The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Patrick_Henry
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

A debate on a certain controversy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,966 times Debate No: 5464
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (45)
Votes (6)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Okay, the exact resolution is "Patrick_Henry is being childish and counterproductive in his actions against a certain group on debate.org"

This group is of course the so-called "voting block" that actually isn't a voting block. The debate in which he does this is here:http://www.debate.org... Don't forget to look at the comments.

He commits libel, and calls this group a voting block, and its members "A literal band of teenagers, foolishly set in the political views without any life experience or education to back it up reinforcing each others partisan bigotry and ignorance, and clearly organizing a bloc of voters." The group is nothing like what he describes. On its website, and I could give you the URL, but all the pages are password protected, it says "To help newcomer Conservatives by giving advise and displaying proper debating.

2. To help veteran Conservatives win debates by giving him advise on topics and or how to debate that topic properly.

3. To organize a proper community of Conservatives that will help each other as well as bring more Conservatives to debate.org."

It is not anything like a "voting bloc" and it is libelous and immature to label it as such. A voting bloc is defined as "a group of voters that are so motivated by a specific concern or group of concerns that it helps determine how they vote in elections." We are not doing this. In no way is it even suggested, it's not even slightly implied. In fact, the group has specifically condemned this action. The group is not a voting bloc. Don't call it one. It is only childish and counterproductive.
Patrick_Henry

Con

Hi guys. First off- keep this message. This can act as our forum. Second- As some of you know, the_conservative has just been lo-balled by the libs. We need to vote for his debates and help him win (if you agree with his arguements, of course). If you have any other conservative friends, send me their names and we'll all become a team. PS- we'll keep this message updated so you all know what is going on. Also vote on each other's debates (if you agree with the arguements, of course) and keep active.
Go team,
Jamesothy

PS- John McCain for president
Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 12:52:15 PM
Jamesothy

PPS- I don't care if you are a democrat. Go squeal.
Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 1:01:35 PM

advidiun

i agree John Mccain 4 pres.

also once the voting period begins i would apreciate it if you would vote on my debate with ansmith.
Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 1:22:55 PM
Jamesothy

Hi guys. Our new outside forum is "http://thepatriotsusa.blogspot.com......;.
Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 6:48:45 PM
the_conservative

f*** it vote for their debates even if you disagree lol

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 7:44:10 PM
advidiun

dont vote unless you agree with their arguments thats un fair

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 7:55:28 PM
joshandr30

I'm with ya.

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 8:25:30 PM
the_conservative

lol

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 8:30:15 PM

HELP! THAT JTSMITH IS STARTING A THING TO KICK ME OUT!!!

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 8:36:19 PM
DucoNihilum

How surprising. I find it funny you think you're so much better than Liberals, yet you stoop to, or below their levels....

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 8:47:47 PM
the_conservative

Duco what?

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 8:47:51 PM
the_conservative

this is absurd

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 8:52:27 PM
DucoNihilum

Why are you declaring war? Don't take this so seriously. You're trying to turn this website into what, liberals verses conservatives? Voting 'wars'. Who cares?! If you're going to belittle these damn evil liberals then why don't you do so by showing you are actually better than them and not getting involved in this petty childish bull****?

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 8:54:42 PM
the_conservative

no no no they ruined all my other debates by voting the other side. i dont really want to declare war i just said that to get people attention.

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 8:54:52 PM
the_conservative

i dont want it to be a con vs lib thing

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 9:02:48 PM
DucoNihilum

You sound like a child. Stop this petty s***. If you believe they are voting you down then chalk it up to those darned liberals being liberals. If you're going to look down on somebody for a political belief (the idea is absurd within itself) then you shouldn't be so hypocritical and sound like a child yourself. You're sending messages to people whom agree with you to do what? To cheat the website. By doing this, you are no better than the liberals you want to fight. This is a clear violation of the rules. I'm not going to report you- I don't care. I just suggest you grow up a little. I'm not speaking of just you, I'm thinking most of you guys. GROW UP!

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 9:40:54 PM
the_conservative

you obviously dont understand the whole situation. whatever

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 9:48:39 PM
DucoNihilum

Sure I do. I'm dismissing it. The entire situation is childish.

