[
Please keep in mind that I have stated a lot of times now that there are small differences but the essence is the same to me.
Also, It seems to me that when you add the phrase "small differences"... you are only engaging in a a bit of rhetorical gamesmanship.... you acknowledge that there are "small differences" in order to evade any discussions of what are those differences and how important they may be. You acknowledge differences just large enough to preclude discussion of differences, an yet still maintain that those differences are so negligible as to not alter the essence of the fact that there actually are no differences.
All in all, I find myself becoming increasingly curious about the persistence of references to "no differences.... except those which would not change the essence."
I can see why you would insist on the nobility of the principal of voting for people that you actually agree with. It is less clear why there is dogged insistence on no difference among other alternatives?
How far could we take this prinicpal ? If Obama were running against Stalin and Nader... would you still argue there is no differences between Stalin and Obama... except those minor differences that do not change the essence of the situation that there is no difference between Obama and Stalin?
(Note how cleverly I used Stalin instead of Hitler for my comparison....
)
Olive....
sorry, I know this is not the topic you raised... it is perhaps the meta-topic..... that is a discussion about the way in which you are approaching the discussion of the topic that you have raised.
