Comment of the Day:
"Republicans dodging questions. Why is this news?"–Tredecim
Debate expert Todd Graham honed in on what he saw as Texas Gov. Rick Perry's weaknesses during the Wednesday night GOP debates, among them: ignoring direct questions, refusing to address contradictions between his words and actions, and providing no evidence to back up his statement that climate change science was "not settled." Many CNN.com readers agreed.
barbie1311 said, "Music to my ears: the sound of Rick Perry calling Social Security a giant Ponzi scheme, and comparing climate change to eugenics; probably music to the ears of the desperate Obama camp watching in the White House, too. Go ahead, GOP, send in the clowns. By the time Rick Perry is finished sticking his cowboy boots in his mouth, Obama won't have anything to worry about."
Walker1971 asked, "Is this really the best the Republicans have to offer? Ugh, far-right crackpots who bring religion into politics. When will the right put up someone who is actually a viable candidate? Kiss off 2012."
But 14Ghost said, "Ducking questions? All those questions were presumed liberally biased answers. 'Given the FACT that global warming exists. ...' 'Given the FACT that all people should have health insurance. ...' NBC asked questions in a way that presumes the liberal point of view is right." Stejo said, "Science isn't liberal; it's science."
What about the other candidates? rsleonard9 said, "I thought Cain made the most sense and gave straight talk. Newt wasn't bad and Ron Paul is always enjoyable to listen too. I agree that Perry dodged to many questions."
EnergyBeing3 said, "I'm not Republican, but I have to admit, in the last few months, I've grown a lot of respect for Ron Paul. If I was on the fence for voting either side, I'd lean toward Ron Paul. He makes 'real sense' and isn't a religious nut-job."
PaulinAZ said, "Like it or not, a Republican is probably going to end up in the White House! Huntsman is the only one sane and rational enough to even be considered. We better get behind this guy, and see that he gets the nomination! Imagine the alternatives: Bachmann ... Perry ... OH GOD!"
Perhaps the U.S. needs to turn its unemployment problem on its head, suggests author Douglas Rushkoff. Rather than asking how to employ all those made obsolete by technology, he writes, maybe we should ask how we can "organize a society around something other than employment." Many CNN.com readers found the article unusually provocative. nightowl1 said, "Really, CNN, one of your best stories to date."
And some were reminded of Star Trek. GROG said, "'Star Trek Next Generation,' referred to the idea that because robots and computers had made hard labor unnecessary, society had more time to work on such things as world peace, cures to diseases, space exploration and pursuit of the arts. So far, much of what Gene Roddenberry envisioned has come true. Mobile phones, microwaves, remote controls, and even slate computers were all on Star Trek before they became real, so perhaps his social ideas will come true as well."
Others said the writer failed to factor limited resources and the need for tangible goods into his plan. Yes1Fan said, "Everything mentioned in the article depends on an overabundance of non-polluting energy. If the energy supply fails, it won't be long until the near-stone-age returns (or at least the Amish age)."
DoNotWorry said, "Corporations are vying for ownership of the water supply, betting on it being the 'new' oil in price manipulation. They will try to hold us up with water one of these days."
ragun said, "One of the big things being overlooked in this article is land. Sure, we could give away houses for free with our uber house-building technologies, but the land it sits on is limited."
dinkster said, "Food, shelter, clothing, and health care all require a source: Someone to grow the food, someone to sew the clothes, doctors to administer the health care."
Many readers suggested that a solution to unemployment might be cutting hours for everyone. tmertz said, "A 36-hour work week and 2 weeks' mandatory vacation in conjunction with a major effort to overhaul and improve education (and re-education of the unemployable) would cut unemployment to less than 3 percent. Going to a 4-day (36 hour) work week would be a winner for many companies."
drake666 asked, "What if every job paid enough to live on and every family only had (and needed) one earner? Result: a) enough jobs for everyone b) children always have an adult at home."
n8rlvr said, "This would result in more free time, potential increase in creativity and problem solving. Star Trek utopia here we come!"
Do you feel your views align with these commenters' thoughts? Post a comment below or sound off on video.
Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.