MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Rousseff's fate has been decided: Senate will make it formal on Wednesday
The Brazilian Senate heard for the last time on Tuesday the arguments of the defense and prosecution in the impeachment trial of President Dilma Rousseff, and now prepares to issue its decision on the case. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“In his time as interim president, Temer - himself under investigation for corruption - has pushed privatizations and sales of state assets...”
Aug 31st, 2016 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The constant in Latin America is the appropriation or re-appropriation of the government by Conservative majorities.
Be it by violent coup, by judiciary or legislative 'soft' coup, using the dominant media and social media as support, the goal remains the same: to keep the tirany of wealthy, backward minorities over the wide majority of the people.
Dilma, to her credit, has kept the fight to the end. After all, she had to do it for the large majority that put her in place--those who are now being cheated by blatant hypocrisie.
Mr. Massot,
Aug 31st, 2016 - 05:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why do you bring ideology into it, again.
Is it to excuse her actions, by declaring them ideologically necessary?
Did she break the law? Were her actions illegal?
A matter of Law, not Ideology.
Please tell us, wasn't Dilma a member of the Tupamaros?
Did she or did she not carry out illegal activities in the 70's 'for the leftist cause'?
Am I wrong that the Communists and the Tupamaros raised funds for their illegal and subversive activities, by robbing banks a BD stealing?
Were they not responsible for bombings?
I suppose I can follow your line of thinking, that if she should not be held accountable for breaking the law back then for ideological reasons, she should be excused today, for reasons of ideology.
Why do you defend corrupt Socialists who break the law?
Ideology??
@2 Kanye
Aug 31st, 2016 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you honestly believe Rousseff is being impeached because her fellow senators have such a high regard for the law? I don't think you are that naive.
She's not being tried in a court, and the 'jury' of senators can't even pretend to be impartial. The widespread corruption that has been uncovered, involving a majority of the politicians in Brazil, makes it obvious that the impeachment is politically motivated.
And if she broke the law in the 70s she should be prosecuted for that; it's irrelevant to the impeachment trial now.
You miss the point entirely.
Aug 31st, 2016 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 02 Kanye “A matter of Law, not Ideology.” Is in itself a good question. I find this article summarizes the core problem clearly.
Aug 31st, 2016 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”good governance constantly impeded…But what should be on trial, above all else, is the failed Brazilian political model. The Brazilian constitution detaches executive power from the legislature but also, through the way it counts votes for congress, gives rise to a plethora of political parties. The result is that a president who has received a majority of the popular vote faces a legislature in which his or her party is lucky if it has 20% of the seats.
To rule, the president must do deals that hamper policymaking and hand thousands of government jobs to the often incompetent nominees of political parties. To make matters worse, even the big parties cannot raise enough money from legitimate sources for campaigning in a huge country with many levels of government. Brazilian elections are almost as expensive as US ones. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/12/the-guardian-view-on-dilma-rousseffs-impeachment-the-political-system-should-be-on-trial-not-one-woman
Well posted Terence Hill, the Brazilian problem in a nutshell.
Aug 31st, 2016 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@4 Kanye
Aug 31st, 2016 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So your point wasn't that Rousseff's impeachment is a matter of law, not ideology, and therefore Enrique shouldn't be bringing ideology into it again?
You seem to think he was trying to defend Rousseff, yet what he actually said was that the impeachment was arranged to give power to right wing politicians, something that is pretty clearly true.
Why do you think she is being impeached if not the above?
@5 Terence Hill
Your article makes sense, and it's not encouraging as the system will be difficult to fix and none of the current people in power seem likely even to try.
Brazil's fate has not yet been decided!
Aug 31st, 2016 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DT
Aug 31st, 2016 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It does not look like ideology is the issue, as EM says, rather o e party sees an opportunity to oust the other, nothing more.
Self-serving, both of them - whatever pretext they want to use.
EM has a knee jerk ideological reaction against anyone who challenges groups identified as SA Socialists, and paints the aggressors of whatever ilk as ideologues
@3 DT
Aug 31st, 2016 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“And if she broke the law in the 70s she should be prosecuted for that; it's irrelevant to the impeachment trial now.”
In the 60's and 70's - until she was caught and imprisoned for a couple of years for terrorist activities - she actively participated in bank robberies, political kidnapping for ransom, assassinations, and other crimes . She was let off very lightly, and although there is absolutely no proof that she was tortured, she loves to brag about it, as if her actions were noble : trying to topple the government to establish a Cuban-style communist regime in Brazil.
For all that, she was never tried. But it has finally caught up with her.
