I like how Card wrote a scathing response to War Chief and then went: TOPIC CLOSED!
Anyway, his newest WorldWatch is great. But it really creates a sense of hopelessness. I hate to sound so cynical, but this country is doomed. In fact, this belief is one of the main reasons my minor is Spanish, because I'm gonna end up moving to Peru.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Eh...
I disagree, and I will respond later, but I am too tired. I apologize for a delayed response.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:I like how Card wrote a scathing response to War Chief and then went: TOPIC CLOSED!
Would you like to sit around in your own house and be insulted by baseless lies? Or would you ask the person to stop?
That thread started out violent and could only get worse. I know this is not the first time OSC has needed to defend himself against vicious lies, and think his closing of the thread was the best move available to him, short of deleting the thread.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I like how Card wrote a scathing response to War Chief and then went: TOPIC CLOSED!
And I love how respectful you are of our host.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Did I come across as sarcastic? I mean, I really liked how OSC threw it down like that. That guy got what he deserved. I hope his ability to enjoy anyhing Card writes is forever lost.
And I am anxiously waiting for your response, Runnigbear. By the time this conversation is over, you will be living in Peru with me.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I'm torn. Card certainly is convincing. He makes it sound obvious that Bush is right, and we have to finish in Iraq before leaving.
So why doesn't Bush explain it like Card does in the article?
Instead, Bush uses simple rhetoric and "Stay the course" jingoism. People see right through it and we feel like we're being lied to. He may be right, but he's certainly not winning people to his side of thinking. I know that more Democrats would think twice about touting withdrawl from Iraq if they understood why we can't. So why doesn't the Bush administration do that?
It's not gonna be an easy decision on Tuesday. And living in VA, I know my vote WILL count, with the polls between Allen/Webb at about 50/50.
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
Im enjoying watch the N Korea situation play out through diplomacy after they ACTUALLY tested WMD's and five years ago under the assumptions of WMD's he unleashed the dogs of war.
Posted by Morydd (Member # 5004) on :
OSC wrote a very nice essay about that issue quite a while back as well. Basically, it pointed out that there was no one else willing to take responsibility for removing Hussein and preventing him from using WMD, whereas with N Korea, China has the ability, motivation and willpower to keep them in check. I'm sure you can find the archives and read OSC's article.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
(i like how i am the war chief apologized...)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I disagree that this it the "only" issue this election. While it is an issue of great importance, ignoring the mainland to focus on problems abroad is irresponsible. We have huge, major problems at home, and they are being ignored for the almighty "War on terror."
And I disagree that the war on terror is the best thing for us. I don't think that disengagement is the best course of action, but solo engagement that is only provacative and incendiery is the worst possible strategy. If we're only going to make things worse, we might as well stay home.
Everyone always talks about how Iran is full of Pro-American youth waiting for the chance to rise up and support us, and maybe that's true. I've read recent polling data from Iran that says the youth there are by and large just as religious and strict as their parents. But to be honest I don't trust either position. How the hell are you going to trust polling data of all things in a country like Iran? I'd be afraid to tell the truth either way, for fear of reprisal.
We can't blow through the Middle East and topple their governments, then rush back out. And quite frankly, we can't rush in, topple their governments, and stay forever either. We don't have the will, we don't have the money, and we don't have the time.
If we're going to do this, fine, but we need the support of Europe or it'll never work, not without a draft, and once you start floating that word around seriously, you're in trouble.
If we leave Iraq today, they collapse. If we leave before another ten years have gone by, they collapse. And God knows what will come from that. Civil War, infighting, maybe genocide. The entire region will be in turmoil. But what is the alternative? We can't afford, and I mean monetarily, to stay there for another 10 years, especially if we end up needing MORE troops, and not less, for the effort. And especially not if the idiot Republicans keep cutting taxes.
We aren't going to win this one alone, with guns. Until we either get Arab nations on our side, or Europe, or both, sticking around and shooting people is only going to make the situation worse.
I don't much like what I've heard from Democrats either. Because I do think we should get out of there, even if it means a civil war in Iraq, we should pull back to Kuwait, and the Kurdish north, and protect the stable areas that only take a minimum of troops. I don't know what Democrats will do, maybe they'll get us out of their entirely, maybe they'll disengage and things might get worse that way.
But I know one thing, if we keep this up, things will get MUCH worse. I believe pretty much the exact opposite of OSC, the Republicans are driving us into an even more terrible world order than there already is. Airstrikes and boots on the ground aren't going to solve this. And the more we try to solve it that way, the worse it gets. Democrats might not be the best answer, but they're the answer to the present problem. They have two years until the next election to prove that they have answers to our ills, and if they fail, we go in another direction.
But not giving them the chance will be disastrous.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
So why doesn't Bush explain it like Card does in the article?
I was thinking the EXACT same thing earlier.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Also at issue, for me, is the frightening tactics of the current administration with regard to our civil freedoms here in America. More specifically, I think a very quiet war has been waged against free speech in this country. The efforts (starting with right-wing leadership and disseminating down to the man on the street) by the right to silence, discredit, and smear people with opposing views since George W. Bush took office have been disturbing in the extreme.
I'm not going to go so far as to say the President is personally responsible for what is happening -- because I just don't know that. I don't think I would want to believe that. But definitely there has been an organized effort to control information and restrict free speech in this country.
And it disturbs me almost as much as the terrorist threat.
In what way? I'd like to hear a single example concerning how ANYONE who wished to criticize the President and this administration to the point of treason and beyond has been restricted in any way. I know that CNN has felt it was their "journalistic obligation" to show American troops getting killed by snipers in Iraq. I know that the New York Tines felt it was necessary to publish details of the tactics used to fight terrorism. I know that the media has beatified Cindy Sheehan despite the fact that she is a HUGE fan of Hugo Chavez, a president whose stated desire is the downfall of America. I know that all I hear constantly is the call to surrender, and the undermining critism of our standing president, and the encouragement of the enemies who are killing our troops. But YOU are worried about our "civil liberties" more than further attacks on our soil.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I have proof that free speech is being restricted!
I am in High School.
Bleh.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, yeah, if you want to criticize feminists, abortionists, environmentalists and Darwinists, then sure, your speech is restricted. But if you want to slander the religious, conservatives, creationists, or you want to produce pornography and corrupt our society with gangster rap, Satanic Black metal, and video games where the goal is to kill innocent people and cops, then, well, that's what the founding fathers had in mind when the wrote the contitution and bill of rights.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: I have proof that free speech is being restricted!
I am in High School.
Bleh.
Well, your speech should be limited. High school students (and college students, for the most part) just get diarrhea of the mouth when the start talking politics. Young people have such poorly formed opinions, but they are so loud with them.
(I'm a 25 year old college student who spent some years in the Army, including a tour in Iraq. I have some definite experience with enduring a bunch of punk-ass 18 year olds who think they have the world figured out.)
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
P.S., I don't really think your speech should be limited. But --and this may not apply to you-- I hate when people spout off their stupid opinions as fact and then label solid criticism of what they had to say as "infringment upon their rights." I think that is what TL was think about when he was talking about his eroding civil liberties. Something like when Cindy Sheenhan spouts her garbage, and when Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter deftly destroyes her position with strong argumentation, the reaction is "you can't say that! She lost a son!"
It's the equivilent of a murderer pleading not guilty, and the jury finding him guilty, and the murderer says, "You can't say I'm guilty! That's infringing on my freedom of speech." The only difference is that it actually works for Cindy Sheehan (and Muslims, and abortionists, and Darwinists, and athiests, and on an on...)
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
See, what that is this: you think that when someone can completely deconstruct your argument, it means he's closed-minded. Sorry, but you got it backwards buddy. I'll engage you 100 percent. But don't think I'm gonna change my mind without some solid reasoning. If you can provide that, you might be surprised at how open-minded I am. But the main flaw I've noticed with persons on the other side (of which I was once a member, until my open mind allowed me to be convinced)is that they are unfortunately basing their arguments on a foundation of sand.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
And as for me not being able to have a serious conversation about the topic, I think I've demonstrated my ability sufficiently.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Based on your comments in this thread, I don't for one second believe that you are logically capable of deconstructing *any* argument.
