The Instigator
cmrnprk07
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Con (against)
Winning
85 Points

The Liberal/progressive Democrat's are anti-woman!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 9/8/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,149 times Debate No: 5313
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (17)

 

cmrnprk07

Pro

The party that has so proudly, if not arrogantly, claimed the title of pro-woman and pro-feminist has shown it's true colors with its recent charecter assassination campaign against Govenor Sarah Palin. The liberal smear machine is in full gear and reving up for more of the same. This is the same liberal party that has claimed the title of, "The human rights", party, when, in fact it was the Rebublican party that, in the 1960's, championed the human rights movement. Somewhere along they way, the Democrats have hijacked that title.
The voting records on the human rights bills in the 1960's, for both parties and in both houses of Congress, are available online and will prove very helpful in this debate. The great Senator, Robert "KKK" Byrde D-West Virginia, is a perfect, but not the only, example of the duplicitousness of the so-called, "Party of the people"!
None of this would have been possible were it not for the liberal media working hand in hand with the liberals. What a partnership! The ability to revise history has proven to be a very effective tool for the Liberals and their socialist agenda.
Now that we have Fox News, the liberal's job has become a lot tougher.
No, the liberals are not pro-woman, rather pro-women that agree with their philosophy. There is a huge difference between the two proclaimations!
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Con

I would first of all like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to address this common tactic of conservatives to make highly rhetoric charged, unsupported assertions about the actions of liberals in an attempt to support their own negative positions.

I believe it is time for the conservative movement to address this tactic for what it really is, nothing more than bombastic rhetoric made by people who cannot support their assertions with facts. I believe that this tactic actually dissuades many people from adopting conservative positions because of its clear attempts at derision verses a reasoned approach to the solution of problems.

Given that, I am happy to address my opponents assertion that liberal democrats are anti woman.

My opponent starts his argument by stating that liberal democrats have initiated a "charecter assassination campaign against Governor Sarah Palin." I submit that this highly charged assertion isn't backed up with linked examples, simply because it is untrue. Those opposing republican leadership, will invariably question Sarah Palin's ability to govern, but that is hardly character assassination.

I respectfully ask my opponent to submit proof of this claim in round two, in compliance with burden of proof, "necessities probandi incumbit ei qui agit, - the necessity of proof lies with he who complains."

My opponent then points out accurately that the Republican party championed human rights in the 1960s. I concur, however, we aren't arguing whether republicans supported human rights in the 1960s, we are arguing whether liberal democrats are anti woman. One could argue that republicans are isolationists, based on their pre WWII positions, using this logic.

Truth is that times have changed and parties have changed. I argue that Liberal Democrats questioning Sarah Palin's leadership abilities or pro life, pro gun, pro war positions, are not being anti woman at all, they are in reality being pro woman.

My opponent seeks to draw a comparison between questioning one woman's positions and denigrating women in general. I argue that questioning a woman's viewpoint supports equality and the fact that women in general are just as able and capable as men to hold both good and poor beliefs that should be questioned by all of us irregardless of gender.

My opponent then attempts to position liberal democrats with the KKK through Robert Byrde's association with the group back in the 1950's. Once again, my opponent is forced to reach back 50 years to support an assertion made about 2008. The fact that Robert Byrde was a racist in 1950 has no bearing whatsoever on Liberal Democrats in 2008. Once again his reasoning is clearly and utterly flawed. A more reasoned approach would be to examine the beliefs and positions of racists and KKK members today, and seek comparisons with modern conservative and liberal political positions. I think we all know why my opponent doesn't utilize this approach, and submit that KKK members are far more likely to vote republican than democrat in 2008.

Finally, my opponent dips into the most popular conservative conspiracy theory of an overly biased media, which of course doesn't support his original assertion, but only attempts to maintain his persecution complex. Which is then followed by the obligatory advertisement for Fox news. There is no denying Murdock's ability to make money from conservatives intent on feeling marginalized. However, that isn't the issue.

