AutoJC Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 I thought I read that some prominent capitalist author would vote for Bush because of his "courageous" reaction to the terrorist attacks. I've never read anything more short-sighted in my life. Bush was right to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Bush reacted to 9-11 by eventually attacking its main sponsor, Afghanistan. That was sort of right. His response was not timely and immediate. And he doesn't know how to fight a war to win. That was/is wrong. Regarding foreign relations, the economy, protectionism, government spending, cutting government, fighting the war on terrroism to ultimate victory, Bush has been an outright disaster. No way am I going to vote for this clown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 AutoJC, you must recongnise that a vote for Bush is a vote against John Kerry, i.e. every less vote for Bush means one less vote Kerry must get... I, for one, will be voting for (though not supporting) George W. Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 I, for one, will be voting for (though not supporting) George W. Bush. How do you seperate "voting for" and "not supporting"? They are the same thing. By voting for Bush, you are giving him the only support you are able to offer him - 100% of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted April 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 AutoJC, you must recongnise that a vote for Bush is a vote against John Kerry, i.e. every less vote for Bush means one less vote Kerry must get... I, for one, will be voting for (though not supporting) George W. Bush. I'm not convinced that Kerry is the evil emperor that some put him up to be. 1. Kerry wants to give tax credits to those companies who produce goods and hire employees in this country and not farm out their labor. Bush could care less about this issue. Of course, there are many aspects of Kerry's platform I don't like. I won't vote for a president who, because he can't fight a war, places our young men and women in jeopardy. BTW, a vote for Bush is supporting Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted April 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 How do you seperate "voting for" and "not supporting"? They are the same thing. By voting for Bush, you are giving him the only support you are able to offer him - 100% of it. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 How do you seperate "voting for" and "not supporting"? They are the same thing. A vote simply means that I think the guy I vote for is the best, or least bad, among the viable candidates. IOW, a vote for Bush means that I think Bush is not as bad as Kerry. It does not mean that I think Bush is good. By voting for Bush, you are giving him the only support you are able to offer him - 100% of it. You can support a candidate in a number of different ways: by giving him campaign money, by showing up on his rallies, by having a bumper sticker that pokes fun at his opponent, etc. What I think Halley meant by "support," though, is to agree with his philosophical views and his strategy for the nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 I'm not convinced that Kerry is the evil emperor that some put him up to be. John Kerry wants to "cooperate" with the Iranian regime. THIS ALONE is enough proof that he is, in fact, an "evil emperor." And that's only the tip of the iceberg... Bush is a disaster. Kerry is death. Vote disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Kerry is the evil prince, second only to the Clintons. They're both proudly Toohey, only the Clintons know it. Kerry wants to give tax credits to companies that accord with his special-interest agenda; Bush wants to reduce taxes across the board without reference to any special-interest. Kerry wants to give in to any that would attack us and he wants to make us live like cornered rats; Bush is interested in protecting Americans, only the moral ineptitude of the rest of the world prevents him from doing it most effectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 OK, now for a little humor break: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Capitalism Forever - Kerry wants to cooperate with the Iranian regime? Is there a link or something where I could read about that? I thought Kerry was pushing his "I'm tougher than Bush on terror" rhetoric recently. I'm not defending the guy, merely curious. Though like AutoJC, I can't bring myself to vote for Bush. His domestic agenda of pushing censorship, faith-based initiatives and "compassion" is far more important to him than defeating terrorism. I also believe that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the greater war on terror, and has failed to make the US more secure. Kerry may not be the answer, but I can't help but see voting for Bush as sanctioning his evils. And beyond the tax cuts, I don't think he's done anything good for the country. Sure, Al Gore would have been worse, but that goes without saying. Going into Afghanistan was commendable, but in the wake of September 11th, even an "appeaser" like Clinton would have probably done the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 If that's what Kerry's been doing this week, then next week he'll be pushing the opposite rhetoric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Isn't best also to bring up the Social issues along with the economics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Kerry: Terrorist Shiite Al-Sadr 'a Legitimate Voice' Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S. Kerry: Some Bush budget cuts 'almost criminal' 1994: John Kerry championed nomination of activist who declared he hated intelligence agencies Wal-Mart opponents get big boost [from Heinz Endowments] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason W Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Why not vote Libertarian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timelord Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 With all this Bush vs. Kerry talk, would any of