Poll: Obama Leading Romney 49% To 46% Ahead Of Second Debate

maidu · October 18, 2012

Right, before he "dropped the ball" he was going in for the game winning score when the referee stuck out her leg and tripped him up with some impromptu false fact-checking of her own. If not for her, Romney could have put the game away.

Nothing false about It. Romney asserted that Obama didn't call the attack on the consulate an act of terrorists. The moderator, who attended the president's speech the day after the sad event (and had checked her notes prior to the debate), was correct in saying the president did indeed condemn the incident and used word T word. Romney was trying to make political hay on the heels of a tragic event, but his accusations rang hollow.

Chicog · October 18, 2012

So you see, this is a lot more about semantics. It's about a sitting US President trying to cover up a terror attack on our country to ensure he gets to keep his job. How Nixonian.

I see Fox news are still banging on about this, yet this video is from September 13th. Still not "two weeks" later, but two DAYS.

Again, you're flogging a very dead horse, and in this case, sadly, the devil is not in the detail. It's just boring innuendo.

Are you still going to try and convince people he's talking about 9/11?

Edited October 18, 2012 by Chicog

Chicog · October 18, 2012

Some bloke on MSNBC is banging on about the difference between a "Binder of women" and a "Binder of resumes".

And the talking female head on his side is talking about "Walmart moms".

Jesus wept. With this and Fox's "T-word" nonsense, I wonder how Americans actually get any real news.

Ulysses G. · October 18, 2012

The moderator, who attended the president's speech the day after the sad event (and had checked her notes prior to the debate), was correct in saying the president did indeed condemn the incident and used word T word.

Then why did the moderator say afterwords that she was wrong and that Romney was right? And why on September 25, on ABC's "The View," when interviewer Joy Behar asked Obama about a remark made by his secretary of state. "I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? did Obama respond, "We're still doing an investigation."? Why didn't he just come out and say that it was terrorism even two weeks later?

Edited October 18, 2012 by Ulysses G.

chuckd · October 18, 2012

Are you content with OPEC setting the price of oil? Supply and demand has everything to do with the price of oil. High demand along with limited supply generally causes a hike in the price of oil.

If the US becomes energy independent, that would conceivably remove the US demand from the world market, thereby causing a lowering of the price per barrel worldwide.

Securing the oil from both the US and Canada would lower the transportation costs currently associated with Middle East oil as well.

And just think how many jobs could be created by having a truly viable oil industry.

So, what is wrong with my thinking here?

Assuming you can find enough domestic oil to meet current US demand ( and I doubt it, and even if they could it would take a few decades to even find enough) you'll simply have China and India simply step in and keep that global demand ticking over...

So you are back to square one.

Ps. I'm an economist so I hate the idea of OPEC, but there isn't much that can be done about it. As long as we want oil, we are stuck with it.

These two articles might help you understand exactly how much oil the US currently has within the continental US. With the shale oil the reserves are more than four times that of Saudi Arabia, and no offshore oil is included in these estimates.

I do believe square one is in the rear view mirror.

All that is needed is to issue some permits for drilling on federal land and offshore.

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

USGS assesses oil, gas reserve potential

Published: Aug. 15, 2012 at 8:36 AM

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 (UPI) -- The U.S. Geological Survey said there were 32 billion barrels of technically recoverable crude oil in the country.

The USGS estimates there are 32 billion barrels of oil, 291 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 10 billion barrels of natural gas liquids in mean potential undiscovered reserves.

The estimates don't include federal offshore areas.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/B.../#ixzz29fH2Dopv

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

...and...

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

Oil Shale

What is Oil Shale?

U.S. Western oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock which is very rich in organic sedimentary material called “kerogen.” The shale is heated to separate the kerogen from the rock and the resultant liquid is converted to superior quality jet fuel, diesel fuel, kerosene, and other high value products.

A recent announcement from the U.S. Geological Survey raised previous estimates of oil shale in the Piceance Basin by 50%. Previous U.S. shale oil resource estimates totaled 2.118 trillion barrels. The richest, most concentrated deposits in the U.S. are found in the Green River Formation in western Colorado, eastern Utah, and southern Wyoming (see graph at below).

