Debating Right-wing nuts

[eablair3]

I know quite a few right-wingers.

I recently got in a discussion with one about the media, and I was mentioning how the media is really a CORPORATE media. I said that CNN is not left-wing at all, as the rightwingers are so programmed to believe by FOX and Rush L, and Insanity. I said as a corporate media they are not fair and balanced at all, but only present essentially one side -- the corporate/government side. My right-wing friend disputed that vehemently talking of the "fair and balanced" channel and mentioning how CNN is so liberal.

To prove my point, I asked him if he recalled what percentage in the polls are supposedly or were supposedly "anti-war". And, for the sake of argument I said "say it was or is about 30%, is that a fair number?" He agreed that it was. I said, "now tell me if the corporate cable channels and networks are so fair and balanced how many "anit-war" pundits do they put on the air? I said if they were so fair and balanced it should be 3 out of every 10 pundits should be presenting the anti-war message on the air. I asked him how many were on the air presenting the anti-war message. He finally agreed after realizing that this entire portion of the population is not allowed air time.

anyway, it seemed to make some sense to my right-wing friend, and a lightbulb seemed to go on.

I was wondering if anyone else had any useful stories or discussion presentations to use on right-wingers to help make them see things differently and be open to another viewpoint?

[SHRED]

1. I wish I did

How do you awaken a sleep walker who is brainwashed by the dribble emanating from the corporate media giants?

I just don't know........

[readmylips]

2. Maybe it's time for us to embrace republicans and ...

tell them, we're all in the same sinking boat. Boosh is no good for anyone on earth.

[david_vincent]

3. Hmm...

Right wingers I know are so ignorant and irrational that they actually believe complete lies, such as Canada being bankrupt because of its health care system, and they are so closed minded that there is no way to reason with them. I have friends who are unable to even communicate with their right wing relatives any more, because of their inability to think rationally and unwillingness to debate. And I haven't even mentioned the in-your-face racism and bigotry displayed - nay, shouted - by the Birchers I know.

[Lone_Wolf]

4. Here's what I did Thursday night

I timed MSNBC's 'Hardball' (with a stopwatch) as to the amount of time Chris Matthews spent on various issues. Here's how it broke down (on Thursday night):

Attacking Dems/Liberals: 15 minutes
Promoting Bush/Promoting Conservative ideas: 15 minutes
Commercials: 15 minutes
Non-substantive fluff pieces: 11 minutes
Attacking Bush: 2 minutes
Promoting Dems/Liberal Ideas: 2 minutes

Have them perform this experiment for themselves.

[lovedems]

6. Wow, that is very impressive

I would email those stats to "Hardball" and ask for an explanation as a democrat.

[proud patriot]

23. I second that motion

:hi:

[Heritic]

5. I know this one guy

This one righty I'm currently debating with has the strange idea that the democrats are racist, at least more so than republicans. Hes screaming ignorance. He also thinks Democrats are infections, jackasses, filthy mouthed liars/smear merchants (O'Riely is his god), and much, much more. Hes also called me an SOB. He generally is quite calm, but gets angry when I prove him wrong or say something he can't disprove. Tee hee.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi Heritic!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[lovedems]

7. I have found that it is virtually impossible to argue or debate with a

righty. My brother (who I love dearly) is a ditto-head. When we talk politics, he literally doesn't make any sense. He throws out these ridiculous "points", one being that "the economy wasn't the economy under Clinton, it was all just a facade." I literally stand there, dumbfounded for a moment. I could argue so many valid points like how much money he made/saved/invested during Clinton's years and what his financial situation is now, but HE JUST DOESN'T GET IT. They are incapable of forming a legitimate thought of their own and you can't really argue "talking points", we see the stupidity of it in freeperville all the time. I just tell my brother when he can talk to me intelligently about politics, I will be more than happy to debate him on the subject. As long as he wants to argue pigboy politics and be insulting and non-sensical, he can take his debate elsewhere.

My tolerance of * voters has left the building. I can hardly tolerate someone who is so god damn stupid and thinks that life is just peaches and cream under this misadministration. I am almost becoming down right mean to * lovers.

[eablair3]

8. i find it useful to start with the media

I've found it useful, over time, when talking to RWs to really hit them with hoiw biased the media really is, and how it has such a corporate agenda. I think if you can get them to wonder about the media, and that perhaps they are not getting the whole story, then I've started to get through to some.

There whole info is based on the corporate media. If you make them see that, then they start to wonder whether they have actually been heaing the whole story.

I've noticed it working on some. On some, it doesn't

[lovedems]

9. Unfortunatley my brother doesn't

Really, he is still on the "Clinton Lied" bull shit. My jaw drops to the floor. He can't see * lies and how thousands have died, historical and religious monuments destroy, billions of dollars spent...he just does not get it. He is a ditto head, faux news, "I think * policies are good for me" idiot. I am of the mind set that my time is much better spent than arguing with an idiot. If I thought I could change his mind, I'd be in his face EVERYDAY, but sadly, he is content to walk through the rest of his life dumber than a box of rocks.

[eablair3]

10. Clinton did lie

Clinton did lie. He did. He perjured himself as well. He lied under oath as the nations's executive officer. If you are denying that, you lose credibility imo.

Whether he should have been impeached I guess can be debated. But, he did lie under oath when he was the nation's top executive officer.

