posted
That would depend on what the intended meaning is.
The literal reading of your statement would be that your experience in the past is that OSC did not appreciate how reasonable and measured most people were in their disagreement with him.
I believe your intended meaning is to say that most people in your past experience weren't reasonable and measured in their disagreement.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are dead wrong about my intended meaning.
That's not to say that I don't think that there haven't been threads where most disagreement was not measured and reasonable. But I wasn't referencing them at all.
My intended meaning was that, based on my observation, a single rant such as the opening post in this thread is generally enough to ensure that OSC does not notice (or at least, gives no observable indications that he has noticed) any reasonable and measured disagreement present in the thread.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Out of curiousity, does your philosophy of "it's okay to kill people if we want their stuff" apply only to nations, or does it work on a smaller scale as well?
Mostly just with Nations. They can get away with it with little to no consequences (comparatively). Now, to put this into context, I think I should tell you my current beliefs about Morality.
Fairly recently, I've come to the conclusion that morality is nothing more than an equation run by our minds at the moment that a decision is put before us. Much like when we drive a car and have to determine how much to turn the wheel or how much pressure to apply to the brake pedal by weighing our options with past experiences. The only difference is that we work with perceived consequences and benefits instead of physical motions. The deeper you are able to look into a subject, the better fit you are to determine whether it's "Worth it" or not.
The reason I don't do drugs is that the harm it can do to my body and mind, the reputation that can potentially come by being a user, and the chance that I could be caught and be made subject to the penalties, is perceived as being greater than the brief joy that I would receive.
This same logic applies to stealing and fighting/killing. Not only do I factor in the cons of the action, but the pros of the inaction. As an honest, non-thieving, non-violent, sober person, I gain a reputation as someone worthy of trust and admiration. With that reputation can come many benefits.
So no, I don't do whatever I want because, unlike the US Government, I am not likely to get away with it. I think that when the people behind the curtain in the US Government look at this war, they see those 3000 Troops as %.00001 of the population sacrificed to make the other %99.99999 of the population X-amount happier, or at the very least, keep them the same for X-amount-of-time longer.
Keep in mind that this entire process that I just outlined is based on how much information you are basing your decisions on, or how "Deeply" you are able to see the situation. I am NOT saying right out that oil alone is enough to justify this war, but that it MIGHT be if we had all the numbers. Also, what I have been trying to get across in every content-including post that I've made on this thread is: I believe that the US Government has more information and ability with which to decide our involvement in Iraq than do any and all of the armchair analysts across the whole of the Internet.
I also raised that possibility that the government put Bush forward, acting like an idiot, so that the American people don't TRY to second guess our motives in this war. Maybe he's just a scapegoat to take all the heat from the casualties that we sustain. Looking stupid on national TV seems to me like a good way to shirk a good amount of accountability though. Instead of dragging him out of the White House and hanging him, people treat him like a kid that tracked mud on the carpet.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What, other than blind faith and hope, leads you to believe that the government has some secret we aren't being told about? And what makes you so happy about the idea that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is puppet for a shadow government that holds those secrets?
I won't even get into your .00001% vs. 99.whatever% gibberish, which while your numbers are true has nothing to do with actual real life cause and effect. I'm much more curious as to your answer to my first two questions.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What, other than blind faith and hope, leads you to believe that the government has some secret we aren't being told about? And what makes you so happy about the idea that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is puppet for a shadow government that holds those secrets?
I won't even get into your .00001% vs. 99.whatever% gibberish, which while your numbers are true has nothing to do with actual real life cause and effect. I'm much more curious as to your answer to my first two questions.
Logic. Do you really think that one person makes decisions for 300,000,000 people? If the government DOESN'T have entire teams of people analyzing the information before committing to a national act, then I would be very worried. You know, The Pentagon, NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc. What do you think these organizations are FOR? They make decisions for this country.
Democracy has limits to what it can reasonably control. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust the general population to make complex decisions. This is why we typically only control the "common sense" laws that affect our day to day lives. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, I don't think it matters who is president, as the decisions they make are likely to be pretty cut and dry once all of the information is known. In other words, one person is likely to make the same decision as another when given the same information. You can quote me on that (so long as you keep in the context of my OPINION).
