- 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.
They were two months from being able to make weapons from their stockpile. They could have made several, but now they've reduced their stockpile and reduced the grade of the uranium. They're set back. It'll take them a year to refine enough uranium for one weapon and the UN is watching them closely. At least we're putting off conflict if they still wish to obtain nuclear weapons in fifteen years.
2. Without restrictions, Two months is the nessacary amount of time for the Iranians to stockpile enough material to produce a nuclear weapon. Research and development of nuclear weapons has been taking place Within Iran for more than a decade. With the agreement in place, that process is slowed to a year wherein the intrusive oversight of the UN will Ensure the United States is made aware of any substancial progress towards the development of nuclear weapons. Our goal is to stop the Iranians from getting their hands on nuclear weapons. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche noted that the most abundant of human stupidity occurs when one forgets what he's trying to accomplish. Whether or not the Iranians fund Hamas or other "terrorists" concerns not the issue of nuclear arsenals directly. Furthermore, on the issue of support for terrorism, revoking the deal would only lead to more disastrous effects because Iran would be able to support such groups with nuclear weapons if it felt so inclined as to do so. Nevertheless, this is not the concern. We want Iran to halt research and Development of nuclear technologies and we have succeeded. The United States stands at an advantage in this deal and while not perfect, it is the best deal imaginable.
The constitution establishes a plutocracy! They will not, per se, take away our rights, but the Federalists seek to establish a economy based on trade with other nations, not trade within our friendly league. The wealth of the few shall be increased while nothing is gained for the common man. I agree, the Articles in their current state are a mess, but the constitution takes too much power away the states and the people. The Constitution does seek to improve the economy, but the writers of the Constitution, the Federalists, will benefit from this shift in economic focus. The bankers and merchants will sit upon heaps of gold while the farmer struggles, barred out from the government. The majority do not benefit from the adoption of the constitution!
And what if these rebellions are against tyranny? What stops this standing army from taking away rights and enforcing their most egregious laws? Are you going to strip away firearms too, so that the people cannot defend from this standing army? What are rebellions but the people expressing disdain with the government? We should work to alleviate the causes for concern, not crush those responding - reasonably so - to problems with their treatment. In a government intended for the people by the people, their shouldn't be an army that can be used against the people against their interests.
-------------------Hit the wrong option. I meant to click clarify--------------------------------
90% of the Country's population works the land as farmers. Our interests are the greatest. The banks want to take the lands of the people, of veterans. The veterans cannot pay for their debts because the national government have not paid them, but it is the States that are responsible for this - not the weak central government. If the Articles are modified in order to make the states pay their dues to the national legislature in full, there would not need to be a central government to collect taxes for themselves. The Federalists paint this feet as impossible because they seek only to strip us of our freedom. They claim it is to make our nation powerful, but did we just not fight a powerful nation that squandered our liberties? What was all that effort, bloodshed, and suffering for? It is certainly not to endure tyranny, even by a different flag! They speak of expansion towards Europe, but it is the West we must expand into! We have all this land to use, borders to dispute and draw, state level quarrels to resolve. This is where all the focus should be, good people: the states. Let the Federalists build the wealth of Europe upon their shores and leave the people outside their states to rule themselves. They wish only to steal the wealth of the lower class in order to fund their ambitions, these bankers and merchants. Is rule by some distant tyrant not what we shed blood for? The state capital is neither abusive of our liberty nor distant. We are not barred from the central government's legislation, but we shall be with the adoption of this new constitution! It is no coincidence that once we are expelled its power is to swell! While our young country is not absolved of all fault, modification of the Articles shall fix our issues while leaving power in the farmer - he who grows, not the banker - he who looks to take from the one who grows - or the speculator - ones in cahoots with the bankers to make profits. With their standing army, the Federalists may enforce this theft as though it is just. While it may be agreed upon as such it shall only be agreed as such by members of their circles! Do you see not the doom which shall set in if the Federalists are allowed their own document? They will start anew I tell you, and in discarding the Articles, they disregard what set this nation apart from any other upon this globe: rule by the people for the people!
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!