I'll stick to the issues, since you refuse to.

"When I point that out, you react with self righteous outrage, as in your how dare anyone suggest that a vote for Nader is a vote thrown away ramblings."

I still maintain that no vote is ever a wasted vote, regardless of the cirucmstances of the election. It is perfectly legitimate to vote based on one's conscience, especially when being castigated for doing so by cynics who use words like "idealist" as an epithet.

I want no part of that sort of political reality.

"The simple fact is, in an election with such grave consequences for average folks, it is dangerous."

Every election has grave consequences for average folks. Every single one of them.

"Now, we are faced with an election that chooses whether or not we put back in office a man who uses unilateral action to go to war, and you advocate a policy that enhances his chance at re election."

First, there is no significant difference between Kerry's position on the use of pre-emptive force (he says he too would use it) and Bush's position. Kerry has made it very clear, repeatedly during the primary debates, that he would also use unilateral force if he failed to get an international coalition together, and he believed that US interests/security were at stake. So I fail to see how voting for Kerry will change anything in that regard.

By supporting a candidate other than Kerry, a person is not advocating any policy that enhances Bush's re-election, they are merely supporting the candidate of their choice, period. Last time I checked, we still allowed that in the US.