Sunday, September 14, 2008 @ 11:28:48 PM
MitchPaglia

Conservative, you actually explained what the entire thing was about a few posts back. You said that it was because the "liberals ruined" your debates and that you just wanted to get peoples attention.

The first thing that is wrong with that is that you are propegating the flame wars that hurt this country. Someone who is Liberal is not bad just because they are a liberal, they want the same things that you want in this country except they have different means of getting to it.

Secondly, how did they "ruin" your debate? By voting against you? How does that make the debate ruined? What makes you think that you are absolutly correct in everything that you beleive and declare? If anything, it should improve the debate by having you look at the values you hold and see why someone might vote against you.

Third, what you are doing is THE ESSENCE OF CHILDISHNESS!!!! Attracting attention to yourself for no reason at all is what, guess who, CHILDREN do.

Monday, September 15, 2008 @ 4:01:40 AM
the_conservative

Did i actually! The first thing that is wrong before i even continue to read your little rant is that you just got here and you are not an expert so don't "break down" what happened. Secondly, hod did they ruin my debates? Hmmmm debates that took place over 7 months ago that i was winning lets say 31 to 28 all of a sudden.....all of a sudden im losing you know 34 to 31 and things like that. It's not that they disagree, they just did it to abuse their voting power to "punish" me. Third, WHY ARE YOU TYPING IN CAPS! 4th, this whole thing ended last night, i dont even know why YOU bothered to butt in. Who the ell are you anyway? 5th, I am not the one promoting this "war" nor did i propose it, maybe you should look at all the other posts, oh wait you just butted in. nevermind.

Monday, September 15, 2008 @ 11:54:46 AM
joshandr30

I am going to try and take some intuitive here. I am friends with half the people wanting this group and the rest are not taking messages. One of the council needs to start ONE message with some kind of Subject title so all know what the meaning of the message is. CALL TO ORDER would be a good one to get everyone together to decide things. VOTE would be a good title when someone needs their debate looked at and so on. But in the original message has to have in it that ONLY that message will be posted to. So far I have five different messages in each one, one will say something different then the other. We need to figure out how to communicate here until the group becomes available. I did not even know who was the third council member until I read every message. We need some sort of order. If we do not this CWO will never get off the ground. We need a system of looking at each others debates, just by asking people on this site to come look at my debate I was winning by 4, the next day I was losing by 15. But if we stick together and vote on the debates based on there merit we will get rid of the lo balling because they will not be able to bully anybody around anymore. Let me know

Monday, September 15, 2008 @ 11:59:47 AM
joshandr30

The lead in my debate Trinity against ANSmith is good enough, thank you for looking at the site but the lead is enough. Thank you very much and let me know if any of you would like me to look at any of your debates. I am posting this on three different messages so all can see, we need to organize this better.

Monday, September 15, 2008 @ 12:03:50 PM
Jamesothy

Why are we debating each other?

Monday, September 15, 2008 @ 12:08:02 PM
Labrat228

one message has been sent, take it their. "a call to order"

September 15, 2008 @ 4:11:07 PM
CiRrO

Everyone Relax for Pete's sake. This is more then just down voting liberal retards. It is a way to create a firm bind of conservative brotherhood. That is a noble action, I think. We all share the same common value basis, and thus we should all get together as one. Anyone agree?

Monday, September 15, 2008 @ 4:35:33 PM
the_conservative

i should be prez...i am wearing a ronald reagan shirt right now for fucks sake

Monday, September 15, 2008 @ 5:04:40 PM
joshandr30

Agree. Now lets do this thing. We need to check out ANsmith's debates, captain America forfeited the last two rounds, I can not vote for him if he did not debate. But there is another guy that did quite well in my opinion. He was winning by at least 16 poi
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"Agree. Now lets do this thing. We need to check out ANsmith's debates, captain America forfeited the last two rounds, I can not vote for him if he did not debate. But there is another guy that did quite well in my opinion. He was winning by at least 16 poi"

Notice, "I can not vote for him if he did not debate." That means we aren't vote bombing. If we were, we would vote for him.

"As some of you know, the_conservative has just been lo-balled by the libs. We need to vote for his debates and help him win (if you agree with his arguements, of course)."

