The Instigator
clsmooth
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
Solarman1969
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Conservatives will be better off with Hillary as president, rather than Obama

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/30/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,306 times Debate No: 2305
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (21)
Votes (16)

 

clsmooth

Pro

This is a two-round debate.

Either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are going to be president, as of January 20, 2009. The Republicans' best hope, Rudy Giuliani, just flamed out last night. The GOP race is down to four, and the only remaining candidate who could possibly beat Hillary or Obama (Ron Paul) is, barring a miracle brokered convention, not going to be on the ticket.

So conservatives must resign ourselves to the fact that not only are we not going to have a conservative in the White House for the first time in 112 years (Grover Cleveland), we are going to have an overt domestic socialist wielding all of the aggrandized executive power illegally assumed by the corrupt Bush/Cheney regime. The question now is, Who should conservatives root for?

Solarman likes Obama. From a political perspective, there is very little difference between Obama the socialist and Mitt Romney (solarman's choice) the corporate fascist welfare-state inflationist / militarist liberal. Of course, there isn't that much difference between either of these two men and Hillary, other than she has intestinal fortitude (i.e. balls) than either of these two welfare-state sissy boys.

Why then does solarman hate Hillary so much? Why is he joined in this hatred by other anti-intellectual faux conservatives? It matters not. The important thing is THE HATRED EXISTS. Whereas the hatred does not exist for Obama. This is precisely why conservatives of every stripe (i.e. real conservatives like me and faux conservatives like supporters of Republicans other than Ron Paul) should be rooting for Hillary to use the "Arkansas Mafia" Clinton machine to crush Obama.

If Hillary is elected, Republicans in Congress will return to their supposed principles and resist the socialization of our country on all fronts (except the ever-expanding Wilsonian military-police state, of course). However, if Obama is elected, "conservatives" will hesitate to oppose his domestic agenda. After all, he is a likable guy. But more importantly, he will be the first black president (contrary to Hillary's husband's racist and demeaning claim to the contrary), and history (written by liberal / Marxist historians) will not look kindly on white, male "conservative" Republicans who resist him. They will go along to get along, all in the name of their own historical legacies.

Hillary Clinton's election will set the cause of socialism back several decades. We should cheer her on every step of the way!
Solarman1969

Con

Solarman1969 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
clsmooth

Pro

For once in his life, Solarman is speechless.

If only this anomaly could be extended across Debate.org.
Solarman1969

Con

Fianlly have some time to respond

Some people actually have to work for a living and care for their children, rather than have petty arguments with liberal kids

Not that you are a liberal- you are to the right of attila the HUN! : )

Now lets to the meat of this issue.

First of all, NEITHER democrat will win the election- neither is qualified in any way shape or form to be president of the united states

PERIOD.

There is alot of excitement among the democrats, mostly about Obambi, as it should be -

he is a well spoken man who knows how to give a good speech, use high minded rhetoric like JFK and MLK, and is genuinely seems more interested in

(1) doing the right thing for the country, rather than for himself or the dems

(2) working with and respecting the republican/ conservative point of view

Now I am going to use the recent tete-a-tete between Clinton and Obama over what Obama said about Reagan.

I assume you as I consider Reagan the closest thing we can say to have beena true core plain spoken conservative

Obama cleverly said that he was a "transformative figure" , acknolwedging the fact that Reagan did carry like 49 states twice and cut the top marginal rate from like 70 to 28 percent , and preached small government.

Now Clinton, MISREPRESENTED what he said, saying (emphasis added)

HE JUST SAID REAGAN WAS GOOD ! DID YOU HEAR THAT?????? REAGAN! ARRRRRRRRGH!

Reagan just drove them insane (the liberals- of which you say I am one)

Now, obviously he WAS saying Reagan was good, being a SMART politician (much SMARTER than Hillary, mind you)

He wants to get those millions of votes from the middle of the road conservative , whether D or R or , independents if you want to call them that.

This is the majority of America when it comes down to it- just normal people living their lives, raising kids, enjoying themselves.

He was taling to THEM, saying- hey I respect the conservative perpsective

Hillary was right - and called him on it- but he was able to deflect it by saying "I didnt say they were GOOD ideas- I just acknowledged they were TRANSFORMATIVE

in any case- this is a KEY exchange - it shows Barack is a SMART guy

that is very important in a LEADER-

the rhetoric may seem hollow, about everyone coming together etc etc, but of the candidates only he and the huckster ( and now McCain are talking about the strength of the people - versus government

This is why Barack is a much better choice -

and from YOUR perspective, Mr smooth, Iraq is WRONG is it Not?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

so then Hillary would the the LIBERAL in voting FOR the invasion of Iraq and deponement of So_damn- insane.

and Barack would be the CONSERVATIVE (in your wacky Ron Paul world) in NOT voting for , or at least taking a strong position against, the invasion of Iraq.

Now I consider HILLARY to be right here.

Believing myself to be a conservative, or generally a republican, I believe George W Bush was completely corrrect , that we SHOULD have gone into Iraq, an deposed so-damn. It was a great move, went well, and we finally getting rid of the insane lunatic terrorists from hell (Muhammed land)

So Hillary here , in being more cautious in her rhetoric regarding Iraq, whereas Barack is playing to the foolish left and saying "troops home now!" etc, is MORE CONSERVATIVE , in MY view, and more LIBERAL, according to your wacky scale where you somehow agree with the super far left antiwar winguts, as are in abundance here in SF.

