• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Administration Claimed Right to Torture Children of Suspects

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just when you think you heard it all, listen to this exchange by Bush legal advisor John Yoo, who thinks it is perfectly OK and legal to torture the child of a suspect, even crushing his testicles, in order to get the suspect to confess:

Audio is here in MP3 format.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
danarhea said:
Just when you think you heard it all, listen to this exchange by Bush legal advisor John Yoo, who thinks it is perfectly OK and legal to torture the child of a suspect, even crushing his testicles, in order to get the suspect to confess:

Audio is here in MP3 format.
It doesn't matter if we thought we heard it all...

You only agenda is to continually tell us without debating enough on other people's threads...:roll:
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cnredd said:
It doesn't matter if we thought we heard it all...

You only agenda is to continually tell us without debating enough on other people's threads...:roll:
What, so it's okay by you?

This is just wrong. Utterly unjustified and nothing short of evil. I hope to God it doesn't happen, but if it does... any bastards who do this should be shot like the dogs they are.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
It doesn't matter if we thought we heard it all...

You only agenda is to continually tell us without debating enough on other people's threads...:roll:
And that statement rebuts the audio.......... how?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
danarhea said:
And that statement rebuts the audio.......... how?
I wasn't referring to your audio...or this thread...

Only your agenda...

Look up your own stats...One out of every 10 posts you've made are starting a thread...Most of your posts are responding to what others have said in...your threads...

You don't want to debate anyone...You want everyone to debate you...and only under your terms and under your topics...

Very selfish IMHO...
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
I wasn't referring to your audio...or this thread...

Only your agenda...

Look up your own stats...One out of every 10 posts you've made are starting a thread...Most of your posts are responding to what others have said in...your threads...

You don't want to debate anyone...You want everyone to debate you...and only under your terms and under your topics...

Very selfish IMHO...
Let me see.

1) I have started 3 threads today. Was not on at all yesterday. Started 4 threads on Friday. Doesnt seem to be that I am starting any more threads than anybody else.

2) I do debate in other threads, but admittedly, not that much. That is because certain issues are very important to me, not because I am selfish.

3) Your characterization of me is unfair. You dont know me, and have no idea in the world what I am like. With all due respect, I regard this as a personal attack.

4) Since this is a topic about the way the Bush administration views torture, I can only assume that you are attempting a hijack of the thread, rather than posting anything pertinent to the issue. If I am wrong, then please correct me.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
danarhea said:
Let me see.

1) I have started 3 threads today. Was not on at all yesterday. Started 4 threads on Friday. Doesnt seem to be that I am starting any more threads than anybody else.

2) I do debate in other threads, but admittedly, not that much. That is because certain issues are very important to me, not because I am selfish.

3) Your characterization of me is unfair. You dont know me, and have no idea in the world what I am like. With all due respect, I regard this as a personal attack.

4) Since this is a topic about the way the Bush administration views torture, I can only assume that you are attempting a hijack of the thread, rather than posting anything pertinent to the issue. If I am wrong, then please correct me.
1) You would be wrong...Most people don't start 7 threads in a month let alone in two days...a;so let alone all in one sub-forum...

2) The thrust of my argument...you only use this site to accomplish what you want to be said without taking other people's threads into consideration...

3) I've only mentioned what you've done on this site and my opinion of it...Welcome to DebatePolitics.com!...:2wave:

4) partially correct...not so much as pertaining to the topic at hand, but more pertaining to your topics in general and the abundance of them in comparison to your lack of debating other people...
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
1) You would be wrong...Most people don't start 7 threads in a month let alone in two days...a;so let alone all in one sub-forum...

2) The thrust of my argument...you only use this site to accomplish what you want to be said without taking other people's threads into consideration...

3) I've only mentioned what you've done on this site and my opinion of it...Welcome to DebatePolitics.com!...:2wave:

4) partially correct...not so much as pertaining to the topic at hand, but more pertaining to your topics in general and the abundance of them in comparison to your lack of debating other people...
Look. I dont have the time to be on now as much as I did before. When I do have some time, I come on and post about some things that I deeply care about. If I have any time left over, which I usually dont, then I try to get into other threads. But like I said, I just dont have as much time as I used to. Wish I could stay here longer, but I dont have the time. If that is breaking the rules, then make it official. BTW, what is your reaction to the audio, so we can get back on topic?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
danarhea said:
Look. I dont have the time to be on now as much as I did before. When I do have some time, I come on and post about some things that I deeply care about. If I have any time left over, which I usually dont, then I try to get into other threads. But like I said, I just dont have as much time as I used to.
You're saying to the other members, "I only have time for me...if you're lucky, I MAY get to you..."