Also, you keep saying "Shadow Government" like there's some Bond villain sitting in a chair in front of a giant monitor twirling his mustache. I'm saying that when the appointed advisers last longer than the elected officials, who is telling who what to do? I can almost see a newly elected president coming to the White House for the first time and someone saying "You just sit over there and keep quiet. Let the people who understand the situation take care of things." Well... ok, maybe not THAT bad, but to insist that the President himself is the one DOING these things is ludicrous (in my opinion). The information is collected by, analyzed by, and applied by the experts. That is then passed up to the top where the president reads it off a teleprompter. Maybe in some cases where the decision doesn't matter, or the analysis splits it down the middle, can the president actually CHOOSE a course of action, but any other time, I "hope" it's the experts calling the shots.
Also, you keep throwing around the words "Faith" and "Hope". I don't see it. It's logic and reason, and most importantly: Theory. I don't claim to have any inside information. You, however, certainly seem to be doing just that with phrases like:
quote:I won't even get into your .00001% vs. 99.whatever% gibberish, which while your numbers are true has nothing to do with actual real life cause and effect.
posted
Alright, I guess I will get into your gibberish. The supposition that it's worth it to sacrifice that tiny percentage of the population to make them HAPPIER I think is dumb. The government isn't there to keep us happier, in fact I'm pretty sure the framers of the Constitution wanted our ability in the PURSUIT of happiness to never be hindered, but there's nothing as to the government's responsibility to actually make us happy. I think when you start us down that road, you're walking us to Rome, where despite the atrocities committed behind curtains, all the people really cared about were bread and circuses (hell I think we're already on that road, you're just pushing us six steps further on it). If you replace happiness there with safety, then I'm all for it. Certainly 3,000 lives for the safety of 300 million plus is a worthwhile sacrifice. But the problem I have with your claim is that those 3,000 men and women didn't die making us safer, and certainly not happier. Like I said in my last post, I don't have a problem with your numbers, I have a problem with your proposed cause and effect.
It IS Faith and Hope. You have no real idea as to what happens behind closed doors. And I start to wonder where the line between logic and hope really is. Isn't believing in something without any real proof thereof the definition of faith? You don't KNOW, so regardless of whatver logic leads you there, you HOPE that it is true, and you believe it's true because that's what you have faith in. I'm sorry if you're uncomfortable with that, but I don't see any other way out.
And forgive me, but why do we even bother with presidential elections? The kinds of policy advisors you are talking about do NOT outlast the elected officials in the White House. The elected officials bring those people in with them. Places like the CIA, the FBI, NSA etc provide the White House with analysis and information (not very good lately, but that's a different argument), and then the President talks with his senior advisors, that he hired himself and brought with him, and then he makes a decision. But if he ISN'T making the decision, then you're talking about a coup, because you can't really call it much else when people we didn't elect are making decisions for us, and it's nothing other than a Shadow Government is mysterious figures behind closed doors are making those choices with a puppet up front to take the hits and recite the party lines. It's not a Bond villain, it's how Russia is going to be in a couple years, or how any number of dictators have clung to power in third world nations under the guise of Democracy.
Yes, I really think that one person makes decisions for 300 million people. He/she doesn't make ALL the decisions, that's why we have divisions of government, to say nothing of separation of powers. But in the Executive Brance, regardless of the advice he or she is getting from other people, the decision is made by one guy. And if it isn't made by one guy, then it's illegal and unconstitutional, and I have a big damn problem with it.
I don't know what you're describing, but it's not the United States of America under the Constitution. It sounds a lot more like Iran, China, or the USSR though, though to be fair, without the elections, which according to you are only a formality.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly 3,000 lives for the safety of 300 million plus is a worthwhile sacrifice.
(Not trying to pick a fight)
But I've heard this before, and I wanted to make the point that I don't think it's a worthwhile sacrifice because the numbers don't follow. We don't KNOW that 300 million Americans needed safety from Iraqis. If we hadn't gone to Iraq, would we be any less safe than we are now that we've spent 3,000 lives there? (Answer: maybe, but not necessarily). We started a pre-emptive war that has cost 100,000 Iraqi lives for our "safety".
I just think that it's wrong to say "3,000 for 300 million" because we wouldn't lose 300 million Americans if we hadn't made the sacrifice.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, my theory (AKA Opinion) is subject to change as/if I acquire more information. Isn't that the very opposite of Faith in context that you originally used it? Doesn't Faith imply some sort of staying power? Regardless, I'm tired of juggling words and definitions when I'm trying to put something into context. Bad enough that I have to write "in my opinion" in a dozen places every post I make here. Put away the magnifying glass and take a step back. Maybe you'll get a better view of the whole picture if you're not looking so thoroughly for holes.
