Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2529568 -

silversoul7 writes:

It's only a matter of a confessed war criminal versus an unrepentant war criminal.

Bush is a war criminal? Proof, please.

Yes, and I probably would.

Well, you're pretty easy to please. Ever done jury duty?

At least he acknowledges that it was wrong...

Actually, he doesn't even do that. I was paraphrasing to make a point. Nowhere in the statements quoted does he describes his actions as wrong. My invitation to find us a quote where he does is still open.

... even if he does shift the blame a bit.

"A bit?" Dang, you one funny d00d.

It didn't need to come to that to prevent 9/11.

It didn't? Please explain to us how 9/11 could have been prevented without either

a) grounding flights

b) Detaining Arabic-looking passengers

or

b) shooting down airliners

You aren't suggesting that Bush knew which planes would be hijacked on which days by which people, are you? Has Annapurna1 carried out a LLL mind-meld on you?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2529569 -

What is "standard operating procedure" and how would it have stopped the planes?


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Phred]
    #2529588 -

Quote:
And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare.


  With this one statement, Kerry should have doomed any chance of holding public office anywhere, anytime.  How did he become the alternative to Bush?  :crying:

  How did G. W. become the alternative to anything?
:crying:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Phred]
    #2529591 -

pinksharkmark said:
silversoul7 writes:

It's only a matter of a confessed war criminal versus an unrepentant war criminal.

Bush is a war criminal? Proof, please.


I'm too drunk to look for it right now, but someone else previously posted something about how the Iraq invasion was clearly an illegal war.

Quote:
Yes, and I probably would.

Well, you're pretty easy to please. Ever done jury duty?


I've been summoned before, but didn't get on the jury.

Quote:
... even if he does shift the blame a bit.

"A bit?" Dang, you one funny d00d.


:lol:

Quote:
It didn't need to come to that to prevent 9/11.

It didn't? Please explain to us how 9/11 could have been prevented without either

a) grounding flights

b) Detaining Arabic-looking passengers

or

b) shooting down airliners


They could have scrambled jets when the planes went off-course, as is standard operating procedure(note to BH: I believe this answers your question).

Quote:
You aren't suggesting that Bush knew which planes would be hijacked on which days by which people, are you? Has Annapurna1 carried out a LLL mind-meld on you?


No, I'm suggesting that Bush had prior warning of the attacks, and the tactics they might use, yet ignored the terrorist threat.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Xochitl]
    #2529592 -

Xochitl writes:

Powell launched his military/political career with total dishonesty and disgregard for evidence & first-person testimony.

As did John Kerry. Do a Google search on "Winter Soldiers Congressional restimony". He lied under oath to the commission. It launched his political career.

I ask again, how is stonewalling an investigation into a specific war crime morally worse than commiting multiple war crimes? I ask again, is Colin Powell running for president? Re-read my first post in this thread. It asks how people can be comfortable voting for a self-admitted war criminal for president.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2529646 -

silversoul7 writes:

I'm too drunk to look for it right now...

Ah. That explains a lot. Maybe you should hold off responding till tomorrow then.

... but someone else previously posted something about how the Iraq invasion was clearly an illegal war.

Who? Annapurna1? Iglou?

Question -- if deposing Hussein was illegal, why have we seen no UN resolution condemning it?

They could have scrambled jets when the planes went off-course, as is standard operating procedure.

And these scrambled jets would have done ... what, exactly? Would the copilot have ejected, landed on a wing of the airliner, popped open a hatch and overpowered the hijackers?

Please explain to us how -- short of ramming the airliner or shooting it down -- a fighter can stop a hijacker from piloting a jumbojet to wherever he wants?

No, I'm suggesting that Bush had prior warning of the attacks, and the tactics they might use, yet ignored the terrorist threat.

Let's assume he knew some people had reported that some day some Islamic terrorists might hijack some planes from somewhere and do something with them. How is he to stop that from occurring short of

a) grounding flights

b) detaining Arabic-looking passengers

c) shooting down off course airliners

You might want to wait till you're sober before responding. No rush.

