Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

I Only Defend President Bush When He's Right

Rate this topic


AutoJC
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We already know she wouldn't vote for Bush since she didn't vote for Reagan who had views similar to Bush's on abortion.

In fact, Rand called Reagan a demagogue of the faith-based right.

Bush has very similar views to Reagan on a broad spectrum of issues.

It's my opinion the faith-based right, in general, doesn't deserve the support of objectivists and capitalists.

Except, of course, when what few issues they come up with are, well, er-uh......

right :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, Rand called Reagan a demagogue of the faith-based right.

Bush has very similar views to Reagan on a broad spectrum of issues.

It's my opinion the faith-based right, in general, doesn't deserve the support of objectivists and capitalists.

Except, of course, when what few issues they come up with are, well, er-uh......

right :angry:

It figures that you defy RadCap's rally cry for moral support since you are the only one honest enough to admit that they are compromising. It would have been better if RadCap said that my argument was not valid since I am not as black as he is.

The shame of it is that this is what puts Bush into office. The delusion is that they are saving the country from harm when in fact they are causing the harm by compromising. You can see how they flock together like sheep as soon as they are challenged. It is the exact same problem that puts Kerry in office - lack of principle. One side rallys around the bible for principle, and the other side rallys around a power glutton for assurances that they are safe. Either way, the behavior of hiding from the truth destoryed America.

The times that the conservatives come up with the right responses is by accident. At the same time, the democrats/socialists are right when the conservatives are wrong since their existence is based on opposing conservatives.

By the way if I get banned for not being black enough (sarcasm), it was nice to meet an objectivist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More importantly,

As I have done this what must be five times by now, I suggust you stop pretending that I haven't.

Now that I think about it, it has been quite a while since you even tried to respond to one of my posts on the matter... speaking of red herrings.

Quoting my previous statment should serve as sufficient response for anyone who is confused by 'slave' and the small part of his argument which is not ad-hom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting my previous statment should serve as sufficient response for anyone who is confused by 'slave' and the small part of his argument which is not ad-hom.
You have avoided saying that you are compromising while trying to rationalize your behavior. That means one thing; you don't understand that you are doing it. Try saying this without anything else to change, evade or confuse the issue: "Yes, I am compromising principles by voting for Bush." As soon as you agree that A=A, we will agree.

Don't think that you will understand just by saying those words. It took me about three months to convince myself that I was lying to the only person that mattered - me. As soon as I did admit it, I was disgusted with myself for giving these people the one thing they need to carry out any crime they can agasint me. The one thing I gave them that allowed them to do it was a vote. You may give them money or support in election campaigns, but the goal is the same - a vote. They needed it, and I gave them the acceptance they wanted. It was an awful discovery.

That is why when I started out this thead I was against voting. I learned one thing since this thread started. Voting is an acccpetance of the person that is supposed to carry out the job. At no point does it give anyone the authority to violate anyone's rights. I was able to reason out that voting was a compromise, but I failed to understand that those elected had no authority to violate someone's rights. I understand the issue accurately once I corrected that mistake.

When you vote for Bush, you are accepting that he go ahead and violate the rights of the groups he says he is going to violate. He tells you that he is going to do it. There should be no supprise when he does it. There should also be no supprise that he did it for your vote. He thought you wanted him to violate rights, or you wouldn't have voted for him.

Bush is not a candidate that protects all of our rights. He protects some. I am sure he will protect enough that will allow him to be reelcted. On the other side, Kerry is trying to protect those rights that Bush doesn't so that Bush will be defeated.

Not all candidates choose to violate rights; those candidates need to be voted for - "where ever can be found" (as the ARI website article stated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you vote for Bush, you are accepting that he go ahead and violate the rights of the groups he says he is going to violate.
Unless I am evading reality than I am already accepting that either Bush or Kerry is going to violate those rights. One of them is going to do that, regardless of whether or not I vote, my only choice in the matter is which one. Which one does it the least?

You are still ignoring that voting is a statment of preference, not a moral sanction. When you state your disagreement, I ask that (for the first time in this discussion) you explain why.

