Bill’s dictionary
oxymoron:; noun “ahk-see-moe rahn”
1. two parts of a word or phrase that constitute diametric opposites.
2. John Mccain to conservative
So, I’ll take a “nuanced” position and state unequivically that I would never vote for Juan McCain, no matter what the crossdressers and the LGBT community thinks.
He’s dealing with a backlash from Phoenix’ “LBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and Tran gendered) community.”
Translation:
Queers and other perverts are upset that he has not yet endorsed government mandated adult lesbian and homosexual access to children for recreational sex or government mandated recognition and subsidies for abnormal and deviant sexual relationships.
Therefore he is labeled as a “social conservative”.
.
McCain-Feingold.
McCain-Kennedy.
McCain-Lieberman.
McCain-Kerry.
I don’t recall any such as these major pieces of legislation:
I don’t recall a McCain-Session
I don’t recall a McCain-DeWine
I don’t recall a McCain-Coburn
I don’t recall a McCain-Allen
I don’t recall a McCain-Santorum
McCain has a history of being more eager to work with those across the aisle than those on his side of the Senate.
Yep! That’s a Conservative all right!!!!!!!!!
What a bunch of idiots out there. So uninformed!
I’m a conservative from Phoenix and McCain is NOT someone I’d vote for again. And, after moving away from Az., I never thought I’d have to. McCain is “probably” better than Hillary or Obama, but that’s not saying very much. Besides, there’s no way to know which McCain he might be as President.
This just in, Ralph Nader is running! Now if Bloomberg comes in and gets Obama to run with him Independent. And Hillary is runnin Dem. And McCain RINO/RNC. We will pretty much have a full blown CIRCUS!
McShamesty is a RINORAT.
Or reality.
McCain’s stated argument against the “Bush tax cuts” was that, in his view, any reduction in tax revenues should be accompanied by a corresponding cut in federal spending.
An outright lie. His stated argument against the tax cuts was that they didn't soak the rich enough; it was pure class warfare at its worst. This kind of a lie calls the rest of the column into serious question.
But while I understand the “McCain pain” among many fiscal conservatives, I’m a little less understanding of the attitudes towards McCain emanating from many social conservatives. Throughout his career in public office, Mr. McCain has always been unapologetically “pro-life,” and has always insisted that “marriage” is defined as relationship between one man, and one woman.
He's completely in favor of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. That's a problem, and the author of course ignores it.
McCain further argued that, in any event, amending the constitution is very risky business, and should not be utilized by social conservatives as a political tactic, lest the Congress and the White House be taken over by the opposing party at some point in the future. This was during the late Spring of 2006; and McCain’s concerns proved to be valid, when, only a few months later in November of that year, the Democratic party won control of both the House and the Senate.
Does the author have any idea how the amendment process works?
So many details, and nuances, and different angles. They’re all a part of John McCain.
The author owes me a new keyboard; vomit and keyboards don't mix.
One would have thought so.