Anyway, providing the analysis and information, for all intents and purposes, IS making the decision. Who is going to go against what the experts say? Honestly, who is going to second guess the people who are PAID to know the subject on which they are advising? Unless that Senior adviser is god himself, then his job seems to me to be the ultimate Yes-Man. Either that, or the person that "advises" our nation into the ground, but of course, he'll never take the blame for THAT. That's the president's job.
Furthermore, do you understand the implication of the word "Happiness" that you emphasized so sarcastically? I'll give you a hint:
I'm not happy with anything less than living. I'm not happy with anything less than my current standards of living.
How many people do you know that wouldn't say that? I'll bet they're in the minority.
An aside: The funniest part about this entire debate is that I made all of this up on the spot when I made my first response except for the part about it not mattering who's in office. I've said that before. The more I argue with you, however, the more I like this theory, and the more I believe it.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly 3,000 lives for the safety of 300 million plus is a worthwhile sacrifice.
(Not trying to pick a fight)
But I've heard this before, and I wanted to make the point that I don't think it's a worthwhile sacrifice because the numbers don't follow. We don't KNOW that 300 million Americans needed safety from Iraqis. If we hadn't gone to Iraq, would we be any less safe than we are now that we've spent 3,000 lives there? (Answer: maybe, but not necessarily). We started a pre-emptive war that has cost 100,000 Iraqi lives for our "safety".
I just think that it's wrong to say "3,000 for 300 million" because we wouldn't lose 300 million Americans if we hadn't made the sacrifice.
Just a reminder that we aren't talking about just the 3000 soldiers, we are also talking about hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. While I know that the their lives - lives of actual people - are still worth nothing compared to the convenience of sylvrdragon, we should at least count them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly 3,000 lives for the safety of 300 million plus is a worthwhile sacrifice.
(Not trying to pick a fight)
But I've heard this before, and I wanted to make the point that I don't think it's a worthwhile sacrifice because the numbers don't follow. We don't KNOW that 300 million Americans needed safety from Iraqis. If we hadn't gone to Iraq, would we be any less safe than we are now that we've spent 3,000 lives there? (Answer: maybe, but not necessarily). We started a pre-emptive war that has cost 100,000 Iraqi lives for our "safety".
I just think that it's wrong to say "3,000 for 300 million" because we wouldn't lose 300 million Americans if we hadn't made the sacrifice.
Did you read my entire post? I'd think if you had, it would have been clear that I meant 3,000 for 3 million hypothetically, not in this specific situation. If we could be sure that 3,000 lives being sacrificed really did effect the safety of the 300 million, then yes, it'd be a worthwhile sacrifice. But as I said in my post, that isn't the case in Iraq.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lyrhawn, my theory (AKA Opinion) is subject to change as/if I acquire more information. Isn't that the very opposite of Faith in context that you originally used it? Doesn't Faith imply some sort of staying power? Regardless, I'm tired of juggling words and definitions when I'm trying to put something into context. Bad enough that I have to write "in my opinion" in a dozen places every post I make here. Put away the magnifying glass and take a step back. Maybe you'll get a better view of the whole picture if you're not looking so thoroughly for holes.
You don't have to keep qualifying your statements by saying "in your opinion," if you don't want to. I think it's obvious at this point that you are speaking for yourself. And no, it isn't contrary to faith as I've described it, because you're saying in the future you'd change your mind as new data comes in. But at the moment you're taking it on faith that any such information will ever come at all! Until you get a starting set of info, it's still faith. I suspect that anyone on this board's faith is subject to change if given more information. For example, if God himself came down to the most faithful Hatracker and said "yeah, the (insert religious tome of choice here) was all crap, none of it is true, carry on," then that would probably change their world view a bit. In other words, yeah, information can effect faith. But you're trying to peg this as more of a scientific thing, that info will change your hypothesis and so on, but your starting position has more to do with faith and hope, because you expect that in the end, the information will bear out your baseless starting supposition.
I'm not picking at minor holes in your argument, I think the entire argument is pretty well flawed, so I'm going after the whole thing.
quote:Anyway, providing the analysis and information, for all intents and purposes, IS making the decision. Who is going to go against what the experts say? Honestly, who is going to second guess the people who are PAID to know the subject on which they are advising? Unless that Senior adviser is god himself, then his job seems to me to be the ultimate Yes-Man. Either that, or the person that "advises" our nation into the ground, but of course, he'll never take the blame for THAT. That's the president's job.