Ok, that implies that you ARE capable of deconstructing my argument. Well, go for it.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
By the way, I'm actually a nice guy. I don't really like insults, so lets try to stay away from that. I will not attack you (by saying things like "I don't think you are capable" or anything like that). I will adress your words only.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: What argument have you made?
Here you go:
"In what way? I'd like to hear a single example concerning how ANYONE who wished to criticize the President and this administration to the point of treason and beyond has been restricted in any way. I know that CNN has felt it was their "journalistic obligation" to show American troops getting killed by snipers in Iraq. I know that the New York Tines felt it was necessary to publish details of the tactics used to fight terrorism. I know that the media has beatified Cindy Sheehan despite the fact that she is a HUGE fan of Hugo Chavez, a president whose stated desire is the downfall of America. I know that all I hear constantly is the call to surrender, and the undermining critism of our standing president, and the encouragement of the enemies who are killing our troops. But YOU are worried about our "civil liberties" more than further attacks on our soil."
You are already losing this contest.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
unfortunately, I can't hang around right now. I'll be back in a few hours though, so I'll address whatever is brought up then. I know you all are waiting anxiously!!!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by cmc: (i like how i am the war chief apologized...)
Me too.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
So why doesn't Bush explain it like Card does in the article?
I was thinking the EXACT same thing earlier.
Frankly, because it doesn't fit into the 10 second soundbyte that is the current standard for political discourse in this country.
I don't know how right OSC is, quite a bit of it sounds plausible. I have trouble believing that there is no plan for Iraq, which is one the more frequently leveled criticisms of the war on terror. The presidency is not one man. Bush has some very smart people working for him whose entire jobs and careers are dedicated to looking at this problem from a myraid of aspects. The frequently given impression of Bush as some dummy who just sits in the White House practicing saying, "Stay the course" in the mirror is way offbase IMO.
So in more direct response to the question, I have trouble imagining any politician explaining to the American public the nuances of what we are trying to accomplish over there. I consider it a military operation and announcing that plan to the world (which does include the enemy) seems foolhardy. On the other hand, I think the public has a right to hear, in broad terms, what the objectives are from the horses mouth.
One other point is that I think OSC mentioned before engaging Iraq that it was the wrong choice for a target. He would have chosen Syria I believe. However, this article does support a certain consistancy in his view of U.S. policy in the War on Terror spanning a couple years.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
The FCC fined, without restraining (which would be illegal) Howard Stern for indecency, not for political speech. This has been happening since the FCC was founded, and isn't a Bush policy. Clear Channel, a private company, then decided to remove him from their stations.
Disney, a private company, decided not to distribute a movie. Fahrenheit 9/11 eventually found another distributor, and was screened throughout the nation.
A serious allegation, but it hasn't been proven. It's also technically an allegation of the administration lying, not an allegation of censorship.
Censorship is when the state, with police power, restrains someone from speaking. It isn't censorship when a corporation decides not to broadcast someone's work. Hint: The difference involves guns.
The complaints about restriction of academic freedom are of a different type, arguing that various organizations (primarily news media and universities) have a special moral duty to not restrict speech that originates out of their mission to educate. It's not illegal for, say, a private university to refuse to hire right-wing professors. It's just immoral.
There are plenty of bad things to accuse the Bush administration of, but censorship isn't one of them.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle
quote:
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: I have proof that free speech is being restricted!
I am in High School.
Bleh.
Well, your speech should be limited. High school students (and college students, for the most part) just get diarrhea of the mouth when the start talking politics. Young people have such poorly formed opinions, but they are so loud with them.
(I'm a 25 year old college student who spent some years in the Army, including a tour in Iraq. I have some definite experience with enduring a bunch of punk-ass 18 year olds who think they have the world figured out.)
Well, aren't you the fascist to be...
And no, I will not rescind that statement, for that is precisely how one moves into that frame of mind. Removing a group's right to speak because you disagree with them.
Before you remove their right to speak I recommend that you consider all that you are saying. What you just wrote is what I would consider "diarrhea of the mouth", but I will not stop you from saying it. In fact, I would defend that right with my life, and I may very well, I ship out next summer. Yet, you would remove another's right to speak under the same circumstance.
Am I a "stupid" teenager? I am 18...
I received a 99 on the ASVAB, how about you? My lowest line score was 142... how about you?
I got a 1970 on the SAT when I was so sick I could not stand...
If you consider intelligence criteria for speech, who ought to be speaking?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
On the subject of the media...
Card keeps saying it's the best run war ever. Lowest number of civilian casualties, lowest number of American casualties (when compared with anything else on this scale).
Why is the general sentiment of the media (even coming from conservatives)...that this has been a "poorly run" war, if it's pretty clear that it hasn't been, and is actually the best, as Card states?
Is 1600 no longer the highest score on the SAT? What's going on with the world?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Is 1600 no longer the highest score on the SAT? What's going on with the world?
The SAT now has three sections instead of two (essentially by incorporating a modified version of the old TSWE and scoring it like the old sections), for a total of 2400 points.
2400 is the new high score. I never took the SAT's because I dropped out of high school when I was 15. But since you asked, Running bear. I also got a 99 on the asvab, I don't remember what my line scores were, though I think my highest was about 139. (This was after five years absence from any form of schooling, mind you.) At any rate, tests don't test intelligence, they test your ability to test. I believe that because I often do better on tests than people who I know are smarter than me. Anyway, you shouldn't have gotten in such a huff about that post; if you read my very next post you would have seen that I really didn't mean it. I know some very smart high schoolers who would probably put our country in a better place than most of our current leaders if they were running the show. Unfortunately, the political process seems to weed out our best and brightest. So lets be friends again, RunningBear.
I wish I had the energy to devote myself to pointless debates, but I don't. I'll just comment briefly on what you have to say TL, by saying that liberalism has this sort of self-perpetuating nature. I know this will sound elitist, but it really sometimes takes something like fighting a war, a complete removal from the vicious cycle that most of us get here in this media saturated society to get a clear look at things. You are obviously very smart. Probably smarter than me. But like I said about a foundation of sand; that is what your arguments have. It is alomst certainly all you've ever been taught. I really don't think I have the skill or ability to explain it to you. Maybe if you read some of the right books, starting with C.S. Lewis' apologies for some basis in critical introsection and then Slouching Torwards Gommorah by Robert Bork for a precise, albeit somewhat cynical, description of the hows and whys of the current state of things.
Also helpful would be Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe and Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson. I believe that excising the mythology of evolution from ones mind is one of the more crucial steps torward understanding.
Now of course I don't expect you to do any of that, but because I am nearly certain that, aside from perhaps the Lewis, you have never read any of those books (by virtue of the opinions you hold), it may help you to realize that it is the mile-wide gulf between our different perspectives that prevent us from ever convincing each other. I apologize for not adressing you point by point, as you did for me (and good job, too). Suffice it to say that I know that no matter how well I present my arguments, your rhetoric would provide for you an equally strong response. For that is what this is, an exercise in Rhetoric. Modern day sophists, we are, and meanwhile, our country is being lost.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
TL, you need to be a bit more careful about taking a patronizing, superior tone - it is good to speak as if you might actually be wrong.
The Left started warning about what MIGHT happen under the Patriot Act right from the start. Then they started talking as if the bad things HAD happened. They skipped the step where you actually find evidence that the Patriot Act has been misused.
It is a perfect example of groupthink. What might be suddenly is and since "everyone knows it" then no proof is needed. Thus Bush stands condemned by people who believe in the groupthink ("why do all the media ..." etc.) without his actually having to DO anything besides the actions envisioned by the Patriot Act or established by ample precedents from previous presidents of both parties.