Imagine if everyone on this website had that attitude...we'd have 8 million threads...no responses to them...

danarhea said:
Wish I could stay here longer, but I dont have the time. If that is breaking the rules, then make it official.
Never have I said anything in official capacity...I'm a forum member too, ya know...:cool:

danarhea said:
BTW, what is your reaction to the audio, so we can get back on topic?
Ummm...sorry...

I just don't have the time right now(zing!)...;)
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
You're saying to the other members, "I only have time for me...if you're lucky, I MAY get to you..."

Imagine if everyone on this website had that attitude...we'd have 8 million threads...no responses to them...

Never have I said anything in official capacity...I'm a forum member too, ya know...:cool:

Ummm...sorry...

I just don't have the time right now(zing!)...;)
Fine. Then please stop attempting to derail the thread.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This thread blows. More garbage. I believe I've called you on this crap before too.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FinnMacCool said:
Okay so instead of trying to debate about this issue, you guys all attack the thread starter. What a strategy!

That's because there's nothing to debate. It's a short selected piece of audio where an extreme point was being made. No kids or adults nuts have been squashed. It's not even a point to discuss unless this is the question...

"Should people's nuts be squashed?"

Answer..."No."

Where's the debate?
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
Okay so instead of trying to debate about this issue, you guys all attack the thread starter. What a strategy!
Its the only strategy he has. After all, the administration is caught on tape supporting the position that it is legal to torture the child of a suspect. How can you rebut an administration legal analyst's own statement? They cant, so they personally attack me instead in an attempt to derail the thread.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
danarhea said:
Its the only strategy he has. After all, the administration is caught on tape supporting the position that it is legal to torture the child of a suspect. How can you rebut an administration legal analyst's own statement? They cant, so they personally attack me instead in an attempt to derail the thread.
When you conservatives on their toes (your a libertarian, so your a tax conservative - I think), they usually shout insults, bring up Clinton. They don't want to say their side is wrong about things. It's just a level of ignorance. Liberals to do it too.

You should be open minded people, and not caught up in blind partisan believes.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
That's because there's nothing to debate. It's a short selected piece of audio where an extreme point was being made. No kids or adults nuts have been squashed. It's not even a point to discuss unless this is the question...

"Should people's nuts be squashed?"

Answer..."No."

Where's the debate?
You had a choice

You could've ignored the thread. Instead you and cnredd attempt to crucify the thread starter.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FinnMacCool said:
You had a choice

You could've ignored the thread. Instead you and cnredd attempt to crucify the thread starter.
That's because it is always the same thing. One time, I watched "the thread starter" start multiple threads in very brief time all focusing on unconstructive and ludicrous bashing. What is the point?
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
That's because it is always the same thing. One time, I watched "the thread starter" start multiple threads in very brief time all focusing on unconstructive and ludicrous bashing. What is the point?
So then you could have done one of the following things:

1) attack him the basement

2) call him on his source and actually attempt to disprove him
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FinnMacCool said:
So then you could have done one of the following things:

1) attack him the basement

2) call him on his source and actually attempt to disprove him

That's the point. There's nothing to disprove. It is a small selected portion of a clip that used an extreme example of the determination involved to protect. No nuts are being "squashed." There is no substance.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
That's the point. There's nothing to disprove. It is a small selected portion of a clip that used an extreme example of the determination involved to protect. No nuts are being "squashed." There is no substance.
Just because the clip is "small" and "selected" doesn't mean its not worthy of consideration.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FinnMacCool said:
Just because the clip is "small" and "selected" doesn't mean its not worthy of consideration.
Yes, but this clip was about a statement that was made before hand. The statement was made by an idiot to exxagerate the determination of the Administration to protect our people. Nothing more. This was old news and quickly died out when it occurred. Notice how the clip started at the right moment and quickly cut off at the end. Our media would call this "truth." It is a deception and a distortion. Like I said...there's nothing to disprove.

What do we get to see?...."Administration Claimed Right to Torture Children of Suspects."
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Yes, but this clip was about a statement that was made before hand. The statement was made by an idiot to exxagerate the determination of the Administration to protect our people. Nothing more. This was old news and quickly died out when it occurred. Notice how the clip started at the right moment and quickly cut off at the end. Our media would call this "truth." It is a deception and a distortion. Like I said...there's nothing to disprove.

