Skip Nav
Fifty Shades of Grey
18 Films Even Sexier Than Fifty Shades of Grey
Relationships
The Ultimate Dating Bucket List
Relationships
I'm 24 and Engaged, and No, I'm Not Too Young to Get Married

Who's Declared War on John McCain?

Who's Declared War on John McCain?

John McCain might not be Mr. Popularity with a big swath of very vocal conservatives. Does he need to be nervous? Well let's put it this way: When your list of sworn enemies includes Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Matt Drudge, chances are the only weapons you'll need are a sandwich, a 9-11 widow, and dial-up internet connection.

Radar put together a slide show dossier of John McCain's non-BFFs — and it's not a short list. I don't know if I'd want the Gun Owners of America chasing me armed with Sean Hannity (thought that weirdly sounds like a dream I had last night.) Is the company you don't keep, just as telling as the company you do?

In perhaps their first of many jabs, Fox News ran this at the bottom of the screen: Senator John McCain, D-AZ. Slip of the tongue, or tongue-in-cheek?

Around The Web
Join The Conversation
fuzzles fuzzles 8 years
Ann Coulter should wrap her lower lip around her head and swallow!
raciccarone raciccarone 8 years
Go Romney!
barbara20 barbara20 8 years
nevermind i'm an idiot.
barbara20 barbara20 8 years
nevermind i'm an idiot.
barbara20 barbara20 8 years
can someone fix the typo in the headline of this article? who's?
trésjolie1 trésjolie1 8 years
That's one long comment! Kudos!
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
As I find us disagreeing to be a common theme for us, and though I usually let things pass as you say “don’t bother to reply,” but this is something I feel very passionate about, so here we go: “But how I interpret it is an economic system in which control of production rests with the government to the exclusion of private parties” Recently, on the topic of oil companies, they reported that they had the highest profits in history. Hilary had this to say: “I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives and technologies....” Sounds great right, lets get alternative energy, but she and the government have NO right to take money from private business. With this mentality your are implying that if you had your own private business, made record profits, that you would be ok with the government coming in and taking your profits and using them as they see fit. Karl Marx would see economic socialism as which the means of production are collectively owned. While I can agree Hillary isn’t flat out taking control of production from the oil companies, she is trying to seize their profits, thus making the profits of their private labors collectively owned. She wants the money without having to do the work to get it, very socialistic. “Are you saying that advocating any tax is akin to advocating socialism?” Since we are discussing Hillary Clinton, a Presidential nominee, I am focusing on the Federal level. I am not saying ALL Federal taxes are wrong, but for the most part, in present day, they go to pay for socialistic policies and programs that, due to the Constitution, do not fall under federal jurisdiction. And yes, I find these to be wrong. Here is a previous post that I wrote that explains a little more what I am saying: “As for the real issue at hand, I will start with your sentence: "Whether you realize it or not, it is doubtful that you are completely against socialism. In fact, on a daily basis you take advantage of socialist programs." Trust me, I am fully aware of the socialist programs that I am FORCED to take part in. As for your interest of my adolescent education, I was a product of public education. This was not a choice of my parents, who did send some of my siblings to private schools, but was the result of my parents not being able to afford to choose to send me to private school as a result of the high taxes charged for socialist programs, such as public education. Federal involvement in public schools is unconstitutional. As for my undergraduate studies, I did not go to a State University. I went to a private University, as did my parents, my siblings and my future husband. My parents had many books in my house, such as encyclopedia's and other books of research, so i did not go to the library as often, especially since there was not a library in my town. In regards to the subject of food, you are correct again in addressing another situation where the federal government has taken control of a free market, and, in turn, has completely disregarded the Constitution. No power over agriculture was given to any branch of the national government. Really you are just adding to my anti-socialist message; a large Federal government does not leave choice to the individual. In addressing electricity, or when I turn on my lights, in many areas these services are run through private companies that are publicly regulated, though, as you mentioned, this is not always the case. These situations, again, bring about the idea of government controlling a free market, and again, taking away choice from the consumer. In regards to China and Cuba: Well, Cuba, technically, is a Socialist Republic, and since you can't be a communist without being a Socialist, I will not split hairs with you. "Let's now get down to business. Is Hillary Clinton a socialist? Well, since we have established that all Americans must at least in part be socialists, then yes, she and Ronald Reagan are/were both socialists...and so are you, if you have partaken in any public institutions or programs, or eaten any food where the farmer received government subsidies to grow that produce." Never once did I state that the US government did not implement socialist programs. What I am saying is that because the government has instilled socialist programs does not mean I agree with them. This is a product of government taking choice away from the free individual. You're logic also says that every person in China is communist, not because he chooses to be communist, but because he has taken part in the programs forced upon him by his government. This logic is insane, particularly within the United States where we are granted the freedoms to decide who and what we are as an individual. Let me get back on topic. What if I decide not to pay taxes? What happens then? I do get a trial, but in the end either I am paying my taxes or I go to jail. This brings me back to being forced to pay for and