Your examples all came from sources that are part of the pack
Launchy, the media pundits are human. They live surrounded by the constant clamor that the war is badly run. They are not alert to history, unless you count being able to remember as far back as 1998, which few of them can do. They aren't even TRYING to compare this war with previous ones.
But I love the fact that you consider it a serious argument that because everybody else agrees on a stupid idea, it must be smart after all <grin>.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
AAARGH OK I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna respond to you point by point. I guess I owe it to you, you did the same for me. I might skip a few, so I apologize in advance. Here goes:
quote:Originally posted by TL:
Okay, I’m going to respond to all of this for one reason, and one reason only. I’m going to do exactly what I don’t want to waste my time doing, and try to talk to you. Even though I know it will be futile, and frustrating, and go nowhere.
Why would you assume that?
quote:Because I know if I don’t (and oh man, I really, really don’t want to waste my time) you will interpret my silence as some kind of insane victory.
Why would I do that?
quote:(When the reality is, I just don’t want to do it because this is just going to be so tiresome.) (But I’ll do it.) And I know I won’t be surprised by how open your mind is based on the shockingly one-sided and tired and (mostly) wrong points you’ve made in this thread so far.
Mr. Card pointed out what is wrong with this.
quote: But hey -- everybody’s wrong sometimes. Maybe I’m wrong right now. And if so, I'll apologize. If it seems that I'm being rude to you, please understand that I'm reacting to the rude and flippant tone of your posts.
I don't think I was being rude (okay, maybe I was, but it WAS kind of tongue in cheek. Hard to express that over the internet. Look at the responses to my very first post!)
quote: Of course I might be misinterpreting some things. If so, please clarify.
Down the rabbit hole we go!
quote:In what way? I'd like to hear a single example concerning how ANYONE who wished to criticize the President and this administration to the point of treason and beyond has been restricted in any way.
and on and on... I got some much appreciated help on this one already.
quote:
quote:I know that CNN has felt it was their "journalistic obligation" to show American troops getting killed by snipers in Iraq. I know that the New York Tines felt it was necessary to publish details of the tactics used to fight terrorism. I know that the media has beatified Cindy Sheehan despite the fact that she is a HUGE fan of Hugo Chavez, a president whose stated desire is the downfall of America.
Oh, I think I see the connection you’re trying to make. Are you trying to give examples to disprove the idea that there has been censorship in this country?
No I'm not. I'm trying to do THIS:
quote:
quote:I know that all I hear constantly is the call to surrender, and the undermining critism of our standing president, and the encouragement of the enemies who are killing our troops. But YOU are worried about our "civil liberties" more than further attacks on our soil.
No. I didn’t say more. I said almost as much. Which -- and I assumed you (and anybody reading, really) would understand this -- means that I’m more worried about further attacks on our soil than I am about our civil liberties.
I am trying to show that if there is any form of censorship, it is moving in the opposite direction
quote:
quote:”civil liberties”
Why put civil liberties in quotation marks? It seems to indicate a contemptuous attitude towards the concept of our civil liberties. Am I misreading you there? Or are you indicating a contemptuous attitude toward my view of the importance of civil liberties? I think they’re important. And that is worthy of your scorn? Help me out here.
I put it in quotations becasue I was expressing my disdain for what is considered "civil liberties" by our one-party media, such as "the government is listening in on terrorists phone calls. What if they're listening to mine?" And "the government is holding enemy combatants without trial! What if they hold ME without trial?" Give me a break. Go to Afghanastan, get captured by soldiers on a battleground, and then get a civil trial? As eagle eyed as the media is about all these infringments on our "civil liberties," do you think anyone is going to get arrested and held without trial or have their phones tapped for no reason and then the government acts on it?
quote:
quote: Well, yeah, if you want to criticize feminists, abortionists, environmentalists and Darwinists, then sure, your speech is restricted.
How so? Restricted by whom?
By teachers, administrators, peers, the ACLU, judges...
quote:
quote:But if you want to slander the religious, conservatives, creationists, or you want to produce pornography and corrupt our society with gangster rap, Satanic Black metal, and video games where the goal is to kill innocent people and cops, then, well, that's what the founding fathers had in mind when the wrote the contitution and bill of rights.
Define slander, in this context, please. Could you give some examples of such slander being protected as free speech? As far as I know, slander is always illegal.
Well, so is treason, but that hasn't been prosecuted since the fifties. I don't need to define slander for you, there are plenty of online dictionaries available. I meant slander in the way it is defined.
quote:
quote: Well, your speech should be limited. High school students (and college students, for the most part) just get diarrhea of the mouth when the start talking politics. Young people have such poorly formed opinions, but they are so loud with them.
(I'm a 25 year old college student who spent some years in the Army, including a tour in Iraq. I have some definite experience with enduring a bunch of punk-ass 18 year olds who think they have the world figured out.)
This is just an outrageously ill-considered statement.
Yeah, I know. It was supposed to be. If you give it equal weight with my other arguments, then were going to have lots of problems. It seems that neither you nor Running Bear read my next post. Thats a common mistake, people don't like to take in something that ruins an easy target, I guess.
quote:
quote:P.S., I don't really think your speech should be limited. But --and this may not apply to you-- I hate when people spout off their stupid opinions as fact and then label solid criticism of what they had to say as "infringment upon their rights." I think that is what TL was think about when he was talking about his eroding civil liberties.
Certainly it is not what I was thinking about.
So what were you thinking about? The "civil liberties" I mentioned earlier?
quote:
quote:Something like when Cindy Sheenhan spouts her garbage, and when Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter deftly destroyes her position with strong argumentation, the reaction is "you can't say that! She lost a son!"
I don’t think you understand the real reaction. Because the real reaction (at least, MY real reaction) is not “you can’t say that because she lost a son!” The real reaction is “Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter are political propagandists for the far-right, and their arguments are very thin, and very easy for non-biased people to see through. And their arguments are based on nothing more than “our team is always right, and their team is always wrong”. You don’t have to agree with Cindy Sheehan (I don’t) to be disgusted by the antics of the likes of those two clowns.
I don't know who tells you what your opinions should be, but if you watch Bill O'reilly yourself and read Ann Coulter yourself and form your own opinions, you may realize that they are very smart people whose opinions deserve to be respectfully analyzed. Dismissing their arguments and calling them clowns reveals how one-sidedly (sidedly?) and shallowly you have examined the issues.
quote:
quote:It's the equivilent of a murderer pleading not guilty, and the jury finding him guilty, and the murderer says, "You can't say I'm guilty! That's infringing on my freedom of speech." The only difference is that it actually works for Cindy Sheehan (and Muslims, and abortionists, and Darwinists, and athiests, and on an on...)
Re-darn-diculous. Just a terrible analogy on every level.
How? whats wrong with it? It may be simplistic, and admittidly, analogies are not my strong point, but I still think it works. What's wrong with it? I know there are some flaws, but there some strong correlations. I just came up with it on the spot, by the way, so don't be TOO hard on me.
quote: ...That doesn’t happen very often though -- because usually, disagreements between two people don’t end with one person completely deconstructing the other person’s argument. They usually end with two people looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions. It’s hard to “deconstruct” a political opinion. I like to believe that good people can honestly disagree about things such as wars, and political policies, and social issues, without one of them being laid waste by the vast intellect of his opponent.
Exactly right. Like I said earlier, we're talking about rhetorical arguments here, for the most part. But there is a such thing as right and wrong, and that is what we are hopefully striving for.
[ November 02, 2006, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Now of course I don't expect you to do any of that, but because I am nearly certain that, aside from perhaps the Lewis, you have never read any of those books (by virtue of the opinions you hold), it may help you to realize that it is the mile-wide gulf between our different perspectives that prevent us from ever convincing each other. I apologize for not adressing you point by point, as you did for me (and good job, too). Suffice it to say that I know that no matter how well I present my arguments, your rhetoric would provide for you an equally strong response. For that is what this is, an exercise in Rhetoric. Modern day sophists, we are, and meanwhile, our country is being lost.
