About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 7:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Truthfan,

It might help to present why someone should go with the Democrats, rather than why someone should not go with the Republicans.

To Everybody,

It's not clear from this thread why discussers here choose Republicans. All I hear are vague or unsubstantiated allegations (usually against Democrats, not for Republicans) or allegations that seem appropriate to both the Dems and the Repubs. The examples:

Dickey:
Are you trying to suggest that paternalist liberals, with their precautionary principle, global warming (or cooling depending on which decade) perpetual malthusian dystopian attitude, preaching of 'sustainability' etc, are a paragon of science and reason? 
Environment was hardly if at all at issue the last election. Sounds more like a critique of Gore than of Kerry.

Hardy:
Republican leadership “get it” and acknowledge that free enterprise is inherently good and taxes are bad.
They sure say this a lot, but do they practice what they preach? Oddly enough, I hear Democrats saying the same damn thing. Both sides also lionize 'civil' liberties. Who better promulgates them?
 
Erica:

You are trying to convert Objectivists to follow a party that relentlessly assaults individualism at every turn...
Which relentless assaults on individualism might those be, and how are they worse than the ones Repubs are waging?

Cohen:
Under Bush, it is still possible to win the war against the Islamists, which would have been impossible under Kerry. See Kerry's platform about global nuclear disarmament while providing Iran with nuclear fuel "for peaceful purposes."
Why impossible? Eh. At least Cohen has offered some argument, but the connection between Kerry's global disarmament plan and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seems rather flimsy. Sounds more like an argument from conspiracy and paranoia than from reason.

Puke:

...but I sure am a fan of this country...
So why is Bush the better choice? Why do you think he can better fight a war?

I'm posting here to indicate that if this is a debate or discussion, then reason is needed. If this is an unproductive blather match, then you guys are doing just fine. I'm not yet entering this discussion, just commenting on it. I might take a side later if things shape up.

Jordan


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 8:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan:
Me:
You are trying to convert Objectivists to follow a party that relentlessly assaults individualism at every turn...
You:

Which relentless assaults on individualism might those be, and how are they worse than the ones Repubs are waging?
The relentless assaults are the profusion of social programs ranging from retirement plans, universal health care, welfare — in summary, all the Nanny government programs that take responsibility way from the individual and burden the rest of the population.

The Democrats initiate these programs but the Republicans resist them as much as they can without hindering all chances of being elected.

Sam


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 11:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Listen to Rooster, there is no chance in hell of America becoming a theocracy, even the far right doesn’t want it, no one does except the muslims and so I don’t see how you can even reach that conclusion. Truthfan, no offence but you sound like one of those middle aged hippies from the 80’s trumping up some reason to jump on Regan. But lets even say Bush is hell bent on spreading more religion in America, so what? You’ll see a few more 10 Commandment statues hanging around, a few more crosses on city seals, and of course the world ending event of a short prayer before a football game. Big freaking dead! It’s a hell of a lot better then paying 80-90% income tax, having our military mostly dismantled, and giving every Tom, Dick, and Muhammad who wants to come into this country free reign.

Its simple, DNC platform:

-We have a plan to build a strong, growing economy: creating good jobs, rewarding hard work, and restoring fiscal discipline.

-We have a plan to help our people build strong, healthy families: securing quality health care, offering world-class education, and ensuring clean air and water.

-And we will honor the values of a strong American community: widening the circle of equality, protecting the sanctity of freedom, and deepening our commitment to this country.

RNC platform:

-Winning the War on Terror …
because our government’s most solemn duty is to keep its citizens safe.

-Ushering in an Ownership Era …
because a vibrant entrepreneurial spirit will keep our economy strong and
provide more opportunities for workers and families.

-Building an Innovative Economy to Compete in the World …
because America can compete with anyone, anywhere, thanks to our entrepreneurs and risk-takers who keep us on the cutting edge of technology and commerce.

-Strengthening Our Communities …
because our children deserve to grow up in an America in which all their hopes and dreams can come true.

-Protecting Our Families …
because we respect the family’s role as a touchstone of stability and strength in an everchanging
world.

