a crime because he could not figure out Libby's motives or knowledge at the time, which are key pieces of evidence. Without this knowledge, the underlying crime cannot be prosecuted.

Fitzgerald was very careful to say that this investigation had nothing to do with the motives for war. He was very careful to expressly state that those who were for the war OR against the war should not use this case to argue their side. This case was about finding the truth and had little to do with the war in Iraq.


What I got out of his statement was that he couldn't determine the extent of the crime because "sand was thrown in his eye." Who else was involved? What was their motive? You have never answered the question, why would a skilled lawyer like Libby take the perilous path of lying to investigators and the grand jury just to protect himself from being implicated in a crime that conventional wisdom implies would be difficult to prosecute? My answer is that he was protecting others and trying to keep the entire scheme, of managing intelligence to promote that war followed by attacking critics like Wilson, from coming unravelled.

Of course Fitzgerald was careful to state the limits of his investigation. He was hired to investigate the Plame outing and attempts to hide it. It would exceed his authority if he went beyond that, unless he had clear evidence of a conspiracy and evidence he could clearly tie to a motive.

However, there is lots of other public evidence beyond Fitzgerald's initial indictments that justifies drawing logical conclusions. To suggest that the public's outrage should be limited to the narrow confines of Fitzgerald's statement is ludicrous! We are witness to a clear pattern of false and hyped administration statements leading up to the war, we have seen the British secret Downing Street memos which clearly state what the administration was up to in the build up to war, and we now even have administration insiders like Wilkerson calling the Cheney/Rumsfeld axsis a "cabal" that shut others in the bureaucracy out of decision making and left them confused when trying to carryout decisions that were made. All or us should be outraged and demanding a serious impartial investigation of the uses and misuses of intelligence prior to the preemptive invasion.

Edited to add article link that details the same conclusion.

Act for Change Article

This post has been edited by TedN5: Nov 1 2005, 07:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogurt
post Nov 1 2005, 09:07 PM
Post #22


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 132
Member No.: 5,162
Joined: June-20-05

From: PA, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 29 2005, 08:07 PM)
Well, here we have 5 FELONY indictments dealing with actual TREASONOUS  things like outing a spy!


It should be apparent to anyone who has read up on this that she was no more "outed" by Scooter than I could "out" Ellen Degenerate.

Given the months they have been investigating, I have to believe they would have charged him if they could. But when your face is plastered on the front of a magazine with, at least national, circulation, it's pretty tough to convince anyone you are "under cover". It's also been reported that investigators talked to her neighbors, and that they all knew. Likewise, her husband introduced her at parties as his "CIA wife".

Pretty soon I expect to start seeing posts about Rove in the Grassy Knoll, he has spent some time in Texas after all....

If he lied to the grand jury, he should be punished. It will very likely be more than Clinton did. A lie is a lie is a lie, and it's wrong, and it's illegal when you are under oath. At this point, it's all he's being charged with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
smorpheus
post Nov 1 2005, 10:48 PM
Post #23


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 226
Member No.: 2,083
Joined: December-27-03

From: Santa Monica, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



QUOTE(Yogurt @ Nov 1 2005, 01:07 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 29 2005, 08:07 PM)
Well, here we have 5 FELONY indictments dealing with actual TREASONOUS  things like outing a spy!


It should be apparent to anyone who has read up on this that she was no more "outed" by Scooter than I could "out" Ellen Degenerate.

Given the months they have been investigating, I have to believe they would have charged him if they could. But when your face is plastered on the front of a magazine with, at least national, circulation, it's pretty tough to convince anyone you are "under cover". It's also been reported that investigators talked to her neighbors, and that they all knew. Likewise, her husband introduced her at parties as his "CIA wife".

Pretty soon I expect to start seeing posts about Rove in the Grassy Knoll, he has spent some time in Texas after all....

If he lied to the grand jury, he should be punished. It will very likely be more than Clinton did. A lie is a lie is a lie, and it's wrong, and it's illegal when you are under oath. At this point, it's all he's being charged with.


Arrgh. I've been listening to this conservative talking point for almost a year now. If outing Plame was not a breech of security than why did:

A.) Karl Rove lie about doing it?
B.) Dick Cheney lie about knowing who did it?
C.) Scooter Libby lie about doing it?
(You can insist that this is just an "indictment" but I think we all know lying occurred, we're just trying to figure out if it's 'criminal' lying.)
D.) McCellan say if someone in Bush's staff was involved in outing Plame they would be ousted from the White House?

Because they like committing perjury and lying to the American Press Corp?

