On the gender side, we probably won’t have a female candidate for president for another fifty years.

England did respond with violence to the Indian resistance. England responded violently frequently. Yet in the end, because England was a moral country, they eventually recoiled from the violence. The nature of this morality is that they accorded the Indians basic human rights and human dignity and in the end that impulse won.

The worst opposite example is, as usual, the Nazis, who viewed others a subhuman and as worse than animals, and they were near-joyous in their genocidal slaughter. A culture such as the Nazis has no problem continuing the slaughter down to the very last person. The hundreds of Indians that the British killed does not compare to the millions that the Nazis killed, and remember that the Nazis did not stop themselves.

The nature of the Islamofascists is much closer to that of the Nazis than that of the British Empire. The Islamofascists will not stop themselves either.

My biggest worry: The Nazis did not stop themselves… nor did the German people stop the Nazis. What if all the “good Muslims” do not stop their Islamofascists? I see no signs that they are interested in stopping them.

When one has an enemy that revels in blood and conquest, that makes no secret of its desire for world domination, and that is vocal in its hatred and disdain for you, whether that enemy is Nazi Germany, Iran, or your average Islamist, your restraint and morality is not only irrelevant, it is a red flag before that blood-thirsty bull.

I respect your right to vote your conscience, of course however mistaken it may be. However, let’s keep the language honest.

Hillary doesn’t have any health insurance to “give”.

However, if elected, she and Congress may assume the power to confiscate monies from people who have worked for it to force others to accept health insurance from the State, many (most?) of whom have voluntarily chosen not to have health insurance.

Of course, she will have many fine examples to follow - many progressive leaders such as Bismark, Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Mao and Castro made State-mandated and controlled national health care a center piece of their Utopian visions. The soft-socialist states of Canada and Eutopia did the same and the quality of their health care has been in sharp decline ever since. Hillary, of course, is much smarter than all these other collective minds.

As economic theory and countless examples all over the world have demonstrated, she will also destroy our health care system in the process if allowed to succeed. National health care is rationed health care ergo declining health care. And HelenL, when your dream national health care system comes to pass, to whom exactly will you turn when you fail to obtain what you expect or need - 1(800) Washington? Think about this.

As far as ending “Bush’s damn war”: I suspect - based upon thousands of years of historical record - that those that wish to destroy us will only be emboldened in their efforts.

You yourself admitted in a previous post that you could not think of a single historical example of how your pacifist views had ever avoided war. However, there are plenty of historical examples of how those views not only emboldened enemies but led the wide-spread destruction of entire peoples and nations.

Your turn.

Danny, thanks for “vapid symbolism.” It’s so cool I want to use it in a poem. (not Kidding, i just nabbed it.)

The stakes are high. That’s why I support Hillary Clinton. She will work to give health insurance to all Americans and bring home our soldiers. Those are issues. And more than any other candidate, regardless of race or gender, she has said she will end Bush’s damn war.

is that clear enough?

Race and gender are issues (or no one would be talking about them): they are not THE issue.

This is the first time we have a female or a black candidate with a real shot at becoming President. Given such a “first”, I am giving people a free pass when it comes to voting for Hillary because she’s female, or for Obama because he’s black, because being “first” does mean breaking a barrier caused by our past.

So I’m giving people a break this time. Perhaps I’ll continue to give them that break until the barrier is actually broken.

But what about the second female or black candidate - after one such has succeeded in breaking the barrier? I am certain I will not be accepting of it at all then: Voting for a second female President because she’s female, or the second black President because he’s black… no way.

I’m sure I shouldn’t be so accepting of the first either, for the breaking of the barrier, but I do feel that way, and I personally am giving them that break.

In an attempt to speed this process up, some have engaged in “reverse racism”, which is (to me) the deliberate use of power to enforce racist policies against the race that used to hold all the power. Having achieved some power, the former victim class immediately uses their new power to engage in… racism! Only someone who believes that Identity Politics are good can view reverse racism (or reverse sexism) as a good thing.

I feel sullied even trying to discuss things in this manner, to walk in the shoes of someone who views their world through such a prism of Identity Politics. Fighting political battles against someone engaging in Identity Politics requires you to get down in the mud. Even discussing issues related to Identity Politics requires such a descent. I need a shower.