This is topic Question: What is your take on OSC's claim that he is a Democrat? in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004950

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
According to heavily repeated claims on World Watch, OSC self-identifies as a Democrat that pretty much dislikes all Democratic leadership and governing policies and party structure and does not want them to win in any election that he is talking about 'as a Democrat.' During the mid-term elections, he tried to convince 'fellow democrats' to not vote for the democrats at all, and has with surprisingly little variation held onto the theme of 'I am a Democrat, Democrats are wrong about everything, and Bush is great, don't vote for Democrats.'

Exa:

quote:
I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. 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

quote:
I'm a Democrat who has no intention of voting for any Democrat in the general election, because both surviving candidates are committed to plunging us into a devastating world war against jihadist Islam by shamefully abandoning our unfinished campaign in Iraq.
This has been going on for a while now and I'm sure plenty of you have your thoughts on a guy whose political column has been solidly right-wing commentary by a solidly right-wing mentality for a long, long time now. What's your take on OSC's 'I am a Democrat?'
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
It's mildly entertaining.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
The War in Iraq is such a dominating issue in his political decisions that all of his other views basically don't matter when it comes to election time. He does have some fairly liberal economic and social views so I don't think it is too much of a stretch to consider him a democrat.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
OSC seems like a blue-dog democrat that's even more out of synch with the party than most. :shrug:
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
He's not a Democrat. But then, by his standards of "I'm a Democrat from 20 years ago," Republicans aren't really Republicans either. The whole political dynamic has changed in the last ten years, and I think he missed the bus. He's not a Democrat, but he might not really be a Republican either. I think he's an independent that leans Republican, and it's time he rechecked his political feelings with respect to the political realm of 2008.

Democrats' big issues are universal healthcare, the environment, renewable energy, ending the war, and reversing the power grab that Bush has employed and the damage done to world relations. That seems antithetical to every thing Card wants, so, how he calls himself a Democrat I don't know. The party wasn't hijacked by the far left. The Republican party WAS hijacked by the far right, and I think everyone else got pushed left by it. He seems to think that everyone is on his side, but that Democratic leaders are hijacking the party and he hopes for a return to, I don't know, 20 years ago Democratic party. Ain't gonna happen Scott.

I still don't consider myself personally a Democrat, even though I align with their beliefs about 90% of the time, mostly because I think the party itself is horribly inept and I don't like identifying myself with them. The fact that Card DOES call himself a Democrat...well, I don't know what's in his head there, but I can concieve of two notions: 1. He calls himself a Democrat to give his attacks on Democrats some sort of legitimacy, playing a "they stole my party!" card. Or 2. He's really just deluding himself and doesn't have a handle on the pulse of the country's lefties.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I vote 3. OSC hasn't had enough exposure to anybody outside his family or church in the last 20 years to actually know that he's not a Democrat. He really has no idea. Think about his life...writing, hanging with the fam, going to church, playing video games, going out to eat, rinse and repeat. I don't think he's had enough actual face-to-face social interaction to know what's happening. Being as intelligent as he is makes this more intense, because men as smart as he is often ignore the opinions of others almost automatically.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Ummm, how do you know the details of Card's life? I'm sure he does lots of stuff that don't fit into your 5 categories.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I am extremely confident in my judgment that you don't know enough about OSC's personal life to make that sort of judgment.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
He talks about his life. Read his columns, forewords, forum posts, etc..
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"I am extremely confident in my judgment that you don't know enough about OSC's personal life to make that sort of judgment."

Well, I definitely do know that a tremendous amount of my social interaction comes from two things:

1. socializing with co-workers

2. hanging out with friends, old and new

OSC doesn't have a job that allows him to socialize regularly, and he doesn't have any old friends to hang with. They don't live around here, because he moved here when he was thirty and had 2 or 3 kids already. Granted, that last bit requires a slight bit of guesswork, but I doubt it's far off. That leaves new friends, and, since I meet nearly all my new friends when I'm not hanging with the fam...

Seriously, read the dude's columns.
 
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
 
OSC does teach at a university or has in the past year or so. I'm not sure if he is teaching his year or not. He also travels a good bit lecturing. I think the observation that the war in Iraq has pulled him away from the party that represents many of his social views might be most accurate.

Sergeant
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Steven, you're totally projecting your social patterns onto a stranger who happens to be a columnist and novelist.
 
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
 
Having met him and heard him speak, I feel safe saying that he isn't deluded--He is extremely intelligent and open-minded, and he bases most of his current views on history, which he has studied at length. He is confronted with opposing points of view all the time, and listens to their arguments instead of dismissing them from the outset, like many others do.

He doesn't trust the sources on issues like global warming and environmentalism because they've been so inconsistent in the past. I can understand that, based on the "ice-age" scare in the 70's, the recycling scare in the 80's, and the CFC ozone-hole scare in the 90's. Global warming seems like the next big scare (except for the fact that there IS a scientific consensus from all peer-reviewed journals out there). I think it's good that Card even questions the scientific establishment, but the research I've done has led me to be more trusting of the scientific community than he. (I believe most of their motives to be more pure than making money for research)

I think the label-game is weird...he's definitely not a democrat as they're defined today, and I don't think there's any chance of him getting "his party" back. I'm content admitting that I'm a moderate who agrees with 65% of one side, 25% of the other, and 10% of neither.

Where I disagree fundamentally with the right is in the view that "islamo-fascism" is the greatest threat to the world today. Maybe it's naïve of me, but I think that they're still people, just like us, who need to be reached, and their needs met. I don't like the idea that we're so far removed from them that we can't find common ground to communicate. I don't really understand the culture of hate (ie death to all infidels rhetoric), but I feel like most of them DON'T feel that way, and that most of their problems stem from living in harsh, oppressive conditions. I think that there would be no need for islamofascism if the Middle East was as prosperous as the United States. Maybe terrorism would cease to be if they weren't economically oppressed.

And then again, that's the same dialogue of appeasement that gave Hitler the opportunity to go as far as he did--so I'm not sure.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Seriously, read the dude's columns.

[Roll Eyes] I know him well enough not to guess at who he is by his columns. And you are wayyyyy off.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
1. He calls himself a Democrat to give his attacks on Democrats some sort of legitimacy, playing a "they stole my party!" card. Or 2. He's really just deluding himself and doesn't have a handle on the pulse of the country's lefties.
#1 is common as a rhetorical tactic, to give either an illusion of greater moderacy or an 'insider' bent.

But its use is disingenuous and deceitful when it comes without any actual support for the group that one is supposedly 'in' or 'part of.'
 
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
quote:
I don't think he's had enough actual face-to-face social interaction to know what's happening.
Exactly how much actual face-to-face social interaction do you think is necessary in order to be informed? Why do you think actual face-to-face social interaction is absolutely necessary?
 
