logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Defending the Indefensible, A Game
quarkhead
post May 5 2003, 06:56 AM
Post #1


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Best of AD Award Winner: Best Casual Conversation, 2002-2003


OK, Here's how it works. Each poster must defend the argument presented in the preceding post. After defending the previous statement, make your own for the next poster. This will likely work best if you really disagree with the previous statement, so you are forced to play devil's advocate, though that is not an absolute requirement. Statements can be absurd (cows make excellent house pets) or just extreme (liberals are evil).

Example:

Poster A: Liberals are evil.

Poster B: (preferably a liberal) defends the statement, then at the end says, "cows make excellent house pets."

and so on.

It would be best if people avoided making statements which may force the defender to resort to racist or otherwise very inflammatory arguments (like, "The Nazis had it right," or White people should be forcibly sterilized.").

It may be fun (just as a suggestion) to take some of the topics hotly debated elsewhere on AD and force people to argue the opposite side.

Somewhat in that light, I will start:

George W. Bush is greatest president in U.S. history.

edited to add: If you are a fan of Mr. Bush, answer this instead:

GWB is the worst president in U.S. History.

This post has been edited by Jaime: Sep 20 2003, 08:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
16 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
AuthorMusician
post May 5 2003, 01:50 PM
Post #2


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Cool! I'll go with GWB is the very best president this country has ever had.

George Walker Bush is the very best president this country has ever had. He is a very intelligent person who doesn't take guff from the press, stands for his principles, never messes around on his wife, has a ranch near Crawford, graduated from the ivy league, and won over the country's hearts and minds.

Not only that, he has made the world safer for democracy by conquering that evil regime in Iraq, and thereby crushing any chance of terrorists attacking the USA with weapons of mass destruction. We all sleep more peacefully, thanks to my man George!

President Bush is now turning his attention to our ailing economy. As everyone knows, big tax breaks for the rich lead directly to more jobs for the poor. This is because, as my man George knows, investments build business, and that means more jobs, greater consumer confidence, and a better life for all. It worked for Reagan, and it'll work for us now.

George Walker Bush is a deeply spiritual man. He belongs to a church, but his spirit runs deeper than the trappings of religion. He knows that we are saved only by coming to Jesus and accepting Him as our personal savior. The poor, the depressed, the angry, the violent, the defeated all must come to Jesus and be blessed in the blood of the lamb. So, my man George has courageously defied all those liberal, godless intellectuals who would strictly interpret the Constitution as separating state from church. Any and all government programs for helping the common people will, eventually, be adminstered by faith-based Christian organizations, because Christianity is the only religion with value to the down-trodden masses. We all know that, and President Bush knows that.

President Bush will be remembered by our country and the world as the great liberator, the great andvancer of democracy, and the great proponant of Christianity in the world. I dare say that the two-term limit will be challenged and defeated as George Walker Bush becomes the first life-long President this country has ever had! We will adore him. We will worship him. We will build many monuments to him, and keep images of him in personal shrines.

Okay, now my premise for someone else to support:

Trickle down (supply side) economic theory does not work.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: May 5 2003, 01:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post May 5 2003, 02:49 PM
Post #3


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Trickle down : what an idiotic theory.

When rich people get money, they just sock it away underneath their mattresses. The "theory" (chuckle) is that these people go out and create jobs, helping those that are less well-off. What a crock. These people buy mansions, yachts and Beemers. They don't create jobs.

These people are only trying to keep "those people" out of their circle. They want to keep the little guy down because they are just mean. Look, you never see rich people handing out money to others. They lobby against higher taxes like they are a bad thing. Evil rich people.


OK: My theory : Capatalism is the best ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

This post has been edited by amlord: May 5 2003, 05:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Platypus
post May 5 2003, 03:57 PM
Post #4


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
Aug. 13, 2003

Group: BANNED
Posts: 948
Member No.: 544
Joined: February-26-03

From: Lexington, MA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Comment from the sidelines: capitalism is not a form of government at all. Did you mean to say that capitalism is the best economic system?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Izdaari
post May 5 2003, 04:31 PM
Post #5


*******
Winner: Member We'd Like to See Elected 2002-2003

Group: Members
Posts: 811
Member No.: 578
Joined: March-4-03

From: Pacific NW, USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Libertarian



An aside on the thread title: It's similar to the title of a book by Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable, which I mention because it may be of interest to those who find this thread of interest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post May 5 2003, 05:18 PM
Post #6


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



What're you, Platypus, some kind of pinko? Form of government, economic system, whatever - it's clear that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand and that socialism is nothing more than a slippery slope to the sort of failed totalitarian communism that wrecked the soviet republics.

