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 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Royucker
post Nov 4 2008, 02:49 PM
Post #41


***
Junior Contributor

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

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



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 09:24 AM) *
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.


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

"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..."

Is this the “change” Obama has been promising?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 02:52 PM
Post #42


**********
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



I never was a "change" voter.

Frankly every candidate since JFK has run on change and politcs never changes.

Politics runs on incentives and the basic incentives won't change unless the populace does.

Obama's chief draw is superior policy, like his tax cuts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doclotus
post Nov 4 2008, 02:52 PM
Post #43


*******
Stirred, not shaken

Sponsor
April 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 893
Member No.: 2,898
Joined: April-12-04

From: Charlotte, NC
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Turnea, just as a point of fact, while your argument regarding what Obama said is defensible, the reality is that Obama did in fact answer a question on that survey:
QUOTE
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing
system?

Obama's answer, per the PDF I linked earlier, was yes. While you are correct that he added some condition to it, his answer on the survey was yes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 02:59 PM
Post #44


**********
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(Doclotus @ Nov 4 2008, 08:52 AM) *
Turnea, just as a point of fact, while your argument regarding what Obama said is defensible, the reality is that Obama did in fact answer a question on that survey:
QUOTE
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing
system?

Obama's answer, per the PDF I linked earlier, was yes. While you are correct that he added some condition to it, his answer on the survey was yes.

Was there a option other than yes or no?

That's a basic survey rule.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Nov 4 2008, 03:01 PM
Post #45


*********
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(Hobbes @ Nov 4 2008, 08:21 AM) *
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.


Wrong. McCain is and always has been committed to reigning in campaign financing, often to his detriment. Hobbes' statement flies in the face of reality. McCain took $84 MILLION in public funds for his campaign. He could have raised far more than that and if you don't believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'll sell to you. Obama lied about how he'd run his campaign, can we trust him to be telling the truth about what he would do as President? I don't think so.


Aquilla
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Nov 4 2008, 03:02 PM
Post #46


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 09:59 AM) *
Was there a option other than yes or no? That's a basic survey rule.

If you want to argue the survey wasn't fair or realistic, someone may want to argue Obama isn't that smart for taking it. Then what will you argue?

I don't know what the big deal is about admitting Obama lied about campaign finance. You're not emotionally invested in a politician, I hope.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 03:05 PM
Post #47


**********
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(Lesly @ Nov 4 2008, 09:02 AM) *
QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 09:59 AM) *
Was there a option other than yes or no? That's a basic survey rule.

If you want to argue the survey wasn't fair or realistic, someone may want to argue Obama isn't that smart for taking it. Then what will you argue?

I don't know what the big deal is about admitting Obama lied about campaign finance. You're not emotionally invested in a politician, I hope.

Hardly, I am however pretty invested in the English language.

I've grown fond of it and I hate to see it abused. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Royucker
post Nov 4 2008, 03:11 PM
Post #48


***
Junior Contributor

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

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



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 09:52 AM) *
I never was a "change" voter.

Frankly every candidate since JFK has run on change and politcs never changes.

Politics runs on incentives and the basic incentives won't change unless the populace does.

Obama's chief draw is superior policy, like his tax cuts.


Why is his main message "change" then?
Obama has been promising us that he is not the same as those before, he is change, positioning himself as somehow above all this while engaging in the same old politics. To me, that is at the heart of the matter, he is not real change, he is an opportunist. He is still running ads on how he will lift us up, beyond partisan politics, work across the isle yadda, yadda, yadda.... Remember he said it himself. "I am the one we have been waiting for"
Change indeed. He is just as dirty as the rest of them. And I think you are wrong, his policies are right out of the tired old democrat play book. Play one group against the other, the rich are evil and the poor are somehow superior and therefore we need to tax those that succeed and lift up those who can not make it without government intervention until we have a nation of dependants, who by the way will have no choice but to vote to enlarge the government tit that sustains them
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Nov 4 2008, 03:15 PM
Post #49


*********
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, 09:05 AM) *
QUOTE(Lesly @ Nov 4 2008, 09:02 AM) *
QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 09:59 AM) *
Was there a option other than yes or no? That's a basic survey rule.

