Replies

I'm surprised that you would say this, jla. I don't have distain for Christian Conservatives. You are missing my point.

What I do have distain for is ANYONE putting his personal beliefs and wants ahead of the defense of this country and the safety of our children. ( I believe your argument for doing so isn't even consistent with your stated values: voting for hillary is the ultimate act against life.)

My feelings for the CC or anyone on the right who would place a de facto vote for hillary is no different from my feelings for my jewish brethren who vote for her. Is there any reason I should give the former a pass? If anything, the CC deserves more scorn because, UNLIKE UNINFORMED AND DISINFORMED LEFTIST JEWS, THE CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES UNDERSTAND WELL THE DANGER OF THE CLINTONS.

NOTE: I am not arguing for Giuliani here. I am not arguing for a secularist. What I am arguing for is VOTING FOR HILLARY'S OPPONENT, WHOEVER THAT PERSON MAY BE. (It may be a conservative or moderate, it may be a Christian, it may be an Italian or a Jew. It may be pro-life or it may be pro-choice. I don't care which.)

What I am trying to say is that it would be the height of irresponsibility to place a de facto vote for hillary clinton.

As for 1776 or 1812, total annihilation wasn't a possibility, so I put those eras aside. In the cold war, MAD and a nuclear bipolar world maintained rational actors and limited threat.Today's post-9/11 world, OTOH, is asymmetric, not rationally based and the threat is unlimited.

Post-clinton, post-Watson and Crick, anyone can put together an A-bomb or a dirty bomb or a biological WMD. And with global travel, anyone can place it anywhere. And the islamofascist terrorists want to do all of it.

So, I don't agree with your premise that the era of terrorism has an analog in history.