“You’re one of my top 5 favorite posters I’ve ever read on Free Republic.”
Thanks.
“Your arguments are usually compelling and insightful...but you’re dead wrong here,...”
I might be.
Or maybe you are.
I don’t know about you, but my crystal ball’s in the shop for repairs. I have no special skill or grace to predict the future infallibly.
But I make do with what I’ve got.
Which brings me to the opposite conclusions that you draw.
I think that Mrs. Clinton is likely a bit more liberal than Mr. Giuliani, but I think that a Giuliani administration will likely produce more harm to the United States in the next four or eight years than a Clinton administration.
I’ve expressed my reasons why. You disagree with them. That’s fine. I disagree with your reasons.
It’s possible that Mrs. Clinton will do more damage than Mr. Giuliani in the next four or eight years. It’s a tough call either way, at least in my mind. But what I believe much more firmly is that Mr. Giuliani will cause much more damage to the United States in the long run than Mrs. Clinton will, because he will destroy the Republican Party as a vehicle for conservatism.
But you disagree. Which is why you’re willing to vote for Mr. Giuliani, in spite of the fact that he’s a baby murderer, a gun grabber (literally), a homosexual agenda pusher, and is squishy on illegal immigration (and thus, on the war) and taxes.
I don’t know why you wouldn’t vote for Mr. Giuliani in the general election, given what you believe.
But given what I believe, I don’t know why I’d vote for him.
Ultimately, though, this kind of crap:
“I wasn’t trying to devastate you. It isn’t possible to devastate anyone willing to enable another Clinton presidency.”
“I hope you like the new psychiatrist Hillary chooses for you.”
“sitetest, your recent postings are so far beneath you...”
“...and you should be ashamed.”
is not especially effective at persuading me of the correctness of your (heretofore missing) arguments.
Or even crap like this:
“You know that with a Clinton presidency we get the maximum number of abortions possible...”
I don’t know that at all. In fact, I think it’s likely that a Giuliani administration would lead to more abortions over the next four or eight years, and I’m pretty sure that it would lead to tens of millions more in the years thereafter.
Thus, I could just as easily condemn you for the blood of millions of unborn that will be on your hands if Mr. Giuliani should be president, because tens of millions more unborn babies will be murdered as a result, since the Republican Party will drop any attempts at undoing abortion on demand for decades and decades to come.
But I don’t condemn you for that. Why? Because I don’t think you accept my premise, that electing Mr. Giuliani will lead to the Republican Party dropping any effort to undo abortion on demand. I don't think you believe the premise that Mr. Giuliani will likely have more freedom of action to do more pro-death things than would Mrs. Clinton. I believe these premises strongly. But you don’t.
Thus, it would be wrong for me to frame the issue as if you intend to murder millions of additional unborn babies, or that you even believe that that’s what your actions will lead to. Because that isn’t your intention or your belief. Even though I think that’s what would happen if Mr. Giuliani became president.
No matter how insightful a poster you may think I am, we’ve come to different conclusions on this issue. The bottom line is that neither of us knows the future. Each of us is trying to reason out what we think the future might be like under this or that scenario. We come to different places. I think that our differences are honest ones. I impute nothing malevolent, stupid, or insane to you; I’d appreciate the same in return.
sitetest
I think you've reached your conclusions honestly. I'm actually shocked to find myself disagreeing with you so strongly. My Best to you.
One need only look at the recent gun control bills, including a totally unworkable ammunition microstamping mandate, which were signed into law by California GOP standard-bearer Arnold Schwarzenegger, deemed more "electable" by the majority of recall election voters than a true conservative like Tom McClintock.
The California GOP has been declining for a long time, and it may well be engaged in a few post-mortem twitches at this point.