Challenge Match: beezzer vs XPLodER: Tea Party vs Occupy Movement

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Does the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement best represent the interests of social justice and economic recovery in America?"

beezzer will be arguing that it is the Tea Party which does so, and will start the debate
XPLodER will be arguing that it is the Occupy Movement which does so.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

The ATS character limit will limit the length of debate posts. Multiple posts per round are not permitted.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

There will be no time limit for responding, however if a debater believes he will take more than a day or two to respond, it would be courteous to let the opponent know in advance that you still intend to continue when able.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges, if judges are available.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.



+4 more 
posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
"Does the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement best represent the interests of social justice and economic recovery in America?"

My opening statement.

I’d like to first point out that both groups see problems within our current system. But it’s not the recognition that is at debate here but the solutions posed by the groups.

The Tea Party stands for personal responsibility, self-determination, smaller government.
We feel that it is the individual that should be held responsible for their healthcare issues, their educational requirements, and their fiscal responsibilities.

Occupy does not.

Occupy has issue with corruption in government, business influences. And rightly so. Yet their solutions are not to enable the individual with the freedom and power of self-determination.
Their solutions stem from replacing a corrupt government body making decisions for the individual to a larger government body to make decisions for the individual.

In manners of healthcare, education, wealth disparity the rights of the individual are disregarded. The collective, the whole is the basis for Occupy. The 99% that they speak so much about.

But when they claim support for the 99%, they ignore the individuals, the individuals rights to self-determine that make up the 99%. In effect, they are sacrificing the individual rights for the collective rights of the group.

True social justice, true economic recovery will not take place with larger government. Government is the antithesis of the free market system. Government enables itself by necessitating its presence. A return to individualism, self-determination and a government that is smaller and less intrusive is the answer.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


"Does the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement best represent the interests of social justice and economic recovery in America?"

i too would like to point out that both groups ultimately wants what's best for america and by proxie the world.

Occupy stands for 1 law for all, and that corporations are not people and money is not free speech,
and that the government no longer represents the will of the people and instead represents the corporations. the principals that america was founded on, all are created equal in life liberty justice and happiness
a government for the people by the people, responsive to the civil society's need for just laws that are applied equally regardless of wealth or status.

as both the tea party and Occupy agree,
the bank bailouts are antithetical to a free market economy and a democracy.
taking tax dollars destined to flow through the larger economy and sending directly to the banks instead is the very worst thing you could do for an economy.

note we do not stand for bigger government, as suggested by beezer,
except for a few key areas, we want more police and better services for veterans and for government to issue money not an unelected private corporation (federal reserve)

no american can succeed financially without other people to conduct commerce with,
the first amendment of the bill of rights states,

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble


so in the very first amendment is the recipe for occupy,

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property


it is my belief that the founders of the constitution knew what would protect liberty and property and they included them as instructions for future generations to use when tyranny showed its ugly head.
it is their idea that when a government becomes odious to the well being of the people,
it is the duty of the population to stand together in unity and peacefully assemble for redress in public where all are free to speak and all are free to come and go as they see fit. where all people are equal regardless of wealth or status.

in matters of health care, it makes no sense to pay insurers over and over again for the same services that could be built and owned by the states forever.
education is the future, as are the children who need it,
every person is an individual, but we live in a society, and without the society no individual could succeed

the idea beezer has about occupy removing individuality is incorrect.
we have managed to get the support from the largest cross section of the population,
every race, every nationality, and nearly every political persuasion has come to call Occupy their own movement.

we see the need for "collective action" but this should not be confused with collectivism
The top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent.

remember capitalism is predicated on capital flows IN the economy and at the point where all the money sits in a bank account, no one has money to use as a medium of exchange.

i have no problem with being successful,
or working hard for what you desire, as this is the basis for capitalism,

but our belief is that corporations only exist to serve us,
not the other way around.