partake in socialist programs, whether or I not I choose them. Again, this doesn't make me a socialist by choice, but instead by force. Luckily in the United States, I still am able to voice my opinions and try to make a change.” As for the paying taxes for military, I absolutely feel that I should pay taxes to keep our country safe. The federal government has every right to ask me to pay taxes, as it is one of their primary functions to keep our country safe. But the taxes should be fair and everyone should be taxed the same level. As for Clinton stating that she would garnish wages, no other politician has come out and said that they will garnish my wages if I don’t buy their Universal Health Care. It is unconstitutional for her to do this. My money is my PRIVATE property, and the federal government does not have unlimited access to my funds. These were Clintons words, garnishing wages, not mine, and if she seizes personal property, this too falls under the socialistic concept of making the fruits of my labor, the individual, collectively owned. “I’d sure like shared prosperity too, but that has nothing to do with my perspective on what the government should do about it.” This statement confuses the heck out of me. As a proclaimed Libertarian, or even anarchist, how can you support shared prosperity? And if you do support it, then that is fine, you can pay more of your money to the federal government and share your prosperity, that is your right. But you have no right to force me to share my prosperity, which is taking away my personal freedom that is protected by the Constitution. As for the manner in which you state Hilary’s personal life, saying she is a conservative, you obviously have no idea what a true conservative believes and should research it a bit more before making statements as such. A Conservative DOES NOT MEAN you are religious. That is not the definition. That is like me saying that all Liberals are Godless. And if you don’t go to church and don’t believe in God then you are a Liberal. When it comes to her ideas of marriage, I am not sure where you are going with this. Do all Liberals get a divorce? If you are talking about her stance on Gay marriage, then once again learn more about true Conservative politics because you are confusing it with the Religious Right. Most true Conservatives, not Religious Right, will say that they either support Gay marriage or that the decision should be brought back to state level. As for her being a Conservative in regards her foreign policy and the war, just because you support a war does not make you Conservative. Her husband never declared war, but certainly bombed the hell out of many countries, does that make him Conservative? It is a complete misconception that Conservatives are “pro-war”. They are pro-strong military, pro-protecting the United States, as they are supposed to under the Constitution, but they are not about how many people they can blow up. I mean how many bombings and invasions happened under Democratic rule? World War II, Vietnam, etc etc. I highly recommend educating yourself on what a true Conservative believes when it comes to foreign policy. Also, you are judging Conservatives based on one president, who in his first term totally misrepresented himself; he may be a “republican” but that does not make him a true Conservative. For your benefit, I suggest you read Barry Goldwater’s “Conscience of A Conservative.” It is a pretty light read and will help you to understand what a conservative actually is and what a conservative stands for so. So I suppose you are right, we have a different set vocabulary that we speak. And you don’t have to bother to reply to this. ;)
trésjolie1 trésjolie1 8 years
The Economist is the best news magazine in my opinion. The Times is good too. I know it has nothing to do with the question above, sorry.
liciababe liciababe 8 years
mymelllowman I too was a Fred head and sad to see him leave. McCain is a big time flip flopper many seem to have forgotten that not too long ago he was thinking about switching parties. I love that FOX did that. Coulter has said that if McCain pick a good VP such as Romney she would vote for him. I think the fact they she said she would vote for Clinton is very telling considering she hates the Clintons as do I. As far as I am concerned Hiliary has already had her two terms as president which last I heard was the limit on terms
sweetrae80 sweetrae80 8 years
I don't think he's good for our country and I think that FOX did this one purpose!
remedios remedios 8 years
I’m reluctant to think there’s a point now. When you genuinely believe that Hillary Clinton is a socialist, it becomes clear to me that we don’t even share the same vocabulary. I’m not sure what you mean by that term, nor specifically what could even lead you to consider her a socialist. But how I interpret it is an economic system in which control of production rests with the government to the exclusion of private parties. I don’t see any of her policy choices falling under that definition. I’m going to need more than a vague reference to sharing prosperity. I’d sure like shared prosperity too, but that has nothing to do with my perspective on what the government should do about it. Cine_lover, I’m not sure what you’re referring to in garnishing wages, forcing welfare, etc. Are you saying that advocating any tax is akin to advocating socialism? Are you advocating as the only fair non-socialist position that we stop all taxes, in effect stopping all funding of the military (the largest recipient of taxes)? Your comment about garnishing wages, etc, would seem to apply to all currently elected federal politicians. That’s fine if that’s what you mean; I just want to make sure we’re not singling one politician out when almost all elected in D.C. fit the bill. As to “forcing welfare,” I know of no policy of hers that forces welfare, but I guess it goes to terms again – what do you mean by “forcing” and what do you mean by “welfare”? Additionally, I would not define that in itself under socialism, without more. Clinton is very much a capitalist – not a “pure” capitalist, but very few people are. As to Clinton being conservative, I state this largely for foreign policy/military reasons. (I don’t mean to say she’s a Republican – by far; I just mean she’s more conservative than other Dems. I overstated my opinion earlier.) She is consistently pro-military. That generally fits with conservatives (whatever “conservative” means). She