If you want to argue the survey wasn't fair or realistic, someone may want to argue Obama isn't that smart for taking it. Then what will you argue?

I don't know what the big deal is about admitting Obama lied about campaign finance. You're not emotionally invested in a politician, I hope.

Hardly, I am however pretty invested in the English language.

I've grown fond of it and I hate to see it abused. tongue.gif



Then by all means, stop trying to twist it and admit your guy lied. He lied about accepting public financing for his campaign and that's a done deal, water under the bridge. It is what it is. My concern is what else has he lied about doing if he is elected. That concerns me more.


Aquilla
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 03:27 PM
Post #50


**********
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(Royucker)
Why is his main message "change" then?

Because every candidate that wants to win makes change their message. No one likes the establishment.

Compassionate conservatism, anyone?

QUOTE(Royucker)
And I think you are wrong, his policies are right out of the tired old democrat play book. Play one group against the other, the rich are evil and the poor are somehow superior and therefore we need to tax those that succeed and lift up those who can not make it without government intervention until we have a nation of dependants, who by the way will have no choice but to vote to enlarge the government tit that sustains them

Play one group against the other?

Hello! Palin has been extolling the virtues of small town "real America" at every one of her stops in the "pro-American" parts of the country.

By contrast Obama has never disparaged the rich (at least no more than McCain which is to call them "fat cats" as all politicians do, never mine their own considerable heft.).

Retuning the tax rate to Clinton levels for the very rich ($250K is very rich) isn't punishing success.

There was no promise.

Show me the promise! laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Nov 4 2008, 03:40 PM
Post #51


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 10:24 AM) *
Indeed there was no promise.

I find this truly disingenuous, turnea. He clearly said that he was a huge proponent of public financing of campaigns and that he would "aggressively" seek an agreement with the Republican candidate.

No agreement was ever sought so what he said was a lie.

I don't blame Obama. His fund raising machine is truly impressive. However he has set the bar for the next election cycle in direct contrast to what he said he believed. Nobody but the truly desperate (ahem, McCain) would agree to public financing going forward if that decision is going to handicap you in the way that it was handicapped the McCain campaign.

So not only did he break his promise, but by doing so he has destroyed the system which he says he is a vigorous proponent of. Unintended consequences, maybe, but sadly true nonetheless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 03:43 PM
Post #52


**********
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(Amlord @ Nov 4 2008, 09:40 AM) *
QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 10:24 AM) *
Indeed there was no promise.

I find this truly disingenuous, turnea. He clearly said that he was a huge proponent of public financing of campaigns and that he would "aggressively" seek an agreement with the Republican candidate.

No agreement was ever sought so what he said was a lie.


It takes two to agree. They said they discussed it, however briefly with the McCain campaign.

Did they trip over themselves trying? I really doubt it.

But there was no promise.

This post has been edited by turnea: Nov 4 2008, 03:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Royucker
post Nov 4 2008, 03:47 PM
Post #53


***
Junior Contributor

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

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



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 10:27 AM) *
QUOTE(Royucker)
Why is his main message "change" then?

Because every candidate that wants to win makes change their message. No one likes the establishment.

Compassionate conservatism, anyone?

QUOTE(Royucker)
And I think you are wrong, his policies are right out of the tired old democrat play book. Play one group against the other, the rich are evil and the poor are somehow superior and therefore we need to tax those that succeed and lift up those who can not make it without government intervention until we have a nation of dependants, who by the way will have no choice but to vote to enlarge the government tit that sustains them

Play one group against the other?

Hello! Palin has been extolling the virtues of small town "real America" at every one of her stops in the "pro-American" parts of the country.

By contrast Obama has never disparaged the rich (at least no more than McCain which is to call them "fat cats" as all politicians do, never mine their own considerable heft.).

