Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-16-2003, 09:18 AM   #1 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: NYC
Some of my fellow Democrats are unpatriotic - Orson Scott Card

The Campaign of Hate and Fear
Some of my fellow Democrats are unpatriotic.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004435

BY ORSON SCOTT CARD
Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

In one of Patrick O'Brian's novels about the British navy during the Napoleonic wars, he dismisses a particularly foolish politician by saying that his political platform was "death to the Whigs." Watching the primary campaigns among this year's pathetic crop of Democratic candidates, I can't help but think that their campaigns would be vastly improved if they would only rise to the level of "Death to the Republicans."

Instead, their platforms range from Howard Dean's "Bush is the devil" to everybody else's "I'll make you rich, and Bush is quite similar to the devil." Since President Bush is quite plainly not the devil, one wonders why anyone in the Democratic Party thinks this ploy will play with the general public.

There are Democrats, like me, who think it will not play, and should not play, and who are waiting in the wings until after the coming electoral debacle in order to try to remake the party into something more resembling America.

But then I watch the steady campaign of the national news media to try to win this for the Democrats, and I wonder. Could this insane, self-destructive, extremist-dominated party actually win the presidency? It might--because the media are trying as hard as they can to pound home the message that the Bush presidency is a failure--even though by every rational measure it is not.

And the most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him--which means that if Mr. Bush does not win, we will certainly lose the war. Indeed, the anti-Bush campaign threatens to undermine our war effort, give encouragement to our enemies, and cost American lives during the long year of campaigning that lies ahead of us.

Osama bin Laden's military strategy is: If you make a war cost enough, Americans will give up and go home. Now, bin Laden isn't actually all that bright; his campaign to make us go home is in fact what brought us into Afghanistan and Iraq. But he's still telling his followers: Keep killing Americans and eventually, antigovernment factions within the United States will choose to give up the struggle.

It's what happened in Somalia, isn't it? And it's what happened in Vietnam, too.



Reuters recently ran a feature that trumpeted the "fact" that U.S. casualties in Iraq have now surpassed U.S. casualties in the first three years of the Vietnam War. Never mind that this is a specious distortion of the facts, which depends on the ignorance of American readers. The fact is that during the first three years of the war in Vietnam, dating from the official "beginning" of the war in 1961, American casualties were low because (a) we had fewer than 20,000 soldiers there, (b) most of them were advisers, deliberately trying to avoid a direct combat role, (c) our few combat troops were special forces, who generally get to pick and choose the time and place of their combat, and (d) because our presence was so much smaller, there were fewer American targets than in Iraq today.

Compare our casualties in Iraq with our casualties in Vietnam when we had a comparable number of troops, and by every rational measure--casualties per thousand troops, casualties per year, or absolute number of casualties--you'll find that the Iraq campaign is far, far less costly than Vietnam. But the media want Americans to think that Iraq is like Vietnam--or rather, that Iraq is like the story that the Left likes to tell about Vietnam.

Vietnam was a quagmire only because we fought it that way. If we had closed North Vietnam's ports and carried the war to the enemy, victory could have been relatively quick. However, the risk of Chinese involvement was too great. Memories of Korea were fresh in everyone's minds, and so Vietnam was fought in such a way as to avoid "another Korea." That's why Vietnam became, well, Vietnam.

But Iraq is not Vietnam. Nor is the Iraq campaign even the whole war. Of course there's still fighting going on. Our war is against terrorist-sponsoring states, and just because we toppled the governments of two of them doesn't mean that the others aren't still sponsoring terrorism. Also, there is a substantial region in Iraq where Saddam's forces are still finding support for a diehard guerrilla campaign.

In other words, the Iraq campaign isn't over--and President Bush has explicitly said so all along. So the continuation of combat and casualties isn't a "failure" or a "quagmire," it's a "war." And during a war, patriotic Americans don't blame the deaths on our government. We blame them on the enemy that persists in trying to kill our soldiers.


