Obama: McCain was not a ‘denier’

And he lost — to his ever-lasting infamy.

ThinkProgress reports:

[On Jan. 20], at a fundraiser event in New York, President Obama compared the extremism of the Republican presidential field to Sen. John McCain in 2008. Obama said that unlike today’s GOP candidates, McCain was not “a climate change denier”…

5 thoughts on “Obama: McCain was not a ‘denier’”

  1. Difference from your opinion is extremism. Good to keep his definition in mind, then. But hey, you want to go with “true believer” with need for priority over economics and freedom, let’s go there. Maybe McCain can endorse you too. And why is agnosticism so wrong regarding this religion? Or does that only seem wrong from the extremist point of view.

  2. Globalists ARE the “problem.” They come up with “Global-warming(–or cooling…) Fraud” with which to then demand…MORE Govenment! McCain is a Globalist, so he was NOT denying… the Fraud of Global Warming. I would think a McCain “endorsement” would be a politician’s “kiss of Death”. Notice O’Bama attacked (and also supported) McCain, while NOT REVEALING that he, HIMSELF, was a Globalist, and would have his EPA-Himmler, beat us all about our economic bodies with the Club…of the “need” to address “climate-change,” through the DEVICE of EPA-regulations PREVENTING job-expansion/initiation/Recovery. With no job and dependent on the Government, you are then a “Serf”–a “slave” of that govt,–even a cheerleader FOR that govt, and as you have no utility, you then later become a DRAG on that govt., and are eliminated, feeling a vague sense of guilt for being a “sponge” on that government that regulated-away, your job and its means of self-endorsement. This is only ONE of the ways Socialism KILLS…and EATS…its own.

  3. Funny, Obama makes no mention of supporting evidence for climate change. You’d think he would have led with his strongest argument and not some anecdote from 4 years ago.

  4. He mentions his dis-likes. As an Imperial-president, he doesn’t have to give REASONS, and can also play “good-cop”, while his EPA-cheif is the “Bad-cop”. Also, as there is less & less “evidence” for Global-warming, isn’t it smarter for others to put it out there, then for him to commit to a position that may later significantly weaken his effort? Good reply, Coach Springer, earlier.

Comments are closed.