[ii]Source, The Department of Energy

Depending on technology and economics, as much as 1 trillion barrels of oil equivalent could be recoverable from oil shale resources yielding greater than 25 gallons per ton [iii]. For reference, 1 trillion barrels is nearly 4 times the amount of proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. The energy potential from our vast resources of oil shale could substantially shift the balance of America’s oil supply away from the Persian Gulf.

Article continues here: http://www.institute...view/oil-shale/

chuckd · October 18, 2012

Some bloke on MSNBC is banging on about the difference between a "Binder of women" and a "Binder of resumes".

And the talking female head on his side is talking about "Walmart moms".

Jesus wept. With this and Fox's "T-word" nonsense, I wonder how Americans actually get any real news.

Most Americans certainly don't get their news from MSNBC.

Question for our reading public. Why was UN Ambassador Susan Rice sent out on 16 September to all the Sunday talk shows to present the story that the Benghazi attack was performed by demonstrations over the video and was not terrorist related?

She didn't do it on her own, so who told her to make her television appearance?

Anybody???

chuckd · October 18, 2012

Let's get real. The big issue is the fact that Social Security, Medicare Defense spending are the biggest drain on the US budget. Neither Obama nor Romney can fix it. They do not have the power to do so. That power rests with Congress. Until the House gets its act together and does something, no President will be able to get a responsible budget. The problem is the US Congress. Americans should be putting the tough questions and demands to their Representatives since the Congress men and women control the spending Bills. I think Americans know that cuts have to be made and that taxes for some people will have to increase. They are not stupid. The thing is, political parties are afraid to address the issue because some vested power groups within both the political parties will have a sh*t fit.

The biggest drain on the US economy during F/Y 2011 were the various welfare programs, NOT Social Security or defense spending.

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

Report: Welfare government’s single largest budget item in FY 2011 at approx. $1.03 trillion

12:00 AM 10/18/2012

Caroline May

Political Reporter

The government spent approximately $1.03 trillion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011 alone — a price tag that makes welfare that year the government’s largest expenditure, according to new data released by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee.

The total sum taxpayers spent on federal welfare programs was derived from a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on federal welfare spending — which topped out at $745.84 billion for fiscal year 2011 — combined with an analysis from the Republican Senate Budget Committee staff of state spending on federal welfare programs (based on “The Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government Finance”), which reached $282.7 billion in fiscal year 2011.

The data excludes spending on Social Security, Medicare, means-tested health care for veterans without service-connected disabilities, and the means-tested veterans pension program.

Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz29fOHQjPy

koheesti · October 18, 2012

Some bloke on MSNBC is banging on about the difference between a "Binder of women" and a "Binder of resumes".

And the talking female head on his side is talking about "Walmart moms".

Jesus wept. With this and Fox's "T-word" nonsense, I wonder how Americans actually get any real news.

Most Americans certainly don't get their news from MSNBC.

Question for our reading public. Why was UN Ambassador Susan Rice sent out on 16 September to all the Sunday talk shows to present the story that the Benghazi attack was performed by demonstrations over the video and was not terrorist related?

She didn't do it on her own, so who told her to make her television appearance?

Anybody???

Let's talk about binders of women instead!

...and that's how the Dems have chosen to distract from the Benghazi scandal. Last week it was Big Bird. Before that it was "liar, liar pants on fire!" To think that just 4 years ago there was talk that the Democrat Party was on the verge of ruling for generations as the Republicans went the way of the Whigs and Federalists. How the mighty have fallen. Now all they have left are silly distractions.

Jingthing · October 18, 2012

I don't really think Joe Sixpack cares very much about this manufactured Libya-gate. He cares about affording more six packs.

As far as who won the debate, that ain't rocket science. I was curious tonight if my regular Thai lady hair-cutter knew about the American election. She sure did. When I asked her, she says it is on the tv all the time and then mentioned Obama and Romney and without prompting said -- Obama won the last debate.

