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.

> Pope Benedict XVI Requests Immunity from Bush
Cube Jockey
post Aug 18 2005, 09:49 PM
Post #1


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



This is an interesting story and I'll bet it has Bush in a tight spot - Pope Seeks Immunity in Texas Molestation Case:
QUOTE
VATICAN CITY -- Lawyers for Pope Benedict XVI have asked President Bush to declare the pontiff immune from liability in a lawsuit that accuses him of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys by a seminarian in Texas, court records show.

The Vatican's embassy in Washington sent a diplomatic memo to the State Department on May 20 requesting the U.S. government grant the pope immunity because he is a head of state, according to a May 26 motion submitted by the pope's lawyers in U.S. District Court for the Southern Division of Texas in Houston.

Joseph Ratzinger is named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit. Now Benedict XVI, he's accused of conspiring with the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston to cover up the abuse during the mid-1990s.


The article claims he already has diplomatic immunity as a head of state, but apparently that isn't enough or the vatican lawyers wouldn't be making the request:
QUOTE
In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Gerry Keener, said Tuesday that the pope is considered a head of state and automatically has diplomatic immunity.


Questions for debate:
1. Should Bush grant the Pope immunity from prosecution or should he have to face charges and deal with the lawsuit through due process?

2. What are the political ramifications if Bush takes either position?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Beetlemeetle
post Sep 2 2005, 02:31 PM
Post #21


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 14
Member No.: 5,378
Joined: August-17-05

From: Britain
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
Im wondering though, if Bush does not back the Pope, can Ratzinger then be deposed?



A Pope cannot be deposed. Once someone has become the Bishop of Rome, then they retain that post until they either die or abidcate.

Officially the Pope is infallible and they highest authority on Earth under God. Therefore no-one has the power to depose the Pope - and as the Pope is infallible, the Pope cannot take any action that would require him to be deposed.

I am suprised the Vatican even made the request. The Pope is immune from prosecution in the US as a Head of State. The Vatican City is a country in its own right. The fact that it is the home of the Bishop of Rome and head of the Roman Catholic Church is irrelevant. This immunity is unaffected by what Benedict may have done prior to his becoming Pope, a Head of State cannot be prosecuted under diplomatic immunity.

This to me looks simply like the Pope is asking Bush to sort this out quickly with the minimum of fuss. It is standard protocol for Heads of State to do these things for each other, so that international relations to not become entangled in beaurocracy from a lower level.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Azure-Citizen
post Sep 2 2005, 03:00 PM
Post #22


******
And Justice For All

Sponsor
July 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 329
Member No.: 970
Joined: August-5-03

From: Illinois, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Beetlemeetle @ Sep 2 2005, 09:31 AM)
Officially the Pope is infallible and they highest authority on Earth under God. Therefore no-one has the power to depose the Pope - and as the Pope is infallible, the Pope cannot take any action that would require him to be deposed.

Officially, the Pope is infallible and the highest authority on Earth? Officially to whom? Perhaps to members of the Catholic Church, but not to non-Catholics or secular world governments. The Pope's ability to avoid a deposition springs from his diplomatic status, not the concept of infallibility or religious authority. Or perhaps you were trying to be humorous about this(?) What exactly do you mean when you say that since he is infallible, he can't take any action that would require him to be deposed? Do you mean that he can't make mistakes, and in a deposition he might make a mistake, therefore he can't take one?

hmmm.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beetlemeetle
post Sep 2 2005, 03:47 PM
Post #23


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 14
Member No.: 5,378
Joined: August-17-05

From: Britain
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
Officially, the Pope is infallible and the highest authority on Earth? Officially to whom? Perhaps to members of the Catholic Church, but not to non-Catholics or secular world governments. The Pope's ability to avoid a deposition springs from his diplomatic status, not the concept of infallibility or religious authority. Or perhaps you were trying to be humorous about this(?) What exactly do you mean when you say that since he is infallible, he can't take any action that would require him to be deposed? Do you mean that he can't make mistakes, and in a deposition he might make a mistake, therefore he can't take one?


Officially to the Catholic Church, who would be the only organisation able to depose the Pope.

