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!
> The over and under, How long will it take for Obama to start the backtracking?
Royucker
post Nov 3 2008, 04:51 PM
Post #1


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 9,724
Joined: October-21-08

From: Virginia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



If Obama wins, how long after the polls close on Tuesday, before he starts to back away from his promises and policies and to down play expectations for his presidency?
I vote under 1 week.


In the debates and on the stump we heard time and time again that people making less than $250K per year would not have their taxes raised.

Here in Virginia over the last few days, Obama is running an ad where he says, if you have a job and make under $200K you will get a tax cut or wont have your taxes raised.

Recently Bill Richardson, who has been going all over the country to stump for Obama said that if you made less than $120K you would get a tax cut.


Questions are:

Is Obama backtracking on his promise about tax increases or cuts?

What other promises or policies might he go back on or change if elected?

Is Obama setting the table to lessen the expectations and go back promises if elected?


This post has been edited by Jaime: Nov 3 2008, 07:29 PM
Reason for edit: Edited to add in debate questions into body of post
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Aquilla
post Nov 4 2008, 03:49 AM
Post #21


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 3 2008, 09:38 PM) *
QUOTE(Doclotus)
I wasn't crazy about it when he decided to do it (much like his decision on telecom immunity regarding FISA), but I definitely understood why he decided to risk breaking that promise. When he made the pledge in 2007, I don't think he realized he would be looking at 3+ million individual donors to tap into. But it is a broken promise nonetheless.

Obama said, from your quote.
QUOTE
If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

That's a conditional promise. He never said he would take public financing only that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement."

Weasel-Wording? Yes.

Lying? No.

He's a lawyer, remember to take him literally when he makes a pledge.



Spin away....

To everything, turnea, turnea,turnea.....

John McCain took public financing, Barack Obama didn't. John McCain kept his promise, Barack Obama didn't. What is so difficult for you to understand about this, Turnea?

Aquilla
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 03:52 AM
Post #22


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 3 2008, 09:49 PM) *
John McCain took public financing, Barack Obama didn't. John McCain kept his promise, Barack Obama didn't. What is so difficult for you to understand about this, Turnea?

Put it this way, if you took him to court. You'd lose.

He never said he'd take public financing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Nov 4 2008, 04:42 AM
Post #23


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 3 2008, 09:52 PM) *
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 3 2008, 09:49 PM) *
John McCain took public financing, Barack Obama didn't. John McCain kept his promise, Barack Obama didn't. What is so difficult for you to understand about this, Turnea?

Put it this way, if you took him to court. You'd lose.

He never said he'd take public financing.



Put it this way......

He said he'd take public financing and he didn't. He LIED. Parse it, spin anyway you want, it doesn't change the facts. Obama is a LIAR. If he lied about this, what else is he lying about? This is something for people to consider when they cast their vote. That's the only "court" that counts.

Aquilla
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 04:47 AM
Post #24


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 3 2008, 10:42 PM) *
He said he'd take public financing and he didn't. He LIED. Parse it, spin anyway you want, it doesn't change the facts. Obama is a LIAR. If he lied about this, what else is he lying about? This is something for people to consider when they cast their vote. That's the only "court" that counts.

When he wins tomorrow I'll assume you wont spin that last statement away.

By saying he would pursue an agreement he implied that at the time there was no such agreement.


There never was any agreement. If you like to call that a lie, okay. It's not but since it's all coming to the wire tomorrow we can spare a little accuracy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gordo
post Nov 4 2008, 06:10 AM
Post #25


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 864
Member No.: 6,220
Joined: June-28-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 4 2008, 01:45 AM) *
QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 3 2008, 03:02 PM) *
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 3 2008, 03:00 PM) *
Obama has already lied about accepting public financing for his campaign so there is absolutely no reason to believe he isn't lying about everything else he's promised including his tax policy. I think we can expect some drastic new tax increases in his first year, tax increases on virtually every working American. And, he'll blame them on Bush. rolleyes.gif

Can we hold you to that?

I mean all we can do is guess in this discussion, but will anyone reconsider if and when there fears don't materialize?



I notice you didn't address the part of my post that dealt with Obama lying about accepting public funds.......


Tell me, Turnea, if he lied about that, can we believe him about anything else?


Aquilla


Its probably pointless to bring this up, but do you support some ethical violations being only enforced in a party specific manner? It just seems to be a fruitless endeavor simply because who would by into that unfair political model.

