|
Edited on Thu Oct-12-06 09:58 PM by RevolutionStartsNow
He's a friend, but a Limbaugh Republican. It's time consuming to have to correct him so many times, but here's what we've covered, briefly:
1) He suggested there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, and that all Muslims are "ticking bombs." His suggestion for combatting terrorism is to put them all into internment camps until they can be "worked back into society." I wasn't even sure how to respond to that one, I just asked if then we should nuke them after we put them in camps.
2) He believes the war on terrorism can be compared to WWII and that Japan got in line after we "slapped them in the face" and now they have a wonderful flourishing society. I reminded him that "terrorism" is not a country and Iraq is not WWII.
3) He argued that if I don't see the connection between Iraq and 9/11 then I don't have a clue, and history will treat Bush well for his actions in Iraq. After I stopped laughing about that last one, I offered to buy him a beer in 5 years if that ever happens. Then I changed it to 2 years, and suggested that history will treat Bush exactly how he deserves to be treated.
4) He fell back on the old line that liberals have no ideas or suggestions, only complaints. I sent him several links to Democratic plans for Iraq, the economy, etc. His only response was that they were bad ideas.
5) He suggested that the Dems are casting "smoke screens" with Foley, and what about Barney Frank? That was another easy one to combat, reminding him that Republicans concealed Foley's behavior and allowed it to continue. He's a real homophobe, so I didn't bother trying to explain the difference between Barney Frank and Mark Foley. To him they are both "perverts."
6) He believes Global Warming is a hoax, because he went to Alaska and some people he met there told him so. Also James Inhofe says so. I sent him so good Inhofe background, including his comments about the OKC bombming, and when he tried to suggest that "the science of Global Warming is in dispute", I asked him who was disputing it other than Inhofe and some "scientists" bought by the energy companies. No answer to that one.
7) He conceded that Bush is a terribly inarticulate speaker, but concludes that he was re-elected because the American people believe "he's the right man for the job" and he's "sincere." Another very easy one to counter, even without having to suggest Bush was installed by election fraud.
8) I asked how he would deal with North Korea and he said he thinks Bush is too soft on this issue and we should bomb their launching sites and get it over with. I sent him an article about the Pentagon report that addresses the potential consequences of that action, and he hasn't responded.
I am noticing that in every case, when I calmly send him facts, he just changes the subject. A few times I've wanted to just tell him he's an idiot, but it's actually more fun to just baffle him with facts.
Like I said, it's time consuming, but easy.
Edited to say: I don't think this type of debate belongs on DU. It would degrade into the usual nonsense. Most of them don't want to really debate us, they just want to spew rhetoric. It would be too hard to control and moderate, and also a waste of time. We're not going to change anyone's mind that comes here.
|