Capitalism is the only system that fully allows and encourages the virtues necessary for human life. It is the only system that safeguards the freedom of the independent mind and recognizes the sanctity of the individual. In short, it is the only system which lives up to the ideals of our founders (who, let's not forget, were some of the wealthiest, most successful entrepreneurs in history).

Every product that sustains and improves human life is made possible by the thinking of the world's creators and producers. We all recognize the contributions of scientists and engineers, but most of us tend to ignore the man who is most essential to human progress: the businessman. The businessman is the one who takes the achievements of the scientists and engineers out of the realm of theory and turns them into reality; he takes their ideas out of the laboratories and off the drawing boards and puts them onto the store shelves.

The only way to respect the vital contributions of the businessman is to leave him free to act on his own judgment. That is precisely what capitalism does. All decisions are left to the "free market" - to the decisions of buyers and sellers, manufacturers and distributors, employers and employees. The first rule of capitalism is that everyone has a right to dispose of his own life and property according to his own judgment.

In a free-market economy, everyone is driven by his own ambitions for wealth and success (and anyone who claims to have no such ambitions is either a liar or a fool). That's what "free trade" means: that no one may demand the work, effort, or money of another without offering to trade something of value in return. None of this unproductive "from each, to each" nonsense. It was Adam Smith, not Karl Marx, who got it right: every trade occurs "by mutual consent and to mutual advantage."

Of course, there are those who who will villify this as "selfish" or "greedy". Well, if people taking their own lives seriously and exercising their right to pursue their own happiness is selfish and greedy, call me an avaricious megalomaniac. A system that sacrifices the self to "society" is a system of slavery - and a system that sacrifices choice to coercion is a system of brutality.

Only capitalism renounces these evils entirely. Only capitalism is fully true to the moral ideal stated in the Declaration of Independence: the individual's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Only capitalism protects the individual's freedom of thought and his right to his own life. If you don't like capitalism, there are plenty of countries which base their governments on other economic systems or compromise systems. Might I suggest you try one of them out (though, be warned: their products will be substandard, their telecom system will be dire, and their trains won't run on time).


Oh, yeah, my premise: Campaign finance reform is essential - and McCain-Feingold is a good start (and well within First Amendment strictures).

This post has been edited by Wertz: May 5 2003, 07:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugo
post May 5 2003, 05:19 PM
Post #7


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,584
Member No.: 362
Joined: December-28-02

From: Houston
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Let's go with Wertz. McCain/Feingold is essential. This nation needs experienced congressmen. McCain/Feingold, labeled by such diverse individuals/groups as the ACLU and Rush Limbaugh as the Incumbant Protection Act.. Now let us get to repealing the 1st Amendment so we can insure we no longer have rookies in Congress.

Next: Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

This post has been edited by hugo: May 5 2003, 07:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post May 5 2003, 07:42 PM
Post #8


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,373
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Homosexuals should not be permitted to marry. This would effectively pollute the sanctity of marriage, which should be for procreation reasons mostly. Everything homosexuals do together should be illegal, as there is no basis for reproduction in them.

Homosexuals should not be able to legitimize their relationship through any longstanding contractual vow. They would taint the minds of children, if permitted to rear them. Worse, allowing the state to sanction homosexual relationships might lead to an increase in homosexual activity! Just say no to legitimizing homosexual relationships.

Next: There should never be mandatory gun registration

This post has been edited by mrspigpen: May 5 2003, 10:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Victoria Silverw...
post May 6 2003, 07:12 AM
Post #9


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,601
Member No.: 608
Joined: March-16-03

From: Chattanooga Tennessee USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



This is a wonderful idea. It allows one to attempt to see into the mind of one who defends a position with which one strongly disagrees. If this is done in an honest attempt to understand the other person's argument, it can only lead to clearer thinking.

