Ok. I think I can understand that. I don't agree with your
argument but at least I can gather that your argument was not a
deliberate misrepresentation, but rather based on what you percieve
his intended meaning to be (as opposed to the literal words).
> 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?
Plenty.
> I try to maintain some semblance of reason under these conditions,
> but I'm not perfect.
Define "semblance" and "perfect". (just kidding)
Peace,
William Kitchen
bill@iglobal.net
The future is ours to create.