The Great Debate (not really)

I'm going to paste a continuing facebook wall-to-wall conversation between my friend Mike and me. I'll update it for sure, and am mostly just putting it on here for myself:


Mike: Stop sending me your liberal propaganda. This country can't afford Obama so no, I won't join any Obama (Facebook)groups. Wanna join a Michael Savage one?

Me: Mikey, I know you're a liberal at heart. Enough of this Stop Obama stuff. He's clearly the better choice

Mike: He's not the better choice. And neither is McCain. Mark my words...the next few months are going to be very interesting. I don't think our economy is gonna be doing so well.

Me: Oh I'll be marking them. And it's neither Obama's nor McCain's fault about the economy - we can blame our friends in the bush administration. by the way, did you hear that Karl Rove was asked to testify before congress, refused, and then fled the country?

And rather than a practical conservative, you should call yourself a "conservative" as opposed to the current fascist-conservative brand of conservatism

Mike: I'm not a "neo-con," if that's what you mean. Those are the people running things. Look into the Federal Reserve. They're the ones that run things, and because of how they run things (bail outs), our dollar is dropping in value increasingly by the minute. What will Obama do to help this? Spend more money on handouts and civil programs? Allow illegal immigrants rights, thus encouraging more emigration? We spend over 100 million every year just to "take care" of them... and they're not legally here!! What about the people in this country who could use that help? I used to be "liberal" like that, but it just isn't practical!

Me: So you'd rather have huge banking companies fail and therefore lose whatever money you had invested in them? Imagine what would happen if companies like Morgan Stanley, Bear Sterns, and Merryl Lynch failed and how many people would lose all of their money and how many other business would fail. The government has to keep them afloat because they're what's keeping our economy afloat. And as far as illegal immigration is concerned, I tend to agree with you that something has to be done. But the fact is that there is an economic benefit to allowing immigrants because they keep the prices on everything pretty low. But there does need to be some sort of compromise.

And Michael Savage is a lunatic. People like him aren't concerned with facts, only ratings.

Mike: When was the last time you actually listened to Michael Savage? And I mean listened to, not just heard clips issued by Media Matters, a leftist, gay-mafia run organization. Ratings? He bashes big business, George Bush, John McCain, Democrats, Republicans, etc all the time. He hates Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and is one of the few people who have a clue. I used to think he was nuts too, but then I actually listened to him. It's libs like you who aren't concerned with facts. You guys are the nuts! You can't accept people telling the truth. Know what, forget the truth; you can't accept someone with a different opinion--take him off the air, he's a crazy! How bout, he's conservative, but he's written over 20 books, has a PhD, and has raised millions of dollars for a freedom of speech defense fund. What have you done? :-D

Me: Wow Mikey, a real burst of expression. i haven't 'done' anything, but then again neither has Michael Savage. He talks on the radio and stirs people up and makes occasionally outlandish statements. He's not a leader, he's just a talking head - in fact, he's not even a talking head, he's just a voice. The only problem I have with conservatives is that in a broad historical sense, they're always wrong. Conservatives have never won any permanent battles. They want things to stay the same, and liberals want things to change. conservatives think things are perfect the way they are, liberals want to try to make things better for more people. And in that argument, I'll always side with the liberals regardless of whether I agree with every particular issue. Do the libs have dumb ideas? Yeah, plenty of them. But in the end liberalism is always on the correct side of the important issues.

(I send him a link about how a radio station is losing ads because of Savage)

And that ridiculous anti-Obama group you belong to. You realize, of course, that Obama had no relationship with either Tony Rezko or Louis Farrakhan? The only connection to Rezko is that they're both from Chicago. The connection to Farrakhan is also totally indirect: Obama's church's magazine praised Farrakhan. This is the same church, mind you, that's headed by Jeremiah Wright, the lunatic whom Obama has repeatedly denounced.

