Carney – Urquhart Debate Open Thread
If you’re watching the debate (C-SPAN) let us know what you think.
Should be good since Urquhart just refused to say he was associated with the Tea Party.
Hmm… is someone running away from his base and O’Donnell?
Tags: Debates, Election 2010, Glenn Urquhart, John Carney
LOL! Urquhart says, “we have the best Healthcare in the world.” 5 seconds later he says… “Singapore has the best Healthcare in the world.”
Urq is really boring. He’s not saying anything new. He hates debt, he wants the missile defense shield, he hates taxes. YAWN!
The only new thing I’ve learned so far is that he says he didn’t want to change Social Security. Then he said he wanted to give younger people “options” (privatization), but now is not the time. Then he talked about raising the retirement age.
What was Urquhart’s crap about working with the CIA? He was on the National Capital Planning Commission, did he pick out the marble for their entranceway? What a joke.
And his “flying on and off carriers” was to register soldiers to vote, it had absolutely nothing to do with national security.
Urq doesn’t like wind power and is pretty evasive on repeal of DADT. Carney wants to repeal DADT.
Yeah, Urq but how would you vote on DADT repeal? No, right?
You don’t need a gas turbine for every wind turbine, that’s bs. Can’t believe Carney let him get away with that.
In fact, in Delaware, the wind farm, in an open bidding situation, beat out a gas turbine that was proposed for Bridgeville.
Urq doesn’t like the middle, they’ve brought us massive debt. Wow, Urq is really bad on this one. Then Urq says he’s a coalition builder.
Has everyone figured out that Urquhart is absolutely obsessed with national debt?
Has anyone done a count on how many questions Urq has turned into something about debt?
He thinks anyone who believes in separation of church and state a Nazi, somehow I don’t see him building any coalitions.
He is obsessed with everything about debt except how to pay for it.
Oops, Urk gaffe.. gotta stop typing to gape open-mouthed.
OMG! Urq makes an assassination joke???
Does he want to put a nuclear power plant in Delaware?
Urq really hates windmills.
Wait, the dog was barking, what was the assassination joke?
Carney is too stiff, and not in a good way. He needs to work on being more natural, while Urquhart needs to work on being less spastic.
Yes, that was an assassination joke.
Oh please, let there be a reaction shot of the audience.
How does Urquhart know how to cut taxes? He tried to expand the NCPC. And other than his own maid, what jobs has he created in Delaware?
That whole “more heart in Washington” thing made me throw up a little. This is from a guy who wants to deport illegals, break up families and raise the age for SS.
There’s not a damn piece of land big enough left to put a nuclear plant. Something Delaware got right.
I’m disappointed that Carney wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich for 2 years. That makes me think he is beholden to wealthy donors to his campaign. I’m also disappointed that he suggested tonight that increasing the retirement age is something he would consider.
Yet Urquhart is a mess. He has 2 answers for nearly every question: competition and tax cuts. He’s like a walking 1980s cliche.
So it seems like the coaching he’s been getting from the numbnuts over at Delaware Politics folks has really taken with Urq, then.
Someone should get clarification of Urquhart’s claim to have “worked with the CIA”.
I just Googled it and I was right, while on the NCPC he was part of the CIA’s expansion, so his vast national security experience with the CIA consisted of picking out the marble for the entrance to their building.
Did he go to Oxford, too?
Good catch, anon2. When I was listening I also wondered what he was talking about. I knew he had worked in the Reagan administration but had never heard anything about the CIA.
His work “flying onto carriers” was to register soldiers to vote, it was a Reagan initiative, which is also NOT national security experience.
On the plus side, now that he’s pretending to have national security experience with the CIA, he’s stopped pretending to be “middle class.” Or did he stop pretending to be “middle class” because he’s running against someone who actually is?
I just posted photos from the debate on my liveblog, which also has the blow-by-blow. I was in the 2nd row with a decent camera so I think the shots turned out pretty well. You can click on any to enlarge.
http://www.starboardbroadside.com/2010/10/de-al-debate-liveblog.html
Finally figured out who Urk looks like.