I don't think you have heard me. I think you heard what you wanted to hear.
quote:TL, you need to be a bit more careful about taking a patronizing, superior tone - it is good to speak as if you might actually be wrong.
I acknowledged all along that I might actually be wrong, and I was concerned about my tone, because I was writing from an angry place at being baited into a partisan argument, which is not what I'm interested in -- and did my best to apologize for my tone. But when someone fills your mouth with words you didn't say, and responds to arguments you never made, and claims some kind of intellectual victory over you without really having first heard your actual viewpoint, it's frustrating.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I hope that helps. I did hear what you had to say,I don't think I put any words in your mouth, and I never claimed any kind of victory. Who is putting words in whose mouth now?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
And how about this: I used to feel very strongly about a lot of things. For instance, when I was 15, I though Soundgarden was the greatest thing had ever existed in the history of existence. Then for a few years I felt that way about Rush. Now I think that honor goes to Yes. I don't expect my feelings on Yes are going to remain forever, and I don't think that my feelings on politics and ideolgy will either. I just hope that, like the progression from Nirvana to Soundgarden to Rush to Yes to probably Dream Theater, my opinions on what is best get better.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Oh, ok. By the way, saying you are losing is not claiming vistory. Besides, I really don't view this as a contest, even though thats what I called it.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
You seem eager to paint me as a rhetoric-filled ignorant liberal. I take it as personally insulting when you say stuff like "I don't know who tells you what to think, but...."
I'm not eager to do that at all. You keep doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. As for you not considering yourself a liberal, all I can say is that this is not the first time I've been in a nearly identical type of argument. You guys(sorry) all sound the same. You always make the same points.
By the way, I do this for practice, really. Practice for the real world when it actually makes a differnce sometimes. Don't take anything personally, I beg of you.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Of course I can. But your concern is misplaced. That stuff has been blown all out of proportion by the media, and everyone sucks it up. That's what I meant when I said that liberalism, or as O'reilly more accurately puts it, "secular progressivism" is self-perpetuating. Those who buy into it belive it, and part of believing it means you must expand it. But there is so much wrong with it, whereas "conservativism" is really a matter of trying to maintain something that is probably already gone.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Ok. Have a nice night.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Okay, ou know what, you're still not hearing me. I really tried, but I'm done with this. [/QB]
I think that the only way you would think that I was hearing you would be if I changed my mind and started agreeing with you, because you are so convinced that you are right that the only way I could possibly disagree with you would be if I wasn't listening to what you had to say. I encounter this mentality all the time (usually it's me).
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
And thats my advice to you. Look to yourself. We see the flaws in others so clearly while we are blind to the same in ourselves. Something about a log in the eye...
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
*poof*
[ November 04, 2006, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
What would happen? That you would lose? (sit down... it was a joke) And when did I bait you?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
But yeah, these things can go on forever and it seems like nothing gets done. But I always try to take something away from it. I look to where my opinions have been tempered by an opposing viewpoint, strengthening my convictions. And I try to recognize where my convictions may have been shaken, even a little. That is usually an indication that there is weakness there that needs to be examined.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
If you reply I will read it tomorrow. I have to sleep. Good night!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My only advice is to try and avoid making 12 posts when one or two will do.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I actually disagree with Mr. Card in that I think if Republicans hold congress, the chances of electing a Republican President in 2008 go down drastically. There is the risk that a Democratic majority in Congress would hamper the war, but we don't actually know what will happen.
And I have faith that the America Lincoln fought to save can survive "defeat" abroad. I don't think that's what the Democrats have in mind, but we'll just have to wait and see.
P.S. I'll just elaborate that Lincoln's America is the land of opportunity thing, not so much that people can come here and get wealthy, but that no one in theory bound to their circumstances. I think "big government" interferes with this. I know that's a whole other ball of wax about welfare and neo-conservatism and so forth.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
I'm going to dip my toe in this pool and say a few simple things and then get the heck out. LOL
1) If I'm picking sides in this enjoyable conversation, I'm with TL. 2) I said it in another post in another thread, but... It amazes me that people seem to forget that half this country isn't of the Republican "persuasion". 3) If I hear this argument that the media is left-ist anymore I'm going to puke. Most all talk radio is conservative. The only exeption to this in my area is Air America. TV is most certainly not conservative, ever watch FOX News? And the print media can't be considered either in my opinion. They were just as bad when Clinton was president. Its a push. 4) My problem with the war is how we got there. Admittedly, I'll say I don't know all the in's and out's, but as a common person here is how it appeared to me. I'm not kidding... 9/11 happens, terrible. We go to Afghanistan, ok makes sense. Iraq has nuclear weapons and are favor the terrorists. Ok, if you say so, show me. Bush shows us. We go to war. Oops, turns out I was wrong about that nuclear weapons thing. Sorry. And who remembers that Osama guy? And oh, don't concern yourself with that North Korea guy. We know he has nuclear weapons, but... 5) I share TL sentiments that if you don't favor the Republican view, somehow you are painted as unpatriotic. This irritates me so much I can't stand it. Since when did disagreeing with a president make you unpatriotic? And in case you've never experienced that, I hope you don't. To be told you are unpatriotic just because you think the President has done a terrible job in multiple areas is very very disheartening. 6) Finally, it is possible to be middle-of-the-road in some things. You don't have to be all Republican or all Democrat or even all Libertarian. Its easy to say you understand that, but its important to keep that in mind when you are debating someone with different views.
I'm done. Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
quote:Because my perception is (and mabe I haven't seen the whole picture yet) that there is a organized campaign by private companies friendly to the Bush administration to *silence* the other side of the argument.
It's a real stretch to call any of those companies "friendly to the Bush administration." Particularly Disney, seeing as how Eisner was solidly on the Democrat side of the aisle throughout his tenure.
That being said, the exact same thing goes on on the coasts if you attempt to say anything pro-Bush. Try living in New York City as a conservative for a week and see how many evil eyes you get.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
Basic summary of American politics in 2006:
All Americans agree that one party in power is malicious and one is incompetent. The country is bitterly divided over which is which.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd be very interested in a response from OSC (or anybody) on Lyrhawn's post last page before the bickerfest.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I have to bypass the additional conversations, but thank you for accepting my statement instead of attacking it, which I will admit, I expected. I agree with some of your responding points, and we probably could not convince eachother. However, you do seem to be a intelligent person, and I apologoze for what I said, it was indeed juvenile. I should not have let my anger get a hold of me.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, neither should I. I find it is very easy to keep calm and not get upset online, and I find that it is easier to make good logical arguments online as well. It's in real life where it can be so difficult to keep my emotions in check and make strong arguments. Thats why I practice.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
i tend to think that the signing statements that Mr. Bush has made about the laws he signs is more of a threat than his homeland security and all other forms of "cencorship" or dilluting of freedoms that people may tend to believe in.
I am not neccisarily frightened by them in terms that he actually follows though with the statements because in several cases he obeys the law but has the statement to basically say he does not agree with it and has reservations. If he does act on some of them the public will not know until hes left office, by the nature of those statements. We may also never completely know. What worries me is that this would set a precedence and many more presidents will not only issue the statements but act on them, if not act on the ones that Bush has implemented since they seemingly do not dissapear after his term is up..
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Reshpeckobiggle, I don't know if you have or not, but you might want to check out the other page (Books, Film, Food and Culture). You don't have to, but threads like this are usually a lot more common on that side.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I have. This thread began as a discussion about OSC's most recent Worldwatch article.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Well, I'm convinced. I wasn't before. It seems unlikely there'll be another SC appointment in the next 2 years (maybe in 6), and that's where most power resides now. I'd been convinced that for all the rhetoric, Democrats wouldn't really vote to invade Iraq, let a new government be set up, expose those who want to participate to public record, and then leave to let the new Iraqi democracy die, along with the families of those that risked trusting us. That's what pundits were saying: it's just not a possibility. But it has happened before.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
thats pretty much what clinton did with bosnia
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I would like to apologize to everyone who read this thread. Not my finest hour. I'm better than this. I'm sorry.
