Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bush Gardens

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Bush's speech last night at the garden was pretty good. Maybe I'm just caught up in Bush fever but that Republican convention was OFF the heezy. For all his flaws, Karl Rove is a genius at making the Democrats look stale as bread. Maybe some of you caught the Black Eyed Peas singing "Let's Get Retarded" at the DNC. It was perfect.

There has been debate about voting for Kerry to keep the GOP from Teddy Roosevelting free speech. But, iaddressing foreign policy, tonight Bush said "Nothing Will Hold Us Back." That sounds like a promise to me. I'd love to hear what you all think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It remains to be seen what the effects on the polls will be as a result of Bush's speech.

For my tastes, it seemed rather low-keyed.

There were some pretty stirring speeches at the RNC, though. Giuliani, Pataki, Schwarzenegger, and Sen. Miller all contributed arousing speeches in their own right.

Now I hope the campaign will focus on the many issues that remain in this country.

There's too much attention on the candadates' military service!

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why "Teddy Roosevelting" free speech?

Bush's speech proposed some serious new spending. With the deficit what it is, I'm extremely wary of such promises to create new government programs. I don't see how Bush is going to keep his tax cuts, continue fighting terrorism abroad, AND spend more on domestic programs. Does anyone agree? At least Kerry admits he'll have to raise taxes somewhat to pay for all of HIS promised spending (not that that makes it more acceptable to tax-and-spend).

Also, I still don't think Bush has made a convincing case that Iraq is anything other than altruistic nation-building which has distracted us from the war on terror and even helped the terrorists recruit more angry, hopeless young men to fight us.

Since everyone here seems fairly pro-Bush and pro-Republican, I was wondering how you respond to these concerns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Off the heezy is ebonics, I was just kidding around. The republican convention was really great (err, dazzling), though. That's what I meant to say.

Since everyone here seems fairly pro-Bush and pro-Republican,
I'm not pro-republican exactly, but am a former republican. It was easy to catch the fever over the past few nights. NYC, Guilianni, the Terminator, Dick Cheney, and Bush "taking the mound" last night. Can you blame me? Yet I am agonizing over this decision.

Why "Teddy Roosevelting" free speech?

TR expanded government and humiliated the right to private property with anti-trust. Bush is a fan of TR and apparently of John Ashcroft and the FCC. A stretch?

The idea, though, is that "whatever it takes" is code for "I can't mention it for political reasons, but you know who is next." TIA daily seemed to imply that Bush likes to mess around with the UN for a while and then take action and that they have recently begun that process. He won't be campaigning for reelection. The republicans don't want us to "change horses mid-stream." There is some wisdom in that.

Then again, why wasn't it Iran to begin with? Agonizing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why "Teddy Roosevelting" free speech?

Bush's speech proposed some serious new spending. With the deficit what it is, I'm extremely wary of such promises to create new government programs. I don't see how Bush is going to keep his tax cuts, continue fighting terrorism abroad, AND spend more on domestic programs. Does anyone agree? At least Kerry admits he'll have to raise taxes somewhat to pay for all of HIS promised spending (not that that makes it more acceptable to tax-and-spend).

That's OK, the Bush administration will just go ahead and borrow the money it needs to spend. :D

Also, I still don't think Bush has made a convincing case that Iraq is anything other than altruistic nation-building which has distracted us from the war on terror and even helped the terrorists recruit more angry, hopeless young men to fight us.

Well, I'm not a Bush Republican.

I am against the altruistic nation-building program that the Bush administration is undertaking.

However, I am in favor of America forcing Iraq to adopt a government that is legitimate and not hostile to America. Too bad the Bush administration didn't insist that Iraq under the Batthists surrender first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...But, iaddressing foreign policy, tonight Bush said "Nothing Will Hold Us Back."  That sounds like a promise to me.

Bush has said a lot of nice things about foreign policy in the past. He has even named some important principles.

Too bad he has failed to follow through on any of those things and abandoned all of those principles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe some of you caught the Black Eyed Peas singing "Let's Get Retarded" at the DNC.  It was perfect.

i think the Black Eyed Peas sang 'lets get it started', which is the version of lets get retarded they produced to be marketing friendly...

and i thought the whole thing seemed to be a pretty big circus... and not too much was said to convince me that either bush or kerry should be president...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush's speech proposed some serious new spending. With the deficit what it is, I'm extremely wary of such promises to create new government programs. I don't see how Bush is going to keep his tax cuts, continue fighting terrorism abroad, AND spend more on domestic programs. Does anyone agree?