I wasn't being humourous, the USA has absolutely no authority over who is the head of the Catholic Church. That is the purview of the Holy See.

However, it could be that we are talking at cross purposes here. I was answering the question 'can Ratzinger be deposed' - and the answer is no, because 'deposed' means 'removed from authority.

However you just referred to a'deposition' which means EITHER that the act of removing someone from authority OR the act of making a statement in court.

If we are talking about removing Ratzinger from his position as Pope, then no, can't be done, certainly not by the US and in fact, probably not my anyone, as the official position of the Catholic Church is that the Pope is infallible and the highest authority on earth under God.

If we are talking about Ratzinger making a deposition in court, then I would imagine he can avoid that as a Head of State.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Azure-Citizen
post Sep 2 2005, 04:12 PM
Post #24


******
And Justice For All

Sponsor
July 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 329
Member No.: 970
Joined: August-5-03

From: Illinois, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Ah, the source of the confusion has quickly come into focus. Phoenix24 was wondering if the Pope's deposition could take place in connection with the civil suit in Texas (read backwards through the posts); but as with many things in English and the use of single words, there was a mutual misunderstanding about what we were talking about. Kind of humorous, don't you think? laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phoenix24
post Sep 4 2005, 01:03 AM
Post #25


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Member No.: 5,401
Joined: August-24-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Azure-Citizen @ Sep 1 2005, 06:35 PM)

Hmmmm... even if the legal team for the plaintiffs find a way around the Pope's diplomatic immunity, how are they going to depose him?  Well the plaintiffs attorneys can go to Rome and depose him over there, he doesnt necessarily have to come to the US.

In the end, the whole Ratzinger-deposition issue might be a moot point, however.  Yes, the plaintiffs would like to depose him, but they may still be able to build their case without him; and although Ratzinger is named as one of the co-defendants, the plaintiffs are probably more concerned with the Catholic Church itself and its ability to pay significant damages.


I heard that the plaintiffs can go to the State Department and ask for a hearing... And "supposedly" they can ask that since the president didnt give his "okay" in terms of the immunity that the pope is asking, that they could go ahead and depose him in rome...

Ill find out more about this issue on Monday...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phoenix24
post Sep 4 2005, 01:17 AM
Post #26


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Member No.: 5,401
Joined: August-24-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Beetlemeetle @ Sep 2 2005, 08:31 AM)


Officially the Pope is infallible and they highest authority on Earth under God. Therefore no-one has the power to depose the Pope - and as the Pope is infallible, the Pope cannot take any action that would require him to be deposed.



Infallable huh?? So infallablity means that its okay for Mr. Ratzinger to provide documents to Bishops around the world that show how to hide crimes of sex abuses within the church??

Im sorry, to me Mr. Ratzinger is just that, Mr. Ratzinger, and he as we all are, are subject to laws and consequences... Thats all IMO though...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blingice
post Sep 4 2005, 01:25 AM
Post #27


****
Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 83
Member No.: 5,264
Joined: July-13-05

From: In front of my computer
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Aug 18 2005, 04:49 PM)
1.  Should Bush grant the Pope immunity from prosecution or should he have to face charges and deal with the lawsuit through due process?

2.  What are the political ramifications if Bush takes either position?
*



1. No. Ratzinger did that before he became Pope, so I don't think the current position can save you. It's like someone murders someone. The next day, murder becomes legal. You can still prosecute the previous day murderer.

2. I don't think anybody can guess.

My policy is to punish sex offenders harshly. If the Pope was helping sex offenders, he shouldn't be Pope. I can respond to those who say otherwise by asking this: would you let Ted Bundy be Pope?

This post has been edited by blingice: Sep 4 2005, 01:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Sep 4 2005, 02:40 AM
Post #28


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

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

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



Beetlemeetle is correct- he is a head of state, and the GOVERMENT of the Vatican, a country of and unto itself, has, in THIER laws, the idea that the pope is infallible and speaking for God- so no, he can not be deposed as a head of state- any more than Fidel Castro can, Saddam Hussien could without a war, or any other despot in the world that sets themselves as more than human in behavior or power.