That's what started your other debate. This is simply pointing out something seen as unfair, and trying to do something about it. That's how democracies are supposed to work.

"also once the voting period begins i would apreciate it if you would vote on my debate with ansmith."

Also, not telling them to vote for him. It is neutral. ANSmith is seen as a liberal low baller, so people want to make sure that people who they trust can look at the debate.

"f*** it vote for their debates even if you disagree lol"

That is a little disturbing, but notice, right away adividiun says "dont vote unless you agree with their arguments thats un fair"
To this joshanr30 says "I'm with ya."

"...i just said that to get people attention."

See, even the disturbing comment was a joke.

"Hmmmm debates that took place over 7 months ago that i was winning lets say 31 to 28 all of a sudden.....all of a sudden im losing you know 34 to 31 and things like that. It's not that they disagree, they just did it to abuse their voting power to 'punish' me."

See, vote bombing. By the liberals. That's justification. Well, I guess "the" makes it sound like all liberals are bad. So I should say "some"

"It is a way to create a firm bind of conservative brotherhood. That is a noble action, I think."

This is not vote bombing nor is it a voting bloc.

"But there is another guy that did quite well in my opinion. He was winning by at least 16 poi[nts]"

So, more evidence of liberal vote bombing. This again simply brings attention to something unfair.
Patrick_Henry

Con

You and I are clearly not meaning the same thing when we use the phrase voting bloc, or voting block. As you complete your high school education, you will have a class on government in which the definition of a voting bloc will be covered. To help resolve this confusion, I am introducing my definition of the term voting bloc as it is listed on Wikipedia.com

"A voting bloc is a group of voters that are so motivated by a specific concern or group of concerns that it helps determine how they vote in elections. The divisions between voting blocs are known as cleavage. A voting bloc can be longstanding and institutionalized, such as support for business or labor, or it can be created from scratch as the result of the saliency of a new public issue, such as a war or the potential resumption of a military draft." http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you are using a notably different definition, please introduce in the next round.

If your movement is truly a conservative brotherhood as CiRro claims, and your brotherhood participates in mutual review of debates where there is voting, I believe that would mean that your brotherhood also constitutes as a group of voters that are motivated by a specific concern, or a group of concerns.

The fact that you are desiring an organization with fluid communication, and providing a clear mandate with what debates they are to review and vote on is another indication that you're creating a voting bloc. Your organization may not be instructing individuals on how to vote, but they are organizing individuals with like attitudes, and encouraging them to participate in voting on debates in which their attitudes need to be supported or defended. This is clearly an action that a voting bloc would take.

Your suggestion that your response to perceived attacks made on your debates by people who disagree with you has something to do with democracy is another fallacy. A Republic, which our government is, thrives on public discussion, and public records, and public organizations. The very word Republic comes from the Latin, Res Publica - meaning the Public Thing. What I have done serves the Republic, or the Democracy has you've deemed it. Organizing secretly and in private is usually a step away from the Republic. There is nothing public about your organization, and if I hadn't created the debate which spawned this "debate on a certain controversy," there would be absolutely zero public discussion regarding this matter.

So, tell us please how your merry band of debaters, voting in unison on each others debates is beneficial to Debate.org as a whole. Tell us please, how your "Conservative World Order" plans to serve the Republic by influencing the number of wins, ties and losses of your peers and foes. How does that act bear any relevance on the truth or virtue of what was discussed? How does that act serve the objectivity you once claimed was your reason to debate?

While you reference several of their passages which indicates that they only want you to vote in favor of the debate if you agree with the debate, recall that you're only attempting to organize people that agree with you. I am likely on this list because I spoke to defend Mike Huckabee a number of months ago.

What of CiRro's true comment, "This is more then just down voting liberal retards." indicating that "down voting liberal retards" is in some fashion a goal of your organization, or at least a goal he feels it should have.

So, while your organization may point to aspects of nobility to justify it's existence, realize that it is what it is, a voting bloc of like minded individuals organized to review each others debates. It doesn't matter if they aren't told how to vote, they more than likely already agree with the author of one of the arguments. The flowery rhetoric of how initially described your group may not be flattering, but it is a very defensible position. Since you've chosen to find the term zealot offensive, I won't bother making the case further. Zealot serves a greater meaning than the pejorative you have taken it to be. Again, seek a dictionary definition.