There should never be mandatory gun registration.

1. The Constitution of the United States does not grant Congress the power to restrict the right to bear arms in any way. Mandatory gun registration, in and of itself, is a form of restriction. Therefore, Congress cannot enact such a law.

2. Even if such a law were constitutional, it would be a bad idea. Only law-abiding citizens would register their guns. Criminals would continue to commit crimes with guns, and citizens would be less likely to be armed and able to defend themselves against crimes. The number of gun-related crimes would go up, not down.

3. Mandatory gun registration would have similar effects to prohibition of alcohol and drugs. Person wishing to own non-registered guns (either for criminal purposes, or in rightful protest over such a law) will purchase guns on the black market. The price of such guns will increase, and organized crime will become involved, attracted by the profits to be made. This black market in guns will lead to violent crime, similar to the violent crime associated with illegal alcohol and drugs.

4. Registration weakens one of the most important reasons why gun ownership must never be restricted; the ability of citizens to defend themselves against government repression. Registration of guns would greatly increase the ability of a repressive government to confiscate them, removing the ability of citizens to resist such repression by force of arms.


Next: Abortion should never be legal under any circumstances.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post May 6 2003, 09:13 AM
Post #10


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Abortion should never be legal under any circumstances.

Life is sacred. And no matter how you cut it, when a woman becomes pregnant, there is a life in her womb. We are not taught to make judgements of worth relative to the mental or physical capacity of another, therefore, whether or not the fetus is four cells or a million, how are we to differentiate its value from anyone else's? We do not say that the life of a mentally retarded man is worth less than the life of a sublime genius, so why should an unborn baby's life be worth less than any other person on this planet?

Indeed, if we are to follow the code of humility and compassion, we are at our most heroic when we place others' lives before our own - so even in a case where the mother may die, should she not be willing to place the value of the life of her unborn above even her own survival?

Even in cases of incest or rape, why is it the unborn child who is given a death sentence for the crimes of another? Yes, those occurrences are tragic, but by punishing the innocent outcome of a crime, are we not committing a far more grievous breach of ethics and legality?

Next: The United States should dismantle its armed forces and lead the world, by example, to a true and lasting peace.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post May 6 2003, 09:39 AM
Post #11


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Edited: eek, someone got in just ahead of me, now what? I wont delete, deal as it is I guess. Our last posing questions are similar.

Abortion is first of all morally wrong. All life is sacred, whether born or unborn. It matters not at all the age or condition of the female or her life, its the unborn baby that is the most important.

Women are just using abortion as birth control. They are simply irresponsible.
If teenage girls have babies its their own fault for not having any control. No government help should be given to pregnant teens or impoverished pregnant mothers with deadbeat fathers. They must have the babies and deal with their own problems. If the children have nothing to eat or the woman cannot afford to have the baby, too bad, its their own fault for lack of self control.
Abstenence should be taught to all girls at a young age by their parents. Boys have NO responsability in this issue, and do not need to be taught restraint. After all nature is at work here, its biology.
We do not want sex education in schools or condoms given to our teens, because they will have more sex.

If older women find themselves pregnant by accident, then they also must have that baby. It is the right thing to do. Women should give up their careers to have the baby and stay home to raise it, its their job, no matter how many other children they have.

In the case of incest, women and young girls should have these babies too. After all inbreeding is how we get good racehorses. ( An actual quote from a Senator in the 70's) In the case of rape, they must also have these babies, it was the womans fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, probably a slutty type anyway and most likely was wearing seductive clothing. Some women just egg this kind of thing on. Anyway, once again, the child is sacred, the womans life or emotional state or probability of raising a healthy baby does not matter. No welfare or help of any kind should be afforded to her. We must cut all government programs for poor preganant mothers, but they must have the babies anyway.

Birth control should not be covered under health inurance. What do they think, we have money to waste? There are many more pressing matters. Prostate cancer is a big problem.

It is not Gods Will that unborn babies not be killed in the womb. God is against this, every unborn, loved or unloved, wanted or unwanted, poor, hungry or drug addicted needs to be born and live the life they were dealt, certainely with no help from society or government programs.

Next: Pre-emptive Wars to spread American-style democracy and ideals over the world is right and justified.