I think with what this president might do, such as end the conflict in Iraq, much more interesting issues will arise. I say this because whatever potential felony that is being spoken about does not seem to hold the ability to derail what currently already seems a political victory.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Nov 4 2008, 06:17 AM
Post #26


**********
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(turnea @ Nov 3 2008, 08:47 PM) *
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 3 2008, 10:42 PM) *
He said he'd take public financing and he didn't. He LIED. Parse it, spin anyway you want, it doesn't change the facts. Obama is a LIAR. If he lied about this, what else is he lying about? This is something for people to consider when they cast their vote. That's the only "court" that counts.

When he wins tomorrow I'll assume you wont spin that last statement away.

By saying he would pursue an agreement he implied that at the time there was no such agreement.


There never was any agreement. If you like to call that a lie, okay. It's not but since it's all coming to the wire tomorrow we can spare a little accuracy.


Hmmm, after reading the entire statement in context, it seems he DID NOT make an explicit agreement, but offered to enter into negotiations.

Those negotiations, clearly, never happened.

So I think Aquilla's hyperbole of "he lied, he lied" quite fits the bill, I WOULD question him putting it out there if he didn't plan to follow through, eh Turnea?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jobius
post Nov 4 2008, 06:33 AM
Post #27


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
September 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 521
Member No.: 5,538
Joined: October-13-05

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



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 3 2008, 07:38 PM) *
QUOTE(Doclotus)
I wasn't crazy about it when he decided to do it (much like his decision on telecom immunity regarding FISA), but I definitely understood why he decided to risk breaking that promise. When he made the pledge in 2007, I don't think he realized he would be looking at 3+ million individual donors to tap into. But it is a broken promise nonetheless.

Obama said, from your quote.
QUOTE
If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

That's a conditional promise. He never said he would take public financing only that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement."


Ah yes, the aggressive pursuit...

QUOTE(Michael Potter @ New York Times Political Blog, June 19, 2008)
“There were no negotiations,’’ [McCain campaign general counsel Trevor] Potter said in his conference call, saying that the two men had spoken about the issue only once, in a 40-minute meeting earlier this month that he said had been called to work out the details of an unrelated joint appearance that they were planning. “There were no attempted negotiations.’’

Then, Mr. Potter said, there was silence from the Obama campaign. “We never heard anything,’’ he said

Next up, assuming the role of the defense, was Bob Bauer, the Obama campaign’s counsel. He said on his own conference call that he had believed that his meeting with Mr. Potter, which he said took place on June 6, was primarily a negotiation on the public financing issue, and that Mr. Bauer did not respond to the concerns he raised.

He acknowledged that he never followed the meeting up with further communications, and, when pressed by reporters whether he would describe his effort as “aggressive,’’ questioned why the McCain campaign had not followed up.

“They went back and sat by the phone,’’ Mr. Bauer said. “They didn’t call back.’’

Mr. Bauer said that he did not tell Mr. Potter that the Obama campaign had decided to forgo the public financing on Wednesday, when the two lawyers made the joint appearance that they had been planning at the June 6 meeting.

Mr. Potter said that he was surprised to learn of the decision from his Blackberry on Thursday morning.

A conversation that lasted less than an hour, with no follow-up. How's that for aggressive pursuit?

QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 3 2008, 07:38 PM) *
He's a lawyer, remember to take him literally when he makes a pledge.

What's the definition of "aggressively"? Maybe it depends on what the definition of "definition" is...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Nov 4 2008, 06:37 AM
Post #28


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 3 2008, 11:42 PM) *
QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 3 2008, 09:52 PM) *
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 3 2008, 09:49 PM) *
John McCain took public financing, Barack Obama didn't. John McCain kept his promise, Barack Obama didn't. What is so difficult for you to understand about this, Turnea?

Put it this way, if you took him to court. You'd lose.

He never said he'd take public financing.



Put it this way......

He said he'd take public financing and he didn't. He LIED. Parse it, spin anyway you want, it doesn't change the facts. Obama is a LIAR. If he lied about this, what else is he lying about? This is something for people to consider when they cast their vote. That's the only "court" that counts.

Aquilla


And now we await their verdict.

Meanwhile, you got anything more substantial than "liar, liar, pants on fire," Aquilla or is your little bag of anti-Obama talking points just about empty?

I'm only mildly surprised you didn't rip Obama for not "suspending" his campaign when his grandmother passed away. You already dumped on him when he flew out to Hawaii to see her before the end.

dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Nov 4 2008, 07:15 AM
Post #29


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 3 2008, 08:42 PM) *
QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 3 2008, 09:52 PM) *
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 3 2008, 09:49 PM) *
John McCain took public financing, Barack Obama didn't. John McCain kept his promise, Barack Obama didn't. What is so difficult for you to understand about this, Turnea?