I agree that the impeachment process had its dose of politics, but what impeachment process wouldn't ? after her political adversaries saw a chance to nail her ass - because of her crimes - as well as her highly incompetent management of the economy, why shouldn't they have crucified her ?
@9 Kanye
Sep 01st, 2016 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now that I agree with, one party has taken the chance to oust the other, and without any elections. The end result is a massive shift in government policy which the people had no say over. Even if you think Temer's policies will be better for Brazil, it should be up to the people to decide what they want.
And do you think Temer wanted to take over solely to have power, or in order to pursue his political goals?
@10 Jack Bauer
When you say she was trying to topple the government, you mean the military dictatorship, right? And she was never tried because of an amnesty law passed by said military dictatorship? In any case, it apparently didn't stop her becoming president, and was all known at the time, so why is it an issue now?
You ask why shouldn't her political adversaries have abused the impeachment process to get rid of her? Well, it's undemocratic, as the new president is now pursuing opposite policies to the one people voted for; it reduces confidence in the political process, which is destabilising for a country; it will probably hamper the corruption investigations (although this is feature not a bug from their point of view); and it's extremely hypocritical since most of the people now in power have been accused of far more serious crimes. Oh yeah, and it's given Brazil some really negative international publicity.
But apart from that, no reason at all.
The first guerrilla opposition to the dictatorship didn't occur until three years after the coup. Which came in response to brutal repression inflicted on the country. Rousseff was continually stymied by a hostile elements that refused to pass her budgets. Then complained about her handling of the economy, when she didn't exactly have a free-hand.
Sep 01st, 2016 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0DILMA'S LOOK, AND THE UNFORGETTABLE FARCE.
Sep 01st, 2016 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When democracy isn't important, we see this kind of farces, that's why, a group of thieves, who are actually experts in politic extortion, who are denounced of terrible delits, destituted yesterday a legitimate president voted by 54 millons of brasilians. All these rogues not even could find unless one proof that shows that Dilma committed a delit in all these years, that's why, the only thing they could do, was to accuse her of using the same mechasim was used by ALL previous administrations, uncluding by some governors from different states, to finance the brasilian budget. It's evident that all these cretins want to impose by force, the economic and cultural model that was defeated in 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014, however, what they don't see, is the violence that they'll provoke in many sectors of the brasilian society, when the efffects of their regressive policies start to be felt by people, that kind of violence ALWAYS ends badly.
Mr. Arg,
Sep 01st, 2016 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you speaking as a concerned ideologue?
Was she legally deposed?
Were the unnamed 'others' found legally guilty of illegal acts?
How are the supposed illegal acts of the 'others' relevant to Dilma breaking the law or ruling by decree, or other inappropriate actions?
Should we ignore improper actions simply because some biased people say it has happened in the past, also?
14 Kanye
Sep 01st, 2016 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Should we ignore improper actions simply because some biased people say it has happened in the past” Regardless of who said it it's my understanding that all previous governments behaved in exactly the same fashion. The difference on his occasion was the amount was larger. So she could make the case under “article 5. all persons are equal before the law, without any distinction” of the constitution. There is also a conflict between article 84. and article 85. But, that is moot, as there is no legal review. As the Constitutional Law elements 1982, Michel Temer states: ”…the judgment of the Senate is political. …the constitution gave this mission to the Chamber of Deputies (authorizing process) and the Federal Senate. Not the judiciary, …”
@11 DT
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 02:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0“@10 Jack Bauer
When you say she was trying to topple the government, you mean the military dictatorship, right? ”
No. Armed opposition to the government was already happening in 1961....3 years before the military took over. Some of the Cuban trained “freedom fighters” had just returned to Brazil, and their objective was to replace the (Janio Quadros) Govt with a Communist regime. Dilma's family was upper middle-class (her father had been a member of the Bulgarian communist party), but despite that - and without her parents knowledge - she left her studies to join the incipient communist movement. In 1964, she joined a 'worker's' organization (Política Operária), an off-shoot of the Brazilian Socialist party that had been founded in 1961 . She claims she never participated actively in the violent crimes perpetrated by her group (initially 'Comando de Libertação Nacional' - COLINA, then later Vanguarda Armada Revolucionária Palmares), but years later, some of her ex-comrades told a different story. In 1970 she was captured, tried and sentenced to 6 years in prison, but 30 months later she was released. Her political rights were suspended for 18 years, but by the time the military returned rule to the civilians in 1985, she had paid her debt to society - at least according to the Law. Her past has nothing to do with her impeachment, but to those who don't like her, it's just the cherry on the cake.
