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!
> What in the world are you actually afraid of?, If you're really interested...
Curmudgeon
post Nov 26 2016, 03:23 PM
Post #1


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,194
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Looms @ Nov 25 2016, 12:04 AM) *
Also, just curious, what in the world are you actually afraid of? Seriously, what frightens you so, to make you want to leave the country? I'm a first generation immigrant Jew...surely I need to be more afraid that you are, right? You think you may be blowing this out of proportion JUST A BIT? (bolding mine)

If you're really interested, it's a topic for a separate thread, but I'm afraid it's the topic of the book I never wrote...

Donald Trump will be the first president in the Nuclear Age who seems to have no grasp of what is meant by Mutually Assured Destruction.

As a child I was warned of the dangers of Strontium 90, and now I am living with a wife who is suffering from Osteoporosis. (The predicted side effect.)

My father's role in The Manhattan Project was something that was only confirmed to me years after he had died. On the other hand, it resulted in College Professor's who had worked on the project taking special pains to educate me on the effects of nuclear radiation.

One of those professors took photographs of the aftermath at Hiroshima before the Navy began the cleanup. Radiation overexposed all of his films. He was able to describe quite graphically that the shadows of pedestrians were bleached into the concrete of streets and sidewalks from the initial flash before their bodies evaporated.

I was able to tour a "swimming pool" nuclear reactor and see the effect of Atomic Particles exiting the reactor at speeds exceeding the speed of light in water. I was the last to leave the room when an alarm sounded. My film badge was overexposed. End of that career path!

I listened closely in church every year until he died, as a sergeant whose job it was to have his men dig a trench to witness first hand the first aboveground nuclear test because the military had to use real people in order to judge whether or not a nuclear bomb was a safe battlefield weapon.

This can be a dialogue where I expand on any of those fears that someone is interested in, or anyone can respond to:

What in the world are you actually afraid of?

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Nov 26 2016, 03:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 28)
kimpossible
post Nov 29 2016, 02:45 PM
Post #21


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 698
Member No.: 245
Joined: November-8-02

From: on top of spaghetti
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



So sorry to hear about PE! sad.gif I hope that she recovers quickly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Nov 30 2016, 03:15 AM
Post #22


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

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



I too am sorry to read about PE's accident. By pure coincidence my sister had a serious accident on the steps about the same time and is now flat on her back with her left leg held up in a sling. We're all so vulnerable. Just one little misstep.

That said, I can't let this pass.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 29 2016, 04:30 AM) *
As a side note for your own peace of mind, I'd avoid googling nukes and Trump.
Or, for context, google Clinton and death list, see how many hits you get, and maybe that will make you feel better (unless you believe that Clinton is a serial killer).**
See what John Oliver said about the internet in AM's 2016 thread (when you get a chance).

** just checked, there are over 44 million hits for "Clinton death list"

Apparently there is no limit to what people will believe. wacko.gif
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 30 2016, 04:16 AM
Post #23


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 29 2016, 11:15 PM) *
I too am sorry to read about PE's accident. By pure coincidence my sister had a serious accident on the steps about the same time and is now flat on her back with her left leg held up in a sling. We're all so vulnerable. Just one little misstep.

That said, I can't let this pass.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 29 2016, 04:30 AM) *
As a side note for your own peace of mind, I'd avoid googling nukes and Trump.
Or, for context, google Clinton and death list, see how many hits you get, and maybe that will make you feel better (unless you believe that Clinton is a serial killer).**
See what John Oliver said about the internet in AM's 2016 thread (when you get a chance).

** just checked, there are over 44 million hits for "Clinton death list"

Apparently there is no limit to what people will believe. wacko.gif
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp


Which would be the point I was trying to make...
If Google hits are your guide, there is almost an inverse relationship between the number of Google hits and degree of truth.

They say that a lie gets around the world twice before the truth gets its pants on, but in the internet age a lie gets to Andromeda and back while the truth remains locked in a dungeon basement, screaming.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 30 2016, 04:17 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Nov 30 2016, 09:29 AM
Post #24


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

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 29 2016, 09:16 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 29 2016, 11:15 PM) *
I too am sorry to read about PE's accident. By pure coincidence my sister had a serious accident on the steps about the same time and is now flat on her back with her left leg held up in a sling. We're all so vulnerable. Just one little misstep.