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
 
Talk about an insulated view,Samprimary! If you knew more than three or four Democrats, you would know that they are all different. Thinking people associate themselves with a political party when they have more in common with that party's platform than with that of other groups. If you ever found an individual that agreed with every single party platform plank you wouldn't have a Democrat, you would have a cardboard cutout. Card agrees with Bush in his conduct of the war. I don't. I am a Democrat and have been for many decades. I blame Clinton for not taking care of business during his administration. Bush was not honest in his reasons for starting the war. However, Clinton had ample justification for military action in Iraq. And he would have had the support of the international community if he had sought it. However, he was too preoccupied with "personal problems" to take care of business. If Clinton had acted appropriately and in a timely manner, there wouldn't have been any President Bush to screw things up. So, tnere is another view of the war from a true blue Democrat. I have been supporting Senator Clinton, inspite of her scumbag husband. At the moment, it looks as if he might have irrepairably damaged her chances to serve as our party's presidential candadate. If Senator Obama is nominated, I will support him. I will have concerns about his grasp of foreign affairs. I will hope that he seeks, and gives great weight to, advice from State Department professionals and senior legislators with foreign affairs expertise. And, I will pray for his success.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
Artemisia, when has been the last time that OSC has supported *any* Democrat candidate, whether for Congress, Presidency or anything else? When has been the last time that OSC has *not* supported the Republican candidate?

If he consistently supports the Republican party, IMO that makes him a Republican.
 
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
 
He had not supported the Republican Party. He has supported the GW Bush's conduct of the Iraq war. I have seen nothing in his columns concerning state and or local candadates. I don't remember him commenting on, for example Richardson's qualifications for president, to use my preferred (read: The most qualified) Democratic candidate for an example. You are using his rejection of a couple of "Democratic" positions on the war. You need to realize that there are dozens of other, just as valid, "Democratic" positions on that issue.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Come on, read his articles. I don't know what's in his heart or what his home life is like, and when it comes to this specific issue, I don't really care. It's irrelevant. He vociferously opposes the Democratic party, and never misses a chance to attack them in the most insulting and hate filled language possible short of actually channeling the spirit of Ann Coulter.

It's not just that he thinks they're wrong on the war, he regularly goes after them for a dozen other issues as well, this one is just his favorite. I don't think are "dozens" of other Democratic positions on the war, to be perfectly honest. Most Democrats believe we never should have gone in, or that if we were going to go in, it should have been handled drastically differently, and even a lot of Republicans will admit that the war was heavily bungled in the early and middle stages. I don't see a ton of wriggle room in there.

I don't care if he's a Republican or not, but I know he's not a Democrat. Or if he is, he's a Democrat in the same way I'm a member of the Bull Moose party.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
You seem to forget that he said he wishes that Lieberman was the Democratic nominee, so that he could vote for him. Is Lieberman also a Democrat with Republican denial?

I think Mr. Card sees the war in Iraq as of such vital importance that he is willing cross party lines and support Republicans who are trying to win it. If you look at how equally passionately he called Republicans out for having such backward views on immigration I think it puts him in better perspective.

He has mentioned plenty of times how far right conservatives often hate his views as well as far left liberals. I think you are staring only at the evidence that supports your belief while ignoring equal amounts of evidence that says to the contrary.
 
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
 
He calls himself a "moderate" in his "Insanity of the Parties" essay, and defends his self-characterization. I think he can accurately be called a Democrat moderate.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I don't think you can call him a moderate at all, except by his definition of "moderate." I think he can be accurately called a "socially conservative, fiscally authoritarian self-described moderate Democrat who generally votes Republican." But that's not quite as pithy. [Smile]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'm content to let OSC call himself a democrat; he's certainly NOT Republican, not with those fiscal values.

I don't call myself a Republican, though certainly others have called me that; I don't call myself a democrat, even though others have called me that, too. I'm a lot younger than OSC though, who grew into his politics with men like Moynihan; that's where he gets his self-identification as a Democrat from. Personal history.

Nothing wrong with that; lots of people in the South self-identify as democrats who don't fit the national stereotype of being democrat.

I'm generally for allowing anyone to self-identify however they please. Let's argue about whether their positions are right or not, not about whether we know them better than they know themselves.
 
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
 
You will have to forgive one more history lesson. But, the real differentation between a Democrat and a Republican is the value placed on the role of government in improving the lives of the citizens of this country. Democrats place great value. Republicans place little value. Within that general framework, there is great individuality. Falure to value that individuality is the mark of an ideolog, or that cardboard cutout I refered to earlier. Oh, and in some states you have to sign a roster too, to be a Republican or Democrat.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
"He had not supported the Republican Party. He has supported the GW Bush's conduct of the Iraq war."

*sigh*. Artemisia I asked a specific question -- when has OSC last failed to support the Republican candidate? He voted for Reagan. He voted for Bush Jr. He voted for Bush Sr, I believe -- certainly against Clinton (since Clinton's supposedly the worst president that has ever existed). He recently trashed Kennedy.

So has there been *any* Democrat presidential nominee that he has voted for in his lifetime? Did he vote for Dukakis or Carter?

Has there been any Republican presidential nominee he hasn't voted for?

That's a simple question I think. You can answer "yes" "no" or "I don't know". Right now I know of many Republican nominees he has voted for, but I don't know of a single such Democrat.

"But, the real differentation between a Democrat and a Republican is the value placed on the role of government in improving the lives of the citizens of this country. "

I'd argue that the definitional differentiation is whether they tend to vote for the Democrat party candidates or for the Republican party candidates.

"he's certainly NOT Republican, not with those fiscal values. "

It's not his fiscal values that determine how OSC votes however, so obviously he considers the fiscal values less significant that those Republican values he does hold.

You can all debate values and opinions, but the obvious determinant to determine party affiliation ought obviously be the actual bloody vote.

"Is Lieberman also a Democrat with Republican denial?"

Lieberman has been barred from the Democratic Convention of 2008 (because he supported McCain) and has indicated he may participate in the Republican Convention. So I guess it depends on your definition.

Lieberman describes himself as an Independent and says "I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy."
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
He talks about his life. Read his columns, forewords, forum posts, etc..

It is because of what he's written about his life that I feel quite comfortable in my judgment that you don't know what you're talking about.

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Well, I definitely do know that a tremendous amount of my social interaction comes from two things:

It looks like you probably know enough to make reasonable judgments about your own social life. But that's about it.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
You will have to forgive one more history lesson. But, the real differentation between a Democrat and a Republican is the value placed on the role of government in improving the lives of the citizens of this country.
Nope. The real difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are registered with the Democratic Party, and Republicans are registered with the Republican Party.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
But, the real differentation between a Democrat and a Republican is the value placed on the role of government in improving the lives of the citizens of this country.
I think that may be a reminder of the generation gap, Artemisia; few people in my generation see any reason to believe that anymore.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
But, the real differentation between a Democrat and a Republican is the value placed on the role of government in improving the lives of the citizens of this country.
And the funny thing is, many people in MY generation see Republicans as the party of power grabs and big brother government.

I don't think the Democrats have changed much ideologically since I started paying attention to politics maybe 10 years ago. Republicans on the other hand are in the midst of an indentity crisis. Their leader, President Bush, is taking the party in a direction the Old Guard would've found reprehensible in the 90's, he's done what you'd think you'd accuse Democrats of. I think they're still trying to figure out who they are. I think Democrats know who they are and are working out how best to tell everyone what that is.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"Their leader, President Bush, is taking the party in a direction the Old Guard would've found reprehensible in the 90's"

No. The budget deficit tripled under Reagan, and the military got most of that extra cash. This administration is very much like Reagan's, only with a powerful vice-president, and a more obvious evangelical flair.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
So all the fiscal conservatism during the 90's was....what? Just something to piss off Congressional Democrats?
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
It's not his fiscal values that determine how OSC votes however, so obviously he considers the fiscal values less significant that those Republican values he does hold.

