The Gipper on Arms

[-Cp]

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism—government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it.” —Ronald Reagan

[Joe Steel]

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism—government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it.” —Ronald Reagan

Bonzo the President was a lot less ridiculous when he was making bad movies.

[glockmail]

Bonzo the President was a lot less ridiculous when he was making bad movies. If you despise the Constitution that much I suggest that you move to France.

[gabosaurus]

Was this before or after Reagan went brain dead?

[glockmail]

Was this before or after Reagan went brain dead? Post 3 to you too.

[gabosaurus]

I love our country. People like you are the ones that wish to destroy it through poor leadership.

[MtnBiker]

Bonzo the President was a lot less ridiculous when he was making bad movies.


Was this before or after Reagan went brain dead?

No debate on the ideals of the message only throwing stones at the messenger.


As for allowing only the government to have possession of guns, that is a very bad idea.

[glockmail]

I love our country. People like you are the ones that wish to destroy it through poor leadership. Sure. Reagan was a poor leader? The man is responsible for securing the freedoms of at least 100 million.

[typomaniac]

Truly I have to wonder how much of what Mr. Reagan said he actually believed.

It all sounds as though it was written for him with no input of his own. As an actor would be accustomed to.

As for the paragraph itself, exactly zero of the ideas presented were anything new during the 1980s.

[gabosaurus]

Sure. Reagan was a poor leader? The man is responsible for securing the freedoms of at least 100 million.

And he did it single-handedly. Without even moving his lips. :cool:

[MtnBiker]

As for the paragraph itself, exactly zero of the ideas presented were anything new during the 1980s.

I can agree with that, are they still important ideas?

[glockmail]

Truly I have to wonder how much of what Mr. Reagan said he actually believed.

It all sounds as though it was written for him with no input of his own. As an actor would be accustomed to.

.... . Right. It was all scripted by the trilateral Commision. That and the Black Helicopters.

Face it man, he was the greatest leader of the 20th century. If he had been a Democrat y'all would name your sons and streets after him.

[typomaniac]

I can agree with that, are they still important ideas?I think they're important enough to discuss, if that's what you're asking.

[MtnBiker]

I think they're important enough to discuss, if that's what you're asking.

Great!

Allowing only the government to have possession of guns is not a good idea.

[typomaniac]

Great!

Allowing only the government to have possession of guns is not a good idea.I agree. I always have.

Maybe that was true of Reagan; I really don't know.

[avatar4321]

Bonzo the President was a lot less ridiculous when he was making bad movies.

Common sense is ridiculous now? If its so ridiculous why not refute rather than resort to petty name calling?

[avatar4321]

Was this before or after Reagan went brain dead?

Again, if you have some sort of problem with what he said, why not refute it rather then attack the President?

[avatar4321]

I love our country. People like you are the ones that wish to destroy it through poor leadership.

The country isnt made great by it's leadership. Its made great by the people taking responsibility for themselves and seeking out their own greatness.

[typomaniac]

I don't know why I bother trying to discuss anything with a troll like you, but I guess my hope springs eternal.


Right. It was all scripted by the trilateral Commision. That and the Black Helicopters.Damn straight it was scripted. Most of the time that (nearly) every president spends with his mouth open is spent saying the words he's been coached to say. By his party's policy wonks, typically, not the trilateral commission.
Face it man, he was the greatest leader of the 20th century. If he had been a Democrat y'all would name your sons and streets after him.Not even close. He was a mediocre actor who played in mediocre movies - and, predictably, he did a mediocre job of being president. Sadly for the Republicans, he's about the best the party had since Eisenhower, so the spin docs worked with what they got.

[glockmail]

I don't know why I bother trying to discuss anything with a troll like you, but I guess my hope springs eternal.

Damn straight it was scripted. Most of the time that (nearly) every president spends with his mouth open is spent saying the words he's been coached to say. By his party's policy wonks, typically, not the trilateral commission.Not even close. He was a mediocre actor who played in mediocre movies - and, predictably, he did a mediocre job of being president. Sadly for the Republicans, he's about the best the party had since Eisenhower, so the spin docs worked with what they got.

This post is so baseless I am speechless. :pee:

[typomaniac]

This post is so baseless I am speechless. :pee:You're hopeless. As I thought.

[avatar4321]

I don't know why I bother trying to discuss anything with a troll like you, but I guess my hope springs eternal.

Damn straight it was scripted. Most of the time that (nearly) every president spends with his mouth open is spent saying the words he's been coached to say. By his party's policy wonks, typically, not the trilateral commission.Not even close. He was a mediocre actor who played in mediocre movies - and, predictably, he did a mediocre job of being president. Sadly for the Republicans, he's about the best the party had since Eisenhower, so the spin docs worked with what they got.

What does it matter who wrote what Reagan said? (I happen to majorly disagree with you because Ive studied the administration and know that Reagan wrote and tweaked alot of his public statements).

Who wrote it is completely irrelevant to the point being made. So do you have a problem with what he said? If so deal with the substance and stop playing these insult games.