Not all candidates choose to violate rights; those candidates need to be voted for - "where ever can be found" (as the ARI website article stated).

I agree, we need to vote for the candidate who is the best option, I have stated that all along. And if you could please point out which candidate I should vote for as better than both Kerry and Bush and why, than I would be happy to vote for that person. However, for now, I know of no such person and so will be voting for the best candidate that I know of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding foreign relations, the economy, protectionism, government spending, cutting government, fighting the war on terroism to ultimate victory, Bush has been an outright disaster.
and then...

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.

So, what you are saying is that Bush is protectionist and Kerry is promising to be protectionist too. Correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and then...

So, what you are saying is that Bush is protectionist and Kerry is promising to be protectionist too. Correct?

Incorrect.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with government giving American companies tax credits for hiring within America.

Protectionism is placing tariffs upon foreign goods and services.

Protectionism is embargoes on goods from other nations to protect American industries.

One of the reasons why American industry is NOT expanding, not hiring, not keeping domestic resources is the horrific tax burden that these corporations carry.

Even with Bush's tax cuts.

I can argue that, if there were no taxation, then Kerry's tax credit proposal would be totally a non-issue. :confused:

Regarding tax credits- as it is, government takes away from corporations for the sake of others with taxation.

I view it as a "give-back."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anything inherently wrong with government giving American companies tax credits for hiring within America.

There is something inherently wrong with giving tax anything...

and besides this giving tax credits to companies who hire in America is a problem becuase it interferes with the natural workings of the economic system... it is hard to tell exactly what problems will arise from such actions, but it is almost a sure thing that problems will arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anything inherently wrong with government giving American companies tax credits for hiring within America.

Protectionism is placing tariffs upon foreign goods and services...

Protectionism is any governmental action targetted at giving a benefit to domestic industry over foreign industry.

There is no fundamental difference between imposing a tax on foreign goods and giving a tax break to local goods.

There is no fundamental difference between imposing a tax on foreign services (a.k.a. foreign 'labor') and giving a tax break to local labor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something inherently wrong with giving tax anything...

and besides this giving tax credits to companies who hire in America is a problem becuase it interferes with the natural workings of the economic system... it is hard to tell exactly what problems will arise from such  actions, but it is almost a sure thing that problems will arise.

The concept of taxation interferes with the natural workings of the economic system.

That is a fact that I as an entrepreneur have to live with every day of my business life.

Also, I note that my tax dollars not only go for the sake of others they go for the sake of other foreign lands- billions of dollars worth.

Tell you what, Halley, I want that money back.

So Building my business in America and hiring American gets me tax breaks and keeps the money here? I can't see your point at all as to how that would interfere with the "natural workings of the economic system" given that some of that "interference" gets returned to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no fundamental difference between imposing a tax on foreign goods and giving a tax break to local goods.

There is no fundamental difference between imposing a tax on foreign services (a.k.a. foreign 'labor') and giving a tax break to local labor.

I really disagree with that.

Did you read Atlas Shrugged

Talk about tax refunds and tax breaks! :rolleyes:

We are talking about tax breaks to PRODUCERS in America.

For example, those tax breaks would obviate the need for me to seek outsourcing abroad.

I will admit that's not the best solution.

The best solution would be to eliminate all forms of tariffs AND embargoes.

I haven't read anything about imposing a tax on foreign labor. So where you dug that one up is a mystery to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking about tax breaks to PRODUCERS in America.

Good idea. Give everyone a tax break; work toward getting rid of taxes for all companies and all individuals. I'd applaud that.

However, to give tax breaks specifically to companies that outsource is clearly protectionism. It is governmental action targetted at giving a benefit to domestic industry or services (even if it is the individual service of a local person).

More generally, it would be just one more way in which the government influences economic decision making in companies. Just another imposition added to the workplace laws, environmental laws and "civil-rights" laws.

Like all those laws, all it will acheive is costlier goods and lower standard of living in the US.

Of recent trends, outsourcing will probably be one of the largest contributors to a richer america.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see your point at all as to how that would interfere with the "natural workings of the economic system"

I find this hard to believe, given that the stated purpose of the tax breaks is to get individuals to act differently than they normally would.