supported the war, supported spending for it, supports more spending for it. When it comes to the military and foreign policy, Clinton looks no different than a Republican. This has played out in the current war, past action in Kosovo and Sudan, policy relating to Israel, Syria, Iran, homeland security. She also supports a flag burning amendment. She supports a border fence (well, with the Mexican border anyway). She’s supported the PATRIOT Act. Again, though, I’m not claiming she’s a Republican. She just seems to often want to pander to them, wants to unite, wants to be friends with them. I find this a bit silly since they don’t want to be friends with her. She's also conservative in her daily life - very religious, clearly committed to the idea of marriage. I think this is futile, but figured I owed a response. I initially took the “socialist” comment as somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and made light of it for that reason. But if you really think she’s socialist, then I see no point in discussing this further since we’re not even remotely close to sharing the same language.
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
Oh and I still don't see how she is a Conservative.
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
remedios, how is she not a socialist? She repeatedly expresses her desire to "share prosperity". “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”- Karl Marx. Sound vaguely familiar to me. She has said she will garnish our wages, force welfare, make a strong federal government which will control the majority of our income. I am not sure how that has nothing to do with socialism. Just because she calls herself a "progressive" does not make her policies or herself less of a socialist. I have gay friends, not that there is anything wrong with that ;)
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
remedios, how is she not a socialist? She repeatedly expresses her desire to "share prosperity". “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”- Karl Marx. Sound vaguely familiar to me.She has said she will garnish our wages, force welfare, make a strong federal government which will control the majority of our income. I am not sure how that has nothing to do with socialism. Just because she calls herself a "progressive" does not make her policies or herself less of a socialist.I have gay friends, not that there is anything wrong with that ;)
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
I'm not joking, please explain to me how Hillary is not a socialist. Also, please explain how she is more conservative than Obama (who seems much further to the right than Hillary, who, once again, I see as a Socialist.)
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
I'm not joking, please explain to me how Hillary is not a socialist. Also, please explain how she is more conservative than Obama (who seems much further to the right than Hillary, who, once again, I see as a Socialist.)
remedios remedios 8 years
I'll head off to get specifics of my claim, but socialist? really? I mean, come on.. I'm not calling her a republican exactly... aren't we being a tad bit extreme? Socialist? (Not that there's anything wrong with that. Some of my best friends are socialists. Ok, so they're not, but it sounded funny. In my head. maybe I should have left it there.)
remedios remedios 8 years
Remember what Mark Twain said; "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Always take them with a grain of salt. I'm ok with them as general indicators of how people feel, but when things are so unclear, the manner in which a question is asked will get vastly different results. I think the closer race personally would be between Clinton and McCain because I think that would eliminate both extremes - those on the far right don't like McCain and those on the far left don't like Clinton. But I think Obama would be a sure thing. He'll get all those that would vote for Clinton, plus a bunch more that would stay home if Clinton's the nominee. It would just be much more interesting too. Obama's got that young, charismatic, relatable thing and McCain's got the experienced, wise man thing going for him. I don't see quit the polar setup with Clinton. But that's all just my wild guessing. (Maybe I should be a talking bobblehead!)
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
"I just can't wait to see Coulter campaigning for Clinton. Boy will that be something to see."While I see what you are saying, I strongly believe she'll wind up changing her tune. As for:"Republican hatred of Clinton is misguided since she's pretty conservative. Others have disagreed that she's the most conservative Dem, but I've yet to hear a name of a more conservative Dem running for the presidency."SHE'S A SOCIALIST! I'm not exactly sure how much further from a conservative (of which the Republican partiy's views are based upon) you can get, but I would love a further explanation.....
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
"I just can't wait to see Coulter campaigning for Clinton. Boy will that be something to see." While I see what you are saying, I strongly believe she'll wind up changing her tune. As for: "Republican hatred of Clinton is misguided since she's pretty conservative. Others have disagreed that she's the most conservative Dem, but I've yet to hear a name of a more conservative Dem running for the presidency." SHE'S A SOCIALIST! I'm not exactly sure how much further from a conservative (of which the Republican partiy's views are based upon) you can get, but I would love a further explanation.....
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
And as for John Stewart, his interview with Jonah Goldberg completely turned me off to him.
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
Actually I should say Conservative, not just Conservative Democrat. How is she Conservative?
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
Oh how clever we are.....
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
Oh how clever we are.....
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
How is Hilary the most conservative democrat? I am sorry but I just don't see it.
Healthy Thanksgiving Leftover Ideas
Did Bill Clinton Just Call Obama a Wuss?
Lauren Conrad Overnight Oats Recipe
Prince Harry's First US Tour After Vegas Scandal
Tracy Anderson Smoothie
Who Is Tiffany Trump? | Video

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
X