This post has been edited by Artemise: May 6 2003, 09:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GoAmerica
post May 6 2003, 12:38 PM
Post #12



Newbie

Group: BANNED
Posts: 0
Member No.: 381
Joined: January-12-03

From: Illinois, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Artemise @ May 6 2003, 04:39 AM)
Next: Pre-emptive Wars to spread American-style democracy and ideals over the world is right and justified.

There are many countries in the world like Iraq that have oppressive dictators who torture it's citizens, harbor terrrorists & also threaten the United States. Democratized countiries won't have that threat.

When communism was the main threat in the 50 years that it was huge, a series of "secret wars" initiated by numerous presidents of the United States in the Central Americas to curb the massive communist threat in our backyard. This was to prevent the threat of communism from reaching the United States. The goal was to democratize these places so communism won't spread

Now, the main goal of U.S. Foreign Policy is to curb terrorism & to democratize at teh same time. So, we fought in Afghainstan to destroy Al-Queda's "home base" & terrorism was the main concern of of Iraq because the Bush Administration figured Saddam was harboring terrorists, mainly Al-Queda. The goal in Iraq was to liberate the iraqi people & free from tyranny & repression

The United States sees countries can have a chance to thrive if they have a democracy with free market, free speech & expression & no terrorism & repression


Next Question: The bad U.S. Economy IS NOT Bush's fault


BTW: COOL GAME! flowers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Platypus
post May 6 2003, 12:50 PM
Post #13


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
Aug. 13, 2003

Group: BANNED
Posts: 948
Member No.: 544
Joined: February-26-03

From: Lexington, MA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(goamerica @ May 6 2003, 08:38 AM)
Next Question: The bad U.S. Economy IS NOT Bush's fault

Of course it's not Bush's fault. The president doesn't control the economy. Natural business cycles, advances in technology, actions by Congress or the Fed, unasked-for wars, etc. all have an effect too. Bush is doing all he can with his tax-cut plan, and by continuing to prosecute the war on terrorism to provide a better environment for US business. Controlling Iraqi oil is part of that, as it should be; what's good for the oil companies is good for America, and it's the president's responsibility to use our military might solely for the benefit of the domestic economy. If it weren't for Bush and his visionary policies, we'd be far worse off than we are now.

Next topic: poor people are just naturally inferior to rich people and shouldn't expect the government to address inequity of opportunity in any way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post May 6 2003, 01:25 PM
Post #14


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,373
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(quarkhead @ May 6 2003, 09:13 AM)
Next: The United States should dismantle its armed forces and lead the world, by example, to a true and lasting peace.

With three to choose from, I'll take this one, since I've been arguing pretty much the opposite for years. smile.gif

The United States should dismantle its armed forces and lead the world, by example, to a true and lasting peace.

Our nation absorbed trillions of dollars worth of debt to combat the ‘Soviet threat’ (which was practically an illusion in itself) during the cold war. Their strong ‘offense’ was nothing more than a response to our threatening ‘defense’. Effectively, we are STILL combating this nonexistent force through our enormous military funding.

That's money that won't be available to invest in schools, teachers, health care, and other necessities that are needed to bring America up to standards enjoyed by the rest of the industrialized world. America is now in an arms race with itself. And the only winners of that thinking are defense contractors and their lobbyists.

We are indisputably the world leaders, militarily. Our nukes have enough ‘pow’ to destroy the world 10 times over, and no other defense budget in the world comes close to ours. Even if we dramatically reduce our weapons forces today, we would be the military worldpower. I say we annihilate them, demonstrating by example that there can, and should be, a lasting peace in this world. We have advanced beyond the point of such barbarism.

It's time to invest in kids, not the Pentagon.

(editted to add)I'll leave the next to Platypus' question, I guess we posted at the same time... topic: poor people are just naturally inferior to rich people and shouldn't expect the government to address inequity of opportunity in any way.

This post has been edited by mrspigpen: May 6 2003, 01:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post May 6 2003, 03:33 PM
Post #15


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Poor people etc.

I'm a loser. I'm a bum. I was born into a lower class working family who scraped for a living, and through rotten nutrition of Minnesota hot dishes, my brain has been damaged. I don't count and never will. The other people around me don't have any responsibility for my lot in life, and I am doomed to forever work minimum wage, mind-numbing jobs for the man.