That said, I can't let this pass.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 29 2016, 04:30 AM) *
As a side note for your own peace of mind, I'd avoid googling nukes and Trump.
Or, for context, google Clinton and death list, see how many hits you get, and maybe that will make you feel better (unless you believe that Clinton is a serial killer).**
See what John Oliver said about the internet in AM's 2016 thread (when you get a chance).

** just checked, there are over 44 million hits for "Clinton death list"

Apparently there is no limit to what people will believe. wacko.gif
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp


Which would be the point I was trying to make...

The problem is your inappropriate conflation of the two. Concern for Trump's future nuclear actions is high for legitimate reasons.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38149088

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/opinion/...clear-keys.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/politics/tru...apan/index.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 30 2016, 12:50 PM
Post #25


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 30 2016, 05:29 AM) *
The problem is your inappropriate conflation of the two. Concern for Trump's future nuclear actions is high for legitimate reasons.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38149088


Okay, let's look at these articles. Thank you for finally offering something beyond, essentially, "Trump is a lunatic OBVIOUSLY!!"

In this one, the CIA officer mentions that breaking the Iran deal would be "folly", but he doesn't imply that it would be folly because it would lead up to war. It would be folly because we entered an agreement in good faith and it would ruin our leverage to make good faith bargains in nuclear arrangements in the future.
But that ship did sort of sail long ago. Iran DID sign on to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and promised inspections and in return received all sorts of carrots. And they did violate that agreement at the time.
We've had a lot of threads on the topic.
This one was my favorite.

My quote from nine years ago:
QUOTE
Well, when the EU offered them trade concessions (exactly what they had been asking for in order to halt enrichment before) and a light-water nuclear reactor (a more efficient means to produce "electricity" a less efficient means to produce weapons) they laughed at the deal and announced that Europe was trying to trade them chocolate for gold. What did that mean exactly?

Question: Should we engage Iran militarily or diplomatically?

As in invade or sanction? We need to do much more than just talk, but an airstrike or invasion would be counterproductive. The bottom line is this...there is more evidence that Iran is persuing the bomb than there is of global warming. It's basically a foregone conclusion, every country from Lebanon to Saudi, to France to the US accepts it at this point so why pretend otherwise because Iran hasn't outright announced their capabilities and performed an underground test? When I started out at this debate site about four years ago, this was the stage the DPRK was at.

Assuming they are persuing these weapons, every country in the Middle East that considers Iran to be a threat (Saudi, Lebanon, ect) will likely feel the need to have these weapons also. And they will have no reason to expect consequences for violating their obligations under the NPT if Iran does not encounter severe ones for doing so. Anyone feel that nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East is something to be desired? The more nuclear weapons there are around, the more of a chance there is that they will fall into the hands of someone who will use them. The more nuclear weapons there are around, the less chance there is to trace their origin. If such a weapon gets in the hands of a private entity, retaliation is next to impossible. Hello world of nuclear blackmail. THAT is why we don't want Iran to have these weapons. Don't think next week, think twenty years into the future.


We're ten years into the future now....and, well, now we've given them actual gold and we have about the same reassurances as we had years before the above post was written, but they have a full-up nuke program.

From Vermillion, different thread (yes, I'm parsing his quote because I don't want to get into a Bush debate):
QUOTE
Firstly, a thing or two about atomic weapons programs.

Very soon the US and the west is going to have to realise that it cannot keep trying to stuff the atomic toothpaste back in the tube. The day is changing, and our perception is going to have to change with it. In 1945, atomic weapons were a near-impossible engineering and scientific task, beyond all but the two or three most industrialised and most sophisticated countries on the planet, and even them only with a vast and enormous output of resources. The atomic trigger, the atomic sheath and the enriched uranium were impossible feats back then, and this more than anything else is what allowed the atomic club to maintain its small number of members.