I mean dont kid yourself- we are never leaving Iraq , or anywhere else we are.

We are VITAL to the worlds security. And we NEED to have a presence abroad, to be withour allies, and be a constant deadly threat to our enemies- to keep them off base, and keep the fight at them, rather than allowing them to get away with suicide and other bombings, hijackings, mass murder, etc.

ON Iraq, it was classic how we wound him COWERING, in a hole, dirty and unshaven

and the people of IRAQ tried and hung him.

Saddam will NOT be missed.

this is a KEY issue- the war on terror

I think Hillary would be better here perhaps, but its hard to tell WHAT Barack would do.

This is why, when he gets nominated, he will lose to McCain.

mcCain is the perfect media/ middle of the road/ experienced/ well known/ war hero, etc etc guy

When the average voter goes into the booth, the #1 decision will be made on commander in chief

Thats why MCCain will win, and probably big

But IF the Demoncraps win, then I think it depends on how you look at conservative / liberal, but I think policy wise- they are similar.

Barack, in my view, would make a better PRESIDENT than Hillary.

She has stalinist tendencies, and her hubby is a narcissistic nut

Dont forget HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED , either by mysetious "suicide" or weird accident, and how much money they got from the Chicoms and the Lippo group, and the payoffs , and the trashing of the office, and TOTAL COMPLETE UTTER CORRUPTION

These Clintons are DANGEROUS, and thus ANY other choice is better

forget the little spats about being a Wal-Mart executive and NOT taking a pro-union position when her fellow board member (she is paying for that as the SEIU just endorsed Obama, sealing her fate.

Your opinion about Hillary being more opposable by the repubicans doesnt hold water

If the arguments are about socialism and the implementation of it, remember the president doesnt really so anything except sign things- it will depend on the congress, and what bills are passed

Clearly, becuase Hillary and the Clintons are totally corrupt, and willing to do or say anything, and lie and cheat etc- they cant be trusted in the White House- period.

NOONE will benefit more from that.
Debate Round No. 2
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
You're right. Hitler had some good ideas. . . NOT!

Well, maybe from the Democrats' perspective, but not mine!
Posted by Bosshalo 9 years ago
Bosshalo
I try to think that all ideas ahve some vilidity to them. Many times the good out weigh the bad, but I try.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Yes, I have very negative feelings toward socialism, executive power, Bush/Cheney, corruption and dictatorship, corporatism, fascism, the welfare state, inflation, militarism, Marxism, phony history, racism, etc. I'm sure you join me in a strong distaste for at least half of those.
Posted by Bosshalo 9 years ago
Bosshalo
"an overt domestic socialist wielding all of the aggrandized executive power illegally assumed by the corrupt Bush/Cheney regime."

"there is very little difference between Obama the socialist and Mitt Romney (solarman's choice) the corporate fascist welfare-state inflationist / militarist liberal."

"he will be the first black president (contrary to Hillary's husband's racist and demeaning claim to the contrary), and history (written by liberal / Marxist historians)"

Well, maybe I went a little to far to call that "hate", but I really felt some negative feelings from thous bits of rhetoric.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
solarman, everyone is to the right of Attila the Hun, except Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. I'll let ya mull that one over :D

But I do wish this debate had been a bit more... competent on the con, because I don't think smooth's position is quite sufficiently established. Yes, Hillary would lead to a united republican front for a while. However, Hillary is also eminently experienced at dealing with such. Obama is not. Hillary, you see, is smart enough to manipulate such unity with a few fake republicans bribed by her by tacking on her socialist bits to a flag-burning amendment or a war bill. Obama doesn't have the connections or the experience to play the kind of dirty tricks game that inevitably results from being as socialist as these two are, Hillary does.

Besides, we all know Obama will most likely be assassinated if he's elected. I mean come on, he is an inexperienced Illinois Senator (a la Lincoln) and he's black. Some neo-confederate nutjob or another is bound to get around to this oppurtunity for publicity, they don't have anything else to hope for politically after all. Thus, the real concern is: who is Obama's running mate?
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I have a lot of hate? Whatever. I am for PEACE. But yes, I do have a lot of "hate" -- I HATE WAR. I hate robbery and I hate murder. Sorry I can't be as "tolerant" as you.
Posted by Bosshalo 9 years ago
Bosshalo
Wow clsmooth, you have a lot of hate.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
DucoNihluum is 100% correct. Liberals like solarman have hijacked the word "conservative" in a sickly Orwellian fashion and made the counterpart to socialism look bad by comparison, thus ushering in greater and greater socialism... It's all part of their puppet-master's plans.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
Since when has invading other countries without provocation 'conservative'?

Isn't that CONTRARY to the ideas of conservatism?
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
wingnut - I see you support the Iraq War and yet still support Paul. I think that's great. There are plenty of people who don't agree with Paul's anti-abortion or anti-immigration stances, and yet they support him. These "conservatives" who won't support him because they disagree with him on (allegedly) one issue (the war) make me mad. I'm glad to see there are more than a few who can get past this one difference and support the only true conservative in the race.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
clsmoothSolarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
clsmoothSolarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Greendonut 9 years ago
Greendonut
clsmoothSolarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
clsmoothSolarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
clsmoothSolarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by FreedomPete 9 years ago
FreedomPete
clsmoothSolarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 9 years ago
fresnoinvasion
clsmoothSolarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by thepinksquirrel 9 years ago
thepinksquirrel
clsmoothSolarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
clsmoothSolarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by trayhayes 9 years ago
trayhayes
clsmoothSolarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30