McCain the liar

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

My differences with politicians like Obama stop at politics. He stands for all things political that I loathe, but after the politics, he's just a guy like me.

I understand what you're saying about fighting off wanting bad things to happen, but my fear would be if something happened to him, the extreme leftists would be able to garner support for someone even farther to the left of Obama.

Currently there is no candidate worse than Obama or Clinton. And on all major issues he and I disagree as to approach, style, personnel, and strategies. And no I don't see anything in him which makes me think he's just a guy, and knowing a little about Hillary from the inside, I know that's not true about her. Bill Clinton had a little of the common man in him, Hillary does not.

Neither does Obama.

I want a common man with uncommon abilities. Right now, none are running.

Unlike many under thirties, I don't want a forty something guy running for president. Not enough life experience. Late fifties, early sixties seems to be enough.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Deep down, I wish that no man or woman had power over me. But a survivalist I am not. Because those with power often abuse it to yours or my worst interests.

Bush is a bungler, who may or may not be a good person. I really don't care, but do care he screwed the Republican Party for years to come.

Obama is potentially malevolent and a megalomaniac. His craving for large crowds, his willingness to throw "spiritual advisors" under the bus, his seeking out Oprah, etc, have the makings of a man who will abuse the process.

Do we have some checks and balances? Of course, but not enough. The power of that office is too great and is not checked enough. It should be weakened, not strengthened.

If you could step back in time, would you not wish Mao Zedong had failed to succeed and died a premature death? Or Stalin, or the leaders of Myanmar?

I think you struggle with causation as a principle. Obama draws big crowds. You conclude that he "craves large crowds." Obama's spiritual advisor attacks Obama (after Obama refused to "throw Wright under the bus" in Philadelphia), Obama fights back and you say he threw his spirtual advisor under the bus. Oprah supports Obama. You conclude that Obama sought out Oprah. Whatever happened to logical analysis?

And Obama/Clinton/Bush/McCain/Romney/fill in the name of any serious presidential contender is not the equivalent of Mao or Stalin. Get a grip. Our system is not one of tyranny and oppression. We may cross the line on what is appropriate within our framework of government and rights from time to time, but we certainly haven't approached Mao or Stalin.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Currently there is no candidate worse than Obama or Clinton. And on all major issues he and I disagree as to approach, style, personnel, and strategies. And no I don't see anything in him which makes me think he's just a guy, and knowing a little about Hillary from the inside, I know that's not true about her. Bill Clinton had a little of the common man in him, Hillary does not.

Neither does Obama.

I want a common man with uncommon abilities. Right now, none are running.

Unlike many under thirties, I don't want a forty something guy running for president. Not enough life experience. Late fifties, early sixties seems to be enough.

I agree that nobody is worse than Obama as far as who we know is running. But their could be someone waiting in the shadows for the opportunity to run for office. Mrs. Clinton doesn't worry me because she is still so much more polarizing than Obama is.

I agree about a common man with uncommon abilities. Unfortunately, those are they who make their name away from politics where they can actually do some good rather than be just another cog in the stench machine of DC.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think you struggle with causation as a principle. Obama draws big crowds. You conclude that he "craves large crowds." Obama's spiritual advisor attacks Obama (after Obama refused to "throw Wright under the bus" in Philadelphia), Obama fights back and you say he threw his spirtual advisor under the bus. Oprah supports Obama. You conclude that Obama sought out Oprah. Whatever happened to logical analysis?

And Obama/Clinton/Bush/McCain/Romney/fill in the name of any serious presidential contender is not the equivalent of Mao or Stalin. Get a grip. Our system is not one of tyranny and oppression. We may cross the line on what is appropriate within our framework of government and rights from time to time, but we certainly haven't approached Mao or Stalin.

Of course we haven't, but just as in calling for alarm with civil liberties (early on), it is also necessary to call for alarm when our economic liberties are at risk, early on.

And whether you've spent much time with upper echelon candidates or not, they are not normal people in their psychology, and those that thrive on what can be unhealthy activities, large crowds, Oprah and being involved with a hatemonger for a spiritual adviser, this are tremendous causes for concern, as distortion in one aspect of one's personality may indicate distortive personalties which can lean over into other aspects.

McCain is boring and wrong on many issues, but his doesn't appear to have as many warning signs which indicate megalomania, as Obama does. There are abuses within our system and we do a bad job of stopping the abusers. It is a poor argument to say, "well, we're bad, but not as bad as those guys." That's your only argument.

Causation is so binary, dude. There is a correlation and the correlation with his media love affair concerns me.