I Only Defend President Bush When He's Right

[always_learning]

That’s all very nice Slave, but when I comes down to it Bush and Kerry are the only options. Pick your poison. I for one will pick the less deadly of the two (Bush) and hope that he doesn’t kill me, I think my chances are better with Bush than with Kerry. If you don’t pick one you may be forced to drink Kerry’s poison, sure you won’t be to blame but you may be dead and you may come wish you had voted to the least deadly poison.

[Living Student]

You wouldn't be to blame either way. If our neighboors force me drink one of two poisions, I'll go for the the one that will kill me (more) slowly.

And I'm not to blame for the outcome. Our neighboors are.

[AutoJC]

Voting for local issues is of utmost importance.

For example, voting for a representative you send to Washington, or a Senator....those are every bit as important as voting for a president.

Congress can override a President's attempts at compromising individual rights. It's been done before. It is congress that ultimately passes laws, not the president.

Since Kerry and Bush are moral equivalents (actually, immoral equivalents), it makes little sense for me to vote for either one. But for the Senate or for Representative- those votes are more important thatn one is led to think.

[erik]

For the record Bush did cut taxes. The US treasury by lowering the value of the $ against the Euro and the Yen has essentialy raised prices for enough items to erase the tax cut for most Americans. It more expensive by 10%-15% to buy overseas products and thats with the other countries trying prop-up the $ artificially. That policy alone will make it impossible for me to vote for Bush and there are many others to make that decision on as well. Like his push for Theocracy in America.

John Kerry is no better but as long as Republicans retain the majority in Congress it might be better to have the gov't split so NOTHING gets done. The Republicans have had all the control and have spent like no other. So much for them being fiscal conservatives.

[Richard_Halley]

Since Kerry and Bush are moral equivalents...

Not true, Bush has an established record in regards to reacting to attacks on America. It may not be as good as I would like, but I am assured that he will do something. As for Kerry, we have no idea what he would do to deal with our troubles in the Middle East.

Also Bush, despite some major blemishes (especially with regards to medicare), is generally better with taxes and the economy than Kerry.

[Areactor]

I wish there was some way to change the situation so children from next generations wouldn't have to deal with years like this.

[Capitalism Forever]

Kerry wants to cooperate with the Iranian regime? Is there a link or something where I could read about that?

From www.johnkerry.com:

3. Engaging Iran on Terrorism:  Where the Bush Administration refuses to even attempt a non-confrontational foreign policy toward Iran, a Kerry Administration would recognize that limited cooperation with Iran in select areas of mutual interest is not only possible but in the best interest of both nations.

Kerry's e-mail to Iran

'Senator Kerry would seek direct talks with Iran'

An Open Letter To Senator John Kerry (from the Iranian Student Movement)

[AutoJC]

Various links to show that Kerry appears to want to engage in dialog with the Iranians.

Here's my challenge to all of you who seek to discredit Kerry for appearing to want to engage in dialog with the Iranians:

What has Bush done to confront this threat posed by Iran to American national security?

Besides him calling Iran an "axis of evil?"

What has he done to answer the multipronged threat Iran poses to us regarding:

1. Their harboring of Al Qaeda and Taliban who fled Afghanistan?

2. Their construction of two nuclear reactors which will give Iran the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons?

I'll tell you what he's done.

He went ahead and attacked IRAQ instead.

You are not wrong in criticizing Kerry for appearing to engage in dialog with Iran. I don't disagree that would be a totally misguided approach.

But Kerry is NOT the president.

Bush is.

Why has Bush done NOTHING against Iran?

[Capitalism Forever]

Since Kerry and Bush are moral equivalents

How can you say that?? It is like saying that Israelis and Palestinians are moral equivalents just because Israel is far from being a perfect Objectivist society.

Yes, Bush is far from being perfect, and some of his policies make our lives much worse than they could be if we had an Objectivist President. However:

• 1. There is no Objectivist Presidential candidate.
  