Yes there are different degrees of lies. Clearly, outing an undercover to the national press is signficantly more severe of a lie when we're talking treason, than lieing about sexual liasons in the Whitehouse.

This post has been edited by smorpheus: Nov 1 2005, 10:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Argonaut
post Nov 2 2005, 01:22 AM
Post #24


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Member No.: 2,263
Joined: January-23-04

From: State of Jefferson
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(smorpheus @ Nov 1 2005, 03:48 PM)
If outing Plame was not a breech of security than why did:

A.) Karl Rove lie about doing it?
B.) Dick Cheney lie about knowing who did it?
C.) Scooter Libby lie about doing it?
(You can insist that this is just an "indictment" but I think we all know lying occurred, we're just trying to figure out if it's 'criminal' lying.)
D.) McCellan say if someone in Bush's staff was involved in outing Plame they would be ousted from the White House?
The preceeding is speculation. What follows is fact:

A.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Karl Rove of lying about anything. Nor has Rove been proven guilty of having done so. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.

B.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Dick Cheney of lying about anything. Nor has Cheney been proven guilty of having done so. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.

C.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Libby of "doing it" (violating law protecting covert agents). He has accused (indicted) Libby of obstucting justice by misleading investigators and lying to a grand Jury about from whom he first heard her name and identity. Libby has not yet been proven to be guilty of those charges. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.


D.)Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) anyone in the White House of being "involved" in unlawfully revealing the identity of a covert agent. Nor has anyone in the White House been found guilty of unlawfully revealing the identity of a covert agent.

I can only speculate that the reason "why" McClellan anounced that anyone in the administration found guilty of being "involved" in the unlawful revealing of the identity of a covert agent would be "ousted", is that Presidents usually don't like to keep convicted felons on the payroll. It's just bad PR! Or perhaps it was just meaningless rhetoric....are convicted felons even legally allowed to remain in office in the executive (or any other) branch of the Government? hmmm.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogurt
post Nov 2 2005, 08:58 PM
Post #25


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 132
Member No.: 5,162
Joined: June-20-05

From: PA, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Argonaut @ Nov 1 2005, 09:22 PM)
What follows is fact:

A.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Karl Rove of lying about anything. Nor has Rove been proven guilty of having done so. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.

B.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Dick Cheney of lying about anything. Nor has Cheney been proven guilty of having done so. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.

C.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Libby of "doing it" (violating law protecting covert agents). He has accused (indicted) Libby of obstucting justice by misleading investigators and lying to a grand Jury about from whom he first heard her name and identity. Libby has not yet been proven to be guilty of those charges. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.


D.)Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) anyone in the White House of being "involved" in unlawfully revealing the identity of a covert agent. Nor has anyone in the White House been found guilty of unlawfully revealing the identity of a covert agent.


Well put, the only thing I might add is the only proven liar (by his own words) are her husband. As Max Boot put it:
QUOTE
The problem here is that the one undisputed liar in this whole sordid affair doesn't work for the administration. In his attempts to turn his wife into an antiwar martyr, Joseph C. Wilson IV has retailed more whoppers than Burger King.

The least consequential of these fibs was his denial that it was his wife who got him sent to Niger in February 2002 to check out claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later stated, in a bipartisan report, that evidence indicated it was Mrs. Wilson who "had suggested his name for the trip." By leaking this fact to the news media, Libby and other White House officials were merely setting the record straight — not, as Wilson would have it, punishing his Mata Hari wife.
(Empasis added)

Joe Wilson Outed

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
smorpheus
post Nov 2 2005, 11:05 PM
Post #26


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 226
Member No.: 2,083
Joined: December-27-03

From: Santa Monica, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



QUOTE(Argonaut @ Nov 1 2005, 05:22 PM)


A.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Karl Rove of lying about anything. Nor has Rove been proven guilty of having done so. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.



My point must have been missed in your reply. Even if you honestly believe that these people haven't been lying about outing Plame, if outing Plame is not an issue as Yogurt has repeatedly argued in this thread, than why are reporters going to jail? Why has Fitzgerald been working two years on this case? Simple government incompetence? Investigation into nothing?

Why have McCellan and Bush both acknwoledged that outing this person is a bad thing?! Please, just stop implying that this is a minor incident. If any of these people were in fact involved in the ousting of Plame, they will no longer work in the White House, and they know it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carlitoswhey
post Nov 2 2005, 11:21 PM
Post #27


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,094
Member No.: 3,059
Joined: May-8-04

From: chicago
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



I hesitate to bring this up, but we have an actual covert CIA operation exposed on the front page of the Chicago Tribune, NY Times and Washington Post today. To borrow a phrase, where's the outrage?

