Bill Ayers vs. Dinesh D’Souza debate: Child-like emotions vs. adult reasoning

The Examiner ^ | 01/31/2014 | Kimberly Morin

[SeekAndFind]

Last night Dartmouth held a debate featuring Bill Ayers and Dinesh D’Souza. The debate started with 18 minutes for each man to speak and then time for rebuttal. It also included a cross-examination style question and answer between the two and several questions from the audience. Given the leftism that is so rampant in colleges and universities today, it was almost surprising to see that support for D’Souza was far more than for Ayers. This article only highlights a few points made in the debate – white supremacy, money in politics and social justice. To view the debate in its entirety please visit www.DineshDSouza.com.

Ayers spoke first in what was reminiscent of a beatnik who would talk on and on and on making no sense whatsoever. He talked about places and things he felt were great in America but never said that the country is great. D’Souza came on strong talking about how great America is and why America is exceptional: “The beauty of America is that we have the ability to write our own script.” The two were vastly different in their demeanor and language. It was clear that Ayers still believes America isn’t exceptional. He actually said it was ‘arrogant’ for anyone to think that.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Given the leftism that is so rampant in colleges and universities today, it was almost surprising to see that support for D’Souza was far more...Dartmouth is the smallest and most conservative of the Ivies, to the extent that any of them are at all conservative - my nephew is heading out for college next year and so far has had interviews at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn and Dartmouth - as a Penn grad, I'm pushing for him to go to Dartmouth......

[SeekAndFind]

RE: I thought this occurred in 1968 during coverage of the National Democratic Convention in Chicago.

You are right. My mistake. It was a typo, it was August 28,1968 at the Democratic convention in Chicago.

The full debate here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY_nq4tfi24

The episode began at about 10:00 minutes. Today’s debates are tame compared to back then.

[Army Air Corps]

Spot on.

[gortklattu]

Dinesh missed a return on Ayer’s statement that the founders wanted slavery. I would have jumped all over that and made BA eat a crap sandwich.

[Mark17]

but I still think our side needs to learn how to head butt, throw elbows, and hit below the belt.

Yep. I love it when our side gets in the faces, and tells them to put it where the sun don't shine. Sometimes that needs to be done.

[greeneyes]

One of my favorite “debates” was when Bobby Kennedy debated Ronald Reagan. Actually, they were answering some sniveling person from the audience who dissed USA.

Bobby was mealy mouthed weak in response. Reagan stood up for the USA and informed them of the reality of the situation.

I think that Bobby stomped off and told his handlers to never put him on the same stage as Reagan again. IIRC.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1150524/posts

[greeneyes]

See post #9 on the above, don’t go to the Kennedy Library Source. I used to have a video link, but can’t find it. Reagan was great.

[Misterioso]

To that extent, Hayek was a statist. Ayn Rand had no use for him.

[RobbyS]

Well, the Japanese came into this country and “redestributed” auto-sales. The Big Three and the UAW tried to get government to stop this.

[Misterioso]

Redistribution refers to government confiscation through taxation, not private enterprise.

[lucky american]

Ping for later

[RandallFlagg]

Bookmarking

[freekitty]

Somewhere in my fuzzy memory, I thought DSousa talked about it.

[JimRed]

Well, even Hayek believed in a certain amount of redistribution in the form of a limited welfare system to serve as a safety net.

I doubt that many conservatives would object to government help for those who truly cannot help themselves. But charity and family should carry the bulk of the burden, and that is not the case today.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

To: SeekAndFind

>>> The debate started with 18 minutes for each man to speak and then time for rebuttal. It also included a cross-examination style question and answer between the two and several questions from the audience.

I’m impressed. An actual debate instead of a pseudo-debate such as what our presidential candidates engage in.

12 posted on January 31, 2014 at 10:59:55 PM EST by oblomov [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

That’s because it was a real debate instead of a television production.

. . . and that is because the conservative wasn’t so desperate to have the debate that he was willing to accept an intrusive “neutral moderator” whose politics were indistinguishable from those of his opponent.

My fond hope for the Internet is that it gets big enough that a conservative can challenge his opponent to have actual debates on the Internet - and that opponent would be placed under real pressure to accept.

You get to having a half-dozen actual debates - and that is entirely feasible if you don’t bring the candidates face-to-face for all of them - and you will see emotional arguments and sound bites start to wilt under the pressure of facts and logic.

We can dream . . .

Actually, such a system could be instituted for the Republican primaries, even now. Be a great shake-down test of the procedure, and conceivably it could delegitimate the “neutral moderator” debate joint news conferences favored by the journalists for the general campaign.

[RobbyS]

It does if the government allows/privileges private parties to exercise coersive power. or take the case of Poletown. GM was allowed to build a plant at Poletown, displacing a whole community of average people, who had to move for the “greater good ” of Michigan. Look how the big banks have displaced the small ones. Crony capitalism has a nasty habit of looking more and more like fascism, where Capitalists and union leaders join with the government to squeeze everyone else.

[ru4liberty]

Self ping