I don't ever deny that in talking to RWs. I admit it. And, I say he was impeached for it. Then, I go on to say that Bush lied and brought the nation into war and many people died. And, I ask what was the bigger lie? Lying about getting a bj from an intern, or lying to bring the whole nation into war with hundreds of Americans dying and thousands permanently injured for life while huge corporations and oil companies that are all Bush's campaign contributors make record profits. Not to mention thousands of innocent Iraqis being killed when Bush aggressively attacked and invaded another country. What was the bigger lie? And, what has happened to Bush?

That's the usual approach I take when Clinton's lies are brought up.

[Lefergus70]

11. "Clinton did lie"

That's the only way to go: display your sound values and reveal that the RW doesn't have any.

[nickgutierrez]

12. YES!

Perfect.

Clinton lied. Fine. Did his lie cost 500 American lives?

[Printer70]

14. I agree on that- Clinton did lie

I admit it. He perjured himself. The other side is usually so astonished that I came clean on it, it lets me talk about how Bush misled us on WMD's, etc. and they actually are willing to put their defenses down.

Partisanhip- when it prevents us from admitting any missteps from our own side- is damaging in the long run.

[Tactical Progressive]

16. Clinton didn't commit perjury

He was never even charged with perjury, let alone convicted.

Anyone who tells you that Clinton is a perjurer is a liar. Tell them that and see how they like it.

[Touchdown]

24. Clinton never lied under oath.

You are conceding the RW talking points when you say that. His answers to the grand jury were legally factual.

Read this before you say that to anyone again...

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

<snip>...The law requires witnesses only to give technically true answers to questions under oath. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that a wily defendent
who gives evasive answers is not guilty of perjury. Furthermore, the 5th Amendment guarantees witnesses the right not to incriminate themselves.
They are not obligated to volunteer more information than the questioner asks for, or to help the prosecution prove its case against them, or to offer
unsolicited clarifications to ambiguous questions. Defendants have a constitutional right to fight vigorously for their defense; their only requirement is
to answer the question accurately. It is up to prosecutors to fill in any gaps or dispel any confusion by asking follow-up questions.

In other words, our justice system is based on the adversarial process, in which it is up to prosecutors to prove their case, and defendants to prove
theirs (namely, that the prosecution hasn't proven its case). Defendants are not obligated to help prosecutors, and prosecutors are not obligated to
help defendants. So if a defendant resorts to evasive, misleading or incomplete answers, that is his right. Prosecutors must overcome any such
attempts by asking follow-up questions.

Some might argue, "But the oath says ?to tell the whole truth.? An incomplete answer is not the whole truth." True, but no answer is the whole truth.
You can describe a hundred things about even the simplest event, like putting down a book. What time of day did you put the book down? What was
the book?s title? Where did you lay the book? Was it upside down? Why did you do so? How many pages had you finished? And so on, infinitely.
Obviously, you cannot be expected to cram an infinite number of details into one answer. That is what follow-up questions are for....<snip>

[Printer70]

13. Patience

>I just tell my brother when he can talk to me intelligently about politics, I will be more than happy to debate him on the subject

That's kind of patronizing...to your own brother?? The way Reid won over Jeffords was that he heard him out, over time made his pitch, and it ultimately carried the day. People form world views over a long period of time and a tanker can't turn around on a dime.

[readmylips]

15. I love my neighbor but he's a real ..

racist from the old south. What he says about people of color makes my hair standup. Yet, his first great-grandson is half black.

He tried talking politics to me and I almost fainted. His first words were; that communist Hillary Clinton should not be on TV and should not be in the Senate. She's a murderer and her husband should have been killed for treason. He gave nuclear secrets to China, and took campaign money for his election. That's how he won both elections. China paid for his campaign. The guy (Clinton) and his family never had a penny to their name. You tell me, how does dirt like that become president, if they are not corrupt and taking money from the Chinese.

My neighbor is in his mid 70s and has had two open heart surgeries. I would feel bad if he dies, but I can't wait until that old generation of racists and ignorateous die and join old man Thurmond in hell.

[LunaC]

17. Debating with a Freeper

is like trying to teach a pig to sing......it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

[frogfromthenorth2]

18. LOL... I think that, with your permission, I will use this as my tag line.

It's funny because its so TRUE...lol

[LunaC]

19. By all means

The original saying "Never try to teach a pig to sing.....etc" isn't really "mine" so I can't charge you a royalty or anything. heh.

Enjoy!

[KayLaw]

20. It's probably true

I had a friend whose husband and father-in-law were real wingers and she always believed the silly garbage they spewed even after they were proved wrong time after time.

For example, she wept when Clinton was elected because they said he would destroy the economy with his plans and they wouldn't be able to buy their house - wrong. She bought a straw pumpkin one fall because Bill Clinton was ruining things for pumpkin farmers and pumpkins would cost a hundred dollars for Halloween - wrong. And on and on...

[neebob]

21. Nothing works on my mother

The last debate I got into with her was about "the homos taking over the world." She actually argued this, in those words, going as far as to promise to come back and haunt me when I and my son are living in the world the homos have taken over with my permission.

She believes everything she sees on "her" Fox news, because it's fair and balanced. Just the other day I realized some other ridiculous thing she tried to tell me came from Bill O'Reilly's book. And don't try to tell her George Bush isn't a good person, because she can tell.

There's no point. Whenever I start to make a dent, she falls back on her this-has-all-been-foretold-and-everything-is-unfolding-as-it-should crutch. I just can't think of anything more tiresome and unrewarding than talking politics with my mother.

[onecitizen]

25. Check out........

www.conceptualguerilla.com

[proud patriot]

26. I just throw the U.S. Consitution in their face

and ask them Why they oppose The Constitution .