Am I saying that critics of the war aren't patriotic?
Not at all--I'm a critic of some aspects of the war. What I'm saying is that those who try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war, whose purpose is not criticism but deception in order to gain temporary political advantage, those people are indeed not patriotic. They have placed their own or their party's political gain ahead of the national struggle to destroy the power base of the terrorists who attacked Americans abroad and on American soil.

Patriots place their loyalty to their country in time of war ahead of their personal and party ambitions. And they can wrap themselves in the flag and say they "support our troops" all they like--but it doesn't change the fact that their program is to promote our defeat at the hands of our enemies for their temporary political advantage.

Think what it will mean if we elect a Democratic candidate who has committed himself to an antiwar posture in order to get his party's nomination.

Our enemies will be certain that they are winning the war on the battleground that matters--American public opinion. So they will continue to kill Americans wherever and whenever they can, because it works.

Our soldiers will lose heart, because they will know that their commander in chief is a man who is not committed to winning the war they have risked death in order to fight. When the commander in chief is willing to call victory defeat in order to win an election, his soldiers can only assume that their lives will be thrown away for nothing. That's when an army, filled with despair, becomes beatable even by inferior forces.




When did we lose the Vietnam War? Not in 1968, when we held an election that hinged on the war. None of the three candidates (Humphrey, Nixon, Wallace) were committed to unilateral withdrawal. Not during Nixon's "Vietnamization" program, in which more and more of the war effort was turned over to Vietnamese troops. In fact, Vietnamization, by all measures I know about, worked.

We lost the war when the Democrat-controlled Congress specifically banned all military aid to South Vietnam, and a beleaguered Republican president signed it into law. With Russia and China massively supplying North Vietnam, and Saigon forced to buy pathetic quantities of ammunition and spare parts on the open market because America had cut off all aid, the imbalance doomed them, and they knew it.

The South Vietnamese people were subjected to a murderous totalitarian government (and the Hmong people of the Vietnamese mountains were victims of near-genocide) because the U.S. Congress deliberately cut off military aid--even after almost all our soldiers were home and the Vietnamese were doing the fighting themselves.

That wasn't about "peace," that was about political posturing and an indecent lack of honor. Is that where we're headed again?

This time an enemy attacked civilian targets on our soil. The enemy--a conspiracy of terrorists sponsored by a dozen or so nations and unable to function without their aid--was hard to attack directly; so the only feasible strategy was to remove, by force if necessary, the governments that sheltered and sponsored terrorism.

I would not have chosen Afghanistan and Iraq to start with; Syria, Iran, Sudan and Libya were much more culpable and militarily more important to neutralize as sponsors of terror. (They say that Libya and Sudan have changed their tune lately, but I have my doubts.)

But once we chose Afghanistan and Iraq, once we began a serious campaign, we must continue the war until we achieve our objective, which is to remove all the governments that sponsor terror, or convince the remaining sponsors of terror to absolutely, thoroughly, and completely reverse their policy and actively seek out and destroy all terrorists that once had safe harbor within their borders. Anything less, and all our effort--all those American lives--were wasted.

And in the midst of this global struggle, when both parties should have united, disagreeing at times about methods and priorities, but never about the steadfast will of the American people to see the war through to a successful conclusion, we find that the candidates of the party out of power are attacking the president for fighting the war at all, and are calling the war itself a "failure" even though there is no rational measure by which it can be said to have failed--especially since we're still fighting it.


In a war, the enemy probes for weaknesses, and always finds some. When they find a weakness in your positions, they teach you where it is by attacking there; then you learn, and strengthen that point or avoid that mistake. Meanwhile, you constantly probe the enemy for weakness. The result is that even when you are overwhelmingly victorious, the enemy still finds ways to inflict damage along the way.

The goal of our troops in Iraq is not to protect themselves so completely that none of our soldiers die. The goal of our troops is to destroy the enemy, some of whom you do not find except when they emerge to attack our forces and, yes, sometimes inflict casualties.

Our national media are covering this war as if we were "losing the peace"--even though we are not at peace and we are not losing. Why are they doing this? Because they are desperate to spin the world situation in such a way as to bring down President Bush.