Again I have to disagree. You're assuming that all the analysis of the information coming to the nexus of decision making (the president) is ALL IDENTICAL! That's a huge, HUGE leap to make. If they all thought the same thing all the time, there'd be no need to have more than one of them. The truth is that the president gets a lot of conflicting information on a lot of things. I mean look at every major issue in the nation right now. Democrats and Republicans take different sides on almost every issue, all of them use facts to back them up, and have different solutions, and there's no clear choice. A president wades into that muck, that bulk of info and expert analysis and chooses a path he thinks is best. Suggesting that we'll always just go with whatever is best sort of ignores not only 230 years of American history, but also maybe 4,000 years of world history. But in more recent memory, Bush has repeatedly ignored what experts have told him in decisions he has made. Well, either Bush has, or this cabal you're describing has, but either way, expert opinions don't always rule the day. Your view of the presidency drops him from leader of the nation to national puppet and effigy. You don't seem to think much of Democracy.
I'll let a little ground go to see how in theory, in theory I could see how what you're sort of describing is sort of true. Yes, expert opinions from professionals who are paid to know their stuff comes together and it'd seem silly to ignore that expert advice, but look at the last 7 years, it happens! Smart people ignore smart advice, dumb people ignore smart advice, and sometimes smart people follow dumb advice! I could provide examples of all three from the last 7 years of Bush's presidency. The problem with your idea of how government works is that the last 7 years doesn't even slightly bear you out.
quote:Furthermore, do you understand the implication of the word "Happiness" that you emphasized so sarcastically? I'll give you a hint:
I'm not happy with anything less than living. I'm not happy with anything less than my current standards of living.
How many people do you know that wouldn't say that? I'll bet they're in the minority.
Not sure where you are going with this. Not being happy with anything less than living would be death, which is covered under the life part of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I'm sure everyone would say they aren't happy with less than their current standard of living, a lot of people probably aren't even happy with their CURRENT standard of living. But the government isn't there to magically elevate them to a higher status (sounds more like Communism to me, but whatever floats your boat), it's to grease the skids more or less so that you can get yourself there through hard work if you really want to. Therefore the idea that we'd go to war and lose 3,000 lives to make people marginally happier (which hasn't worked btw) is ridiculous. If we wanted to do that, why not just invade Canada? We'd be infinitely richer than by going into Iraq, and it probably would've been a bit easier.
quote:An aside: The funniest part about this entire debate is that I made all of this up on the spot when I made my first response except for the part about it not mattering who's in office. I've said that before. The more I argue with you, however, the more I like this theory, and the more I believe it.
It always matters who is in office. Look at many of the critical moments in US history and tell me that a different guy in office, ANY other guy, would've made the exact same choices given the data at hand? You can't say that. You can't say that any president would've invaded IRAQ after 9/11. That came totally out of left field. It certainly didn't follow a train of logic that most people on the left readily saw.
The fact that this continued conversation is pushing you further into that camp leads me to believe that it's a good idea to end it now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I never said you said he should. (The appropriate response here is, "and I never said that you said that I said that he should." It's a fun game!)
(Actually, the appropriate response would just be "shut up," and so I will.)
Regarding the continuing conversation, I find it much easier to reach acceptable conclusions because I do not believe in Moral Relativism, a belief which sylvrdragon seems to be presenting. Now how one arrives at a premise of Objective Morality, and how one determines what is or is not Objectively Moral... well, that's a subject for a different thread, I think.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me, Lyr, I wasn't trying to respond to YOUR claim as much as that sentence out of context. I'd heard it before and wanted to add my 2 cents--it wasn't a criticism of your post.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Magic Rat is apparently taking up the time honored tradition of ending up looking worse than the position he's criticizing. It's really too bad that this childish rant had to head up the official forum response considering that I really wanted people to be talking about how OSC seems now extraordinarily difficult to differentiate from hacks writing for WorldNetDaily or Newsmax.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I too am willing to give ground in a couple areas (some things occurred to me between now and my last post) but that's gonna have to wait till the morning as I have work right now. I'll edit into this post if it's not too buried by then.
PS: Maybe it's just me, but I think the tone of this thread is cooling down a bit, and that's a good thing. I hope the trend continues. It's always good when either side is willing to give even a little.