I'd actually like to see a separate thread to talk about what Thai people we are talking to are saying about the U.S. election. I reckon there would be a lot of HUMOR in such a topic. For example. my hair lady later asked me if I would be paid for voting, I kid you not. However, as that is a political topic, I don't think a member can start it. Oh well ...

Edited October 18, 2012 by Jingthing

Chicog · October 18, 2012

The moderator, who attended the president's speech the day after the sad event (and had checked her notes prior to the debate), was correct in saying the president did indeed condemn the incident and used word T word.

Then why did the moderator say afterwords that she was wrong and that Romney was right? And why on September 25, on ABC's "The View," when interviewer Joy Behar asked Obama about a remark made by his secretary of state. "I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? did Obama respond, "We're still doing an investigation."? Why didn't he just come out and say that it was terrorism even two weeks later?

I just watched the interview, and it seems to me that she said Romney was incorrect in saying Obama did not use the T-Word, but that she had actually said at the time that the rest of what Romney was correct - that the administration position seemed to be in denial for two weeks - was correct.

Watch Fox. The person who asked the question spoke to him after the telecast and he told him that he was not about to get into specifics until they had all of the necessary information from the investigation.

Seems reasonable to me. Banging on about it as if Obama was expecting to hide it until after the election is frankly just absurd. The issue is how to make sure it doesn't happen again, and whether or not Obama keeps his word and gets the scum that did it. This whole "debate" between the two sides' most vociferous critics is just chaff.

Same with the "licenses and permits" badgering nonsense from Romney. It's another soundbite that is totally irrelevant when the actual impact of those permits according to Romney is reduced oil and gas production on Federal land - however, Oil production has gone up under Obama since the last administration, and as for gas:

Governor Romney and his lead energy advisor, oil and gas tycoon Harold Hamm, have repeatedly stated that oil and gas development on public lands has not kept pace with state and private lands. They conveniently leave out the fact that it is not geologically possible for that to happen. The Energy Information Agency released a map that shows the vast majority of the current oil and gas shale plays in the lower 48 states are not on public lands. As EIA administrator Adam Sieminski noted in Congressional testimony in August, “The geology is working in favor of non-federal landowners.”

Romney is using stupid, irrelevant arguments like "permits" and I can see in this debate that it actually shot him in the foot.

But even if it was relevant and the facts supported him, does Romney really believe that pumping a ton of American oil and gas into the market will drop the price and make the US energy independent?

Just watch the Saudis and the Qataris turn down the valves and see the price climb back up again.

And where will America be then?

No better off and with a lot less oil and gas reserves, that's where.

It once again demonstrates that Romney's claims have no substance and no defined path. His understanding of America's actual influence in the world is staggeringly naive. I would like to think that would be his downfall, I certainly don't want him virtually handing over the US military to big business like his predecessor did and letting them loose once more with taxpayers money and young peoples' lives (both military and civilian).

But there are still plenty of days to go for a gaffe on either side, and the TV vultures will be circling.

65 million people watched that debate I see - well Obama finished with a superb flourish and Romney ended up looking rather foolish. How anyone can call that a draw I have no idea.

However, MSNBC say that Romney still has a 0.4 advantage.

Interestingly, a valid point I just heard is that Romney came with the same weak arguments and expected his strident and confident persona to be able to carry the day like it did the first time. Strikes me that this was his problem - in the Town Hall format, and with knowledge of his adversary's weaknesses, it looked relatively easy for Obama to pick him off.

And I just heard a comment that even though the last debate is Foreign Policy, Romney will almost certainly try and use China to try and swing it round to the economy, as that's the only thing he feels confident on (even if still has not shown how he is going to make the numbers add up).

Should make for interesting TV.

But it's not any more, I've had enough of Fox and MSNBC, they are both as bad as each other, 90% bullshit and 10% occasional glimmer of information.

Personally I can't see how all this surly whining from Fox is helping Romney, it makes him look incapable of defending himself.

Time for dinner.

Look forward to some more discussion tomorrow.