It's not just the war, of course. Notice that even though our recent recession began under President Clinton, the media invariably refer to it as if Mr. Bush had caused it; and even though by every measure, the recession is over, they still cover it as if the American economy were in desperate shape.

This is the same trick they played on the first President Bush, for his recession was also over before the election--but the media worked very hard to conceal it from the American public. They did it as they're doing it now, with yes-but coverage: Yes, the economy is growing again, but there aren't any new jobs. Yes, there are new jobs now, but they're not good jobs.


And that's how they're covering the war. Yes, the Taliban were toppled, but there are still guerrillas fighting against us in various regions of Afghanistan. (As if anyone ever expected anything else.) Yes, Saddam was driven out of power incredibly quickly and with scant loss of life on either side, but our forces were not adequately prepared to do all the nonmilitary jobs that devolved on them as an occupying army.

Ultimately, the outcome of this war is going to depend more on the American people than anything that happens on the battlefield. Are we going to be suckered again the way we were in 1992, when we allowed ourselves to be deceived about our own recent history and current events?

We are being lied to and "spun," and not in a trivial way. The kind of dishonest vitriolic hate campaign that in 2000 was conducted only before black audiences is now being played on the national stage; and the national media, instead of holding the liars' and haters' feet to the fire (as they do when the liars and haters are Republicans or conservatives), are cooperating in building up a false image of a failing economy and a lost war, when the truth is more nearly the exact opposite.

And in all the campaign rhetoric, I keep looking, as a Democrat, for a single candidate who is actually offering a significant improvement over the Republican policies that in fact don't work, while supporting or improving upon the American policies that will help make us and our children secure against terrorists.

We have enemies that have earned our hatred, and whom we should fear. They are fanatical terrorists who seek opportunities to kill American civilians here and Israeli civilians in Israel. But right now, our national media and the Democratic Party are trying to get us to believe that the people we should hate and fear are George W. Bush and the Republicans.

I can think of many, many reasons why the Republicans should not control both houses of Congress and the White House. But right now, if the alternative is the Democratic Party as led in Congress and as exemplified by the current candidates for the Democratic nomination, then I can't be the only Democrat who will, with great reluctance, vote not just for George W. Bush, but also for every other candidate of the only party that seems committed to fighting abroad to destroy the enemies that seek to kill us and our friends at home.

And if we elect a government that subverts or weakens or ends our war against terrorism, we can count on this: We will soon face enemies that will make 9/11 look like stubbing our toe, and they will attack us with the confidence and determination that come from knowing that we don't have the will to sustain a war all the way to the end.

Mr. Card is a science fiction writer. This article first appeared in the Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, N.C.
__________________
When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

Mr. Mojo is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 09:37 AM   #2 (permalink)
Right Now
 
Location: Home
This is a well written article that articulates a lot of the frustration I'm hearing from Democratic friends here in DC.

Unbolded yellow is a very difficult color to read with the Sandstorm styleset, by the way.
Peetster is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 09:39 AM   #3 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Well said Mr. Card. His essay was right on the money. Our country has become so short-sighted. Pundits were ranting 30 days after the fall of Baghdad about "no Saddam". Then they said get out.
__________________
captain
captain is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 09:44 AM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
It certainly is a briilliantly written piece, filled with rhetoric and appeal to emotion carefully crafted to lead the reader to erroneous conclusions--not surprisingly, given that Mr. Card is a fiction writer.

His opinion doesn't match mine, nor does his assessment of the facts he presents. I'll leave it at that and hope that people will read his piece critically before passing judgement on the accuracy of what he asserts.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 10:10 AM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I liked enders game, but i don't know why anyone is listening to this "celebrity" talk about politics. Jeez, just stick to writing pretty stories. (sarcasm)
I hope all of you who denounced the perspective of one johnny depp will also do so with mr. card.

I think when you make that kind of distinction between parties, you forget that the party that has the least amount of power always resorts to acting like a child. The repubs did it when clinton was in office, why is it any different when the democs do it when they are out of power. How many repubs still tow the "clinton was sleazy" party line whenever his name comes up? There is just as much "clinton is the devil" in the republican party as there is "bush is the devil" in the democratic party.
filtherton is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 10:22 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Well done Mr Card. The policies of most would-be Bush opponents are, in effect, to do nothing. Should Mr Dean be elected, and his policies result in another massive loss of US lives I hope those shouting from the rooftops today about how we should not use force will be honest enough to say they were wrong. I doubt it will happen (neither Dean winning nor them admitting their failing should another attack occur) as there will be another group to blame for the tragedy.

Now, Hillary coming out of the woodwork with her current position (e.g., the war is right but the reasons were wrong) will change the playing field.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 10:30 AM   #7 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
To paraphrase another poster on this board:
I would prefer more initial commentary and analysis on the part of the poster, less allowing the article to stand on its own merit. The originally quoted reference is very biased. As one example,

Quote:
But right now, our national media and the Democratic Party are trying to get us to believe that the people we should hate and fear are George W. Bush and the Republicans.
It's been said previously that "posting to generate thoughtful dialog is encouraged. Posting to elicit a purely emotional response is not."
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 12:02 PM   #8 (permalink)
Winner
 
I hate it when these conservative DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) try to use their dated membership in the Democratic Party to attack the current party, trying to fool their readers into thinking that ordinary Democrats feel the same way. It's just intellectually dishonest and manipulative.

The fact of the matter is that Orson Scott Card is an extremely conservative devout Mormon who writes for the far-right rag, the Rhinoceros Times, in which this article was originally published.

I don't know what Card's motive is in writing such articles, but it is certainly not in the interest of the American people.
maximusveritas is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 12:40 PM   #9 (permalink)
The Northern Ward
 
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
I liked enders game, but i don't know why anyone is listening to this "celebrity" talk about politics. Jeez, just stick to writing pretty stories. (sarcasm)
I hope all of you who denounced the perspective of one johnny depp will also do so with mr. card.

I think when you make that kind of distinction between parties, you forget that the party that has the least amount of power always resorts to acting like a child. The repubs did it when clinton was in office, why is it any different when the democs do it when they are out of power. How many repubs still tow the "clinton was sleazy" party line whenever his name comes up? There is just as much "clinton is the devil" in the republican party as there is "bush is the devil" in the democratic party.
Card is a celebrity? Dunno about that, but I'll say being a brilliant writer gives you more sway then being a retarded actor. Compare both statements "America is a puppy that can bite you." vs. this. Card seems to know something about the situation =).

Also, the first Enders Game was good.
__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy
Phaenx is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 12:47 PM   #10 (permalink)
The Northern Ward
 
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Quote:
Originally posted by maximusveritas
I hate it when these conservative DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) try to use their dated membership in the Democratic Party to attack the current party, trying to fool their readers into thinking that ordinary Democrats feel the same way. It's just intellectually dishonest and manipulative.

The fact of the matter is that Orson Scott Card is an extremely conservative devout Mormon who writes for the far-right rag, the Rhinoceros Times, in which this article was originally published.

I don't know what Card's motive is in writing such articles, but it is certainly not in the interest of the American people.
There was a time when the far left didn't control the Democratic party. JFK, FDR and buddies were all tough on national security, saying this guy can't be a part of your club anymore because he doesn't like the way his party has shifted is silly.
__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy
Phaenx is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 12:56 PM   #11 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Enders game was a great book, but the rest really got preachy to the point that I stopped reading after the OCD book.

Quote:
I don't know what Card's motive is in writing such articles, but it is certainly not in the interest of the American people.
Works for me, I'm an American, I think he made a lot of sense, and luckly the democrats won't get it trying to pander to the far left nutballs to win the nomination.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 12:59 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally posted by Phaenx
Card is a celebrity? Dunno about that, but I'll say being a brilliant writer gives you more sway then being a retarded actor. Compare both statements "America is a puppy that can bite you." vs. this. Card seems to know something about the situation =).
Sounds like someone is rationalizing...

He's a celebrity- don't discount scifi geeks. If he hadn't written what is arguably one of the greatest works of scifi we wouldn't be discussing him as we are right now. He certainly has no more right than depp to make political statements.
You could say he is a brilliant writer- or you could say he WAS a brilliant writer(what has he written of note lately-besides op-eds). Keep in mind he writes scifi- he is an expert at making the fanciful and impossible sound believable.
None of which makes him any more of an expert in politics than depp. In fact, they have a lot in common since both earn their paycheck by decieving people.
I'm not saying that he doesn't have anything good to say, just that you can't play this"actors are dumb, but washed up scifi writers are keenly insightful" game because it lacks integrity.
filtherton is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 01:27 PM   #13 (permalink)
Minion of the scaléd ones
 
Tophat665's Avatar
 
Location: Northeast Jesusland
I am not going to scrap this article with "What do science fiction writers know about politics?" because the answer is usually, a hell of a lot. However, much as it pains me to disagree with Mr. Card, he's wrong in almost every particular.

The Bush residency has been a dismal failure unless you pull down a six figure salary, and, to the extent that Governor Dean's platform is "Bush is the Devil," Bush is the Devil. Actually, perhaps even to a greater extent than Dean suggests because, as I have noted in another thread, it is hard to criticize this administration without being perceived as taking cheap shots, because all of the shots are cheap, substantive or not. It's just too easy. Further, there is no liberal bias in the main stream media. Rather the opposite, in fact.

I will leave it there because, to extensively document the failures of both the Bush Bund and the Media would take all night, and end up convincing no one to change their opinion.

Sorry, Orson. Love your fiction, sir, but really wish you would leave the Anne Coultering to Anne Coulter and Michael Moore and other folks who have no credibility to lose.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Tophat665 is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 02:01 PM   #14 (permalink)
Modern Man
 
Location: West Michigan
OSC makes a good point about there being some unsubstantiated criticism. Of course there is some. There are certainly legitimate concerns. I think the point of his essay is that democrats would be wiser to avoid unsubstantiated criticism. It makes the substantiated criticism seem political too.

If you don't believe that there is some criticism that is merely political than it will certainly jump up and bite you come election-time.

If you believe that all criticism is unsubstantiated than you may prefer a totalitarian state instead.

A campaign that is run on "hating Bush" and "Bush=Satan" is going to run out of steam once it hits the wall of moderates. Hate campaigns usually show themselves to be fear campaigns, and turn people off. With the country as divided as it was last election, you'll win more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Constructive criticism offers alternatives, strives to find a better way, and attempts to work "with" its opposition to accomplish the original goals. This administration has been extremely cautious about criticism, which also could become a political blunder.

If you weed out some of the more biased rhetoric, this would seem to be what OSC is advocating, "constructive criticism" will get you much much further. Towards both your political goals, and our military goals.
__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues
Conclamo Ludus is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 02:50 PM   #15 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Well written and right on the money, Mr. Card.

And yes, I consider some of the misinformed right here on TFP to be unpatriotic enemies of America, not through intentional malice, but because they are being manipulated by a few for the political gain of a few.

Why are they this way?

Because it is too easy to sit behind a computer keyboard spouting polemics while intellectualizing why America is so bad instead of experiencing first hand that there are people who want to kill them and everyone they know simply because the ARE American and not of a particular religion.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 04:02 PM   #16 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
And yes, I consider some of the misinformed right here on TFP to be unpatriotic enemies of America, not through intentional malice, but because they are being manipulated by a few for the political gain of a few.
So if we disagree, we're not evil, we're mindless sheep? Gee, thanks.

I expect more from our moderators than this.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 04:07 PM   #17 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
So if we disagree, we're not evil, we're mindless sheep? Gee, thanks.

I expect more from our moderators than this.
If it makes you feel better I don't think of you as mindless sheep, but young, naive, and arrogant.

Its still fun arguing with you guys even though I know its pointless. I have swung a few life long liberals to the 'right' side in the last few years, but they were older then I was so they were ready for the change.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 04:31 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
Well written and right on the money, Mr. Card.

And yes, I consider some of the misinformed right here on TFP to be unpatriotic enemies of America, not through intentional malice, but because they are being manipulated by a few for the political gain of a few.

Why are they this way?

Because it is too easy to sit behind a computer keyboard spouting polemics while intellectualizing why America is so bad instead of experiencing first hand that there are people who want to kill them and everyone they know simply because the ARE American and not of a particular religion.
LOL, we're misinformed and unpatriotic because we don't agree that people want to kill US citizens "simply because the [sic] ARE American and not of a particular religion."

Instead, we consistently post the historical basis for foreign nationals' hatred resulting from decades of imperialism that we seem bent on perpetuating. Yay, for rational discourse. Oh well, we've been combating your ilk with reason since the Enlightenment, so at least we're in good company.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 04:43 PM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
Well written and right on the money, Mr. Card.

And yes, I consider some of the misinformed right here on TFP to be unpatriotic enemies of America, not through intentional malice, but because they are being manipulated by a few for the political gain of a few.

Why are they this way?

Because it is too easy to sit behind a computer keyboard spouting polemics while intellectualizing why America is so bad instead of experiencing first hand that there are people who want to kill them and everyone they know simply because the ARE American and not of a particular religion.
I wasn't aware that ann coulter was a mod on this board.
filtherton is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 04:46 PM   #20 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
So if we disagree, we're not evil, we're mindless sheep? Gee, thanks.

I expect more from our moderators than this.
Ooooo,

The "Moderator" card, i.e. I should feel guilty because I don't like all of our members and let the fact be known.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I am obligated to be fair in application of the forum rules as well as treating members with respect.

I am not obligated to like everyone.

That being said, I actually agree with Ustwo

Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
If it makes you feel better I don't think of you as mindless sheep, but young, naive, and arrogant.

Its still fun arguing with you guys even though I know its pointless. I have swung a few life long liberals to the 'right' side in the last few years, but they were older then I was so they were ready for the change.

Or perhaps even more to what I believe:

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
-- Winston Churchill

Unfortunately, while innocent of ill intent, that makes you no less dangerous.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 04:49 PM   #21 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
... Oh well, we've been combating your ilk with reason since the Enlightenment, so at least we're in good company.

Let me know when you're planning to start so I don't miss it, 'k?
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 05:02 PM   #22 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
Let me know when you're planning to start so I don't miss it, 'k?
You already have.

My reference was to the fact that the right has consistently relied on religion and appeals to blind hatred versus actual reasons for human behavior, just like you did in your claim as to the basis for terrorist behavior. Liberals, on the other hand, have attempted to understand and explain the reasons underlying human behavior since the Enlightenment--just like me along with other liberals on this board.

You may not agree with the reasons we present, but we almost always put reasons in our posts.

I hope people will read this piece critically instead of relying on the emotive technique he employs that make us feel like he makes good points, but do little in terms of presenting evidence in support of them.

Edit: Took a bunch of crap out of my post because it didn't really address the meat of what I was attempting to relay to Lebell.

Last edited by smooth; 12-16-2003 at 06:04 PM..
smooth is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 05:11 PM   #23 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
I hope people will read it critically instead of relying on the emotive technique he employs that make us feel like he makes good points, but do little in terms of presenting evidence in support of them.
I think thats the point of an opinion piece.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 09:02 PM   #24 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
This is your great magnus opus of reason to beat back my "ilk"???

Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
It certainly is a briilliantly written piece, filled with rhetoric and appeal to emotion carefully crafted to lead the reader to erroneous conclusions--not surprisingly, given that Mr. Card is a fiction writer.

His opinion doesn't match mine, nor does his assessment of the facts he presents. I'll leave it at that and hope that people will read his piece critically before passing judgement on the accuracy of what he asserts.

You make blanket statements about "rhetoric" without addressing any of Card's points and then accuse him of appealing to emotion.

After that, you bolster your statement by repeating the original, but instead of addressing points, you add definitions, as if this will help (because I obviously don't know the definitions of the words you used).

Forgive me, but I and the ilk remain unimpressed.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 09:08 PM   #25 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
You already have.