Mike: Media Matters is a fraud. They took 86 seconds of Michael Savage's 70 minute dialogue and discussion. I agree, on the surface, those comments are ridiculous. But, if you know what Michael Savage is about, listen to his show, and had heard his discussion on the over-medication of today's children. Media Matters has taken many things that Dr. Savage has said, taken them out of context, and sent the clips the focus groups around the country in efforts to get his show taken off the air. Now, if I remember correctly, the First Amendment of our Constitution allows all citizens of this great nation freedom of speech. What Media Matters is doing here is trying to strip these rights from conservative thinkers. Guess what--if these people don't like what he has to say, then why the hell are they spending time listening to him!? Liberals have no problem saying whatever they want, but the minute someone with a varying opinion challenges them, they try to have him thrown off the air!

And why is Nancy Pelosi (Mussolini in a skirt) trying to push the Fairness Doctrine so hard? Is she offended by the verbal attacks from conservative talk show hosts? Guess what, the libs had their shot at radio programming. Remember Air America? I seem to remember that their ratings were so low that they were forced to vacate to satellite radio and YouTube. My point is that the libs have had their chance to argue back, no one cared and/or knew they were full of poop. So the Dems want there to be fairness on the airwaves; I guess that means they'll need to get conservative radio sacked before that will happen.

"but in the end liberalism is always on the correct side of the important issues"...like what? Gimme an example so I can dismantle your arguments one by one. I tend to rant, so it'll be easier to address things individually. So how long until I start getting hate mail from your friends lol?

And also, give me five good reasons why Obama is more qualified for the Presidency than John McCain. Mind you, I don't like John McCain either. We have two Socialists running against one another: McCain is a socialist for the extreme rich (like Bush) and Obama is a Socialist for the extreme poor. When will we not have a nation that is made up of wimps and beaten men? The over-feminization of our culture (or lack of a culture) has turn our nation into oversensitive nincompoops who care more about taking care of everyone else than its own citizens! Not to mention that all this money we spend abroad "helping" everyone else is making our dollar weaker and weaker...and its not even helping Americans. When we elect officials, we elect them to do what's in OUR best interest--not the rest of the world's.His relationships with the aforementioned men (Rezko, Farrakhan) aren't what concern me. I'm more worried about his relationship with AIPAC. I don't understand why everyone hails Obama as the messiah who will lead us out of war. After all, he continues to support war funding (that's just based on his voting record in the Senate). He's said himself "No president should ever hesitate to use force—unilaterally if necessary—to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened."


Me: Mike, the point I'm trying to make is that 'conservative' talk radio hosts aren't actually talking about conservative issues. They're just blowhards doing anything that will get them ratings. The reason people don't listen to 'liberal' people is that liberals in general stick to the facts. I don't know anything about media matters, but the point they're trying to make isn't that savage doesn't have the right to broadcast what he wants - they're saying that it's irresponsible for people who knowingly disseminate falsehoods to be given access to millions of unknowing listeners. Free speech isn't a get out of jail free card. You can't spread hate, and you shouldn't be able to spread harmful lies, either. But free speech is, again, an entirely different matter

And let's see, conservative issues that have lost...where shall I begin? We'll start at the American Revolution: the term loyalist was used synonymously with conservative. The Civil War: Lincoln was liberal, slaveholders from the south were conservative. The depression: FDR was the greatest champion of liberal values of the 20th century. Civil Rights: conservatives blocked every single civil rights bill from 1873 until Lyndon Johnson passed the first civil rights act in 1957. Those are the highlights that I can think of. Every single time, the liberals have been right and the conservatives have been wrong. And of course I'm not talking about just democrats vs. republicans - those labels change.

