How can any Objectivist support Bush?!!

Truthfan,

From Whitehouse.org, it looks like Bush just submitted a budget proposal that turned out to be way under what ended being the actual budget. No big deal there.

As for the NY Times, it's not clear that Bush was the perpetuating a fraud, but rather Scully was. But it's not even clear if Scully was a troublemaker. Foster's estimate on the bill's cost could've been unsubstantiated, although the conspiracy theorist in me doubts this. The conspiracy theorist in me also says that Bush probably new damn well what Scully was doing, and Scully new damn well that if Foster leaked his info, then Bush's plan would've been in trouble. Of course, NY Times is another one of those allegedly leftist news mediums. I don't read it enough to know if its seriously leftist. Still, it'd be interesting to see what the Bush Admin (and not just Scully) has to say about this.

You should know that while I'm not certain, you've persuaded me that, more likely than not, Bush perpetuated a fraud with the medicare bill.

Jordan

Post 41

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 1:47pm

Truthfan,

You snort, "Bush is different other politicians, the 'they all do it' argument does not apply."

I take it you're not old enough to remember Clinton, Nixon, LBJ, and JFK. But then I'm not sure what to make of someone who takes Al Franken as the gospel. The bottom line is that I think you need to come to grip with the fact that all politicians love to put lipstick on the pigs they're selling to us. You can either get self-righteous and decry these "lies" or simply see them for the puffery they are.

Pukszta

Post 42

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 2:04pm

Well, I'm not that old either but I can see the truth when its right in front of my face.

I've been working with Republicans for years and let me tell you this, if there is ever a chance in hell for the country to get better, its going to come from the Republicans. Seriously, look at it the other way, why support the Dems? What, they are less religious and believe in abortion, what else? Can you look at John Kerry's campaign and honestly say that he is a better man the George Bush?

What ever you say about him, Bush has frequently displayed conviction and certainity when we needed it. When he went to New York after 9/11 and told everyone, "I hear you, America
hears you, and soon the people who brought these buildings down will hear you!" I actually felt good to have him as the President. I would like him a lot better when he invades Syria and leaves the UN but we make do with what we have.

Post 43

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 2:11pm

Jordan,

Excellent googling for the facts. You are correct, as I recall from an article I read at the time, that the administration's machinations to push Bush's Medicare "reform" bill through Congress involved underlings, not Bush personally, low-balling the cost of the bill. That said, a few thoughts.

First, underlings or not, Bush is responsible for what his administration says to the public. To the extent that Bush did not publicly rebuke Scully, he is tainted by Scully's jiggering of the figures. Second, just how much of taint is that though? The game in D.C. is to always fudge the figures to suit your agenda. Everyone knew that Bush's "reform" with its prescription drug benefit would end up being another huge entitlement costing multiple times any original estimates.

Finally, the outrage of liberals like Truthfan over this inside baseball is just a bit too precious. The public never cared what the estimates were, and no politician voted for the thing because of the estimates. How this incident puts us upon the path to serfdom, as Truthfan cries but does not explain, is beyond me.

Pukszta

Post 44

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 2:27pm

Hardy,

You ask, "Can you look at John Kerry's campaign and honestly say that he is a better man the George Bush?"

Bush is a leader, but he is not a great leader in times that call for one. That hit home with me during the first debate with Kerry on foreign policy. Bush was plainly so contemptuous of the waffling, poll-driven, Commie-cuddling peacenik that he sniped at him rather than put any effort into a coherent and compelling explanation of his war aims. Bush's disdain of Kerry was not misplaced, however, a great leader would have recognized that his audience was not Kerry but the American public. Bush did owe them the explanation that Kerry didn't merit.

But I'll take a good man who can speak from the heart as Bush did at Ground Zero over a poseur anyday.

Pukszta

P.S. I wonder why it doesn't bother Truthfan that over 200 of Kerry's brothers-in-arms said Kerry lied about his heroism in Vietnam and the alleged atrocities his comrades committed there. THAT tells me a lot more about Kerry than fudging figures to promote a bill in Congress tells me about Bush.