Moderators: Please forgive me for poofing my posts. I wrote some things that, upon reflection, I don't want my name on.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I'd be very interested in a response from OSC (or anybody) on Lyrhawn's post last page before the bickerfest.
Me too. Judging from the fact that OSC commented in this thread way after my post, and chose not to respond to it, I'm guessing we're not going to get anything from him on it.
And other than that, the thread seems to be pretty much dead. Won't matter much in 48 hours anyway will it .
Edited to remove an unintended offense.
[ November 06, 2006, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd be interested in how you think a response from OSC would differ from his article. You basically disagreed with him in a well-thought fashion. But you didn't present anything new from OSC's perspective. His whole article was about how he thinks the war on terror is good and explaining why. You think it's a disaster, and you posted why.
I'm glad you did. It was a good read. But, really, what's there to say about it from OSC's perspective? You two fundamentally disagree about several premises upon which you base your conclusions, and neither one is in a position to prove your premises.
Your premise is that we can't accomplish anything additional in Iraq. His is that we can. It seems both sides have presented their case and not uncovered any area where further discussion would be fruitful.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I said I'd be interested in one, not that I demand one, or think he should definitely give one, or that he owes one, or that he's ducking away from a challenge.
I just said I'd be interested, and so I am.
What's wrong with that?
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
TL I would’ve been interested in reading the argument in full, however, you seem to have really got Reshpeckobiggle going so I am guessing this was one fun forum Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I said I'd be interested in one, not that I demand one, or think he should definitely give one, or that he owes one, or that he's ducking away from a challenge.
And I said none of those things.
quote:I just said I'd be interested, and so I am.
What's wrong with that?
Why would you think I think there's something wrong with that? I certainly didn't say there's anything wrong with that.
I'd still be interested in how you think a response from OSC would differ from his article.
Posted by SANTA (Member # 580) on :
OSC was just mentioned nationally by Neal Boortz the day before the election on talk radio.
Poor Neal said that he did not know who Orson Scott Card was (I emailed him to set that straight) but read from OSC's column and said how RIGHT this man is! Boortz is NOT full of compliments so it's a big thing when he gives one.
Of course all Hatrackers know OSC is great, but .... Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I said I'd be interested in one, not that I demand one, or think he should definitely give one, or that he owes one, or that he's ducking away from a challenge.
And I said none of those things.
quote:I just said I'd be interested, and so I am.
What's wrong with that?
Why would you think I think there's something wrong with that? I certainly didn't say there's anything wrong with that.
I'd still be interested in how you think a response from OSC would differ from his article.
Apologies then, I took your post for critical sarcasm just for the sake of being critical and sarcastic, rather than a serious question. As we all know, one of the most basic problems with a forum is people can't really judge tone very well.
Anyway, I have to say I'm curious as to how he seems to place little emphasis on the relationship between domestic and international issues, namely, the economy. Republicans keep cutting taxes like it's a magic wand that cures all problems, but has no idea or plan to fix trillions of dollars in national debt. Some debt is good for the country, but massive debt that costs us billions of dollars a year in interest? That's not good, it has to be paid for eventually.
The budget is a big issue. The Republicans refuse to PAY for the war that OSC insists is the best thing for our country. So I wonder what his position on taxes is? If we stay there, like he wants, we'll be there for another decade, assuming the Iraqis EVER get their act together with us there propping them up. And not only does he think we should stay there, he wants us to tangle with OTHER governments as well!
I am curious, as to what he thinks is going to happen in the near term that hasn't happened in the last few years, and why he thinks it will happen? What does he envision a long term American presence there is really going to accomplish? I'm sorry, but we can't afford a trillion dollars to stay there for a half decade even, to say nothing of how we'd afford to beat up on Iran, and whoever else he wants to take a swing at next.
Unless he supports massive tax increases to pay for this war, and for what we've already spent, and for massive cuts across the board to eliminate the deficit and start cutting the debt down. It boggles the mind that Republicans talk about cutting the DEFICIT in half in four years. The deficit. Since when is it a victory to ONLY be borrowing 250 billion dollars a year? ANY deficit spending at this point is a failure, not a success.
Really, NO ONE knows what the Democrats are going to do. If OSC claims he does, which he seems to be doing, then I'm nearly tempted to call him dishonest. Republicans can't have it both ways. They say "Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq and the war on terror." Then they say "Democrats will pull us out of Iraq on November 8th."
It's ridiculous. The Democratic leadership, and the majority of the party ARE NOT calling for an immediate withdrawel. They are talking about benchmarks, which the President himself, OSC's terror fighting hero apparently, has recently endorsed, though he claims they were always our plan, and that Democrats are liars.
I don't see where he thinks this is going to get us, even after reading his essay. I don't see evidence of a positive outcome for America. Ignore the rhetoric that comes from both sides and read the news that is coming out of the region. There's talk of ethnic cleansing, death squads, executions, kidnappings, torture, to say nothing of mass desertions from the Iraqi Army and Police forces. Muqtada Al-Sadr hates us, he doesn't want us there, and he controls thousands upon thousands of mujahadeen soldiers, armed militiamen, who do his bidding at will, and who can get the Prime Minister to bow to his will, and force a change in US security policy.
So I have to wonder what he seriously thinks is going to happen. Does he honestly think that another half decade of the US killing Iraqis over there is going to convince them all to play nicely together? I know he isn't that ignorant of history. Even the occupiers of Middle Eastern peoples in the past who were GOOD at occupation couldn't get these people to play well together, and we friggin SUCK at it.
We aren't fixing their problems, we're creating brand new ones for them. It's time to triage. Save the areas that we can, pull out of the rest, let them do what they are going to do, regardless of whether we are there or not, and then we need to turn our attention to home, and fix our OWN problems, instead of trying to fix theirs for them.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote: Anyway, I have to say I'm curious as to how he seems to place little emphasis on the relationship between domestic and international issues, namely, the economy. Republicans keep cutting taxes like it's a magic wand that cures all problems, but has no idea or plan to fix trillions of dollars in national debt. Some debt is good for the country, but massive debt that costs us billions of dollars a year in interest? That's not good, it has to be paid for eventually.
Actually the debt isnt severe at all. When you look at the buying power that the economy rakes in a a year we are well over making twice as much as we spend. It is by no means a good thing to have an out of control debt. But at this point the debt is a few trillion away from that mark. However, if it does reach that mark, i should expect government to cut social programs to pay for it instead of taxes, since the common person thinks taxes are too high.
quote:The budget is a big issue. The Republicans refuse to PAY for the war that OSC insists is the best thing for our country. So I wonder what his position on taxes is? If we stay there, like he wants, we'll be there for another decade, assuming the Iraqis EVER get their act together with us there propping them up. And not only does he think we should stay there, he wants us to tangle with OTHER governments as well!
Well the war isnt really financially hurting us. And i think his point about engaging Iran is that if we back out of Iraq and Afghanastan we will have to deal with governments who will put up major problems down the line. At the moment however, we can neutralise these nations effectively and easily if we maintain our foothold.
quote:I am curious, as to what he thinks is going to happen in the near term that hasn't happened in the last few years, and why he thinks it will happen? What does he envision a long term American presence there is really going to accomplish? I'm sorry, but we can't afford a trillion dollars to stay there for a half decade even, to say nothing of how we'd afford to beat up on Iran, and whoever else he wants to take a swing at next.
Unless he supports massive tax increases to pay for this war, and for what we've already spent, and for massive cuts across the board to eliminate the deficit and start cutting the debt down. It boggles the mind that Republicans talk about cutting the DEFICIT in half in four years. The deficit. Since when is it a victory to ONLY be borrowing 250 billion dollars a year? ANY deficit spending at this point is a failure, not a success.
you act as if we are spiraling into a fiscal black hole with the national debt. The defence and army budget isnt big enough to be non-payable. And at the rate of our GDP expansion we will be fine financially spending over a trillion dollars in the next ten years.