You can all debate values and opinions, but the obvious determinant to determine party affiliation ought obviously be the actual bloody vote.

Why? I'm voting for Obama, but that doesn't mean I'm a Democrat.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
It's not his fiscal values that determine how OSC votes however, so obviously he considers the fiscal values less significant that those Republican values he does hold.

You can all debate values and opinions, but the obvious determinant to determine party affiliation ought obviously be the actual bloody vote.

Why? I'm voting for Obama, but that doesn't mean I'm a Democrat.
That makes two of us.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"So all the fiscal conservatism during the 90's was....what? Just something to piss off Congressional Democrats?"

Dunno. I always have given Clinton much of the credit for that. He was willing to cut military spending when it badly needed doing, and I think even the war hawks in Congress realized 1 of 2 things:

1. military spending was out of control
2. The American public was well aware of item # 1 , and would elect people they thought would deal with the issue

Heck, I don't know. I'm no pundit. I was too busy being a college student/music major/musician, spending time with my girlfriend/wife, and being a young dad during the 90s to really pay full attention.

It amazes me that Reagan is lauded. It equally amazes me that Bill Clinton is so vilified. Military spending is a serious problem, and has been for at least 50 years. Eisenhower himself warned us about the military-industrial complex. I am always proud of presidents with teh guts to put a curb on that.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
Scott, Blackblade, I'm not talking about one vote in one election, am talking about OSC *consistently* voting for the Republicans and rejecting the Democrats -- the people of this forum have yet to discover one single Democrat that OSC has ever voted for.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I always have given Clinton much of the credit for that. He was willing to cut military spending when it badly needed doing...

Cheney advised it first, while Reagan was still president. I don't know that we should be lauding them for dismantling the military, though.

quote:
I'm not talking about one vote in one election, am talking about OSC *consistently* voting for the Republicans and rejecting the Democrats -- the people of this forum have yet to discover one single Democrat that OSC has ever voted for.
What Democrats has he had the opportunity to vote for? Clinton, Kerry, Gore, and Hilary/Obama. I don't remember him discussing the primaries for the Gore/Kerry campaigns... so I'm not sure that it's legitimate to count those folks.

Of those, Gore is really the only one who didn't have circumstances surrounding his run for presidency that didn't bias a LOT of people against him-- democrat or republican. (Clinton's cigar scandals, for example, and the war in Iraq)

Further, IMO, it's extremely rude to question someone's self-identification. So "discovering" whether or not OSC is a democrat, after he's already said he is, is stupid.

In my opinion.

If you want to debate his ideas of what makes a Democrat, that's fine. I see no real virtue in sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "Nononononooo, you don't belong in my club!"

[Smile]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Further, IMO, it's extremely rude to question someone's self-identification. So "discovering" whether or not OSC is a democrat, after he's already said he is, is stupid.
Well, no. It's rude. It's not stupid at all to say, "OSC, no matter how much you say you are, you're not really a Democrat." But it is, as you pointed out, rude. [Smile]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Tomato, tomato.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
I don't know that we should be lauding them for dismantling the military, though.
Come on. Dismantling? Let's not be melodramatic. Military spending certainly, in my opinion, did require a slash and a retooling after the Cold War ended. What's her name on the West Wing said something in one episode to the effect of "we don't need to spend quite so much money to fight a war against a country that can't bake bread." That doesn't mean we disband the military or anything, but it seems silly to think we'd need as much money. I agree with rapid response forces, small special operations teams, a good national guard, and I'm always a fan of a strong navy and strong Air Force, but that's it. Sadly, the Iraq War has pushed the Air Force to the breaking point, and hundreds of billions of dollars will be required to buy new planes to get them back up to snuff, especially given that the replacement planes are so much drastically more expensive than the planes they are replacing. Luckily they are one time costs, but we have to pay for them now. The majority of the Air Force is aging, and many or most planes are well, well beyond their flight hours life.

I guess my point is sort of muddled, assuming I have one, but I think the drops in military spending were warranted after the fall of the Soviet Union. This war is going to have financial reprecussions far beyond what we're spending right now in terms of war materiel. It'll be a decade before the Air Force is 100% again. The Army with this next year's budget will be spending heavily itself on new vehicles to replace old ones and on upgrades. I guess in one sense the war has provoked a lot of advancement in vehicle design for modern war...but it was an expensive lesson.

quote:
If you want to debate his ideas of what makes a Democrat, that's fine. I see no real virtue in sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "Nononononooo, you don't belong in my club!"
I think it's silly to throw rocks at the clubhouse and then say you're a member. But I guess it's easier to shout at the wind than to build a windmill.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I remember hearing about $600 toilet seats and $900 hammers, back in the late 80s. In what universe is that cool? It amazes me that nobody listened to Eisenhower about all that.

"Cheney advised it first, while Reagan was still president. I don't know that we should be lauding them for dismantling the military, though."

Then Halliburton made him an offer he just couldn't refuse, right, Scott? Whatever.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
I remember hearing about $600 toilet seats and $900 hammers, back in the late 80s. In what universe is that cool? It amazes me that nobody listened to Eisenhower about all that.
SOME of that is justifiable. A lot of the time off the shelf stuff just doesn't cut it in the military. The rest I just assume is going to Black Projects we find out about 15 years later.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"The rest I just assume is going to Black Projects we find out about 15 years later."

And quite a bit of the rest is pure profiteering, I would assume. Perhaps it's not so fascinating as the Black Ops stuff, but far more common.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
*shrug* I don't have any proof of either. Though I suspect you've got to be at least partially right. We don't have to look any further than Halliburton to know that it actually happens.

Some suggested laws by Barack Obama might help nip it in the bud a little bit. There's a law he wants to make whereby all military contracts awarded over like $15 million MUST be competitively bid for, and can't just be given away. Good law. I can't believe it's not already on the books.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I think it's silly to throw rocks at the clubhouse and then say you're a member. But I guess it's easier to shout at the wind than to build a windmill.
[Smile]

My fault for introducing the analogy in the first place. I think we're going to have to disagree about whether or not OSC is actually throwing rocks.

Steven:

quote:
Then Halliburton made him an offer he just couldn't refuse, right, Scott? Whatever.
Not sure what you mean, but Cheney did make some serious cuts to the defense budget while he was Secretary of defense. I was wrong about when he served, though-- he was under Bush #1, not Reagan.

If you're skeptical about my claims, here's a wiki link for you:

Wiki link

So really-- what's your beef?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Wiki is often wildly biased, and in some cases flat-out full of lies. How do we know he wasn't basically forced to cut defense by Bush Sr.? I'd have to see better evidence than wikipedia on this or any political issue.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Okay--

How about the NY Times?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
How do we know that Bush didn't say "Dick, if you want teh job, you will cut teh budget?" [ROFL] without the tehs, of course.
 