Beezers claim of occupy removing of the individuality of people is redundant thinking,
there are over one hundred different occupy groups worldwide and ALL of them are self determining,
they democratically decide their own way forward.

the bit beezer missed is democracy is by participation, not excluding any one group.
we are truly all equal and ANY individual can offer an idea or direction.

in times of great need unity of spirit and of intent is needed,
Occupy as a movement consists of millions of individuals doing what their direct interest is but under one united banner.

the problem of the tea party is simply are attacking occupy with main street news narratives and buzz words,
like communists or hippies. and i find it hard to reconcile corporate sponsorship to fix the problem of unwanted undue corporate influence on elected officials.

we accept no corporate money,
and still succeed

we believe that banking malfeasance combined with corporate person hood,
means we as an entire movement are being decimated by a structure of greed.

break up the to big to fail banks like the monopoly "standard oil" because no corporation is greater or more important than our big american brother nation.

we have started a revolution in state banking to remove some of the undue influence of the largest banks,
and to directly provide for state infrastructure, whose profits benefit the state they operate in.

xploder



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
You state that Occupy stands for 1 law for all, yet claim that there are over a one hundred groups. I question their heterogeneity when you claim they all operate under a “united banner”. You also claim to accept no corporate funding but neglect to point out the funding, support, and manpower provided by unions that endorse the central message of larger government oversight.

Question 1. Does Occupy operate under a single banner, or is it a heterogeneous mix of individuals?

Occupy also lends the focus on banks and corporations while also neglecting to point out that banks and corporations operate under rules and guidelines written by government to benefit themselves as well as the corporations that they provide oversight for.

Question 2. How do you plan on changing the banks and corporations practices if you don’t change the laws that govern said practices?

You state that you have no problem with being successful or working hard for what you desire, yet decry the wealth and mandate redistribution by complaining what wealthy people do with their capital.

Question 3. If you have no problem with success, then do you think people should have a right to do what they want with their wealth, their capital?

You state that corporations exist only to serve us (by us, I can only imagine you mean Occupy) so that their importance is to grant you what? “Free” medical care? “Free” education?

Question 4. What exactly do you mean when you say corporations serve us? Please clarify.

This is what I mean by self-determination.

On the one hand, Occupy is using the 1st Amendment to air their issues. While Occupy denies the self-same freedoms of others to express themselves unless it fits into their narrow paradigm.

Question 5. If the 1st Amendment is for everyone, then regardless of whether you agree or not, shouldn’t successful people be able to do what they want with what they have, and not have their wealth mandated for social programs?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
(removed due to excessive size, see post below moderator instructions)
edit on Mon 9 Jul 2012 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
(removed due to excessive size, see post below moderator instructions)
edit on Mon 9 Jul 2012 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
(removed due to excessive size, see post below moderator instructions)
edit on Mon 9 Jul 2012 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

The ATS character limit will limit the length of debate posts. Multiple posts per round are not permitted.


Only one post at a time is permitted, meaning there is a 5000 character per round limit. Under the old rules, the second and third posts would have been deleted and it would have been Beezzer's turn to post, with XPLodER's post remaining as a fragment. As this language no longer exists in the posted rules however, that would not be fair.

I have copied the text of the 3 posts above and will now delete them. I will provide the copied text to XPLodER so that he may compose a single post of appropriate length.


EDIT TO ADD: On second thought, out of an abundance of caution, I will not delete the posts immediately, but will leave them up for XPLodER to use in fixing the problem.

