Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ready To Choose Your Poison?

Rate this topic


AutoJC
 Share

Recommended Posts

Was that before or after he voted against it :D ?

The record shows that Kerry voted against the funding for Bush's policies in Iraq, much of that money to have been used for the reconstruction of Iraq.

If you think about it that was NOT the wrong thing to do- to vote in such a manner.

Why is it that we are responsible for the reconstruction of Iraq and must allocate more money and resources than what might be needed just to finish up the job of eliminating the former regime?

Of course the Republican spinners and their faux-capitalist minions will spin this to mean that Kerry is NOT in favor of defending America.

Certainly, in your attacking Kerry's policies, you people can do a whole lot better than believe the Republican spin-doctors. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

John Kerry is another Jimmy Carter. If elected, he will spend the next four years apologizing to the world for America's existence.....

...........not prostrated before that sickening collection of thugs, theocrats, two-bit dictators and smiling mass-murderers known as the United Nations.

Please provide proof of what is, in my opinion, your woefully misguided views on Kerry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

asia, you say about Kerry: "His web site even includes a promise to shrink the size of the federal government and reign in out of control spending." I think this is a good thing. Why do you think it's not? That money being spent is our money, taken through taxes and pumped into Medicare and faith-based programs. And those government officials are the ones deciding what to do with our money, based on pull and popularity. Sound like Atlas Shrugged? I don't understand how an Objectivist could take issue with decreasing government spending and government size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

asia, you say about Kerry: "His web site even includes a promise to shrink the size of the federal government and reign in out of control spending." I think this is a good thing.

Kerry also wants to spend about a TRILLION dollars on NEW government programs.

Objectivism says contradictions can't exist.

Kerry plans to pay for it by "taxing the rich" -- i.e. sacrificing the productive.

Objectivism says a sacrifice of that type is immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Jon Kerry's]web site even includes a promise to shrink the size of the federal government ...

Most candidates imply that the large size of government is caused by a bureaucracy that wastes money. If elected, they will shrink this bureacracy and make it more efficient. Voters like the sound of that these days... the majority want "less government".

Unfortunately, the majority also want all the government programs, and they want them to grow. (Let's add drugs to medicare.)

The really good candidate --- if we ever have one --- will promise to cut government spending on programs, and will even name some illustrative programs.

In the meanwhile, my vote goes to the candidate who cuts taxes. That's the only way to keep the spending in some check. No, I do not like deficits, but today they're the lesser evil. [sadly, when between a rock and a hard place :P , I have to choose this way!]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go, AutoJC

From a John Kerry stump speech:

"We need a President who can take us back to America’s rightful path in the world because President Bush has taken us so far off course. Whether it is failing to support a new Afghanistan (translation: we should have spilled more American blood and expended more American treasury) or supporting a failed coup in Venezuela (translation: we should not support an attempt to oust a dictator), whether it is pushing the world away on the Kyoto treaty (tanslation: we must agree to cripple our economy to appease countries that have no economy) or pushing the world into danger over North Korea (translation: threats should be appeased, not confronted.), this Administration’s go-it-alone attitude has endangered our interests and enraged those who should be our friends "(how dare we piss off the French and the Germans!).

"This is a moment of opportunity, a turning point when the Administration can and should face the realities of how you gain international support in this effort (in Iraq). We cannot expect other nations to join us now if the Administration prohibits them from sharing the reconstruction because they opposed us previously. "(translation: you gain international support by bribing the bastards that opposed your effort to defend yourself.)

"We must not waste this opportunity to rebuild alliances, both in Iraq and against global terrorism." ("rebuild alliances" means going back to the practice of giving France, Germany, Russia and Koffi Annan veto power over our actions.)

"So President Bush needs to take four immediate steps.

First, go back to the international community and to the United Nations and offer a real partnership in Iraq. We need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations authority in the rebuilding process and the development of a new Iraqi Constitution and government." (Translation: The most important thing for the president to do is go to the UN and get a resolution. Now that we've deposed Saddam, let the French and the Germans and the the UN thugs decide what sort of government to set-up.)

"Second, the UN authorization for international forces in Iraq is finally in place, but to expand participation we have to share responsibility, which the Administration still won’t do." ("Share responsibility" means that those who did everything in their power to stop this war should now be allowed to profit from the war's aftermath.)

"We must change a course of unilateralism and pre-emptive war that is radically wrong for America." (Translation: we must not defend ourselves until the gun to our head is actually fired.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still more Kerry:

"Here here is how we should and must proceed (in Iraq).

First, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq, and that will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily. We cannot depend on a U.S.-only presence." (Why? Why is that absolutely nothing can be accomplished by America alone?

"In the short term, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, then they should say so, and they should get them and get what they need. But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution." (Once again, the assertion -- as if it is an axiom -- that it cannot be America alone.)

"Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome, and they must be brought to that interest and brought to that outcome." (Ah yes, let 'em in on the reconstruction.)

"To accomplish this, we must do the hard work to get the world's major political powers to join in this mission, and to do so the president must lead. He must build a coalition of key countries, including the United Kingdom and France and Russia and China, the other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States." (Ignore the fact that these countries were asked until we were all sick of the asking and they what they said was NO! And what happened to Germany? Sounds like unilateralism to me.)

"The coalition should endorse the Brahimi plan for an interim Iraqi government, and it should propose an international high commissioner to work with the Iraqi authorities on the political transition. And it should organize an expanded international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under U.S. command and not necessarily with NATO. Once these elements are in place, that coalition would then go to the U.N. for a resolution from the U.N. to ratify the agreement. The U.N. would provide the necessary legitimacy." (Anything done without UN ratification is illegitimate. And note that we need, not a mere "high commisioner", but an international one.)

"Now, the question: Why would other nations join a cause that they did not support in the first place, particularly when they see what's happening? For one simple reason: it is in their profound self-interest. And the president needs to put that self-interest on the table and put it clearly before the world." (Right. Put it clearly before the world. Forget about the previous backstabbing, let everyone muzzle up to the trough of American money. Sure they'll join up. We take all the risks while they get to share any benefits.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kery the environmentalist:

“Al Gore is right. The earth is a small planet where wind and water, poison and pollution know no borders. We need to return America to its rightful place as a leader on climate change and that requires a President who is respectful and committed to the global community. (As opposed to being commited to the United States.) I am running for President to take on the special interests that stand in the way of protecting our planet and to create a new era of alliances where we can all work together to preserve our environment for the future.”

(Alliances with those pushing the Kyoto treaty that would devastate our economy?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the frustrating aspects of the current campaign is that I, for one, am seeking an alternative to Bush, who I am thoroughly dissatisfied with.

Every time I seek that alternative in Kerry I come back frustrated.

Here are some examples from Kerry's own Website:

A Strategy for Success in Iraq

To establish security and move forward with the transition to Iraqi sovereignty, the President must show true leadership in going to the major powers to secure their support of Lakhdar Brahimi’s mission, the establishment of a high commissioner for governance and reconstruction, and the creation of a NATO mission for Iraq. These steps are critical to creating a stable Iraq with a representative government and secure in its borders. Meeting this objective is in the interests of NATO member states, Iraq’s neighbors and all members of the international community. True leadership means sharing authority and responsibility for Iraq with others who have an interest in Iraq’s success. Sharing responsibility is the only way to gain new military and financial commitments, allowing America to truly share the burden and the risk.

Bush petitioned, and failed to get Nato support.

The only justification I can think of for sharing responsibility (which Bush wants to do, BTW) is that Iraq represented a threat to world security, not just to America.

I hear Bush discussing the Brahimi plan as well.

Regarding Venezuela:

"With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed. The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved."

Frustrating. :(

Any effort to remove Chavez would have been welcome at this juncture.

And then there is his plan to fight the war on terrorism

Read it and draw your own conclusions.

I don't see how this is markedly different from what Bush proposes. :):confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To reiterate AisA's attack on Kerry's environmental policy:

Priorities

   

Reduce our Dependence on Foreign Oil

A Commitment to Cleaner and Greener Communities

Fighting for Environmental Justice

Enter into a 'Conservation Covenant' with the American People

Protect our Health by Reducing Dangerous Emissions

Restoring America's Waters

Reassert US Leadership in Global Environmental Progress

Promoting Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Sacrifice, sacrifice, and more sacrifice.

Nether Kerry nor Bush has a clue as to how it is the environment can be "cleaned up."

They should both go here for some strong clues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, AutoJC, you seem to understand the situation now.

BOTH candidates are bad. The only reason one should vote for either is because it is important to maintain at least some attempt to defend ourselves. It is an aboslute shame that we find ourselves in a situation where we must do it apologetically, but it is better than nothing. Bush's stance on the war, while by no means great, is going to get the problem taken care of eventually; Kerry, in the meanwhile--well, its hard to tell what he will do, he changes his mind to often--but those issues which he stands most firm on tend to be exactly the wrong ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sailor, everything you said after "The shah was deposed in 1979" is wrong.

But I must say "These people later broke from Khomeini, forming a new agenda, moved to Afghanistan and became the Taliban and Al-Queda." Doesn't make any sense at all.

WGD check out site,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/cummings/cummings11.html

Do some research on this matter, and I believe you will see my point to be correct. We (as in the U.S. CIA specifically) created this mess over there. Can we ever really know, probably not. You are dealing with secret organizations, by definition you're not going to have all the facts. Provide some points that illustrate my contention are wrong. I am not so rigid as to continue to belief beyond proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We (as in the U.S. CIA specifically) created this mess over there.  Can we ever really know, probably not.  You are dealing with  secret organizations, by definition you're not going to have all the facts.
We know we did not cause this, and no further investigation is needed!

This is the same argument the anti-gun crowd uses - guns kill. The idea that an non-living existent was capable of such violence.

We created this mess sounds as if we unloaded our ships or planes into the desert. Once we unloaded everything that we gave them, it got up and went to work.

Who was it that actually got up and went to work? How did weapons shoot at other weapons twenty years ago? I agree weapons are unconscious, but did the weapons actually shoot by themselves?