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
 
Well, you didn't hear it from me, but the Times article sounds either even-handed or, perhaps, a little pro-Cheney!

Too bad the V-22 Osprey program wasn't cancelled--IIRC, it had over $70 BILLION in development costs, and "With the first combat deployment of the MV-22 in October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the aircraft as unsafe, overpriced, and completely inadequate" (a WIKI article).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey

But the WIKI article about Cheney also calls "Haliburton" an energy company, not a defence company. And (if I am to remain the cynical wise-a$$), who knows if the programs he cut allowed Haliburton to later come in and reap additional profits by making up for the cuts...?
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Steven, I'm really not sure what your point is; I'm not defending Cheney. I don't particularly like him.

I was pointing out that Clinton was continuing the cuts to defense that Cheney started.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"I was pointing out that Clinton was continuing the cuts to defense that Cheney started."

Indeed. However, I remember hearing about some major unhappiness over some bases being closed in the 90s, and it was getting blamed on Clinton.
 
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
 
Scott R,

Well, I'm a Clinton supporter, and I really don't like Cheney. But, as they say, I'm willing to give the devil his due.

I'm not really sure, myself, of what to make of OSC's political stance. In the ending commentary in Empire, he talks about the importance of NOT casting one's self as either strictly blue or red, because then one typically has to tow the party line and be totally, irrationally opposed to the opposing stance. (And why OSC then uses such negative terms when refering to democrats and liberals remains a mystery to me).

So I thought I'd make a point that even in the bad (Cheney), there can be some good (cancellnig a doomed military program). But, at the same time, I'm not yet ready to give the chicken coop fully over to the watchful eyes of possible wolves (or would that be hawks..?)

I'm mixing metaphors faster than a duck mixes drinks!
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boothby171:
Well, you didn't hear it from me, but the Times article sounds either even-handed or, perhaps, a little pro-Cheney!

Too bad the V-22 Osprey program wasn't cancelled--IIRC, it had over $70 BILLION in development costs, and "With the first combat deployment of the MV-22 in October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the aircraft as unsafe, overpriced, and completely inadequate" (a WIKI article).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey

But the WIKI article about Cheney also calls "Haliburton" an energy company, not a defence company. And (if I am to remain the cynical wise-a$$), who knows if the programs he cut allowed Haliburton to later come in and reap additional profits by making up for the cuts...?

I have read wildly differing points of view on the Osprey. Congress by and large seems to think that it's a waste of money, and was from the beginning, and that we should have spent the money building a better helicopter from the start. But commanders in the field will point out that it carries more people than a blackhawk, takes off fast and flies out of the range of shoulder mounted rockets, which no helicopter does, and flies at least twice as fast as the fastest helicopter, and has very probably saved more lives than it has cost by getting injured soldiers to field hospitals in time to save their lives. I hear a lot of complaints about the things, from all over the place, and I even hear interviews with pilots and soldiers who are leery of the thing...but field commanders and other soldiers seem to think they are indispensible. So take your pick.

I think the idea of a tiltrotor VTOL aircraft is fantastic. I don't know if the Osprey is the best iteration of the idea, but her abilities, for all the risk, aren't matched by any other aircraft in our arsenal. Something to consider.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Lyrhawn, the V-22 is not twice as fast as the fastest helicopter. It's not even twice as fast as the Blackhawk.

Congress or some Congresspeople today may think it's a waste of money, but it was Congress that saved it when Cheney wanted to kill it.

By and large I think Cheney was right. It's marginally better than helicopters in a few areas. But the development costs were staggering, and not worth it. It should have just been a research project, not a production contract, and when the research was done or nearly so they could have contracted for production.

Now that all the research money is gone, the per-plane cost might be worth it, I'm not sure.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
"Further, IMO, it's extremely rude to question someone's self-identification."

If someone said he was a Laker, but always cheers for the other team whenever the Lakers are playing, it's not rude to say "man, you're not a Lakers fan". It's common sense. It's pretty much definitional. Screw self-identification.

Same thing with Democrats-vs-Republicans. At some point OSC will have to stop playing with the words and admit to himself that if he's consistently supporting the Republicans, he's a bloody Republican! No matter what party he happens to be registered with.
 
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
 
That only works if parties are unofficial. If you're a registered Republican, you're a bloody Republican, and same for Democrats. You even have to register to be independent!

It's different if you use the words "conservative" and "liberal." That is more up for interpretation.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
If someone said he was a Laker, but always cheers for the other team whenever the Lakers are playing, it's not rude to say "man, you're not a Lakers fan". It's common sense. It's pretty much definitional. Screw self-identification.
Mmmm...I disagree. It would be rude.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
So what if it is rude?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
Lyrhawn, the V-22 is not twice as fast as the fastest helicopter. It's not even twice as fast as the Blackhawk.

Congress or some Congresspeople today may think it's a waste of money, but it was Congress that saved it when Cheney wanted to kill it.

By and large I think Cheney was right. It's marginally better than helicopters in a few areas. But the development costs were staggering, and not worth it. It should have just been a research project, not a production contract, and when the research was done or nearly so they could have contracted for production.

Now that all the research money is gone, the per-plane cost might be worth it, I'm not sure.

You're right, it doesn't go twice as fast as a blackhawk (I wasn't referring to AHs, my bad, I meant UHs in general). It does however go considerably faster. Blackhawks aren't supposed to go above 222mph, whereas the Osprey can go up to 316mph. The Boeing website and the Bell website both say it's twice as fast, that's where I got it from. It's almost 100mph faster. But those are top speeds, I'm wondering what the average cruising speed of a Blackhawk is. Either way that's pretty impressive. The Osprey carries almost twice as many troops, almost twice as much payload by weight (depending on the blackhawk configuration, and whether or not it's external or internal) and flies about a mile and a half higher, putting it out of the range of shoulder fired missiles, something the Blackhawk has been vulnerable to. It's rate of climb is more than three times that of the Blackhawk. It also sports a much greater range without refueling than the Blackhawk. That means it takes off, gets into the air faster, flies higher, carries more people, carries more cargo, and goes further on a tank of gas, than the Blackhawk.

It's considerably more expensive, but arguably it's worth it. I don't personally have an opinion, but I wonder how they could have made a transport helicopter that has the same specifications.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
So what if it is rude?

Do you think it doesn't matter if one is rude?
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
So what if it is rude?

Do you think it doesn't matter if one is rude?
I think it does matter but I also think it's a poor reason to avoid exposing a person's hypocrisy.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Is it really hypocrisy? I think OSC picked a party in about 1975, and hasn't examined the idea of changing parties since. I suppose you could call it all sorts of things, but I'm not sure hypocritical would be at the top of my list. Lazy, possibly. Focused on other things, definitely. I think it would be pretty easy to spin it positive, negative, or neutral. Dunno, my nizzles.
 
Posted by CRash (Member # 7754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Is it really hypocrisy? I think OSC picked a party in about 1975, and hasn't examined the idea of changing parties since.

I think that's what you call conservative.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I think it [being rude] does matter but I also think it's a poor reason to avoid exposing a person's hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy doesn't enter into this discussion at all. That is, OSC isn't being hypocritical when he condemns the Democrats' war plans, but maintains he's still a Democrat.