Edit:
I'm going to attempt to outline the basic premises that lead me to my theory.
The first is that I can't bring myself to take things from the government at face value, not everything at least. When I see people who are supposed to have vast resources of information make stupid decisions, I come to one of two conclusions. The first is that it wasn't a bad decision at all; we just don't know the whole story. The second is that it was nigh impossible to make the right decision at the time due to unavailable information. Hind-sight is 20-20 after all. Sometimes you don't know it's a bad decision until after it's made.
The second premise is somewhat tied to the first, and that is: There are some matters that the government may not want the general public to know about for some reason or another. Some things that the government does may fall into a morally gray area, and others may potentially cause a panic. I can't fault the government for valuing the people's overall confidence/happiness/peace over their right-to-know.
The third premise is that this country is already pretty well established. Our forefathers already set the ground work and took care of all of the hard parts like making the fundamental laws and setting up a system where the people can dictate their own way of living. We don't need particularly bright presidents to keep the thing from falling apart. To me, the office of President seems more like a tradition than a necessity. These days, someone could probably write software to do the president's job. Hell, it might even do it better.
That being said, I assure you that I'm not delusional. I realize that I may very well be looking too deeply into this. As you said though, I too can see how it could be possible. However, even if this isn't true today, I can definitely see it coming to pass some day in the not so distant future.
quote: This is all I have to say and I am sure you will just read this and ignore it. I had to say what I had to say and I hope you can find it in you to respect me for that, not that it means much anymore coming from you. It's funny to think back now to when I read Ender's Game when I was 13 years old and imagined what the author of this book was like. You sir are nothing like I imagined. You sir, are a dissapointment
I just know that he is up at night just dead inside after having not lived up to your 13 year old fantasy.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
...As I don't think anyone else has said it yet: Welcome to Hatrack, The Magic Rat. You're wrong.
There are plenty of people here who would agree with many of your statements (as you have hopefully noticed), in the broad if not the narrow sense. I would caution you not to make broad assumptions about Mr. Card's beliefs based on his views on Iraq. I'd also suggest that you perhaps consider taking a step back and re-reading your messages before you post, and seriously consider deleting them if they seem more likely to enflame and irritate than effectively make your case.
That's not an insult. It worked for Abraham Lincoln, it can work for you.
You're certainly not the first person to express disappointment with Card's editorial style. In particular, his tendency to treat supporting editorials and anecdotes as comparable or even superior to opposing verified news reports and figures is frustrating in the extreme, as is the tendency to ascribe motivations ranging from stupidity to a lack of moral fiber to those holding an opposing viewpoint, in flagrant disregard of other factors which may have brought them to that view.
My own view is that the invasion of Iraq was a colossal mistake, one which has highlighted the fact that while Saddam was a ruthless tyrant, he was also all that was keeping ancient enemies apart. Our own NIE has suggested that the invasion of Iraq has not made the United States safer from terrorism, and indeed, may have had the opposite effect. In the meantime, the violence that has errupted in our presence has cost thousands of Iraqi lives and turned most of the professional class so vital to rebuilding a functional society into refugees. And while "only" 3,929 US soldiers have died in Iraq operations, many thousands more have been injured; many others return to broken homes, PTSD, night terrors, and other debilitating situations.
To say nothing of what has become of Afghanistan while our attention has wandered.
If nothing else, I rather wish Card would acknowledge that the successes that have resulted from "the surge" are a repudiation of his earlier statements that the inadequate ground forces marshalled by Donald Rumsfeld and company were, in fact, a masterstroke of balancing Iraqi public opinion versus military necessity.
It is true that there have been some successes, post-"surge": casualties, both military and civilian, have dropped significantly. The problem is that the current state is not a maintainable one; it rides on the back of former insurgents who have become a kind of neighborhood watch. Baghdad has not become a coherent whole; while there are "safer" places, there are many neighborhoods where being on the wrong side of the Shia/Sunni division can get one killed. But the biggest problem is that the new Iraqi government continues to drag its feet on issues of reconciliation. Without willingness to bring about real power sharing, the best U.S. forces can hope to do is hold a status quo. A status quo that will continue to come at enormous costs to America in money, focus, security, and damage to a generation of bright young people.