Chicog · October 18, 2012

...and that's how the Dems have chosen to distract from the Benghazi scandal. Last week it was Big Bird. Before that it was "liar, liar pants on fire!" To think that just 4 years ago there was talk that the Democrat Party was on the verge of ruling for generations as the Republicans went the way of the Whigs and Federalists. How the mighty have fallen. Now all they have left are silly distractions.

Funny that, all Fox are on about today is the moderator worked against him, Town Hall formats don't work, Obama got more time, etc. etc. What goes around, comes around.

Ouch - Ryan doing an event with Condy Rice. Can't see how that would help.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Chicog

koheesti · October 18, 2012

"Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension? Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?" Romney challenged.

In one of the debate's lighter moments, Obama countered, "I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours so it doesn't take as long. I don't check it that often."

Now as it turns out - believe it or not - but Obama's pension IS bigger than Romney's...

Pension Envy: Who Has More—Obama or Romney?

From the standpoint of a public pension, Obama is well-heeled.

As president, he will receive $191,300 annually for life — win or lose in next month's election — and receives a travel allotment as well as mailing privileges.

Romney only served one term as governor of the Bay State and did not take a salary, so he is eligible for nothing.

So while Romney appears headed for a happier retirement financially, he'll be footing his own bill — unless, of course, he wins next month.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450057

GiHadOrange · October 18, 2012

Unfortunately I was travelling during the last debate, but I've seen snippets of it here and there. However, today I finally saw Romney's "Act of Terror" howler, which must have surely cost some debate prepper their job.

The one who should be losing her job is Candy Crowley. She ended up having to walk back her huge gaffe and admit that Mitt Romney had his facts correct.

(video edited out)

Nah, not necessary. I have seen moderators who are far worse and would not admit mistakes.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Scott
Video edited out

koheesti · October 18, 2012

Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates

If you want more time to get your message out in debates, it’s good to be a Democrat.

On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time.

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219402/Candy-Crowley-CNN-chief-praises-moderator-superb-job-Obama-Romney.html#ixzz29fmrBg4O

koheesti · October 18, 2012

Some bloke on MSNBC is banging on about the difference between a "Binder of women" and a "Binder of resumes".

And the talking female head on his side is talking about "Walmart moms".

Jesus wept. With this and Fox's "T-word" nonsense, I wonder how Americans actually get any real news.

Most Americans certainly don't get their news from MSNBC.

Question for our reading public. Why was UN Ambassador Susan Rice sent out on 16 September to all the Sunday talk shows to present the story that the Benghazi attack was performed by demonstrations over the video and was not terrorist related?

She didn't do it on her own, so who told her to make her television appearance?

Anybody???

Let's talk about binders of women instead!

...and that's how the Dems have chosen to distract from the Benghazi scandal. Last week it was Big Bird. Before that it was "liar, liar pants on fire!" To think that just 4 years ago there was talk that the Democrat Party was on the verge of ruling for generations as the Republicans went the way of the Whigs and Federalists. How the mighty have fallen. Now all they have left are silly distractions.

Scarborough: "Keep Talking About Binders And Mitt Romney Will Win In A Landslide"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/18/scarborough_keep_talking_about_binders_and_mitt_romney_will_win_in_a_landslide.html

koheesti · October 18, 2012

(Correction of some misinformation. No, I do NOT think Obama will win by 10 percentage points. I think he will win or lose the POPULAR vote by a margin of between three and negative one percent and win the election of course via the electoral college by about 25 electoral votes.)

You could still be right but this is an amazing development...especially after Biden clearly dominated in his debate with Ryan and the consensus had Obama the winner in the last debate just two days ago.

Romney for the first time takes the lead in the Electoral College poll...

http://www.realclear...ollege_map.html

Edited October 18, 2012 by koheesti

folium · October 18, 2012

What will you do come Nov 7?

GiHadOrange · October 18, 2012

Scarborough: "Keep Talking About Binders And Mitt Romney Will Win In A Landslide"

http://www.realclear..._landslide.html

That one and Big Bird.

