O'Donnel, Coons live debate thread

[Jetboogieman]

I would ask that no one post in this thread until the debate has begun, and we can discuss in relative real time.

If I'm here discussing it with you. It means the date I had at 5:30 went terribly, if I'm not here, it means things went well.

See you later or not... can't wait to see what happens. :2wave:

 

[Deuce]

It would help if you'd tell us when the debate is, and what channel I can watch the cluster**** on.

 

[Jetboogieman]

It would help if you'd tell us when the debate is, and what channel I can watch the cluster**** on.

I saw it was gonna be on CNN at 7:30. Not sure what timezone they're referring to but I believe that's Eastern.

Wolf Blitzer is moderating.

 

[soccerboy22]

Well I hope you aren't here because that means your date went well. Good luck.

 

[Jetboogieman]

And please everyone. Don't forget to bring a towel.

 

[Your Star]

And please everyone. Don't forget to bring a towel.

PS, hope you're not here discussing this Jet Good luck! :mrgreen:

 

[TurtleDude]

I saw it was gonna be on CNN at 7:30. Not sure what timezone they're referring to but I believe that's Eastern.

Wolf Blitzer is moderating.

better to get screwed on a date than by a politician!!

 

[Jetboogieman]

better to get screwed on a date than by a politician!!

:rofl

Turtle. You've earned yourself a friends request.

 

[Jetboogieman]

So date went well, as much as the debate did not :2razz:

 

[soccerboy22]

So date went well, as much as the debate did not :2razz:

So then in the end you won.

 

[Jetboogieman]

So then in the end you won.

Well we'll see how much I won on saturday.

 

[Hoplite]

Holy crap...I wanted to reach into the monitor and SMACK the woman.

Setting aside party affiliations for a moment, the woman CANNOT stay on topic. She seemed to constantly trying to push the discussion away from any actual discussion and she kept repeating rhetoric over and OVER again. In the beginning when Blitzer specifically asked her to stay away from vague topics regarding taxes and three sentences in, that's exactly where she went. She shut down pretty fast when she got asked about evolution

 

[hazlnut]

I would like to ask O'Donnell and Palin these questions:

1) How many justices sit on the supreme court?

2) Who was the third President?

3) Civil War, what years?

just for ****s and giggles...

 

[Hoplite]

I would like to ask O'Donnell and Palin these questions:

1) How many justices sit on the supreme court?

2) Who was the third President?

3) Civil War, what years?

just for ****s and giggles...

I've never found pop quizzes very helpful in determining someone's intelligence or readiness for a post.

Hell I couldn't answer those questions off the top of my head with no notice and the answers I had before looking them up would be incomplete. If something doesnt come up very often in a person's memory, it tends to be pushed back in the brain and not as readily accessible. Your brain isnt good at remembering specific details. You may remember "Civil War" and at one point you may have known that it went from 1861 to 1865, but without accessing that information, you end up where I was when I first read the question where I could remember the 1860's part, but I couldnt place the exact years. Eventually, I'd be down to only remembering 1800's and further still I'd know it was a long time ago but not remember quite when until I re-learned the fact.

Try this, close your eyes and try to recite the first line of my signature from memory. You probably couldnt, even though you see it frequently and you may even know where it came from and have studied it. But it's not something you have to deal with on a regular basis so you tend to forget it. You may remember I have a signature and that it's short, but not quite what it was.

 

[American]

I would like to ask O'Donnell and Palin these questions:

1) How many justices sit on the supreme court?

2) Who was the third President?

3) Civil War, what years?

just for ****s and giggles...

I'd like to ask Obama one question. Where in the Constitution does the United States guarantee a socialist form of government?

 

[Patria Antiqua]

I'd like to ask Obama one question. Where in the Constitution does the United States guarantee a socialist form of government?

Where does it rule it out?

 

[American]

Where does it rule it out?

If you don't have an answer, just say so.

 

[Jetboogieman]

If you don't have an answer, just say so.

I just wanna know how in the hell you see Socialist Government :shrug:

Not much has actually changed since the last administration...

 

[hazlnut]

I've never found pop quizzes very helpful in determining someone's intelligence or readiness for a post.

The point of those questions would be to show those two candidates as totally incompetent.

...and shaming anyone who would ever consider voting for them.

 

[American]

I just wanna know how in the hell you see Socialist Government :shrug:

Not much has actually changed since the last administration...

Nothing at all socialist about govt run health insurance, govt run auto industry, govt run banks, .... Nope, nothing socialist going on there.

 

[pbrauer]

I'd like to ask Obama one question. Where in the Constitution does the United States guarantee a socialist form of government?

Socialism and capitalism are not forms of government, they are economic systems and neither is specified in the Constitution.

 

[Objective Voice]

I'd like to ask Obama one question. Where in the Constitution does the United States guarantee a socialist form of government?

Where does it rule it out?

Patria makes a very good point. As has been successfully demonstrated in several other debates recently, there are facets of socialism within our government today that have existed for decades - the VA, Medicare, the Railroad Retirement system just to name a few. These are all programs run and operated by the federal government. True, none are run as effeciently as they could be, but then again when there is this...pull...between the responsibility towards those who stand to benefit most from these such programs and the efficiency and cost effectiveness of such programs where the argument continues to be "can private entities do the job better at a reduced cost where the mechanics of the free market should provail," my first question is "why don't we see more private-public cooperation" in that regard taking a more active role to fill the gaps where government falls short OR taking up this responsibility completely by the private sector to provide for the needy at every turn where the needs exsist? The answer is very simple: capitalism.

Our free market system will only provide something for free or at a reduced cost if it gives them a competitive advantage, i.e., free samples at the grocery store in the hope of driving up sales and capturing a good segment of the market. Pharmaceutical companies give out free samples of new medicines to patients in the hopes to drive sales of their drugs. It's a step away from those so-called "blind" experiments we've all heard about from the days of the Tuskegee Airmen experiments. Socialism is considered acceptable in these areas because they only apply to a specific segment of the population and not society as a whole, but if you look back through history you'll find that these programs were also heavily debated against their enactment before one common factor was taken into consideration - human compassion and decency to care for your fellow man.

Social programs do have a place in American society and our nation's government has tried to place much of the responsibility to manage such programs in the hands of the States. Medicare, Part D, for example, is tied into Medicaid which is a federal-state government partnership but even it is tied into Social Security which can be argued (successfully, IMO) is a federal-individual partnership. There are questions on all side as to who can run "it" (social programs) better but never the question invalidating the need for their existance.

 

[Boo Radley]

Patria makes a very good point. As has been successfully demonstrated in several other debates recently, there are facets of socialism within our government today that have existed for decades - the VA, Medicare, the Railroad Retirement system just to name a few. These are all programs run and operated by the federal government. True, none are run as effeciently as they could be, but then again when there is this...pull...between the responsibility towards those who stand to benefit most from these such programs and the efficiency and cost effectiveness of such programs where the argument continues to be "can private entities do the job better at a reduced cost where the mechanics of the free market should provail," my first question is "why don't we see more private-public cooperation" in that regard taking a more active role to fill the gaps where government falls short OR taking up this responsibility completely by the private sector to provide for the needy at every turn where the needs exsist? The answer is very simple: capitalism.

Our free market system will only provide something for free or at a reduced cost if it gives them a competitive advantage, i.e., free samples at the grocery store in the hope of driving up sales and capturing a good segment of the market. Pharmaceutical companies give out free samples of new medicines to patients in the hopes to drive sales of their drugs. It's a step away from those so-called "blind" experiments we've all heard about from the days of the Tuskegee Airmen experiments. Socialism is considered acceptable in these areas because they only apply to a specific segment of the population and not the whole, but if you look back through history you'll find that these programs were also heavily debated against their enactment before one common factor was taken into consideration - human compassion and decency to care for your fellow man.

Social programs do have a place in American society and our nation's government has tried to place much of the responsibility to manage such programs in the hands of the States. Medicare, Part D, for example, is tied into Medicaid which is a federal-state government partnership, and even it is tied into Social Security. There are questions on all side as to who can run "it" better but never the question invalidating the need for their existance.

Well stated. This country has not functioned as a fully capitalistic society for a long time, if ever. Government has regulated and provided social programs. The truth is, you'd be hard pressed to find many pruely capitalistic economic systems in the world. Most governments have found they have to have a bit more balance and variety than most prue systems provide.

But this is largely why the fear mongering socialism claims, as old and unoriginal as they are, should not work today. If they do, shame on us for letting them.

 

[Objective Voice]

Exactly!

And for the record, I'm not saying capitalism is bad. Far from it. I am, however, saying that where the free market system falls short, government must step in to fill the void but it must do so properly. Part of "doing it right" means giving much of the responsibility to the States to manage such programs where practical. The States, in turn, must then manage these programs in ways that not only uplift their residences from poverty, turmoil and dispair, but also empowers them to move up to that next rung in the social-economic landscape. To do less is to hold an individual, a People, a disporportioned segment of society as a whole down and makes them co-dependent on "the system" - a system that reels "them" in on one side but condemns them on the other. Hence, "class warfare" is what we achieve instead of mitigating it as much as possible.

Sidenote: Sorry for hihacking the thread. Didn't mean to turn this into another debate on the validity of government run social programs. But the question was asked and I felt compelled to try and answer fairly.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

If you don't have an answer, just say so.

The correct response to my post was "Sorry, Patria, turns out that socialism isn't actually unconstitutional, I'm just foaming at the mouth about libruls again."

Americans are free to have socialist policies if they like. Nobody is saying that it's "guaranteed."

Of course, expecting a conservative to do anything but whine about Marxism like a McCarthyite drone is asking too much these days.