Retuning the tax rate to Clinton levels for the very rich ($250K is very rich) isn't punishing success.
There was no promise.

Show me the promise! laugh.gif

Absolutely playing groups against each other. time and time again, why do they refer so often to "working families" like people that are successful don’t work or have families. The implied meaning is that those rich folks, the ones we are going to get even with, are living it up on the backs of your labors.
$250K is very rich in your view. But go ask anyone that rune a S corp. and you may find that is not really such a large number when Obama refers to revenues of $250K

Again on the promise, is this parsing of words the great change Obama is promising? Maybe he is just a mere mortal after all or is that the audacity in "The Audacity of Hope
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 03:52 PM
Post #54


**********
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



There is a difference between "income" and corporate revenue. $250K a year for an individual is a whole lot of money.

You don't think Joe-the-Plumber mania was not about pitting people against each other?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Nov 4 2008, 03:57 PM
Post #55


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 11:43 AM) *
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 4 2008, 09:40 AM) *
QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 10:24 AM) *
Indeed there was no promise.

I find this truly disingenuous, turnea. He clearly said that he was a huge proponent of public financing of campaigns and that he would "aggressively" seek an agreement with the Republican candidate.

No agreement was ever sought so what he said was a lie.


It takes two to agree. They said they discussed it, however briefly with the McCain campaign.

Did they trip over themselves trying? I really doubt it.

But there was no promise.

There was a promise. There was a condition to it, a condition that was met. However, in addition to his remarks, he checked the "YES" box on the question "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing
system?" Link to document

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


If is the condition. Was the "if" fulfilled? Yes, he is the Democratic nominee.

So what would he do "if"? "I will aggressively..."

He even mentioned McCain by name when he said he wanted a publicly financed system.

By the time Obama was the nominee, his alleged grassroots campaign was looking for more bank vault space to stash his cash. He had no intention (intelligently so) of limiting himself to spending the same amount as McCain (who is perhaps the poorest fundraiser I've ever seen). He broke his promise for political expediency. It isn't the first to do so and he won't be the last, but let's not defend him on something he admits

QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 11:52 AM) *
There is a difference between "income" and corporate revenue. $250K a year for an individual is a whole lot of money.

You don't think Joe-the-Plumber mania was not about pitting people against each other?

Obama's plan is for $250k for a family, which is why I believe there is this discrepancy on what the dollar figure is. The true figure is $125K on an individual.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 4 2008, 03:57 PM
Post #56


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 10:52 AM) *
There is a difference between "income" and corporate revenue. $250K a year for an individual is a whole lot of money.

You don't think Joe-the-Plumber mania was not about pitting people against each other?

QUOTE
$250K a year for an individual is a whole lot of money.


This is a family income – and can be a family Business income as well.

And Obama has said 250K and 200K all the way down to Richardson saying 130K.

So maybe it won’t be backtracking as such. Obama will need to calculate how far down he has to shaft the income brackets in order to fund his spending and giveaways.

We should know within the first year who will be paying – and imo it will be one hell of a lot more people than those families that make 250K
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Royucker
post Nov 4 2008, 04:11 PM
Post #57


***
Junior Contributor

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

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



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 10:52 AM) *
There is a difference between "income" and corporate revenue. $250K a year for an individual is a whole lot of money.

You don't think Joe-the-Plumber mania was not about pitting people against each other?

In an S corp. which many small business are, the profits flow thru to the owners as income. If one wants to use those profits to build the busniess he/she must pay the taxes on the money just as if he/she has taken them home. So if my S corp makes 100K profit I have to pay the taxes on the 100k and can only use the remainder to work off of next year. Regardless of what you call it, uncle Obama gets a large chuck of what could be used to hire a new employee, build a new building, etc...
I think the Joe the plumber thing was very revealing. Obama told Joe if your revenues are over $250K......we will spread the wealth around. You can check the tape on that one -he said revenues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quick
post Nov 4 2008, 04:30 PM
Post #58


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 824
Member No.: 6,407
Joined: August-22-06

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



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 4 2008, 10:27 AM) *
QUOTE(Royucker)
Why is his main message "change" then?