It's only right to acknowledge that, if the United States withdraws from Iraq now, things are likely to get bad very quickly. It seems entirely likely that the Shia population will jump on the Sunni like a cat on a canary. But it's also perfectly reasonable to point out that violence continues in our presence, Turkish-Kurdish tensions are mounting despite it, and we seem scarcely closer to a genuinely stable Iraq than we did four years ago; also, that our presence lends prestige to Al Qaeda as a group that seems to be taking on a superpower with some success. It may be, horror though it is to contemplate, that a stable Iraq can only arise out of a civil war.
It may also be that a credible threat to withdraw U.S. troops is the only thing that might induce the recalcitant Iraqi government to act towards its own stabilization.
It's difficult, by definition, to discuss "lesser of two evils" matters with someone who views the same situation as black-and-white.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also, the econony is NOT GOOD. I've been trying to find a job for 3 months. One temp place said it's because of the real estate crisis. They haven't been able to find as many temp jobs since October!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah but you've got to admire Bush's tenacity. In the face of being so wrong for so many years, they come up with this BRILLIANT idea: send more troops! Which they do, and in concert with several things that we had nothing to do with, violence is dramatically reduced, and it's as if everything that went on before that doesn't matter, because they had this breakthrough idea!
And a lot of people are buying it. It's ballsy to do that and expect people to buy it after so many years of being wrong.
Eh, on second thought you don't have to admire or respect that. You just have to fight it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In case anybody wonders why I just lurk at Hatrack now and almost never post anymore, this thread pretty much sums it all up in one fell swoop.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great forum (I do not mean just this thread). Regulars here, as it has been demonstrated, pick out a poorly argued post instantly and tear it to pieces. I find it delightful, really. Taking as an example this thread, I think that The Magic Rat didn't fully understand that his post indeed lacked any serious argumentative structure, that he was well understood, and the critique is well-placed. It sounds like he is genuinely taken aback by what he perceives as negativity pointed towards him while it is mostly his lack of analytical writing skill that causes misunderstanding, isn't it?
Anyway, I wonder if a straightforward point-by-point reply to the original post would make the author less annoyed (not that I volunteer to do so). However, that would take most of the fun out of the thread... Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
You got it the first time, Bush, or to be more specific, the verbal crap he flings at us. I don't care what you shout amen to, and where in there did you get that we should fight the troops? That's a bit out of left field, but whatever. The man is full of it. He's the leader of our military and our government, he's bungled this war, or appointed and refused to fire for years people who bungled it for him, and then after years of people saying "send in more troops!" he sends in more troops, pretends it's new revolutionary idea even though there had been a half dozen surges before it, and all of a sudden we should forget everything that came before it because THIS TIME we're winning, but the political failures aren't worth addressing?
Yeah, you fight it, because the kind of apathy that we're displayed these past few years is the kind of thing that got us here, and at some point you have to stop giving up and fight tooth and nail against every assumed moment of public stupidity, the kind of thing that lets him say the things he says and expect to get away with it.
What's your take on it?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry-- I should have said, "Troops being in Iraq."
But thanks for clarifying what you meant.
If the Democrats don't get us out of Iraq, as they seem to have promised, how will that make you feel?
I'm not sure how I feel about Bush and company. I can't excuse the awful mismanagement of post-invasion Iraq. I don't think pulling out of Iraq is a good idea, either. I'm grateful the troop surge seems to be working; I think maybe we should send MORE people there-- more folks to support rebuilding the infrastructure, more diplomats, more managers. You know-- people whose job is not strictly to keep the peace but to make the peace meaningful for Joe Iraq.
I don't see any party pushing that line, though.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like he is genuinely taken aback by what he perceives as negativity pointed towards him while it is mostly his lack of analytical writing skill that causes misunderstanding, isn't it?
I CAN'T STAND THE WAY PEOPLE POST IN CAPITAL LETTERS ALL THE TIME. PEOPLE WHO POST IN CAPITAL LETTERS ARE STUPID AND SMELL FUNNY. SO I WANTED TO POST HERE AND LET PEOPLE WHO POST IN CAPITAL LETTERS KNOW THAT I THINK THEY ARE BAD.