Those days are long gone, the atomic trigger and sheath are now within the engineering capability of even middling power nations, and enriched fissile materiel is available from a dozen different sources, including as natural byproducts of several atomic power stations sold by the first world to the third in the 1970s and 1980s. The idea that the West can somehow maintain its stranglehold on atomic weapons has become laughable. At the moment the world has six declared nuclear powers: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India and Pakistan, one undeclared nuclear power: Israel, one former nuclear Power: South Africa and one unconfirmed nuclear power, North Korea.

However if you were to expand that list to include nations that could be nuclear in three months if the wanted to, suddenly there are dozens more: Canada, Japan, Italy, Spain, Germany, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Egypt, Ukraine, Brazil, Mexico, and the list continues.

These nations do NOT have nukes because they choose not to, a ‘choice’ that would very reasonably evaporate if they suddenly found themselves targeted by a stronger power like the United States.


The above was also written ten years ago.

Next "article" isn't an article but an opinion piece, very obviously intended to promote fear. From a former missileer who claims his friends in the biz agree with him about Trump's temperament. Well, the majority of military people who voted actually voted for Trump, so perhaps he has been out a while.

His former job, which was a common job in the eighties, is virtually obsolete now.
I knew several missileers when we started out in the early 90s, but I don't know a single one now. Back when my husband entered pilot training, they were instructed and trained on how to deliver and drop nuclear weapons. I don't see Trump bringing this back.
Again, the primary risk is proxy warfare and regional instability, bad actors getting access to these weapons with their proliferation.

The last article is a PERFECT representation of the type of internet hyperbole I'm speaking of. Thank you very much for providing it.

The title: "Japan and South Korea hit back at Trump's nuclear comments"
It begins by asserting a widespread "shock" and "bewilderment" via use of the passive voice "words were said" (by whom exactly? If I state that "Italians think" something I might be citing my aunt, or I might be citing their entire government...there's a vast difference between the two).

Now, let's take a look at his shocking and horrifying statements: ""Japan is better if it protects itself against this maniac of North Korea," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper Tuesday. "We are better off frankly if South Korea is going to start protecting itself ... they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us."

Well...hell, I've said the same. How many times have we mentioned military withdrawal from our locations around the globe? Which self-identifying progressive in this room thinks we should still have military forces in Asia? And if we keep them, shouldn't they pay for it? And if we remove them, well, we've lost our bargaining chip to tell them how to defend themselves. He isn't demanding that they build nukes, he's stating realities.
After the spin, the article offers this bit:

QUOTE
So high was the level of concern, Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe felt the need to respond publicly, saying, "whoever will become the next president of the United States, the Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Japan's diplomacy."


SO HIGH WAS THE LEVEL OF CONCERN, Japan's PM offered the above ("bewildered" "shocked" "horrified"?) statement.
It sounds pretty bland and sensible (we've had a military alliance with Japan is a cornerstone of Japan's policy and he expects it to remain so).

QUOTE
Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida added, "It is impossible that Japan will arm itself with nuclear weapons."


Well, great! But if we leave, the choice will be entirely up to them.

Now, at the end the article offers an ROK perspective:

QUOTE
South Korea has a small minority who think Trump may have a point and welcome the idea of nuclear weapons.
Academic Cheong Seong-Chang from the non-profit think-tank the Sejong Institute said, "If we have nuclear weapons, we'll be in a much better position to deal with North Korea."
But his feeling is not mainstream.


I wonder how they define "mainstream". I've lived in the ROK and kept up with politics there ever since, and I'd be very hesitant to claim this view is not mainstream.

Nutshell: Taken alone, there is nothing "shocking" nor unnerving about Trump's statement above. There's no evidence in the subsequent quoted statements that either Japan or the ROK were "shocked" or unnerved or "hitting back" (at what exactly?). The article built up a story around the statements to make it seem that way.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 30 2016, 01:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 30 2016, 04:07 PM
Post #26


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,367
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Sorry to hear about PE's fall, Curmudgeon. Hope all turns out well for her and you.

As PE Trump fills his positions, I get twinges of fear but nothing serious. He won't become dictator but will realize within the first 100 days just how powerless he is when his opposition is so motivated. As Tennessee's Smokey Mountains go up in smoke, and as other weather disasters hit this winter and spring, he'll come to realize that regular people need support from the government -- the same regular people who granted him the EC win.

If he tries to start a war with Iran, the old hippie dream might come through:

What if they gave a war and nobody came?

Then there's his promise to keep the Carrier jobs stateside. Gee, all those people care about is money! Who could have guessed?

That brings me to the fear of falling, a pretty common thing among those of us who have lived long, worked hard, and partied hardy. So far so good -- caught the cirrhosis in time to heal and relearn the art of walking. But still shaky for outside the shack. Lydia advises to sit down if a fall seems immanent, but then things happen too quickly and crap ensues.

Will the Trump admin work hard to make our lives more difficult? How far might this go before it's stopped? There's the concern. It doesn't rise to the level of fear and there's a good chance that Trump becomes even more for universal health care than any other POTUS.

He is a mutable person, sometimes disturbingly so. And he disturbs everyone, not just liberals.

I do think it's about time that the Internet gets its fair share of stink-eye. It's also about time that real journalism comes back. The Internet can enable the return via crowd-funding and small donations, once known as newspaper subscriptions. Trump can let the Fed funding go on public TV/radio and PP because the people who want real news and real family planning will support it with their own $$, and there won't be anything any politician can do about it.

Well, other than declaring martial law, I suppose. After ED 2016, I'm not at all sure that's not going to happen. But then, maybe Trump has to happen in order for people to put their money where it really counts, not into the latest and greatest consumer tech that burns your house down.

Anyway, glasses and journalism work for me.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Nov 30 2016, 04:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Dec 1 2016, 06:20 AM
Post #27


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

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



Mrs. P, thank you for taking the time to read through the 3 articles and then offer your perspective. That's pretty unusual these days. As you imply I think Trump is a ding dong and don't believe your rational attempt at a defense is up to the actual rationality of the man. For now I'll simply extract what I think are the money quotes from each article and folks if they wish can measure them against your defense of the guy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38149088

QUOTE
He also warned Donald Trump's incoming team over their position taken during the campaign to abandon the nuclear deal with Iran.

"I think it would be disastrous," Mr Brennan told the BBC. "First of all, for one administration to tear up an agreement that a previous administration made would be unprecedented."

He said such a move would risk strengthening hardliners in Iran and risk other states pursuing nuclear programmes in response to a renewed Iranian effort. "I think it would be the height of folly if the next administration were to tear up that agreement," he said.

In 2015 Iran agreed a long-term deal with six world powers - the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany - under which it agreed to restrict sensitive nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of tough economic sanctions.

The Obama administration has argued that the deal will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but during his election campaign Mr Trump described it as a disaster and said he would dismantle it.

Since his election Mr Trump has not mentioned Iran but his choice to succeed Mr Brennan, Mike Pompeo, is an ardent critic of the deal.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/opinion/...clear-keys.html

QUOTE
Donald J. Trump is of a radically different ilk and temperament from past presidents. If I were back in the launch chair, I would have little faith in his judgment and would feel alienated if he were commander in chief. I am not alone in this view. A vast majority of current and former launch officers in my circle of friends and acquaintances tell me they feel the same.

Missileers view their job as deterring our enemies from attacking the United States and its allies. They also know that deterrence could fail by intent, accident or miscalculation, and that preventing such failure depends in no small measure on qualities of presidential leadership — responsibility, composure, competence, empathy and diplomatic skill — that Mr. Trump evidently does not possess. As a launch officer, I would live in constant fear of his making a bad call. Hillary Clinton is right to warn voters not to allow him anywhere near the nuclear launch codes.

The system of nuclear command and control places extreme pressure on hundreds of operators, and excruciating demands on one person: the president. In the midst of crisis, this system might generate highly uncertain information and confusion, and even fail with catastrophic effects. All of which call for a calm and rational respect for the war-making machinery — and the utmost caution in deciding whether to employ nuclear forces.

Mr. Trump is seemingly blind to the importance of restraint in nuclear decision making. He shows no humility toward the civilization-ending destructiveness of nuclear weapons, and offhandedly entertains their use. He has suggested that South Korea and Japan should consider developing their own arsenals. Empowering such a person to single-handedly initiate a nuclear strike would put the nation and the world as we know it in real jeopardy.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/politics/tru...apan/index.html

QUOTE
Newspaper editorials and experts alike have taken aim at Trump's comments about introducing more nuclear weapons to the Korean peninsula to counter the North Korean threat.