Post 45

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 2:51pm

Truthfan,

Here are the answers to your prattling ...

"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?"

No, but he was probably referring to the CONSTITUTIONAL provision regarding the suspension of habeas corpus. Even if he weren't, why would I care? He was the commander of the Central Command, not the President.

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

Why would I trust him because YOU think he's infallible? That makes no sense. Oh, wait. Are you trying to say that I think Bush is infallible? Based on what evidence have you formed such a belief about what I think? The same sort of evidence that Bush is turning this country into a tyrannical fascist theocracy?

"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."

You don't think tyranny, fascism, and theocracy are evil things?

"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."

Even if we accept your characterization of Bush, that does not get you from here to there. How do his lies change this country into fascist state or a theocracy?

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

Name me a president of the media age who hasn't.

"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."

Do you honestly believe that anything you have written is compelling on that score? Are you completely oblivious to the fact that your "analysis" of Bush is the same swill the lefties have been putting out for a couple of years now and has been discredited on the spot every step of the way?

"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?"

I apologize for unleashing my scintillating wit at your expense. I thought you were made of sterner stuff, Truthfan.

As for the refutation you requested, why would I want to bother? I already know what the truth is. Besides it's more fun to be obnoxious than waste time trying convince you of things you do not want to know.

HOWEVER, if you care to seriously explain how Bush's "lies" actually lay the foundation for tyranny in this country (because I honestly do not know how they do), I will address your concern respectfully. After all, I have no more desire than you do to support a tyrant-in-the-making.

Pukszta

Post 46

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 8:09pm

Rooster, "Commie-cuddling peacenik" I like that one!

Anyway, I think it's been established that despite his shortcomings; Bush is more truthful the Kerry, Bush has more resolved then Kerry, and Bush is more moral then Kerry.

Kerry lied about Vietnam, he lied about the military, and he lied about his belief in the Iraq War.

Bush is out killing terrorists right now, Kerry would bent over in front of Kofi Annon right now if he were elected.

Bush actually beleives in right and wrong, good and evil. It comes from mysticism but it works all the same. If you wanna fight a jihadist, hell, use a crusader.

Anyway, I though with this thread, I said what needed to be said and we're beating a dead horse.

Post 47

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 8:52am

Holy Shit!
Objectivists believing the 'Swift Veterans for Truth'.

Note: none of those people 'served' with Kerry (in his boat etc), all their testimony goes against all military records, they include former Nixon stooges....wait never mind

If you do anything besides dismiss the SVT with extreme prejudice, then you are a not an Objectivist. Period.

Post 48

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 10:15am

Jordan,
This is all non-conspiratorial, mainstream news. It just didn't get much attention, thus it seems peculiar/surprising. The issue of why it got so little play in the media and why there was no public outcry, that's for another post.

Re the whitehouse.gov speech, there is a lot of backstory to that 400billion figure. It's not some vague estimate. The administration heavily pressed Congress to pass the bill (originally it was meant as a way to gain moderate voters for the 2004 election). It backfired for a lot of reasons (crappy bill, this fraud, etc). But it has been heavily documented that 1) the adminstration twisted a lot of arms to get the bill passed 2) it promised the 400billion cap in doing so and further 3) that cap was crucial to get it passed i.e. there were enough (truly) fiscally conservative Republicans who had a problem with the bill and would not have voted for it if it had been one cent more. All these points can be backed up with solid (and somewhat boring) references.

I repeat, the 400billion was not some 'estimate' , as the uninformed and questionably-reasoned arguments of Rooster Puke could confuse one into thinking, it was a promise made to Congress and the American people. It's crucial that we don't get into this morally/ethically relative world of 'everybody does it, so...who cares'.

Rooster Puke and a few others are confusing Objectivist positions on SS/Medicare etc with my arguments, which are about something much more fundamental. It's apples to oranges, I'm not talking about the merits of social programs etc., I'm talking about a fundamental rule (truth) without which reason cannot exist. Their minds are clouded by their strongly held views, so much that they have been brainwashed into believing a lot of misinformation, in fact a prefab worldview, that has no basis in truth and reason.