Put it this way, if you took him to court. You'd lose.

He never said he'd take public financing.



Put it this way......

He said he'd take public financing and he didn't. He LIED. Parse it, spin anyway you want, it doesn't change the facts. Obama is a LIAR. If he lied about this, what else is he lying about? This is something for people to consider when they cast their vote. That's the only "court" that counts.

Aquilla


I have to say, I find your passion about this a bit strange. I mean, let's look at some other broken campaign promises. Reagan promised not to negotiate with terrorists, but did. In October of 1980 he wrote “You can rest assured that if I am elected president, I will take whatever steps are necessary to provide our air traffic controllers with the most modern equipment available and to adjust staff levels and work days so that they are commensurate with achieving a maximum degree of public safety." Well, we know what happened the next year. In '84 he said he wouldn't raise taxes. Oops! Bush Sr. topped that with the now famous "read my lips" but that didn't last. In '92 Clinton promised the most ethical administration ever. Oops! Bush Jr. promised no nation building - that's working out well.

I mean, I'm no big fan of broken promises, but they are rather common in presidential elections. It seems a bit of a leap to go from Obama's turnabout on public financing to the conclusion that we can trust nothing he says at all. Well, I suppose you could really feel that way, but then, you'd have to feel just as strongly about, well, just about every president, of either party...

Jeff Fishel, professor of Government at American University, wrote a book in 1985 called Presidents and Promises, where he tracked the campaign promises of presidents from Kennedy to Reagan. He found that presidents on average followed through on promises 66% of the time. Using your logic here, where one broken promise equals total distrust, you'll be walking on thin ice if you ever defend Reagan again. thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Nov 4 2008, 07:58 AM
Post #30


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

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

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



Qh- I think you have hit pretty close to the reality of the campaign vs leading.

If you make an iron clad promise "read my lips, no new taxes"- or , how did Reagan put it "concrete moved" or some such w00t.gif - you open yourself up to this.

Clearly, Obama didn't make that iron clad promise over this issue-

but also, for the most part, McCain and Obama have made thier policy stands and ideology pretty clear, without putting down too many, if any iron clad promises.

I think they were both pretty clear on what POSITIONS they would take and where they stand, without neccesarily promising the OUTCOME of those positions they take.

If a candidate "pledges to work on issue X" - then that means they will do thier best to get some issue raised to the forefront, and get some type of change they had communicated during the campaign completed.

Not usually possible or realistic, considering the set up of our goverment, and the need for compromise to get a law passed.

I believe the only truly effective president in getting pretty much everything he promised passed was LBJ.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
smorpheus
post Nov 4 2008, 11:57 AM
Post #31


*****
Century Mark

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

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



Not that it matters at this point, but this line:

QUOTE
If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to
preserve a publicly financed general election.


Is clearly a broken promise. I think QH is right, if you call this a lie, you basically would condemn every presidential candidate who broke a promise in history. It's a lie if you can demonstrate intent to deceive. Obama should have apologized for breaking that promise, and moved on. Ignoring it seemed to work though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 01:16 PM
Post #32


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Jobius @ Nov 4 2008, 12:33 AM) *
What's the definition of "aggressively"? Maybe it depends on what the definition of "definition" is...

:shrug:

He made sure to use a subjective term. I wouldn't call it aggressive, but I bet if you pressed the campaign they'd come up with lots of soul-searching internal discussions.

The point is he never pledged to use public financing. Not once.

"I'll really try" is not a promise.

This post has been edited by turnea: Nov 4 2008, 01:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Nov 4 2008, 01:49 PM
Post #33


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



What most here are missing (not surprisingly given the makeup of this forum) is that there is a fundamental difference between breaking a campaign promise of what one would do as President, and one of what one would do while running for President. Once a President enters office, events can change and drive that President to do things they promised not to do when they were running for the office. Is it a broken promise? Sure is and they can and should be held accountable for it. It is up to them to explain their actions in the next election campaign. Bush 41 failed to do that with his "read my lips" pledge on taxes in 1992 and he lost.

In this case though, Barack Obama's decision to renege on his promise (despite the spin of the sicko-pants) was not event driven. He could have accepted public financing and still run a campaign for President. McCain did. NOTHING forced Obama to break this promise, he did it on his own. So, he lied plain and simple. Maybe he'll get away with it, maybe he won't. We'll see today. It is interesting to see the responses here and elsewhere though about those who support Obama as an "agent of change". I can only reply "be careful what you wish for". rolleyes.gif

As far as NT's comment.......

