Well, I appreciate the exemption, and I understand that there is a temperamental difference, but my views are not markedly different from most of these guys. My major disagreement with haqi is that he is too prone to gay bashing, and letting his temper get the better of him. My main policy disagreement with jla has been over the end of the Gulf War, where I think it was untenable to march on Baghdad. Also, although he supports the "safety net", he over estimates people's control over their circumstances sometimes. And so on. I am surprised that you and Michael Cummings, who is usually a very good tempered fellow, have gotten to be so personally at odds. Prolife and I are both against abortion, although I am somewhat more understanding of the other side, and therefore more patient. I cannot say as well about the major, but I have not disagreed on him on much except gay bashing. I do not think they are zealots, or particularly fringe. The thread has degenerated, to be sure, but it is not all their fault, there has been a lot of provocation from the other side. All of them that I have known for awhile, including jla, can be polite enough if their opponents are not too damned sarcastic or prone to be rude in a general way about people with conservative views.
Anyway, I am curious, how do you rationalize my support for Bush? Do you suppose that I am naive, and too trusting of his backers? Do you think that I am too moralistic, and therefore determined to punish Clinton indirectly? Do you think that I am a WASP wannabe? If you find it uncomfortable, or have not given it thought, I do not want to press you, but I am curious....... |
