Members of Connecticut's congressional delegation are predicting a
different type of debate about gun control when lawmakers return to Washington next week.
«I didn't expect it to spawn
the type of debate that it [has] and, quite frankly, I wasn't out there to make any sort of social statement,» says Marcello.
I can understand
this type of debate in the wake of knocking out (not winning one leg) a quality team, but a pub side... seriously?
I think its important to remember that there are no winners in
these type of debates / discussions, everyone has a separate view / opion and rightly so.
But even though speaking in the debate gave MPs an opportunity to put their point of view across, it changed nothing because
the type of debate meant the result of the vote was in no way binding on the government.
I do not like drama or
any type of debate situations that goes forth in gettin to know each...
What was hardest about taking part in
this type of debate?
«Whereas they might not be able to have the types of benefits or job protections codified into their contracts,» McShane says, «they might be able to sway elections that will put people in statehouses that will be more on their side in
these types of debates.»
Until politicians demonstrate the ability to balance budgets for a couple of years,
this type of debate's pretty pointless (and indulgent)
I suspect, as is often the case with
this type of debate, both sides have a point.
However, in my view
this type of debate, while heartfelt, is equivalent to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
This is a very principled position, one that is well - grounded in law and public policy, even if it does take place in the context of
the type of debates that «can be caustic, strident or even vulgar and insulting.»