The issue of course is whether liberal democrats are anti-woman. I contend that my opponent has, thus far, failed miserably to support his claim with anything other than rhetoric and illogical inference.

Lets all hope he can provide something better than O'reilly or Limbaugh quotes in round two.

;-)
Debate Round No. 1
cmrnprk07

Pro

My opponent has not been paying attention to those who speak for his political party, so I will do my best to bring him up to date concerning the smear tactics and blatent double standard used by the liberal Democrats.
In my opponent's rebuttal, he cliams that I am using nothing more than pretentious Rhetoric and that this, "Tactic" dissuades, "many people" from adopting the conservative position. Not only is this statement utterly absurd on its surface, it ignores the fact that party affiliatian in American politics is the result of idealology and not whether one, or the other is insulted by the opposing political party's use of words in defining the other party's position. I ask that my opponent back up this statement with fact and statistic. The mere fact that my opponent says this soes not make it true, "necessities probandi incumbit ei qui agit"!
The facts are:
1) Harry reid called Sarah Palin, "Shrill and Sarcastic". Sarah Palin used no more, or no less emotion than she felt was needed to make her point. I doubt that many would confuse her passion with being shrill. Has my opponent ever heard the word, "Shrill" used to describe Obama, or any other male politician? Sarah Palin my have used some political sarcasim in her speech, show me a politicain that has not used Sarcasim. I'm reminded of Obama's remarks regarding the, "need" for, "Those people to cling to guns and religion!" Would my opponent consider that remark sarcasim, or downright ignorant and meanspirited if not elitest?

2) Has my opponent heard the remarks from the Obama campaign questioning wheter Palin, with several small children, is up to the task of VP? Has my opponent heard anyone question whether Obama, with 2 small children, is up the task of President? After all, Obam's wife and would be First Lady, is a career woman herself. Just another example of conveiniant sexism.

3) Yes, I said liberal media and I can back up my assertion! My opponent may not be aware that MSNBC has sidelined its two most liberal anchors, Chris matthews and Keith Olbermann, due to their blatent liberal bias in their campaign coverage. This link will spell it out clearly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

This move was not the result of the likes of me, or those who think as I do. This move was the result of the blatent bias displayed by both since the inception of the "Obama for president" announcement.
3) Has my opponent read the "US" article released the day of Sarah Palin's speech before the RNC.

Is my opponent aware that Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden put together? The fact that the Press and even the Obama campaign chose to focus soley on Palin's "Small town" mayorship, but conveiniantly disregard that Palin is an extremely effective Govenor of the largest state in the Union, Alaska, shows a left leaning bias.
We know more about Sarah Palin than we know about Obama and we have the liberal media to thank for that. The liberal media will not ask Obama a tough question, or if they have, it's not been published. I challenge my opponent to put forth one, not two, but ONE negative news artical about Obama from any of the Network news opperations and/or their affiliates. To make it a bit easier for my opponent, I will expand that to include The New York Times and Washington post. Just ONE negative comment, remark, or observation from any liberal news oranization! You won't find any! Now do a search on the same media and you will find hundreds of examples of negative coverage of Hillary clinton. Sexism? How else can it be described?

Can my opponent put forth proof that Sen. Robert Byrde has publically renounced his affiliation with the KKK? If so, please provide us with such statement. Also, please provide proof that, ....KKK members are far more likely to vote Republican than Democrat in 2008?
I suspect that my opponent BELIEVES this to be true, but I suspect that my opponent cannot and will not back this statement up. My contention, or belief, is that the votes of the KKK will not be cast for Obama because of his race, but I cannot prove this. The only known vote from a KKK member, past, or present, will be made in the senate, forthwith.

I've submitted the proof of the liberal bias in the media and I have referenced a couple of the hundreds of misogynistic remarks made by the democrat party. Does my opponent believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton are complaining about a non-existant bias?
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for bringing me up to date with what the democratic party is being accused of. I was stunned to find out that republicans don't like liberal democrats. His information was indeed enlightening.