Let me sum it up,

Democratic agenda=evil dirty socialist plan + turning other cheek.

Republican agenda=50% less dirty socialist plan + killing terrorists.

As for you Jordan, what do you consider to be a civil liberty’s? If it’s the democrats version of it then your absolutely right, the Republicans have been trampling all over it and if I were running things so would I. The left makes up new rights every day of the week My definition of civil liberties are summed up in the Bill of Rights, not UCal Berkley’s student rights code or the DNC charter.

Post 23

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 11:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

Let me give you a slap on the back for trying to build a bridge.  Now let me tell you that your effort is misplaced.

You state: "It's not clear from this thread why discussers here choose Republicans."  True, but then this thread was not intellectually serious from the start.  I admire a good polemic as any partisan does, and as far as rhetoric is concerned hyperbole has its place.  However, declarations that Bush is fashioning a theocratic tyranny and marching this country towards fascism are simply unhinged.

What sort of serious response does that merit?  Doesn't an Objectivist have an obligation to WEIGH things accurately?  How do a handful of war measures threaten to make a constitutional republic a fascist state?  Reducing the United States under the Bush administration to the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or Islamist Iran bears no resemblance to the truth and serves only to make light of the murderous barbarity people actually have suffered under those tyrannies.

It is one thing to understand this country's problems:  The financial folly of the New Deal, the social malignancy of the Great Society, and the multi-culturist assault upon objective truth.  It is an entirely different thing to not understand how America remains a fundamentally decent country in contrast to genuine tyrannies.  An Objectivist should have no patience for those like Truthfan who shatter all sense of proportion to call things evil that aren't.

Pukszta


Post 24

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 11:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"It’s a hell of a lot better then paying 80-90% income tax, having our military mostly dismantled, and giving every Tom, Dick, and Muhammad who wants to come into this country free reign."

Amen, Brother Clarence!

Pukszta


Post 25

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 11:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hiya Puke
Let me give you a slap on the back for trying to build a bridge.  Now let me tell you that your effort is misplaced.

Damn. Can't blame a guy for trying.

This aside, there's a Frontline episode on PBS (and so likely biased toward the left) about Bush and his religion. The episode is called "The Jesus Factor." You can watch it here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/view/
I haven't seen it yet, but I suspect it addresses the worries about theocracy.

I also snooped around online just now with searches like "Bush and the religious agenda" or "Bush and faith-based initiatives." And I checked out whitehouse.gov and found this link concerning a partnership with the federal government and faith-based communities and organizations: http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/guidance/index.html.
 
So Sam,
The Democrats initiate these programs but the Republicans resist them as much as they can without hindering all chances of being elected.
I know they say that, but I'm skeptical that such is reality, especially after just researching Bush's "compassionate conservativism." It doesn't help me so much to name stuff like "social programs ranging from retirement plans, universal health care, welfare" although I appreciate that. It would help to describe the Dem's agenda w/r/t these things and then compare that to the Repub's agenda. It's probably too much to ask for this thread, and Puke is probably right the thread probably wasn't intended for this.  But I think that's what is required if this thread is to be productive.

Jordan


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think my main point has gotten lost in some of the lengths of my posts, and with my frustration with some of the comments I'm seeing.

My mainly (only) point is that Bush is a liar and a misleader (I have many examples from mainstream newssources that  I can give anyone who wishes to judge for themselves).  Bush is different other politicians, the 'they all do it' argument does not apply. 

In a two party system Democrats will have to combat the GOP, using truth.  There is no other option when the opposite side is using techniques whose success matters on confusing/duping a majority of people.  Democrats are in 2005 the defacto truth fighters.  No doubt they will be surprised and humbled and shown to be hypocrits as they follow this path.  But it's their only choice, and it's an opportunity for Objectivists.  

All of the other issues mentioned in this discussion:  taxes, social programs, etc are not the issue.  I'm assuming everyone understands that the Democrats in theory, and practically in more normal times, are not the party for Objectivists. 

