Unwanted pregnancies aren't always the fault of the woman. Rape is an exception, and an argument based on the exceptions is not sound.

Nobody should be underrated, but those who knowingly break the law deserve no respect even if their intentions are pure. I agree that our immigration system should be reformed, but I don't agree with praising criminals.

I don't see that as a valid reason to put a person in the highest office of our government. I don't remember anyone using that argument to support Palin, and Hillary isn't going to be the only woman running in 2016.

We all know what a fetus turns in to when it's allowed to develop. You might think it's selfish to force a pregnant woman to carry such a "burden" for 9 months, but I think it's even more selfish for a woman to make several poor decisions that result in a pregnancy and then demand that they be allowed to take a life to spare them the inconvenience of birthing and raising a child.

The only positive I see in abortions is that they prevent morally decrepit women from reproducing. The kind of people who support abortions should not be trusted to raise children.

Judging a group comprised of millions of people based on a few, albeit horrifying events is obviously the ignorant and uninformed way to deal with a real issue. Terrorism is a problem, but Islamaphobia is not the solution.

I have to point out, though, that Islamaphobists are similar to the radical minority of violent terrorists in their ignorant stance, but differ greatly in that they don't actually go around killing innocent people to prove their point.

Do you mean to say that rhetoric doesn't actually help solve problems? If I were a politician, I'd have you arrested for blasphemy.

The CEO of a corporation holds much more power than any individual in the government does, making it easier for corporations to adapt to changes. Corporations can fire underperforming individuals; the government can't "fire" the poor and disabled that have come to rely on it. Every shareholder has a tangible stake in the corporation (money is more tangible to many people than the more abstract powers of democracy). Shareholders can't vote themselves free stuff without causing the corporation to tank. The government has a massive (currently $17 trillion) safety net, and evidently it's pretty comfortable. Heads of corporations have more power when it comes to choosing their underlings; the president has no power to determine who will be congress.

I don't know, those are the differences I can think of off the top of my head. I do see the similarities, though, and it think it'd be great if the government were to be run more like a corporation, but I don't agree with giving any single government leader the same power as is possessed by a CEO. That being said, I don't really have a proposal of my own, but I'm open to ideas.

So a collective group of individuals is incapable of having an objective?

If that's the case, then the only thing preventing us all from becoming indentured servants is the minimum wage law. i might've been a little unclear with that generalization; private businesses still have to compete with each other for sources of labor, and if a business forces workers to operate under poor working conditions, nobody will be willing to work there. This is why, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (I know, a government organization...I'm still gonna reference it), only 4.3 percent of all hourly wage earners make at or below minimum wage. Sorry about the previous vague and generalized assertions, I'm a rookie debater.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/21 21.pdf