Retuning the tax rate to Clinton levels for the very rich ($250K is very rich) isn't punishing success.



Point of order, Turnea (Since you claim to have grown to love the English language):

"Rich" is defined in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (defiition 1) as, "having abundant possessions and especially material wealth." "Wealth" is defined in this same context as an "abundance of valuable material possessions or resources." In neither case do we see the concepts of "income" and "wealth" blurred.

Having an income of 250K annually does not make one rich or wealthy; it means you have, by today's standards, a reasonably high income. In the U.S., 15.73 percent of our households have annual incomes over 100K, and 1.5% above 250K, using 2005 U.S. Census numbers cited in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_inc...e_United_States

So, having that 250K income is not "very rich." It does put one in a high income bracket.

To me, as an aside, to be "rich" or "wealthy" means that you have sufficient income earning assets that you do not have to work to supply your daily needs. Until you reach that point, you may have a high income, but IMHO you are not rich and you are not wealthy....

__________________

As to what Obama will or will not do, and what his promises really mean, I suggest he is like most other modern politicians in that he says what is expedient, does what is expedient, and will continue to say and do what is expedient. In a nation that now has such a broad sufferance, politicians win by pandering; pandering is a dangerous habit because it always tempts politicians to promise what they cannot deliver. Indeed, if we still paid attention to and abided by our Const, we'd know we shouldn't even want (and the Const does not permit) much of what politicans are pandering to us, including redistribution of wealth.

The fact that Obama panders in expediencies doesn't bother me nearly as much as what I suspect he really thinks, having read Dreams. He is a socialist, and was even endorsed by Joelle Fishman, chair of the U.S. Communist Party. So much for those cherished private property rights under our Constitution....

In a column titled, "Big political shifts are underway," Fishman says that Obama could lead "a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right" this November and that he is " ready to listen" to the "left and progressive voters" backing him. Fishman makes it clear that the CPUSA is part of this coalition.

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/13259/

http://politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/6633/1/323

God bless America....

This post has been edited by quick: Nov 4 2008, 04:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Nov 4 2008, 04:32 PM
Post #59


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



Aquilla still wants to wiggle. Now we find out this broken promise is "fundamentally" different than, say, Reagan's or Bush's broken promises. Interesting. And he still wants to press the idea that because of this, how can we trust ANYTHING Obama says... well I am here to tell you we can, and I'll use Aquilla's own logic to prove it, by gum!

I heard Obama give a speech on TV. He said - and I quote - "my name is Barack Obama, and I am running for president." Now, having done a bit of research, I found out that this statement, as it turns out, is true! Now, if we can trust him on this statement, we can obviously trust him on ANY statement!

See now, that was pretty easy. I could find any number of statements and promises Obama has made that are demonstrably true, and we could extrapolate his utter and constant truth-telling from any of them.

And Aquilla, you really can't pull the "fundamentally different" stuff. Your only support for that was the idea of outside forces causing changes once in office, but that's certainly not true for every promise by every candidate. You'd have to provide some proof for that. The idea that the 33% (on average) of campaign promises get broken, but none of it is their fault? Or if you don't mean that, then please describe exactly how they are "fundamentally" different. I guess the winds of fate forced Clinton to have an unethical administration. It was the pixies living under the White House who made George Bush raise taxes. Evil garden gnomes made Reagan negotiate to get some terrorists freed in order to continue raising money for other terrorists. Do tell. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 04:55 PM
Post #60


**********
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



Running late....

1.) On taxes here's the plans:
Link(PDF)

It's that simple and what I said was accurate. No tax hikes for people making less than about 200K for individuals and 250K for families.

On the "lie"

He promised to pursue an agreement, not to agree to anything no matter how much it limits him
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: September 18th, 2018 - 03:11 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.