That said, one can point out someone's hypocrisy without being rude.

quote:
I think OSC picked a party in about 1975, and hasn't examined the idea of changing parties since. I suppose you could call it all sorts of things, but I'm not sure hypocritical would be at the top of my list. Lazy, possibly. Focused on other things, definitely. I think it would be pretty easy to spin it positive, negative, or neutral. Dunno, my nizzles.
Can you support the claim that OSC hasn't examined the idea of changing parties since 1975, steven?

Are you willing to allow other people to claim to understand the shallowness of your commitment to your own personal ideals?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
That is, OSC isn't being hypocritical when he condemns the Democrats' war plans, but maintains he's still a Democrat.
I would argue that calling yourself a Democrat as a rhetorical device while urging people to vote for anyone but Democrats is probably hypocritical. I suppose it depends on how you're going to define "Democrat."

To someone who defines "Democrat" as "someone who calls himself a Democrat," there's no logical disconnect here at all. To someone who defines "Democrat" as "someone who's registered to vote in a Democratic primary," there's probably only the occasional quibble. And to someone who defines "Democrat" as "someone who supports and votes for Democratic candidates," there's a huge gulf.

You're arguing, Scott, that any claims of group membership be judged as if they were of the first sort -- I call myself a Christian or firefighter or folk singer, and therefore I am -- and while I'm sympathetic to that to some degree, it does occur to me that at some point someone who claims to be a folk singer will be dismissed unless he actually does some singing.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I would argue that calling yourself a Democrat as a rhetorical device while urging people to vote for anyone but Democrats is probably hypocritical
It can be denounced as being sneaky, as being manipulative, or something like that; but hypocrisy, it is not.

OSC says he's a Democrat. Personally, I don't care about whether or not he registers as a Democrat, or who he votes for. If I have to evaluate whether or not he's telling the truth about his self-identification (which I'm loath to do, for reasons expressed here and elsewhere), I'd look at what he says are the reasons he self-identifies that way. If I've understood what OSC has written on the subject, topics like welfare tend to bend him toward the Democratic party. Consistent adherence to a philosophical ideal, more than registry or voting habits, is a better indicator of philosophical allegiance than transient values (like whatever politician is on the slate).
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Also, let's keep in mind that OSC written largely about national elections; we don't know how he's voted about local issues. (Though I think he's hammered the Greensboro schoolboard a bit, and I know he's taken the city/county council to task for poor planning in regards to their water shortage)

So we don't know the whole story.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Consistent adherence to a philosophical ideal, more than registry or voting habits, is a better indicator of philosophical allegiance...
I think the (IMO, very antiquated) idea that a given major-label party represents any particular philosophy may be at the core of this dispute. [Smile]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Please elaborate.

I thought the core of this dispute was that strangers can't know the mind of other strangers and should therefore refrain from posting about them.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
I don't believe that many people have posted regarding the *minds* of strangers, Scott. Certainly I haven't.

On my part I've just posted about the party affiliation of someone who's given us lots of info about his political views and voting patterns in the last couple decades.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
It seems to me, Aris, that your point has been that OSC cannot be Democrat because he speaks out frequently in support of a Republican president, and criticizes the Democrats. I'm hesitant to touch your point about his voting patterns, since as I pointed out above, we've only got a view of his priorities on a national scale.

Steven's point, from his first post, is that OSC isn't exposed to Democrats (which I contend he cannot know without a personal relationship with OSC, which as far as we're aware, doesn't exist), and is thus out of touch with them.

I argue that allowing someone to self-identify however they want, then confronting their positions on the specific issues rather than on their self-identification is the better route. (Since self-identification is tied up in things that are not widely accessible)
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
<i>It seems to me, Aris, that your point has been that OSC cannot be Democrat because he speaks out frequently in support of a Republican president, and criticizes the Democrats</i>

Why do I have to repeat my "point" so many times? My point (to repeat it yet again) is that OSC isn't a Democrat because nobody remembers him mentioning a single occasion where he has voted for the Democrat candidate. And we all remember a dozen occasions of the opposite.

But perhaps I'm just being parochial, and Americans care more about registrations than about actual votes. I live in Europe, and in my country atleast support for a party is usually expressed with voting for it, not via membership. (And I consider myself independent as I've voted for right-wing or left-wing candidates in different occasions, and in the last Greek elections I eschewed both major parties to vote for a small libertarian one)
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I thought the core of this dispute was that strangers can't know the mind of other strangers and should therefore refrain from posting about them.
Only if you believe that determining whether someone really is or is not a Democrat requires being able to read his mind.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
OSC isn't a Democrat because nobody remembers him mentioning a single occasion where he has voted for the Democrat candidate. And we all remember a dozen occasions of the opposite.
Hmmm...

I don't remember a "dozen" occasions, because there haven't been a dozen presidential elections he's written about.

At the most, there have been five-- Reagan, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and the current crop of hopefuls.

Take into consideration, too, that there are many more elections than these in America. Local elections, for example, for which as far as I know, there is no record.

I think I said something about this earlier.

Assuming that every candidate that gets nominated for the presidential election really is the objective, best candidate for their party, we STILL don't have enough data to draw the conclusion you've come to.

quote:
Only if you believe that determining whether someone really is or is not a Democrat requires being able to read his mind.
[Smile]

I think that it's more productive to discuss where ideologies depart from one another, rather than discussing why one self-identifies the way one does.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
<i>At the most, there have been five-- Reagan, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and the current crop of hopefuls. </i>

Reagan was two elections, and Clinton was another two.

"Take into consideration, too, that there are many more elections than these in America. "

Yeah, do please take them into consideration: he also supported the Republicans in their recent Congress elections. (And he's spoken positively about the Republicans taking hold of congress in the Clinton years as well)
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
"rather than discussing why one self-identifies the way one does."

I don't care to discuss *why* Orson Card self-identifies with a party he hasn't actually supported in living memory -- I'm not a psychologist.

Only saying that he oughtn't expect people to accept his "self-identification" as anything approaching reality.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Only saying that he oughtn't expect people to accept his "self-identification" as anything approaching reality.
:shrug:

It's reality, whether you accept it or not. OSC seems to self-identify as a Democrat, despite disagreeing stridently with Democratic leadership.

It IS possible to belong to a group without agreeing with the leadership of that group. This is why I believe that if we're going to go about judging people on this topic (and that's a poor idea, IMO) it should be done by an examination of the philosophical tenants to which they adhere, which are also held by others who claim to belong to the same group.

(Please note as well that OSC has been fairly critical of Reagan. FYI.)
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Not to mention that he says over and over that he really wants to vote for somebody from "his party" and in his last world watch essay went as far as to say that he would probably vote for Obama in the general elections.

But nope, he is a wolf in Democratic ass clothing.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
"(Please note as well that OSC has been fairly critical of Reagan. FYI.)"

But he voted for Reagan nonetheless, so he must have been even more critical of the Democrat opposition.

"It IS possible to belong to a group without agreeing with the leadership of that group."

It doesn't have anything to do with criticism or with disagreement. (tired of repeating myself on this) It has to do with *choice*.