I agree with you. While the President gave a very energizing speech the other night, I could not help but visualize my tax dollars being pissed away. I mean for nothing's sake how many times did he mention "Expanding", or "providing" government interference in our lives. Errr... I mean government programs.

I think the President is counting on his version of "Reaganomics" to work. He might be right. Presidents Hoover, Kennedy, Reagan, and now Bush II, all lowered taxes. I am not sure of the current results of tax cuts, time will tell, but the first three times it was tried it resulted in increased government income.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So now Robert Tracinski is explaining why he is an anti-Bushite for Bush. This mirrors what I mentioned earlier that the Bush Administration messes around with the U.N but ultimately takes unilateral action and will do so on Iran (and has already initiated that process). Also "Whatever it Takes" is a decidedly clear and strong campaign message for the Republicans. So again I say there is a strong case for voting for Bush, and for anti-Islamofascism, and thus giving his admin. the go ahead on Wolfy's "End States..." policy.

Is it the FCC and religion that bother you anti-Kerrites for Kerry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Iraq: Once again I will advise anyone who doubts why we are in Iraq to look at a map. We now have both Iran and Syria isolated. There is no way that we could have done anything about Iran without first taking care of Iraq. You don't leave a Saddam on your flank. This is basic military strategy.

As for the altruism involved in Iraq, I will grant that HOW we've gone about it is based on altruism, but WHAT we are doing, i.e., neutralizing a hostile government and replacing it with one which is not a danger to us, is a valid strategy.

Attributing the terrorism in Iraq to our actions is placing the effect before the cause. Terrorism is the reason we are there; it is not caused by what we've done. Do not drop the context of this war, which is thirty years of Islamic terrorist attacks against the West.

2. Do I think that the religious Right in this country is dangerous? Yes. I certainly don't dismiss Dr. Peikoff's arguments, I just don't see how siding with the Left is going to help us. As I see it, we have our work cut out for us no matter who we vote for in this election.

A major problem for Objectivists is the altruist propaganda given for what we are doing. Considering the fact that this is the way most Americans think, both Right and Left, I don't think those in power would even know how to argue for the war without falling back on the rhetoric of altruism. The country is unarmed in this respect. We do not live in an ahistorical world, and until the majority of the population understands and lives by Objectivism we cannot expect things to be otherwise. The only alternative at present is to not fight at all -- which is the Left's position.

The most dangerous development, speaking of internal danger, is the assault from both the Right and the Left on freedom of speech. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Left is any better on this subject than the

Right is. Both parties are seeking to gain political position by placing barriers to political speech. Both Bush and Kerry have sought to use McCain-Feingold to shut up the other side. That this law was passed by congress, signed by Bush, and allowed by the Supreme Court, ought to tell us just how much danger we are in. There is no one in government who is protecting free speech. This is something that we must actively fight against once the noise of the election is past.

Having said all of that, I enjoyed several speeches given at the convention. Guilliani is a master speaker, whether one agrees or disagrees with him. And, I didn't think I would ever again see anyone display such towering, righteous indignation as that shown by Sen. Miller. His is a kind of speech-making that used to be much more prevalent. I was glad to see that they didn't back away from 9-11, as well. On the whole, the RNC was a much better produced show than the DNC managed.

The conventions used to be much more open and interesting, however. I can remember when it would take several votes before a candidate was nominated. There was more politicing going on, if you know what I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This mirrors what I mentioned earlier that the Bush Administration messes around with the U.N but ultimately takes unilateral action and will do so on Iran (and has already initiated that process).

Woah. Where on earth did you get that idea? I certainly haven't seen any signs of it. The best I've seen is a few vague statements by Bush cabinet members that they haven't yet ruled out taking action against Iran.

On the other hand, many people (including Jack Wakeland here on this forum, which is why I can't figure out why he still supports Bush) have argued that there is not a chance in hell that Bush is going to take any significant action against Iran.

Please, tell me, what has Bush already done to initiate the process of taking unilateral action against Iran? I would love nothing more than for it to be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Woah. Where on earth did you get that idea? I certainly haven't seen any signs of it. The best I've seen is a few vague statements by Bush cabinet members that they haven't yet ruled out taking action against Iran.

No, maybe I wasn't clear enough. He has already initiated the process, if there is one, of going to the United Nations and THEN taking unilateral action when that fails. This is what he did on Iraq. That's what I meant. I don't like it either, but that's the way it went down.

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...