• 2. John Kerry is hell bent on eradicating all hints of independence, all shimmers of pride, all forms of individual wealth, all traces of capitalism, and all buds of rational self-interest from the United States of America.
  

Never underestimate the depravity of liberals. While conservatives are weak-willed, timid, vacillating defenders of--"some degree of"--capitalism, tormented by doubts, misled by compassion, and mired in pragmatism, liberals are like rabid jackals, with a total lack of scruples and not the slightest inclination to show mercy. They hate the world and hate it with a vengeance; they differ only in their strategy, but not in their goal, from the suicide terrorists.

[Capitalism Forever]

Why has Bush done NOTHING against Iran? 

I share your on that.

It appears to me that he wants to stabilize Iraq first and then move on to Iran. That is not how I would do things; given that much of the "instability" in Iraq may be coming out of Iran, it would be better to defeat Iran (and Syria, and Arafat) first and then worry about stability.

So yes, Bush is moving way too cautiously, but at least he's moving. If he gets reelected, he will overthrow the Mullahs sooner or later. OTOH if Kerry wins, the Iranian regime will stay in place, the UN will be recognized as the "boss" of America, and if you think that Medicare thing was bad...well let me not continue. As I said, Kerry means death--death for the victims of the likely Iranian nuclear attack, and death for the United States as the world's freest nation.

[AisA]

Bush is moving slowly because he is a christian -- and he dare not appear to be attacking religion -- ANY religion. This is why he is staying away from Theocratic Iran, but is willing to attack fascist Iraq. I, too, am sickened and enraged by this. See my post on the capitalism forum:

An Open Letter to President Bush

The problem is that Kerry will be another Jimmy Carter, and we will spend four years listening to him apologize to the world for America's existence while he decimates our military and intelligence capabilities.

[slave]

That’s all very nice Slave, but when I comes down to it Bush and Kerry are the only options.  Pick your poison.  I for one will pick the less deadly of the two (Bush) and hope that he doesn’t kill me, I think my chances are better with Bush than with Kerry.  If you don’t pick one you may be forced to drink Kerry’s poison, sure you won’t be to blame but you may be dead and you may come wish you had voted to the least deadly poison.

Compromises got us to this point. Continuing the trend, will not correct the problem. It may make you feel as if you are trying to fight it, but you have yet to identify the problem. Our politcs is the result of our philosphy. Our philosophy is corrupted. You can not correct that by accepting what they are doing to you. All that you can do is understand what they want from you, and fight them there.

What they want from you is your acceptance. All of the garbage these people reduced this country to needed one thing, your approval. When you vote, you give it to them. I believe this is why Rand said it would be immoral if she voted. She also said that if people do things wrong, they are mistaken. Those that fail to identify the mistake and give the mistaken the confidence needed to continue are evil (that is from my memory, but I believe the idea is the same).

In your post you said to "pick your poison". You know he is wrong and fail to make the appropriate response. I agree that I may be dead for making a moral judgement, but the cause of my death will not be from a moral judgement. It will be a concrete thing, a bullet, a noose, etc. I will not base my decisions on emotions like fear.

[AisA]

You know he is wrong and fail to make the appropriate response.

Slave, what do you consider an appropriate response?

Where did Rand say or write that it would be immoral for her to vote?

[Richard_Halley]

Compromises got us to this point. Continuing the trend, will not correct the problem.

Picking the least harmfull of your options is not a compromise...

And by the way, I was under the impression that Rand did vote (I seem to remeber something about voting against Reagan because of his policy on abortion). In fact, I looked up "voting" in the Lexicon, and found nothing about it being immoral in any way, much less for the reasons you stated.

[AshRyan]

Kerry is on the right side of a few issues, the ones that liberals do tend to come down on the right side of, such as abortion and stem-cell research.

On the other hand, gaining recognition of those rights will do us little good if terrorists nuke our major cities.

