Challenge Match: SteveAndrew vs ragster: Buy A Vote, Or Two, Or Five Million?

The topic for this debate is "The Two Party Presidential System And The Money That They Raise During Campaign Season Is Proof That The Political System Is Set Up For Corporate Interest.

SteveAndrew is arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
ragster will be arguing the con position.

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.

Character limits are no longer in effect. You may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

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.

Responses should be made within 24 hours. One single 24 hour extension can be used by a member by requesting it in the thread. If 24 hours passes without response, you may proceed with your next post. Members who exceed 24 hours run the risk of losing their post, but may still post up until their opponent has submitted their next response.

This is a challenge match. The winner will receive 2 ranking points, the loser will lose two ranking points.

Non-tournament matches occurring after the establishment of this system will not get free points. The participants will wager points instead. The minimum wager is 2 points, except for fighters who only have 1 or 0 points, who may only wager 1. When a fighter with a rank of zero wages points, (s)he receives 1 free point to wager. If (s)he wins, (s)he will not receive an additional point, but his(her) opponent will not lose the 1 point that (s)he wagered.

Before I begin I’d like to thank MemoryShock & Ragster for they both have and will use their time on this thread. To everybody else, let’s see in what manner this debate unwinds itself into!

– Thank You –
Opening Statement

It’s long been a question of doubt as to whether our political system is flawed, open to malleability from exterior forces. But when confronted with the question one often acts delirious and says no, not in the United States. It happens in other countries, everywhere else but the U.S! To assert that argument makes one question the persons agenda. We should be able to live in a country where corporatism does not exude presence on public manners and politicians are unbridled by corporations. What we can do is disavow from such people who irrationally erase the line between the countries needs and the needs of that person or that persons confidants.

Mental Retribution

In a sound homosapien a feeling that often arises in a situation is one of payback. Say for instance you are baking a cake and don’t have enough dough to finish. You don’t really want to go back to the store after being there only a few hours beforehand so you follow an easy alternative and visit your neighbor. The neighbor kindly agrees (usually…) and you head off to your house to finish your cake. Absorb that story and allow me to classify a person who blurs the lines I described above.



Our Vice – President, who, if you didn’t know, is a penguin ( you have to watch Dana Carvey’s new special to know what I’m talking about):

In a CBS news story1, Mr. Cheney believes he has “severed all [his] ties with the company” and “gotten rid of all [his] financial interest”.

He then claims he has no “financial interest in Halliburton of any kind” and that he hasn’t now “for over three years”.

Though when we look at the legitimacy of having no ties to his former company, a Congressional Research Team (who did not name Cheney/Halliburton by name) deemed that unexercised stock options and deferred salary “are among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer.”

Now we have a broader view of Vice – President Richard Cheney. Counter his claim with having no links to Halliburton with having the U.S Army Of Corp Engineers award a no-bid contract to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq to Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. The contract was granted under a January Bush administration waiver that, according to the Washington Post, “allowed government agencies to handpick companies for Iraqi reconstruction projects.” 2

Closing Statement

What I intended to prove above is that there are cases where an individual can exert his past history with a corporation to take advantage of the current situation. It is the same thing that can, has, and will continue to happen when corporations contribute money to PAC’s, 527’s or the actual campaigns themselves (either by the CEO or all the board members of the company contributing as private citizens rather than company executives).

Why? Because politicians (who are people just like you and me) feel and believe that they are obligated to payback for something they believe helped their needs, whether it be dough for baking a cake or money to help win a campaign.

1 – CBSNews [dot] com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356 [dot] shtml
2 – commondreams [dot] org/views03/0403-10 [dot] htm

Greetings to MemoryShock and SteveAndrew, thanks to Memory Shock for setting up the match and for SteveAndrew in this first time for both of us Debate Challenge, I hope all goes well and for the best.

-Opening Statement-

“The Two Party Presidential System And The Money That They Raise During Campaign Season Is Proof That The Political System Is Set Up For Corporate Interest.”

In the world today the friendship of political parties and political figures with major corporations is a regular day to day happening. When during and elections phase or political reign, major corporations have always been in some way represented by the political parties which the corporation supported, it is a brother helping a brother and is legal.

The current political system of allowing corporations to donate money to a political presidential campaign is purely legal. The companies that are chosen during a political year is going to be chosen with the best interest in mind.
As SteveAndrew as brought up the continuing conspiracies of Dick Cheney, Halliburton and the war in Iraq. The believed conspiracy is that Cheney being the Vice President, through being funded through Halliburton to gain a good campaign and eventually being voted in. Cheney is supposed to of pulled string for the company to allow them first pick in the war with Iraq, giving Halliburton a huge contract focusing on what they offer best.

Link-
Halliburton is a leader in the oil services industry, it provides engineering and construction services for oil extraction and development.

Background

Cheney was the CEO of the Halliburton Company before coming into the presidential election. Cheney was soon [2003] to separate all ties with the company and not have any financial ties to them. Cheney would never deny Halliburton as a premiere company of any US Government contract.

Link-
“Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest," the Vice President said. "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years.”

Again the facts that are on the table is still that Corporations use even political figures to secure them a possible hand with a governments paycheck, within the people’s pockets. Despite that Cheney was once the CEO of Halliburton, Cheney was under Bush in the Election and Halliburton did not buy any more votes than what people knew they wanted. After Cheney leaving Halliburton for the Vice President he saw deferred compensation from his work with Halliburton. There is no conflict of interest here; it is always going to be argued that Cheney and Halliburton have played the American Government from the beginning of the 2000 presidential campaigns.

Closing Statement

Corporations to benefit from presidential party support. In it all a company who is tied to a political party would see compensation if the possibility came about. Halliburton was already a leading company in the world and when the war with Iraq came around and also Katrina. Halliburton was mobilized in the contracts. No matter what, the best company was chosen and has done a great job, despite Cheney once being a part of the company and have received a pension from the company years later in no means does it show reason that this Corporation is seeing finical gain because a flaw in the political system.

There is corruption everywhere and it will never be taken away, but in one instance a subsidiary of Halliburton was indicted and Halliburton was quick to get rid of the corrupted subsidiary; now independent focusing alone on Energy Issues within the US government and other areas around the world.

Halliburton & KBR




[edit on 3-8-2008 by MemoryShock]

There is no conflict of interest here; it is always going to be argued that Cheney and Halliburton have played the American Government from the beginning of the 2000 presidential campaigns.

But you can't claim that Cheney has severed all ties with the company when he indeed still receives unexercised stock options and deferred salary that is deemed by the Office Of Government Ethics are “among those benefits described" as "'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer.”

No matter what, the best company was chosen and has done a great job, despite Cheney once being a part of the company and have received a pension from the company years later in no means does it show reason that this Corporation is seeing finical gain because a flaw in the political system.

Don't you think there is a conflict of interest when Bush sent a waiver declaring his administration is allowed to 'hand-pick' companies. And that they just happen to choose the Vice-President's former company?

I have a few questions for you:

1.If you're saying companies contributing money in any number of ways is legal, I'll assume your presuming its reasonable and right?

2. Would you agree with further controlling campaign finance laws?

3. If you would in #2, do you think that treads on breaking freedom of speech?

And that they just happen to choose the Vice-President's former company?

The reason Halliburton and so on KBR have been chosen lays within a long and strong past of a great relationship, between the corporations and the US Government. For Halliburton, the Pentagon chose this a while a to do research for outsourcing private contractors.

Link
…while Cheney was defense secretary the Pentagon chose Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root to study the cost effectiveness of outsourcing some military operations to private contractors. Based on the results of the study, the Pentagon hired Brown & Root to implement an outsourcing plan…

Furthermore the history with the US government and KBR/Halliburton go back for years.




Image-Brown & Root co-founder George Brown (left) with President Lyndon B. Johnson. LBJ's ties to the Brown brothers dated back to his days as a Texas congressman.

Link
The story of Halliburton's ties to the White House dates back to the 1940s, when a Texas firm called Brown & Root constructed a massive dam project near Austin. The company's founders, Herman and George Brown, won the contract to build Mansfield Dam thanks to the efforts of Johnson, who was then a Texas congressman.