I personally dont agree with deficite spending to the excess taht the government does. But at this point in time the national debt isnt really hurting the economy.
quote:Really, NO ONE knows what the Democrats are going to do. If OSC claims he does, which he seems to be doing, then I'm nearly tempted to call him dishonest. Republicans can't have it both ways. They say "Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq and the war on terror." Then they say "Democrats will pull us out of Iraq on November 8th."
It's ridiculous. The Democratic leadership, and the majority of the party ARE NOT calling for an immediate withdrawel. They are talking about benchmarks, which the President himself, OSC's terror fighting hero apparently, has recently endorsed, though he claims they were always our plan, and that Democrats are liars.
every democratic campaigne ive seen and heard so far is how the war is a mistake and how they will fight president bush to get us out of the war.
quote:I don't see where he thinks this is going to get us, even after reading his essay. I don't see evidence of a positive outcome for America. Ignore the rhetoric that comes from both sides and read the news that is coming out of the region. There's talk of ethnic cleansing, death squads, executions, kidnappings, torture, to say nothing of mass desertions from the Iraqi Army and Police forces. Muqtada Al-Sadr hates us, he doesn't want us there, and he controls thousands upon thousands of mujahadeen soldiers, armed militiamen, who do his bidding at will, and who can get the Prime Minister to bow to his will, and force a change in US security policy.
Having people like that seems more of a reason to stay in iraq. The news likes to report all the negative things in iraq, death sells. I know and have talked to many soldiers who are there/have come back. Theres a lot of iraqi's that do want us there. Theres no reason to abandon them just to be killed.
Posted by ercoll (Member # 9853) on :
I think OSC reasoning is flawed. He does not use facts in his arguments and is downright condesceding to people who disagree with our "Strategy in Iraq". Suffice it to say, there is too much fear mongering going around. If we let fear drive our policy, then the terrorism has worked. If people had a longer view on things, they would be worried about global warming or running out of oil, however, I digress.
OSC quote "And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power"
This quote recalls to mind Letterman's repartee to O'Reilly. "You are putting words in my mouth just like you are putting artificial facts in your head". Nowhere in the Democratic platform is their position to lose Iraq.
This is what the Democrats will do. They will question Bush and hold him accountable for the progress in Iraq. Someone has to look at the facts and reassess our strategy. Over the last 3 years it has not been the Republicans. McCain even gave Bush the ability to define torture. They give Bush everything he wants. They make him do nothing. I mean McCain backed down on torture, truly the Darth Vader mask has just gone down on his head.
Another OSC quote "But let's accept the fairy tale that this war has been badly run."
Look, lots of conservatives like Bill Kristol, Andrew Sullivan, and , oh yeah, 5 RETIRED SENIOR GENERALS have called for Rumsfield's resignation. However, they are probably playing with their flying ponies and chocolate bunnies in fairyland. Come on OSC, you lose credibility when you ignore the facts.
Here is my one pet peeve with those who think Bush is God for doing the "Stay the Course" thing because Iraq is so damn important. If it is so important, then double the size of the army. Secure areas and build them up instead of playing "Whack a Mole" like McCain has criticized.
Play to win and not to lose. Colin Powell told him he needed more troops. Another General told him this at the outset of the war. That General was fired. You think any other General is going to voice his opinion now?
Saying the Iraq strategy is flawed is not Monday night quarterbacking. This is Bush's willful refusal to listen to advice that goes counter to what he wants to hear. His Father did not go into Iraq. Going into Iraq and making a big mess is not a surprise. Anyone remember Powell's Pottery Barn remark? You break it, you bought it.
Iraq was not this bad 3 years ago. My view is that it was a fallacy to think you can have a Democracy with 3 groups of people who HATE each other violently. This war was winnable at the outset if we had settled for stability, but right now, I think what is required to win is more than Bush is willing to spend. He would have to admit that he was wrong and he had squandered 3 years and 2800 men because he did not have enough guts to put enough people to win the war at the beginning.
Bush is the one who lives in a fairy tale. His policy is based on wishful thinking. Phrases like "Mission Accomplished" or "The insurgency is in its last throes" show an incredible disconnect with reality.
I prefer to vote based on facts vs unsubstantiated fears of if we give up Iraq, then Taiwan will be lost to China.
My feeling is that Iraq, like Vietnam, will not be a domino effect, either way. Democracy would not spread to Iran if there was Democracy in Iraq.
My feeling is that Al Qaeda has wanted to attack the US, but has not been able to for the last 3 years. Leaving Iraq or staying in Iraq will have no impact on Al Qaeda's desire or ability to kill us. Right now Al Qaeda is probably swimming in as much money and recruits as they have ever had due to this Iraq war.
Getting out of Iraq will let us focus on important things like North Korea with Nukes or Iran with Nukes. (Can you blame them? Seriously, if you were Iraq or North Korea and you had people like OSC calling for the US to do a first strike on them to knock out their oil supply and plunge the world into recession, you would want nukes too).
To sum up, republicans have failed us. They only want to have power so that they have power. With 6 years of absolute power, the republicans have done nothing.
We will not win Iraq with a "Stay the Course" strategy. Things are getting worse. On the domestic side, Republicans spend money and drive the deficit up. They are too corporate friendly. Do nothing about important domestic matters like immigration or social security. They don't work with the democrats. They keep in power by making lies and creating strawmen to keep the populous fearful. Gay marriage, run for the hills! I mean please, American's are dying and you waste time and effort on that.
They do not try to stop global warming or try to rid us of this dependence on oil.
If you care about our children, vote Democrat.
Anyway, I'm sure I have not changed anyone's mind, but I'm glad to have the forum to vent.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
And Welcome to Hatrack, ercoll!!!
Posted by ercoll (Member # 9853) on :
LOL, thanks. I grew up reading OSC, at least the sci fi stuff. Was there ever a sequel to the sentient slave Monkey book? I think it was called Lovelock.
Posted by KEGE (Member # 424) on :
Now OSC is being read aloud - in lengthy passages from his article on Rush Limbaugh! Talk about national exposure!
Maybe it's time for OSC to run for president. Perhaps many of you Hatrackers who don't seem to know who really wants you dead (hint it is NOT Bush) might support OSC!!!
Posted by hatrkr81 (Member # 9317) on :
quote:Originally posted by ercoll: LOL, thanks. I grew up reading OSC, at least the sci fi stuff. Was there ever a sequel to the sentient slave Monkey book? I think it was called Lovelock.
Unfortunately not yet. I've been waiting very patiently for a sequel to Lovelock for a long time. From what I understand, it's not out of the question, but it needs to wait until both Card and Kidd both have the time to work on it. I'll continue to wait patiently Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
(I know, I know. You've seen it already. C'mon, it's relevant here.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ergh. I hate threads with incomplete record of debate.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
In the last days of campaigning, I was thinking "Are the Democrats willing to lose a war to win an election?" I think they were willing to tell people that to win. Fortunately, few campaign promises are kept, and criticizing as the resistant minority is much easier than actually leading. But we'll see.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Ooh...Dems take the House. Is it too early to say THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I hope so.
Pooka, I am inclined to believe your POV, that few campaign promises are kept, and that we won't immediately withdraw from Iraq. That would be so incredibly stupid at this point. But I'm a little nervous today. And I usually vote for the Democrats, too.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Time will tell.
The Democrats have taken the House, and the Senate remains in question.
I am hopeful.
Whether one believes the war in Iraq is, was, or will be a good idea, the prevailing attitude of the Republican-run government was antithetical to disucssion as to whether any change in policy was a good idea. The prevailing attitude was that any suggestion that things were going other than swimmingly was harmful to our nation and our soldiers and tantamount to treason. An attitude that I'm sorry to say is all too present in certain editorial pieces.