Lets start round two, readdressing my opponent's original position: The Liberal/progressive Democrat's are anti-woman!

The reader will see a theme in my retort to my opponent's perspective and selective examples, as I continually attempt to bring him back to his original unsupported rhetoric, and my response that Liberal Democrats are not Anti Woman.

1) Harry Reid called Sarah Palin, "Shrill and Sarcastic", but didn't call Obama shrill or sarcastic.
- Harry Reid's opinion of Sarah Palin's speech is hardly an anti woman position despite my opinion's attempt to paint it as such. It is simply anti-Palin. Personally I believe that Hillary Clinton's speeches sound robotic and cold and calculated, which means I don't like her delivery. That is clearly not anti Woman, it is anti Clinton. My opponent might ask himself if he or anyone believes that Obama sounds 'shrill'. Regarding sarcasm and Obama's statement "Those people to cling to guns and religion!" it could be interpreted as sarcastic or accurate, depending on your understanding of the people he was describing. Personally speaking, I believe it accurately describes the hayseeds he was talking about, and he was being easy on them. But that is my own personal opinion, and doesn't reflect liberal democrats, as I am neither.

So my opponent's first example, is found wanting for establishing a connection between Liberals and an anti woman position.

2) Has my opponent heard the remarks from the Obama campaign questioning whether Palin, with several small children, is up to the task of VP?

- I am surprised that my opponent finds questioning the qualifications of a person with small town mayoral experience and a few months as Governor sexist. In reading the official Obama campaign statements, it quickly becomes clear that they are careful to not associate, being a woman or mother with a lack of ability, on the contrary they talk about lack of experience. My opponent may want to recall whether it is fair for republicans to be called racist for questioning Obama's lack of experience, and consider whether he himself is guilty of doing the exact same thing in Palin's case?
Republicans are not racist for questioning Obama's qualification, as Democrats are not Sexist in questioning Palins qualification.

3) MSNBC has sidelined its two most liberal anchors, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, due to their blatant liberal bias in their campaign coverage.
- Perhaps my opponent should consider why a news organization, intent on propagating liberal bias would 'sideline' its two most liberal commentators? In my experience, a media outlet intent on establishing bias would do the opposite. I would like to thank my opponent for providing a wonderful example of how the media is in fact attempting to police itself away from the bias that he alleges. Perhaps Fox News would benefit from mirroring MSNBC's attempt at equality, but then they would lose viewers like my opponent, intent on calling conservative bias, equal time. Fox News "We report, give it a conservative slant, then tell you that we are right and our competitors are biased" Murdock is indeed a genius.

3) The fact that the Press and even the Obama campaign chose to focus solely on Palin's "Small town" mayor ship, but conveniently disregard that Palin is an extremely effective Governor of the largest state in the Union, Alaska, shows a left leaning bias.

- After a difficult search on the Internet, I was able to discover that Palin has been a Governor for less than 2 years. I am sure the reader will share my shock at this discovery, especially after reading my opponents contention that she has more experience than Obama (2 State legislator, 1997–2004 - U.S. Senator, 2005–present) and Biden (County Council Legislature Wilmington 1970 January 4, 1971 January 3, 1973 4th District
U.S. Senator Legislature Washington, DC 1972 January 3, 1973 January 3, 1979
U.S. Senator Legislature Washington, DC 1978 January 3, 1979 January 3, 1985
U.S. Senator Legislature Washington, DC 1984 January 3, 1985 January 3, 1991
U.S. Senator Legislature Washington, DC 1990 January 3, 1991 January 3, 1997
U.S. Senator Legislature Washington, DC 1996 January 3, 1997 January 3, 2003
U.S. Senator Legislature Washington, DC 2002 January 3, 2003 January 3, 2009) combined.