I'm saying that the GOP has crossed a very dangerous line, one that has lead to Fascism in the past--lying to the people to gain/maintain power.  And again, this is different than the past.  I can go into my reasoning for that if anyone is interested, I probably should in another post because I think that that is a major sticking point for people.  Anyway...

Objectivists need to be odd bedfellows and support the side who champions (intentionally or not) truth and reason.

The fundamental attribute of reason is clarity.  Since the Dems are the de facto fighters against those who seek to confuse/mislead, Objectivists should be on the side of the Dems.  Then we can move on to the other stuff.

Truthfan


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 10:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Truthfan: “In a two party system Democrats will have to combat the GOP, using truth.”

If the Dems use the truth, they will lose all the time. What are they going to say, “we’re going to ratify Kyoto and collapse the economy”, “we’re going to implement universal healthcare and tax you all to death”, “we’re going to disarm every one in this country except the criminals”? Look what slips out when they do tell the truth:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39205

Hillary Clinton, San Francisco fundraiser, June 2004
“Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.”We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000369.html

As for the Bush’s supposed lying, How? When? He said Iraq had WMD’s, we didn’t find any. Does that mean he lied? No, you don’t know that and you can’t. They could have gotten bad intel, it happens. He could have snuck them off to Syria, the point is, you don’t know. I for one don’t care; I was for the war because Saddam supported terrorists who wanted to kill Americans, period. Look at the Bush doctrine, look at that and tell me invading Iraq doesn’t fit under that plan.

“the United States would engage - militarily, and preemptively if necessary - rogue nations that support terrorists and develop weapons of mass destruction”

Even if I knew Saddam didn’t have WMD’s, the war would have still been right. I don’t understand how you can look a kid in the face and take the chance of not going war to protect ourselves.

Besides:

Howard Dean - September 2002, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

Wesley Clark - Sept. 26, 2002, “When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval. . . . There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities”

John Rockefeller - Oct. 10, 2002, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years”

John Kerry – “We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.”

So Bush was the only one lying?

Post 28

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 7:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I think it was Sam who initially pointed out that Bush and the rest of the world were apparently mistaken about the WMD's. Clarence just reiterated. If Truthfan wants to convince people that Bush is a liar, then he shouldn't bark up this tree.

I think much stronger evidence would be that Bush continually rewrote the reason he pursued Iraq. First it was the WMD's, then it was the Al Qaida connection, then it was the WMD building materials connection, then it was the general terrorism connection. I probably got those out of order, and I'm sure there was overlap. But this to me looks fraudulent. I'm not sure why he didn't just say, "You know something -- we screwed up. Turns out there were no WMD's. But I think there is still good reason to be in Iraq, even if our original reason was bunk." <shrug>

Jordan


Post 29

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 9:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bush or Kerry?
Republicans or Democrats?

These are not choices between food and poison, but poison and poison.

This thread seems to have a majority favoring death by cyanide while some others prefer arsenic.

Reject both.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Have you tried third party politics in this country? What choice do we have?

If given the choice, we have to pick the lesser of two evils or trust me, the greater evil will win.

Post 31

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 11:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In a two party system Democrats will have to combat the GOP, using truth. There is no other option when the opposite side is using techniques whose success matters on confusing/duping a majority of people.


If your only goal is power, that's hardly true. All you have to do is confuse or dupe people better than the other side.

Post 32

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 7:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you Mr. Hardy for finally bringing some evidence to this discussion, rather than just going off on some fact-less rant ala Puker et al.  It's refreshing.

Re Bush's lies, check out my post 11 re Medicare and the Tax cuts.  I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of either, just that they are two examples where Bush blatantly lied.  They are a nice insight into his character.  They are two reasons why I don't trust anything he says (besides 'I was the only president since Hoover to preside over a net loss in jobs'). 

Re the WMD, you're right we'll never know.  One thing we do know is that Iraq had no working relationship with Al-Qaeda (see 9/11 report) and was not involved in 9/11.  Saudi Arabia on the otherhand...that's another story.  Why do you think we did not invade Saudi Arabia?  It's not a 'deal with each bad guy at a time thing' because Bush has no only done nothing about a bunch of other bad leaders, but he's stayed in bed with them. 