If he agrees with the Democrats in a hundred small issues and with the Republicans on one big issue, then I'll take HIS OWN CHOICE AS EXPRESSED BY HIS VOTE (aka: when it actually counts), on whether it's the one big issue or the hundred little ones that should take precedence.

You keep saying that his choice in self-identification can be the consistent opposite with his choice in vote. I just don't believe this makes any sense: it either trivializes the meaning of his vote or his self-identification.

Hasn't OSC bashed people who claim they believe in God but nonetheless behave as if God doesn't exist? It seems to me the same deal here.

I could accept him as a Democrat even if he voted for Democrats one third of the times. But nobody here remembers a single time that he said he voted for the Democrat instead of the Republican. He probably *has* voted for some Democrat *sometime*, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

"But nope, he is a wolf in Democratic ass clothing."

He's a Republican that just happens to be registered as a Democrat.

There's nothing inherently bad about being a Republican, I just wish he was honest with himself on this regard.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I could accept him as a Democrat even if he voted for Democrats one third of the times. But nobody here remembers a single time that he said he voted for the Democrat instead of the Republican. He probably *has* voted for some Democrat *sometime*, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
In the course of a single Presidential term, a voter will vote on average for two congressmen, one and a half senators, two state legislators, a governor, two or more other state-wide officers such as attorney general or lieutenant governor, numerous local legislators (county commissioners or city council members), a local executive (such as a mayor), possibly a school board member or three, maybe a sheriff, and numerous smaller offices. It is extremely common for people to split their votes across parties.

You know, what, 7 out of more than a hundred votes he's cast since he voted for Reagan the first time and you feel confident to make this declaration?
 
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
 
I think it's entirely possible to identify with the ideals of a particular party, but to strongly dislike the current nominees and/or activities of that party. You could prefer the Democratic party's ideals to any other alternative, but also think that the present actions of the Dems really stink and don't deserve support. Politicians don't always act in the way we'd like them to, even when they're "our team."

For example, I generally like the libertarian view of politics, but you will never catch me doing anything but sneering at a Ron Paul sign, and you can bet I won't be voting for him.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
Dagonee, I only have OSC's own words regarding his own votes to use as my guide. Did he mention voting for a Democrat in any single one of those hundreds of votes?

Is it just coincidence that only has him mentioning his votes for Republicans in his articles, and never a peep about all those Democrats we need *imagine* him voting for (because he's never claimed himself to vote for one).

It's not as if we hear him say good things about Democrat presidents of the past either, btw -- Kennedy was horrible, Johnson escalated Vietnam war but never meant to win it, Roosevelt tricked the American nation into WW2, etc, etc. Of historical presidents we've seen him admire Eisenhower - a Republican.

So, though he's not loving the Democrat party's present, it's not as if he feels attracted to its *past* either.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Dagonee, I only have OSC's own words regarding his own votes to use as my guide. Did he mention voting for a Democrat in any single one of those hundreds of votes?

Is it just coincidence that only has him mentioning his votes for Republicans in his articles, and never a peep about all those Democrats we need *imagine* him voting for (because he's never claimed himself to vote for one).

He didn't mention any of those hundreds of votes at all. Why would he? Even though it's a local column, World Watch is certainly targeted at a national article and covers national topics.

You're taking the elections he has talked about and generalizing. And, in doing that, ignoring his explicit statements on economic regulation, immigration, gun control, welfare, and a host of other issues on which he agrees with the Democrats far more than Republicans.

Moreover, the primary issue where he disagrees with the democrats - foreign policy - is most important in the elections he's talked about the most, and matters not at all in the elections he hasn't discussed.
 
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
 
I take issue with the accusation that Card calls himself a Democrat as some sort of manipulation to gain credibility when criticizing Democrats. He may mention it to try to show that he is criticizing from an insider perspective, but tha5 doesn't mean he's pretending.

If one reads his essays on affirmative action and immigration, one would not call him a Republican. He also has very non-Republican fiscal ideals. He also support Bush, who is not really loved by conservative Republicans.

He may be holding onto an idiosyncratic definition of the party that is not as characteristic of it today, but that does not mean he is being disingenuous or out of touch with current society (please!).

He may think that the two Democrat contenders would be bad presidents, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't ideally want a Democrat as president.

I think some things for him transcend party, like religious freedom, and I think he sees connections between the war, fanatical environmentalism, and the like to this freedom.

Disclaimers:
1) I do not think Card walks on water or is free from the biases and self-deceptions inherent in our human existence.
2) Card needs to write more novels...I'm almost done with them all.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
a voter will vote . . . [for] a half senator

I think I voted in that election. [Razz]
 
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
 
Most of the issues I see discussed in this thread were already answered by Card in his Feb. 3 Worldwatch Article.

quote:
For thirty years I've been an "embarrassed Democrat"; flip a coin and I would have been a "humiliated Republican." But what I've always been is a moderate.
He then goes on to put this statement into context by giving his definition of Moderate. How I read this is that he's so close to the center that he could flip a coin to determine the suffix, so long as the prefix remains 'Moderate'.

You guys are comparing A Sharp with B Flat, They're the same thing. Red+blue and blue+red are both purple. You choose the label based on convenience. I'm sure he had a reason to call himself a Democrat at the time he chose it, but as time wore on, the differences were so negligible that he likely saw no reason to change it.
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I think what this proves is less what Political Party OSC belongs to, and more the football mentality of American Politics. I am a full blown Republican and therefore hold on to the position of the most Republican of positions. That said, I think I see where OSC is coming from. He is a Democrat because of philosophical reasons he shares with them and not the current ideological positions.

I just find it funny that you have to hold "these particular positions" and vote for "these particular people" or you are OTHER. I am not fond of McCain for various reasons (I disagree with him on too many issues and dislike his personality), but there are many Republicans who believe that McCain is really a Democrat with the letter R. I actually believe that myself, but that doesn't mean he isn't a Republican. It just means he isn't MY kind of Republican.

In the end, I think that neither party likes a moderate. That goes for myself, but I am at least open to admitting such. Democrats have painted the Republican Party as extremists, but I think this year at least the Democratic Party has proven they are the extremists. Neither Obama or Hillary has done or said anything that has forced any serious disagreements other than perhaps tactics. On the other hand, besides Iraq (other than Paul), the Republican choices have actually been choices.

Perhaps OSC should become Republican. Not because he is a Conservative (although he is on some things) but because the Republicans have (if they like it or not) become the moderate party. At least for this year's elections. Imagine that!
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
In the end, I think that neither party likes a moderate.
Are you kidding? Neither party likes an extremist. If you think there are any extremists left in the race, you've clearly never actually met any real extremists. [Smile]
 
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
 
I think the real issue here is this.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Seems like after Kerry lost, there was a lot of talk about the Democratic Party needing to search for its soul. I don't think it's the case that the Democratic Party is a marching band where you have to match every step. Obama keeps calling it a tent. I'm inclined to think Obama is the new soul of the party.

Card has skewed away from the party on a couple of recent issues: Same Sex Marriage and the Iraq War. But he's still viewed by the majority of Mormons as dangerously liberal. He's not pro-life (which I'd define as saying life begins at conception), I don't believe he favors capital punishment, he's not tax-phobic and doesn't feel that welfare and immigration are what's wrong with America.

