| Competition 2 | Competition 3 | MessageBoard | Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us |
| Home |
|
|
inexpressible.com |
|
| Competition 2 | Competition 3 | MessageBoard | Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | | Home | | |
| 2008 US Presidential Determination - Reasons (Formally Accepted) Pertaining to George Bush |
Is George Bush (from the Republican Party), John Kerry (from the Democratic Party), Walter Brown (from the Socialist Party U.S.A.), Ralph Nader (from the Reform Party), Michael Badnarik (from the Libertarian Party), or David Cobb (from the Green Party of the U.S.) the more reasonable U.S. presidential candidate in terms of the collective well-being of the entire world?
Principle definitions:
More reasonable refers to the reasons supporting one presidential candidate being more sound and consistent than the reasons supporting all other presidential candidates. (For further discussion on more reasonableness see the methodology of more reasonableness.)
General role of U.S. President refers to the highest individual decision-maker in the U.S. Federal government including the Federal government’s final decision-maker in national security emergencies.
Basis for evaluation refers to the collective well-being of the entire world.
Collective well-being refers to the best interests of all (living) life-forms on Earth as a whole.
Entire world refers to all (living) human beings and all other (living) life-forms on Earth.
FOR:
President Bush has by far the most balanced and believable commitment - both economically and in the area of national security - to safeguarding American interests.
June 21 2004
Why are Bush's economic and national security policies "more balanced and believable"? What about other policy areas like health, environment, and education?
How do Bush's economic and national security policies benefit the entire world?
“Because Bush is the [current] president.”
August 23 2005
Just because a candidate is the current or former president is not necessarily grounds for him or her to be the new president.
AGAINST:
Candidate Bush has demonstrated through his term as U.S. president (2000-2004) whereby for instance he criminally violated international law including the Geneva convention and ignored the United Nations in his regime’s aggression against Iraq, ignored repeated state aggression by Israel against Palestine (by for instance vetoing U.N. Security Council measures against Israel), and voted against the U.S. adopting the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, that he is not in the best interests of the entire world. In essence, through Bush’s self-centered approach, for example, on foreign policy and the environment, he has made the world more dangerous.
June 27 2004
Though Bush violated international law including the Geneva Convention and ignored the United Nations in his government's aggression against Iraq, international law and the United Nations are not absolute. So the question that needs to be answered is whether or not Bush had valid grounds in terms of world's collective well-being to have the U.S. military occupy Iraq? Moreover, did Bush have valid grounds in terms of world's collective well-being to ignore Israel's repeated state aggression against Palestine?
Further, is there a valid ground(s) in terms of world's collective well-being for Bush to veto the Kyoto Protocol? Also, does economy precede an apparent looming global environmental crisis in the form of climate change?
“Mr. Bush is arrogant, and he is responsible for the rise in finatism [in the world].”
September 13 2004
What (verifible) evidence is there of Mr. Bush's arrogance?
How is Mr. Bush responsible for the rise in finatism?
“The policies that are currently put forward by both major candidates [i.e. Bush and Kerry] lack any real concern for the 'people'.
Brown does propose free health care, and I like his idea for worker owned farming co-ops and natural resources.
Nader has a couple of good ideas. However, I get the impression that he has merely put forward a 'platform' to differentiate himself from the 'major' candidates. I would suspect his motives.”
October 4 2004
How does Badnarik (the Libertarian candidate) compare to Brown (the Socialist candidate) in terms of “real concern for the people”?
“George Bush was supported by a majority of Americans who thought it was important enough to vote in the real presidential election, and the support of the population is important for any leader.”
November 4 2004
We agree that the support of the population is important for any leader *, but it does not necessarily follow that the majority or even super-majority of support for a leader equates to the more reasonable leader (in terms of the best interests of the entire world).
* It can be argued as well that the lack of support of the population for a leader is important for any leader, in the sense of providing a source of criticism. Viz., a population through opposition can direct a leader in the right direction and possibly away from disaster.
“I think that if I were president things would be much better than it is right now because I would actually think of other peoples lives and not only mine!”
March 31 2005
In its present state, your reason is limited to your opinion. To take your reason further, what evidence do you have that President Bush thinks only of his life?
“Bush LIED to start 2 wars for oil, probably 3 (Iran) by 2008. Someone willing to LIE as an excuse to KILL can never be trusted.
All evidence (see for example, building 7) points at 9/11 being an inside job. A terrorist can't be trusted to fight terrorism.
His illegal wars show Bush works solely for the big oil and weapons companies, not for the people he's supposed to represent.”
June 29 2005
If oil is fundamental to the U.S. survival, and the U.S. is in need of foreign oil due to its low domestic oil reserves, what options did the Bush administration have for getting foreign oil than by lying? We concede that the Bush administration could have relied on the oil marketplace to get oil (i.e. pay for it), rather than killing for it and stealing it from Iraq.
We acknowledge that the collapse of building 7 points to an inner pre-planned 9/11 attack. However, it is unclear to us that an inner pre-planned attack would necessarily involve Bush as acting president.
As established by Reason 2., the Bush administration’s war on Iraq was illegal in terms of international law. However, we come back to the main point of whether or not Bush was justified in killing and stealing oil from Iraq to meet the U.S. oil needs? We say no. He ought to have relied on the oil marketplace, instead of succumbing himself and the U.S. and other countries to a state of nature. So the problem with Bush is not so much that he cannot be trusted. The problem with him is that he will kill and steal to get what he wants.
“The US government needs to come to terms with the fact that its foreign policy of intervensionism has failed this country and is largely responsible for bringing the horrors of terrorism to our own lands. Michael Badnarik is the only presidential candidate who offers a comprehensive, if simple, solution to our problems abroad. Retracting our membership from the UN and NATO, bringing our troops home from all corners of the earth, and pursuing a foreign policy of NON-[military]-interventionism while building a stronger DEFENSE force are what Michael Badnarik's message is all about.”
August 15 2004
Is a non-military-interventionist U.S. foreign policy, barring legitimate acts of defense which may entail military interventionism, in the best interests of the entire world?
Is the world as a whole's best interests served by not forcing expansion (of the U.S.) through (offensive) military intervention versus forcing expansion (of the U.S.) through (offensive) military intervention?
It should be noted that Brown of the Socialist Party also has a non-military-interventionist (or non-imperialist) U.S. foreign policy. Though it is unclear whether or not his foreign policy would entail withdraw of the U.S. from the UN and NATO as Badnarik's policy does.
“The policies that are currently put forward by both major candidates [i.e. Bush and Kerry] lack any real concern for the 'people'.
Brown does propose free health care, and I like his idea for worker owned farming co-ops and natural resources.
Nader has a couple of good ideas. However, I get the impression that he has merely put forward a 'platform' to differentiate himself from the 'major' candidates. I would suspect his motives.”
October 4 2004
How does Badnarik (the Libertarian candidate) compare to Brown (the Socialist candidate) in terms of “real concern for the people”?
Reasons for/against Brown Reasons for/against Badnarik Reasons for/against Kerry
Methodology and Conditions Submission form