What do we get to see?...."Administration Claimed Right to Torture Children of Suspects."
The reason it is cut is to help those americans with the short attention spans. It doesn't mean that they are distorting. Anyone who has taken a class in journalism would understand this.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
The reason it is cut is to help those americans with the short attention spans. It doesn't mean that they are distorting. Anyone who has taken a class in journalism would understand this.
Exactly, and what is there to distort? John Yoo plainly said that, in his opinion, the torturing of children belonging to suspects was legal. This is the same John Yoo who gave his opinion on behalf of the administration that the Geneva Conventions did not apply either. On legal issues relating to terrorism, Yoo is the mind of the administration.

If you listen to the audio, you can plainly hear it in no uncertain terms. It is impossible to spin what he said into something less. What is on the audio are his exact words in his own voice.
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
The reason it is cut is to help those americans with the short attention spans. It doesn't mean that they are distorting. Anyone who has taken a class in journalism would understand this.
danarhea said:
Exactly, and what is there to distort? John Yoo plainly said that, in his opinion, the torturing of children belonging to suspects was legal. This is the same John Yoo who gave his opinion on behalf of the administration that the Geneva Conventions did not apply either. On legal issues relating to terrorism, Yoo is the mind of the administration.

If you listen to the audio, you can plainly hear it in no uncertain terms. It is impossible to spin what he said into something less. What is on the audio are his exact words in his own voice.
Exact words...own voice...journalism school...:rofl

You rascally kids crack me up...

From a previous thread...

One thing that I find worse than actual lying is the infamous "lie of omission"...

Taking things out of context or outright removing certain text deliberately is the ultimate is skullduggery...

I'll give an example...

Let's say there is a video of someone asking me, "Do you hate your neighbors"?...

My full reply - "Yeah...I hate them...I hate then so much that I spent the day helping them chop down a tree and then let them borrow my SUV to remove it"...

Obviously, the second sentence points out the sarcasm of the first sentence...

But what happens if the video gets spliced in the middle of my answer?...

"Do you hate your neighbors"?...

"Yeah...I hate them"...(cut)

See the difference?...

Now here's the douchebag defense...

Did anyone "lie"?...Nope...

Was anything that we saw on the tape doctored?...Nope...

Were they the actual words that came out of your mouth?....Yup...

So it MUST be the truth!...

Removing the full answer gives the viewer exactly the opposite position I original mentioned...Thus, the lie of omission...

Here's another example brought to you by the King of the Lie of Omission a la Fahrenheit 9/11...

Condi Rice's quote chopped into little bits to make you think a certain way...

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."

Now take a gander at what was NOT in the film...The whole quote...

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East...."

The beginning of the second sentence points out that you should NOT take the first sentence ver batum and literally...

But Mr. Lie of Omission doesn't want any of the fine viewers to know that...


http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=184113&postcount=14


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

Now that we are through with the lessonplan...Let's go through this instance to show how weak the accusations are shall we?

#1) John Yoo is NOT the legal advisor to President Bush...he is a law professor at Berkeley, is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Justice Department official...

Get that kids?...A)FORMER...B)DoJ official...He was a lawyer for the Office of Legal Counsel...he was NOT Bush's legal advisor, as the original post was written...

That's bullsh!t #1...Let's move on...

#2) "his exact words in his own voice"!?!?!?...Try again...Here is what was actually said and by whom...This was in Chicago in a debate with Doug Cassel...a human rights activist and professor at Notre Dame...

Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty

Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
How about that?...NOT his own voice...Couldn't even get that part right...:rofl

I know you're thinking "same diff"...I suggest you immediately apply for newsanchor at CBS...:2wave:

Bullsh!t #2...Let's go to the conclusion...

#3) All Yoo said(implied) was that there was NO TREATY or LAW BY CONGRESS to prevent the President were he to "deem it necessary"...

He did NOT say he was advocating it...

It would also be legal for him to run around the White House in his skivvies and beg for a Chicago Bear's win this week...doesn't mean he's gonna do it...

See?...Grab an article, throw it out without getting the true facts, and spin it anyway you like...

That's the modus operandi here kids...

Move along...nothing to see here...
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
Exact words...own voice...journalism school...:rofl

You rascally kids crack me up...

From a previous thread...

One thing that I find worse than actual lying is the infamous "lie of omission"...

Taking things out of context or outright removing certain text deliberately is the ultimate is skullduggery...

I'll give an example...

Let's say there is a video of someone asking me, "Do you hate your neighbors"?...

My full reply - "Yeah...I hate them...I hate then so much that I spent the day helping them chop down a tree and then let them borrow my SUV to remove it"...

Obviously, the second sentence points out the sarcasm of the first sentence...