At this point the reader should be starting to see a theme of intentional ignorance of facts on the part of my opponent that seriously undermines his contention that Liberal Democrats are Anti Woman.

3b) I challenge my opponent to put forth one, not two, but ONE negative news article about Obama from any of the Network news operations and/or their affiliates. To make it a bit easier for my opponent, I will expand that to include The New York Times and Washington post.
-1 CBS' Dean Reynolds: "From votes for abortion rights, to lessening penalties for marijuana use, to raising doubts about capital punishment, Obama is a traditional liberal."
-2 ABC's "World News" has done a story on Obama voting "present" nearly 130 times as an Illinois legislator
-3 "NBC Nightly News" has followed up a two-week-old Times piece about Obama compromising on Senate legislation affecting a nuclear energy company that contributed to his campaign
-4 "CBS Evening News" segment reviewed a series of negative points -- Obama's controversial pastor, his ties to indicted fundraiser Tony Rezko, voting present, the nuclear contributions and the lack of a flag pin.
-5 "Obama's unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin" Bill Kristol, New York Times

Challenge accepted and over achieved by 5X. Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for setting me up for victory with his unsupported allegations. And once again, how does 'biased Media' support his contention that Liberals are Anti Woman?

4) Can my opponent put forth proof that Sen. Robert Byrde has publicly renounced his affiliation with the KKK?

- He has never admitted an affiliation with the KKK, which would make renouncing it a bad political move. Perhaps my opponent should consider why a loyal KKK supporter would endorse a black man for president? But even more pertinent, how a racist old man supports his contention that Liberal Democrats in general are anti woman?

Now that my opponents points have been exposed as anemic at best, lets evaluate why Liberal Democrats are considered pro woman by, of all people, Women.

Statistics:
Women in the U.S. Senate now total 16, with 11 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Women in the U.S. House of Representatives now total 77, with 56 Democrats and 21 Republicans
In 2007, there were a total of nine female Governors, six of whom are Democrat.
Source: http://womenincongress.house.gov...

I urge the reader to consider how an Anti woman party could possibly have such a commanding lead in female representation? Does my conservative opponent believe that they are stupid and don't understand the issues they represent?

I also urge the reader to consider what policy positions attract women to the democratic party and consider why such a majority of Women view them as pro woman. Following is a link to WomenforObama, which describes in their own words, exactly why they support the liberal democrat candidate over the republican candidate. Perhaps my opponent can learn by paying close attention to McCain's voting record regarding women's rights and note the reasons they list for not supporting Palin.

http://www.womenforbarackobama.com...

I submit, that my opponent is flat wrong with his contention.
Debate Round No. 2
cmrnprk07

Pro

I would like to start my rebuttal where I believe that my opponent has knowingly attempted to mislead the reader/s and misrepresent my argument, which is Sarah Palin's EXECUTIVE experience verses the combined EXECUTIVE experience of Obama and Biden combined.
I'm sure that my opponent would readily agree that the,"experience", to which I refer would be experience that is more closely related to the office to which the candidates aspire, executive experience! If it were just an argument of any experience in any occupation, then I suppose we'd be voting for the candidates with the highest combined ages and years of work. I would also suppose that if my opponent were correct in his,"experience", argument, then the DNC would have put forth an eighty year old, unretired butcher who learned his trade as a 10 year old apprentice and has been practicing his trade for seventy years. Now, that would be some resume, but would that experience be germane to the issue and the office being sought? The obvious answer is no and my opponents list of Biden's Senate voting record is not germane to my argument of executive experience.
I maintain that Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden, combined. My opponent has failed miserably to rebutt this contention!
My opponent is, "Shocked", to learn that Palin has less than two years of experience as Govenor of Alaska. Is my opponent as equally, "shocked" that Senators Obama and Biden cannot claim to have 1/10th of that experience.
I am certain that my opponent, like the reader, understands the difference between the three levels of government and that equating legislative experience to executive experience is disingenuous at best.

