Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Scruffymcnut
| Reward Points: | 9 |
| Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 71% |
| Arguments: | 9 |
| Debates: | 0 |
Seemed like a cool idea at first but I lost interest. To say, I don't like it is harsh, Im just not drawn to it
What I don't understand is why we feel the neccesity to split hairs over a few phrases that were apparently written with express intent of being ambiguous. You can argue forever what the framers intended - but they are dead and gone. Was not the Constitution intended also to be a living organism that can be amended in order to address issues that they were either unable to - or were unaware aware of at the time?
I don't feel the need to go over the litany of violent crimes that have been committed with legally purchased guns, look up accident statistics or cite the laws of other developed countries that seem to manage just fine without being able to run out to walmart and buy a semi automatic pistol - but it seems to me a civilized society that values human life would not be so incredibly antagonistic towards at limiting gun ownership and the ability to carry concealed weapons.
I would have to agree with Bradford - and also steer clear of anything controversial where some one with an agenda is the driving force behind the entry - for instance if I was looking for a non-biased article about intelligent design, Wikipedia might not be a good choice
Mark Knopfler should be in the discussion
I think McCain will win - this race really comes down to demographics and the fact that anti-war candidates don't get elected
Let's "keep it real" by phrasing the argument in non predjudical terms. I'm a free speech guy but the question should be is being respectful of historical injustices more important than impeding certain expressions of free speech. Even when the argument is properly drawn, it's a tough call but to me you can't really make a blanket statement either way - it depends on the context
She should if she cared at all whether a democrat besides herself wins. She doesn't and won't drop out because she has an infintesimally (sp?) small chance of pulling this out of her ass.
who the hell knows? Ask me in 5 years. The Falcons hopefully. Woeful as they are, they are my team
|
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |
