Debates or Collectivist Propaganda?


About the author: David is executive director and founder of CEOs for Liberty, a private membership-only group for CEOs, business owners, and executives with a mission to enhance and protect American business exceptionalism. David founded CFL in 2011 given his concer ... [read 's FULL BIO]

If moderators provide commentary, “fact-checking”, opinion, interrupt answers, and side with one of the “debaters”, uh, it’s not a debate. It is an American “progressive”, manipulated, media propaganda show.

I haven’t seen a real Presidential or VP debate yet this year. However, regardless attempts to manipulate the outcome, it seems Constitutionally conservative values still ring true.

Yet, given how the decks have been loaded against American founding principles by the “progressive” media, entertainment, education, bureaucrats, and international detractors (U.N., etc.), should Romney be debating Obama at all?

In reality, there is no room to debate an ideology that moves outside of our Constitutional foundations. To debate the efficacy of free-markets vs. collectivism is akin to debating the efficacy of a round vs. square wheel. There is no debate unless one doesn’t mind a car that won’t roll, an airplane that won’t take off, or — a world that comes to a complete standstill.

If in a position to debate the POTUS, I personally would decline. Instead, I would hold a news conference in which I would present the facts that demonstrate why a debate is impossible and possibly unconstitutional. I would also present my plan — without interruption, and the deficiencies in the POTUS’ performance and plan — without mediator defense or “fact checking”.

Then, I would lay down the gauntlet and say, “When this POTUS is willing to debate within the boundaries of what our nation IS — within the boundaries of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and founding principles — then, and only then, am I willing to debate. Then we can debate different strategies to get out of the way of Americans and let THEM recover our nation — as they always have and always will.”

No, I would not debate with a collectivist as debating him would validate his ideology as a possible alternative to free-markets, individual liberty and founding American principles.

Finally, in the closing remarks of the news conference — to provide alternatives for liberty’s detractors who would love nothing more than to faux-debate to continue to chip away at American exceptionalism — I would simply provide toll-free numbers for immigration departments within several collectivist nations. Then I would say, “If you prefer another form of government — an alternative to our Constitutional Republic — here are the numbers you can call to schedule immigration to countries with collectivist governments. Yet, if you plan to remain an American, you must understand that you are responsible for you, our government and the taxpayers who fund it, are not. And the good thing is that America doesn’t hold anyone here against their will unlike many of the countries you may choose.”

What is interesting is that even with the deck loaded against Constitutionally conservative, American principles — Romney still came out on top in each “debate” to a majority of viewers. The truth will always set us free.

No, these are not debates. They are “progressive” advertising, messaging, and propaganda for the collectivist ideology.

David M. Chaney (C) 2012

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

    • Yes, we should be able to — as a people — see the efficacy of our founding principles and values, and continue forward with them, without violence. However, from what I understand, there are multiple efforts in the works to cause disruption. Marxism is wiling to use violence as means to the ultimate end. The “progressive” slow movement towards collectivism is being replaced by more violent means. This is because the “progressives” see themselves nearing their goal. We must stop them.

  • Candy Crowley is a JOKE. This was a total setup and Obama kept asking her for help…uh, uh Candy, uh Candy? Can you say that again louder please?? WTF??? Pisses me off. Why the hell is the GOP letting these scumbag moderators in there in the first place? Why doesn’t the GOP get their choice of one or two of the moderators?? She should be ashamed of herself but of course, she isn’t. She is a Liberal, biased, dirt-bag HACK!

    • It is not beyond possibility with this administration, unfortunately, to create a pre-planned media-POTUS play to counter the obvious smoking gun. After all, my understanding is the the Mao-loving ex-Communications Director, Dunn, was the debate coach. Anything goes as a means to their end. Benghazi-Gate continues.

  • Brandon Richardson

    The debates are screwed anyway they don’t allow all the candidates to debate anyway. Because it would open the people eyes to know that there isn’t just 2 choices there is more. All side need to be heard not just the Rep or Dem side. If you didn’t know the green party President and VP nominees did that and got arrested for that. I support Romney so before any of you independent hater try to jump me for this i’m letting you know who i stand for and back. And I’m tired of hearing that the 2nd amendment is for hunting last time i checked it wasn’t It was for the right to protect are self against people and the government. Anyone that continue to say that what it for. Allow them to water it down and slowly take our rights away from us.