The man is great. He is my hero. I wish I had been born into that nice, large home and been fed good food instead of the canned beans and tater tots. But then, that is me, and I am inferior.

Why should anybody take responsibility? It's my life, and I have to pull myself up by my bootstraps.

If only I had boots.

People born into wealth must be especially blessed by God.

I'm a loser. I'm a bum. There's no hope.

Have a nice day smile.gif Fries with that?

Whoops, I forgot the next thing. But then, I'm brain damaged tongue.gif

Okay, um, how's about Christianity is the only true religion?

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: May 6 2003, 03:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Victoria Silverw...
post May 7 2003, 08:57 AM
Post #16


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,601
Member No.: 608
Joined: March-16-03

From: Chattanooga Tennessee USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



Christianity is the only true religion

My dear friends:

It saddens my heart to see that so many of you have not yet accepted Jesus as your personal saviour. Let us forget all our trivial political differences; this material world is as nothing, compared to the prospect of eternity. We will all die. Each one of us has the choice of accepting either the unending glory of God's paradise, or the unending despair of Hell. I pray each day that the Holy Spirit may grant you the grace of faith.

I also appeal to your reason. Common sense dictates that the followers of Christ would not have given themselves up to torture and death unless they sincerely believed that He was the Messiah. They would not have believed this unless they had witnessed miracles and the Resurrection for themselves.

Those of you who accept this, but who also say that all religions are equally valid, deny what Jesus said about Himself. His statements are clear. He is God; He is the only path to Salvation. This is the most basic concept of Christianity; any religion which denies the unique divinity of Christ cannot be accepted by a Christian.

Please read the Gospels and see the truth for yourself.

I love you,

Vicki


[Next: There are major, inherent differences in the psychology of men and women which cannot be changed by any change in society.]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post May 7 2003, 12:36 PM
Post #17


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Insert only: Victoria, applause, that was brilliant, especially from you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Abs like Jesus
post May 8 2003, 02:40 AM
Post #18


********
Cross Training Instructor

Sponsor
June 4, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,613
Member No.: 591
Joined: March-9-03

From: Louisville, KY
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Other



There are major, inherent differences in the psychology of men and women which cannot be changed by any change in society.

Many have tried to ignore these differences under the guise of resolving some specter of discrimination. That evolution has polarized the psyches of men and women, my friends, is an indisputable fact.

No matter how we might like to promote women in the work place and in government, we simply cannot. Considering the excessive sense of compassion rendered by their maternal instinct, women simply will not have the... [throat clearing] they will not have the balls to handle tough issues when they arise. They will not demonstrate the strength and resolve to handle violent criminals, international threats and mounting pressure from forceful special interest groups.

Conversely, men simply cannot be left to deal with the issues of family and humanitarian causes. Their hunter-gatherer mentality will lead them bumbling through delicate issues like a bull in a china shop. Like any wild animal, their place is in the jungle -- the concrete jungle if you will -- and not the nursery.

Men and women may support one another in their respective societal positions, but to ignore the psychological differences and seek role reversals is destined to failure. We can rewrite the textbooks and we can seek to level playing fields with this concept of equal opportunity, but it simply will not matter.

The longer we ignore the problem, the larger it will become. It would be in our best interest to acknowledge and accept these fundamental differences in the gender psyches, rather than follow a delusion to the point of no return.

Next: The role the United States is attempting to play on the international stage will lead it down the same destructive path of the Roman Empire.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GoAmerica
post May 8 2003, 03:12 AM
Post #19



Newbie

Group: BANNED
Posts: 0
Member No.: 381
Joined: January-12-03

From: Illinois, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ May 7 2003, 09:40 PM)
Next: The role the United States is attempting to play on the international stage will lead it down the same destructive path of the Roman Empire.

Rats. you tempt me to want to change the way this game is played whistling.gif

I wanna play opposite defender here....tempting....very tempting
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post May 8 2003, 03:36 AM
Post #20


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,373
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Just wanted to chime in with koodos to everyone posting. This game is great! I think there are a lot of brilliant devils' advocates here flowers.gif

Can't touch Abs' topic, though. It rings too true to me. ermm.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: January 29th, 2022 - 11:32 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.