Re the NY Times, you can find the same story on many other newsources. The NY Times 'liberal bias' is true of their editorial page, no doubt, but certain right-wing elements have crafted this myth that their non-editorial news (which is entirely different) is liberally biased. It's a myth, and there are reasons that people would want to propagate that myth. But that's another discussion. (But if you want to do a small experiment google 'Foster medicare Scully' and look at the story from a few different mainstream sources, and judge for yourself to see if the story is biased.)

Re Bush's culpability for the threat to fire Foster/suppress the truth, Bush is innocient like Ken Lay is innocient. Both did/would claim that they didn't know what was going on in their organization, both are powerful enough not to have left direct fingerprints. Nevertheless they should have known (if there didn't, they are too dumb to be CEO/President), and ultimately they are responsible, regardless.

But after assessing all the evidence it should be clear enough to everyone that Bush did know; he is a liar and a misleader.

Truthfan

Post 49

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 2:00pm

"... we're beating a dead horse."

You've said it, Brother Clarence.

My only concern is why I didn't figure out Truthfan is nothing but a lefty troll parroting Kerry campaign press releases until I read his comments on the swift boat veterans. Must be getting a slow in my old age.

Pukszta

Post 50

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 12:45pm

"truth"fan,

1. The enlisted men serving with Kerry are not going to say "we cut and ran".
2. Not all of them supported Kerry. I think the ones who did were paid off.
3. Kerry is a self promoting empty suit collectivist, america hater, always has been.
4. The officers who served with him, bunked with him, all knew this.
5. You are mistaken.

(Edited by Mike Erickson on 1/05, 8:54pm)

Post 51

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 3:36pm

Call me names, make quasi-bold claims with no evidence whatsoever. Ouch. Here's a lesson from Objectivism 101:

Without logic, our minds would be cluttered with so many absurdities and falsehoods that if there was some truth, it would be lost in the garbage of contradictions, fuzzy thoughts, and non-integrated mental images.

Hmm, sounds like some of the fact-less namecallers posts, no?

also

Logic requires the content to be clear and identifiable. It requires that no contradiction exist within the idea.

Does this apply to your posts? Does this apply to your President?

also

Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.

What I have done in my posts is try to lay out as specifically and clearly as possible factual references to where Bush has lied. I've concluded that this lying (about very significant and important matters by the way, done in ways and with implications hitherto unknown) shows insights into his character, it shows the rules by which he behaves in any similar situations in the future.

[Ayn Rand pointed] out that an entity's actions are determined by that entity's nature

Bush is a liar and a misleader, he will continue to be so--while the stakes (fighting Islamists, preventing nuclear North Korea, the twin deficits, etc) get bigger...

A volitional, conceptual entity such as man can derive values, by thought & choice, ONLY from facts.

I've shown factual examples of Bush's lies, and I could go into much more detail about his misleading ways. You need to look at reality and see what the effects have been of this moral deficit. Let me know if you need factual examples.

also

[Rand] argued that facts are facts; that reality is what it is, independent of our feelings or wishes.

Even if you are led to believe, and you really really really want to believe, some PR image of Bush being some strong truth telling full-o-resolve guy, you have to look at the facts and be prepared to find out that the true reality is completely different from the make-believe one.

Is a bully on a playground a strong boy full of resolve, or is he insecure and one day going to be beaten to a pulp by a gang of enemies? He's strong and full of resolve if he gives you candy and calls you his friend, but he is what he is (an insecure oaf who will bring himself and you down) if you are an Objectivist.

All the people who are offering only name-calling, rather than clear logical, factual, reason-based arguments should be known by another name than Objectivist.

Truthfan

Post 52

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 4:40pm

Fascinating exchange.

I sincerely hope that many of you gentlemen find the same passion and outrage over actual theocratic, fascist, or socialist menaces as you do over the tiny and peripheral differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Considering the enormous gulf that separates true theocracies and communist states with both of these American parties, I find some of the analogies beyond ridiculous. Our leaders, warts and all, are virtual saints next to the leadership of 99% of this planet. I can only hope that the unequivocal moral condemnation being shown towards the actions of our leaders could be shown towards the despots and terrorist of the world.