It is no surprise, as it never is, that those who lose their battles will claim they are victims, and unfortunately we will have to put up with their whinging and whining - like Tinker Bell, a pathetic liar, in # 12 - but that's life.
Temer claims he has no political goals other than to get Brazil back on track, and that he will not run for President in 2018. Let's see.
Dilma may have got 51% of the vote, but a damned sight more than that now, wanted her gone. Just democracy at work.
16 Jack Bauer
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0“No. Armed opposition to the government was already happening in 1961....3 years before the military took over. Some of the Cuban trained “freedom fighters” had just returned to Brazil,…a pathetic liar, in # 12 -”
This is the chance, is it? Oh! no the usual unsupported personal opinion, what disappointment. If you really could give us some verifiable info it would great. But as yet I've been unable to find any evidence of this.
I claimed previously “The first guerrilla opposition to the dictatorship didn't occur until three years after the coup”. This is the evidence I relied on. ”The Araguaia guerrilla (Portuguese: Guerrilha do Araguaia) was an armed movement in Brazil against its military dictatorship, active between 1967-1974 in the Araguaia river basin.“
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araguaia_Guerrilla_War
Further to that, I have found evidence of earlier activities, but not against the government, ”In early 1969, the Minas Gerais branch of Colina of a bank robbery”. But unable to qualify your claim of armed opposition to the government in 1961. So either your mistaken or it's a fabrication.
@17 THill
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 03:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was sure you'd come back maintaining your incorrect version of the facts. Makes no difference, doesn't change the fact I was here at the time and lived it. Differently to you, that was not, and depends on third-hand info to form an opinion.....even though you don't really know what it is....
18 Jack Bauer
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0With a sole reliance on your fact-less opinion which means it's not true. So since you claim you're not mistaken then it must be a fabrication, since you can't verify it, thanks,
Heres some opinions on which the reliance of truth is acceptable.
“If it is a Miracle, any sort of evidence will answer, but if it is a Fact, proof is necessary” Mark Twain
“No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof.” Henry David Thoreau
“Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There's no better rule” Charles Dickens
KANYE (14).
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In all these years, all those rogues from the opposition, and from the hegemonical adict press that supports them, have made great efforts to make the brasilians believe that Dilma is a corrupt or complice of some the most terrible corruption cases, however those cretins couln't find not even one proof that shows her soposed fault, that's why, they had no alternative than forcing her empeachment, to take her out from office. The mechanism she used to finance the brasilians budget, is the same one that was used by all previous presidents, even by some governors from different states, however nobody was empeached for it, which shows perfectly that all this was just a big farce.
Dilma committed serious mistakes, in fact, she capitulated before her convictions, and applied the cuts that she criticised during the campaign, that's why Brasil has been on recession since 3 years ago, but nobody could show that she committed a delit.
@19 THill
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I witnessed some of the shit you ignorantly refuse to acknowledge, and the fact that you don't believe it, makes no damned difference to me.
No more time to waste on your rubbish.
21 Jack Bauer
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I witnessed some of the shit you refuse to acknowledge” So you're basically devoid of any argument to counter the evidence I have produced that clearly shows your claims are not true. So all you can proffer is the same pathetic line as Donald Trump “Believe me”. I don't believe you or anyone else that fails to meet their burden proof. Such failure proves only thing, that your claim is utterly false.
@16 Jack Bauer
Sep 02nd, 2016 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which group was attacking the government before 1964? Not COLINA if they only formed in 1967, and not Rousseff herself who wasn't involved until after the coup.
In any case, as you say, she was considered to have paid her debt to society and it had nothing to do with her impeachment.
The whole situation is a mess. Removing a corrupt, unpopular president and replacing her with someone at least as corrupt and unpopular is not something to celebrate, and one political party taking power from another without benefit of an election is not democracy at work.
Kanye asked if 'others' had been found guilty of illegal acts. The new president, Temer, has already been found guilty of violating election laws, and is banned from running for office for 8 years, so he couldn't run for president in 2018 anyway.
If the impeachment was actually about cleaning up corruption, then I would support it. Kanye is right that 'everyone else is doing it' is not a defence. But this is clearly not the case. The former speaker of the house who approved the impeachment was forced to resign due to the corruption scandal, the new anti-corruption minister was also forced to resign after recordings showed him trying to derail the investigation, and 45 of the 81 senators who voted on the impeachment are either being investigated for serious offences, or have already been convicted of one.
Temer may or may not be able to fix the economy, but there is pretty much no chance that the deeper problems in Brazilian politics will be fixed as long as he is charge.