Daniel Pinkston of Troy University said it would play into North Korea's hands.

"The hardliners in Pyongyang would just love such an outcome because if that were to occur, it would completely justify their nuclear status ... and validate Kim Jong Un's policy line as absolutely brilliant and absolutely correct," he said.

Reflecting a growing concern, Pinkston added, "Whether he wins the Republican nomination or not, or whether he is elected president or not, even at this stage, he is already doing damage to the U.S. reputation internationally. And damaging U.S. security interests."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Dec 1 2016, 01:02 PM
Post #28


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Thanks for the response, Dingo.

I'd like to reiterate that I believe the former-missileer-turned-journalist is acting irresponsibly in this opinion piece which is obviously intended to produce fear.

Per this quote:
QUOTE
Daniel Pinkston of Troy University said it would play into North Korea's hands.

"The hardliners in Pyongyang would just love such an outcome because if that were to occur, it would completely justify their nuclear status ... and validate Kim Jong Un's policy line as absolutely brilliant and absolutely correct," he said.

Reflecting a growing concern, Pinkston added, "Whether he wins the Republican nomination or not, or whether he is elected president or not, even at this stage, he is already doing damage to the U.S. reputation internationally. And damaging U.S. security interests."



Well, let's think about that one for a moment: "Even if Trump didn't win, he did damage to the US reputation in the DPRK's perspective by speaking as a presidential candidate".
That's quite a statement.
The DPRK is a completely isolated country with no freedoms whatsoever. Kim Jong Un could call Ronald McDonald the US president and everyone would smile and clap and believe it because they have to. They probably think Dennis Rodman is the US president. There's no sullying our national "reputation" in the eyes of the DPRK because we have no lower to go. We are enemy number one.We're sitting next to them and with every military exercise they claim we've done an act of war.
We moved our nukes out and the rhetoric was the same, we moved away from the DMZ and their rhetoric was the same, we moved the majority of our forces out and only have a token force left and the rhetoric is the same. What actually WOULD change the rhetoric would be a total withdrawal of our forces, which is the policy Trump suggests.

I once read hyperbole similar to this piece on an actual "cerebral" international legal website, which was rather disturbing (disturbing because it was like something out of the enquirer, on a supposedly rational and fact-based website). The title: "Trump Advocates World War III!".
It relayed a quote. Trump said the DPRK was "China's problem and they should deal with it". Or something similar.
That's advocating WWIII?

Here are the facts on the ground for the DPRK situation, summed up:
China is essentially the DPRK’s ONLY ally. If they stopped actively supporting the DPRK it would implode and millions of refugees would spill into its borders. Same thing would happen to the ROK. So there is no need for any invasion (and a Chinese invasion of the DPRK is as likely as an intervention from Xenu, Dictator of the Galactic Confederacy). But there would be a need for occupation during the chaos created from a DRPK implosion.
The ROK can’t afford to “win” the war with it’s northern neighbor, and China can’t afford to let them.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 2 2016, 12:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Dec 1 2016, 09:05 PM
Post #29


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,367
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Along the lines of detecting fake news meant to misinform rather than to entertain, seems that software is becoming the best way of separating the bull out:

http://undark.org/article/education-and-au...tors_picks=true

I've known for a while that Google has been developing and using algorithms to detect fake news, but I didn't know that the code could also tell the difference between bull and sarcasm. This of course requires linguistic understanding before the algorithms can be designed, built and tested.

Ah-hah! Yet another reason why English majors and liberal arts degree programs must exist in our democratic republic. People can't generally do as well, not that I'm surprised at this discovery. It's amazing how many swallow stuff that'd choke a python.

So if there's something to fear besides falling and breaking my crown, it'd be fake news of the malicious kind impacting our elections. I'm glad that software can control the disemination, thereby allowing for reputable news outlets to develop.

But what if the above article is itself fake news of the malicious kind? Guess then we're back to the old crap detector that Hemingway apparently coined in 1965.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: October 20th, 2018 - 12:58 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.