John McCain's Character

College Confidential Community
21

<p>
[quote]
Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit. </p>

<p>‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.</p>

<p>‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
I also agree that we need to stop delusionally wishing our presidents weren't ambitious or opportunitist or power hungry. They've basically exposed their lives for years to come to the highest level of scrutiny in order to control the most powerful occupation in the world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, as I said above, I think it would have to be a cardinal character trait for someone who wants to put themselves through the rigors of trying to become president to be an opportunist. However, in bringing up the stories that were mentioned about McCain tossing his first wife because she was disfigured in a traffic accident and because he wanted to get a leg over, I am trying to bring in line this true perspective on the character of the man to those who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton essentially for getting blown in the White House by ML. If that act was one of "high crimes and misdemeanors," surely what McCain did might, judged through the same lens, disqualify him for the presidency.</p>

<p>I like McCain, but I would not agree he's that great of a guy in terms of being a "straight shooter." I will warrant that he does have a charm. The following video is classic McCain and if one reads the New Republic article above, one can see that McCain has built his career on telling people what they want to hear:</p>

<p>YouTube</a> - The Real McCain 2</p>

<p>
[quote]
At 71 (soon to be 72), McCain is already showing signs of his age. He often loses his temper and says things a president shouldn't say.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was going to go back and add this to my post and then noticed nbachris cross-posted it. The thing is McCain is showing his signs of age in other respects. However, he has always lost his temper and said things he shouldn't say or done things he shouldn't have done. There are several Republicans who had commented they didn't want his finger on the button essentially because they didn't trust his temper.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
At 71 (soon to be 72), McCain is already showing signs of his age. He often loses his temper and says things a president shouldn't say.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Plus he thinks attacking Iran while we're still bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq is a good idea. And how will he pay for it? By keeping Bush's tax cuts. But hey, at least he'll make Amurca look "strong" against Muslamic terrists.</p>

23

<p>I love your use of "Amurca" ;)</p>

24

<p>Sligh_Anarchist, you are joking when you refer to the New Deal as a good thing right?</p>

<p>you do know Jimmy Carter was one of the worst presidents in us history right? He left Reagan with a inflation rate stood at 11.83% and unemployment at 7.5%.Carter was one of if not the worst president in US history, In in 1979 was able to make gas price reach levels that they wouldn't reach in another 29 or 30 years.</p>

<p>applejack, thats great that he talks, but he still has no detailed plans on how he plans to pay for all of this.</p>

25

<p>Yes, I set up three parallels. I said he could be as bad as Bush, be a wonderful leader like Roosevelt, or be Jimmy Carter (by which I mean accomplish very little because of naivety). Is there something you don't understand?</p>

<p>The New Deal was practically the best thing going for us at the time! Do you think it would have been better if we let the evils of laissez-faire economics "fix" the Great Depression? Herbert Hoover ran on the platform against Roosevelt and he lost, if I do recall correctly! I may be a little biased, though - I think FDR was the best president of the 20th century, but that is a different topic. ;)</p>

26

<p>It wasn't laissez-faire economics that caused the great depression, it was more government regulation via the statist Hoover administration. Hoovers administration put through one of the highest tax increases in American history known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Some of these reforms include the Revenue Act of 1932, which taxed Americas elite up to a ~60% income tax. Another huge reform was the Check Tax, which in todays world put a tax of around 30 cents per check used. When you start stealing money from Americas rich, they will always contract there monies. Its almost a certainty. The rich make money by moving money, and when you tax them highly on checks and income, they cant make any more money, so either they move it overseas, or hide it. </p>

<p>So to say it was laissez-faire economics is wrong. It is more government regulations that put the nail in the coffin. Government intervention is always the cause of problems like this, thats the reason why you never see free market capitalism fail, but on the other hand socialism(or worse) always, yes ALWAYs fails. Greenspan and Bernake are even more proof that no human or computer system is powerful enough to emulate or control the volatility of a free market. fiat money systems don't work, not will they ever, and most renowned economists all agree. </p>

<p>While the new deal, did help many families and people survive the GD, it in no way brought us out of it. It was the natural order of the free markets that did. In fact, it is fact that the new deal extended the GD to ~15 years. In the new deal there were many anti-competition and pro-labor measures taken, and oh boy did the monopolies, even more so monopolize. I site this from the UC
University</a> of California - UC Newsroom | FDR prolonged -- not ended -- great depression</p>

<p>The new deal did absolutely nothing more then create more government regulations which for the last lets say 60-70 years, we are now seeing all the consequences of this. One example is the reliance of government and the welfare state in which we live. The majority of all the problems we have today, are due to Roosevelt, he was the one that started the insane printing of notes, and everybody follower and now we are 60 trillion in debt.</p>