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/08/31/rousseff-s-fate-has-been-decided-senate-will-make-it-formal-on-wednesday#comment448112: I hope you are wearing your tin foil hat while posting. Remember without it your brain is exposed to probing by alien death rays!
Sep 03rd, 2016 - 01:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Armed coup d'etats have become passé as a way for the dominant classes to take back the power when “accidents” let popular governments happen.
Sep 03rd, 2016 - 03:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0However, the wealthy classes have not given up their belief that the power “naturally” belongs to them.
As a result, coups by other means have now become the instrument of choice to unseat governments that respond to the majorities instead of narrow elites.
An inseparable part of the strategy is the big media, which fuels a climate of hate in preparation for the take over.
The judiciary, which is composed mainly by members of the wealthy minorities, is an indispensable helper in taking the power back from the “indesirables.”
One characteristic observed in Brazil's recent masquerade, as it was the case in Argentina as well as Ecuador and Bolivia, is the violent feeling of outrage exhibited by the traditional elites towards those they feel not having the “right” to govern themselves.
It has to be noted that Dilma Rousseff, unlike those who rallied against her, was never accused of taking any money for herself.
@22 Thill,
Sep 03rd, 2016 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“So you're basically devoid of any argument to counter the evidence I have produced....”
I have my own experience to rely on, not the BS you claim to have 'produced' in yr futile attempt to discredit me.....which btw, is a tactic frequently used by liberals when they run out of valid arguments. You are no different.
@23 DT
”Which group was attacking the government before 1964? Not COLINA if they only formed in 1967, and not Rousseff herself who wasn't involved until after the coup.
In 196o, the Brazilian communists became more radicalized (after the Cuban experience) , and started promoting what became known as “a luta de classes” (class warfare) , which consisted of creating social tension between people of different social classes, or basically, placing workers against capitalism.
When Janio resigned in '61, the military weren't too pleased with the way things were going - social unrest, with a strong communist appeal to the poor (which reached its climax in '62/63) - and decided to try to prevent the VP Joao Goulart (Jango), a communist, from taking over. This caused Jango's brother-in-law Leonel Brizola, the governor of RS and also a declared communist, to start campaigning against the military, in order to force them to allow Jango to take over when he returned from Communist China. The confrontation almost became bloody, when Brizola, entrenched in the Governor's Palace in RS, began distributing firearms to the part of the population that supported him. The military eventually backed down, and Jango was sworn in. As of 1961, not commanded by, but due to Brizola's influence, small groups started robbing banks in order to fund their communist dream. Although Dilma didn't get involved until later on, the seed had been planted for the armed resistance, lead by the so-called freedom fighters trained in urban warfare in Cuba, whose objective, all along, was to install communism in Brazil.
26 Jack Bauer
Sep 04th, 2016 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I have my own experience to rely on” Which is worthless as it doesn't meet the requirements of burden of proof. Whereas by your own admission I do, by way of evidence. You're unable to produce one iota of counter evidence to refute mine. Since in the field of logic such 'Trumpisioms' ”as believe me' are absolutely rejected. All that you've proved is that your claims are simply unbelievable, congratulations and thank you for further verifying my claims.
24
Sep 04th, 2016 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. Hepatia,
“ I hope you are wearing your tin foil hat while posting. Remember without it your brain is exposed to probing by alien death rays!”
The “death rays” are coming for the likes of you, Mr. Hepatia.
The Brasil nit fellow should watch this too.
https://youtu.be/bz85WpSB6JM
@27 THill
Sep 04th, 2016 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I have my own experience to rely on”...... Which is.....more than you can say. I do not need to prove anything to you, or anyone else, and I am definitely not asking you to believe me....what a twat you are, presuming that what you believe , or not, makes a damned bit of difference to me.
@28 Kanye
If the Brasshole watches your link he will claim that Lockheed Martin is a Brazilian company.
29 Jack Bauer
Sep 04th, 2016 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I do not need to prove anything” This is true as is your failure also leaves you revealed as a proven liar and illogical, are both true.
”Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing “side” to prove the evidence presented is not adequate. Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Mr. Hill
Sep 05th, 2016 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0How presumptive of you.
Offering a statement, even an educated statement, does not obligate one to “prove” it beyond any doubt.
Freely offered, you may accept it or not. That is up to you.
If “Mr Bauer” has first hand experience or knowledge, he may be educating us some privileged insight.
You can choose to believe it or not.