Add to this the earlier reports that "outed" private air carriers who were used to render Al Qaeda dudes from Europe to Gitmo, and one could get the idea that sometimes "outing" CIA operations is good, but other times bad? Either way, their sources were leaking classified data, right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
La Herring Rouge
post Nov 3 2005, 04:00 AM
Post #28


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 367
Member No.: 1,955
Joined: December-7-03

From: West Hartford, CT
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



I think that one would have to be delusional to think that this investigation is ONLY about the outing of Plame and Libby's indictment. There is clearly a depth to this investigation that has not been made public yet. Fitzgerald had a whole team of investigators in Italy and they are still working there as far as I know.

In this transscript there are a few interesting points made.
Apparently it is possible that more people have already been indicted:
QUOTE
JUAN GONZALEZ: But how would it be possible to have sealed indictments? Would the actual people indicted be notified, or even they would not know that they had been indicted?

SCOTT HORTON: They would not be notified of the fact that they’d be indicted, and neither would the public.


Either way there is clearly a bigger agenda here than the last indictments.
If we had ONLY the fact that the grand jury was extended on this case we would be able to reasonably assume that there is more to come. A judge would not let Fitzgerald extend this thing based on "gut feeling" or a "deep desire to nail the Republicans". There is substance propping open this door. If you don't believe so then you don't believe in our legal system.

More about the Italian/Niger connection in that transcript:
QUOTE
we find out that the head of Italian military intelligence came to meet with a White House official, which is very unusual. He met with Steve Hadley, who has also been someone who has been identified as part of a kind of alleged conspiracy in the White House to eventually out Joseph Wilson's wife to the media as a C.I.A. operative, kind of as retaliation for Joseph Wilson pushing back on these false Niger uranium claims.


Italy's Prime Minister recently denied that meeting happened.

Let's look at another article to clear up some other confusions:
Yes, it has been said in this thread that the UK still backs its claims about the yellowcake in Niger. However, those claims were based upon the forged documents!
QUOTE
The same forgeries in turn became the basis for a British intelligence report that credited the belief Saddam was trying to buy uranium. (The British government has never publicly conceded that its report was based solely on the forgeries from Italy, but when the International Atomic Energy Agency asked for copies of whatever else it had to document Saddam's shopping spree, not a single document was forthcoming.) The UK report was the one that George W. Bush cited in his State of the Union address, and thus did the administration skirt, barely, any citation of the forged documents themselves.


This was a brilliant, underhanded way of skirting responsibility. Bush can shrug his shoulders and say, "But they told me so" if he is ever called into a grand jury. Way to be responsible for your actions. I thought he was a Republican..you know..pull yourself up by the bootstraps and all....


I'm also tired of the beating of this dead horse. YES, Plame did suggest her husband could help in Niger!!! But she did not have the authority to send him there or even give him the job. She happened to be married to a former ambassador to the place who had lots of old connections that were unavailable to the more recent ambassador. I don't believe it was even a paid position. Perhaps it was a devious, anti-American plot for the Wilson's to acrue frequent flyer miles on the government's dime?!?!

Finally, there is at least ONE solid piece of evidence leading toward a possible indictment of Rove and possibly Ari Fleischer. In this article you wil lfind that, seven days before the "outing" Ari Fleischer and Colin Powell were known to have read a memo about Wilson and Plame. The memo was marked "secret". Fleischer denies having seen the memo despite the fact another ex-staffer testified that he was seen reading it on Airforce 1.


Anyway, read at least the last linked article, or search for yourself in order to find a list of contradictions and unanswered questions from the White House. There is definately a scourge in the House of Denmark. I think Fitzgerald is looking for mroe than a few charges on one official. Whether or not he gets them is another thing..but there are certainly crimes that need punishing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Nov 3 2005, 06:36 AM
Post #29


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
(carlitoswhey)
I hesitate to bring this up, but we have an actual covert CIA operation exposed on the front page of the Chicago Tribune, NY Times and Washington Post  today. To borrow a phrase, where's the outrage?

Add to this the earlier reports that "outed" private air carriers who were used to render Al Qaeda dudes from Europe to Gitmo, and one could get the idea that sometimes "outing" CIA operations is good, but other times bad? Either way, their sources were leaking classified data, right?


This is old ground. You brought up a similar point under another topic. I pointed out then that there was a huge difference between someone sworn to uphold government secrets and secret personnel leaking information to deliberately reveal the identity of a covert person for political gain and a news outlet or human rights group carefully investigating and revealing something they considered nefarious that they weren't sworn to protect.

That they considered the information something that the government shouldn't be doing and therefore worthy of exposure is obvious in the article.


