- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
That's perfectly fine and I understand what you mean.
I salute President Trump's strategy of trying to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and feel that everyone in the free world, regardless of their political views, should congratulate him on the progress he has made so far.
Despite being ambushed at every junction, and betrayed by those whom he considered to be his allies, President Trump continues to pursue the important domestic and international issues which were ignored for so long by previous administrations.
Instead of making self-serving, noble sounding orations to address the nation's problems President Trump is DOING something positive.
As that would leave our potential adversaries China, Russia, Pakistan and possibly at some point in the not so distant future, Iran with nuclear weapons while we go for unilateral nuclear disarmament I assume your question is asked with tongue in cheek.
Should this be the case then I find your sense of humour not particularly amusing.
If however you really are serious may I suggest you make an urgent appointment with your nearest psychiatric clinic.
She went against the stream of standard hypocritical eulogies.
Most tributes to the dead such as;--- he/she donated so much of their life to helping others and and should be commended for being a wonderful humanitarian, should end, providing they're really dead that is.
Due to the uncontrolled immigration policies of most European countries and the ensuing influx of millions of Muslims who are already asserting their customs and practices, such as the barbaric Sharia law, on the frightened indigenous populations, I can see, at best, violent civil disorder, and at worst bloody revolution in such nations as France and Germany.
As a consequence of the British motto, surrender first and ask questions afterwards the U.K., will avoid internal conflict but will have been bloodlessy subjugated by the forces of Islam.
The United State's efforts to pay off it's astronomical national debt will be rendered nigh impossible as a result of the eye-watering cost of attempting to keep the black and Latin American violent crime rates at acceptable levels.
The journey to WESTERN DECLINE and ANARCHY started as far back as the 1960s when incredible shortsightedness by the loony left politicians and an apathetic public who were incapable of recognising where they were being led.
This lemming like journey to the cliff's edge continues to this day as the bleeding heart brigade successfully labels anyone who expresses concern over the real dangers of unregulated immigration as xenophobic racists.
Lough as in Lough Neagh, Strangford Lough and Carlingford Lough is the Irish, and correct spelling of a large body of landlocked water or a protected bay.
Even though the Scots abbreviated the word lough a few centuries ago, the spelling Loch it is nevertheless incorrect.
Both spellings are variants of the English word, Lake.
I bet you won the fight, a one footed biped wouldn't be much use in an arse kicking competition.
I feel it is most definitely racism.
Why should one section of a society have to identify their ethnic background when others don't?
If for whatever reason the authorities consider that such information is necessary then in the interests of equality all citizens should is required to declare their national origins, i.e., Irish, English and so forth.
Insofar that a single footed, creature, or a critter with one big foot and one small foot, could be easily caught and/or tracked the whole mythical nonsense of this fictitious character should be classified along with other storybook figures such as Batman and Spiderman.
Or perhaps more fitting, The Lough Ness Monster.
It could make a good movie;-Bigfoot meets the Lough Ness Monster.
If, as I assume you're referring to illegal immigrants then they should have the same rights as any other criminal.
Illegal is defined as ''contrary to, or forbidden by law'', so in this context they are, by definition, criminals.
Bronto quite rightly states that if we permit unregulated illegal immigration we could be swamped with hostile fifth columnists.
The concern is, how de we know that this hasn't already happened?
His irrational rant is proof positive that this piece of brainless filth is a cross between a stark-ravening lunatic and a rabble rousing anti-Semitic racist.
It doesn't augur well for the future stability of the United States if phlegm-bergs such as Farrakhan is part of the Nation's law making process.