31 Kanye
Sep 05th, 2016 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0“How presumptive of you”. On the contrary how rationally based. All according to the rules of logic, debate, and philosophy which were developed with the sole aim of preventing such fraud. Which Jack constantly attempts to do, in lieu of proof. He is free to write what ever he wishes, the same as I am free to respond in a fair and equitable way, and don't require his or your approval.
@30 , 32 THill
Sep 06th, 2016 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0””Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant)“
You are truly a twat. What NEW idea have I presented ? Taking a position, based on public events hardly requires proof - that is what one calls an 'opinion'....Just like the recent earthquake in Italy... If I said ”It completely destroyed the town of Amatrice“ ...do I need to prove it ?? You see numbnuts, I'm not 'trying' to prove anything - This is not a 'debate' in the true sense of the word, and no one is trying to , or should be trying to ”prove“ that someone else is wrong ; an exception would be the stupid remark that Hepatia incessantly repeats ”Malvinas will be returned to Argentina in the next 25 years“....although 'its' been saying this for two years now, and should correct the phrase to ”23 years”, it is a typical example of something totally unfounded and yes, can be questioned ; What you don't want to accept is that we are not in a Court of Justice, but on a site where people can freely express their opinions, within certain limits. The fact that you apparently don't accept this, is your very personal problem, not ours. No one is going overboard here, trying to impose anything, except you, with your 'presumptive' , haughty manner. Choose to disagree if you will, but get off the high-horse.
33 Jack Bauer
Sep 06th, 2016 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The unsupported fiction that you have tried to represent as fact in post #26 qualifies as a 'new idea' It was not an opinion, you represented a historical event untruthfully. Therefore, it was fraud, and you are revealed as a liar. So keep on blathering all want it its not going to cover up the proof of what you did.
@34 THill
Sep 07th, 2016 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unsupported fiction ?? Besides becoming flagrantly obvious that you didn't live in Brazil during the 60's, you have also just proved you are either incapable of researching on the internet - or anywhere else for that matter - or, you refuse to believe what goes against your commie ideas ; So, why don't you just stop twisting my words and shut your piehole ?
Why do you insist on embarassing yourself ?
35 Jack Bauer
Sep 07th, 2016 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can bullshit all you want, the burden was yours to prove what you claim. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof Which you failed then, and also on this occasion, thereby confirming that it is a false account. The reason I called you out on this, is because I have researched that time period. So I know there is nothing supporting your preposterous invention. You must believe I'm as stupid as you are.
No embarrassment here, I've got the link to the citation that confirms who bears the burden. While you are unable to provide any link to support your claim. So you have further confirmed you are a liar.
@36 Terry
Sep 08th, 2016 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why should I do your homework for you, you lazy, ignorant idiot ? Look it up yourself....and get some help from a friend...if you have one.
“ The reason I called you out.. ”, “I've got the link to the citation that confirms...” really ? so ?
Watch your pressure, the aneurysm might pop.
37 Jack Bauer
Sep 08th, 2016 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Why should I do your homework” I don't have any as the burden of proof is on he who asserts, ergo your fictional historical narrative. Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had great fall. Oops! Your own big mouth was your own undoing. All is revealed, it is all empty bluster, nothing but inventions. I guess you're going to have to get up much earlier in the morning. “Watch your pressure” Why? I'm not the one bent out of shape.
@38 THill
Sep 09th, 2016 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not my homework you twit...'yours'. I've already done mine. If you can't find it on the internet, ask your boyfriend to help you.
But pls carry on being the Haughty Hill, we would miss your BS if you didn't.
39 Jack Bauer
Sep 09th, 2016 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I've already done mine.” Oh no you haven't otherwise you would be able to provide a link to support your claim. What you previously claimed was your narrative was based on Re: #26 “I have my own experience to rely on” Which is just another version of “Believe me”, which I don't. So you're still unable to refute your burden of proof. “Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.” Franklin D. Roosevelt,
THill
Sep 09th, 2016 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is NO “burden of proof” here.
As you said, “believe me”.
You can choose not to. End of.
If Mr. Bauer chooses to enlighten us with the benefit of his personal experience, then so be it.
You are free to believe it, try to interpret it within the realm of what you have learned from your own life experience, or dismiss it.
Nobody is trying to “censor” you either, as you accused me of doing.
How do any of us have the power to censor you.
You are free to say whatever you like.
Why is it that when you are asked to defend your arguments with links or sound reasoning, you consider that “censorship”, but when you attack the statements of others, it is exposing “lies” and “fraud”?
Unproven statements are just that, “unproven statements”.
If you want to denounce those unproven statements to others as “lies”, you need to prove they are deliberately untrue, if you wish your own position to be respected.
Dammit, another 5 minutes wasted!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!