As a matter of fact, don't even bother trying to answer the question. It has nothing to do with the fact that John Kerry is the self-confessed war criminal you are determined to vote for.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Phred]
    #2529665 -

Quote:
how is stonewalling an investigation into a specific war crime morally worse than commiting multiple war crimes?


re?pent1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pnt)
v. re?pent?ed, re?pent?ing, re?pents
v. intr.

1. To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
2. To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior.
3. To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins.

vs.

a long and continuing pattern of deception and warlust.

I wonder how many innocent civilians Colin Powell has indirectly killed and injured due to his involvment with the funding of rightwing death squads in Nicaragua or his help with the invasion of Pananma?

Quote:
I ask again, is Colin Powell running for president? Re-read my first post in this thread. It asks how people can be comfortable voting for a self-admitted war criminal for president.


Already answered that...


The Bush administration is hardly just George W. Bush - it is an administration whose policies are practically guided by aides and cabinet members. As Secretary of State, Colin Powell is certainly a major driving force in the administration - a presense not to sneeze at and whose disgusting military and political career is not to be ignored.


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Xochitl]
    #2529719 -

Xochitl writes:

Already answered that...

Okay. So you find it preferable to have a self-admitted, unrepentant war criminal as head of the most powerful nation on earth -- its Commander in Chief -- rather than have a cabinet minister (and not a Secretary of Defense, either -- a SecState) who was uncooperative in an investigation into a single war crime.

Now I got it.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Phred]
    #2529916 -

Quote:
So you find it preferable to have a self-admitted, unrepentant war criminal as head of the most powerful nation on earth -- its Commander in Chief -- rather than have a cabinet minister (and not a Secretary of Defense, either -- a SecState) who was uncooperative in an investigation into a single war crime.


Kerry is unrepentant? See the definition that I provided and explain your statement.

Again, Powell is a major force in the decision-making process of the Bush administration and you know it.

Quote:
...who was uncooperative in an investigation into a single war crime


Colin Powell has been involved in more dishonest policy vis-a-vis warlust than just his coverup of the Mai Lai massacre (which in itself is quit disgusting) as I pointed out. See the Iran-Contra scandal of which Powell was a major figure. And by the way, Powell is not the only Iran-Contra criminal that comes with the Bush Inc. re-election package, the following are also aboard: John Poindexter, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, Richard Armitage, John Negroponte, and Mitch Daniels.


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Phred]
    #2530393 -

Voting for Nader or Nolan is "punishing" Kerry? Okay then.

Look Pinky, you can play dumb all you want, but in the real world a vote for Nader or Nolan is a vote for Bush. Capiche?

Nobody ever said that a vote has to be an expression of one's deepest beliefs anyway. That's your assumption, not mine. It's pretty stupid proposition anyway since a vote is binary 0/1, yes/no form of communication, similar to a grunt.

"Are you for Candidate #1 or not?"
"Unggh."

When it comes to expressing my beliefs or my conscience, I'll rely on language, thank you very much. Voting, however, is a real-world practical intervention that occurs under real-world circumstances with real-world consequences. Bush's policies are not working and have themselves led to the commission of war crimes, whether or not Bush himself actually commited a crime by illegally invading another sovereign country.

Kerry came back to the US to speak out against a war that he had come to believe was morally wrong, both in its premise and in its execution. In other words, he changed his mind about the war from the time he signed up. Rather than being a sign of "flip-flopping" this is a sign of the capacity to learn which is wholly lacking in Bush and his team. In order to buttress his case against the war he had to tell people exactly what was going on over there, and in doing so he certainly couldn't leave his own involvement out of the picture.

US military authorities have had over thirty years to investigate and try him for "war crimes" and yet have not done so. Is this part of some "liberal conspiracy" in the Pentagon, I wonder? Until John Kerry is actually convicted your breathlessly hysterical little attempt at labelling him a war criminal and making that label stick just won't fly.