If Bush is reelected, we can hope that he will continue his unnecessarily and thus agonizingly slow war on terror by demolishing the Iranian theocracy sometime within the next four years.

If Kerry is elected, however, there is no hope of this happening.

I think we can put up with another four years of Bush if he can take care of the most urgent matter at hand: the nation's security from the terrorist threat. After his second term, some Democrat would probably be elected who could reverse some of the damage he has done in other areas (such as abortion and stem-cell research).

Normally, I would agree with whoever said earlier that we should try to split the power (to keep either party from accomplishing too much evil) by electing a Democrat to the White House, since the Republicans control the Congress.

But this election year, our nation faces a literally life-or-death choice. Which will you choose?

[AisA]

Well stated, Ash.

[Betsy]

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.

John ("I voted for the $87 million before I voted against it") Kerry SAYS he'll give a tax break to corporations AND he'll start huge new government social programs AND he'll eliminate the deficit.

Wanna buy a bridge to Brooklyn?

[AutoJC]

John ("I voted for the $87 million before I voted against it") Kerry SAYS he'll give a tax break to corporations AND he'll start huge new government social programs AND he'll eliminate the deficit.

Wanna buy a bridge to Brooklyn?

Goes to show how ineffective the New Math is. Seems like both candidates learned Math that way.

As the saying goes, the Democrats raise taxes and the Republicans borrow.

[AutoJC]

Flip Flop Flip Flop

“We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone,” Kerry told an audience at the University of California at Los Angeles.“As President, if necessary, I will use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.  But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal.  Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.”

Doesn't sound like a candidate who would destroy our national security to me.

[AisA]

According to his web site, Kerry has proposals for new government programs for agriculture, AIDS, the disabled, children, minorities, college students, crime prevention, education, energy, health care, nurses, seniors, small business, urban areas, veterans, native Americans, businesses owned by women, you name it, there is something for virtually everyone.

The same web site also says:

"John Kerry believes that we need a smaller and smarter government that wastes less money………. He will cut excesses in government and reign in out of control spending."

Clearly, the man will promise anything to anyone to get elected. How can you trust a candidate that makes such an obviously impossible set of promises?

I grant you, Bush is not much better.

[AutoJC]

Clearly, the man will promise anything to anyone to get elected.  How can you trust a candidate that makes such an obviously impossible set of promises?

Considering he has to deal with an often hostile Congress, I guess he feels he has to overpromise.

I'd pay attention to the real issues.

If Kerry keeps harping on the deficit and the time-worn Democrat solution of raising taxes, then he's clearly out of it.

[slave]

Slave, what do you consider an appropriate response?

Where did Rand say or write that it would be immoral for her to vote?

Introspection is the best response. Why is immoral for us to listen to the UN when it comes to our protection, but it is moral for us to hand over all of other responsibilities to an elected representative? Where is the difference?

I saw a video of Rand on CBC about 4 years ago. She said that she agrees with Libertarians mostly, but it would be immoral for her to vote for someone. I don't recall when or where the video was recorded. From her age, she had to be in her early sixties though. It was probably recorded sometime in the 1960's.

[Richard_Halley]

It seems more likely that she said that, while she agrees with most libertarian politics, it would be immoral to vote for a libertarian. She certianly never wrote anything suggesting that voting itself is immoral.

[slave]

Picking the least harmfull of your options is not a compromise...

And by the way, I was under the impression that Rand did vote (I seem to remeber something about voting against Reagan because of his policy on abortion).  In fact, I looked up "voting" in the Lexicon, and found nothing about it being immoral in any way, much less for the reasons you stated.

It effectively is a compromise when you present it as a false dilemma. Which selection will be the least harmful: Bush, Kerry or None of the Above?

I thought I was clear that it was my take on Rand's statements. If I mislead you, I apologize. She didn't explain it on the video, and I didn't understand it at that time.

[RadCap]

"It effectively is a compromise"

A compromise of what/between what?