Regardless, I think that there is a lot of evidence that  Bush and Co wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 and they were just looking for ways to sell the American people.  They misled (about terrorist connections which, if you still believe you must get your news from Fox http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf), they implied an imminent threat, they did just about everything but give us a truthful case based on reason. 

Why do you think that this country is so divided?  Why do think that the entire world wants to see us lose (which, like it or not, has real negative national security implications)?  There's a reason that there was overwhelming support for Afghanistan (besides a few wackos on the far left), and such a lack for Iraq. 

It's an important point;  there's been a lot of propaganda aimed at all of us to make us believe that Bush is 'resolute', 'steadfast', 'strong'.  It tells us that what he is doing is related to integrity i.e. Bush has such strong resolve that he can persevere beyond all those Frenchy naysayers who are weak and amoral and just don't understand.

It's such bullshit.  It's stubborness and lack of curiousity spun as strength and conviction. 

I for one look at objective reality, at facts and truth.  All that stuff listed on the RNC platform, and the DNC platform for that matter is just words.  Look at reality. 

Look at the economy, the number of jobs in relation to the Clinton years.  The twin deficits.  Look at Iraq, our soldiers are dying to install a theocracy that will probably be worse than Saddam.  Especially because we've given so many gifts to Iran and their theocracy. 


Post 33

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 7:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,
I noticed that you believe that PBS is biased towards the left.  Can you provide some evidence for that assumption?  I only ask because it is my belief that that is a myth generated by the right-wing to make you dismiss an objective and truthful newsource so that you will be more likely to be uneducated and believe their bias.  See:  http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf

Truthfan

P.S. If you watch the Frontline episode you mentioned, you will see that it is quite balanced, informative and interesting.  I think it leans toward giving a favorable light of the president and the role of religion in his life, if there is any bias. 


Post 34

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 8:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Puker,
Did you hear Tommy Franks comment in 2003 about how we would suspend the Constitution and institute marshall law if there was a big enough terrorist attack? 

Do you trust Bush to use that power wisely?  Of course you do, He is infalible. 

Hopefully that attack won't happen, but I feel the need to correct you since you've misquoted me (saying I've called things 'evil' etc) and attemped to write me off by offering no factual support for your claims.   

For the record,

I don't think we're in a Fascist society or a theorcracy, but I think there is a very real danger of slipping into one under Bush's poor leadership.  Why?  Because he doesn't trust the American people with the truth (see my post 11), he doesn't trust us enough to let us make our own decisions whether to support him and his policies.

Instead he puts a lot of effort into misleading you into believing the PR image of a strong resolute leader. 

Anyway, I know this will probably not change your opinion of OUR GREAT AND NOBLE LEADER but I just want to be on record as having tried.

Note: please don't respond if you are going to pull some opinion or quote out of your ass.  Why don't you refute the two lies that I documented in post 11, the lies that show an insight into Bush's true character?


Post 35

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 8:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Clarence,
Just looked over your post again re theocracy.  If you want to use the extreme of paying 80-90% taxes, then I say:

I would rather pay 80-90% taxes than be burned at the state as a hethen Objectvist in a theocracy.

Also, I think there are a lot of blue blooded Americans who actively work to institute a theocracy in this country, whether they know it as 'theocracy' or not.  First step, ammend the constitution to include religious views on gays...
Truthfan 


Post 36

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 12:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 
Hi Truthfan,

I haven't heard about the first of Bush's alleged lies, the one about the medicare bill. But it sounds like you have the evidence to back it up. I'd be interested in reviewing that.

As for Bush's second alleged lie -- "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom" -- I think is more misleading than lying. I think I remember reading on www.factcheck.org something like there are a greater number of tax cuts available to the poor, but in terms of monetary percentages, the wealthier get a way bigger tax cut. Problem is that according to factcheck.org, Kerry was misleading on various facts as well.

As for evidence that PBS is biased...

