Posted on 06/19/2011 6:37:40 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Was just watching FNC, first thing this morning.
During the segment with Ann Coulter, she responded to a clip of John McCain criticizing "fellow" Republicans as being isolationists.
What I found to be particularly odd, was McCain's choice of words.
When speaking of Republicans, his entire train of thought was that as being opposed to Republicans.
He sees himself as a Democrat. There is no question, whatsoever anymore.
McCain is a DEMOCRAT.
Just switch parties McCain.
You know you want to. Do it.
How does McCain’s voting record stack up?
He is a rat
There is no imbecile like an old RINO imbecile.
Its not isolationist to want out of Iraq and Afghanistan after a decade. Its not isolationist to want the Libyans to fight their own civil war.
This piece of garbage should have been dumped last year.
This person and his clone Lindseed are really what is wrong.
He needs to change parties.
Piss off Juan....
mccain and kerry are cosponsoring a resolution that will give obama carte blanche to pursue his crap in Libya. I HATE these people!
Judge him on his record of voting, but parsing a single word is being ridiculous. If he had used the word ourselves, you would have been just as ticked off that he was speaking for all republicans. These word games are best left to the socialists.
And let’s not forget McCain’s fingerprints on this:
Senator Inhofe Exposes Costly Global Warming ‘Solutions’ [of the Lieberman-McCain bill ]
October 26, 2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=de8b6989-802a-23ad-4788-fb4fa9b0217a
[...]
“...The estimated costs to comply with carbon legislative proposals in the U.S. would also be unreasonable. The NCEP approach would do nothing to lessen global warming even according to the alarmists, but according to EIA, it would still cost more than 118,000 American jobs simply to make a symbolic gesture.
And according to an MIT study, the Sanders-Boxer bill would cost energy sector consumers an amount equal to $4,500 per American family of four. The same study found the Lieberman-McCain bill would cost consumers $3,500 per family of four. Similarly, EIA found that it would have cost 1.3 million jobs. A new EPA analysis shows the Lieberman - McCain bill would cost up to half a trillion dollars by 2030 and $1.3 trillion by 2050.
Now environmentalists will tell you that’s okay. Dan Lashof of the Natural Resources Defense Council says that EPA’s analysis of the Lieberman-McCain bill show “it is affordable.” Although EPA finds that fuel will increase by 22 percent, he calls fuel impacts “pretty modest” - Now activists inside the Beltway may think big jumps in gas prices are no big deal, but I doubt the people living in the real America would agree.
THE POOR BEAR THE BIGGEST COSTS
What few Americans realize is that the impact of these policies would not be evenly distributed. The Congressional Budget Office recently looked at the approach taken by most global warming proposals in Congress - known as cap and trade - that would place a cap on carbon emissions, allocate how much everyone could emit, and then let them trade those emissions. Let me quote from the CBO report:
“Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.”
Think about that. Even relatively modest bills would put enormous burdens on the poor.
The poor already face energy costs much higher as a percentage of their income than wealthier Americans. While most Americans spend about 4 percent of their monthly budget on heating their homes or other energy needs, the poorest fifth of Americans spend 19 percent of their budget on energy. Why would we adopt policies which disproportionately force the poor and working class to shoulder the heaviest burdens through even higher energy costs?”
McCain almost seems to have lost on purpose.
He was the worst candidate the GOP could have possibly run in 2008.
He did not want to win the election. He only wanted to beat the Republicans he was running (against) in the primary.
“Them”.
The problem most folks have who are 'sighted' have problems reading 12-point type at times. I swear the first time I read that I thought it said he needs to change panties.
(Well, maybe so.)
Have you been living in a cave since 2008?
No offense, but seeing that McCain is the poster-RINO and a large part of the problem himself, is hardly parsing a single word.
The only positive thing McCain has done in the last decade is to have selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. A very big positive, to be sure.
Even then, he immediately seems to have done his best to tear her down, too.
From National Socialist R to National Socialist D?
Anyone for Tea?
Doh!
More on McCain’s “Global Warming” credentials clear back to 2004:
John McCain’s ‘Global Warming’ Hearings Blasted by Climatologist
CNSNEWS.com ^ | 11/19/04 | Marc Morano
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1283661/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.