[thechat] US Elections

[Hugh Blair]

> Sorry Hugh, I think that's just way too simplistic.
>
> There's also a 'neutral' category, and a category which says
> "Even though you may be right in some matters, that doesn't
> give you carte blanche in all of them, and I'll criticise
> where appropriate".

Hey, no problem with that. Criticism is just fine. So there
are three sides: with me, against me, don't give a hoot and
want to stay out of the picture. Make a decision, take a stand.
Even if it is out of the way of those doing something.

> Picking sides in a binary manner is just
> such a macho, posturing thing to do, don't you think?

Call me macho, I won't run from the title. It's better than
sitting on the sidelines and just complaining about stuff. But
for the record, I don't think that picking sides on any issue
can be characterized as you just did. We may disagree on this.

Cookies vs. cake. Or neither. That works.
Death or life. No middle ground.
Terrorism or no terrorism. No middle ground.
Security of a country and it's citizens. Or not. 1 or 0.

Or neutral. Of course it's a choice. But don't harbor, condone
or support terrorism and then want to be neutral or left alone,
and think that there won't be consequences. That doesn't work.

Hugh