XPLodER: Please make a new reply to this thread to replace the 3 above. Once you have posted that, I will then remove the 3 posts. This will ensure that there are not delays or problems in the process of me sending copied text by u2u for you to use.
edit on Mon 9 Jul 2012 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Question 1. Does Occupy operate under a single banner, or is it a heterogeneous mix of individuals?

both,
OWS encompasses all the Occupy groups,
the 99% is for non occupy affiliated individuals or groups (anyone who is peaceful)


Question 2. How do you plan on changing the banks and corporations practices if you don’t change the laws that govern said practices?


simple, states have the right to create money in the exact same way federal banks do, and in the case of North Dakota, the people profit from money creation by their state bank, and it is payeed to the state to pay for expenses like infrastructure, this removes the need to beg to federal government for infrastructure spending.
this changes the political landscape from the states up.

we started this process with the "move your money campaign"
simply put a system who gives control of a nation through the expansion and contraction of credit is at the whim of those pumping then dumping the system, the to big to fail banks whos only care is private profits. people moved their money to credit unions that serve and benefit their local communities. note public benefit over profit at all costs


Question 3. If you have no problem with success, then do you think people should have a right to do what they want with their wealth, their capital?


yes and no, personally people can do what they want with their money,
but when money is used to pass legislation to benefit a very small people over the general welfare of the nation,
you have fascism. consider A.L.E.C helped pass the stand your ground laws, alot of people will die because of their corporate legislation (fascism)


If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."


Thomas Jefferson


Question 4. What exactly do you mean when you say corporations serve us? Please clarify.


the original incorporation was by charter, and for a limited time and for a specific task, like building a bridge,
they had to show their would be public benefit, and without a public benefit no incorporation was allowed.
that has been perverted over time, so that now a corporation can be chartered solely to make profits for private share holders,

incorporation was "designed" to serve the public interests not private profit at any or all costs.


Question 5. If the 1st Amendment is for everyone, then regardless of whether you agree or not, shouldn’t successful people be able to do what they want with what they have, and not have their wealth mandated for social programs?



no person can be successful in a capitalist society, without others to trade goods and services with,
Until the late 1970s the United States had a very, very high top income tax rate. From the time of FDR until the 1960s the top rate was 90% plus on very high incomes. From the 60s until the Reagan years it was in the 70%s. Under Reagan it ramped down to 28%.

FDR was not a communist and neither are high taxes for those who can afford them. especially when a country is at war, support your troops

questions
you claim that the only way to change the direction america is heading is to effect the political process,
all people should be free to choose what they eat,

when the duly elected tea party members voted in favour of the indefinite detention and for no labelling of GMO foods

question 1
how does voting to keep us in the dark as to what we eat, and in a dark cell, change america to the ideals of liberty and individualism?

when corporations are able to out spend people to gain favour with politicians, and lobbyists can legally bribe law makers,

question 2
what makes you think entering into a corrupt political system would not corrupt you delegates and representatives and how do you guard against them simply selling out to the highest bidder?

knowing the power to create money also holds the power to choke of the money supply and hence the power to create boom and bust,

question 3
why with the obvious power of the creation of money, and its ability to influence political outcomes is this NOT a primary issue of the TEA PARTY?

the media portrayed the TP as racists,(MSM)
question 4
do you really believe that OWS is simply a bunch of non educated hippies who want free stuff?

question 5
without an in-depth knowledge of the economy, the tea party wrongly believes that the problem is big government,
while big government is a major problem, big government is subservient to big money,
how can the TP ignore the role of money in politics?

xploder
:up



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   

simple, states have the right to create money in the exact same way federal banks do, and in the case of North Dakota, the people profit from money creation by their state bank, and it is payeed to the state to pay for expenses like infrastructure, this removes the need to beg to federal government for infrastructure spending.
this changes the political landscape from the states up.


States have money due to investment, innovation. Federal banks print money to manipulate interest rates and inflation.


yes and no, personally people can do what they want with their money,
but when money is used to pass legislation to benefit a very small people over the general welfare of the nation,
you have fascism. consider A.L.E.C helped pass the stand your ground laws, alot of people will die because of their corporate legislation (fascism)


So, actually no. People can’t do what they want with their money because of subjective interpretation.


the original incorporation was by charter, and for a limited time and for a specific task, like building a bridge,
they had to show their would be public benefit, and without a public benefit no incorporation was allowed.
that has been perverted over time, so that now a corporation can be chartered solely to make profits for private share holders,
incorporation was "designed" to serve the public interests not private profit at any or all costs.


So corporations, are required to supply people with entitlements.

Question 1. Why do you feel that it is appropriate to mandate how a corporation should spend it’s money?
Question 2. Why the focus on wealth and redistribution of wealth?
Question 3. Would Occupy support a fair tax, a flat tax that would tax everyone an even percentage?
Question 4. How do you justify socialized medicine approach for the United States?
Question 5. Do you feel that people should receive goods/services that they have not earned?




question 1
how does voting to keep us in the dark as to what we eat, and in a dark cell, change america to the ideals of liberty and individualism?
The representatives that we vote in make the determination that we (as a representative republic) desire.


question 2
what makes you think entering into a corrupt political system would not corrupt you delegates and representatives and how do you guard against them simply selling out to the highest bidder?
Honour and integrity are not bandaids that can be taken on and off on a whim. Finding people to elect that have integrity is difficult, but not impossible.


question 3
why with the obvious power of the creation of money, and its ability to influence political outcomes is this NOT a primary issue of the TEA PARTY?
Hypocritical. Unions influence elections with their money and it is not seen as an issue. The Tea Party issues are personal responsibility, individuality, and self-determination.


question 4
do you really believe that OWS is simply a bunch of non educated hippies who want free stuff?
No. I believe Occupy is educated, but lack the wisdom and foresight to clearly see the bigger picture.


question 5
without an in-depth knowledge of the economy, the tea party wrongly believes that the problem is big government,
while big government is a major problem, big government is subservient to big money,
how can the TP ignore the role of money in politics?
Again, Occupy refuses to see big money from unions and special interest groups as a problem, so your question (again) is hypocritical. Money is not the issue, so it is (not ignored) but relegated to lesser importance.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Question 1. Why do you feel that it is appropriate to mandate how a corporation should spend it’s money?

because corporations whos only mandate is profit are likely to use said profits to gain a competitive edge over their competition by providing incentives to law makers to favour their interests over the greater community.
this is compared with the idea that a better good or service will sell more and generate more profit in an open market, ie free market capitalism VS fascism.
corporations should also have to pay their fair share of taxes, as they rely on the services and infrastructure of the federal and state governments, some of the biggest corporations payed zero taxes in 2011 while posting record profits.
they should not have special loop holes to avoid paying taxes.

Question 2. Why the focus on wealth and redistribution of wealth?
i think you confuse the issue of "creation of money/credit" and wealth in general,
whom ever creates money/credit/debt gets to use it first, and in most cases it is loaned out at interest,
think credit cards mortgages and car loans. these are examples of the expansion of the money supply, and the benefit is the ability to charge interest on moneys/debt/credit created.

this is in comparison to wealth, "money already created and spent and earned by a person or company"

we dont advocate taking money of people who has accumulated "wealth of private individuals",
we advocate that the government should issue money/debt/credit and that way the government gets to make use of the creation of money first, and the money would have to flow through the productive sector IN the economy and END UP AS WEALTH BEING BANKED.

Question 3. Would Occupy support a fair tax, a flat tax that would tax everyone an even percentage?

as someone who loves maths and statistical data interpretation, i could show you the advantages and disadvantages to a flat tax system VS a progressive rate tax program.

i could go into graphs ect but it is my humble opinion that the only truly fair tax is one that makes corporations pay higher rates than individuals and small business owners, originally in the USA, the highest percentage of taxes were paid by corporations. so in my humble opinion
a flat tax for individuals and small business owners up to the first million in personal earnings (realised income)
and a progressive rate for corporations over a certain size,a "gross turnover" progressive tax.

note depending on how you aggregate the numbers, will depend on the amounts paid by each sector.

Question 4. How do you justify socialized medicine approach for the United States?
i live in a country with user pays health care WITH NO INSURANCE MIDDLE MAN.
our government owns the buildings and equipment, and regulates costs through bulk purchasing power,
ie "simplified example" it makes no sense to pay $10,000 for each use of a MRI machine when one cost $100,000 and more than ten people a year need one, why pay a middle man?
it makes economic sense or the insurance companies would not buy one


what you define as socialised is actually just considered civilised and common sense here.

Question 5. Do you feel that people should receive goods/services that they have not earned?
if you are talking about "wealth" ie earnt money from the productive sector of the economy by way of goods and services then tax already does that.

if you mean, the ability to create money/debt/credit and gain from the ability to use that money first and charge interest on the money, then yes

congress shall have the power to coin the nations money for the purpose AND FOR THE BENEFIT of the people and to facilitate exchange of goods and services in the productive sector.
.
at the moment that is banks, and they are making record profits while the rest of the economy is being strangled due to the contraction of the creation of credit/money/debt. coupled with the low fed rate, it is more profitable to park the money in the fed, and leverage that money to speculate on derivatives, taking into account the fixing of the libour rate, the banks are no longer creating money/credit/debt FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE, the banks are not lending, so they are holding the economy hostage, and speculating driving the cost of commodities up.

simply put, creation of money/credit/debt is distribution of wealth, but only directly to the banks while short cutting the productive sector. and to work properly an economy NEEDS a steady supply of the medium of exchange, ie money that can be made into "wealth" by sale of goods and services.

1. does the Tea Party recognise the ability to create money IS the ability to redistribute wealth?
2. would the tea party expect corporations to pay the exact same rate without exceptions?
3. would the Tea Party work with Occupy reps to design a fair tax system?
4. do you recognise the power to inflate and deflate the volume of credit/money/debt can make or break an economy?
5. common ground OWS=TP?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
But the purpose of the free market system is to make a profit. Occupy can’t seem to get their heads around the fact that in order to them (Occupy) to get what they want, the elimination of the free market system must occur.

You advocate government issuing monies without thought that the only way government can issue anything is to take it away from someone else, first.

A progressive tax is not a fair tax. A fair tax would be an equal percentage taken from any individual who earns money. Your fervor to have corporations pay a higher tax seems to me a penalty for being successful.

A brief note, Occupy seems to think that healthcare is a right and not a personal responsibility.

The creation of wealth is best left to the individual. Government is the middleman. Instead of an individual paying out to another (entitlements) the government is the middleman. It takes money from the wealthy and distributes it to those that need it. Now it also gives it (money) to those that just want it.
It appears that Occupy wants to enable the “middleman” even more to take more, simply because the wealthy have more to take.



1. does the Tea Party recognise the ability to create money IS the ability to redistribute wealth?


NO. Those two are not inclusive. Redistribution is an act by a third party (government).


2. would the tea party expect corporations to pay the exact same rate without exceptions?


Under a flat tax, of course. No exceptions, no loopholes.


3. would the Tea Party work with Occupy reps to design a fair tax system?


A fair tax, yes. A progressive tax? No.


4. do you recognise the power to inflate and deflate the volume of credit/money/debt can make or break an economy?


Yes. The Federal Reserve does it all the time.


5. common ground OWS=TP?


Not too much. The mindset of “others capital is mine” is disturbing. I think we can recognize that there are issues that need attention. But the solutions are too different.

My final set of questions.
Question 1. Do you see any problem with the entitlement system in place?
Question 2. What justification do you have for punishing corporations?
Question 3. Do you understand that any capital that the government has (to give away) has to come from individuals first?
Question 4. How does Occupy’s stance coincide with the US Constitution?
Final question.
Question 5. Imagine Occupy gets everything that it wants tomorrow. What would the United States look like 5 years from now?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Occupy can’t seem to get their heads around the fact that in order to them (Occupy) to get what they want, the elimination of the free market system must occur.



there was free market BEFORE the federal reserve came into existence.


You advocate government issuing monies without thought that the only way government can issue anything is to take it away from someone else, first.


you have no concept of how money is lent into existence, and how the banks use this power to redistribute wealth from the productive sector to the financial sector,

THIS is the true wealth redistribution you would fear if you cared about keeping what you earned,
ever heard of inflation? its a hidden tax on "wealth" of savers. this distribution dwarfs taxes and entitlements by many factors of size.

i cant let this rest,

It appears that Occupy wants to enable the “middleman” even more to take more, simply because the wealthy have more to take.


in a fed document "modern money mecanics"

The actual process of money creation takes place
primarily in banks.



In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks
can build up deposits by increasing loans



Transaction deposits are the modem counterpart of
bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to mak-
ing book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the
borrowers in turn could "spend" by writing checks, thereby
"printing" their own money.


pdf source

the system redistributes wealth from workers to banks on a much larger scale than ALL entitlements combined,
i suggest the TEA PARTY reads the federal reserves own literature on the subject

Question 1. Do you see any problem with the entitlement system in place?
yes there is no way off entittlements in a depressed economy,
a state infrastructure project could get people working again if the creation of capital was properly understood by law makers.

if they can print money for banks, they can print money for the productive sector infrastructure projects to get working again.
PEOPLE WANT TO WORK!!!!!!!!!!!
if it is socially acceptable to bail out banks, then it is also socially acceptable to bail out the productive sector to create jobs.

Question 2. What justification do you have for punishing corporations?
The original rules for corporations worked perfectly, over time standard oil used "taxes" to leverage to remove the need to show public good. by moving the business to a state that agreed to allow incorporation without public good, the original intent of corporations that serve people was removed. law makers passed speeding laws with fines to "modify" the behaviour of drivers. i suggest we do the same thing to corporations that pollute, shift profits offshore, or offshore jobs. that is the ONLY punishment i advocate for corporations, except for criminality

Question 3. Do you understand that any capital that the government has (to give away) has to come from individuals first?

if that was the case, where does the money the banks loan out come from?
the bit you miss is, where did the money that exists today come from?
Untill you understand the creation of money, you will not understand how one sided it really is

Question 4. How does Occupy’s stance coincide with the US Constitution?
we look to the constitution and related documents, bill of rights ect to define what we can or cant do,
the constitution of the united states is our template, the founders WARNED us of the private creation of money being a corrupting force to a democratic republic.

"private central banks are more dangerous than standing armies"



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Let me get to the questions first.

1. how come the state of North Dakota suffered less in the economic down turn?

They are drilling /fracking for oil. They are creating jobs.


2.why do you keep pushing the false idea OWS wants to steel your wealth?

Because they do. In order to pay for socialized medicine, free education, it’ll take money. Government doesn’t have money. They can only take money from tax payers.


3.does the tea party agree that Quntitive easing is socialism for the benifit of the banks?
No. Quantitative easing was a bailout paid for by the American people to banks for lending money to people who couldn’t afford to borrow under the Frank-Dodd Act.


4. would the Tea Party agree to a face to face debate with OWS over "state banks VS TBTF banks"?
No.


5. will the tea party publically publish their financial records like OWS does?
Wanna see my tax returns?
I’m sure the Tea Party has been open and honest, I do know they’ve been audited a number of times. So, yes.


My closing statement.
My worthy opponent has side-stepped the issues pertaining to wealth redistribution by focusing on lending abstracts and banks. Which is his right to do, since banks are the main focus of Occupy.

I’m arguing, however, on the central theme that any changes in favour of Occupy, will hurt everyone because the changes they want will empower the government to take more (in taxes) have more controlling oversight in business, and reduce the freedoms that we all enjoy.

The topic for this debate is "Does the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement best represent the interests of social justice and economic recovery in America?"