I overheard a TV producer today say he looks like a Keebler elf.
One of the two of them will not necessarily be elected in November. There are a total of 5 candidates on the ballot for the US House of Representatives, and Libertarian Brent Wangen is a principled, honorable guy who is pouring his heart into this election. He is being excluded from debates and ignored by his opponents. Urquhart’s campaign calls him, “he who shall not be named”…
I’ve also thought Glen looks more like Monty Burns than anyone else…
actually I have great VIDEO of Brent Wangen – making a fool of himself
he was invited – he showed up over an hour late – then stuffed his foot in his mouth
LOLOL
Glen Urquhart – served on a Citizen’s Advisory Council to the State Police – wanted to ensure the undocumented immigrants where not afraid to report crimes to the police….
that was a couple of years ago – made promises to work with the Latino community…that was years ago too
and now??? – well he lost that demographic…and its about 7.4% of the electorate in DE – he might want to reconsider his stand
@Aoine: I’ve seen Brent speak on a number of occasions and I’ve always been impressed. If you have such a video, I’d like to see it.
@Will – I’m sure it will be poted somewhere….LOL
Urq has a creepy smile. He kept freaking me out during the debate by smiling inappropriately.
I thought you said you had it. Please post it if it exists…
Why do all these baggers believe there is NO separation of church and state. I wonder if they are complying with Federal Regulations on their campaign finance records? How can anyone be elected who does’nt understand the Consitution? Urq looks like a CIA guy perhaps he has a little PTSD? No wonder they want to ban the Dept. of Education, they want voters as dumb as they are.
@ Anoine: Every time a wacko Libertarian speaks an angel loses its wings.
Hey McFly, “ignorant” and “principled” don’t mean the same thing- the guy (and you) are clueless about the Constitution. You need to take… like a civics class or something.
@Dr. Strangevote:
Ad hominem attacks. Great debate strategy. Let me know if you have anything intelligent to add at any point in this discussion. Why don’t you educate me on civics if you’re so smart.
@plslouise:
On the subject of understanding the Constitution, where exactly in the Constitution is the Department of Education authorized? You presume that the Federal Government starting an incredibly expensive cabinet department is the only way society ever accomplishes anything. States, school districts, private schools, and every university in the country are more than capable of managing education without Federal interference. Freeing them to compete with each other may even help them in competing with other countries.
Will – Since you’re such a constitutional scholar, NOT, please point out where in the Constitution any of the cabinet departments are authorized.
“where exactly in the Constitution is the Department of Education authorized?”
Take your argument to SCOTUS. You presume that “freeing them to compete” is the only way society ever accomplishes anything. If states, school districts, private schools and every university in the country were more than capable of managing education without federal interference, nobody would have thought of intervening.
@MJ:
That’s an excellent point. I’m OK with closing down a lot more than just the Department of Education. If you really want an answer though, the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to do a lot of things that justify a cabinet department. Education doesn’t appear in the entire text of the Constitution, though, so it isn’t one of them. If you’re really curious and not just trying to make me look stupid, Article I, Section 8 authorizes the Federal government to do a few things, Article II, Section 2 authorizes a few things, and the 9th and 10th amendments prohibit the rest. If congress and the president choose to organize cabinet departments to help them in managing the authority they HAVE been granted, that’s fine with me. If they want to organize multi-billion dollar departments to do things the Federal government ISN’T authorized to do…well…that’s not.
@Geezer:
You really think the Federal government only intervenes when there’s actually a justification for it? SCOTUS isn’t the only branch of government charged with upholding the Constitution, and I believe that they have been remiss in their obligations. Therefore, I’m taking my argument to the ballot box. You are also putting words in my mouth when you say that I believe “freeing them to compete” solves everything, ever. I’ve said no such thing.
section 8 of the US Constitution, on Powers of Congress
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Congress has the power to make laws to create a Department of Education, which provides civics courses to those students who do not skip class, like some posters here apparently did.