The only way to do this is to force it- through UN sanctions and whatnot. Invade the country of the Vatican, kill his henchman and main officers etc, arrext all those we think that are culpable in his crimes - and even then, most would think we were violating international law- wait, we are talking about the Catholic church right? w00t.gif -

No, if the Catholic church wishes to be a nation that supports pedophilia- it is totally within it's rights as a soveriegn nation- no one said it is right, fair or moral, it is just the way it is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Azure-Citizen
post Sep 4 2005, 04:56 AM
Post #29


******
And Justice For All

Sponsor
July 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 329
Member No.: 970
Joined: August-5-03

From: Illinois, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Phoenix24 @ Sep 3 2005, 08:03 PM)
QUOTE(Azure-Citizen @ Sep 1 2005, 06:35 PM)
Hmmmm... even if the legal team for the plaintiffs find a way around the Pope's diplomatic immunity, how are they going to depose him? It's unlikely that he will willingly come to the United States, sit down in a conference room with their lawyers and a court reporter, and answer questions under oath.

Well the plaintiffs attorneys can go to Rome and depose him over there, he doesnt necessarily have to come to the US.

Regardless of whether we're talking about on U.S. soil or at the Vatcian, the point is that he isn't going to do it, period. How do you propose that they make him sit for a deposition, Phoenix24?

--

As an aside, CruisingRam, we were talking about a deposition for a civil suit, not deposing him as in removing him from office.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Sep 4 2005, 05:24 AM
Post #30


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Beetlemeetle @ Sep 2 2005, 09:31 AM)
Officially the Pope is infallible and they highest authority on Earth under God. Therefore no-one has the power to depose the Pope - and as the Pope is infallible, the Pope cannot take any action that would require him to be deposed.


QUOTE
Papal Infallibility, also called ultramontanism, is limited to when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra, that is when he is speaking in his official capacity as the "pastor and teacher" of all Christians in defining matters of morals and faith.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Even Catholic doctrine says that the Pope is infallible only when speaking ex cathedra as described above. Being non-Catholic, non-Christian, none of this pertains to me.

In every day life he is as fallible as the rest of us. His arthritic fingers may make as many typos a mine. He might at times forget to feed the cat or flush the toilet Who knows, he could from time to time put his shoes on the wrong feet. All that equates to being a fallible human. blink.gif

This post has been edited by BoF: Sep 4 2005, 05:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Sep 4 2005, 05:29 AM
Post #31


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

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

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



QUOTE(Azure-Citizen @ Sep 3 2005, 07:56 PM)
QUOTE(Phoenix24 @ Sep 3 2005, 08:03 PM)
QUOTE(Azure-Citizen @ Sep 1 2005, 06:35 PM)
Hmmmm... even if the legal team for the plaintiffs find a way around the Pope's diplomatic immunity, how are they going to depose him? It's unlikely that he will willingly come to the United States, sit down in a conference room with their lawyers and a court reporter, and answer questions under oath.

Well the plaintiffs attorneys can go to Rome and depose him over there, he doesnt necessarily have to come to the US.

Regardless of whether we're talking about on U.S. soil or at the Vatcian, the point is that he isn't going to do it, period. How do you propose that they make him sit for a deposition, Phoenix24?

--

As an aside, CruisingRam, we were talking about a deposition for a civil suit, not deposing him as in removing him from office.
*



I understand that- and I meant- the only way to "take a deposition" is to "depose him" LOL- literally, that is true, as head of state, and a key player in the pedophilia case, that is the only way we can make him do what we want- invade his country, lay siege to his fortress etc- might makes right after all! thumbsup.gif w00t.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phoenix24
post Sep 4 2005, 09:13 PM
Post #32


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Member No.: 5,401
Joined: August-24-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Azure-Citizen @ Sep 3 2005, 10:56 PM)

Regardless of whether we're talking about on U.S. soil or at the Vatcian, the point is that he isn't going to do it, period.  How do you propose that they make him sit for a deposition, Phoenix24?



Very easily... You get a court order from a Federal Judge that states that Mr. Ratzinger be deposed, in rome or here, it doesnt matter...