The two terms, “social justice” and “economic recovery” are at times, at odds with each other. Social justice brings to mind progressive taxes, socialism, wealth redistribution.
Economic recovery, in my humble opinion, has to occur in the environment of the free market.
Occupy has an issue with corporations providing money to political campaigns, yet has no problem with unions and special interest groups doing the same.

Occupy has an issue with corporations keeping their capital, yet states they are for the freedom to do what you want with what you have.

Occupy uses the Constitution to espouse their viewpoint, but at the same time, denies others to do the same (if it is against their viewpoint).

The dichotomy exists when I want to focus on the dangers of a larger government and my opponent sidesteps and discusses lending practices of banks.

The Tea Party’s approach is quite simple. Personal responsibility, self-determination, individualism.

We decide what we want or need. We also create the engine to supply those wants and needs. Not banks, not government, not unions, not special interest groups.

To place blame on outside entities for personal failures is an abdication of responsibility.
To place the responsibility of fiscal security, personal health, education in the hands of a central authority (government) is a loss of freedom.

Thank you for allowing this debate.
beezzer



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
when we sent our soilders of to foreign lands to fight for our country, we tell them america needs you,
we expect them to go in harms way for america, when they leave they know they may die for their country.

these men and women are patriots, they selflessly give of themselves for the welfare of the nation and for the liberties of the people of the nation.

tea party, on the other hand says what is mine IS MINE, nobody deserves to take from ME.(an insult to any who serverd to provide that freedom) even when considering they ask people to give their lives so that they be greedy and heartless.

tea party= go to war and potentially die for me to have the safty and liberty to make a fortune, while i refuse to give anything back at all,
after all WHATS MINE IS MINE but feel free to die for me.

well what happens if the troops had that attitude? my life is mine why would i give it to a country i earnt it MY LIFE IS MINE.VERY QUICKLY THE FREEDOMS ARE GONE. and no one can make ANY money.

the tea party wants you to beleive that this selfish attitude is what it means to be american, that anyone who is not selfish is a socialist,
including the troops, as they selflessly die in forign contries for the notion of "when my country needs me i will stand together with my brothers" and they die for your right to be "selfish and misguided".

when helping sick and dying americans equates to socilism, but sending troops to be maimed and die is patriotism so that "i want to give nothing back, why should i"

when the tea party decrys universal health care, but cheers on the profits of the "man in the middle" insurence companies.

the tea party is nothing but a synacal meme generator run by a pr company to convince that "greed is good",
designed to pre-empt the public out rage to the bank bailouts and funnel that anger into votes for the republican tea party. so they can vote to yet again lower the tax rate for the 1%, while troops go without body armour. (i hope you enjoy your tax break knowing your greed puts REAL patriots in harms way)

so they can further distroy the country with the notion of MINE. while cheering the troops on "serve your country", while they claim "i should not have to give of me".

the meme generator that is the tea party "they want to take our wealth" or "they are all socialists"
i would rather be incorrectly labelled as a socialist, than be "me, mine, im more important than my country"

the tea party wont touch the issuie of "money and banking" but was started because of the bank bailouts
does some one want to generate a meme on that.

the Tea Party attacks OWS for exercising the rights the troops are fighting and dying for,

yet the tea party would have you believe through their pr and spin that anyone who talks about banks, MUST be a smelly hippy, and that even though criminality in the banking sector is becoming more and more apparent, it must be the government that THEY are a part of.

i have come to the conclusion that the tea party from inception was an attempt to pre empt the backlash from "the bail outs" and funnel that anger into political puppets that further enslave people to the greed is good mantra.

mark my words,
OWS will over turn unlimited campaign spending,
will over turn money is free speech,
and return the elections to 1 person 1 vote, without the 1% flooding the process with their ill gotten gains.