you consider voting for a third-party candidate, who actually stood closer to Objectivist thought. Like Gary Nolan, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. (http://www.garynolan.com/index.shtml) At least you'd be voting your conscience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 To vote is not to endorse. Op/eds, letters, etc. are endorsments. Voting is the practical action by which you achieve a political preference. Ie, a vote for Bush is a vote against Kerry if that's all it is to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted April 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 John Kerry wants to "cooperate" with the Iranian regime. THIS ALONE is enough proof that he is, in fact, an "evil emperor." And that's only the tip of the iceberg... Bush is a disaster. Kerry is death. Vote disaster. Kerry is known to flip-flop on issues. Wait until tomorrow The present regime in Iran is thought of to be moderate, although I don't agree with that. As long as fundamentalist Shittes rule the roost with their ayatollahs, AFAIC, the country is an enemy. Remember that Bush's strategy with Iran is to negotiate, as well. Vilifying Kerry and NOT vilifying Bush for both being wrong on this issue is just plain short-sighted. When I vote, it's not going to be for an Atlas Shrugged scenario like this one! I'll vote for neither one, if need be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted April 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Kerry: Terrorist Shiite Al-Sadr 'a Legitimate Voice' Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S. Kerry: Some Bush budget cuts 'almost criminal' 1994: John Kerry championed nomination of activist who declared he hated intelligence agencies Wal-Mart opponents get big boost [from Heinz Endowments] I've been to NewsMax and I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. Kerry needs to be confronted as to what his real stand is. After all, he voted for the Iraq war. General Giap is a leader of a war I actually opposed from day one. Do you really think there was ANY justification for Vietnam? Regarding Bush Budget cuts, as usual Bush would have his cuts across the board (tyypical of pragmatic politicians), including aid to local police and fire departments. That's against the role of government to protect the rights of its citizens. Vote for Disaster? Go ahead, what the heck? America has survived 41 years of such "disasters" Atlas shrugged! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted April 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Why not vote Libertarian? You know they won't win. They seldom have good candidates. In our town the libertarians are run by drunken unemployeds who are gadflies. So much for principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted April 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Bush is interested in protecting Americans, only the moral ineptitude of the rest of the world prevents him from doing it most effectively. I wish you were right about that. Betrayal of the Bush Doctrine American Appeasement in Iraq Baby Kim's Secret Weapon Stop Undermining Israel's war on Terrorism The Timid War on Terrorism Where's the moral ineptitude now, huh? WHERE? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted April 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 OK, now for a little humor break: *image of the Kerry PC* Note that it's not an Apple computer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apprentice Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 When I vote, it's not going to be for an Atlas Shrugged scenario like this one! <snip white space> I'll vote for neither one, if need be. AutoJC, I'm not happy about any of the candidates either, but figure I'll vote for the one who's leading the country in the wrong direction the least quickly. My reason for that is that I figure if I choose not to vote, I forfeit my right to gripe about what's going on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted April 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 AutoJC, I'm not happy about any of the candidates either, but figure I'll vote for the one who's leading the country in the wrong direction the least quickly. My reason for that is that I figure if I choose not to vote, I forfeit my right to gripe about what's going on... No one said I wouldn't vote. Plenty of regional and local issues on the ballot. I'll be there on election day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apprentice Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 Well, that's good--then you can gripe about all the local and regional issues you want But you'll not vote on the US Presidential race? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 A vote simply means that I think the guy I vote for is the best, or least bad, among the viable candidates. IOW, a vote for Bush means that I think Bush is not as bad as Kerry. It does not mean that I think Bush is good.I meant to say that regarless of Bush's value, any voter accepts the blame for Bush's actions while he is in office. The senior prescription drugs plan is coming to us because of those who voted for Bush. He gave Bush all the support he needed to drive prescription drug prices higher. The reason why I replied is that I immediately thought of all of the Germans that voted for Hitler. They had the same excuse. I voted for Hitler, but I didn't support him. I didn't lead off with that becuase it may have been taken badly. You can support a candidate in a number of different ways: by giving him campaign money, by showing up on his rallies, by having a bumper sticker that pokes fun at his opponent, etc. What I think Halley meant by "support," though, is to agree with his philosophical views and his strategy for the nation.You are correct that you can support Bush in other methods. I support Bush's foreign policy for the most part, but I would not vote for him. I will not accept any blame for destroying this country - or increasing prescription prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.