Bush supporters are angry - why ?

Question

i was convinced that they are just parrots who repeat and carry the slogan of whatever their man and the adminstration market and sell them.

but today i changed my mind----they are angry that the united states finally takeing the smart path and talked to iran face to face for the first time in 27 years.

do u think it proves that they are just war loveing folks by nature and that bush was just singing the tune that they love to hear ----and when the tune changed ---they are angry.

Answer 1

Bushes own anti Iran marketing campaign is now coming back to haunt him. Having successfully brainwashed his followers that Iran is a nuclear Satan, he's now going to talk to them? Even his own supporters are scratching there heads on this one, but don't fret, cons. Bush representatives will undoubtedly use this face-to-face exchange to threaten and insult Iran, pushing them even further to the extreme!

Answer 2

I published this in yet another reaction some days in the past. Bush is constrained by skill of the conflict Powers decision of 1973. until now any protection tension action he has to flow until now congress and tell them his plan. Congress has an selection of passing law helping protection tension action or to no longer. If Congress does not pass the two a assertion of conflict or a decision helping endured protection tension action then all US forces might desire to be out of the area interior 60 days. no longer in straight forward terms that, yet in addition they carry the handbag strings. If Bush wanted to invade Iran he might desire a significantly larger funds. With how unpopular the Iraq conflict is, even the Republicans in the Senate does no longer enable it. they might truly pass a level to cut back investment. conflict with Iran isn't probably in any respect. in straight forward terms for clarification, i may be an Independant that leans extra in the direction of the Republican part. we are in a position to all agree that President Bush is something yet a genius, yet going against the purposes of Congress and taking protection tension action against Iran might likely bring about an impeachment.

Answer 3

Wouldn't you be angry if you compromised the truth to stick to the party line, and then the leaders of that party kept shooting themselves and you in the foot, making you look like a fool for toeing their line of spin and rhetoric? I know I would, but then I could never put party before truth and reality to begin with.

You were right the first time, parrots they remain. Now they're just angry parrots, feeling used and foolish.

Answer 4

I'm not angry about it. I'm glad we did but I, like Bush, will not take their words at face value.

Answer 5

You're right by golly. As a matter of fact, why didnt ANY president talk to them for 27 years. Oops sorry, that also covers Dems.

Answer 6

I'm not angry, of course I would like wars to be a bit quicker, of course they can't be when socialists are in congress.

Answer 7

Cons are fear-based creatures, so naturally they thrive on mistrust of anyone who doesn't think exactly like they do.

It's a sign that they don't trust their own viewpoint to survive in a free and open marketplace of ideas, so they survive by distrusting, and sometimes hating, those they perceive as "threats".

And everyone is a threat to them.

Answer 8

If you think they are angry for talking to Iran face to face... wait until they also talk to Castro face to face.

Answer 9

I think the fact that John McCain's comedy song about bombing Iran should answer your question nicely.

Who, in their right mind, makes comedy out of bombing anybody?

.

Answer 10

I'm not angry. just in awe of how foolish you libs can be with your theories about 911 and support for terrorists. Its not that we are war loving people, we just want to win when there is one. Just don't go for cut and run.