He claims precisely that; he just doesn't have the balls to say it
in plain English, but leaves it as the implication of evasive rhetoric
that would make a spin doctor proud. If he means something different,
I can't fathom it. Perhaps I am seeing meanings that aren't there,
or I am over-reaching because of the insidiously evil ideas he then
spouts, but I think not. I think he really means to imply exactly what
I think he implies, and his words are meant to attack that implication
because he can't attack the facts.
Yes, I do get emotional about this particular subject, because this
man, others like him, and his ideas are the most serious danger to my
life and liberty imaginable. He is a liar, a coward, a rich hypocrite
who wants to keep others from having the success he has achieved by
manipulating the collectivist government to use its guns to keep them
down now that he's got his. I would not allow this man into my house,
or sit at a table with him. Reading his words fills me with moral
revulsion. Is that emotional enough?
I try to maintain some semblance of reason under these conditions, but
I'm not perfect.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>