Our fault (error is more accurate) was to think that they are as human as we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

I think it is very interesting to debate/defend the current canidates in our upcoming elections. How can we expect either canidate to act with reason, when both political parties are based on irrationality. The way I see it Kerry would be the better choice for President. For no other reason than he will drive America into the ground. When the American economy collapses, so goes the rest of the world.

Things will only get better when the lights go out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it Kerry would be the better choice for President.  For no other reason than he will drive America into the ground.  When the American economy collapses, so goes the rest of the world.

Things will only get better when the lights go out.

I don't agree that we ought to drive America and the rest of the world into the ground nor that "Things will only get better when the lights go out."

My only point of agreement is that Kerry is definitely the candidate for die-hard nihilists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JC, 

The forum isn’t really the appropriate place to link to ARI op-eds unless you have a particular issue you would like to discus.  If you would like to keep up with intellectual activism, you are welcome to contribute to the blog.

Backing up to the beginning of this thread, why exactly is it inappropriate to quote from ARI op-eds and link to them? People quote from and link to articles for purposes of discussion around here all the time (I've done it myself, and so have you, David), and it's never been a problem before, and I don't see any reason why it should be. Why is this any different? I would just like some clarification about this, because I'm kind of confused.

That said, the whole point of this thread does seem to be just a THIRD thread now for arguing that Kerry is better than (or at least not any worse than, with which I'm beginning to agree) Bush, and I don't understand why AutoJC feels the need to multiply this issue into more than one thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

I don't agree that we ought to drive America and the rest of the world into the ground nor that "Things will only get better when the lights go out."

Why not? After all is that not what John Galt did? In fact did he not actively encourage it?

Personally I can really see some interesting parallels between the book "Atlas Shrugged", and the current moment in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things will only get better when the lights go out.

Just like Atlas Shrugged!

Personally I can really see some interesting parallels between the book "Atlas Shrugged", and the current moment in history. 

Yup. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it Kerry would be the better choice for President.  For no other reason than he will drive America into the ground.  When the American economy collapses, [...]

The American economy is nowhere near collapsing, despite the unrelenting efforts of politicians: the obstacles created by the government continue to be outweighed by the gains in productivity.

But a Kerry presidency may indeed weaken America very much, as it would mean a probable nuclear attack by Iran on New York City. (Iran is close to getting nukes; Kerry wants to "cooperate" with Iran. Ergo, when Iran gets the nukes, there will be nothing to stop them from using them.) The loss of the New York Stock Exchange, much of the financial sector, and a great amount of other talent would have a debilitating effect on the rest of America.

While it is true that such a disaster might eventually wake up the more rational half of America, I had much rather if it could be avoided. What is going on in Iraq now is bad enough, but at least it is happening in Iraq and not in New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The American economy is nowhere near collapsing, despite the unrelenting efforts of politicians: the obstacles created by the government continue to be outweighed by the gains in productivity.

But a Kerry presidency may indeed weaken America very much, as it would mean a probable nuclear attack by Iran on New York City. (Iran is close to getting nukes; Kerry wants to "cooperate" with Iran. Ergo, when Iran gets the nukes, there will be nothing to stop them from using them.) The loss of the New York Stock Exchange, much of the financial sector, and a great amount of other talent would have a debilitating effect on the rest of America.

While it is true that such a disaster might eventually wake up the more rational half of America, I had much rather if it could be avoided. What is going on in Iraq now is bad enough, but at least it is happening in Iraq and not in New York.

The Bush presidency has greatly weakened America, as it has committed a large amount of resources to the attack on Iraq, a woefully misdirected assessment of priorities on the Bush administration's part in its "efforts" to fight a war against terrorism.

It is the Bush administration that has made America vulnerable to a probable nuclear attack by Iran, since the Bush Administration has largely ignored the magnanimous threat that Iran poses to the well-being of America. Bush has largely ignored the potentially devastating impact that the construction of Iran's nuclear reactors poses.

The Bush administration has also weakened America by his incompetence in defending America, vis a vis his immoral war in Afghanistan, where the furnishing of humanitarian aid and the concern over killing innocents and leveling mosques used as hideouts by the enemy took precedence to the destruction of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. We are still hearing threats by Al Qaeda; indeed, as was demonstrated in recent attacks to friendly positions in the Middle East and in europe and Russia, Al Qaeda is still very much active.

The Bush administration is running America into the ground. If re-elected, it may succeed in doing just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that we ought to drive America and the rest of the world into the ground nor that "Things will only get better when the lights go out."

My only point of agreement is that Kerry is definitely the candidate for die-hard nihilists.

Bush is the candidate for die-hard religious right-wing fanatics who place mercy before justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? After all is that not what John Galt did? In fact did he not actively encourage it?

The greatest expert on "what John Galt would have done" was Ayn Rand and she didn't think we should give up. Ayn Rand believed that as long as we are free to advocate our ideas -- and we are -- we should be fighting to change the direction of the culture.

See her essay, "Don't Let it Go," in the Ayn Rand Letter (Vol. 1, No. 4 November 22, 1971, Vol. 1, No. 5 December 6, 1971).

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...