Right. If conservatives disagree with you about Giuliani, those conservatives must be wrong. They can't have good reasons (because there are no good reasons to disagree with you). Therefore they must be basing it on superficial reasons alone.
And that means they are "letting 9/11 completely dictate everything we do".
Sure, there may have been some, like yourself, but I'm taking about, oh, 3/4ths of the people.
But, see, you're not talking about 3/4ths of the people. You're talking about imaginary people that you've made-up things about so you can paint them w/the broad brush. You can't point to actual, tangible people fitting your description. But you're pretty sure, sans evidence, that your unflattering description applies to "oh, 3/4ths of the people" who support Giuliani.
This is called a straw-man.
To be honest I'm not even sure how we got on the subject of Giuliani... lol
Giuliani being the front-runner was the example you stated which supposedly shows that we are "letting 9/11 completely dictate everything we do". Because, again, Giuliani being the front-runner is inexplicable unless people have fallen into a sort of mass hysteria; after all, you don't favor GIuliani (apparently), and obviously there are no possible valid, sincere, and rational reasons for anyone to disagree with you about something like that. Folks disagree with you about Giuliani and therefore they are "letting 9/11 completely dictate everything we do".
That's your argument as I understand it.
You know what's funny is how often it's the case that when someone makes a broad sweeping vague claim like that we're "letting 9/11 completely dictate everything we do", when I question their thinking just a little it turns out they've got some very very specific bee in their bonnet (such as "a lot of people favor Giuliani and I don't like that"). I always find it clarifies the discussion to learn what someone really has in mind. Thanks,
i think you are tring to be picky and misreprsenting my argument...