<p>heres 1 more article What</a> Caused the Great Depression of the 1930's</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
He left Reagan with a inflation rate stood at 11.83% and unemployment at 7.5%.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Carter was in many ways an ineffective president, but don't blame him for something caused by the Federal Reserve.</p>

<p>The notion that Obama would start some sort of new New Deal, if that's what is implied, is the silliest kind of scare tactic and very ideologically driven, kind of like the Iraq War was ideologically driven -- and without a basis in reality or in a sense of what would be in our long-term interest.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So to say it was laissez-faire economics is wrong. It is more government regulations that put the nail in the coffin.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No! It wasn't government regulation per se. It was poorly-timed and wildly inappropriate government intervention happening at the end of a period of wild economic overheating.</p>

28

<p>Bedhead, no you are wrong. Capitalism does not fail, it only fails when government thinks it has a midas touch and intervenes. It was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which was pushed solely by private banking cartels, that caused the GD. Anytime government intervenes other than to protect life and property, it will go sour. Always. The idea of collectivism, to me makes no sense. If individuals cannot make there own decisions in the free market, and since those in government are also individuals, what gives them the midas touch on these topics.</p>

<p>Show me a time, and prove it, when Capitalism has ever failed. Show me how it failed and why it failed. Good luck you will be searching for a long time.</p>

29

<p>Capitalism doesn't fail, Mr. Enron?</p>

<p>Capitalism doesn't fail, Mr. Mortgage Crisis?</p>

<p>Capitalism doesn't fail, Mr. Latin American Debt Crisis?</p>

<p>What are you smokin'?</p>

<p>I am not so ideological as to think that governments don't intervene in some wildly inappropriate ways, but your idealogical stance is so extreme over the top it makes me wonder if you are paying attention to the real world.</p>

30

<p>Capitalism is volatile, yes, but all those that you mention did not make capitalism completely fail. Socialism on the other hand will always fail due to the economic calculation problem.</p>

<p>I have said 3-4 times already that capitalism is very Volatile, Good and Bads, which create a equilibrium.</p>

31

<p>I agree with Dr. Horse :D</p>

32

<p>well much of the mortage and housing crisis i believe is caused by the fed resereve and gov intervetion of the econonmy.
Also i belive sales are going up now? I know many places like wal-mart and mcdonalds have rises in sales which is a positive.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
Capitalism is volatile, yes, but all those that you mention did not make capitalism completely fail. Socialism on the other hand will always fail due to the economic calculation problem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Since when were we talking about capitalism vs. socialism? We were talking about whether government regulation/intervention is good or bad. My position it is it isn't either one all the time, but that it can be incredibly important and valuable. During the Depression, the govt's efforts at Keynesian relief were crucial. Your position seemed to be a blanket statement that it is always bad; this position to me seems ridiculously extreme since there are few markets that don't have explicit or implicit government involvement. And oftentimes it is the govt. involvement which helps guarantee a healthy market. Think, for instance, the stock market.</p>

<p>As regards whether capitalism is better than socialism, of course it is. But what in the world does this have to do with a discussion about the 2008 presidential candidates? If you are implying that Obama is a socialist, you are high.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree with Dr. Horse

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, if the point you agree with is that capitalism has proven more durable than socialism, I agree too. But that's not a very hard point to argue, now, is it?</p>

34

<p>Socialism will always fail? Are you sure? Are Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Holland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland all "failures"? Those nations are as wealthy as the US and, thanks to their socialized system, seem to have fewer societal problems.</p>

35

<p>I am talking not about economies with strong socialist elements. I am talking about economies that are dedicated to attempting pure socialism. And the track record of these has been quite clear.</p>

36

<p>You mean countries like Cuba and the ex-Soviet block? In that case, you are obviously correct. You cannot entirely supress human nature (invisible hand). However, the transition from pure socialism to capitalism, if unchecked, can have disastrous effects. Look no further than Russia.</p>

37

<p>This has degenerated into a strawman debate with McCain sympathizers trying to prove their candidate's superiority by making the "duh" argument of capitalism's success over communism. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are very capitalistic parties, and both McCain and Obama are strident capitalists.</p>

<p>Next debate: McCain is better than Obama because Santa Claus is better than Hitler.</p>

38

<p>Nbachris2788: You nailed it. I think the contention is that Obama is Hitler dressed as Santa. Seriously, the notion that Obama is some kind of communist is straight out of the mouth of some of the most mindless right-wing pundits. I would've expected better.</p>

39

<p>"McCain is better than Obama because Santa Claus is better than Hitler."</p>

<p>Wait a minute! The Democrats with all of their giveaways have got to be Santa Claus.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
The Democrats with all of their giveaways have got to be Santa Claus.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but where do you find a "reverse Robin Hood" costume for the Republicans since they cut taxes on the rich in order to go into worse debt that the poor will end up, in large share, paying down.</p>