I won't know the answer to your first question for two years. Regardless of who is the next president, it's impossible to get all the troops out in less than a year, which means I won't know how I'll feel for another two or so years. But if you want me to guesstimate, it depends on a number of other things, it depends on what we're being promised while we're there. If it's just the status quo and we're still there, then I'll be pissed. Bush's failing as far as I'm concerned is giveaways. He's sending troops and money over there by the boatload, with absolutely nothing in sight to show the Iraqi government they have to have any sort of urgency. It's not a matter of our level of commitment, we LITERALLY cannot stay there for another 10 years like Bush said "wouldn't bother" him. They need to be prodded. If a Republican president wins the White House and the Dems in the Congress are still stymied, I won't be mad at Democrats, they can only do so much in the face of a veto. If a Democrat is in the White House and nothing gets done at all, I'll be pissed.
For years now I've felt that we either need to blanket the country with troops or leave. Either we're serious or we're not. The surge was a small piece of that, and it appears to have made a dent, but we're still far from winning. Now is the perfect time to start telling them over there that our help isn't going to last forever. They need to get moving, or they'll miss their chance.
But frankly, they are in no rush. They seem content to spend billions of our dollars to rebuild their country, and we're not their piggybank or their blank check.
I trust the Democrats to do that much. They'll push, they'll prod, they'll make it clear there is a time limit, and I think that'll get things done faster so we can leave peacefully. If a meaningful peace is never going to happen, then let's get out and let them slug it out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This best part about this thread is that after Chris Bridges tells the opening ranter that his method is hypocritical and crappy...
...what do we hear in response from someone whose basic defense has been, "Everyone who disagrees with me is being partisan!"
*crickets*
Opening Ranter: You're making even people who strongly and consistently disagree with President Bush's policies cringe with the way you're stating your objections.
Think about that. Don't just address everyone else except the person who you can't assail on partisan grounds and pay attention to everyone else who you can.
And by the way, this side of the board doesn't see as much play as the other. On the other side, there are dozens of other people who consistently disagree with Bush who would be just as dismayed at your approach.
Here's a helpful political exercise for you: pretend for a moment (strain your imagination) that you aren't a member of a tiny, sainted minority of Americans who view political issues with mature, thoughtful, compassionate, and objective eyes, and that people who disagree with your tone are not necessarily partisan meatheads who don't deserve a serious response.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: It sounds like he is genuinely taken aback by what he perceives as negativity pointed towards him while it is mostly his lack of analytical writing skill that causes misunderstanding, isn't it?
I CAN'T STAND THE WAY PEOPLE POST IN CAPITAL LETTERS ALL THE TIME. PEOPLE WHO POST IN CAPITAL LETTERS ARE STUPID AND SMELL FUNNY. SO I WANTED TO POST HERE AND LET PEOPLE WHO POST IN CAPITAL LETTERS KNOW THAT I THINK THEY ARE BAD.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You're Orson Scott Card?
Hahaha!
No, alas, I do not have that much talent. but it's pretty easy to see why he's avoiding this place. Although happily there were plenty of sensible and pleasant things said in this thread. Still, the staggering amount of unpleasantness is - well - unpleasant.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love this thread. It shows passion, loyalty, humor and strong feelings/arguments on all twenty-seven sides of the issues. This almost makes willing to get re-addicted.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is my first post on this forum. There is no other side of the issue in Iraq, the civil rights abuses, the fact congress ignores the American people. I'm sure Card has predicted all the events that will happen in the future if America stays on the same path and perhaps he has discovered a silver lining that no one else has seen yet... but if not, Card is a very foolish man, he may speak about knowing things and even seems to be enlightening at times... but to have the wool pulled over his eyes in the name of "security", "freedom", and "liberty" is just kinda sad to me.
70% of Americans want to get out of Iraq, all the old-timers don't seem to understand yet, they think the government chooses the citizens over it's own self interests... but that's not true and there's plenty of evidence to back up this claim.
Card knows the power of the "nets" and what it can do, he wrote about Demosthenes, how can he not see what is happening in America? How the blogosphere and the internet is completely disrupting the disinformation that is released daily by the Bush administration? Maybe he imagines that we will lose the freedom of the internet? Then just be back to how we were before? Heck maybe the internet is already heavily censored and we just don't know it.
Who knows, if you're a Republican, that's all well and good but if you're still supporting Bush based on his principles... o_O what principles? More spending? More Government? Less Freedoms? Crashing Economy? Yeah GW was a great choice, America is on the verge of collapse financially
If OSC is avoiding this place because of his political views, he must be pretty weak.. so I don't think that's the case. Someone so good at writing could write his way out of any situation, so i don't think he's not coming here because people disagree with him. Perhaps he knows he is wrong and doesn't want to rehash what he's already said? It can be painful to acknowledge mistakes.