Might be funny and entertaining for Obama fans, but hardly anyhow good enough to convince an undecided voter.

nurofiend · October 18, 2012

(Correction of some misinformation. No, I do NOT think Obama will win by 10 percentage points. I think he will win or lose the POPULAR vote by a margin of between three and negative one percent and win the election of course via the electoral college by about 25 electoral votes.)

You could still be right but this is an amazing development...especially after Biden clearly dominated in his debate with Ryan and the consensus had Obama the winner in the last debate just two days ago.

Romney for the first time takes the lead in the Electoral College poll...

http://www.realclear...ollege_map.html

hey koheesti, what exactly is it about mitt romney that you like out of interest?

koheesti · October 18, 2012

(Correction of some misinformation. No, I do NOT think Obama will win by 10 percentage points. I think he will win or lose the POPULAR vote by a margin of between three and negative one percent and win the election of course via the electoral college by about 25 electoral votes.)

You could still be right but this is an amazing development...especially after Biden clearly dominated in his debate with Ryan and the consensus had Obama the winner in the last debate just two days ago.

Romney for the first time takes the lead in the Electoral College poll...

http://www.realclear...ollege_map.html

hey koheesti, what exactly is it about mitt romney that you like out of interest?

Off the top of my head,...

He's the better alternative. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary but Romney is the only alternative we have this November to reverse the direction of the past 4 years.

Romney is not on the far right as he has been portrayed, or how he sold himself to the party's base in the primaries. So I like that he is really a moderate. People new to US politics may not remember but few on the Right liked Romney for years because they thought he wasn't conservative enough...and he really isn't.

The White House has to work with Congress to find solutions for our problems and no one believes that Obama will magically be able to if he wins a second term. There are no guarantees that Congress would work with a President Romney, but there is a guarantee that they won't work with Obama.

Romney doesn't try to pit Americans against each other like Obama has been doing. Obama demonizes success, Romney doesn't. I grew up in an America where if you saw someone successful you thought, "I want to do what he did. How can I do that?" but when Obama sees someone successful he wants people to think, "That's not fair! How can I take some of what he has?".

Obama said on David Letterman that the $16 trillion in debt isn't a problem. I don't expect it to magically disappear under Romney but I certainly expect the $1+ trillion deficits to stop. Obama will not try to slow down spending, I hope Romney does. Has Obama even submitted a more than one budget yet?

Some of our biggest problems are financial and Romney being a successful businessman clearly understands financial matters more than Obama.

There you go, now it's your turn to say what you like about the guy you support.

Edited October 18, 2012 by koheesti

samran · October 18, 2012

These two articles might help you understand exactly how much oil the US currently has within the continental US. With the shale oil the reserves are more than four times that of Saudi Arabia, and no offshore oil is included in these estimates.

I do believe square one is in the rear view mirror.

All that is needed is to issue some permits for drilling on federal land and offshore.

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

USGS assesses oil, gas reserve potential

Published: Aug. 15, 2012 at 8:36 AM

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 (UPI) -- The U.S. Geological Survey said there were 32 billion barrels of technically recoverable crude oil in the country.

The USGS estimates there are 32 billion barrels of oil, 291 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 10 billion barrels of natural gas liquids in mean potential undiscovered reserves.

The estimates don't include federal offshore areas.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/B.../#ixzz29fH2Dopv

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

...and...

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

Oil Shale

What is Oil Shale?

U.S. Western oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock which is very rich in organic sedimentary material called “kerogen.” The shale is heated to separate the kerogen from the rock and the resultant liquid is converted to superior quality jet fuel, diesel fuel, kerosene, and other high value products.

A recent announcement from the U.S. Geological Survey raised previous estimates of oil shale in the Piceance Basin by 50%. Previous U.S. shale oil resource estimates totaled 2.118 trillion barrels. The richest, most concentrated deposits in the U.S. are found in the Green River Formation in western Colorado, eastern Utah, and southern Wyoming (see graph at below).

