You asked about when the stakes have been low enough (to vote against a Republican, I presume). The question is flawed on its face because my statement didn't imply that such a time had ever existed. You just made that part up.
In response I spoke of the former Democrat party who at least cared about the safety of the country. In the past, one could vote for a Dem and not risk the very existence of this country and the survival of its people.
There is a greater chasm between the parties than there has ever been, and that, coupled with the fact that we are, for the first time in our history, fighting an enemy that wants to destroy every last one of us, and there has never been a time prior to 9/11 when the stakes were higher.
I don't want to presume to speak for every intelligent Republican on this board, but I would guess that if Zell Miller were running against Lincoln Chafee, that every one of us would vote for Zell. That is NOT what this thread is about.
But then, you knew that all along, and you knew what I was saying all along as well, didn't you? And you knew that I was right too, didn't you?
Stop playing games, Prot. It's tedious.
The stakes are TOO HIGH.
Good thinking for a change. A person has to know their limitations.
but I would guess that if Zell Miller were running against Lincoln Chafee, that every one of us would vote for Zell
OOPS, sorry girl, the vast majority of the people on this thread are advocating straight ticket voting for Republicans. Your boy ain't on that list.
The other guy is. You made my point, thanks.
Now be a good citizen, apologize, and then go tell all the straight ticket voters on this thread that they are wrong.
I'll move along now because I know I can trust you to work on that little task for me. Thanks in advance.