After Johnson took over the Oval Office, Brown & Root won contracts for huge construction projects for the federal government.

The US has been in ties with a great company over the past many years. It is respectable to say that the US Governments choices on the matter with Halliburton and even KBR was a strong and liable trust made contribution.

So there was no just chance of the company being chosen with Vice President Cheney being the former CEO of it. The fact is Halliburton is chosen alongside with KBR for many reason of great statue and honor, not for the soul fact some one man wants to make a few bucks, the reason we have a democracy a council of people is so that a one man cannot chose and make his own decisions to better make his life better or what be said.

Question 1 for SteveAndrew
Have you ever taken into account that the Cheney Halliburton problem, the Brown and Root with Johnson have stayed in the past, its because it was just people trying to make problems. In the world of today the year 2008, tell me…

Why does no one still bring this up to a court, as in talk about it?


Continued debate on topic

So staying on subject matter, I want to further explain how the Political System is not set up for Corporation Financial gain.

I would like to state now that the US Political System of Democracy is set for the people, the people who work in a company to the people who work as a major shareholder of a corporation. Americas system is set up today for the better of people, growth and support infrastructure for America as a whole.


Questions & Rebuttal

1.If you're saying companies contributing money in any number of ways is legal, I'll assume your presuming its reasonable and right?

2. Would you agree with further controlling campaign finance laws?

3. If you would in #2, do you think that treads on breaking freedom of speech?

Question 1 Response.

1.If you're saying companies contributing money in any number of ways is legal, I'll assume your presuming its reasonable and right?

I do say is legal to contribute however possible in following the law, and as for reasonable and right, there is no question whether it was reasonable and right; if a company wishes to donate money to a political party legally, than it is reasonable and right. Company’s ties with a certain political figure or party in no means would ever show better cause to buy votes for a certain politician, and in that means, being reasonable to say, it is always right for a company who supports a political party to do it out pure donation not looking for retribution. There is no proof of any company that has ever had any other intentions of helping a political party for financial gain. We live in a world of war, for many companies that are tied with politicians, because either a company is a war, conflict focused corporation the acquisition of a political, war conflict savvy official is better for the corporation as a whole [Cheney & Halliburton] Many political figures have been on boards, leaders and CEO’s of major Corporations who focus in the war conflict arena, which in our world, said to say, is full of just that.

Link
Bechtel’s board of directors includes former Secretary of State George Schultz and has former Secretary of Defense, Caspar Wienberger, as a legal counsel, while Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR at this time.
US President Bill Clinton, was the chair of AMF
with former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Clinton Adviser Vernon Jordan on its board of directors, and George HW Bush as a company adviser.

It was reasonable, it was right, it was legal. There is nothing more to it.


Question 2 Response

2. Would you agree with further controlling campaign finance laws?

I agree in that, but there is no need, so no. The “FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT OF 1971” does a fine job at keeping the legal regulations enough for a campaign and money transactions and donations of individuals and corporations. The need to change or reinforce these laws will never stop or help a politician to better win a place in office. That lies within the hands of the people of the Country and not in the hands of one man or one Corporation.


Question 3 Response

3. If you would in #2, do you think that treads on breaking freedom of speech?

As stated above, I would not agree for explained reasons.



Further Questions for SteveAndrew

Question 2 for SteveAndrew
Do you feel that current laws are not followed by corporations and political figures in accepting money for a campaign (not in any way talking about money accepted in a pension or deferred salary)?

Question 3 + 4 for SteveAndrew

Question 3 -Do you feel that the Corporations use political parties and political leaders for personal gain under the rights issued by a free country

Question 4 - Do you feel companies in a way, screw over political figures to make money off of them, in which in today’s laws, is not illegal at all?


Question 5 for SteveAndrew
Do you feel that there should be a law instated that anyone giving money to a political campaign or political figure, that these said donators can never be contacted as long the political figure or party is in alive in the government?

I'm sorry but I can't continue with this debate. I'm unable to decipher what my opponent is saying. If I have negative points attributed to me, so be it.

ragster wins by forfeit.

Congratulations, ragster. The best man won