the Obama administration shouldn't try to defend their policies to Republicans or anyone else

How have I strayed from the topic? If one could and had the means to pass any any and or all legislation through congress virtually unchallenged, why not? If it is all done in a manner that appears legal what's wrong with it. You may think it wrong personally, so what, you are just one person and are meaningless to the gov't. One must be intellectually honest in order to understand what goes on in Govt. My opponent approaches this debate and all of gov't and all of it's laws rules and regulations purely from the most "by the book mentality" The Constitution and any other legal document isn't worth the paper it is written on unless it is enforced or interpreted correctly. This is called being intellectually honest. For example my opponent is being intellectually dishonest by saying Congress does not bribe each other for votes in order to get bills passed. If one was to be intellectually honest with ones self one would have to ask why almost every bill that passes through congress has things attached to it that have absolutely nothing to do with the title of the bill. My opponent would have you believe this is a "concession" We can stray from the title of this debate by arguing over whether or not I can provide an example of a bill with something attached to it that has nothing to do with why the administration shouldn't try to pass every single piece of legislation it can by manipulating the Congress and the Constitution. They are doing it now as we speak. This Administration fired a sitting CEO of a privately held company "GM" with out the approval or consent or even so much as a vote from the stockholders. The gov't loans money to private companies all the time. But this does not give the Gov't the right to decide who will run the company or what people will be paid. The Gov't is picking winners and losers with it's bailout and it is doing it by manipulating the Constitution and no one is challenging it. A gov't grant, a student loan, or anything that gov't loans money for should be able to dictate what you do with the money. A loan is a loan, GM all the banking institutions you name it these are all loans according to the Obama administration. The precedent has been set. If you barrow money from the gov't it can tell you how to spend it it can tell you who can work at your company and tell you what you can or can't manufacture or sell and how much you can pay your employees. My opponent can go ahead and site some legal mumbo jumbo about how the gov;t cant do this but if one is going to be intellectually honest in this debate you must concede that the Administration is doing just these things, in real time, right now, right before your eyes. My opponents only intellectually honest rebuttal as to why the Obama Administration should try to defend their policies to anyone is that he thinks it is wrong and illegal. None of that is stopping them from taking over banks and auto industries. None of that is stopping them from regulating pay and firing employees from privately held companies. If they can do these things and not be challenged why explain anything they do to anyone. They don't have to. Just because you say it's wrong or site legal mumbo jumbo they can't? I think not. The administration has the votes and the power to do this. The Obama administration shouldn't try to defend their policies to Republicans or anyone else. Rebuttals: " This has nothing to do with our debate, but President Clinton, 1993, canceled the Superconducting Super Collider." I concede to this statement. But you have been duped royally by your gov;t in believing that it quit spending money on this research. They just moved it out of the country and called it something else. It's called the "hadron super collider" The United States contributed approximately $531 million to the development and construction of components for the LHC (with the US Department of Energy shelling out $450 million and the National Science Foundation kicking in the remaining $81 million). Being true to intellectual honesty you must concede the LHC is identical to the SSC and our gov't has never stopped spending money to build a super collider. It says it has on paper but it hasn't in the real world I call reality. One could go even further and say it squandered 2 billion dollars of the tax payers money. But I guess that was done for the "general welfare" of the country. All of the Gov't officials involved in this 3 billion dollar scam on the American tax payer should all be in prison. http://www.neatorama.com... "I need to add at this point, I base my contention on the administrations inability to carry out such an agenda, but do not step into the hypothetical realm of should they if they could." This is not "hypothetical" they are doing the things I have said. They can do it and they should if they want to keep power for many years into the future. Social spending programs are the key to a permanent Socialist Liberal Democratic power structure. The single most important piece of legislation the Obama administration should focus on is amnesty for all illegal aliens. If they pass this one bill that will get them an automatic 12 to 20 million votes and that number will sour even higher as all those people start bringing all of their relatives over. the vast majority of all these people will live off the gov't in one way or another. They will not vote for someone who says they will cut their gov't welfare check. This act alone would snuff out any possibility of a conservative Republican being elected for at least 30 years. My opponent can say give me proof that the vast majority would live off gov't. I refer you to intellectual honesty on that one. "Since the Constitution forbids such a government" Legal documents aren't worth the paper they are written on unless someone enforces it or challenges it. And yes that includes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. "We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." - Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959 I put this quote because what used to be Unconstitutional Social programs or any other myriad of policies are now Constitutional. My opponent is being intellectually dishonest if he believes the Constitution and all of it's words can prevent the American gov't from becoming a tyrannical gov't. It's all in interpretation and who interprets it. You can make the US a full blown communist country and still have the Constitution say it's Constitutional. "3) Through both rounds my opponent claims the Obama administration can force all policies and because they can, they should. Since my opponent offers nothing more, voters need to be aware that even if my opponent shows the Obama administration can enact this agenda, he must still show why it should do." The Obama Administration should do this to ensure that not another democratic presidential candidate ever loses another presidential election and marginalize all other possible contenders to advance the socialist liberal ideology unimpeded. My opponent is not being intellectually honest about congress using the 51 vote method to pass Gov't health as my link states. Instead he asks me to show where it says "ram it down your throat" He can not dismiss this link based on that. It says what it says. "51 votes" "The Byrd rule" Some one has to challenge it or enforce it for it to mean anything. " quid pro quo and bribery" The two are easily distinguishable. A bill with irrelevant attachments are bribes. "The Ronald Regan Centennial Commission" Are you kidding! You are using this as an example! "7) Foreign policy: my opponent is wrong. " I concede, but in retrospect it has nothing to do with the debate title.