NationStates Jolt Archive

Signs of sanity invade the GOP

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/iraq.senators/index.html

well, what do you say, Bush supporters? Are these prominent Republicans traitors and/or commies?

Why do you only supply those two options? Can you really be so deluded as to believe that the Republican party is a completely united movement? And I thought monolithic stereotyping had died after the USSR/China split....

Why do you only supply those two options? Can you really be so deluded as to believe that the Republican party is a completely united movement? And I thought monolithic stereotyping had died after the USSR/China split....

Considering that the link I posted was ABOUT Republicans not being a united movement, I don't know if I understand your problem?

Also, I hope you aren't trying to suggest that there hasn't been widespread rhetoric spewed at anyone who has the temerity to criticize Bush. This was simply a way of highlighting the drawbacks of this sentiment.

By using somewhat colorful prose in my final question, I am inviting spirited response. In this way, I hope to see how those few who ARE helplessly bound into the "Republican" mindset* respond to the apparent dischord of their party.


* In other words, those of the most extreme point of view who are uninclined to believe that their party can do any wrong.

Its nice to see when the GOP shows some signs of being human. The thought of such a large group having all of the same views without deviation is a terrifying prospect.

McCain is also stumping for a future run at the White House at the next opportunity with his "I'm being critical of the pres but not calling him a total failure" dipomatic approach. I like the guy. He should have won the nomination in 2000 but he was playing against a group of bastards. I wish he was the president.

I really hope he wins the nomination some day and whips the party into shape and gets rid of the neocons. They can form their own damn party and leave 'real' Republicans alone.

However, republicans who are 'traditional' republicans are in short supply and they aren't actually the best known cheerleaders of the party. Leave that to neocons like Limbaugh and the whole Fox News crew.

What can I say, neocons give conservatives a bad bad name.

Vive la difference! (or however the saying goes...and is spelled)

Unlike the democrats, Republicans welcome all viewpoints and Republicans allow their own to express dissenting views. This is something I can gaurantee from personal experience, that you will never see the democrats do.
With the dems, free speech is only if you agree with them.
With the reps, you dont' need to agree with anyone, to have free speech.

With the reps, you dont' need to agree with anyone, to have free speech.



Unless your not a Republican...

Unlike the democrats, Republicans welcome all viewpoints and Republicans allow their own to express dissenting views. This is something I can gaurantee from personal experience, that you will never see the democrats do.
With the dems, free speech is only if you agree with them.
With the reps, you dont' need to agree with anyone, to have free speech.

Look, neither side are demons, and neither side is squeaky clean either. From my point of view though, it is clearly the Republicans who try to squelch dissent the majority of the time. Not ALL Republicans, and not ALL the time.

Now come on, be at least a little reasonable, Whittier.

Unlike the democrats, Republicans welcome all viewpoints and Republicans allow their own to express dissenting views. This is something I can gaurantee from personal experience, that you will never see the democrats do.
With the dems, free speech is only if you agree with them.
With the reps, you dont' need to agree with anyone, to have free speech.

...you just have to sign a loyalty oath, or you won't get let in. :rolleyes:

Unlike the democrats, Republicans welcome all viewpoints and Republicans allow their own to express dissenting views. This is something I can gaurantee from personal experience, that you will never see the democrats do.
With the dems, free speech is only if you agree with them.
With the reps, you dont' need to agree with anyone, to have free speech.


Really?

Thats odd...

Why then, pray tell, do you suppose that in order to attand the Republican Conventions, you had to swear an oath of loyalty to the Republican Party, and then consequently...to Bush?

That doesnt sound much like approving of free speech does it?