- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
I'd just like to drop in and say that Progressive and Liberal are two completely different things. Progressives believe that advancements in science, technology, social development, and economic advancements are vital to improving the human condition; meanwhile liberals believe in equal rights and equal opportunities, and that the governments' prime directive is to provide whatever is needed to whomever needs it.
IMPORTANT: DO NOT CONFUSE THEM
I think I preferred Obama. All I've seen so far gives me the indication that Donald Trump will be a big flop. Tells me that he's just gonna try to trick out the White House and waste the taxpayer's money on his jet fuel and his big bluff of having his magical wall which has as much a chance of existing & working as Bernie's free college. (I know it wasn't simply free college, hyperbole for emphasis.) Not to mention continuing to act like a petty 15 y/o on Twitter. While Obama may not have been perfect, at least he was respectful and acted like an adult, which is something I believe every citizen should be entitled to.
Ehhh, Andrew Jackson is hated now, but he was actually fairly popular during his day and age. He was a populist, and bent to the people's will. He balanced the budget, got rid of the national bank, and prevented nativism based Indian wars. He also changed tariffs/taxes to help the citizens when they complained they were too high to keep growing crops, keep their homes, etc. Not to mention the huge shindig he threw at the White House for his inauguration. He also was a complete badass. Once during a duel, he took a bullet centimeters from his heart, staunched the bleeding, and then returned fire for the kill. He then stopped his attempted assassination, and beat the guy to a pulp.
If you can go back and think in the mindset of the time. The Indian Removal Act was actually a tenth-of-the-way good idea. Tension was high between settlers and the Indians, and Jackson didn't want a race war. Thus the IRA was born. It was originally planned to allow the Indians a good amount of time to pack their things and wait for good weather. Then the time was cut and we all know what happened.
Jackson is still one of my personal favorites, and definitely deserves the much disputed place on the twenty dollar bill, in my opinion.
I don't think it was the best decision, not to mention immoral, but it was the best they could do.
Firstly, and this isn't part of my argument, they threw Poland and Czechoslovakia to the dogs, which was a dick move.
Now, appeasement of Germany was a good thing for Britain and France because it allowed them to start rearming after their dearming after the Great War (WWI). However, I'm fairly sure that if they bluffed they could gain the same amount of time, if not more, to rearm. If the Brits used the inflatable tanks and boats they're so fond of early on, they could lie through their teeth to Germany to keep them at bay long enough to rearm. Keep the bluff up as long as possible, per se. I think that would've worked long enough.
Not to mention reconnaissance against the British would be risky, as the Spitfire was superior to the Messerschmitt-109, and if caught could bring Britain into Hitler's plan too early for the Blitzkrieg. There's a reason Hitler went over most of Europe before taking France, thus forcing Britains hand.
At least that's what I believe could've worked if my memory of the pre-war is correct.
Are you retarded? Does your brain lose cells each time you switch genders?I
f you insist on using the generally agreed upon origin of the word being from "bonefire", fine. The question remains unchanged regardless. Is Hell a good fire? Is it good to know the bones of the wicked will smolder like coals in the bonfire of Hell as the wicked forever are dying in Hell?
If you insist on using the generally agreed upon origin of the word being from "bonefire", fine. The question remains unchanged regardless. Is Hell a good fire? Is it good to know the bones of the wicked will smolder like coals in the bonfire of Hell as the wicked forever are dying in Hell?'
Answer the question, devil monkey......is Hell a good fire?
There has never been one shred of evidence for a belief in any god or gods , they're merely tall tales to control and keep the sheeple in line .
Our ancestors used god stories as an explanation for phenomena they could not comprehend , unfortunately this trend continues as can be evidenced by the type of believer that's seems to be prevalent on CD and who also use god as an explanation for what they fail to comprehend .
Believers talk about God and atheists hate God so the silly atheists think it's all about them and they have to fight against God or they have to concede they are on their way to Hell.
.....this is what our public school and television give us, a generation of kids who think they are better, smarter, and stronger than God so they grow up shooting their mouths all over like little lost bastards...and that is a child raised without a father's chastisement. When I grew up if you talked to anybody the way you talk to people here you would be getting your hide tanned. Kids have no manners anymore, disrespectful punk cry babies.
Why do you look like you are burning in Hell and enjoying it? Nobody enjoys being in a fire, why do you picture yourself as enjoying it? Are you really that stupid that you think burning in a fire is fun? Why don't you go jump in a bonfire (and I mean a good big fire, not a bone fire) and see if you wear that stupid smile in the flames?
Sorry, dermy, I'm tired of trying to tell you that you can be saved from Hell. You wont' believe Hell is real unless you find yourself unable to get out of the fire, correct? That's what I get from you, so why waste my time? Just wait and see, no point in me telling you, just wait and see for yourself. How long do you think that will be?