P.S. I have no idea why Card would have voted for Reagan, but I read where he said he plugged his nose and went ahead -- because he didn't like Reagan. He may have found Reagan's policy on Israel to be superior, and Card doesn't believe in moderation when it comes to our commitment to Israel.
 
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
 
quote:
P.S. I have no idea why Card would have voted for Reagan, but I read where he said he plugged his nose and went ahead -- because he didn't like Reagan. He may have found Reagan's policy on Israel to be superior, and Card doesn't believe in moderation when it comes to our commitment to Israel.
Some of us didn't vote for Regan. We wrote in Jimmy Carter. I have often ended up doing that in a presidential year.
 
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
In the end, I think that neither party likes a moderate.
Are you kidding? Neither party likes an extremist. If you think there are any extremists left in the race, you've clearly never actually met any real extremists. [Smile]
Too true.
 
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
Card has skewed away from the party on a couple of recent issues: Same Sex Marriage and the Iraq War. But he's still viewed by the majority of Mormons as dangerously liberal. He's not pro-life (which I'd define as saying life begins at conception), I don't believe he favors capital punishment, he's not tax-phobic and doesn't feel that welfare and immigration are what's wrong with America.

Out of curiosity, where have you seen his views on pro-life and capital punishment? I don't recall reading his views on abortion one way or another, and seem to recall a discussion once or twice on stem-cell research, but I don't recall what his conclusion was.
 
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
 
I know this may shock some of you, but Mormons aren't a hive-mind (in spite of their predilection for bee and hive imagery.) Not all Mormons are into capital punishment, think taxes are evil, and want to kick out all the Mexicans. They actually do have individual opinions. [Wink]

Okay, I'm teasing Pooka, of course. [Big Grin] But I do agree with her in that OSC does seem to be considered unusually liberal among many LDS folks.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Libbie:

pooka is Mormon.

Just so you know. In case you didn't.
 
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
 
I know. [Wink] I was just teasing.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Not all Mormons are into capital punishment
To be fair, I don't know any Mormons who are into capital punishment, even those that support it.
 
Posted by .:{121}:.Scooter[SGT] (Member # 11512) on :
 
Remember this: When it comes to politics, nobody is correct.
So don't try to guess what anyone thinks about anything. Even your definition of a Democrat or Republic, Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative. They're all wrong because everyone things differently about them. I can call myself a Democrat by my standards and it won't mean a thing because all you will associate that with is what stereotypes you believe about Democrats.
If you say that you're open minded than you're even more wrong because the fact that you think you are open minded means you aren't. So just don't read into it.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Remember this: When it comes to politics, nobody is correct.
paradoxical statement.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Not really. No reason everyone can't be wrong. [Razz]
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
If everyone's wrong, then the guy who said "everyone is wrong" is also wrong -- hence paradox.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
How do you pronounce ".:{121}:.Scooter[SGT] "?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
If everyone's wrong, then the guy who said "everyone is wrong" is also wrong -- hence paradox.
Only if he had been talking about politics.
 
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
How do you pronounce ".:{121}:.Scooter[SGT] "?

Just like it's spelled.
 
Posted by .:{121}:.Scooter[SGT] (Member # 11512) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
If everyone's wrong, then the guy who said "everyone is wrong" is also wrong -- hence paradox.

Let me say, if the subject is political, than everyone is wrong. But when talking about the nature of politics without actually discussing any political issues, then a person can be correct. The point was not to think you're right when it's politics because there is no right answer that you can completely believe.
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
How do you pronounce ".:{121}:.Scooter[SGT] "?

The name Scooter was already taken so I threw on some tags from a gaming clan I am in, I did not know that I would not be able to change it after registering.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
Why don't you just re-register? You've only got 6 posts so far. It must be a pain having to type all that in whenever you want to log on (if you don't check the box, of course.)

So is it a matter of degrees? I'm a Republican, and registered as such. But I only agree with the official Republican platform on about 60% of the issues an with Democrats... less than 5%.

For the reasons they give, I mean. I might support the democrat environmental policy; but not because I think we're saving the world for our children's children; I hate waste. I might support continued aggression in the Middle East, but not because I think the people want Democracy and we can give it to them; I think Islam must be crushed as the mortal enemy of civilization.

My point is this: at what point do I stop being a Republican? What if I start agreeing with the Democrats on more issues, and the balance starts to tip toward my voting for them more often than I do Republicans? What if I support more of their policies, but for reasons different from what they say? Suppose that the defining issue of whether one was a Dem or Rep was border security and immigration. Suppose I wanted a completely open border, but it was because I felt that the hyper-Catholic culture of the Mexicans would be a stronger bulwark against the coming world domination of the Muslims, and I'd rather the country went to Christians of any color? Would I still be a Democrat, or would I just be insane?
 
Posted by Josh Cooper (Member # 11533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Why don't you just re-register? You've only got 6 posts so far. It must be a pain having to type all that in whenever you want to log on (if you don't check the box, of course.)

I have taken your advice and now use this more... formal user instead of .:{121}:.Scooter[SGT]. I knew it to be a posibility, but was to lazy to do it until now.

quote:
...So is it a matter of degrees? I'm a Republican, and registered as such. But I only agree with the official Republican platform on about 60% of the issues an with Democrats... less than 5%.
...
My point is this: at what point do I stop being a Republican? What if I start agreeing with the Democrats on more issues, and the balance starts to tip toward my voting for them more often than I do Republicans?...[/QB]

I think that 60% agreement isn't enough. I'd say that if you're not at at least 75% agreement with any party than you should be independant.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
Ok, but what if some of the things I agree with the Republican Party are things I am fanatical about?

Like if I'm pro-life and do not believe there should be an exception made under any circumstances whatsoever, or if I think citizens should be allowed to carry any kind of weaponry wherever they desire, or that I think evolution should not be taught in schools, except maybe in history class?

(All those things are not far from the truth, by the way.)
 
Posted by Josh Cooper (Member # 11533) on :
 
If you are really that "fanatical" than I think that your views are more than 60%. Perhaps you are just calculating it wrong. Each of their issues are equal but to you, some weigh more than others. So pro-life may add 20% and bearing arms may be another 20% while the price of tea in China adds is 1%.
You are right on this point. I was wrong in stating that it's how many points you agree with to make a percentage. You have to see what holds higher importance and if that crosses the threshold of what it means to be a Republican, than you should be a Republican. But make sure you count how much you care about what you disagree with as well. If the things you care most about are in agreement with the party and the things that you disagree with don't really matter all that much to you, than you should be a Republican.

(It's very tempting to state my counter argument on each of those points, but I'll keep it at your second and third topics contradict each other. Unless you'd like me to evaluate.)
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
If those things are true, you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.
 
Posted by Josh Cooper (Member # 11533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
If those things are true, you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.

It's hard to figure out who "you" is when you don't address anyone, nore have a quote within the post to say whose message you're replying to.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
He's responding to Resh.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
Yeah he's definitely responding to me.

I take it my second and third points are contradictory because of some survival-of-the-fittest concept as applied to who has the most guns or something... let's not get into this, at least not here.

