I wanna see this debate: Franken & Chomsky vs. Limbaugh and O'Reilly

I think it would be goddamned funny!

And not a shitty little presidential style debate in which the questions are ignorant and the moderator is apparently unable or unwilling to call "OFF TOPIC BULLSHIT SPEWING!", but a real debate, with real questions, and a moderator who won't let anyone (meaning O'Reilly and Limbaugh) go off topic, spew sound bites, or otherwise say anything that is clearly founded in falsehood. Opinions will be allowed, yes; but nothing that is inherently unfactual.

I'm thinking a good person to moderate would be Bill Maher.

And good people to come up with questions would be Gore Vidal, Rev. John Thomas (president of the United Church of Christ), Skinner, Rev. Tony Campolo, Thich Nhat Han, Vaclav Havel, the president of Venezuela (all I can think of is Che Guevera, and I know that's wrong), Stephen Colbert, John Stewart, George Clooney, Max Stackhouse (the Rimmer and Ruth de Vries Professor of Reformed Theology and Public Life at Princeton Seminary and a profoundly knowledable guy on ethics, esp. economic ethics), and I'm sure we could come up with many others. And also let the rightwing fucks nominate their own assholes to submit questions, like Robertson, Falwell, Coulter, Tony Blair, Hannity, etc.

And I'm sure there would be an even better Moderator than Bill Maher.

Is the intellectualism vs the anti intellectualism meeting in one place would probably cause a thunderstorm or a tornado, or even a cataclysmic event like when matter and anti-matter meet.

:hide: :rofl:

Avidly.

Especially if we could get the media to report accurately this time, and say that the clear losers were actually the losers, and not the winner (unlike, say, the Gore/Fuckstick debates, and the Kerry/Fuckstick debates).

It would be like putting a special needs child in the Scripps Spelling Bee and demanding them to perform.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't watch it-I'm just saying that it almost constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

But a much better one would be Franken and Chomsky versus William Safire and Cal Thomas.

My first idea would be totally hilarious, watching what is truly the voice (at least, the loudest most visible voice) of the rightwing being totally destroyed.

The second idea would be more interesting, because we'd see four people who can think very well. Even though Safire and Thomas most times piss me off, I have no doubts of their ability to reason and think. Their base assumptions are wrong, but they're literate, intelligent, and well spoken. And that would make, quite truly, for a very interesting debate.

The second I would watch in fascination. Sometimes I'd want to yell, other times cheer.

The first would be quite funny and would get all the attention. It has the added bonus of putting two loudmouths in their place.

Take the loudest of the loud and put them in their place.

And the second would, truly, be quite fascinating to watch. The nice thing about Safire, and somewhat about Cal Thomas, is that they wouldn't just regurgitate rightwing soundbites.

That's what I would enjoy about the second. I am a former high school and college debater. I enjoy watching debates that involve skill, finesse, general knowledge, a decent command of the English language and overall provocative contentions. The debates that I have watched in the past few years, whether in an academic setting or even on television, have been dumbed down for public consumption and it infuriates me.

The first debate would make me cringe. The second debate would make me want to get out a legal-sized notepad and flow the arguments. Whether I were to like the arguments or not on a personal level I could see myself getting involved in how they present them and awarding the "winner" on presentation and skill instead of what I personally believe.