Posted on 06/18/2006 5:28:38 PM PDT by Mia T
Okay, sure.
It was an excellent point.
In any case, I'm sorry for being at times less than polite. I could blame it on the root canal, but I suspect that excuse wouldn't pass your tough analysis. ;)
1. By voting third party one is placing a de facto vote for Hillary.
2. By electing Giuliani as the G.O.P. nominee, knowing full well that he is persona non grata with many of the Christian Right and 2nd Amendment Right and will never receive their vote, the Republicans who elevated Giuliani have handed Hillary a de facto victory.
I called a friend of mine in NYC and asked: Are New Yorkers polite?He replied "You're ****in' right we are, you ****in' piece of ****." Then he slammed down his phone.
So I'm convinced.New Yorkers are polite?--theDentist, New Yorkers are polite?
"Stubborn little bicuspid, aren't we?"
I've always had a problem blaming others for my actions. That said, what if those Republicans think Giuliani's problems with those constituencies can be cured?
The way I see it, a cure can come from both directions, i.e., Giuliani can moderate some of his views--the nonstarters, (not an uncommon practice when a local politico goes national)... and he can argue his case, i.e., open a discussion as to what, in fact, is the moral course in these perilous times....
This scene isn't far from the one the other day at the endodontist. Really. ;)
Here's a hypothetical for you:
The '08 election is between only two candidates. It is as clear as those things can be clear that one of the candidates will win the war and the other will take us down to certain and devastating defeat. The 'winner,' because of his positions on abortion and the 2nd Amendment, is 'persona non grata' with you. The 'loser' meets all your criteria on those issues, but if you choose him, America will be kaput, many of us will be killed, and those of us who do manage to survive will have no real future.
What do you do?
And I suspect you would do so because your believe that is the moral choice.
But is it really? Acting to satisfy your moral sensibilities is not the same thing as acting morally.
By making that choice, you would be enabling the killing of millions of people... and many millions of people not yet born.
So on what basis do you believe that is that the moral choice?
No double meaning. Just shorthand for 'winner of the war' and 'loser of the war,' the 'given' in my hypothetical.
The same reason that Noah didn't opt to keep the animals off the ark and allot the space to humans.
excuse the typos. (the root canal's acting up.) ;)
And that is...?
I sit here in a state of utter bewilderment that you asked that. (I'd bet your mother would know. I know your grandmother would)
Apology accepted.
Your second statement is the truth no matter how much some want to blame the voter.
That was the most inane piece of tripe that I've seen in quite a while. That would hope against facts. That would be all smoke and mirrors, a dog and pony show.
IOW, THAT would be flim flam, pure and simple.
Please tell me that you don't really believe what you posted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.