The "best-run war ever" has experienced tens of thousands of civilian casualties. Thousands of battlefield injuries that would have been fatal even twenty years ago, but for our improving medical technology. Enough "boots on the ground" to provide many targets of opportunity, but too few to protect oil pipelines, existing munitions, or permeable borders. Less than two hundred explosives disarming experts, versus thousands of bombs. The rationale for invasion and occupation has fluctuated, and the cost on every front has escalated.
To withdraw from Iraq almost certainly means civil war. But it has never been realistically posited that withdrawing from Iraq however many years in the future will not mean civil war. Whenever we withdraw, some will spin that as a victory for the insurgents. Some will think that a victory for the terrorists. But unless and until we do withdraw, there will be those who question whether the democracy in Iraq- that noble body presently on questionable grounds with torture and death squads- is a reality or an American puppet.
We have no hope to change that reality with the present strategy, with the present thinking.
The American public has clearly stated that they would appreciate a change of thinking.
Will things change for the better or the worse? Time will tell. But perhaps the Democrats deserve a chance to find out. Many of their detractors have opined that the desire to see the powers that be fail has been a strong influence in causing any failures the nation has experienced. If they truly believe that, it would behoove them to hope that things will work out for the best, rather than immediately engage in what to their own thinking amounts to an act of sabatoge.
And if no mushroom cloud materializes, I wonder if those detractors will have the grace to admit they were wrong.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
No one is pulling out of Iraq, regardless of whether the Democrats win the Senate too. There isn't enough support for that, no matter what Republican spin you hear. And regardless, that decision will ultimately be on the President. Until there is a Democrat in the White House no one needs to worry about getting out of Iraq.
What this does mean in my opinion is some accountability by government to show what we are doing there, how realistic it is, and what the long-term plan to exit is. If anything, that is what the public has demanded by voting the way it has.
Republican run government hasn't done a good enough job apparently so the public has spoken. I have no idea what the correct answer is. I don't trust Bush on foreign policy, and I like his domestic policies even less. Perhaps this change will cause an evening of the playing field. I can only hope anyway.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Can we go ahead and identify those who said that if Democrats win Congress, there will be a nuclear explosion? (If that's what you're saying.)
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Now hold on Will. You know your side isn't allowed to ask pointed questions about the other side's more absurd talking points. It only works one way. Shame on you Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
If Cheney can say disaster will come in the form of a mushroom cloud, so can I.
But let me be clear that I know the notion is absurd.
Posted by ercoll (Member # 9853) on :
The Republicans were corrupt and did not do their job on oversite for this war. They lost because the only thing they could sell was fear and America was not buying this time around. If the Republicans were competent and went in with enough troops or increased troop levels years ago, then they would still be in charge.
What was the Republican plan? Iraq is getting worse each day. The current Iraqi government is corrupt and worthless. The miltias have more power than they do. Waiting for the Iraqi government to solve the problem is crazy. They have had the time and money, but Iraq has shown no ability to provide security on their own.
You either have to have a plan for victory or get our troops out. The Republicans had 3 years to put a plan together and it was not working.
The Democratic victories allowed Bush to finally get rid of Rumsfeld and get some new perspective on this war. There is a committee being run by James Baker ( an advisor to Bush Senior) in which the war will be assessed objectively by people who were not responsible for starting the war. From this committee, there will be recommendations on how to move forward based on facts and reality.
It is a long shot, but hopefully in that committe there is a young military genius who is thinking: "What would Ender do?" :}
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by striplingrz: No one is pulling out of Iraq, regardless of whether the Democrats win the Senate too. There isn't enough support for that, no matter what Republican spin you hear. And regardless, that decision will ultimately be on the President. Until there is a Democrat in the White House no one needs to worry about getting out of Iraq.
What this does mean in my opinion is some accountability by government to show what we are doing there, how realistic it is, and what the long-term plan to exit is. If anything, that is what the public has demanded by voting the way it has.
Republican run government hasn't done a good enough job apparently so the public has spoken. I have no idea what the correct answer is. I don't trust Bush on foreign policy, and I like his domestic policies even less. Perhaps this change will cause an evening of the playing field. I can only hope anyway.
Maybe we'll finally see a decent battle between the Congress and the President on who controls the military and who gets this nation into a war.
The President as Commander in Chief is in charge of the military during a war effort, and he can unilaterally send troops wherever he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reason really, but whether or not those troops STAY there is the decision of the Congress.
Here's a question: Who is the more irresponsible, the President who sends troops into harm's way, knowing that the Congress won't approve of the action, or the Congress who doesn't back the President's ill thought out plans?
CONGRESS decides whether or not to fund a war effort. CONGRESS decides how big or small the military is. CONGRESS decides when this nation is and isn't at war. CONGRESS decides when we bring troops home, and when we send them away, over the long term.
The thing I'm most afraid of from the Democrats is that they will defund new military weapon systems. I know that right now, Congress okayed the building of several new Naval war vessels from a couple different ship builders, just to keep them in business. Not buying new ships, and cancelling orders leaves these people with no reason to research and develop systems that benefit our nation. The F-22, arguably the most advanced, and best air to air superiority fighter in the world has already been slashed a couple times, and that was with a Republican Congress. I don't think we need a half trillion dollar military budget, but I do support an ever evolving, ever advancing and strengthening military force.
New Democrats are more in favor of military procurement I think, and hope, but we'll see.
But what I think we have coming up in a few months is a showdown over who controls our military. And I think the law is going to side with Congress. This is exactly the reason the War Powers Resolution was passed, giving Congress more clear control over things. And I think the Constitution backs that up too.
We'll see.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:CONGRESS decides whether or not to fund a war effort. CONGRESS decides how big or small the military is. CONGRESS decides when this nation is and isn't at war. CONGRESS decides when we bring troops home, and when we send them away, over the long term.
Of these things you say Congress decides, it can only invoke the power of the purse - and only in a preventative fashion by refusing to appropriate money for Iraqi operations - without Bush's consent. They can't revoke the authorization for the use of force. They can't order the president to bring the troops home.
Essentially, all they can do is cut off the money - likely to the entire federal government, because if Bush chooses to contest them, he won't sign appropriation bills that don't contain funds for Iraqi operations. That would be political suicide and they know it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
When did we go to assuming that the Democrats are the PULL OUT OF IRAQ NOW party? It's like that was their campaign promise or something.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Sen. Dodd on Oct 28, 2006
quote: “I think it’s time to bring our troops back home,” Dodd said. “There’s not an army big enough or a treasury deep enough” to “police a civil war” without Iraqis taking the lead roles, and they won’t step up to the plate unless the U.S. pulls out, he said.
quote: Arizona Democratic Party Says, "Mr. President, bring our troops home
Rep. Lynne Woolsey
quote: The war has been a debacle. How many mistakes do we need? Let's bring our troops home now
A simple google search displays scores more. It was definately a campaign pillar for many candidates.
The really ironic thing is that some of the best quotes have had the information removed from the candidate's page, the only way to see them was to go to the Google cached version.
It's funny from this perspective:
Day before election: Vote for Democrats, we'll bring our troops home!
Day after election: Well, we never said we'd bring them home now. The situation in Iraq is complex, etc etc.
So to answer your question Samprimary, the Democrats advertised themselves as the 'bring the troops home now' (commonly called cut and run) party before the election-that's where we got the impression from. Their commericals and sound blurbs implied one thing, but if you dug a bit deeper, their detailed positions on Iraq weren't terribly different from many of the Republicans they were running against.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:CONGRESS decides whether or not to fund a war effort. CONGRESS decides how big or small the military is. CONGRESS decides when this nation is and isn't at war. CONGRESS decides when we bring troops home, and when we send them away, over the long term.
Of these things you say Congress decides, it can only invoke the power of the purse - and only in a preventative fashion by refusing to appropriate money for Iraqi operations - without Bush's consent. They can't revoke the authorization for the use of force. They can't order the president to bring the troops home.
