Florida Debate Open Thread

Are you watching?


24 thoughts on “Florida Debate Open Thread

  1. Green Mountain Boy January 23, 2012 / 11:27 pm

    All that I can say about the debate is that one of the candidates, at least so far, could have substituted his live body with a cardboard cutout. It probably would have been more effective.

    Paul again is not getting much time. Santorum is doing ok but not great. And someone has decided this is a two person race.

    Not to mention that it has been not more than donkyrat talking points so far.

    • neocon1 January 24, 2012 / 8:47 am

      I and the wife voted for the fig yesterday.

      • Cluster January 24, 2012 / 9:00 am

        Neo, who is the fig?

      • neocon1 January 24, 2012 / 10:06 am

        fig = newton = newt

    • neocon1 January 24, 2012 / 10:15 am

      someone has decided this is a two person race.

      the voters, but we will see in Fla

  2. Cluster January 24, 2012 / 8:59 am

    Worst debate so far, due to the childish moderators led by Brian Williams. This debate should have been held on the Entertainment Tonight channel as that was definitely the level of questioning. I lost some respect for Williams last night, not that I had a lot, but good grief, can we not elevate the level of questions in a presidential debate to at least a junior college level? The first 20 minutes of the debate focused on who called who a dunderhead, and what that candidates response would be – which had all the suspense and intrigue of a 5th grade food fight. Thanks Brian – NBC must be proud.

    • neocon1 January 24, 2012 / 10:08 am

      which had all the suspense and intrigue of a 5th grade food fight. Thanks Brian – NBC must be proud.

      ergo the death of the dinosaur “media”

  3. bardolf January 24, 2012 / 12:36 pm

    Given that medicare and medicaid are established in the political firmament. Given that heart disease and type II diabetes account for hundreds of BILLIONS of $ in medicare and medicaid cost. Given that both of these conditions are chiefly the result of poor diet and in particular the modern consumption of large amounts of simple and complex sugars.

    WHY would Newt, a supposed fiscal conservative, be in favor of Sugar Subsidies? A fiscal conservative should be against subsidies in general, but to favor subsidies which cost the taxpayers TWICE is just stupid.

    • Cluster January 24, 2012 / 2:30 pm

      If you listened closely last night – he is not in favor of sugar subsidies and spent a lot of time as Speaker in fighting the agriculture lobbyists, which have proven to be a formidable opponent according to him. But the question you need to ask yourself is WHY do routine medical practices (heart disease and type II diabetes) cost so much?? Could it be the layers of insurance and government bureaucracies?

      • bardolf January 24, 2012 / 3:00 pm

        If you listened closely last night you certainly wouldn’t come away believing he was against sugar subsidies. He gave a long winded answer which said nothing. I’ve watched the video several times and given Newt’s previous support for ag subsidies can only conclude that he sees them as a necessary.


        If you have evidence that Newt would do something to stop subsidies as Romney, Paul and others have said they would do, please share.

        A 3 bypass operation might be common, that doesn’t make it cheap. It is expensive because it is labor intensive. Same goes to the large cost of drugs to try to control type II diabetes. I specifically mentioned medicare and medicaid since these are the folks that insurance doesn’t want in their portfolio. Should we be talking about out of control pharmaceutical costs? NO.

        Newt is a coward. He knows that if he came out against sugar in FL he would lose.

      • Cluster January 24, 2012 / 3:31 pm

        If you have evidence that Newt would do something to stop subsidies as Romney, Paul and others have said they would do, please share.

        I think you are misguided to think that Romney or Santorum would get rid of ag subsidies, but Paul on the other hand probably would, of course he would also completely dismantle the federal government too. But I also remember Newt saying something about beet sugar vs cane sugar and the markets thereof, so not knowing a lot about that personally, a sugar subsidy is a pretty minor thing when all things are considered in my opinion.

        And re: healthcare, the fact is that the more we can strip away bureaucracies from the doctor patient relationship, the more services will improve and the more that will costs will come down. And don’t blame the doctors for their labor as the reason for high costs. In my experience, the doctors labor charge is the least thing to worry about.

      • doug January 24, 2012 / 6:42 pm

        As a farmer who hasn’t taken any subsidies, I have an opinion on them, in the general. Obviously there are probably tons of subsidies not worth doing, but I look at subsidies as a way to pay back to farmers what the government has taken away in the form of regulations from the value of their land.

        Since I purchased my farm, government regulation that wasn’t in existence prior to me purchasing my farm has easily cost me Twice my annual revenue from my crop.

        They have reduced the value of my farm through regulation without compensation. I consider it an illegal seizure through a type of imminent domain that doesn’t provide me with a proper means of due process.

