Monday, June 30, 2008

John McCain is an Unstable, Hot Headed Liar, Unfit to be President

Monday, June 30, 2008

Len Hart

Calling a Republican a liar is redundant. It's known by definition. As Will Rogers said of a New Deal plan to 'teach hogs birth control', it's become a habit with them. McCain's pathology is different. He's thin-skinned, hot-tempered and out of control. McCain cannot be trusted with nukes. In an infantile temper-tantrum, McCain can be trusted to inflame the world at the end of a macho show of penis power!

McCain can't get his stories straight and will throw a temper tantrum at the drop of hat --not to be trusted with nukes! For example, he is quoted on Huffington as favoring letting Wall Street enrich itself with the money's that you pay into Social Security.
Without privitization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.
But for another audience, he told a completely different story:
I'm not for, quote, privatize Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.

--Huffington Post
His careless remarks of political expedience with regard to Social Security reveal him to be a typical 'authoritarian' conservative --a psychopath, in other words. He doesn't really care about how the government misappropriates monies paid into SS of whether or not that money will be there when you are ready to retire. Among his biggest windys are the whoppers he told about Iraq.
The picture "strait talk" John McCain has been painting of Iraq is one of success and harmony.

A place where westerners can walk the streets safely and the commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq can travel around in an unarmed Humvee.

Sounds like "Mission Accomplished", right? The only problem with that scenario is that John McCain's claims about Iraq are completely false.

The Republican Senator from Arizona who wants to be President in 2008 is carrying such a large load of lies that one has to be surprised that the wheels on the "Strait Talk Express" have not blown out as a consequence.

It started on Monday when McCain claimed to radio host Bill Bennett “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,”

The lie continued on Tuesday when McCain spewed out on CNN that "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee." McCain then claimed that those who said it was unsafe for Americans to leave the heavily fortified "Green Zone" were "giving the old line of three months ago."--McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media "Jerks" After Lies Are Exposed
McCain reminds one of Nixon who always like to portray himself has having been abuse by the mean ol' media. I have news for McCAin and address the following observation to him personally: no one asked you to get into politics, unless, of course, it was a lobby group who wanted to own you! No one I know is obligated to you in any way. No one I know has a reason NOT to call you an lyin' asshole if the monicker applies. It does:
During an interview yesterday, Fox News’s Carl Cameron asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if it was a “mistake” for McCain to say he knows little about the economy. But McCain denied that he had made any such suggestion, arguing that his past comments were taken “out of context”:

CAMERON: Realistically, was it a mistake for you to suggest that overall your attentiveness to the economy is subordinated by national security?

MCCAIN: As briefly as possible, when you’re on the back of the bus for hours with the media if they want to take a phrase out of context thats fine, thats one of the penalties you pay.
Watch it (beginning at 1:52):

Taken “out of context?” How many times can McCain be taken out of context? Aside from the fact that when viewed at face value, his comments speak for themselves, McCain has said he knows little about the economy on numerous occasions, as recently as last December:

– Seeking to explain his shift to the left on economic issues, McCain claimed: “I didn’t pay nearly the attention to those issues in the past. I was probably a ’supply-sider’ based on the fact that I really didn’t jump into the issue.” [Jan. 2000]

– “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” [Nov. 2005]

– “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” but “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.” [Dec. 2007]

In fact, McCain’s interview with Cameron wasn’t the first time he has denied claiming his economic knowledge is sub-par. NBC’s Tim Russert asked him about his “I still need to be educated” on economics claim last January but McCain dodged, saying “I don’t know where you got that quote.” When Russert asked McCain about the same quote three days later, McCain acknowledged he said it, but never claimed he was taken out of context. McCain simply replied, “Am I, am I smart on economics? Yes.”--McCain Claims Lack Of Economics Knowledge Comments Were Taken ‘Out Of Context’
No one ever called McCain an intellectual. Nevertheless, McCain must feel obliged to subscribe to GOP orthodoxy --'supply side economics'. The GOP and thus GOP Presidential aspirants are always in need of any ideology that will justify the state theft of your money via unfair taxation, most prominently tax cuts which benefit only about ten percent of the population.

'Supply-side' economics is like a vampire. It shows up on the GOP dark side whenever a gopper is desperate to justify transferring your money to rich folk. Supply-side economics, otherwise known as 'trickle down theory', is awaiting someone with a sharp wooden stake who will drive it deep into the very heart of Republican orthodoxy. Thus far, I am reminded of the lyrics from "Hotel California" by the Eagles: "They stab it with their steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast!"
John McCain is a recent convert to supply-side economics and still working on getting the talking points down. Speaking yesterday in South Carolina, the straight talker:
proclaimed himself a believer in the notion that cutting taxes increases revenue for the government by spurring economic growth. “Don’t listen to this siren song about cutting taxes,” Mr. McCain told supporters gathered here under a tent in a driving rain. “Every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues."
What? Every time? Okay, how about we go back and look at the last time taxes were raised -- 1993. It's true that conservatives predicted revenue would fall as a result of the tax hike. (Typical quote: "Higher taxes will shrink the tax base and reduce tax revenues" -- Newt Gingrich.) But it didn't exactly work out that way ... The amazing thing is that New York Times, which printed McCain's quote, made no effort whatsoever to ascertain the truth of his point. Just the typical, "McCain says earth is flat, and meanwhile in other news..." stuff. I realize that campaign reporting is hard, and reporters don't usually have time to check on the truth of candidate's statements. (And yes, this is a huge flaw with reporting, but that's another story.) But this claim is so obviously false it could have been refuted after maybe thirty seconds of research. Didn't the author (Michael Cooper) realize that tax hikes don't always, or even usually, lead to reduced revenue? Does he remember the 1990s? Is he aware that the federal government raised taxes and started collecting dramatically higher revenues during World War II? (Taxes were raised and revenues quintipled.)--The New Republic
The typical GOPPER will believe that tax cuts raise revenue because it makes them 'feel better' about themselves, phrase heard from the floor of the 1992 GOP National Convention in Houston, TX. Of course, it's not true. The opposite almost always happens; that misses the point. The point is the ideology is not believed because it's true but because: 1) it gives the elite base the cover it needs to escape taxation; 2) it makes crooks feel better about being crooks and liars about being liars; 3) it enriches the elite one percent with pretensions of 'intellectualism' in a party that disdains the intellectual but is in need of one to quote during a debate! Tax revenues will rise over time anyway due to inflation and economic growth. There is no guarantee, of course, that 'economic growth' is, or ever has been, egalitarian. Certainly, when policy favors the nation's elite economic growth, the elite alone will benefit. It's a tautology and the record proves that the transfer of wealth and income upward began with the infamous tax cut of Ronald Reagan in 1982. It continues to this day, made worse, aggravated by Bush's bone-headed 'Presidency'.

Eagles: "Hotel California"
...still trying to stab the beast with their steely knives!

No comments:

Post a Comment