Replies

Mia, I have admired your Clinton threads over the years and I have to say that - even here on FR - your perceptiveness of the danger they pose to the nation - especially Hitlary, who, unlike Slick, isn't in it just for the prestige, but has been a doctrinaire Marxist since the late 1960s is almost unique.

People who are frothing at the mouth about Rudy and trying to make him 'damaged goods' are opening the door to the possibility of the UNTHINKABLE - the election of a Marxist (who would indeed rule like a Stalinist if our Constitution could just be subverted).

We need to point our the TRUTH about Rudy's record, as well as the danger of Hitlary's nomination (which is a FOREGONE CONCLUSION at this point in my view) and I plan to do so every time I go online from now on.

This is the kind of infighting that gave us:

Jimmuh Carter in 1976 and

The Toon in 1992.

But what's lurking out there in the shadows next year makes those two fellows seem harmless by comparison....

Baloney again. There's no reason a conservative party can't run a conservative and win. If we can't stand on our convictions we might as well not call ourselves a conservative party. Arnie and Rudy are not the solution, they are part of the socialist problem we've been fighting for the last thirty some odd years. We can't fight evil by becoming evil ourselves.

Thank you, Al Simmons. :) People who are frothing at the mouth about Rudy and trying to make him 'damaged goods' are opening the door to the possibility of the UNTHINKABLE - the election of a Marxist (who would indeed rule like a Stalinist if our Constitution could just be subverted). We need to point our the TRUTH about Rudy's record, as well as the danger of Hitlary's nomination (which is a FOREGONE CONCLUSION at this point in my view) and I plan to do so every time I go online from now on. This is the kind of infighting that gave us: Jimmuh Carter in 1976 and The Toon in 1992. But what's lurking out there in the shadows next year makes those two fellows seem harmless by comparison.... --Al Simpson

I posted the following yesterday:

It is an ethical dilemma.
This is not an easy situation.
Voting for Giulliani is morally unacceptable to you.

But not voting for Giuliani has dire consequences and very real moral implications as well.

All I ask is that you appreciate the complexity and weigh one against the other.

Because I see such a moral disconnect in the thinking of those who claim to regard Rudy as 'morally untouchable,' (i.e., to help elect Rudy is a mortal sin, but to help elect hillary clinton is just dandy), I have difficulty taking at least some of this ranting seriously. I have to wonder whether some of it is not hyperbole, intellectual blackmail, or intellectual blackball intended to cut Rudy off at the pass.

We must not get sidetracked by this. We must take the offensive against hillary clinton directly by targeting precisely the demographic clinton is targeting: women and especially single women (as well as indirectly with Rudy by making sure a winner and not some supposedly doctrinally pure nobody loser will oppose her).

If women are fully informed about (1) hillary clinton's role in the clinton rape of Juanita Broaddrick and other predations, (2) the clinton terrorism failure and why it happened, and (3) the clinton documented abuse of power--the Barrett report - (and we must get our hands on the 120 pages doubtless redacted via the very clinton abuse of power documented in those redacted pages), then hillary clinton will never win, even against a wounded Rudy Giuliani.

STALINIST RISING?HILLARY CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER
(WHERE IS THE UNREDACTED BARRETT REPORT ANYWAY?)