Of course if they convict him they would also have to convict thousands upon thousands of other Vietnam vets. Boy wouldn't that be a spectacle.

Unlike Bush and his chickenhawk pussy staff, Kerry has actually been through the horrors of war--he has seen what war does to people, including to himself. A person like that is much less likely to inflict that horror needlessly on others than those who only understand war as a kind of geopolitical game or as an opportunity to line the pockets of their contributors.

And let me tell you something: I live in Manhattan and I was in Manhattan on September 11, 2001. I personally know people who died in the attacks. I breathed in the smoke rising from the ruins. It was George Bush's responsibility to see to the security of my city on that day and he FAILED in that responsibility. Can you get that through your fucking skull? Do you have even the remotest idea what the responsibilities of the Commander-in-Chief are? I am acutely conscious of national security issues, and I know for sure that invading Iraq has done nothing to make my city, which is still the prime target for any future terrorist attack, safer.

There are real threats to American civilians, and it was the job of the bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission to identify exactly what those were. The Bush administration completely ignored the findings of the Commission because they were so fucking obsessed with missile defense and Iraq, two issues that would lead to big pork barrell projects for their industrial supporters but which have very little bearing on making Americans safer in the here and now. At least Kerry had the good sense to make Gary Hart a national security and foreign policy advisor to his campaign, which bodes well for NATIONAL SECURITY (as opposed to FOREIGN INVASION) policies under a Kerry Administration. It's my city's safety on the line and I would much rather entrust my safety to Kerry, who has shown a capacity to LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, than to Bush, who has proven track record of failure and who only listens to the voices of Jesus and Dick in his head.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2530418 -

They could have scrambled jets when the planes went off-course, as is standard operating procedure

I beleive it has been demonstrated that what they did was in fact standard operating procedure. Planes were scrambled, though not as quickly as they had been in some other cases and quicker than the were in some other cases, and in some cases they were not scrambled at all.

What were the jets supposed to do about it when they got there anyway?


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Phred]
    #2530439 -

So which one has killed the most innocent civilians again?


I forget.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2530547 -

@echovortex

^^^^ :thumbup: thanks for your post


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Phred]
    #2530565 -

Quote:
patented luvdemshrooms strategy


To be accurate... I have no patents of any kind.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: silversoul7]
    #2530570 -

Quote:
Because it's not necessary.


Of course it's necessary. If a certain group shows a history of commiting certain acts, and another group does not, which group do you look at? As has been pointed out, seen any old ladies hijack planes recently? (or at all?) See a lot of Irish drug dealeres in the ghetto?

Profiling is a valid tool. As is giving full (race included) descriptions of suspects.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2531141 -

EchoVortex writes:

Look Pinky, you can play dumb all you want, but in the real world a vote for Nader or Nolan is a vote for Bush.

No it isn't. In the real world in 2000, was a vote for Buchanan a vote for Bush? How about someone who doesn't vote at all? Is that also a vote for Bush? Or the guy who writes in "Frank Zappa" on his ballot. A vote for Bush?

You seem to feel that not voting for a presidential candidate is "punishing" him. News flash -- a candidate is not entitled to your vote -- he has to earn it.

It's pretty stupid proposition anyway since a vote is binary 0/1, yes/no form of communication, similar to a grunt.

"Are you for Candidate #1 or not?"
"Unggh."

It seems your view is different. To you, a vote is not even for Candidate #1, but against Candidate #2.

Bush's policies are not working and have themselves led to the commission of war crimes, whether or not Bush himself actually commited a crime by illegally invading another sovereign country.

Fine. If you are convinced this is so, by all means don't vote for Bush. As I have stated here repeatedly, I myself (if allowed to vote in the American election) would not vote for Bush. I can certainly understand why someone would choose not to vote for Bush. What I have a hard time grasping is how someone would rather vote for a self-confessed war criminal than someone like Nader or Nolan -- or, for that matter, Frank Zappa.