Essentially, all they can do is cut off the money - likely to the entire federal government, because if Bush chooses to contest them, he won't sign appropriation bills that don't contain funds for Iraqi operations. That would be political suicide and they know it.
Last time I read the Constitution, the Congress had the power to declare war, the President's only job is to lead the army during that war. The President also has the power to make treaties with the consent of the Congress, but that doesn't mean that the Congress can't do the same without him.
Congress tried to use the War Powers Resolution to get troops out of Somalia in 94, regardless of the fact that it's often blamed on Clinton, Congress threatened to cut off appropriations for that operation.
The resolution that authorized the use of force on Iraq tied the use of force to exhausting all diplomatic actions beforehand, which Bush never did, by his own admission. Does that invalidate, or give them a chance to revoke the authorization?
Do you dispute that Congress decides how big or small the military is?
Do you dispute that they declare war, authorize the use of force, and ratify treaties?
Congress has options, was my point. And your useless smugness aside, the point remains.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Last time I read the Constitution, the Congress had the power to declare war, the President's only job is to lead the army during that war.
True. Whatever passes for a declaration of was has been passed. It has no expiration. Therefore, additional congressional action is needed to undo it. Therefore therefore, they can't make pull the military out without either Bush's consent or 60 Republican representatives and 16 Republican senators.
quote:The President also has the power to make treaties with the consent of the Congress, but that doesn't mean that the Congress can't do the same without him.
No, they can't. This is strictly forbidden, in fact.
quote:Congress tried to use the War Powers Resolution to get troops out of Somalia in 94, regardless of the fact that it's often blamed on Clinton, Congress threatened to cut off appropriations for that operation.
Which is irrelevant since the President is using the military in Iraq w/ Congressional authorization that cannot be undone without either Bush's consent or 60 Republican representatives and 16 Republican senators.
quote:The resolution that authorized the use of force on Iraq tied the use of force to exhausting all diplomatic actions beforehand, which Bush never did, by his own admission. Does that invalidate, or give them a chance to revoke the authorization?
That determination was, I believe, left to the discretion of the President. Regardless, they can either try to challenge in court - which I would bet thousands of dollars would be unsuccesful - or revoke the authorization - which, as stated above, they can't do without Republican cooperation.
quote:Do you dispute that Congress decides how big or small the military is?
Since you quoted the part where I spoke of Congress having the power to control military approriations, you know the answer to that question.
quote:Do you dispute that they declare war, authorize the use of force, and ratify treaties?
Did I dispute that? No. So why are you asking me if I do. The point is that it's irrelvant to the question of what Democrats in Congress can do to remove the troops from Iraq absent Republican cooperation.
quote:Congress has options, was my point. And your useless smugness aside, the point remains.
Congress has one option to force the President out of Iraq, and that option is political suicide.
Could you please point out what was smug about the post of mine that you quoted above?
Perhaps you could also simply outline a specific course of action that the Democrats in Congress can take, without either Bush's consent or 60 Republican representatives and 16 Republican senators, which would result in the troops leaving Iraq and that you think they could survive politically. Since your point remains that Congress has options, tell us just one.
Now I'm being smug, because you've basically ignored what I said and tried to take me to task for correcting your factual errors.
In short, the only way the Democrats in "CONGRESS [can] decide when we bring troops home" from Iraq is by cutting off those troops' salaries and supplies. The other options require Republican congress members to agree or the President to agree.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:No, they can't. This is strictly forbidden, in fact.
People other than the President have worked as special envoys and diplomats to work out treaties with foreign governments since at least 1794. How is it forbidden?
I wouldn't put it past Democrats to threaten Bush. Will they leave troops stranded in Iraq? Of course not, but as soon as they threaten to cut off funding, the media war begins on whose fault it is, Bush's for not bringing them home, or the Democrats for cutting off funding to a very, very unpopular war.
I honestly don't think Democrats are going to have that hard a time securing Republican support for revoking authorization for the war. Some Republicans are already calling for just such an action, a phased withdrawel over the next two years. I keep hearing everyone say that Democratic wins in the Congress will have zero effect on the war, other than oversight, and I don't buy that either. Bush is going to face incredible pressure to get out of the war from BOTH sides of the aisle, and the more the pressure intensifies, the more he'll be forced to cave. This isn't the Imperial Presidency that he tried to make stick in the last few years. He's lost almost all support, he's incredibly unpopular, and now he's lose Congressional support, to say nothing of the fact that no one is beholden to him, as much of the Republican Congress was elected in SPITE of him, not because of him.
It's been two days since the midterms, and already he's changed his Secretary of Defense, something he's said for YEARS he would not do, and as recently as last week flatly rejected. And he's called for new ideas on how to prosecute the war. Times are changing.
Besides, I don't have to enumerate their options, you did it for me.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:No, they can't. This is strictly forbidden, in fact.
People other than the President have worked as special envoys and diplomats to work out treaties with foreign governments since at least 1794. How is it forbidden?
Dag is right, the Constitution grants the President all diplomatic authority. Congress has to ratify treaties, but anybody who claims to be a US diplomat has to be credentialed by the presidential administration. If they're not, they violate the law.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wasn't aware all negotiators of treaties had to be credentialed by the President.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:People other than the President have worked as special envoys and diplomats to work out treaties with foreign governments since at least 1794. How is it forbidden?
If the president doesn't sign a treaty, it's not a treaty. It's that simple. Unlike a law, which can be passed without presidential signature, a treaty cannot.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:[cut a historical section that says originally the Senate and the President were to collaborate more on foreign policy--in the footnotes it says Washington tried but the Senate balked] Negotiation, a Presidential Monopoly.—Actually, the negotiation of treaties had long since been taken over by the President; the Senate’s role in relation to treaties is today essentially legislative in character.264 “He alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation, the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it,” declared Justice Sutherland for the Court in 1936.265 The Senate must, moreover, content itself with such information as the President chooses to furnish it.
Nice to see Ol'd Krauty taking a column off from banging the war drums for Iran.
That guy is just plain creepy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:People other than the President have worked as special envoys and diplomats to work out treaties with foreign governments since at least 1794. How is it forbidden?
If the president doesn't sign a treaty, it's not a treaty. It's that simple. Unlike a law, which can be passed without presidential signature, a treaty cannot.
So, can the Congress make a treaty and then submit it to the President for approval?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The Logan Act is the law I cited above that prohibits private diplomacy. Surprisingly, despite being on the books for 200 years, no one has ever been convicted with it, according to a law professor. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah but Congressmen aren't private citizens are they?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In this context they are. I doubt they would actually be tried, but they are not credentialed diplomats.
The Constitution gives the President the power to "make treaties" with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not vice-versa.
Posted by Naitsabes (Member # 9875) on :
You guys should see "Man of the Year". its interesting
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Saw it.
Robin Williams is still funny.
Posted by Naitsabes (Member # 9875) on :
It's been two days since the midterms, and already he's changed his Secretary of Defense, something he's said for YEARS he would not do, and as recently as last week flatly rejected. And he's called for new ideas on how to prosecute the war. Times are changing.
Yeah but rumsfeld resigned out off his own volition right. Oh and who is the new sercretary of defense and what's his position in general.
Posted by Naitsabes (Member # 9875) on :
the points of that movie are really valid though. Candidates rely too much on their money to become known. a candidate should not be rich to win. clearly the money connects to the votes. And candidates also spend too much time thanking and talking about themsleves and not enough about the issues
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
thats because the average voter doesnt understand or really care about the real issues. Smokescreens like family life and morals and physical appearance are what swings the average voter.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: In fact, this belief is one of the main reasons my minor is Spanish, because I'm gonna end up moving to Peru.
Sure, fleeing the country to avoid the problem.
Posted by Naitsabes (Member # 9875) on :
I don't blame him, I'm going to Switzerland. This country isn't in exactly the greatest shape and it's probably not going to get any better.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)