Quotes About Debate

My best hope is that Libya turns into a peaceful, sensible country that has all the things my father and lots of others have been calling for: independence of the courts and press, a protected and democratic constitution, with different parties involved in a healthy and open debate.

If you want to initiate a broader debate about racism, is it really healthy to create an atmosphere in which it is not only statues that are being toppled but a range of cultural artefacts, TV series, celebrities, columnists and controversial broadcasters?

It's a complicated issue, and you can't boil it down in a tweet... two sentences cannot sum up the whole gun debate... The minute you try to talk about it honestly and openly, you get raked over the coals.

If I were to run for president, then people would debate the pros and cons of what's wrong with me in increasingly aggressive 140 character tweets and Facebook status updates, and, inevitably, everyone would end up fighting.

Immigration reform almost happened under President George W. Bush. Twice. And it was comprehensive.

I only met Margaret Thatcher twice. The thing that I thought about meeting her was how extraordinarily intelligent she was. You really had to be on your game; otherwise, she'd make mincemeat of you.

Everyone wants to argue. Everyone does. Everyone needs to.

Antonin Scalia knows that freedom of speech has consequences. And the consequences of freedom of speech are speech you don't like, that you don't want to hear, that you don't want to listen to.

We try it practically every time it comes up, be it amnesty, be it any other issue they want. We try and it gets us nowhere, and it doesn't get us any favors among left-wing-inclined voters, either.

To the left, immigration is anybody who gets in, anybody who wants to come gets in. And that's not what immigration is. That's illegal immigration. And that's what is opposed.

The left want to get rid of all opposition. They don't want to debate the opposition. They don't want to argue. They just don't want there to be any.

The left defends their, whatever you want to call, partisans, activists or what have you.

As more and more people awaken to the threats against our basic rights online, we must start a debate - everywhere - about the web we want.

People sometimes ask me, "You're still in a primary - why are you criticizing [Donald] Trump?" It's because I don't want what he's saying to stand unanswered.

If the [Republican] party wants to have an ideological debate, it's never going to win anything in a major way.

People can make arguments from the Bible if they want to. But I want them to see that they should also give arguments that all reasonable citizens might agree to.

If I believe that abortion is wrong, and I want to convince you that it's wrong, there's no reason I should recount to you my personal narrative of how I came to believe this.

Who wants to privatize Medicare.

All we do is bring the debate from both sides, and let you as a viewer decide where you want to end up on the issue. That's very important. That's exactly what happens in 'Redemption Inc.'

A Yea might turn in to a Nae and vice versa if a sufficient quantity of wordage was applied. In other talk you argument out until you get the answer you want.

I think there are many in the Democratic Party that want immigration to be unsolved issue at least for the time being, because it's more useful as a campaign issue than it is as a solved issue.

The Bible is a wonderful book; you can prove anything you want with it.

All of which raises another question: If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?

Maybe it's a sick fantasy of mine, but I am really looking forward to a debate between a general and a deserter. Plus, I really want to hear President Bush have to say, "Yes, General, No, General."