[ii]Source, The Department of Energy

Depending on technology and economics, as much as 1 trillion barrels of oil equivalent could be recoverable from oil shale resources yielding greater than 25 gallons per ton [iii]. For reference, 1 trillion barrels is nearly 4 times the amount of proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. The energy potential from our vast resources of oil shale could substantially shift the balance of America’s oil supply away from the Persian Gulf.

Article continues here: http://www.institute...view/oil-shale/

Sure, it might be there . I don't dispute that.

But between a high level survey and production lies a lot of exploration. It isn't as if you just drill a hole and off you go. Even in highly prospective areas, exploration is only a little less risky that a shot at the craps table.

Then comes the the key question: Economics?

My guess is north of $80/bbl to $100/bbl. In which case, you are still talking about high gas prices.

Which was my original point. Not that it isn't there. Not that you couldn't eventually drill it. Only that it is expensive to drill, and Americans aren't going to pay any less in the fuel prices so long as you have China and India growing.

notmyself · October 18, 2012

Some of our biggest problems are financial and Romney being a successful businessman clearly understands financial matters more than Obama.

Ulysses G. · October 18, 2012

Obama said on David Letterman that the $16 trillion in debt isn't a problem.

That pretty much says it all.

maidu · October 19, 2012

I don't expect it to magically disappear under Romney but I certainly expect the $1+ trillion deficits to stop. Obama will not try to slow down spending, I hope Romney does.

Is this how he'll do it: Romney wants to INCREASE military spending by 1 trillion dollars, whereas Obama wants to decrease it by 1 trillion. The US military is not asking for increases in spending, but Romney wants to shovel truckloads of money in its lap. Perhaps because he's buddies with many of the top execs who make fancy weapons systems. The US military has adjusted its fighting and defense strategies to reflect modern challenges. It no longer needs multiple aircraft carrier task forces and tens of million dollar jets manned by multi-million dollar pilots (training, equipment, etc), when some of its most dangerous adversaries can cause havoc with $1 cutter knives.

Link to article which articulates Romney's massive spending increases

Edited October 19, 2012 by maidu

Ulysses G. · October 19, 2012

Actually, Romney does not want to increase military spending. He wants to keep it the same.

"Do we believe in peace through strength?" Ryan said. "You bet we do. And that means you don't impose these devastating cuts on our military. So we're saying don't cut the military by a trillion dollars. Not increase it by a trillion, but don't cut it by a trillion dollars."

Jingthing · October 19, 2012

Some of our biggest problems are financial and Romney being a successful businessman clearly understands financial matters more than Obama.

Bush wasn't even a successful businessman.

maidu · October 19, 2012

Romney likes to emphasize (to his choir) how similar he is to former prez Ronald Reagan, and it's all too true: Reagan raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office. Romney says he wouldn't raise taxes and, although that sounds good to voters, it's as hollow a pledge as Reagan's. Reagan nearly tripled the US federal budget (roughly three times as much as the prior 80 years, altogether) during his years in office though he kept promising, in his lead-up campaign. that he would lower the US deficit. If Romney becomes top banana, expect much the same.

added details

Edited October 19, 2012 by maidu

Ulysses G. · October 19, 2012

Reagan lowered a lot more taxes than he raised. He was overwhelmingly reelected and the economy was on fire during his second term. May Romney do the same.

maidu · October 19, 2012

Actually, Romney does not want to increase military spending. He wants to keep it the same.

"Do we believe in peace through strength?" Ryan said. "You bet we do. And that means you don't impose these devastating cuts on our military. So we're saying don't cut the military by a trillion dollars. Not increase it by a trillion, but don't cut it by a trillion dollars."

More to the point: The trillion or so dollars that won't get spent on the one or two wars which started in the Bush Jr. years will, under Obama, be saved. In contrast, that big heap of money (not spent on wars) will be plowed back to the military by Romney.

Ulysses G. · October 19, 2012

The wars are over and we are borrowing mucho money from China. Obama is not "saving" anything.

Romney does not want to decrease miltary spending and with what has been going on in Iran, Korea and between China and Japan, he may have good reason.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Ulysses G.

Sign In

Poll: Obama Leading Romney 49% To 46% Ahead Of Second Debate

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US