- 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.
I'm voting no. And I'm hoping no. But i think a lot is resting on what Hillary Clinton herself decides to do. I believe she had a great opportunity to try to bring her supporters under the umbrella last night, and she didn't. I'm anxious to see what she'll do in the next 48 hours. If she puts herself 100% behind Obama, I feel that many of her supporters' wounds will heal themselves over the next couple of months. SURE there will be some that will vote for McCain out of spite, but the ones who will take a step back and actually look at the policy differences between Obama and McCain, which are like day and night, respectively, the supporters will have no other choice (in good conscience) than to vote for Sen. Obama. There is no other viable option. The time is now. I think that her supporters (the angry ones) will come around. How quickly and passionately they do will be determined by Sen. Clinton's words and actions in the next couple of days. The speech to AIPAC is a good start (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/
if i'm near chipotle, it's chipotle! i love their veggie fajita burritos. YUM! i'm sure i'd love qdoba if we had one, but i live in the boonies. luckily the town i work in has a chipotle. otherwise, it's taco bell or bk, because they have a few vegetarian options, and that's where it's at!
i think he is merely adding more validity to what anyone who's been paying attention can see clearly for themselves. i haven't read the book, and i do question his motives. meaning, he won't be able to get a job or may even be prosecuted due to his role in the george bush white house, so maybe he's just covering his back on this one. the fact remains, this administration has been responsible for so many crimes, and he's simply adding more validity and transparency to them... i haven't read the book, but there obviously must be some truth to it, since Rove, the White House, former employees, etc., while being angry or embarrassed, won't come out and say that he's lying. they're just upset that they've been completely outed. i'm glad that he did it. while his motives might not be upstanding, i'm glad someone has come out and admitted he did wrong, as did the administration.
definitely. i don't see how it is so detrimental to the "familial unit"... most marriages end in divorce as it is, so why not let gay people join the fun? it hurts no one. it's a sense of false hysteria over something that doesn't affect anyone else. seperate but equal is not equal.
how has NOT engaging in talks with our enemies helped us at all? it's hypocritical of the current administration and mccain to say it will do no good when talks with north korea and less recently, russia, have helped the state of the union rather than being detrimental. engaging in conversation beats war, and the loss of lives of millions of people. even if talks DON'T work, at least we can say we tried and then consider other options at that point. i don't see how talks with enemies is empowering them at all. it's not like we would be saying as a nation, here, we'll give into all your demands. it's simply trying to talk it out. i think it's a sign of a strong leader and strong nation to want to engage in talks with those that aren't considered our allies.
i think this can be applied to the current democratic primary... lol... i mean you have one person claiming to campaign and start doing things "the right way"... and you have another who lies and does "whatever it takes" and is CONTINUING to do whatever it takes to get the nomination... the democratic party be damned... now, which do you think is better? come on... it's got to be the right way... sports or politics, if they continue to be won with dirty tactics, both will continue to lose respect...
absolutely... just not not "this" woman, at this time... there is no reason why a woman cannot lead this country. ANYone, male or female, would be better than what we've had for the past 8 years. look at margaret thatcher, golda meir, benazir bhutto... these are/were all strong women in leadership positions, and it is both possible and acceptable...
obviously, this is (i'm sure) referring to the current election, though since it was asked in the general sense, i have to say yes... if asked specifically should HILLARY CLINTON be the president... i say no... and when you're talking about one woman... it's spelled woman... women is plural... just sayin...
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!