“the foregoing powers”
That means the other 17 that were just listed, not whatever anyone wants them to be. I suggest reading the Federalist Papers for the Constitution’s writers’ opinion on what the Necessary and Proper Clause means. I’m not going to pretend I never skipped class, but I always liked civics enough to actually go. If you think the Dept. of Education provides civics courses, then I’d wonder why civics was more commonly taught before the DoE was created…
McFly is a Libertarian because it let’s him strike a faux intellectual pose that impresses the dolts he hangs out with. Either that, or its because the idea of a world with no rules in which he can throw late night parties without having to worry about pesky noise ordinances really really motivates him.
McFly, your Libertarian paradise already exists, its called Somalia, no rules, no government- go visit, and if you like it, stay. You might enjoy the pirate life out in the Gulf of Aden.
More ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments. Somalia isn’t Libertarian, it’s anarchy. Some members of the Libertarian Party advocate that but I’m not one of them.
I have always thought it would be fun to be a pirate though…
…or a witch…
please remind me where in the US Constitution the Federalist Papers are referenced.
the start of section 8 “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
education falls under providing for the general Welfare of the United States
They’re not, but they are written by the same people and provide some insight into the debate from the Constitutional Convention. It still says “foregoing powers”.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
Fourth to last paragraph. The argument is that if general welfare means what you say it means, the rest of the enumerated powers are a waste of ink. Or are you disputing that the framers intended to place any limits whatsoever on the Federal government?
By the way, I’m not adamantly against there being a Department of Education, I just think that we should follow the rules and amend the Constitution to make education a responsibility of the Federal government if we really want to have it. Is it that great an idea that you will put it up for the amendment process? Or are we going to continue to usurp the role of the states and the people?
well tell Jack Sparrow I said hi.
I never said the “Dept. of Education is in the Consitution”. Slavery was should we have kept that? You know damn well Liberterians don’t believe the guvmint should be doing anything except fighting wars. You Liberterians dont like the Consitution, which is why you want to tear it apart and start off with “one nation under our Christian God”. You want to get rid of social security, medicare, medicaid, health care etc. Who will pay for the roads, police, fire, and other normal american understanding that we are all in the same community boat. Liberterians and some Teabaggers are feuding with each other. Some like the safety net so our elderly, young, poor, disabled are not living in the street like some 3rd world banana republic. You want to turn the Consitution on its back, and erase hundreds of years of issues you can’t comprehend. Admit it, you hate blacks, muslims, gays, hispanics, your party is a party of old deteriorating brains of white men. You can’t win with lies. Christine and Urq have lied about their resumes. Perhaps it was Urg who informed Christine the “chinese want to take over america”. Did you know the word “teabagger” is now the new number one word in the Oxford dictionary? Both should be investigated BEFORE the election.
You know Libertarians have their own party right? You know I’m not actually a Republican?
Slavery is not actually in the Constitution, but the Federal government was prohibited from preventing it in order to gain the support of the southern states. Luckily, the 13th amendment was passed and that is no longer the case.
I don’t know where the rest of your statement came from. I have no problem with old people, Muslims, homosexuals, or anyone else. I have no constitutional objection to the states taking up your safety nets if they believe it to be prudent. Also, we’re actually against the current “wars”, but yes, a real, declared war would be a legitimate, constitutional function of government.
If you haven’t been following the whole thread, I don’t actually support Urquhart or O’Donnell, but thanks for playing.
Finally, there are amendments I would support to the Constitution, but I do not in any way want to “tear it up”. Again…there ARE members of the Libertarian Party who do, but I’m not one of them.
@Dr. Strangevote:
He says hi back.
@ EVERYBODY – PLEASE stop feeding the McVay Troll- you are giving him what he wants – a platform
Everywhere he goes he shouts others down – is disrespectful of other’s opinions and when he has to hold a job, pay a mortgage change diapers at night and starts shaving and dressing appropiately for events – if all that changes he might get somewhere
he is immature and wasted the court’s time and our tax dolars!! with his frivilous lawsuit to be put on the ballot – he’s a bully and acts like a spoiled brat – plz don’t feed his ego – its like feeding the iguanas in the islands – if you do it they keep coming back
I have video of that idiot and I will post it when and where I want and on my own time not on anyone’s time –
PSB said “please remind me where in the US Constitution the Federalist Papers are referenced”
The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as the essays outline a lucid and compelling version of the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government.
Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist) By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.
Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous case McCulloch v. Maryland, that “the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained.”
PSB also makes the claim that “education falls under providing for the general Welfare of the United States”
Not even close.
In Federalist 41 Madison mocks those (dissenters of the Constitution) at the time that made the claim that the General Welfare Clause will give the new government unlimited powers. Madison points out that the General Welfare Clause does not null and void the rest of the Constitution, the Clause is restricted by the enumerated powers granted to the government by the people.
The Founding Fathers knew the best possible protection against an intrusive government was to limit the amount of money granted to it, and the U.S. Constitution did just that.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. George Washington
Will, no one needs to make you look stupid. You do an excellent job all by yourself.
Ok, well clearly I’m having more fun than Aoine…that’s ok. I’ve enjoyed this discussion. If anyone actually wants to correct anything I’ve said instead of just calling me a stupid troll, I’m happy to listen. I’m also happy to continue this discussion privately if anyone is concerned about “giving me a platform”, but really that’s DelawareLiberal’s fault for hosting a blog with a comments section…
😀
mcvay.will@gmail.com
302-670-1971
Btw, fwiw, I paid $600 in court filing fees, so I think your tax dollars were adequately protected. If you think offering the residents of the district a choice for their nomination is frivolous, you’re entitled to your opinion.
I see Galt shut them up.
John your are 100% correct, but remember you are dealing with people who actually believe the New Deal ended the Depression.
Yes, you’re very brave saying silly things on a days-old thread.
You mean your attention span only last a day or two….poor poor UI
I love these people who talk about the Constitution. They’re always the first people who want to amend the Constitution to stop gays from marrying.
Let me reiterate, I’m NOT a Republican. I have no interest in such an amendment and would vote against ratifying it.
Sure, McVay. Aren’t you the “Libertarian” that I read about on Libertarian Republican who thinks people should vote for O’Nutjob over Jim Rash? Since when does O’Nutjob fit the profile of a Libertarian?
Please, Susan, I appreciate your support for the Constitution, but let’s not lower ourselves to their level by hurling insults and ad hominem attacks.
Also, anon451, I have NEVER advocated that ANYONE vote for Christine O’Donnell over Jim Rash. Jim Rash is absolutely the best candidate in the race. I only told Libertarian Republican that Christine has advocated some libertarian positions and did not seem to be as crazy as the videos circulating on the internet make her out to be. I still intend to vote for Jim Rash and encourage everyone else to also.
All I’m suggesting, Susan, is that if you really want to “engage” with people you should go to a thread that hasn’t dropped off of the front page. Suggesting people were chased off is pretty darn dishonest, isn’t it? If you are really interested in dialogue, here’s a thread. Give it a try.
McVay TROLL ALERT!!
well since I have been lowered to their level now I will hurl insults
Susan and Will – I respectfully suggest that you two get a hotel room – mastubate each other (thinking O’Donnel for Senate) – vent all your constitutional frustrations and feel better about the liberals
I will warn you though – Will is a skinny little runt and you might break him…. and kinda young – you might have to show him the way – so to speak
I’m confused…who’s trolling? 😀
@UI: This is a continuation of a conversation from when this thread was fresh. At this point it is only between a few of your regular readers and the people I’ve invited via facebook. I will endeavor to participate in more.
Still no rebuttal to John’s post, just name calling.
UI, this IS on the front page! LOL
Lets recap this post…
We had Aoine claiming (twice)to have a video of a candidate for U.S Congress “making a fool of himself” and showing up at a debate an hour late….. when asked to produce it, he resorts to name calling. If this was done on Hube’s site about Coons, holy hell would be raised here.
We have plslouise chiming in from some other galaxy about Libertarians hating gays, blacks, hispanics etc etc…
We have Dr. Strangevote making derogatory comments.
We have PSB seriously failling civic’s 101.
So, your stance is to move along, nothing to see here…..this post is a day old….