Because I meant it. What you call "voting on principle" I call counterproductive to your own poltiical position. My point was that principle is not enough, if you choose a fruitless strategy to advance that principle.
That has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the soliders in Iraq. I defy you to point out how it does.
After all, didn't I write the following which you belittled as 'melodrama'? "No, voting on principles is never a waste. Sometimes, people are even willing to die for their principles. I know this is a foreign concept to a party hack like yourself, but the truth is that Americans do all kinds of things even when there's no chance of winning."
The reason that this is melodrama is that you are comparing YOUR "struggle" in a marginalized third party with the sacrifice of real soldiers in combat. YOU, sir, are therefore guilty of belittling their effort, not me.
I'm not the one comparing anything to anything. You are. And you couldn't be more wrong.
Please point out where I wrote that I was struggling. I didn't. These are your words, not mine.
And for the record, I never would have written that I'm struggling in a marginalized third party' because I belong to no political party, third party or otherwise.
I only said that I vote for the best man for the job.
The reason that this is melodrama is that you are comparing YOUR "struggle" in a marginalized third party with the sacrifice of real soldiers in combat. YOU, sir, are therefore guilty of belittling their effort, not me.
Again, my supposed 'struggle' is in your vivid imagination because I never wrote I was struggling with anything.
What did you think I meant when I wrote, "Sometimes, people are even willing to die for their principles."
Did you think I was talking about people who have heart attacks while pulling the lever in the voting booth?