Take two steps away from your own position, and your own organization, or at the very least think about how you would regard a group of individuals who disagree with you attempting to draw as many individuals who disagree with you to vote on your debates. There is still hope for you yet.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"You and I are clearly not meaning the same thing when we use the phrase voting bloc, or voting block. As you complete your high school education, you will have a class on government in which the definition of a voting bloc will be covered. To help resolve this confusion, I am introducing my definition of the term voting bloc as it is listed on Wikipedia.com"

I believe in the various discussions we have had over this I have provided this definition.

"If your movement is truly a conservative brotherhood as CiRro claims, and your brotherhood participates in mutual review of debates where there is voting, I believe that would mean that your brotherhood also constitutes as a group of voters that are motivated by a specific concern, or a group of concerns."

Note this part of the definition: "it helps determine how they vote in elections." If we take election to mean the "election" of the better debater, then you see that we are not a voting block. If we were, we would vote with very similarly. For example, I have an acquaintance who claims that he is a member of a vast "Eastern European Republican Voting Bloc" That means he tends to vote Republican. However, we do not vote consistently for one viewpoint. Therefore we are not a voting bloc.

"The fact that you are desiring an organization with fluid communication, and providing a clear mandate with what debates they are to review and vote on is another indication that you're creating a voting bloc. Your organization may not be instructing individuals on how to vote, but they are organizing individuals with like attitudes, and encouraging them to participate in voting on debates in which their attitudes need to be supported or defended. This is clearly an action that a voting bloc would take."

You oversimplify. We focus more on coaching, which was not indicated in that message. Simply voting does not equal a voting bloc, it is simply voting. (Repetitive).

"Your suggestion that your response to perceived attacks made on your debates by people who disagree with you has something to do with democracy is another fallacy. A Republic, which our government is, thrives on public discussion, and public records, and public organizations. The very word Republic comes from the Latin, Res Publica - meaning the Public Thing. What I have done serves the Republic, or the Democracy has you've deemed it. Organizing secretly and in private is usually a step away from the Republic. There is nothing public about your organization, and if I hadn't created the debate which spawned this "debate on a certain controversy," there would be absolutely zero public discussion regarding this matter."

This matter didn't need public discussion. If it had been doing something bad, then it would be necessary to inform the public, and I am sure there would have been some that would do so. Increased voter turnout improves democracy, as does more informed voters. We inform and encourage voting. That is beneficial to democracy.

"So, tell us please how your merry band of debaters, voting in unison on each others debates is beneficial to Debate.org as a whole. Tell us please, how your "Conservative World Order" plans to serve the Republic by influencing the number of wins, ties and losses of your peers and foes. How does that act bear any relevance on the truth or virtue of what was discussed? How does that act serve the objectivity you once claimed was your reason to debate?"

You forget that that is ONE purpose. There are other facets to this group.

"While you reference several of their passages which indicates that they only want you to vote in favor of the debate if you agree with the debate, recall that you're one with ly attempting to organize people that agreyou. I am likely on this list because I spoke to defend Mike Huckabee a number of months ago."

If you agree that the conservative debater did better. That's different.

"What of CiRro's true comment, "This is more then just down voting liberal retards." indicating that "down voting liberal retards" is in some fashion a goal of your organization, or at least a goal he feels it should have."

A liberal "retard" would be a bad debater that is liberal. Voting against bad debaters is not bad, it's objective.

"So, while your organization may point to aspects of nobility to justify it's existence, realize that it is what it is, a voting bloc of like minded individuals organized to review each others debates. It doesn't matter if they aren't told how to vote, they more than likely already agree with the author of one of the arguments. The flowery rhetoric of how initially described your group may not be flattering, but it is a very defensible position. Since you've chosen to find the term zealot offensive, I won't bother making the case further. Zealot serves a greater meaning than the pejorative you have taken it to be. Again, seek a dictionary definition."

First, voting blocs have to vote TOGETHER. We don't. Second, I know what zealot means. You were using it as an insult. The context of your usage gave it its pejorative connotations."