Kerry came back to the US to speak out against a war that he had come to believe was morally wrong, both in its premise and in its execution. In other words, he changed his mind about the war from the time he signed up.

That's nice. I have no quarrel with his change of position. He was certainly not unique among American fighting men who served in Viet Nam when it comes to that. For what it's worth, although it has no bearing on Kerry's self-confessed criminality, I protested the war in Viet Nam.

In order to buttress his case against the war he had to tell people exactly what was going on over there, and in doing so he certainly couldn't leave his own involvement out of the picture.

And like it or not, if we are to believe him his own involvement included the committing of war crimes.

Until John Kerry is actually convicted your breathlessly hysterical little attempt at labelling him a war criminal and making that label stick just won't fly.

There is no need to convict him. He has admitted it many times. I didn't say he was a convicted war criminal, I said he is a self-admitted war criminal. That is an accurate description.

It was George Bush's responsibility to see to the security of my city on that day and he FAILED in that responsibility.

Yes he did. Do you believe Al Gore would not have failed had he been president? If so, on what evidence do you base your belief?

Do you have even the remotest idea what the responsibilities of the Commander-in-Chief are?

From reading Kerry's statements in his campaign to cinch the Democratic nomination, it's obvious Kerry hasn't the remotest idea.

At least Kerry had the good sense to make Gary Hart a national security and foreign policy advisor to his campaign, which bodes well for NATIONAL SECURITY (as opposed to FOREIGN INVASION) policies under a Kerry Administration.

So in your considered opinion, the downside of having a self-admitted war criminal as president is outweighed by the possibility that Gary Hart may be rewarded with a cabinet position. Got it.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Xochitl]
    #2531167 -

Xochitl writes:

Kerry is unrepentant?

Yep. I haven't seen any statement from him anywhere apologizing for his actions. I have seen plenty from him blaming the higher-ups, and some from him implying that he didn't even know his actions were wrong until after he returned from Viet Nam and discovered the Geneva Convention, Nuremburg, the Hague etc. But I haven't seen any repentant statements.

If it is your contention that he is repentant, how about supporting your position with some Kerry quotes from credible sources?

And by the way, Powell is not the only Iran-Contra criminal that comes with the Bush Inc. re-election package, the following are also aboard: John Poindexter, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, Richard Armitage, John Negroponte, and Mitch Daniels.

I thought Poindexter had been given the boot after his "terrorism futures market" proposal. I guess I might be wrong about that.

Bottom line, in your considered opinion, it is better to have a self-confessed war criminal as Commander in Chief than to have several non-department head advisors who served under Reagan. Got it.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Phred]
    #2531192 -

Quote:
Yep. I haven't seen any statement from him anywhere apologizing for his actions. I have seen plenty from him blaming the higher-ups, and some from him implying that he didn't even know his actions were wrong until after he returned from Viet Nam and discovered the Geneva Convention, Nuremburg, the Hague etc. But I haven't seen any repentant statements.


You obviously do not know the definition of the word repent. I figured you would play a semantics game, so I posted the dictionary definition. Again, see my post.

Quote:
Bottom line, in your considered opinion, it is better to have a self-confessed war criminal as Commander in Chief than to have several non-department head advisors who served under Reagan. Got it.


I do not agree with your unfounded premise that is Kerry a "war-criminal," sorry. Even the Pentagon and world community disagrees with you - where is the trial? They certainly have had enough time. However, I do think that the Bush Inc. administration is choke-full of criminals and individuals who have either engaged or attempted to cover-up crimes against humanity and shading dealing with death squads and terrorists.

You're really stretching pinksharkmark - it's kinda sad :thumbdown:


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Phred]
    #2531212 -

Would you consider Arial Sharon a "war-criminal"? Why or why not?


