Replies

Quite obviously, any support you have expressed for socially conservative positions has been very shallow, or else you wouldn’t now be supporting a candidate whose values are frankly pagan.

Now see, this is what I'm talking about. Even though I've taken the time to put forth articles and supported conservative views on immigration, education, religion, life, the environment and others, you choose to call me shallow because I do not agree with you on everything.

. . . you choose to call me shallow because I do not agree with you on everything

I called you shallow because I thought it would have been more insulting to call you stupid. I repeat: You could not possibly believe in socially conservative views if you are shilling for a candidate whose personal life and political positions repudiate those same views.

Frankly, I prefer the Rudybots who just come right out and say they love abortion to those who go, "Oh, I'm very pro-life, BUT . . . " and then give some cockamamie explanation for supporting a candidate who wants to fund abortions for the poor so they'll have the same opportunity to kill their babies that the rich enjoy.

Even though I've taken the time to put forth articles and supported conservative views on immigration, education, religion, life, the environment and others, you choose to call me shallow because I do not agree with you on everything.

And you're supporting Rudy because...?

I wouldn’t call you shallow. I would say that, given your posts in support of so many things Giuliani opposes, your support for him seems illogical.

One way of explaining it though is to suggest first that Rudy is the only candidate who is strong on terror, and second that terror is much more important than any of those other things.

But he’s not the only candidate strong on terror, so that would be ignorant. And if you consider terror an issue that overrides all those other issues, I can understand some interpreting that as being “shallow” on those other issues — because they certainly don’t think terror trumps everything else.

On the other hand, if your argument is that only Giuliani can win, and therefore you will vote for him even though he disagrees with you on all those issues you posted supporting articles for, then one has to wonder what criteria you use for voting other than having an “R” by the name?

So in the end, if you are a principled conservative posting support for conservative positions on the 2nd amendment, abortion, religion, illegal immigration, and the environment, it is very hard to see how rationally that corresponds to supporting a candidate who is against the conservative position on the 2nd amendment, abortion, religion, illegal immigration, and the environment.