"tariffs" and "tax breaks" (in this context) are EXACTLY the same. Both are for the sole purpose of fooling with the economy and both are achieved via the same method--i.e. taxing businesses that outsource more than those who don't. One merely claims to be giving "breaks" while the other admits to be doing nothing but stealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this hard to believe, given that the stated purpose of the tax breaks is to get individuals to act differently than they normally would.

You bet individuals getting tax breaks would behave differently.

They might be far more able to pursue their happiness!

I strongly disagree with your point regarding tariffs and tax breaks.

Tax breaks put money in my pocket.

Tariffs cost me money.

I will reiterate the following:

Eliminate tariffs and the income tax, and the points of tax breaks becomes obviously moot.

Also, across-the-board tax cuts and cutting government services which bear no relationship to government's obligation to protect our rights make the most sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are ignoring the actual purpose of the "tax breaks," which is to create an artificial inequality between foreign goods and domestic ones (by making domestic ones cheaper).

Tax breaks [i.e. protectionist tax breaks; tax breaks in order to change the nature of competition on the free market]put money in my pocket.

Tariffs cost me money.

Both cost you money as both create false situations, destroying more productive industry overseas in order to "protect" less poductive industry here. It should be clear why this sort of "protection" is absurd.

Also, as previously pointed out, both are merely different faces on the same thing: The heavier taxation on outsourcers than on those using domestic products/services.

In fact, I would argue that "tax breaks" are more dangerous, because they give people the delusion that they are getting a "break;" That the government is doing them a favor. People complain about tariffs, they don't complain about "tax breaks." The change of the term, however, is naught but a red herring, drawing your attention away from the real goal--the real effect--of the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I partly agree with your argument, mainly on the premise that, were taxation limited to just supporting a government whose purpose it is to protect our rights, then tax breaks of any kind would be unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sine I started this thread:

1.  I disagree about my argument's relation with the present discussion, and...

2.  Since the subject originally had to do with Bush and his incompetence, I think that it's, well, relevant.

AutoJC is absolutely correct. His remarks certainly are on-topic to this thread, and even if the conversation has drifted somewhat there is certainly nothing wrong with him reverting to the original topic. I think Richard Halley's criticisms of him are therefore misdirected, and I must wonder about the motive behind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I previously stated in this thread that I would be voting for Bush and gave reasons why, I feel that I should post here that my position has changed. Given the travesties of Fallujah and the beheading of Nick Berg and the utter lack of serious response to them, and the utter lack of significant positive steps being made in Iraq today so far as I can see, or in the wider "War on Terror," I no longer believe that Bush will do a better job of protecting American lives than John Kerry would (which is pretty pathetic). Unless the situation changes dramatically, Bush has lost my vote. In fact, given the current state of affairs, I will not be voting in the presidential election at all.

See my letter to the editor published on this topic today. You can read the uncut version, in which I criticize the media and the rest of our politicians as well, here at my club blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AutoJC is absolutely correct. His remarks certainly are on-topic to this thread, and even if the conversation has drifted somewhat there is certainly nothing wrong with him reverting to the original topic. I think Richard Halley's criticisms of him are therefore misdirected, and I must wonder about the motive behind them.

My criticisms of him were directed at his posts as a response to mine. This was perfectly clear in the refered to criticisms (using the word "topic" in the origional criticism was unclear, but this was clarified in my subsequent post). As such, those criticisms were completly valid. And, given that JC WAS trying to present an argument against my own view (as is mad clear on page 5 of this discussion)--that if one candidate is better than another, one should vote for the better candidate--and given that his argument had no relation what-so-ever on my position, I hold by my criticizisms as both appropriate and correct.

See pages 4 and 5 of this discussion for evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AutoJC is absolutely correct.  His remarks certainly are on-topic to this thread, and even if the conversation has drifted somewhat there is certainly nothing wrong with him reverting to the original topic.  I think Richard Halley's criticisms of him are therefore misdirected, and I must wonder about the motive behind them.

Your comments are very much appreciated by me regarding this matter.

Thanks.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...