        As such, when I hear about the abuse of subsidies I have to wonder if those farmers have been robbed of their wealth through regulation as well and they just are happen to be being paid back.

      • bardolf January 24, 2012 / 11:33 pm


        Your argument makes subsidies even worse. The government regulation wastes money which then muddies the waters about who the efficient farmers are so the government pays extra for crops which if used as intended will cost the government more.

        The government requires a minimum wage but that does not mean it has to pay all employers a subsidy. Farmers rely on the government for roads, regulated trade, foreign market assistance etc. That implies the government is entitled to some regulations.

    • neocon1 January 24, 2012 / 4:46 pm


      show me where sugar intake has anything to do with the contraction of the disease of diabetes ?

      • neocon1 January 24, 2012 / 5:51 pm


      • bardolf January 25, 2012 / 1:53 pm

        Paula Deen has been pushing over the top sugar confections for years and has recently revealed (surprise) she is a type II diabetic.

        She does make wonderfully fun food for those who can moderate themselves.

    • doug January 25, 2012 / 3:44 am

      bardolf, yes, you drink the waters of the state, therefore your body belongs to the government after you die.

      Seriously? The government provides those things? With whose money does the government provide those things? It is we Producers who provide the government with the ability to give our production means over to the leeches.

      In the false name of worker safety, protecting the environment, sparing wetlands, and many more, you are arguing that they should be able to regulate us into bankruptcy because they provide us with roads?

      The government has protected the retailers to a point that we cannot use monopolistic tactics on them, but they can use them on us, again, in the name of foreign markets?

      No, I don’t think you are right here, The government doesn’t provide us with anything, they just try to claim that they do after they take away our ability to do it ourselves.

      • bardolf January 25, 2012 / 10:36 am


        I live in the desert, a place that would naturally be devoid of cities. The way that large cities are possible has been through government actions. By government I mean the efforts of people who were elected to find solutions to problems where there are competing interests. In this case water is transported away from it’s natural route, diverted to a city in the desert.

        Can the government regulate the amount of water I use for my lawn in the desert? That is, can elected representatives from regions with competing interests, decide that the diverted water not be used for a huge lawn in the desert if the water could have been used better by farmers somewhere else? Yes. Do I like the “regulation”? No.

        Regulation is not imposed by people from Mars. The government is made up of your neighbors. Maybe you think they are stupid, elect new ones.

        I can find water in nature. I do not find roads, rural electrification or the Chicago Board of Trade in nature.

  4. Cluster January 24, 2012 / 2:39 pm

    And who says the Democrats can’t govern:

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said it would be “foolish” to have a budget.

    1000 days without a budget is insane. Anyone who votes for the democrats this election cycle simply has sh*t for brains. Obama and Reid are complete failures.


    • neocon1 January 24, 2012 / 4:56 pm


      . Obama and Reid are complete failures.

      or ARE they?

      Communist Party USA Reveals: We’re Using the Democrat Party
      associatedcontent.com ^ | December 3, 2010 |

      “Not too awful long ago I wrote about the Communist Party USA and their support for many of the identical principles endorsed by the Democrat Party here in the US. I listed the various similarities but now I have some even more honest words from the Communists themselves. Joe Sims, co-editor of the Communist Party USA online magazine Peoples World states among other things “the possibility that the communists may be able to “capture’ the Democratic Party entirely.” Read that slowly and carefully…”the possibility that the communists may be able to “capture’ the Democratic Party entirely.”

  5. Rightlane January 24, 2012 / 11:55 pm

    Growing sugar in the US mandates subsidies as the industry couldn’t survive any other way. It’s a climate thing. This protection of American producers costs American consumers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. It’s indefensible and makes about as much sense as subsidizing mango production in Fairbanks Alaska. It greatly benefits a few to everyone else’s determent.

    • doug January 25, 2012 / 12:14 pm

      I wish they would subsidize oil and natural gas production by getting rid of all them regulations that are keeping them from drilling. Sure it would only benefit theoil and natural gas companies, but you know, maybe, just maybe, I could find a way to gain some benefit from it myself.

      No, you’re right, there would be no way I could benefit from them producing more oil and natural gas.

      • bardolf January 25, 2012 / 1:51 pm

        There are thousands of engineers working at universities in the US in the area of ‘porous media’. The engineers get NSF grants, have reduced teaching loads, have larger salaries than those in the humanities etc.

        Those engineers are a government subsidy to enhance oil and gas production. The subsidies total in the hundreds of millions of dollars. That is a GOOD thing for everyone since there is oil to be extracted in the United States. If there was no oil in the US at all a government subsidy would be wasted resources.

        The question of sugar subsidies is whether the US can offer competitive advantage versus other countries where the climate is better suited.

Comments are closed.