QUOTE
I'm only mildly surprised you didn't rip Obama for not "suspending" his campaign when his grandmother passed away. You already dumped on him when he flew out to Hawaii to see her before the end.


Let's add a little context to that comment. That was in a thread concerning the RNC purchasing clothes for Sarah Palin and whether that was a legitimate campaign expenditure. I didn't "dump" on Obama for visiting his dying grandmother (who he threw under the bus months ago). What I was questioning was whether flying out on a chartered jet at campaign expense was any more appropriate than the RNC paying for Sarah Palin's wardrobe for her appearances. If I had a dying grandmother in Hawaii, I'd fly out to see her and I'd pay for it myself, but I'm not running for President. I also buy my own clothes, but I'm not running for Vice President either.


Aquilla

This post has been edited by Aquilla: Nov 4 2008, 01:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 01:52 PM
Post #34


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Yeah, blame the forum... tongue.gif

There was no promise to accept public financing and by now I think you know it.

Produce a promise and that might change.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Nov 4 2008, 02:13 PM
Post #35


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 07:52 AM) *
Yeah, blame the forum... tongue.gif

There was no promise to accept public financing and by now I think you know it.

Produce a promise and that might change.

laugh.gif

I'm not "blaming" the forum. rolleyes.gif It is what it is and that's pretty apparent to people I would think. And, that's fine, for a conservative Republican it is a target rich environment. Obama made a pledge to accept public financing if McCain did, that has been well documented, despite the "lawyer" spin. McCain took public financing, Obama didn't. Obama LIED and has outspent McCain 3 or 4 to 1. Hell, he has his own channel on DISH TV. Okay, so we Republicans take a lesson on this one and the next time decline public financing. We'll hit up all those "rich guys" your side claims we represent for a few million a pop and in 2012 have a campaign war chest in excess of a BILLION dollars and see if we can buy the White House with it. That's a "Change" you can thank your guy for.

Aquilla

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 02:17 PM
Post #36


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 4 2008, 08:13 AM) *
Obama made a pledge to accept public financing if McCain did, that has been well documented,

If it's so well documented you should have no trouble showing such a document, right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trumpetplayer
post Nov 4 2008, 02:17 PM
Post #37


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Member No.: 7,739
Joined: May-22-07

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 07:52 AM) *
Yeah, blame the forum... tongue.gif

There was no promise to accept public financing and by now I think you know it.

Produce a promise and that might change.



Obama doesn't deny breaking the promise, why are the water carriers contradicting the messiah?
Visit My Website
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 02:20 PM
Post #38


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Nov 4 2008, 08:17 AM) *
Obama doesn't deny breaking the promise, why are the water carriers contradicting the messiah?
Visit My Website

Obama never said he broke a promise, and if you think I'm an Obamaniac you clearly haven't been paying attention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 4 2008, 02:21 PM
Post #39


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 3 2008, 10:57 AM) *
Neither candidate specified what they'd cut in light of the financial crisis. Whoever wins is going to be staring a weak economy and big deficit in the face, so the constraints are considerable.

That said Obama's tax cuts will survive as a stimulus measure, the tax raises on those over $250K will likely be phased in over a few years.

I rather suspect he won't do much backing down actually, anyone taking over from Bush is going to interpret his abysmal performance rating as a bit of a mandate.


I would agree with all of the above, with the exception of the budget cuts. I don't expect Obama to initiate any budget cuts.


As for the public campaign financing issue, I think Quarkhead summarized it pretty well:

QUOTE
I mean, I'm no big fan of broken promises, but they are rather common in presidential elections. It seems a bit of a leap to go from Obama's turnabout on public financing to the conclusion that we can trust nothing he says at all. Well, I suppose you could really feel that way, but then, you'd have to feel just as strongly about, well, just about every president, of either party...


Obama would have been a fool to go with public financing... look at all the money his campaign has raised. QH is right about 'broken promises'. Now, if Obama starts going back on things he actively campaigned on, I'll jump on that bandwagon with a bullhorn. But this seems a pretty minor issue. Republicans are only making a big deal out of it because Obama's campaign donations are putting them in such a financial disadvantage -- if McCain were able to bring in the money Obama is, then he would have foregone public financing as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 02:24 PM
Post #40


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Indeed there was no promise.

What happened could be most accurately described by that over-used term. "Flip-flop"

Obama made an opportunistic change position in order to garner more votes.

Like McCain did on the Bush tax cuts.

He talked up public financing, but he never said he'd use it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: November 15th, 2018 - 08:39 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.