Replies

And if you vote third party this time, you'll know exactly what you're potentially abetting. A non-Republican vote this time is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Of course, you'll still be able to stick your head under a rock and say "I didn't help make it this way." It's the easiest, most irresponsible exercise of the right to vote imaginable.

Actually, it's a much higher road than the "root fer our team so they can't win!!!!! YEEEHHHAAWWW!!!" line of thought. The "easiest, most irresponsible exercise of the right to vote" is to vote for Repblicans because they are republicans. It's mindless, and it panders to all sorts of ridiculous lines of thought - fear mongering being the chief among those.

And a vote for a non-Republican is a vote for a non-Republican. Your line of thinking is completely inaccurate. It's like saying "if you don't support the idea of a wartime draft, you're for defeat."

The "easiest, most irresponsible exercise of the right to vote" is to vote for Repblicans because they are republicans."

That's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating voting for Republicans because they aren't Democrats, and they are the only members of any party that can defeat Democrats.

Democrats are advocating the defeat of America in Iraq. They are advocating socialized medicine. They are advocating the abolition of the Electoral College. They are advocating higher taxes and entitlement spending. They are advocating partial-birth abortion and when a vote came before the Senate to restrict it, Hillary voted "nay."

No Republican is advocating any of the aforementioned positions...not even Giuliani.

It's mindless, and it panders to all sorts of ridiculous lines of thought - fear mongering being the chief among those.

The charge of "fear mongering" is a red herring. Pointing out the truth about Democrats isn't "fear mongering." It's merely pointing out the truth about Democrats and the probable consequences of not voting Republican. These truths are based on historical fact and in the upcoming election these facts are not only based on the behavior and stated intentions of Democrats...they are based on observations of a singular family...the Clintons.

And a vote for a non-Republican is a vote for a non-Republican. Your line of thinking is completely inaccurate. It's like saying "if you don't support the idea of a wartime draft, you're for defeat."

No it isn't. It's like saying "if you don't support the idea of a wartime draft, you're allowing and/or enabling potential defeat"...and there are times when such a statement is true.

The Republican nominee will in all probability be Fred Thompson. If you can't vote for him in spite of the Democrats' enabling of defeat, fiscal irresponsibility, a plan to grow entitlement spending by over 15% and altering the Constitution to reflect a "one-man, one-vote" styled Democracy, you aren't a conservative anyway.