I tell you what: look at some of my previous threads on the other side of the river (books, film, food, and culture) and see if you really want to talk about it. Just click on my name and go to recent posts, and then click on Topics started by.

Or just start a new thread (again, on the other side). I'm game to get it started in here; it's been a bit too quiet around her for my taste. Somebody stop him before he does, if any of you think it'll be too tortuous to handle again.
 
Posted by Josh Cooper (Member # 11533) on :
 
Tom, the same laws that protect you and allow you to vote despite any insane ideas you may have (such as preventing someone from voting) protect Resh too. Every American has the right to vote.

Resh, I have no interest in such a debate but I don't know what you're even talking about linking it to survival of the fittest, nor am I inclined to tell you what I meant.
 
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josh Cooper:
Tom, the same laws that protect you and allow you to vote despite any insane ideas you may have (such as preventing someone from voting) protect Resh too. Every American has the right to vote.

Really? Which version of the Constitution did you find that in? It's not anywhere in mine.

Voting is a privilege and duty, yes -- but it's not a right.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Voting is a privilege and duty, yes -- but it's not a right.
Really?

Fourteenth Amendment: "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state..."

Fifteenth: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Nineteenth: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

Twenty-fourth: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Twenty-sixth: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age."
 
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josh Cooper:
If you are really that "fanatical" than I think that your views are more than 60%.

If you really think the Republicans are all that fanatical I think that you need to revise your perception of the party platform. And I'm not speaking as a Republican here (albeit a moderate conservative).

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
If those things are true, you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Do you understand the concept of democracy? You're saying that he shouldn't have a say in affairs that affect him just because he disagrees with you.
 
Posted by Josh Cooper (Member # 11533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:
Originally posted by Josh Cooper:
[qb] If you are really that "fanatical" than I think that your views are more than 60%.

If you really think the Republicans are all that fanatical I think that you need to revise your perception of the party platform. And I'm not speaking as a Republican here (albeit a moderate conservative).
I was referring to Reshpeckobiggle as fanatical by his own words in the prior post. I certianly wouldn't call any party fanatical as a whole, but each has fanatical members.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
You're saying that he shouldn't have a say in affairs that affect him just because he disagrees with you.
Well, no. [Smile] But since you're obviously taking this more seriously than I am, and certainly more seriously than Resh does, I'm not going to encourage that by elaborating. *grin*
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
I take all this perfectly seriously.


[No No]


That's not his index finger, right?
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
I'm game to get it started in here; it's been a bit too quiet around her for my taste. Somebody stop him before he does, if any of you think it'll be too tortuous to handle again.

It has been slow around here lately, hasn't it? If you're game to discuss this subject again, why not just go back to one of the myriad threads in which you've dropped the conversational ball on the topic and pick up from where you left off?
 
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
 
i think card's entitled to his definition of what a 'democrat' actually is, despite the horrible changes the democratic party has gone under the last hundred years or so: making them the exact opposite of what they SHOULD be or started to be. honestly, this country would do much better being more conservative than what i call 'progressivly stupid' which is all in the name of 'progress'.... which is what i believe the democrats have been pushing lately... of course, the republicans aren't that much better...
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
quote:
honestly, this country would do much better being more conservative than what i call 'progressivly stupid' which is all in the name of 'progress
I agree that the country would be better off being more conservative than stupid.

By the way, are the bad grammar, lack of punctuation, and hilarious misspellings in your post meant to be points of irony?
 
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
 
...yes, exactly. :-P
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
One thing I always liked about this place is that the common internet practice of discrediting someone by pointing out the grammatical flaws in his post is generally viewed as cheap and ineffective.
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
Is that what you think I was doing?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
One thing I always liked about this place is that the common internet practice of discrediting someone by pointing out the grammatical flaws in his post is generally viewed as cheap and ineffective.

It's a good thing that TB wasn't 'discrediting someone by pointing out the grammatical flaws in his post'

but if that had been the case, you might have had something going there.
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
[Dont Know]

Well, I was trying to point out that being conservative and being stupid were not the only two options on America's dinner plate -- it's not a one or the other proposition, but I chose a weird word-flow, or something.

The hilarious misspellings thing was a joke, though now when I read it it sounds pretty harsh, but I'm glad it wasn't taken badly.

There was no attempt on my part to discredit the other poster. He seems a fine fellow. But ellipse after ellipse after ellipse, man. Punctuate, people, punctuate.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Josh Cooper (Member # 11533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TL:
[Dont Know]

Well, I was trying to point out that being conservative and being stupid were not the only two options on America's dinner plate -- it's not a one or the other proposition, but I chose a weird word-flow, or something.

Amen!
 
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
One thing I always liked about this place is that the common internet practice of discrediting someone by pointing out the grammatical flaws in his post is generally viewed as cheap and ineffective.

You must not frequent too many other boards. Grammar and the such weight FAR more on a persons credibility here than elsewhere. People here are just less boisterous about it.

It would be like going into congress and giving a speech in Ebonics/redneck/valley girl/1337 speak, pick your slang. Not many people would mention it, but EVERYONE would notice, and you would lose a LOT of points because of it.

The truth is, you don't NEED to point it out here, but if you did, you would be in the majority, thought-wise.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
I frequent enough to know the people here are intelligent enough that for the most part everyone looks past it to the meat of the argument.

They "weight" more here? And brother, that last sentence... drop a comma or two, would ya? You must be an idiot with nothing important to say.
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
One thing I have always like about this place is that the common internet practice of discrediting someone by mischaracterizing their statements and intentions and then arguing with the argument you've made up instead of what they've actually said and ignoring clarifications and statements of good will on the part of the individual against whom you are sort of arguing is generally viewed as cheap and ineffective.

(Say that three times fast.)
 
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
 
For any clarification on my part, I totally understood TL's comment as a joke. Or, at least, that's how I took it. I don't need my arteries to harden by taking on-line discussions too seriously anyway. :-) Besides, I was too lazy to really type things very accurately anyway, so nyeah! :-P
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TL:
One thing I have always like about this place is that the common internet practice of discrediting someone by mischaracterizing their statements and intentions and then arguing with the argument you've made up instead of what they've actually said and ignoring clarifications and statements of good will on the part of the individual against whom you are sort of arguing is generally viewed as cheap and ineffective.

(Say that three times fast.)

Yeah no kidding.

On the bright side, it IS generally viewed as cheap and ineffective, or at least, there is always someone around to recognize it for what it is and cry foul. The problem is that there's always at least one person who'll start it in the first place.
 
Posted by Josh Cooper (Member # 11533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TL:
One thing I have always like about this place is that the common internet practice of discrediting someone by mischaracterizing their statements and intentions and then arguing with the argument you've made up instead of what they've actually said and ignoring clarifications and statements of good will on the part of the individual against whom you are sort of arguing is generally viewed as cheap and ineffective.

(Say that three times fast.)

That are so funnier then earlier wen i thout the same thing. People seem to argue what they think you are likely to have said instead of what you actually said. (This is usually whatever they can most easily argue against). It just happened to me at work today. Than it inspired a great line of thought that I eventually got on paper and may post in the future. I just think that's erie that you posted it.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2