QUOTE
It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA's internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing.

Host countries have signed the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as has the United States. Yet CIA interrogators in the overseas sites are permitted to use the CIA's approved "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," some of which are prohibited by the U.N. convention and by U.S. military law. They include tactics such as "waterboarding," in which a prisoner is made to believe he or she is drowning.
WA Post Article.

This is precisely the kind of activity that the McCain Amendment is trying to reestablish as illegal. Just how do you expect a democracy to function if there is no way of finding out what our government is doing.

This post has been edited by TedN5: Nov 3 2005, 06:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemov
post Nov 16 2005, 08:34 PM
Post #30


******
sleeping is giving in...

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 448
Member No.: 5,152
Joined: June-17-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Here is more fuel for thought.
QUOTE
Both Woodward and Downie said they are not sure that The Post could have done anything with Woodward's 2003 conversations because they were conducted on an off-the-record basis. Woodward said the unnamed official told him about Plame "in an offhand, casual manner . . . almost gossip" and that "I didn't attach any great significance to it."
Woodward said he had passed along a tip about Plame to Post reporter Walter Pincus, who was writing about Wilson in June 2003, but Pincus has said he does not recall any such conversation.
Woodward said he realized that his June 2003 conversation with the unnamed official had greater significance after Libby was portrayed in an indictment as having been the first administration official to tell a reporter, the Times's Miller, about Plame. Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak disclosed Plame's CIA role on July 14, 2003.


I will be interested to see how this is spun politically. Maybe no one will even care. The “alleged” crimes can be used poltically long after anyone even cares about the truth anymore.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Dec 4 2005, 10:56 PM
Post #31


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



I hope everyone is still keeping an eye on Fitzgerald's investigation. Here is an article that discusses Rove's continuing jeopardy, the role of Viveca Novak (the reporter working for Time Magazine who recently became another witness in the case), and speculation on other issues surrounding the investigation.

QUOTE
But the fact remains, several sources close to the investigation said, that Rove is in serious legal jeopardy. According to sources, Fitzgerald is expected to decide before the end of the year whether to seek an indictment against Rove for obstruction of justice and making false statements to Justice Department, FBI investigators, and the grand jury on three separate occasions, for failing to disclose a conversation he had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003 about Plame Wilson.

According to these sources, unless Novak, who is scheduled to testify before a grand jury this week about her conversation with Luskin in 2004, provides evidence that can convince the grand jury that Rove genuinely forgot he spoke with Cooper in July 2003, and that only when Novak "casually" told Luskin a year later that Cooper obtained his information about Plame Wilson directly from Rove did Rove remember, the man known as the "architect" will most likely find himself facing a criminal indictment. 


This post has been edited by TedN5: Dec 4 2005, 10:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whyshouldi
post Dec 5 2005, 06:54 AM
Post #32


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 114
Member No.: 5,593
Joined: November-1-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Natural Law Party



This debate is funny, on one side you have all the conservatives like "whatever dude" and then the anti conservatives like "feed him to the lions man"

Sorry, I just could not help but to notice that.

I think one of the reasons this case will take so long is because of the people involved. Far be it from me to say power can have an effect on your ability to break laws and get away with stuff, but for what I have witnessed and read about, bias can exist in our legal system in regards to people with power breaking laws, then who is on the ball to capture the people. Like Clintons adultery was the most awesome crime of the century to many conservatives that hated him, its just politics.

Another aspect of this organism may be you don’t really make charges like that against people in the positions they are unless you have something to run on, it could ruin many peoples lives if it was all bogus, plus something like this could really drag on in regards to obtaining the truth, so many variables to consider in regards to obtaining any truth on it all.

Personally, I hope rove gets busted, and anyone else involved. If they broke the law, it would just speed up to me the removal of an administration I certainly hate, for my own reasons, like no more religious reich, I mean right.

This post has been edited by whyshouldi: Dec 5 2005, 06:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post May 15 2006, 03:49 AM
Post #33


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
(TedN5 Dec. 4, 2005)
I hope everyone is still keeping an eye on Fitzgerald's investigation. Here is an article that discusses Rove's continuing jeopardy, the role of Viveca Novak (the reporter working for Time Magazine who recently became another witness in the case), and speculation on other issues surrounding the investigation.


The wheels of justice do grind exceedingly slowly but it looks like the "frog march" is about to begin.

QUOTE
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
(See Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaime
post May 15 2006, 03:54 AM
Post #34


Group Icon

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

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



CLOSED.

This topic a bit dated. Let's start something fresh if we're going to continue debating it. Thanks smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Closed 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: December 4th, 2021 - 07:52 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.