And five reasons for Obama:
1) He was against the Iraq war in the first place, and his current position is the SAME as the Iraqi prime minister's
2) He's against nearly every single position taken by the bush administration, whereas McCain is in line with a lot of them (including the tax cuts and Iraq)
3) He actually inspires me-he's not an old fogey like McCain
4) That being said, I also think he's a capable politician, which is exactly what we need (in my opinion): someone who believes in the same things that I do and is willing to go out and fight for them
5) his commitment to the environment, i.e. renewable resources, lowering greenhouse emissions, etc. I recognize McCain agrees with Obama on this point, and that's one of the FEW things that I dig about Johnny


Mike: You sent me a link praising two radio stations removing Savage, mentioning that his hateful rhetoric is orally offensive and how Media Matters came to the rescue, alarming parents of children with autism about this comments (out of context I might add). If his words are indeed hateful, and he should be thrown off the air, who do you want to have do it? The government?
And about his "lies," I think it is a pretty ignorant thing to believe that all conservative talk radio hosts are "blowhards" who spew lies. If you're such a liberal, you're supposed to be open-minded to new ideas & thought (progressive). You're the ignorant close-minded one! Isn't it a bit premature to judge someone who has millions of listeners & has thousands of hours of monologue? Get back to me when you've heard more of Savage than what Media Matters blows the whistle on.

-"the term loyalist was used synonymously with conservative."I seem to remember Edmund Burke being pro-revolution.-"the civil war: Lincoln was liberal, slaveholders from the south were conservative"I just think the war was unconstitutional. And if you think the bleeding heart liberals came down to fight that war just to free the slaves, you're outta your mind.I can't take this anymore. FDR was the only good guy you mentioned, even though the Fed could have ending the Depression literally overnight by lowering interest rates, thus pumping money into the economy, rendering FDR's liberal programs irrelevant. Do you really think the President has that much power? Money talks buddy.

Me: Mike, the fact simply is that the famous 'conservative' personalities are all blowhards! Limbaugh, Coulter, Rove, Cheney - all they do is lie to further their own twisted agendas. And no, the gov't shouldn't be the ones to throw him off the air - his bosses should be! I'm not saying that what he's doing is ILLEGAL, only unethical. And since he has a boss, let his boss fire him. There's more to life than the bottom line.

And I think you're stretching the truth a little bit when you dismiss the civil war and the revolution as triumphs of liberalism. No, Lincoln didn't invade the south because he wanted to free the slaves. He invaded because the south seceded because they were afraid that the north wanted to take away the slaves! The whole freaking thing was about slaves! Not everyone was altruistic about it, but there would NOT have been a civil war if neither the north nor the south had slaves or if they both had them. Slaves were the catalyst, and freeing them was the only way to make the union whole again.

Mike: We agree with something. Those people (Limbaugh, Coulter, etc…) are frauds and i don't agree with much (if anything) they say. but, i choose not to listen to them. The same choice anyone else has that chooses to listen to them. don't like it? THEN TURN IT OFF!

"Whereas McCain is in line with a lot of them (including the tax cuts and Iraq)"You think I'm voting for McCain don't you?

Me: no, you said you weren't voting for McCain. I don't know what type of person you WOULD vote for, though. Politicians will always be politicians, and none of them will ever be perfect.

Mike: I'm probably going to vote for Ron Paul. You may ask why, since he's no longer really in the running. I'll vote for him simply because it isn't like my one vote for either Obama or McCain will sway the election in either candidate's favor. Therefore, I should take advantage of my constitutional right to vote and vote for the person who best represents my views. That’s a major problem that I have: we've been so brainwashed by the media and their representation of the election and bipartisanship. If everyone thought like I did, heck, we'd probably have somewhat more than a two-party system.In terms of tax cuts, well, I personally don't think we can afford Obama. Our country is heading into a complete economic crisis, simply because we're a nation of borrowers who produces very little in the global economy (jobs and production being shipped overseas). What happens when Obama raises taxes? How are people going to afford that?

