Increasingly desperate to find a right-winger with
the courage to debate, I took a chance
when my good friend Mucinous
wrote with the news he might've found somebody.
I did everything I could
to get this guy to debate.
I was as nice as I can possibly
be, and here is how that went:
Billy Bob, (if we debate, can I shorten that to
BB? :)
my name is Bart, I guess you know mucinous@cox.
Yes, I think a debate would be fun. I'm very normal,
almost boring in debates.
None of that wild bragging or cursing. This is
NOT a trick.
If we debate, I will treat you with respect.
Even if YOU go nuts, I'll say, "Maybe we should
stop" instead of flaming you back.
Format-wise, we have a chatroom at bartcop.com
and the mods there know how to
silence everyone but you and me. Or, we
could do it in a private chat room there and
not tell anybody, and I could post a transcript
(you'd get a copy, too, to keep me honest)
Matter of fact, I'd really like a GOP guy to debate
regularly in print OR on the radio show.
I'll give you all the freedom you ask for, and
if we keep it civil we might debate 20 subjects.
If you had a microphone, we could debate over
the phone while we each record MP3s
and then I can synch up the two files at my place.
Again, you wouldn't be censored or shouted down
or cursed at - none of that. I really need a
regular guy who knows the GOP side of things.
When a new story breaks, we could chime in like
Begala and Novak. It's a lot of fun to jump in
with an opinion before hearing every talking idiot on TV chime in.
Obviously you can use this e-mail as proof that
I lied if I turn on you or set you up for something - I won't.
Maybe we could start with a few e-mails, if that
works we could try a chat session, if that works
we could try the radio thing.
As far as subject, no problem. We could do one
at a time, maybe starting with the war.I get shit from the
doves about being pro-military. I'm against this
nutty war in Iraq, but I say good things about the troops.
So, you got any gamble in you?
I've been here 9 years, so I'm not going to throw
away my reputation to set you up for some cheap trick.
I need someone to bounce off of - we just need
to treat each other with respect. I might say
"That's a crazy idea," but I'll try not to say
"You're crazy."
Let's give it a shot.
I say Bush bungled his way into Iraq to steal
oil.
He's stealing millions of dollars a day, as is
the Hallibuton gang. The situation is worse,
all Bush did was kick the beehive and now we
have 1500 soldiers dead.
Got a reply?
To start, let's keep things general and big-picture.
We can always get more details as things evolve.
Feel free to comment on my page. Keep your head
and I'll print every word you send me (not too long :)
I hope you say yes, I'm looking forward to it.
bart
PS. If you're not interested, do you know anybody?
His first reply:
First, I need to know who you are: background, experience, etc.
John, my name is Bart and I've been doing
the page for nine years.
Since we're having a battle of ideas, I'm
not sure why personal biographies are important.
I suggest neutral turf. We can both
let our respective natural audiences
know what we're doing, and when, and how to sign
on as theaudience.
Maybe it's best we do this in private, then
publish the results?
To move the process along, I suggest the following:
a one-hour program,
followed by a 30-minute Q&A, then pull down
the barrier to participation
and open a poll on that site for who won on each
issue.
The poll is an OK idea, but is it necessary
to keep a stop watch on each other?
I think if one of us hogs the spotlight,
they'll be seen as a bully so that should prevent that.
Three subjects for 20 minutes each: First
one, the Iraq war. We type live, as if we were speaking.
You take seven minutes to start. I take
seven to reply. You take three minutes for surrebutter.
(Sidebar: I don't know
what surrebutter is
- I hope it's not a gay thing :)
I take the final three minutes. Time is precise, we get cut off in midsentencewhen time is done.
I'm all for keeping this short, to prevent
long, rambling speeches, but cut off in mid-sentence?
Second subject: Social Security. Same time definitions, except on thisone, I go first.
Are we sure we disagree on SS?
I don't know a lot about it, other than
I don't trust Bush.
Third subject: Is the Supreme Court violating
the Constitution in thejuvenile murder decision,
and others like it? You go first.
Times as in first subject.
I have no strong opinions on this.
In the Q&A you pick, I pick, you pick from
Qs already submitted. When I pick the question,
you answer fiurst -- 60 secs. I get 30-secsto
reply. Opposite when you pick the question.
What if we had a conversation, like adults?
We'll do this once. Both have to agree to do it again.
Your thoughts?
John
I'd sure like to try this, but you seem
to want a much more rigid setting. My idea was more like
two guys sitting at a bar, drinking a beer,
talking politics. I have no big problem with your format,
but I think all the rules would be distracting.
At least we'll be asking each other questions.
Don't you hate those debates when the two aren't
allowed to even speak to the other?
BTW, when you suggested "nuetral ground," where would that be?
bart
His second reply:
I try not to waste my time contesting with
weak opponents.
Everyone has a background.
I expect to know yours, as mine is known to you.
(Sidebar: Not sure what
this means. I know his e-mail address and the name he used
when getting that e-mail
address, but I have no "background" on this guy.)
I want this to be done live, with time limits
as are common in debates,
and are inexorable on radio (which I've done
for about eight years, now).
Let me know.
John
John, what personal info of mine do you need to defend your president?
When you read a column in the newspaper, do you usually write to get
the author's personal information?
I've had a lot of people back out of a debate, but you'd be the first
to back out because I didn't share my personal life.
...and that's all I heard from him, proving being
nice doesn't work, either.
Conclusion: The right-wingers can
not engage in a battle of ideas.
They will search and search and search until they
find a reason to avoid a debate.
They must know their Monkey is a disaster, so they don't dare get into
a debate unless it's on FOX
with a handpicked loser to debate and a sympathetic host to save them
when the handpicked loser keeps
smacking them in the face with the obvious truth that makes them look
bad.
Nobody on the entire internet will agree to a simple debate
with the ADD Catholic liberal, drinking tequila with an IQ of 64?
Sweat to Koresh, for whatever my word is worth, after the above
was written I Googled congressmanbillybob
and discovered that "John" is John Armor, comtemplating a run for congress
from Carolina's (North) 11th district.
His website is http://www.armorforcongress.com
But if John can't handle a tequila-swilling Okie, what chance does he
have in Washington DC?
Maybe he'll do OK with FOX News, talk radio, Clear Channel and the
resting carrying him?
What will it take to get a Republican to debate?
Back to bartcop.com