My oppenent states that MSNBC's removing Matthew's and Olbermann shows that they are somehow not a liberal biased network. I'm sure my opponent is aware that MSNBC didn't make this move two years ago, rather two days ago. Matthew's and Olbermann were given nearly two years of unfettered access to the MSNBC viewer/s and now, less than two month's prior to the election, MSNBC reads the negative polls concerning Matthew's and Olberman's liberal bias and pulls the two anchors/commentators.
Does my opponent suggest that MSNBC has changed it's liberal bias, or has MSNBC responded to the polls? I suggest that it's the later and purely a financial decision and has nothing to do with a change if political ideology!

The Obama campaigns remarks concerning Sarah palin's ability to govern given her, "motherly responsibilities", speak for themselves and are purely sexist! My opponent ignored my challenge to produce for the reader a single instance where a Democrat politician, or liberal media has made such a remark concerning Obama and his ability to govern having two young children, himself and a wife with a full time carrer. This is blatent sexism and the reader can cocnclude that my opponent's failure to produce such a statement concerning Obama, proves that no such comment exists!

The five, (5), network media comments that my opponent has put forth as proof that the major media are not left leaning were all made by the token conservatives that work for the various networks. I would hardly call Bill Kristol a liberal!

As for my opponent's supplying the reader with a link to "womenforbarackobabam", I respond with, http://women.johnmccain.com...

I challenge the reader to refer to my argument concerning Palin's executive experience verses that of Obama and Biden and to read my opponent's misrepresentation of my argument. This is a standard liberal tactic, redefine another's argument and beat it down. This is called the, "Strawman" tactic and the liberals have used it well!
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Con

Let me start by once again thanking my opponent for presenting this debate, and re-introducing his initial statement: The Liberal/progressive Democrat's are anti-woman!

In all three rounds my opponent chose to focus on liberal media bias, Palin's 'executive' experience, Byrde's affiliation with the KKK and Harry Reid's evaluation of Palin's speech as 'shrill and sarcastic'. I contend that these points, while fun to debate, are not at all related with his claim that Liberal Democrats are anti woman. In the last round, I culminated my defence against his claim, with a listing of the disparity of female representation between his party and the liberal democrats that he is intent on vilifying. I urge the reader to note that my opponent failed to address this point, thereby damning his cause. Instead, he chose to focus on the term 'executive' in response to my listing of Obama/Biden political experience.

I have to admit, that I really appreciated his attempts at pinning a strawman effigy on my argument claiming that I had redefined it. This debate was never about executive, political or butcher experience. The topic at hand is clearly his accusation of liberal democrats being anti woman. Who is redefining the argument? I take your strawman assersion sir and place it back in your court. ;-)

At completion this debate is really about political mud slinging. My opponent provided a perfect example of it, with is opening statement, that he failed to support with tangible evidence. I countered with examples of liberal democrats, who are women, and links to websites that explain why they believe that the liberals represent the causes that are important to them. My opponent countered with a website listing the reasons conservative women believe that republicans represent the issues that are important to them.

It is clear that NEITHER party is anti woman, therefore, this debate MUST go to con, irrespective of the readers political affiliation.

For disclosure sake, I will let the reader know that I am neither Republican or Democrat, I am a Libertarian. I believe both parties are ineffective, and consistently fail to follow through with the issues they both claim are important parts of their platform. I believe there will be little difference between an Obama/Biden - McCain/Palin presidency, and the insulting, unsupported rhetoric utilized by both parties and illustrated by my opponent, display exactly why the American People no longer receive good leadership.

I contend that the reason women consistently are more likely to vote democrat, verses republican, is because a majority of women believe that liberal democrats represent the issues that are most important to them. My opponent doesn't address this contention directly, other than to tacitly imply that they are being fooled by a liberally biased media. The inference with this argument of course, is that women aren't smart enough to see past liberal bias and obtain the 'truth' like he is.

I contend that women are actually allot smarter than my opponent gives them credit for and that they are indeed quite capable to discern the issues that matter to them. They simply don't share the same political opinion as my opponent. I contend that he utilized the 'liberal media' argument, to mask his belief that he is smarter than liberals, and all those who don't vote as he does are clearly being misled, and are incapable of reasoned discernment and thought.

He is wrong, and I contend that his utility of the 'women are easily misled' argument actually highlights his own party's culpability in ignorance of women's issues and perhaps explains why a majority of women are more likely to vote democratic. My opponent understands that the women's vote is essential in this election, as 22 Million unmarried women didn't vote in 2004, leading to a Bush victory. All indications are that this won't be the case in 2008, and as a result, my opponent is reduced to utilize rhetoric and unsupported charges to attempt to sway women voters, further highlighting his reduced opinion of their reasoning capabilities.

I urge the reader to vote con, the clear winner of this debate, and to vote for the candidate who's policies most reflect those important to them, irrespective of political affiliation. Substance not Rhetoric for change.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
Since 2006 the approval rating of congress has dropped down to single digit numbers. Remind me again who took control in 2006, oh ya the democrats. Can you tell me when gas went above $3 a gallon? What policies has Bush forward that caused that, um none, but he did sign off on the ones that was sent to him. So he and the Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats on the economy. You can throw Clinton out there all you want, but he had to deal with a Republican congress and for a short time things were done correctly. I will say that since 9/11 both houses have been spending like raped Apes and we need some new blood, I just don't think Barack and his policies are what I want to see. I like what Sara Palin is putting forward, Baracks plans scare me and my packetbook.
Posted by sarsin 8 years ago
sarsin
"Sara Palin is hitting all the RIGHT buttons and saying all the RIGHT things. "

I think the important part of that statement is "saying". Nothing in her political history indicates she's small government. She like Bush; says she's a small government financial conservative and does the exact opposite. And every election you "conservatives" come strolling on back with black eyes repeating the same old mantra.
Posted by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
The proof is in the primary election results of the Democrats. Hilary was suppose to be the one to represent the party and yet those in control the information made sure she didn't win. If you paid attention to the way they treated her during that process is anyone suprised how they react to Sara Palin, I am not. As for the Tax comment I made earlier, it is Big Oil and other companies that employ most people in the US. If they can't make a profit and provide a product we want they will take their business where they can for less over head costs(AKA taxes that are 2nd highest in the world). Sara Palin is hitting all the RIGHT buttons and saying all the RIGHT things. Government screws things up, free market fixes them, get the Government out of the way and Health care will correct itself among other things. Hell Government can't even run Social security and now they are going really fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, what a laugh.
Posted by sarsin 8 years ago
sarsin
"She's for "Big Oil first" energy policy. BO is for sending our oil money to terrorists. She's wants more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years."

What makes you think that drilling is going to solve the problem? Do you think the oil companies are going to pull a crapload of oil out of the ground to crash the price of their primary product? We're still dealing with capitalism here bucko. Big Oil could give a crap about America, only her money.

And to help you out on the whole "sex education for Kinder kids?

http://mediamatters.org...

It was going to be about where babies come from and inappropriate touching. Furthermore, the guidelines are set by the local school boards AND have an opt-out program.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Cheese sites - Some excerpts and assoc. comments:
at 72, John McCain would be the oldest president ever inaugurated. Yet the person, one heartbeat away from president is ultra-con, has no more foreign policy exper. than the Dem pres cand. Governor of the least populated state in the nation for less than two years, while BO was a racial agitator.

Palin was mayor of Wasilla then Alaska 's governor about 18 mos. BO was never a mayor or gov., but he was a community organizer. Really! Neither has foreign policy experience.
Palin is strongly pro life, BO chooses to blast the little bast---s that make it alive. She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. BO supports Fr. Fleager, Rev Wright, Bill Ayers (America hating terrorist). Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools. BO voted for Kinderkids to be taught how to masturbate. She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change - anyone who does, probably paid Gore for the indoctrination. She's for "Big Oil first" energy policy. BO is for sending our oil money to terrorists. She's wants more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. Cheese: Which renewables will be here w/in 10 years? She sued Bush admin for listing polar bears as an endangered, because they are not endangered.
How closely did the dems vet BO? He is associated with criminals and America haters. Palin can not control pet projects from indicted Sen. Ted Stevens.
Posted by cmrnprk07 8 years ago
cmrnprk07
Blessed-Cheese-Maker ,
You have it backwards! It has been the Democrat party that has taxed businesses in this country to the point where they are forced to pass on the cost of doing business to the consumer. I believe you to be intelligent and therefore you should recognize that you cannot tax a business without that tax being passed on to the consumer. Simply put, when a business is taxed, the consumer is taxed.
Do you own stock? If so, do you expect a return on the money invested in that stock? If Businesses do not pass on the tax burden to the consumer then investors won't invest because there will be no return on the investment.
In the end, the business turns to cheaper labor in order to supply the product to the consumer at a cost that is acceptable to the consumer!
This is basic economics!
To give another example, the minimum wage policies of the democrat party cause essentially the same problem. Do you believe that if you require a business to pay a minimum wage, that the increased wage a business must pay it's employee's will not be passed onto the consumer? Will the business absorb the added financial burden, or pass that burden onto the consumer?
I pose a question to you and those who think as you: Why not make the minimum wage $100/hour
My contention is, to be put simply, you cannot tax the rich and you cannot tax the poor (the poor pay no taxes)! In the end, you are taxing the middleclass and the consumer always pays the tax!
Posted by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 8 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Lefty, The republican party has a dismal record of policy that promotes corporate stability in the USA. Its policies that promote "competition" through free or fair taxes have allowed most major corporations to move out of the country where labor is incredibly low cost. We as a country cannot compete with India or Sri Lanka or China, if we are to sustain our individual standard of living.

Republicans act like Americans are lazy, so corporations HAVE to move over seas. This isn't the case, Americans require a higher wage, in order to not live in slums and poverty like countries in the world where labor costs are extremely low. In short we cannot compete without lowering our standards of living. Yet the republican party promotes free trade, irregardless of this fact, simply because Corporations provide a majority of thier political donations.

Taxes are punitive against business, but aren't the primary driver for corporate expatriation, free trade drives that.
Posted by jurist24 8 years ago
jurist24
"I would like to thank my opponent for bringing me up to date with what the democratic party is being accused of. I was stunned to find out that republicans don't like liberal democrats. His information was indeed enlightening."
--- > I lol'd.
Posted by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
You ask for websites that dis Palin, how about www.moveon.org, for one, CNN, ABC, MSNBC... need I go on? As for Barack, his policies will bankrupt this country, because if he wins and gets his tax increases he is pushing for, Companies will just pack up and move their business to other countries with less taxes than the US. The US is currently the 2nd largest country to tax big business and then people want to know why the jobless rate is going up. Well increase the taxes on these companies and the unemployment rate will go up along with employment taxes to cover that increases the government won't get by the companies moving out of our country.
Posted by cmrnprk07 8 years ago
cmrnprk07
Sarsin, You are very close to the truth, well said!
"vos es iuxta verum"
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SPF 6 years ago
SPF
cmrnprk07Blessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 dankeyes11 6 years ago
dankeyes11
cmrnprk07Blessed-Cheese-MakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 8 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
cmrnprk07Blessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
cmrnprk07Blessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
cmrnprk07Blessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
cmrnprk07Blessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 gilbertdrone 8 years ago
gilbertdrone
cmrnprk07Blessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
cmrnprk07Blessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 regperez 8 years ago
regperez
cmrnprk07Blessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
cmrnprk07Blessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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