>In that sense, of course, Bill can't be baited since he's a red.
Of a sort.
> What was baiting was suggesting that his red principles would lead
>him to vote for Shrubya, yes? IOW, what was baiting was suggesting
>that Bill's position was objectively conservative/neocon, yes?
Allegedly. According to Carroll. Of course I'm hopeless at understanding how people think, but I simply took it as a challenge designed to draw me into defending my politics. As a bit of a diversion from the central issue we were discussing, where Joshua had become somewhat ensnared in his own contradiction.
Red herring yes. Red baiting no. Neocon baiting, I hadn't thought of it like that, perhaps because I hadn't associated the neocons with advocating slavery (except wage slavery of course) or theocracy, or racial segregation.
> And that Bill's position couldn't be explained by something that,
>while sitll disagreeable to Josh, might have a more logical/rational
>reason than simply, "You are so fucked up you don't realize the
>unintended consequences of your position."
He's entitled to argue the latter though. If he wants to completely change the subject.
>Not that this is an attack on Josh. Interesting posts to the list.
Sure.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas