Discussing "THE" Debate

from Dictionary.com

de·bate  (d-bt)

v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates

v.intr.

1. To consider something; deliberate.

2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms atdiscuss.

4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.

v.tr.

1. To deliberate on; consider.

2. To dispute or argue about.

3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.

4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.

n.

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.

2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.

3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.

I'm beginning with the formal definition of debate here. Seems like there are many who have no comprehension of what the word means. Sadly,it is supposedly intelligent people who lack this understanding of the definition. Newscasters, reporters, editors.

There was a Presidential Debate the other night.

Not, as the name implies, a debate between presidents. Nor was it a debate about presidents, except tangentially. It is a pre-election debate for presidential candidates. One of the candidates is the current president.

A debate, as you can see from the definition, is basically a discussion -- just like the one we're having here. (Not exactly, since you lack the ability to respond as I'm speaking.)

Discussion of this, of that -- it can even be considered an argument, but that usage has, until now, meant in a formal sense. Not petty kindergarten squabbling.

This is important, at least to me, because there was very little attention paid to or reported on any actual debate topics. The debates had barely started when the media morons began trumpeting "Romney is winning!"


How the Blankety-blank blank does anyone win a discussion?

How do they win a discussion when that discussion has barely begun?


It didn't get any better, folks. I don't know what the debates were about. I don't know what subjects were introduced, what answers either candidate had, or whether either had a solution that was markedly different from the other guys.

As a matter of fact, I don't know if there were any other candidates present or if it was just the two Mr. BigBucks BigMouths running. They were the only two mentioned. There are other candidates, voters. Some of them have great ideas and reasonable policies. Look them up.


I don't know because no one reported on this. No one cared to do straight reporting for those who couldn't/didn't watch the live event.

And if it were a matter of winning -- so what? If winning a discussion means anything at all, I'm pretty sure it does NOT mean winning the election, although Mainstream Media would like you to think it's in the bag now for their guy.

Mitt Romney won the primaries because he could beat Obama -- not on issues, performance, promises, or politics -- just because he breathes higher class air, I suppose. I have yet to figure that logic. See previous blog:http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7971544013891065437#editor/target=post;postID=8130718494167114723

Now he has 'won' a debate -- what does that mean?

It means he talks faster ?

There's the solution to our problems! A slick fast-talker. He must be made to be President! He out-talked the man who was actually working at running the country (possibly badly, but trying) while he was rehearsing his party lines and preening in his mirror.

I'm saving my vote for the election. That's the only WIN that counts.

What drugs to test?

There's been so much garbage floating around (and some information) about drug testing for welfare benefits.  I've been trying to avoid the topic, but the shouters are getting louder all the time. I'd like to get my two cents worth in while someone may still be listening.

First of all, drug testing is not cost effective at this time. Each test will cost more than benefits collected per individual. The counter to this argument is that if testing becomes more common, price will drop. The law of supply and demand and all that. Generally if everybody wants it, it goes to the highest bidder, not the lowest, but then again, if you can sell at a high price to a few or a low price to many, you probably end up with the same amount of other people's money in your pocket.
In this case, it would be (again) government money and it will go into the pockets of the pharmaceutical and other Health Care Bandits already-rich-people's pockets. Be wary of anyone suggesting this argument. It's likely the money will, one way or another go into their pockets.
And then they'll want more.

Next, the "I have to take a drug test to get a job, so you shgould have to take one, too" argument. First heard in the back yard when I was about three, later heard many times in the playground. Haven't you people learned anything yet?
Life ain't fair.
Deal with it.

Also, who says you have to take a job where you need a drug test? If you don't want to take the test, find another job. I've been working for nearly forty years and never had to take a drug test. If I had to, it wouldn't be a problem for me. But if I choose to take it to get the job, that will be on me, not on the rest of the world.
Not on you.
None of your business.


Third, I would like all these Hallelujah Hollerers to ponder what they are calling drugs. Are they going to shout about legal vs, illegal drugs?

These days doesn't that depend largely on where you live? Can a state that has legal medical marijuana, for example, then deny someone benefits because according to federal law marijuana is an illegal substance?

What then about their own laws?
What if a person is taking something for a chronic condition that somehow skews the drug test results?
Should they have to do without because 'the test says so'?

And let's talk about the legal drugs. Here, I can speak from personal experience. My siblings and I went just a little hungry more than once because money was spent on cigarettes. A two pack a day habit could pay for a lot of spaghetti. Heck, it could even buy a few days worth of Baloney, although even that has become increasingly expensive.
Cigarettes kill. They kill the imbiber: slowly, painfully, over many years and many hospital stays and treatments and procedures that raise health care costs for us all.
It kills or creates illness with secondhand smoke. Not to be allowed, and now illegal in public places.

Alcohol kills. It kills the imbibers, slowly, painfully, over many years and many hospital stays and treatments and procedures that raise health care costs for us all.
It kills innocents. Beaten children, casualties of drunk driving, etc. Not to be supported.

Will you test and test and retest for alcohol in the system? Or nicotine? Will you deny children housing benefits because dad can't stay off the bottle? Will you deny them food because Mom needs a beer every hour?

I'm NOT saying that recipients are beer-guzzling, cigarette-smoking drug addicts.
I am an intelligent person and I know that it is only worst-case stories that make the newspapers, television, and politicians' tongues. For everyone that fits that stereotype there are (probably) a half dozen people -- families -- that are quietly going about their business, wondering if they should pay the water bill this month or maybe they had better refill a prescription or have some necessary but expensive medical test done. There are families that have had their food benefits reduced and they are reduced to having to buy canned vegetables now, with possible lead and sodium content, because the cost of fresh produce in groceries is too high and farmer's markets can't accept the food assistance.

What I am saying is drug testing is either too broad or too specific a weapon, and as with most weapons the ones most damaged will be the innocent.

I am saying that if we do away with financial free will -- well, once they start taking away money from one group, what is to stop them from making more and more and more laws to take it away from more and more and more individuals?

They have already started with taxes and have you ever seen this process reverse?