"Take two steps away from your own position, and your own organization, or at the very least think about how you would regard a group of individuals who disagree with you attempting to draw as many individuals who disagree with you to vote on your debates. There is still hope for you yet."

It depends whether I felt those individuals were capable of being objective. There is no evidence that any of the CWO members are not being objective, however, there is evidence that many (maybe not most, but even a minority is a lot compared to the conservatives on this site) liberals have vote bombed.
Patrick_Henry

Con

Variations in voting does not cause a voting bloc to cease to exist. It's like how John McCain calls himself a "maverick" of his party, though he has voted with his party on legislation 95% of the time. The Republican Party in congress remains a voting bloc, and continues to hold party caucuses to see how their bloc will be voting even if John McCain, and a few other Senators don't back the agenda 100% of the time. Very few individuals agree with their voting bloc 100% of the time.

Not participating in the voting block 100% of the time is only a concern if the voting bloc is centered around one issue. A "conservative brother hood" wouldn't have to agree 100% of the time to be an influential voting bloc, especially when most debates are decided by a handful of voters. As you agree on most issues, you will likely be voting in favor with most

For an organization that focuses on coaching, I find it puzzling that in the rather large series of messages I received regarding your organization spoke more about voting as an organization. While your organization would benefit from having more skillfully trained Debaters, presuming you could generate such at your online school of hackery where potential opponents are consistently put down, and treated without respect in your private conversations.

A virtuous debater respects his opponent both in public, and in private. One that simply makes public appeals pretending to respect their opponent is certainly not a very virtuous debater. As the name calling was not addressed, but greeted with agreement and laughter by other members of your organization, I doubt that your training and coaching is going to teach individuals how to be virtuous members of debate.org.

Public discussion of this issue was clearly important, consider the significant number of comments this and other threads have generated. I understand you don't think it was necessary, but if you thought it was beneficial, why would you want to hide your efforts? Why not do it publicly and openly, the way a person without any hidden motives or agendas as you claim to be might be willing to do it?

I used the word zealot to describe you, and you've decided to take the context to make it a pejorative. If I had used another series of words, "passionate idealistic fanatic" to describe your attitudes and behavior, you probably would have found that description to be pejorative as well. I was simply seeking accuracy, and the most accurate term for your behavior, and that of your group was zealot. Plus, I thought it made my entire initial statement roll off of the tongue very well, and it obvious drew your attention as well judging by the first paragraph of your opening statement. Hopefully your training will include a development of rhetoric.

I don't think that you're capable of being objective all of the time. You're not perfect, no one is. So I cannot presume that a voting bloc developed to train conservative debaters in private, with no public form of regulation, with membership not publicly recognized is also not going to be 100% objective, full of membership that is objective all of the time.

In closing, to address your opening argument...

I was not being childish in posting my original debate topic. I was not being counter productive to Debate.org. I was not even being counter productive to your organization. I was simply making the public aware of your actions, and stimulating discussion. If I were childish, I would have organized a competing voting bloc to vote against debates by members of your organization.

How can I have been counter productive to Debate.org if three debates have been generated out of this one single issue?
Debate Round No. 3
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
I am conservative, real conservative. Pro-life, anti gambling, little to no government control, and state control ie; states make the decisions in regards to rules in said state, capitalist, etc,etc. Heck, I am so conservative I was brought up in Quaker church.

Your right Vilsack had no control, he was worthless cowardly leader.

Vilsack reviewed DHS reports going to back 4 years,... He sided with the idiots that brushed each thing off, stating that "the complaints came from family members who had 'an ax to grind' and whose 'credibility' was 'a bit suspect." Then she was murdered.

He was soft on criminals, badly.

CIETC,.. WASTE, nothing more nothing less. It should have never existed, and should have had the plug pulled a long time ago. Failed leadership. Democrat love nest. I remember Harkin talking so highly of Ramona "Crook" Cunningham, in inspiration to all, GED and everything. The Dems love them some welfare programs,.. especially when they get to start all types of new big govt. jobs and appoint a bunch of crooked idiots to run them.

I go to the head of the monster for everything I criticize,... the leaders are exactly that, I vote for the ones that I feel can keep everything in line,.. and I hold them accountable fro everything.

