> > The more progressive of the two mainstream candidates is obviously as
>> thick as two short planks if it hasn't worked out how to solve its
>> problem then. Dumber than George Bush. They deserve to lose.
>
>I see, you preferred Slavery.
The Republicans were the side opposed to slavery weren't they?
> You prefer Theocracy.
I think the US is perhaps constituted with an elected monarchy. (A constitutional monarchy, like Australia. Except the US monarch is the executive government as well, like absolute monarchs of pre-modern societies, though only for a limited time.) But the US is not quite a theocracy. If anything, GW Bush could be said to be a great innoculation against whatever theocratic tendencies the US has.
> You prefer
>Segregation.
Come again?
> You prefer George Walker Bush.
Strategically.
>Those are the results you advocate.
No use denying it, someone here is sure to remember me advocating a vote for GW Bush. I deny advocating slavery, segregation and theocracy though.
>And you call ME reactionary?
No, I suggested that a particular position you were advocating was somewhat reactionary. You are more than your stance on one issue. Don't take it personally unless I say you are a reactionary per se.
>Are you a Communist who votes Republican because you think it means the
>revolution will come sooner?
Not THE revolution, but Bush the Smaller has certainly brought the US empire closer to collapse, as I predicted he would. Obviously its a matter of perspective, but from my perspective that is a good thing, in the long run.
But I wouldn't think less of you for believing otherwise. (See, now THAT was a personal insult. Actually, I didn't mean it, I WOULD think less of you if I thought you desired the US empire to continue any longer than could be avoided.)
Anyhow, now that you've changed the subject I'm getting bored with this discussion.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas