I don't think basso wrote it; he only emboldened it. Basso? It is virtually equal to what TR said in my reading, so I don't understand the protest.
Unlike the Bushies, I don't have to use urban legends... Citation 1 The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, volume XIX, The Great Adventure Citation 2 http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm "The president is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. "Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else," Roosevelt The Kansas City Star May 7, 1918 I don't recall Card saying anything when some infamous Senators essentially encouraged soldiers to attack the POTUS and said Clinton would not be safe in a Southern state.
Were we at war? That seems to be an essential component of what Card says and I've been trying to say...
I see zero connection between fighting terrorists and toppling Hussein. Now that we occupy Iraq, we have invited terrorists to come and fight us there. No one is arguing against killing the terrorists we invited to bring it on. Card puts a straw man argument and topples it and surrounds his argument with stuff no one would disagree with, that doesn't make his straw man argument valid. Then he attempts to make those who disagree with the Bushies policies part of less than patriotic by saying that can disagreee except when he feels like they can't.
Do wars on abstract nouns or wars we initiate against pathetic countries compare to WWI or WWII? That seems to be an essential component of trying to assess this situation. We are continually told we are at war and must accept everything without questioning it. Where does that end, giddy? I'm serious. Do you feel like we are a nation at war? Or do you feel like we are using the military in two special operations at the moment? Our military is almost always doing some low level something somewhere, so are we perpetually at war? I will tell you this: a war on "terror" is not one that will ever really end, because the world will always have nutballs and people who really hate us. So in that case, will I ever be able to have a beef with an American president again? The semantics are crucial here.
April 6, 1917 United States declares war on Germany entering the First World War May 1918 Teddy writes editorial. November 11, 1918 World War I ends. Central Powers are forced to annul the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. I fail to see the logic in Card's argument. He merely restates what Ashcroft said but with better English, those who are agin me are with the terrorists.
Of course you see zero connection; you don't want to. that's your right, but it doesn't make you immune from criticism. Card wrote: "Patriots place their loyalty to their country in time of war ahead of their personal and party ambitions."
Card didn't quote TR, you did. I think the roots of Card's logic run deep in the nature of terroristic war, weaponry and zealotry of the 21st century as opposed to 1918. The world changes and we had better respond to it. Isn't that a large part of the frustration of the Arab states-- that they have been left behind?
I hope you'll read my post concerning "war." I'm being sincere and I'm being sincere to the point of the article. As to not wanting to see a connection, who wants to be called an unpatriotic scumbag? We love our country, giddy. We don't deserve to be name-called based on our beliefs, and you don't either. The only name that Card needs to be called is Republican, which is absolutely fine. Nothing wrong with that, unless he lies about it to somehow mislead and persuade his audience. Again, he said he cannot vote for any of the democratic candidates, and he says that even as some of them have supported our pre-emptive war from day one.
Yes, but I *never* claimed immunity. Card essentially is claiming it for those who share his viewpoint, and his wording is essentially an ad hominem attack on anybody who disagrees with him.
Show me where Card called anybody a scumbag. He is just asking people to consider a broader and deeper perspective than he thinks they are. Some things are more important than partisanship. Why are all of you threatened by that. He didn't call you a scumbag, did he? He gave us all something to think about. In essence, you have distorted his point so that you could reject it even more soundly.
Card is making an argument for a greater good. You don't have to agree with him. I think he only wants you to seriously consider his viewpoint. Where is the ad hominen attack?
Argh, giddy. You don't read it as an attack: fine. Here was my main point again: please read my post above about "war," since it is overwhelmingly a crucial component to this topic. Thanks.
Okay, please show me the "attack" language. I'll be glad to read your post about war. Can you bring it to me?I'm doing laundry, cleaning up from dinner, entertaining my 2 kids, getting ready to watch 24, and sneakig in the occasional post.... AND I JUST DON'T FREAKIN' HAVE TIME TO FIND IT! You're welcome!
Does anybody know what any other b-rate genre writers think about patriotism? I'm dying to find out, basso can you help me?