we will reform the banks to stop the gambling and greed
we will change the meme of "too big to fail" to read "monopoly"
we will change the meme of "corporate welfare and tax exemption" to read "un-american"
we will change the meme of "smaller government" to read "less regulation" and another "financial implosion"

while the tea party delegates continue to vote yes to "indefinite detention"
while the tea party delegates continue to vote NO to deny MANDATORY labelling of Genetically Modified Food

while they scream personal responsibility, and liberty (the two are diametrically opposite)

we will continue to bring light to the 1% and their tea party,
we will continue to fight for banking reform,
for the rights of veterans
for the libraries
for the hungry children
for those on an a wage that wont pay the bills
for people to exercise there god given rights
for the 99% of people who dont own banks.

we will continue bring disruptive business models like move your money,

and empower people to see the tea parties politics is the needs of teh 1% over the needs of the people, country and troops.

i ask you are you a nation of greedy selfish people, mine mine mine,
while we send poor troops of to fight for us and die for us country country country

we will continue to expose the fascist groups like A.L.E.C who wrote and lobbied for the stand your ground laws while pretending to be a non profit.

65-70% of Americans want an end to citizens united
70-75% of Americans want wall street prosecutions
everyone thinks the american political system is corrupt
we will not rest till 1 man 1 vote.

x



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Congratulations to each of the debaters on finishing their first debate. After a winner is declared this thread will be open for comment.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
XPLodER has won the debate.


This was a tough one to judge. Both sides threw out a lot of political platform with insufficient documentation or in-depth discussion of what it really means. The deciding factor was that xploder argued his position, and beezzer also argued xploder's position. The tea party got far less depth of discussion. Beezzer was good on the attack, but xploder always had an answer, and did a better job of putting forward his own position.



I'm not sure if Beezzer's conception of the Tea Party is the status quo or anarchy, I just know that he is good at holding an opponent's feet to the fire. XPLodER was more on topic and taught me things I didn't know. He seemed to evade a few times, but Beezzer felt like he was twisting things a few times. It was more or less a draw- Beezzer might be the more talented debater, but XPLodER was the one gaining ground on the topic.



Unlike most debates, this one wasn't explicitly pro/con. If it had been phrased as such, Beezzer would have easily won by poking holes in the OWS argument. What we have here though is one versus the other, and given the information in this thread, the options are basically OWS and not OWS more than OWS vs Tea Party, which is a problem since both sides seem to argue that doing nothing isn't an option from where we are now.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
i would like to thank
ATS for allowing our debate,
The Vagabond for moderating our less than usual debating style
Beezer for his issuing of the challenge, and his thought provoking questions and responses to mine,

i feel the real winners are the members of ATS who got to read about the issues, and the unique presentation from both sides.

i concede beezer is actually the best debater, i just managed to make more on topic points.

in my opinion,
OWS can learn from the tea party and the tea party can learn from OWS.

if me and beez can discuss the ideals, and communicate our positions, and the two of us have shown their is middle ground to understand the reasons for both groups to exist.

maby OWS is too focused on the banks criminality and just maby some of the points made by beez will effect how the problem is understood in its totality.

this debate has taught me a few things about how to debate and how to make points.

i thank everyone for the experience, and for the opportunity to grow and understand the tea parties position.
ultimately the two movements want the same thing,
we just express it differently,

OWS wants a level playing feild so all can achive the american dream,
and tea party wants to preserve the american dream,

it is my wish that by discussing the two platforms for change that change will come in a constructive inclusive environment, where we dont have to pick sides other than,

whats best for america and the world

peace and light

xploder
edit on 17-7-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Awesome debate guys, it was a pleasure to read.

Would either of you be interested in being future debate judges? Sign up at the "Open Call" thread.

We need your input.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
First off, I would like to congradulate XPLodER on his win and on a great debate!

If anything, this may have opened some eyes to the stances that both sides take and feel. I look forward to further discussion and hopefully, more insightful dialogue.

The one thing I did enjoy in this forum was actually talking about the topic without the "static" that usually comes with such polarising issues. XPLodER, well done, and I look forward to more debate.






top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join