I did find this--
A 1998 study by Vassar sociology professor William Haynes found that the public affairs programs on PBS showed none of the liberal bias imagined by critics. In fact, PBS has been dominated by right-wing talk shows (such as Firing Line, McLaughlin Group, McLaughlin One on One) and uncritical business programs (Bloomberg Morning News, Morning and Nightly Business Reports, Wall Street Week). Corporate representatives and Wall Street sources accounted for 35.3 percent of the appearances, followed closely by professionals (primarily mainstream journalists and government officials (25.6 percent each). The general public and citizen activists accounted for only 10 percent of the sources, down from 18 percent in a similar study made six years earlier.  http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Reform/HowLeftCanWinArguments.html 
--Although I think it's from a leftist source.

In contrast, I also found this:

On Tuesday [11/16/2004], the Public Broadcasting Service ran a scathing attack on Wal-Mart, the
world's largest retailer, on its "Frontline" series. ... In short, "Frontline" presented a one-sided hit piece disguised as objective news reporting.  Everyone responsible for it should be embarrassed for this grotesquely unfair case of taxpayer-financed liberal propaganda.
 
PBS's Frontline spent most of its Tuesday night November 16 program attacking Wal-Mart and blaming it for killing American jobs, contributing to the trade deficit and helping put Rubbermaid out of business.  The program titled "Is Wal-Mart good for America?" featured correspondent Hedrick Smith saying the U.S. is "like a third-world country" because we import so many goods from China compared to what we ship them. ... The bottom line on taxpayer-funded PBS was that Frontline was out to get Wal-Mart.   http://www.akdart.com/media.html

But this is appears to be from a right-wing source. I'm sure there's better info out there for or against. Personally, I have difficulty seeing PBS' leftist media bias, much less Frontline's. But so people in this forum don't shrug off Frontline's documentary too quickly, I figured I'd offer the possibility of its bias up front. For some reason, when you show people your arguments' or premises' possible weaknesses up front, those people are less likely to shoot them down.

*

Aside, speaking strictly hypothetically, I wonder if a liar might still make a better leader if the ends he achieves are better than those which would've been achieved by an honest man.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 1/04, 12:08pm)


Post 37

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 12:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

Re Bush telling the American people the cost would be $400 billion, just prior to the vote (see 3rd paragraph from end)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031029-1.html

Re the threat of firing the Actuary for telling the truth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/07/politics/07medicare.html?ex=1104987600&en=2d1a3c70c966a5c1&ei=5070


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 1:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott,

You say about the choice between Republicans and Democrats, "These are not choices between food and poison, but poison and poison."

I appreciate the sentiment, but to believe that is to divorce the choice from its context.  A proper question to ask yourself when making that choice is what do you value?  I, as I am sure you do, place great value in this country AS IT IS, even though it is not what I would wish it to be.  The welfare state burdens this country and has warped it in many ways.  Yet America remains a great country, and it's home.  I want to protect my home come Election Day, so how do I vote?

Maybe an analogy will help.  My house is on fire.  I'm standing outside with a can of gasoline, a garden hose, and a cell phone.  I can call for firemen (Libertarians) who know how to put the fire out and save my home, but they are too far away to help in time.  So I can throw the gasoline (Democrats) on the fire so it burns a little quicker, or I can make do with the garden hose (Republicans) to slow the burn until the firemen arrive or maybe it put it out.

In this context, it is rational to vote for the Republicans.

I should add, Scott, that I do not believe that the Libertarians will ever become a major party by incremental gains.  That has never happened in American politics.  So, I do not think I am preventing the Libertarians from succeeding by not adding my one vote to their one percent in the national tally.

Pukszta


Post 39

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

Regarding faith-based organizations receiving government contracts ...

I'm sure you and I agree that welfare is not a proper function of government.  Nevertheless, the government continues to dispense a lot of it and will probably continue to do so as far as I can see into the future.  In that context, it's an improvement to have the government outsource welfare, and I would prefer to see my "charitable" tax dollars put use by Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship and the Salvation Army than unionized government hacks.

Pukszta


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.