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: John Kerry -- war criminal [Re: Phred]
    #2531224 -

No it isn't. In the real world in 2000, was a vote for Buchanan a vote for Bush? How about someone who doesn't vote at all? Is that also a vote for Bush? Or the guy who writes in "Frank Zappa" on his ballot. A vote for Bush?

In the real world there are only two people who have anything greater than a 1% of winning the presidency: George W. Bush and John Kerry. Current odds according to the election bookies is 6 to 5 in Bush's favor. Any vote that doesn't go to the only person with a chance of beating Bush merely adds to the statistical probability that Bush will receive a second term. It's as simple as that.

It seems your view is different. To you, a vote is not even for Candidate #1, but against Candidate #2.

In this case, at least, sure. Bush is a menace to America and the world.

What I have a hard time grasping is how someone would rather vote for a self-confessed war criminal than someone like Nader or Nolan -- or, for that matter, Frank Zappa.

A reformed war criminal is better than a current warmonger. Those alas are the choices.

Yes he did. Do you believe Al Gore would not have failed had he been president? If so, on what evidence do you base your belief?

What's Al Gore got to do with anything? He wasn't President. Do you believe Gary Nolan or Ralph Nader would have/have not failed? Or do you believe Kermit the Frog or the Cookie Monster would have/have not failed? These are irrelevant questions, pinky. George W. Bush failed and I hold him accountable, even if he doesn't hold himself accountable. That would be the case no matter who was in office. I most certainly do NOT believe that those attacks and their overwhelming success was some sort of God-given inevitability that couldn't have been prevented no matter who was in office. Unfortunately for Bush, that kind of woolly-headed fatalism is the only thing he can appeal to at this point to try to absolve himself of responsibility. If you want to serve as his lackey in that respect, be my guest.

From reading Kerry's statements in his campaign to cinch the Democratic nomination, it's obvious Kerry hasn't the remotest idea.

Show me statements of his that demonstrate your claim and we'll talk. Until then you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.

So in your considered opinion, the downside of having a self-admitted war criminal as president is outweighed by the possibility that Gary Hart may be rewarded with a cabinet position. Got it.

Ah, whatever happened to the good old days when you could actually debate competently? Now you've descended to the utterly puerile tactic of mindlessly repeating the same shtick over and over again with no variation whatsoever.

As far as I know, John Kerry hasn't been responsible for any deaths in over thirty years. That would suggest to me that he's learned his lesson. George Bush, however, has been responsible for thousands of deaths in the past year alone, and not only is he not taking responsibility for this, he isn't even stopping.

All I care about is one thing: whose policies in the final analysis are going to result in the deaths of fewer innocent people? Now, if John Kerry is elected and starts all sorts of illegal wars and commits war crimes left and right, I'll be the first in line to call for his resignation or impeachment. But anybody with even a crumb of common sense realizes that's not going to happen.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* John Kerry's Speech
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Zahid 5,417 61 07/31/04 04:53 PM
by Ancalagon
* Why Americans Must Vote for John Kerry
( 1 2 3 all )		 Zahid 4,935 40 08/29/04 02:08 PM
by Zahid
* john kerry's record on civil liberties Anonymous 721 3 09/30/04 02:41 PM
by silversoul7
* John Kerry Admitting to his War Crimes .mp3
( 1 2 all )		 retread 2,485 29 08/24/04 09:44 PM
by z@z.com
* More Bullshit From John Kerry
( 1 2 all )		 Divided_Sky 2,665 21 10/08/04 12:19 PM
by silversoul7
* John Kerry's War Vote: Profiles in Political Calculation? Ancalagon 800 3 08/22/04 07:18 PM
by zappaisgod
* point about John Kerry vampirism 841 17 08/14/04 04:11 AM
by Zahid
* republicans support john kerry?? KingOftheThing 1,186 6 07/31/04 11:57 PM
by JesusChrist

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
8,112 topic views. 6 members, 2 guests and 40 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.