(Mike sends link in support of Savage)

Me: I don't begrudge you voting for Paul. I think he's got some pretty cool ideas, and is a traditional "conservative" type - not insane, just with a different worldview than me. That's fine. As far as Savage is concerned, I'll leave it at this: His fundamental point is probably not too far off. Doctors these days are definitely really quick to prescribe medication and diagnose illnesses. That being said, Savage's problem was that, like ALL media types (liberal and conservative alike), you have to frame your story in a way that draws listeners/viewers/audiences. And Savage framed it terribly. He was trying to make a good point but in trying to draw listeners he totally obliterated his own point and ended up saying something totally retarded. Which he is :)

(I send link saying that a man who murdered two people at a Tennessee Church loved and read a lot of Michael Savage)

Mike: Yeah dude, I heard about that. It'll be interesting to hear what Savage says about that today. But don't let this liberal propaganda scare you. I think it is funny that now, four months before this critical election, all these media outlets are attacking conservatives. They can say whatever they want. If you don't like it, then don't read or listen to it! It's that simple. We should also remember that Timothy McVeigh was extremely liberal (he was a communist if I remember correctly). Look what he did. My point is that there are bad people everywhere, weak minded people who can take anything out of context for bad or for good. Again, I used to think Savage was a nut (Ann Coulter is a nut, but Hannity and the Leprechaun are actually neo-cons who side with the Bush cronies more than you think, and Bush isn't exactly conservative. He's pretty freakin liberal if you ask me, and bad at it). Listen to his show 710AM in NYC 6-9pm make up your own mind.

Me: Perhaps I would if I had a radio. But the thing that gets me about conservatism is that there's always a tendency to mold it into an ideology of hate, you know? Hate liberalism, hate gays, hate everything. And once you introduce hate into the political process, then shit goes south pretty quickly and nothing ever gets done. I don't hate conservatives, but I do hate the haters. Ron Paul isn't a hater, nor are McCain and Obama, so I don't hate them. But Cheney's a hater, rove is a hater, and Bush is just an idiot. I just completely disagree with the republican agenda.

I think, actually, that it would be helpful if we came up with a definition of liberals vs. conservatives that we both agreed with.

Mike: "I just completely disagree with the republican agenda." As do I. What we have in the GOP party are a bunch of phonies. They're liberal on a lot of issues. Look at McCain. Instead of trying to get the middle-America conservative vote, he's completely ignoring them and going after focus groups. La RaZa is a hispanic lobbyist group that McCain has been pandering to. They're not going to vote for him anyway, but because we live in the "politically correct" times, and because he's facing a candidate whose camp won't hesitate to pull out the race card (and a mainstream media who won't give him the coverage he deserves because they're too busy praising the messiah, b. hussein obama, and everything he does. So naturally, McCain has been trying to appeal to these focus groups probably to get more media coverage and show the left that he's compassionate and sensitive too. Oh, btw, "La Raza" means "The Race." A little supremacist in my opinion. Again, enough with the sensitivity.

"I think, actually, that it would be helpful if we came up with a definition of liberals vs. conservatives that we both agreed with."Ok, be my guest. I meant to ask you if you know what fascism really is (by definition).

Me: "what fascism is". The way I see it, fascism is the logical end of the conservative idea of ultra-individuality. Countries/states coalesce behind a dictator and become ridiculously nationalist and/or racist. They believe that all states are in natural competition, that the strongest will survive, and that the competition makes the state stronger. As a result, fascism is very militaristic.

And I guess communism is just the opposite. The logical end of the liberal idea that we should always do what's best for the community.

Mike: "and I guess communism is just the opposite. The logical end of the liberal idea that we should always do what's best for the community."Wouldn't this result in extreme totalitarian military like fascism?

Me: Ideally, no. Realistically, yes. Either way you end up with a dictator. Either a dictator on behalf of the individual or a dictator on behalf of the masses. Neither extreme is desirable, but in my opinion left of center is where society needs to be.

Liberal: Belief in individual freedom. Government’s purpose is to ensure that other individuals and/or businesses do not infringe on those freedoms. Belief in community: a healthy community is beneficial to everyone, and the government should do all it can (including the creation of programs and/or regulations) to ensure that the greatest number of people can have the greatest amount of opportunity. Distrust of business.

Conservative: Belief in individual freedom. Government’s purpose is to ensure that individuals have the greatest amount of autonomy possible. Belief that if each individual does what’s best for himself, then society as a whole will benefit. Distrust of government spending and other attempts to change the status quo. Trust that markets can regulate business.