You have to understand, Judge Rosenthal (the judge presiding) doesnt like Mr. Ratzinger at all... And she doesnt have any pressure to rule in any way... Thats the great thing about Federal Judges, no constituents to worry about...

The Judge issued an order for the lawyers representing the Pope, they must give as status report on the issue of immunity every 30 days...

So far, the President hasnt given the Pope his immunity... Pretty soon, your gonna have to go on with the case, and if the issue of immunity is not resolved, the Judge will allow the Plaintiffs to get whatever they need from Mr. Ratzinger...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Azure-Citizen
post Sep 4 2005, 09:46 PM
Post #33


******
And Justice For All

Sponsor
July 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 329
Member No.: 970
Joined: August-5-03

From: Illinois, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Phoenix24 @ Sep 4 2005, 04:13 PM)
QUOTE(Azure-Citizen @ Sep 3 2005, 10:56 PM)
Regardless of whether we're talking about on U.S. soil or at the Vatcian, the point is that he isn't going to do it, period.  How do you propose that they make him sit for a deposition, Phoenix24?

Very easily... You get a court order from a Federal Judge that states that Mr. Ratzinger be deposed, in rome or here, it doesnt matter...

You have to understand, Judge Rosenthal (the judge presiding) doesnt like Mr. Ratzinger at all...

Let's say the plaintiffs and their attorneys already have their court order from the judge ordering that the Pope sit for a deposition. Let's pretend they've travelled all the way to Vatican in Rome, and the Pope even allows them inside to have an audience, under the watchful eye of the Swiss Guard. They politely tell the Pope they are here to take his deposition, and the Pope smiles and replies "No."

How are you going to make the Pope cooperate, Phoenix24? How are you going to force him to participate in a deposition?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phoenix24
post Sep 6 2005, 05:31 PM
Post #34


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Member No.: 5,401
Joined: August-24-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Azure-Citizen @ Sep 4 2005, 03:46 PM)

Let's say the plaintiffs and their attorneys already have their court order from the judge ordering that the Pope sit for a deposition.  Let's pretend they've travelled all the way to Vatican in Rome, and the Pope even allows them inside to have an audience, under the watchful eye of the Swiss Guard.  They politely tell the Pope they are here to take his deposition, and the Pope smiles and replies "No."

How are you going to make the Pope cooperate, Phoenix24?  How are you going to force him to participate in a deposition?
*



Now i dont know alot about the specifics of law and such, but if someone has a court order stating they have to give a deposition and they dont appear or dont cooperate, isnt that basically a show of their guilt and since this is a civil case, wouldnt they HAVE to pay whatever amount of money that the plaintiffs deem necessary according to the damage model??

Mind you, the Archdiocese of Houston/Galveston are named as well... I dont know alot about this stuff, im just curious as to what you think... smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Azure-Citizen
post Sep 6 2005, 07:21 PM
Post #35


******
And Justice For All

Sponsor
July 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 329
Member No.: 970
Joined: August-5-03

From: Illinois, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Phoenix24 @ Sep 6 2005, 12:31 PM)
Now i dont know alot about the specifics of law and such, but if someone has a court order stating they have to give a deposition and they dont appear or dont cooperate, isnt that basically a show of their guilt and since this is a civil case, wouldnt they HAVE to pay whatever amount of money that the plaintiffs deem necessary according to the damage model??

If a party to a civil suit refuses to obey a court order to sit for a deposition, it is not an admission of guilt, even though I'm sure the lawyers for the plaintiffs will want to color in that way. It is a violation of the order, which could subject the violator to possible penalties, personally, for being in contempt of the ruling. However, one has to wonder how effective any contempt proceedings against Mr. Joseph Ratzinger personally would really be, given that he is the Pope, a head of state, and resides in Europe. Many courts will hesitate and think twice before ordering something that in all likelihood can not be enforced, and would create an international political problem.

