Is McCain confused or a big hyprocrite?

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

After Barack Obama's speech in Berlin, the McCain campaign issued a this petty press release:

While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a citizen of the world, John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election. Barack Obama offered eloquent praise for this country, but the contrast is clear. John McCain has dedicated his life to serving and protecting America, Barack Obama spent an afternoon talking about.

Yes, how dare a presidential candidate speak to the world about his ability to govern as president. And as a matter of fact, here's John McCain thoughts on this very subject before his trip to Latin America earlier this month:

Going to Latin America in the midst of a presidential campaign, he said, speaks less to his role as a senator than to what he's hoping to achieve if elected this fall. "It's more my ability to govern as president," he said, "my ability to lead as president, to keep up with these major issues."

Another fine example of IOKIYAR

[DF]

Barack Obama’s trip to Europe and the Middle East is nothing more than a campaign-coordinated public relations event. The speech in Berlin tried to show the people of the world that Obama’s presidential, echoing the speeches JFK and Reagan made.

I can see why people compare Obama to JFK. JFK had no experience entering the presidency and turned out to be a bullshit president.

McCain’s a hypocrite, I don’t deny that; but what do you have to say about Obama’s hypocrisy? Or is that merely a creation of the supposed conservative media?

[Scaybeeez]

While, sure, part of the reason Obama made the trip was because it was good PR for his White House run, to say that's the only reason he went seems pretty ridiculous.  The man wants to be President.  Things like this will be his job, if elected.  So what's so bad about a little extra training?

Also, how was JFK a "bullshit" President?

[j.griffiths25]

Both Obama and McCain are products of the capitalist establishment, and therefore unacceptable. The United States needs a leader that puts the interests of the regular citizen ahead of those of big businesses and the people that run them.

[conley]

hhrmm an awful lot of socialists on this board...

[j.griffiths25]

hhrmm an awful lot of socialists on this board...

I am a communist, my friend. Socialism is merely a step forward to a communist society. Socialism will allow the transfer of power from the capitalist establishment to the working class. Once the power is in the hands of the people, communism will reign.

[Scaybeeez]

Both Obama and McCain are products of the capitalist establishment, and therefore unacceptable. The United States needs a leader that puts the interests of the regular citizen ahead of those of big businesses and the people that run them.

I've always assumed that it's a mistake to put people in little boxes like that and completely discount them or their ability to lead effectively.  Hell, Kropotkin, a prince, was one of the best leaders the anarchists ever had...

[Scaybeeez]

Once the power is in the hands of the people, communism will reign.

The kicker is that, with you communists?  The power has a funny way of never getting to the hands of "the people".

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

hhrmm an awful lot of socialists on this board...

I am a communist, my friend. Socialism is merely a step forward to a communist society. Socialism will allow the transfer of power from the capitalist establishment to the working class. Once the power is in the hands of the people, communism will reign.

And you were calling Jindal lunatic? 

[j.griffiths25]

Once the power is in the hands of the people, communism will reign.

The kicker is that, with you communists?  The power has a funny way of never getting to the hands of "the people".

Previous attempts at forming a communist society have not gone well, I will admit that much. I reject Joseph Stalin’s governing practices vehemently. Any government where one man holds complete power is a corrupt government.

[Scaybeeez]

Previous attempts at forming a communist society have not gone well, I will admit that much. I reject Joseph Stalin’s governing practices vehemently. Any government where one man holds complete power is a corrupt government.

I guess I wouldn't go so far as to say that communism might never work, though it seems that MOST of the time, the vanguard will simply hold onto power.  That's true whether there's one man or a handful at the top.

[j.griffiths25]

Previous attempts at forming a communist society have not gone well, I will admit that much. I reject Joseph Stalin’s governing practices vehemently. Any government where one man holds complete power is a corrupt government.

I guess I wouldn't go so far as to say that communism might never work, though it seems that MOST of the time, the vanguard will simply hold onto power.  That's true whether there's one man or a handful at the top.

I think I’m a Trotskyist at heart. Some key components of Trotskyism include:

-   Support for the strategy of permanent revolution, as opposed to the Two Stage Theory
-   Historically, support for revolution in the Soviet Union (post-'24) and in deformed workers’ states
-   Support for social revolution in the advanced capitalist countries through working class mass action
-   Support for proletarian internationalism

Trotskyism could be considered left of Marxism.

I believe a vanguard party must be a global coalition of many nations in order to be successful in the fight against capitalism.

[OswaldTheOsprey]

Previous attempts at forming a communist society have not gone well, I will admit that much. I reject Joseph Stalin’s governing practices vehemently. Any government where one man holds complete power is a corrupt government.

I guess I wouldn't go so far as to say that communism might never work, though it seems that MOST of the time, the vanguard will simply hold onto power.  That's true whether there's one man or a handful at the top.

I think I’m a Trotskyist at heart. Some key components of Trotskyism include:

-   Support for the strategy of permanent revolution, as opposed to the Two Stage Theory
-   Historically, support for revolution in the Soviet Union (post-'24) and in deformed workers’ states
-   Support for social revolution in the advanced capitalist countries through working class mass action
-   Support for proletarian internationalism

Trotskyism could be considered left of Marxism.

I believe a vanguard party must be a global coalition of many nations in order to be successful in the fight against capitalism.

Well now Comrade, consider this: Trotsky is the godfather of neoconservatism. I, myself, am a non-Marxist socialist or my preferred term Social Fascist. This includes nationalizing all high finance, heavy industry, medicine and agriculture among others. Withdraw all U.S. military from foreign lands. Massive public works to improve our Motherland.

OswaldTheOsprey

[Scaybeeez]

-   Support for the strategy of permanent revolution, as opposed to the Two Stage Theory

Now, I may be wrong here, but it has always seemed to me that Trotsky only supported "permanent revolution" when he wasn't the one being rebelled against.  When the rebellion threatened him and his power, he didn't hesitate to have political rivals (particularly anarchists, but also others) imprisoned or executed and he certainly didn't hesitate to order troops to slaughter striking workers at Kronstadt.

-   Historically, support for revolution in the Soviet Union (post-'24) and in deformed workers’ states

This is kind've what I mean.  This is right around the time he was essentially neutered, politically, in Russia and Stalin took over.  When his power wasn't the thing being threatened by revolt, revolt was fine and dandy with him.
[/quote]