Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Inertiatic

The Genius of George W. Bush

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Over the past few years, I've made fun of the man America put in the White House two (though I say four) times, insulting his low intelligence. I must admit, I am the owner of two magnets, one of which depicts Bush at the Pope's funeral and thinking "What happened to Santa?"

But recently I realized that George W. Bush is a political GENIUS. He is an evil mastermind.

In order to "protect the free market", he passed laws that made sure that the market was anything but free. Systematically, he destroyed economic freedoms. Control after control was passed. But, according to the president- we still had a free market!

So, what is John Q. Citizen to think? "Well, if this is a free market, it's obviously not working, what with the second-worst stock market crash in history. So, we had better head towards socialism/communism/welfare statism/fascism."- And all of this, without knowing that a free market never existed.

Eight years set us back one hundred.

Pure evil genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute. If you say that you're not being facetious, can your post still be interpreted as such? Because the alternative would be that you really think he ruined the economy on purpose, and he either manipulated everyone around him, or they were all working with him too.

Do you see that I'm making the same argument here, that I would make talking to one of those "Bush did 9/11" conspiracy lunatics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So at best he is an idiot that destroyed the idea of free markets by acting like its defender but enacting more controls and regulations. Or at worst he is evil and knowingly destroyed free markets while acting like its defender. Whats the difference to John Q. Public?

Edited by DoubleIPA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that John Q. Public doesn't know what 'evil' actually is, and so doesn't understand why what Bush did was so evil. They don't understand why the markets are good and why regulation is evil. And they certainly don't understand then, why the actions of a man like Bush, who is supposed to be opposed to regulation, are more evil than those of a man like Obama or Clinton. At least if they don't openly state their Socialistic intentions, John Q. Public understands, "Oh, well, these are the guys who do that appropriation-of-wealth stuff." To someone who doesn't get the wider picture, they wouldn't understand what's so significant about Bush enacting such strict and ridiculous regulations, until we get to the point where we are now, where one cannot tell the difference between the two political parties.

Edited by Tenure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of Bush, but to accuse him of being "stupid" is just falling for main stream media propaganda. However, I will say this much, bad ideas make people stupid, i.e. cause them to make lots of wrong decisions that fly in the face of reality. Altruism makes people look stupid, especially when those promoting it try to mix it with self-defense and survival (fundamentally egoistic), as Bush has done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what what Bush did that wasn't in the best interest of capitalism, neither Gore nor Kerry were alternatives that were going to actually deregulate or allow any free market capitalism to work. They were certainly going to do more to make what happened happen faster, in my opinion.

I agree with Mr Ellison that this is a facetious beginning to a thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush was a mindless pro-laissez-faire capitalist ideologue who actually knew next to nothing about capitalism and who secretly opposed it virtually completely. His destruction of American freedom via "compassionate conservatism" was thorough and immense. What a moron and scumbag!

Thank Galt he's gone. Obama will be far more capitalist and libertarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Moron" he absolutely was not. You do not fly a fighter jet successfully (i.e., manage to repeatedly land it without pranging) if you are a moron. To say nothing of operating the weaponry while manuevering it.

He IS a horrible public speaker and he IS utterly clueless about political economy. That's bad enough. Good riddance, and here is hoping we don't end up sorely missing him in about six months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama will be far more capitalist and libertarian.

I cannot find any supporting history from him to support that idea. Share your understanding and data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot find any supporting history from him to support that idea. Share your understanding and data.

Bush was (1) stupid, (2) lazy, (3) intellectually incurious, and (4) a brain-dead ideologue who knew it all without working or trying. Obama is (1) smart, (2) hard-working, (3) intellectually engaged and wide-ranging, and is (4) a pragmatist who actually pays attention and looks for answers. Obama will be like Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush was (1) stupid, (2) lazy, (3) intellectually incurious, and (4) a brain-dead ideologue who knew it all without working or trying. Obama is (1) smart, (2) hard-working, (3) intellectually engaged and wide-ranging, and is (4) a pragmatist who actually pays attention and looks for answers. Obama will be like Clinton.

LOL!

Edited by SD26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush was (1) stupid, (2) lazy, (3) intellectually incurious, and (4) a brain-dead ideologue who knew it all without working or trying. Obama is (1) smart, (2) hard-working, (3) intellectually engaged and wide-ranging, and is (4) a pragmatist who actually pays attention and looks for answers. Obama will be like Clinton.

Argumentum Ad Hominem isn't a spell from Harry Potter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush was (1) stupid, (2) lazy, (3) intellectually incurious, and (4) a brain-dead ideologue who knew it all without working or trying. Obama is (1) smart, (2) hard-working, (3) intellectually engaged and wide-ranging, and is (4) a pragmatist who actually pays attention and looks for answers. Obama will be like Clinton.

Obama has never held a position where his performance could be objectively judged a success or a failure. Even his college transcripts are secret. He is a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views and values. He has harnessed this cloak of philosophical invisibility to create an illusion that he is all things to each man. He ran on a campaign that can be fairly summarized as "yes, we can hope for change we can believe in," an ideologically void string of vaguest abstractions, completely disconnected from reality, and intentionally designed to read to each man as whatever he wants it to read. No wonder he packaged his candidacy under the symbol of a large, colorful zero.

On edit:

But, at least he (apparently) will be pursuing socialism under a socialist banner, rather than a capitalist or "conservative" one.

Edited by agrippa1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...