However, as I have said previously, if the plaintiffs are unable to take the personal deposition of Mr. Ratzinger regarding the document he authored while head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it doesn't necessarily completely derail their case. They still have the document itself, and many other witnesses and pieces of evidence to work with. Mr. Ratzinger's absence from the proceedings deprives the plaintiffs of certain elements, but the Pope won't be at the trial to aid and testify on behalf of the defense, either. As a humorous aside, can anyone picture the Pope in the witness box at the court in Texas, being asked to place his hand on a bible and swear an oath to tell the truth?

Briefly returning to the issue regarding the Papacy's unusual request to the President, I don't think it really matters. The general consensus is that as a head of state, the Pope already has diplomatic immunity, and it would not serve the President's interests, politically, to throw his hat in the ring and get involved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phoenix24
post Sep 7 2005, 10:54 PM
Post #36


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Member No.: 5,401
Joined: August-24-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: None



Either way, all this is giving the church negative publicity... And as with any other "business", thats bad news...

My take is that if the President doesnt give the Pope the immunity he wants and the court orders his deposition be taken, maybe he would want to settle...

Can you see a lawyer going to the Vatican and deposing the guy who headed the department that dealt directly with the sex abuse scandals that rocked the catholic church??

Anyways Azure, thanks for giving your two cents... Helps me understand this mess alittle more...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phoenix24
post Sep 20 2005, 11:45 PM
Post #37


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Member No.: 5,401
Joined: August-24-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: None



Hey guys, the Perp i mean Pope got his immunity... innocent.gif

I have here the official response of the United States Department of Justice to the request of the Pope's immunity... Here is some of what it says...

The undersigned attorneys for the United States Department of Justice, at the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, respectfully inform this honorable court, of the interest of the United States of America in the pending lawsuit against Joseph Raztinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, the sitting head of state of the holy see, and suggest to the court the immunity of the pope... Then it goes on and sets forth some precedents...

I truly believe that this man is guilty of covering up these crimes and is hiding behind his new "title"

He should be sued as the former head of the office of inquisitions not as pope... Oh well, whatever...

This post has been edited by Phoenix24: Sep 21 2005, 12:14 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Sep 21 2005, 12:28 AM
Post #38


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Phoenix24 @ Sep 20 2005, 06:45 PM)
Hey guys, the Perp i mean Pope got his immunity...  innocent.gif

I have here the official response of the United States Department of Justice to the request of the Pope's immunity... Here is some of what it says...

The undersigned attorneys for the United States Department of Justice, at the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, respectfully inform this honorable court, of the interest of the United States of America in the pending lawsuit against Joseph Raztinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, the sitting head of state of the holy see, and suggest to the court the immunity of the pope... Then it goes on and sets forth some precedents...

I truly believe that this man is guilty of covering up these crimes and is hiding behind his new "title"

He should be sued as the former head of the office of inquisitions not as pope... Oh well, whatever...
*



Here is a link to go with your post.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...5291214,00.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phoenix24
post Sep 21 2005, 12:31 AM
Post #39


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Member No.: 5,401
Joined: August-24-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 20 2005, 06:28 PM)


Hey, man, where did you get that link to that story?? Ive been doing a search all over the net for that article... smile.gif

If the lawyer representing the John Does goes and tries to object to the issuance of Immunity on grounds of the 1st Amendment, do you guys think he has a chance to win??

This post has been edited by Phoenix24: Sep 21 2005, 12:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Azure-Citizen
post Sep 21 2005, 01:06 AM
Post #40


******
And Justice For All

Sponsor
July 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 329
Member No.: 970
Joined: August-5-03

From: Illinois, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Phoenix24 @ Sep 20 2005, 07:31 PM)
If the lawyer representing the John Does goes and tries to object to the issuance of Immunity on grounds of the 1st Amendment, do you guys think he has a chance to win?

Probably not. I say this because establishment clause challenges to the Vatican's sovereign status and diplomatic relations have been litigated in the courts previously and they were rejected. Essentially, the U.S. Goverment's relations with the Holy See are of a secular political nature, not a religious one.

You might want to look at these articles for some additional background information and commentary:

"Diplomatic Relations with Holy See," America Magazine, March 16th, 1985

"Three Years Later: U.S. Relations with the Holy See," America Magazine, January 17th, 1987
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 4th, 2021 - 07:43 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.