LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=6273279 Leading members of President Bush's Republican Party on Sunday criticized mistakes and "incompetence" in his Iraq policy and called for an urgent ground offensive to retake insurgent sanctuaries. In appearances on news talk shows, Republican senators also urged Bush to be more open with the American public after the disclosure of a classified CIA report that gave a gloomy outlook for Iraq and raised the possibility of civil war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yossarian Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 Lots of Republicans are unhappy with Bush on a variety of issues that excude Iraq. Almost all are probably going to hold their noses and vote for him anyway. If he wins, which I now suspect he will he faces king sized headaches on a number of fronts. Conservatives of all stripes are unhappy over the No Child Left Behind Act. Liberterians are unhappy over the proposed amendment concerning marriage. Nationalists and a variety of other conservatives are unhappy with our border situation and Bush's proposed amnesty. One thing that puzzles me is how little modern day liberals understand that which is labeled "conservative" today. There are many schisms and contradictions in that so called philosophy. The liberal movement of today is far more monolithic. Yes, you are correct there are a lot of unhappy campers in the Republican camp. Still, religious and liberterian conservatives for the most part loathe Kerry. Bush may win, but the next four years could be tough for all of us. Then enter Hillary?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 The liberal movement is by no means monolithic. I may be a bleeding heart liberal, but that doesn't make me a pacifist. I may not support the Federal Hate Amendment, but I don't want to force gay marriage on anyone either. The problem with the liberal movement is the people who are viewed as the liberal voice in this country are whackjobs. It's like having the conservative movement defined by Strom Thurmond, Pat Robertson and Alan Keyes. Except we get Michael Moore, Eleanor Holmes Norton and Ralph Nader. Assclowns, each and every one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Whats amazing is how the media spins president Bush to looking like he's doing a halfway competiant job. Hell it's obvious to anyone with ten cents worth of brains that George Bush is worse for this country then HIV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 The liberal movement is by no means monolithic. I may be a bleeding heart liberal, but that doesn't make me a pacifist. I may not support the Federal Hate Amendment, but I don't want to force gay marriage on anyone either. The problem with the liberal movement is the people who are viewed as the liberal voice in this country are whackjobs. It's like having the conservative movement defined by Strom Thurmond, Pat Robertson and Alan Keyes. Except we get Michael Moore, Eleanor Holmes Norton and Ralph Nader. Assclowns, each and every one of them. Couldn't have said it any better myself. I would kill to have an honest to god, common sense, middle of the road 3rd party. Not a Ross Perot or Pat Buchannon, but someone who thinks like the majority of the country, instead of party lines dictating positions for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Couldn't have said it any better myself. I would kill to have an honest to god, common sense, middle of the road 3rd party. Not a Ross Perot or Pat Buchannon, but someone who thinks like the majority of the country, instead of party lines dictating positions for them. Sad part is, I'd be willing to bet that a LOT of politicians who end up leaning to one side started out kind of in the middle, until they had to compromise their principles to gain favor with the political "machine". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Sad part is, I'd be willing to bet that a LOT of politicians who end up leaning to one side started out kind of in the middle, until they had to compromise their principles to gain favor with the political "machine". I don't have a problem even with people who lean one way or another. So many "issues" are so gray IMO that it doesn't surprise me that people believe different things. But there is no way that people believe basically an entire party platform. That is the part that bugs me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 The liberal movement is by no means monolithic. I may be a bleeding heart liberal, but that doesn't make me a pacifist. I may not support the Federal Hate Amendment, but I don't want to force gay marriage on anyone either. The problem with the liberal movement is the people who are viewed as the liberal voice in this country are whackjobs. It's like having the conservative movement defined by Strom Thurmond, Pat Robertson and Alan Keyes. Except we get Michael Moore, Eleanor Holmes Norton and Ralph Nader. Assclowns, each and every one of them. Great Post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.