I will be the first to tear Bush a new one for allowing this garbage we are going through right now. I would vote again for the Bush we had in term one. Certainly not the same guy I voted for.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
I encourage you to keep going, because I offer rebuttals to all of that - You'll have to explain, are you pro touch plays, or against touch plays?

You've also forgotten that the Republican control over the State Legislature existed until 2007. So, all of these budget issues are specifically derived from Republican budget control, not Tom Vilsack. You're blaming him because he was the governor, but he wasn't the king. The Republicans still had control of a lot of facilities in the state.

And Evelyn Miller? How specifically was he involved with the federal grand jury's investigation of the death of a six year old? Most murders go unpunished.

You might as well start a debate.

It's clear I was right, you're certainly not a conservative. You're just against government, and blaming Tom Vilsack of the short comings of the Republican Legislature that he served with.

CIETC - You should go after Ako on that one. Throw bricks into his windows, or something. Their misuse of funds was eventually noticed.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Back to Vilsack,...
-Iowa colleges saw an 87% increase in college tuition from 2001-2006 ranking only ahead North Dakota.

-Touch Play

-White Tail Deer

-CIETC

-Teacher pay fell from 35th to 40th

-Senior Living Trust deficit

-veto anti-Kelo; eminent domain

-Evelyn Miller

I will stop for now.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
I'm a conservative, but clearly you are not. You must be some sort of market fundamentalist that calls himself a conservative because it sounds better than a market fundamentalist.

In a decade of taxes, the state would have been repaid for the cost of constructing the new factory. It's called investing in infrastructure. Those jobs would have further contributed to their community as well.

So - Why do you dislike Vilsack then? There seems to be no correlation with your complaint that he didn't do enough due to the fact he may have been in other parts of the country at the time. He flew to Michigan and had several meetings with Whirlpool Execs.

Now you demonstrate your lack of loyalty to your fellow Iowans by justifying Whirlpool's actions in laying off thousands of jobs?

Did you not care about fellow Iowans before college, or did that happen as a result of your education?

Plus you're criticizing policies set by the State House at a time when the so called "Conservative Party" held the majority in the Iowa House, and had majorities in the State House and State Senate for a large number of years dating from 2004, on back?

Where do you intend to come up with the revenue that will be lost by repealing the corporate tax? Surely you're aware that we have a regressive tax code in the state of Iowa already? Perhaps we should fix that. Eliminate corporate taxes, and raise income taxes on the highest brackets in Iowa. I'm all for that. Then, of course, CEO's wouldn't want to relocate their companies due to the higher income tax they would have to pay, so maybe Iowa should just learn to live without roads, schools, medical facilities, and a judicial system while we're at it. Screw the regent Universities all together. People can pay 100% of the cost of their education.

It would be Iowa just doing what's best for attracting corporations with financial intensives, so you wouldn't mind it when your department cut your position.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Republican party is getting less conservative,(it seems),.. yes,... but a conservative is a conservative.

States can't bribe their way to a sound economy through subsidies and incentives. The governor was willing to tax every other business in the state to give Whirlpool $41,667 for each job that would be kept in Newton. Even that deal wasn't sweet enough. Apparently Whirlpool is more concerned with running their worldwide business than in trolling for subsidies.

The best that politicians can do for economic development is stay out of the way. That's very hard for them to do, of course. Staying out of the way means enacting a simpler tax system with a broad base and lower rates. That means giving up all of the futile "economic development" credits and spiffs built into the tax code. Here is a quote from the president of Pepsi's worldwide operations:

"The current U.S. tax code provides a variety of incentives to businesses through credits and other preferences, and PepsiCo benefits from many of these credits and preferences.
Nevertheless, if I were asked to choose between increased credits and other preferences or a lower corporate tax rate, again I would choose the lower tax rate.
As noted above, a reduction in the corporate tax rate would allow businesses to determine for themselves how best to deploy their earnings in order to maximize returns to the business and to the shareholders. "

A repeal of Iowa's horrible corporate tax would send a much better message to the Whirlpools of the world than our pathetic bribery attempts.