I don't know if you all know this... but just because someone writes amazing stories doesn't mean that something isn't slightly unhinged in them. L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer as well, he wrote so well people believed he was teaching a religion. Not saying OSC is like that... I'm just saying not to treat him as an idol. That said.. I love his work and hope to see a response to supporting the man who has so far been responsible for the deaths of 2 million Iraqi civilians and the displacement of 4 million. I wonder if any of them read Ender's game? What do you think?
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If OSC is avoiding this place because of his political views, he must be pretty weak..."
You can have new OSC books, or you can have him posting here. Not both. I personally would like to see the last Alvin Maker book more than I'd like to have him hanging out here flaming his detractors, wouldn't you? Not that he and I see eye-to-eye on most political issues, but I've given up on seeing him change much politically. I haven't yet given up on that last Alvin book, or a really good Ender movie script. Not yet.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent point, Steven. There are only so many hours in the day. And the number of projects he has going at the same time is incredible.
OSC didn't build Hatrack so HE could post, it built it so YOU could.
And he goes to a lot of trouble and expense to keep it a safe and friendly place for you to do just that. The web page without the forums serves our needs just fine -- but OSC is committed to having a place for civilized conversation, even if he doesn't always have time to participate. If that's not good enough, I guess we could just quit. Our lives would be less stressful.
Here's a helpful political exercise for you: pretend for a moment (strain your imagination) that you aren't a member of a tiny, sainted minority of Americans who view political issues with mature, thoughtful, compassionate, and objective eyes, and that people who disagree with your tone are not necessarily partisan meatheads who don't deserve a serious response.
posted
At the end of the day, I think you just have to accept that no amount of armchair analysis is going to nail the situation dead on. I highly highly doubt that it's possible for anyone here (myself, and even OSC included) to have enough information, or to make the right connections to justify or damn the war in Iraq with 100% certainty
That's not to say that we can't discuss it. Just don't get bent out of shape when someone doesn't agree with your view of the situation.
That being said, I DO wish Mr. Card had time to post here once in a while. Blogs are one thing, but dialog is on a whole new level. It's hard to back up your articles when you don't defend them in the least; and when you post in the tone that OSC does, I think they NEED to be defended. When something is written with the confidence of someone who KNOWS they're right, then allowed to be torn to shreds without a word of defense from the author, then I think that in the long run, more people will be swung in the opposite direction than the writer initially intended.
That might even make a good reverse psychology pitch: Charismatic writer secretly comments against his/her real beliefs with confidence, then invites a wide range of intellectuals to comment, then doesn't defend it, allowing his/her argument to be quashed in the eyes of the public. Like a boxer taking a fall. (not to imply that Mr. Card is doing this. This is just stream of consciousness talking at this point. My post probably should have ended 2 paragraphs ago)
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally think we should leave the magic rat alone. He has an opinion, and that is that. While it may come off as harsh, he has his reasoning. It's the same as him thinking Mr. Card's opinions were harsh. The important thing is that he likes Ender's Game, and that is all that matters. That is why ninety percent of us are here anyway. Just tell Mr. Card to put out another legitimate Ender and we will all get along just fine.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The important thing is that he likes Ender's Game, and that is all that matters.
It isn't.
Things like being civil, not lying, showing good faith, supporting your opinions when asked...those things matter too. (I'm not saying that Magic Rat did all these things, or that Scott Card does them; I'm just saying they matter to this forum)
posted
I suppose i should have stated that that was a joke at the end. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Me personally, I sort of sympathize with the magic rat, because upon reading Ender's game when I was like 11, Orson Scott Card was instantly my favorite author, even though I hadn't really read any other books. Now, while he is still a fantastic writer, I just wonder how could he possibly approve of Bush. This is possibly the most corrupt presidency in the history of the united states. I used to look up to Mr. Card like he was a mentor. I am an independent, but it is hard to see a man I look up put so much faith in a corrupt person like Bush. This is just a rant, but that is how I feel.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before you decide that this is "the most corrupt presidency in the history of the United States" I suggest a little history reading.
Posts: 780 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Taking as an example this thread, I think that The Magic Rat didn't fully understand that his post indeed lacked any serious argumentative structure, that he was well understood, and the critique is well-placed. It sounds like he is genuinely taken aback by what he perceives as negativity pointed towards him while it is mostly his lack of analytical writing skill that causes misunderstanding, isn't it?![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
