Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:23:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3179 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Why is it silly, in your view? And what does it say about Republicans in
general that they’re willing to oust someone who expresses an opinion that
didn’t come from the party’s marching orders?
|
Resolve for the war is sacred. Don’t underestimate the passion for this
issue. All others pale in comparison.
|
Well, that explains the chickenhawks and diehards, but the overwhelming
majority of Americans object to Bush’s handling of the war, so you’re
essentially saying that Republicans are fundamentally out of touch with their
electorate.
|
I’m saying that the MSM objects to Bush’s handling of the war, so that is the
opinion of the GP. Don’t you think people would have a better view of the war
if the MSM portrayed it in a better light? Seriously, I honestly believe that
the media could have derailed our war effort in WWII had they wanted.
| |
| |
| |
Lately Repubs have claimed to have a larger tent than Democrats, on the
grounds that Repubs allegedly tolerate a wider range of views than do the
Dems. Well, we’ll see how big the “R” tent remains after Senators start
voicing their displeasure with Bush’s policies.
|
Not on THIS issue. As far as silly goes; come’on, what is the point of
“non-binding” resolutions? Let the Dems stop playing footsie and vote to
cut funds for the war if they are serious. Cowards.
|
Well, let’s imagine how it would play out:
9:00am Day One: Dems vote to deny Bush’s request to fund the addition of
new troops in the Iraq quagmire
9:01am Day One, and for the Rest of
Eternity: Every headline and news program and commentator and political
campaign and blog attacks the Dems for “failing to support the troops”
Dems correctly recognize that they must proceed with care to prevent their
objections from being grossly misrepresented. You call it cowardice, but I
see it as another unavoidable facet of what you like to identify as “The
Game.”
|
Well, in this instance, it’s no game. They are against the war-- prove it.
They need to accept the consequences of their beliefs. If most of America is
REALLY for a pullout, where’s the harm? Their actions, in theory, would be met
with thanks. This is a simple case of wanting their cake (Tough on terror) and
eat it, too (Cut and run). There is “The Game™”.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Which would you prefer: a near-total media blackout on the real impact of the Iraq war on its innocent civilians and our soldiers, or honest and thorough reporting of the state of the war? Me, I'd prefer the latter, and it's a shame that we (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) The game is the 'bait 'n switch' done by George and anyone who follows him. The 'War on Terror' isn't in Iraq, though. At least, it wasn't until George invaded. The varying ideals for the war (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Well, that explains the chickenhawks and diehards, but the overwhelming majority of Americans object to Bush's handling of the war, so you're essentially saying that Republicans are fundamentally out of touch with their electorate. (...) Well, (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