But what happens if the video gets spliced in the middle of my answer?...

"Do you hate your neighbors"?...

"Yeah...I hate them"...(cut)

See the difference?...

Now here's the douchebag defense...

Did anyone "lie"?...Nope...

Was anything that we saw on the tape doctored?...Nope...

Were they the actual words that came out of your mouth?....Yup...

So it MUST be the truth!...

Removing the full answer gives the viewer exactly the opposite position I original mentioned...Thus, the lie of omission...

Here's another example brought to you by the King of the Lie of Omission a la Fahrenheit 9/11...

Condi Rice's quote chopped into little bits to make you think a certain way...

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."

Now take a gander at what was NOT in the film...The whole quote...

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East...."

The beginning of the second sentence points out that you should NOT take the first sentence ver batum and literally...

But Mr. Lie of Omission doesn't want any of the fine viewers to know that...


http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=184113&postcount=14


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

Now that we are through with the lessonplan...Let's go through this instance to show how weak the accusations are shall we?

#1) John Yoo is NOT the legal advisor to President Bush...he is a law professor at Berkeley, is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Justice Department official...

Get that kids?...A)FORMER...B)DoJ official...He was a lawyer for the Office of Legal Counsel...he was NOT Bush's legal advisor, as the original post was written...

That's bullsh!t #1...Let's move on...

#2) "his exact words in his own voice"!?!?!?...Try again...Here is what was actually said and by whom...This was in Chicago in a debate with Doug Cassel...a human rights activist and professor at Notre Dame...


How about that?...NOT his own voice...Couldn't even get that part right...:rofl

I know you're thinking "same diff"...I suggest you immediately apply for newsanchor at CBS...:2wave:

Bullsh!t #2...Let's go to the conclusion...

#3) All Yoo said(implied) was that there was NO TREATY or LAW BY CONGRESS to prevent the President were he to "deem it necessary"...

He did NOT say he was advocating it...

It would also be legal for him to run around the White House in his skivvies and beg for a Chicago Bear's win this week...doesn't mean he's gonna do it...

See?...Grab an article, throw it out without getting the true facts, and spin it anyway you like...

That's the modus operandi here kids...

Move along...nothing to see here...
Oh come on now. Do you really believe what you are shoveling here? Talk about hair splitting and word parsing.

1) Yoo had 2 opportunities state his position. In his first opportunity he clearly stated there was no treaty, when truth be known, the Geneva accords, which we are a signatory to, make it a war crime. Like I said, Yoo clearly supported torturing the child of a suspect.

2) In stating that there was no treaty against it, Yoo clearly indicates that he does not see the torturing of the children of suspects as illegal.

3) In his second opportunity to state his position, Yoo stated that it was up to Bush to determine the legality of torturing the children of suspects. Now, based only on the audio itself, we dont know what side of the argument Bush would take. However, by deferring the legality to someone else, Yoo clearly takes the position that, should whoever he deferred to should mandate that children have to tortured, then he has no problem with it.

4) You say that because he is a FORMER justice official, then his opinion does not count. Correction - While he may be a former justice department official, he was the official who codified the administration's position on Guantanamo, the Geneva Conventions, a new category of "illegal combatant", and other postitions which are at odds with international law.

5) In addition, John Yoo is still one of the movers and shakers at the American Enterprise Institute, the think tank from which much of Bush policy comes from, and still codifies policy there. In addition, Yoo's work for Bush in writing his memos was AFTER he left the Justice Department. By implying that, because Yoo is a FORMER Justice Department Official, and therefore has nothing to do with administration policy, you are being dishonest.

7) You also make another dishonest claim, in that who Yoo was debating determined what he said. Are you really attempting to claim that, because Yoo was debating Doug Cassell, that it is Cassell's fault that Yoo said what he said? Does Cassell have that much power over Yoo, or could it be that Yoo said what was on his mind? How about a little personal responsibility here? Oh thats right, I forgot. Republicans dont do that anymore.

8) Put it all together, and any reasonable person can conclude that Yoo DID take the position in the debate that torturing children was perfectly OK. And yes, those are his own words in the audio which are taking that position. By taking that position, he is clearly supporting it. Oh wait, I missed the part where he said it was reprehensible and against international law. Oops, he didnt say that, did he?

9) Finally, I know you dont like me, and thats OK. Cant be liked by everyone, thats a fact of life. However, your attempts to tie me in as a subject are completely irrelevant, unless you somehow feel that I put those words in Yoo's mouth. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not into Voodoo, but I must congratulate you on your use of Voodoo to conjure up a tale that makes no sense at all.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom