The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

The democrats show their true colors - stalinist marxist socialist communist - corrupt to the core

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: 2/15/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,018 times Debate No: 2672
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (21)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

The modern democrat party has moved far left- they are truly scary in their incompetence.

If we look at what Clinton and Obama propose, it is truly socialist in nature. At least Obama is nice about it

Furthermore, they are both clueless about the threats that face America, and would really just rather try and investigate Republicans and try people in soviet-style show trials , rather than protect our citizens.

Here are some examples

Yesterday , MY CONGRESSCRITTER (emabrassing as that is) the speaker of the house Pelosi, did this

The Wall Street Journal ^ February 15, 2008; Page A14

San Francisco's Democrat

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?

Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.

We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.

Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.

There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.

This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

The UNDERLYING STORY HERE is the TRIAL LAWYERS

The democrats dont want to exempt telecomm companies from working with the intelligence agencies and want LAWYERS TO BE ABLE to SUE THEM. The have VERY BIG POCKETS

the democrats are all about THEIR power. They get monst of their money from TRIAL LAWYERS

the TRIAL LAWYERS OWN THE DEMOCRATS

NOW OBAMA is PROPOSING A GLOBAL TAX BILL OF 873 BILLION

lets watch them as see what they do- it is hillarious

No wonder their approval rating is like 15%

the fun thing will be to watch the POWER STUGGLE between Clinton and Obama

the deomcrat party is going to tear itself apart- just watch

I cant wait until denver

Obama will win the votes and pledged delegates and then

Clinton will change the rules and allow Michigan and Florida,

or twist the arms of the "superdelegates" which is the safeguard the demoncat party put in to make sure the IDIOTS who vote for them didnt select some UPSTART like Obama

Clinton is the TRUE stalinist marxist

Obama is really just a European style socialist, which is why he alot more pleasant , though likely no less hazardous to the republic in his views

Clearly, McCain, is the best candidate, being a middle of the road person of true predictable character, who can work with both sides and who has clearly taken anti-pork barrell stances

But the bottom line is the WOT is the key issue.

many people do NOT understand the nature of the threat of Islam.

John McCain does.

We will see if the democrats elect /select / force down then throat

the stalinist communist marxist scary white bitch from hell

or if the

cool, hip liberal european socialist black man

wins out
Yraelz

Con

I negate.

Your resolution says that stalinist marxist socialist communist ideals are corrupt to their core. I would ask that you show me exactly how.

I do not concede the point that democrats show themselves to be stalinist marxist socialist and communist at this point but do not feel it needs to be argued until you can prove the later part of your resolution.

Also you say in your contention this,

"Furthermore, they are both clueless about the threats that face America, and would really just rather try and investigate Republicans and try people in soviet-style show trials , rather than protect our citizens."

Can you explain to me what exactly they are clueless about?
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

Your resolution says that stalinist marxist socialist communist ideals are corrupt to their core. I would ask that you show me exactly how.

Becuase (1) they make man God, and the State God, and are TRULY EVIL

They OPPOSE the ideal of man being free and independent and liberty

Everything is the masses, and groups, not individualism.

They BAN religion and PERSECUTE those of faith !

look at the history of communism - MILLIONS DEAD and STARVED TO DEATH

Stalin - DITTO

Marx and Engels had interseting notions, but in practice they produce EVIL results.

and FAILURES

Over and over again.

Socialism is communism lite- forced secualrism, and government control over most aspects of health, welfare and economy.

It fails every time, becuase it doesnt encourage individual effort and achievement.

" I do not concede the point that democrats show themselves to be stalinist marxist socialist and communist "

Only Clinton is truly Stalinist of the presidential candidates

Obama is mostly just a far left European socialist.

There are MANY democrats, however, that are OUT AND OUT Marxists and Communists

And Communism IS a dirty word

Communism is an INSIDIOUS EVIL that has resulted in MILLIONS OF BRUTAL DEATHS

the Communist party USA is 100% deomcrats

So are the rest of the far left

It is their HOME

And democrats in general, use demonizing and inaccurate rhetoric in trying to oppose conservatives - they are STALINIST in nature and use SHOW TRIALS AND HEARINGS all the time

"Can you explain to me what exactly they are clueless about?"

(1) The nature of the THREAT of ISLAM

(2) The nature of the ECONOMY

(3) the LIMITS set forth in the CONSTITUTION

(4) the nature and motivations of good conservative American folks

there is plenty more

In essence , the democrat party is ANTI AMERICAN in their rhetoric.

They are BAD NEWS and POOR LEADERS for this nation in this dangerous and critical time

They are ONLY concerned with THEIR PARTY POWER, and NOTHING ELSE

SOLARMAN
Yraelz

Con

Alright, for my second round I will begin my analyzing my opponents statements.

"Becuase (1) they make man God, and the State God, and are TRULY EVIL They OPPOSE the ideal of man being free and independent and liberty Everything is the masses, and groups, not individualism."

>>First off we have a bit of a contradiction here, in the sense that if they are making men into gods how do they also oppose the idea of men being free, independent, and having liberty?

Secondly doesn't every form of government take some amount of a persons freedom, and independence? The fact that we have laws has curbed my freedom in some small ways over what I would be able to do without a government. Does this mean that all governments are evil?

"They BAN religion and PERSECUTE those of faith !"

>>Not true, look to empirical examples in Europe now.

"look at the history of communism - MILLIONS DEAD and STARVED TO DEATH
Stalin - DITTO"

>>Great, look at small scale communism. The quakers are a pretty good example and they actually work alright. Are quakers pure evil? No, its not communism or socialism that is evil, it is the human application that can be evil.

"Marx and Engels had interseting notions, but in practice they produce EVIL results."

>>This is where my opponent has conceded the debate to me. He is attempting to prove that communism is corrupt to its core yet he calls the start of communism an interesting idea.

"Socialism is communism lite- forced secualrism, and government control over most aspects of health, welfare and economy. It fails every time, becuase it doesnt encourage individual effort and achievement."

>>Which is why many of the countries in Europe with national health care, and free college are failing? Last time I checked the United States was slowly becoming less and less educated.

"And Communism IS a dirty word
Communism is an INSIDIOUS EVIL that has resulted in MILLIONS OF BRUTAL DEATHS"

>>Hmmm... Millions of deaths. Cholesterol has also killed millions, would cheese happen to be evil? Guns have killed billions, are those evil? Smoking has claimed its fair share of millions... evil? Car accidents, are cars evil?

No, its not any of those things that are evil in themselves. Its human misuse of them that you would refer to as evil. The same is true with communism.

At this point in time my opponent has failed to show me how Stalinist, Marxist, Communist, and Socialist ideas are corrupt to their core. The rest of my post from this point on is simply going to be me arguing my opponents 4 points on what democrats are clueless about. Thus if the voter does not feel like reading the rest of my passage that is 100% fine.

(1) The nature of the THREAT of ISLAM

>>Islam just like most religions now a days is just another religion. Its thoughts are not particularly radical in themselves and while I disagree with the entire religion I also disagree with you. Islam is not a threat. It is radicals who choose to use Islam as a foundation for their beliefs that can be threats. To say Islam is a threat would be like saying Buddhism is a threat because a couple of people decided to start killing Americans and cited the fact that they were following Buddhas wishes.

(2) The nature of the ECONOMY

>>Our economy functions under a federal banking system. However the federal bank is a private corporation, its not actually regulated by the federal government. The federal bank loans this country money that we then have to pay back to the federal bank at interest. So considering the fact that we get all of our money from the federal bank where exactly does the money come from to pay the interest? Easy, the federal bank, this is why the amount of currency in circulation has been slowly increasing over the years. This is why things that cost $0.10 years ago now cost $1.00 now. Our economic system perpetuates debt, it creates a system in which we are always going to owe the federal bank more and more money. Where do you think your income taxes are going? To pay off a debt under a system that this government doesn't even need. However in your defense solarman, you're right, it doesn't actually see like either side knows about this or even really cares.

(3) the LIMITS set forth in the CONSTITUTION

>>Limits? I believe there were 10 of them to begin with. Lets see

Patriot act curbed the rights inherent in the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments in one way or another. Guantanamo bay through the patriot act has basically nulled the 8th amendment. The 3rd amendment has been killed by time, it no longer means anything. 9th amendment has become all but meaningless not to say it wasn't before. Lot of this seems like republican legislation.

But in your defense Solarman, the democrats have done a very fair job of destroying the second amendment:
National Firearms Act (1934)
Gun Control Act (1968)
Firearms Owner's Protection Act (1986)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
The 1994 Omnibus Crime Control Act (1994)

(4) the nature and motivations of good conservative American folks

>>Good conservative Americans are because of the adjective you put in that sentence, good obviously. However on the same card good liberal American folks are also good under the same logic. This does not mean that liberals and conservatives are somehow inherently good because they are in one party or another. You seem to forgot the fact that they are all people, and like people they have desires and motivations. And sometimes power, which makes a bad combination. You go on to state that it is the democratic party itself is un-american.

First I wouldn't mind if you defined American in our next round for fun. I have a bit of trouble deciding what American is. Do conservative viewpoints = American viewpoints? If so, why bother having a two political party system? Why not just get rid of the democrats and then we can have a 1 party state run by republicans?

But of simplicities sake I'm going to say Un-American means going against the constitution and declaration. So lets take a look at your profile Solarman, you being a good conservative I imagine.

1. You're against abortion, that could possibly inhibit the mothers persuit of happiness. Especially if that mother was raped. Freedom of choice?

2. Against flag burning... Isn't one of the number one American ideals the freedom of choice? Isn't that our first amendment? Yet you yourself want to stop it by making flag burning illegal. You are advocating for more government control. Seems a little un-American and un-conservative.

3. Gay marriage, once again you are advocating for more government control in this situation. Once again this would be our first amendment.

4. Labor Unions, this gives power to the people. Yet you would rather get rid of it? Taking the power from the people.... seems un-American.

5. Term limits, restricts the rights of the citizens to elect who they want. Un-American.

My point is this, any issue can be seen as Un-American. To call someone Un-American means nothing in contemporary society. I think you are far to stuck in party lines and you have condensed the world into good and evil without realizing that everything is far far more complex than that. You also apparently deny the fact that human actions are what create all the evils you see in favor of titles such as democrats, communists, Islam. Your mindset makes it easy for you to discredit everything else and is what in the end makes you quite possibly the most "Un-American" person I have met on this web site.

I would urge you in the future to realize that there is a grass roots application to every argument you are making.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

Solarman1969 forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Con

My opponent drops everything, please extend my arguments.

Must have 100 characters, it is the only way.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
You posted that after I responded. -shrug-
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
take it to the debate I've challenged you to. :D
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
This is in reply to your last points

1. You're against abortion, that could possibly inhibit the mothers persuit of happiness. Especially if that mother was raped. Freedom of choice?

Freedom of choice does not inlclude murder of new humans

This debate will go on forever, but the bottom line is that life is sacred and begins at conception. period.

Rape does NOT end in pregnancy very often, and if so, the mother should give the child away to loving parents , who are waiting fot him/her

2. Against flag burning... Isn't one of the number one American ideals the freedom of choice? Isn't that our first amendment? Yet you yourself want to stop it by making flag burning illegal. You are advocating for more government control. Seems a little un-American and un-conservative.

I dont propose jail time for flag burning - just a MANDATORY class on the SYMBOL they are DESECRATING and giving the ENEMIES of freedom fodder for battle

3. Gay marriage, once again you are advocating for more government control in this situation. Once again this would be our first amendment.

GAY MARRIAGE is an OXYMORON

Call homsexual unions "civil unions"or something else. Stop trying to shove homosexuality down the throats of America- it is a DEAD END AWFUL life for most (esp males)

4. Labor Unions, this gives power to the people. Yet you would rather get rid of it? Taking the power from the people.... seems un-American.

Labor unions, plain and simple, are outdated. they had a place in the 1920s, but now are bankrupting American companies and making them unable to compete.

5. Term limits, restricts the rights of the citizens to elect who they want. Un-American.

This is a STATE ISSUE. I think the founding fathers intened on professionals serving for a short period and then getting out, NOT having a professional class of politicians.

Look at Ted Kennedy and others- we need more NEW BLOOD

thus they are a GOOD idea

what else ?

SOLARM
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I have concern for young women, and all humans for that matter

Here is what I say to young women

Keep your chastity close at heart - dont give in to men

Care about yourself and your education

When you meet a young man who cares about you, or says he does, MAKE HIM PROVE IT

make him wait a LONG TIME to get anywhere with you and EARN his repsect through your graces and beauty

When he is ready to COMMIT to you and make you his ONLY ONE, then you can get into serious physical contact

ONLY when he is willing to COMMIT for LIFE, do you allow him to have you sexually and fully commit to him

then there is no doubt

then there is no heartache

then there is no jealousy

then there is no "sin"

this is what I will teach MY daughter
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
You might have concern for the unborn, but if you had concern for the rights of young women you would not be favoring enslaving them.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I'm most certainly self-serving

that says it all

I have concern for the lives of youn women and the unborn

that is the difference between you and me
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"you pro abortion guys make me laugh

self serving rhetoric it is
"

I'm most certainly self-serving, but it doesn't alter the logic, mr. womb-socialist :D. You can debate the merits of socialization of wombs, but you cannot pretend that socialization wombs is not socialization.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
you pro abortion guys make me laugh

self serving rhetoric it is
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
He also favors the socialization of various portions of health care, luckily at least not the whole :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Mccain as far as I know favors at least the socialization of the means of political discourse.

Fortunately, unlike you solarman, I think he's only pretending to favor the socialization of women's wombs. :D
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Solarman1969YraelzTied
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 cmrnprk07 8 years ago
cmrnprk07
Solarman1969YraelzTied
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 Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Solarman1969YraelzTied
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 Battlecry 9 years ago
Battlecry
Solarman1969YraelzTied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
Solarman1969YraelzTied
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 Harboggles 9 years ago
Harboggles
Solarman1969YraelzTied
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 attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Solarman1969YraelzTied
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 liber-t 9 years ago
liber-t
Solarman1969YraelzTied
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 Aewl1963 9 years ago
Aewl1963
Solarman1969YraelzTied
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 Kane 9 years ago
Kane
Solarman1969YraelzTied
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