If the day ever comes were Americans as a whole display towards their enemies, the type of passion they display against their own fellow Americans, our enemies will tremble with fear and drop on their knees pleading for mercy.

So, while I agree with many of the comments that have been made here, you must forgive me if I find some of the vitriolic passion on display - somewhat revolting.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 1/05, 7:22pm)

Post 53

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 4:43pm

Hi Truthfan,

I'm just saying that from www.whitehouse.org it wasn't clear that it was a promise. There's not much riding on this for me, and you claim you have the sources to back up the fact that it was indeed a promise, so I'm compelled to believe you.

See, I don't have much of a problem saying that Bush has lied to us. I think it was Rothbard who said that the proponents of the dominant party will always lie in order to maintain and enhance their power. Seems like an accurate observation (although perhaps the same could be said of the underdog party). But I think some people aren't seeing why you think Bush's lying makes him the worse choice for the job. Seems like people here prefer a liar to a collectivist. It would help if there were a discussion on which is worse in this instance.

I also don't see what rational purpose discussers here have in calling you names.

Jordan

Post 54

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 8:56pm

Truthfan,

"If you do anything besides dismiss the SVT with extreme prejudice, then you are a not an Objectivist. Period."

YOU CAN NOT KNOW THIS.

"Call me names, make quasi-bold claims with no evidence whatsoever."

YOU CAN NOT KNOW THIS.

"All the people who are offering only name-calling, rather than clear logical, factual, reason-based arguments should be known by another name than Objectivist."

You continue to talk in absolutes about things you do not have personal knowledge of. The above sentence applies to you more than anyone you have been argueing with.

George,

"the tiny and peripheral differences between Democrats and Republicans. "

Exactly. Like argueing which shade of brown is pure blue.

Jordon,

"I also don't see what rational purpose discussers here have in calling you names."

Just venting. Sorry. [You too, truthfan] I wasn't intending to get involved with this thread. Just got a little steamed. I will try to show more restraint. I edited the offending post.

Post 55

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 2:44am

Mike - don't feel bad about getting "steamed." This person's protestations about your calling him names might carry some moral weight if he had the guts to post under his *actual* name, but, like all Saddamites, he's a coward. And you don't owe respect to a coward. "Idiot" is actually being lenient with him - it excuses him on the grounds of stupidity. And that's more generous than he deserves.

If the same degree of getting "steamed" shown by pseudo-libertarians against Bush could be mustered against Saddam & his supporters blowing up everything & everyone in sight in Iraq right now, then we could sound the trumpets & rejoice. By the same token, the distinction between Republicans & Dems this last time round was *not* insignificant. Kerry was/is a Saddamite - "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" - a traitor to freedom, an unspeakable travesty of a human being. To contemplate for a second putting that thing in the White House is ... well, only Saddamite cowards could do it. The idea of getting uptight about some deception Bush might have perpetrated re social security when compared with what a totally evil charlatan like Kerry might have allowed is risible.

Linz

Post 56

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 8:03am

Lindsay,

To contemplate for a second putting that thing in the White House is ... well, only Saddamite cowards could do it.

So Leonard Peikoff is a Saddamite coward? Perhaps it would help to remind some discussers of Rand's "The Art of Smearing," chapter 17 of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Jordan

Post 57

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 8:03am

Lindsay,

To contemplate for a second putting that thing in the White House is ... well, only Saddamite cowards could do it.

So Leonard Peikoff is a Saddamite coward? Perhaps it would help to remind some discussers of Rand's "The Art of Smearing," chapter 17 of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Jordan

Post 58

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 8:53am

Erickson,

Name-calling is A-OK if executed pursuant to the Perigo Paradigm, which I see the Fearless Leader of the Forum has himself (properly) exercised in the post following yours.

Pukszta

Post 59

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 6:26am