[LtdGovt]

How could anyone vote for a U.S. president who not only would tolerate such a holocaust, but who has spent his entire elected political career SUPPORTING IT?

It's ridiculous to refer to it as a 'holocaust', especially if you are aware of the etymological roots of the wors. Supporting a man who would defeat terrorists is a no-brainer for me. The War on Terror is the most important issue. We must defeat the terrorists and the religion of Islam, crush them, destroy them, eradicate them!

By time the next president is inaugurated you can add another 2.5 million human lives ended by abortionists in the United States.

Who is worse, a terrorist or an abortionist?

[Spiff]

Supporting a man who would defeat terrorists is a no-brainer for me. The War on Terror is the most important issue. We must defeat the terrorists and the religion of Islam, crush them, destroy them, eradicate them!

Almost every Republican in the race right now would fight the WoT with every bit as much conviction as Giuliani. Most do not possess the same awful character flaws and baggage as Giuliani. Again, you're offering another false choice. You're saying that we either pick a pro-abortionist or someone who won't fight the War on Terror. There's at least a handful of Republican candidates right now who will do BOTH. They need their chance and Giuliani's travelling deception show isn't going to allow that. Giuliani's atrocious views must be exposed to the Republicans who are unaware of them so that they may make an educated choice in the primary election.

[Spiff]

It's ridiculous to refer to it as a 'holocaust', especially if you are aware of the etymological roots of the word.

The Shoa was not the only holocaust. The word refers to any massive loss of human life.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>Who is worse, a terrorist or an abortionist?

How many American deaths has there been from terrorism in modern times?

How many American deaths has there been from the abortion procedure in modern times?

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

It's ridiculous to refer to it as a 'holocaust', especially if you are aware of the etymological roots of the wors.

One of the modern definitions of the word refers to "any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life".

How does the etymological derivative of the word disqualify the above definition from describing the act of killing nearly 50 million children? Seems like a perfect fit to me.