Iowa isn't really a manufacturing state, and agriculture continues to be a declining factor in our employment picture. Iowa's dynamic economic sectors are banking, financial services, and insurance. While politicians continue to chase manufacturing jobs, the economy has moved on. Maybe at some point we will elect officials with an economic outlook beyond ethanol and beyond 1920s tractor factory economic views.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
LR4N6FTW4EVA,

You need to read Aristotle's Politics and Ethics. (Two different works) Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy are a much better teaching aid than the Prince is. I think the Prince is probably the most widely taken out of context political work ever produced, except for, perhaps, Julius Caesar's Will.

Afterwards, go read some fiction or something to keep you sane. Heinlein is usually pretty good for kids of above average intelligence. Try Tunnel in the Sky and Starship Troopers.

At any rate, holding a philosophical ideal for a year isn't really a measure of anything. I mean, I'll happily note that when I was five years old, I adhered to much of the teachings of the movie Star Wars, and did so successfully until I was at least nine or ten, but a devotion to an idea is not a test of it's merit, nor is it a test of the holder.

As a young person, you will likely find yourself in a number of different camps, and those camps will very likely change repeatedly as you become more educated.

You missed the point. You still like the answers. Philosophy is about the question.

Statecraft is usually about a balance of power between the people and the leadership. The finer philosophical B.S. that goes along with it is moot, and always changing. The greatest achievement has been the divine lie of created by the popular vote to make individuals, poor, lower, and middle class think that they are in direct control of their government. Even better than someone being in charge because they've got more gold in their body.

You should brush up on the classical definitions a bit. A tyrant wasn't a bad thing. They usually ruled by popular consent of the people, and the unhappy acceptance of the rich, landed, and aristocratic. Hence the negative connotation, since history was usually written by the rich.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Sorry Friend, you are simply mistaken about Vilsack's effort with the Newton plant. Below is the link to the Iowa Democratic Party's press release indicating that Tom Vilsack offered to have the state build a brand new, state of the art factory in Newton for the company. They had publicly claimed that they were going to examine the factories of both companies, and keep the most efficient open and functioning. http://www.iowademocrats.org...

I'm sorry, Whirlpool was simply not interested in paying Americans a living wage. They decided to out source to Mexico, where they could pay employees less. The price of a whirlpool washer did not decrease, in fact it increased. The executives simply wanted to rake in as much profit by laying of thousands of American workers, and passing zero of the "savings" onto the consumer. You need to blame federal policies, and Whirlpool executives. Find a new excuse to disparage Governor Vilsack.

I don't understand why you won't accept government control over business, but you expect our government to pay businesses to remain in Iowa?

Energy is in most cases a utility. As is water. We have privatized several American Utilities, however in rural regions with publicly owed electrical coops, they pay quiet a bit less for the energy required to run their lives. Programs that I would propose would be a one time investment of several hundred million dollars by the state of Iowa to build a series of publicly owned wind farms from which the revenues would go to fund our state's schools, and other state programs. Before you complain about the practice being socialist, realize that shares of oil revenue are used to fund most of Alaska's state budget.

College actually made me an incredibly conservative man. The difficulty is that the conservative party has very few conservative things about it. They are a divisive group that hates the very nation the intend to lead.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Patrick,.. I am an instructor in the Genex course in breeding physiology taught to the animal science students as second year required at ISU.

Maytag was bought out by Whirlpool,... this I have no problem with, but where were the incentives to leave operations in Iowa open, much like the incentives given towards the recent Microsoft push?
Maytag employed 18,000 people nationwide,.. it was just left to die with buyout.

Wind energy, ethanol, whatever the energy, should and is privately owned capital,... I do not except govt. control of business that can and should be ran by the people. I am all for govt. funding in research and efficiency.

As for my original question,.. did college lead you to your liberal views? Were you liberal before college? yes,... no? Just curious. I really dont care to debate anything further past this, I just notice a common tendency
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
WTF? No one thought we were tied in spelling and grammar?
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Oh, and said ethics course was taught by a college professor.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
LR4N6FTW4EVAPatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by animea 8 years ago
animea
LR4N6FTW4EVAPatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
LR4N6FTW4EVAPatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
LR4N6FTW4EVAPatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
LR4N6FTW4EVAPatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
LR4N6FTW4EVAPatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07