My reference was to the fact that the right has consistently relied on religion and appeals to blind hatred versus actual reasons for human behavior, just like you did in your claim as to the basis for terrorist behavior. Liberals, on the other hand, have attempted to understand and explain the reasons underlying human behavior since the Enlightenment--just like me along with other liberals on this board.

You may not agree with the reasons we present, but we almost always put reasons in our posts.

I hope people will read this piece critically instead of relying on the emotive technique he employs that make us feel like he makes good points, but do little in terms of presenting evidence in support of them.

Edit: Took a bunch of crap out of my post because it didn't really address the meat of what I was attempting to relay to Lebell.

Ah, this is better.

At least this is something I can address.

Smooth, I don't disagree with the reasoning that it is important to understand human behavior.

What I disagree with is trying to understand human behavior when somebody has a gun pointed at your head and the appropriate response is to kill him first.

That was exactly what OSC was saying.

He disagrees with aspects of the war (perhaps the reasons that we are there like you) but now that we are there, we need to fight it to win.

To do less will hurt America and Americans in the long run, while winning may help stabilize the Middle East.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 09:15 PM   #26 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Quote:
Our enemies will be certain that they are winning the war on the battleground that matters--American public opinion. So they will continue to kill Americans wherever and whenever they can, because it works.
Religious zealots will continue to kill americans because thats what a zealot does. They don't think about what they're doing anymore, they just do it because they believe its right. Kind of like republicans and tax cuts(It's a surplus! Cut taxes! It's a recession! Cut Taxes). The only way to stop terrorists is to stop creating more of them. Bombing Arab countries isn't going to stop the funding of terrorism. There is plenty of money floating around for anyone to find if you try hard enough. Osama don't watch CNN and think, "Dean has won New Hampshire, 9-11 was a success!" I seriously doubt terrorists follow American politics.
__________________
"Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat
Tman144 is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 09:16 PM   #27 (permalink)
Crazy
 
first thoughts:

Quote:
Dunno about that, but I'll say being a brilliant writer gives you more sway then being a retarded actor.

Some may say retarded writer and brilliant actor.

Honestly, I've met Mr. Card on several occasions, and I have never really accepted his ideology, which he portrays much too blatently in his writing. Ender's Game, the only work by him worth discussing, was fairly entertaining and had an interesting premise, but that was all.

On the other hand, Johnny Depp is a singularly brilliant actor. I haven't always enjoyed the movies he has played in, but his acting job in every single one was outstanding.

Also, having read his weekly articles in the Rhinocerous Times (a Greensboro, North Carolina publication), it is interesting how he labels himself a "Democrat."


MB
m0ntyblack is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 09:46 PM   #28 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
It's not in any way surprising that this discussion breaks down to "This piece is in line with the way that I already think." and "This piece is diamtetrically opposed to the way I already think." No one's opinion has shifted a result of an article by a gifted writer who, unfortunately, peaked with his first book. What I find most ironic about Lebell and Ustwo is that they claim to support Churchill's statement but continue to look down on the younger of us who still retain our hearts. Gentlemen, continue to condescend to us. In five short years I will, god willing, join your cause, and I want to make sure I will be able to mock the new generation for their optimism. What makes a man dangerous and vulnerable at once is his belief that he knows more than you.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 12-17-2003, 12:45 AM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
This is your great magnus opus of reason to beat back my "ilk"???




You make blanket statements about "rhetoric" without addressing any of Card's points and then accuse him of appealing to emotion.

After that, you bolster your statement by repeating the original, but instead of addressing points, you add definitions, as if this will help (because I obviously don't know the definitions of the words you used).

Forgive me, but I and the ilk remain unimpressed.
Lebell,

I just want to point out that "rhetoric" was a compliment--I was stating that he was using a brilliant, skilled craft. i didn't take him on point by point because we have already argued over them extensively.

The "ilk" I referred to was the Right--based on the Right's appeal to sovereign authority versus the Left's appeal to rational authority during the French Revolution.

Neither of these terms were meant to be derogatory, but i think you interpreted them that way.
smooth is offline  
 

Tags
card, democrats, fellow, orson, scott, unpatriotic

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:14 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360