[typomaniac]

What does it matter who wrote what Reagan said? (I happen to majorly disagree with you because Ive studied the administration and know that Reagan wrote and tweaked alot of his public statements).

Who wrote it is completely irrelevant to the point being made.The only point that I raised relating to this was: did Mr. Reagan BELIEVE what was written down (by him or someone else) and said by him? If you think he did, I'd be happy to hear your reasoning behind it.


So do you have a problem with what he said? If so deal with the substance and stop playing these insult games.As I've said before, no. This wasn't meant to be an insult game, but a serious attempt to address glock's post. Like I'll ever try THAT again... :rolleyes:

[gabosaurus]

American Presidents, Dem and GOP, are only as good as their advisers and script writers. Reagan was not called the "Teflon President" for nothing. He was responsible for all sorts of sh!t, but nothing stuck to him.

[Joe Steel]

If you despise the Constitution that much I suggest that you move to France.

What are you trying to say?

[Joe Steel]

Common sense is ridiculous now? If its so ridiculous why not refute rather than resort to petty name calling?


"Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power."

Reagan is claiming the Constitution contains a right of revolution. That's ridiculous.

[glockmail]

What are you trying to say? Do you need a spoon?

[avatar4321]

"Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power."

Reagan is claiming the Constitution contains a right of revolution. That's ridiculous.


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

President Reagan is in good company. Because the founders who established the Constitution previously wrote this declaration. They would be in complete agreement.

[glockmail]

"Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power."

Reagan is claiming the Constitution contains a right of revolution. That's ridiculous.

FEDERALIST No. 60

The Same Subject Continued
(Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members)
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, February 26, 1788.




HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:
WE HAVE seen, that an uncontrollable power over the elections to the federal government could not, without hazard, be committed to the State legislatures. Let us now see, what would be the danger on the other side; that is, from confiding the ultimate right of regulating its own elections to the Union itself. It is not pretended, that this right would ever be used for the exclusion of any State from its share in the representation. The interest of all would, in this respect at least, be the security of all. But it is alleged, that it might be employed in such a manner as to promote the election of some favorite class of men in exclusion of others, by confining the places of election to particular districts, and rendering it impracticable to the citizens at large to partake in the choice. Of all chimerical suppositions, this seems to be the most chimerical. On the one hand, no rational calculation of probabilities would lead us to imagine that the disposition which a conduct so violent and extraordinary would imply, could ever find its way into the national councils; and on the other, it may be concluded with certainty, that if so improper a spirit should ever gain admittance into them, it would display itself in a form altogether different and far more decisive.
The improbability of the attempt may be satisfactorily inferred from this single reflection, that it could never be made without causing an immediate revolt of the great body of the people, headed and directed by the State governments. It is not difficult to conceive that this characteristic right of freedom may, in certain turbulent and factious seasons, be violated, in respect to a particular class of citizens, by a victorious and overbearing majority; but that so fundamental a privilege, in a country so situated and enlightened, should be invaded to the prejudice of the great mass of the people, by the deliberate policy of the government, without occasioning a popular revolution, is altogether inconceivable and incredible.

[diuretic]

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism—government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it.” —Ronald Reagan

Anyone who depends absolutely on government for their security is - foolish. Reagan was right in that. It's been decided in the US courts that a police department can't be held liable for a crime committed against an individual person. The message is that you are responsible for our own security. Makes perfect sense to me.

Of course the fact that the police force exists in the first place does tend to afford more general security than if it didn't exist but since police officers can't be everywhere (and who in their right mind would want them to be everywhere anyway) it means that individuals have to look after themselves in whatever situation they find themselves in. They can, of course, call the police and if sufficient police resources are available they will get help, but it's a foolish citizen anywhere who thinks that the police are going to keep them safe all the time. It won't ever happen.

[diuretic]

Sure. Reagan was a poor leader? The man is responsible for securing the freedoms of at least 100 million.

Where?

[diuretic]

Right. It was all scripted by the trilateral Commision. That and the Black Helicopters.

Face it man, he was the greatest leader of the 20th century. If he had been a Democrat y'all would name your sons and streets after him.

Do you really believe that of Reagan?

[glockmail]

Where? Eastern Europe.

[glockmail]

Do you really believe that of Reagan? Yup.

[diuretic]

"Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power."

Reagan is claiming the Constitution contains a right of revolution. That's ridiculous.

Just an appeal to the likes of G. Gordon Liddy, remember, the radio bloke who said that his listeners should aim for the heads of federal agents as they wear ballistic vests.

[diuretic]

President Reagan is in good company. Because the founders who established the Constitution previously wrote this declaration. They would be in complete agreement.

Best of luck if you give it a try, pretty big military you have there, controlled by the president.

[glockmail]

Best of luck if you give it a try, pretty big military you have there, controlled by the president. A large number would defect to join the 40 million of so regular militia. GovCo doesn't stand a chance.

[glockmail]

Just an appeal to the likes of G. Gordon Liddy, remember, the radio bloke who said that his listeners should aim for the heads of federal agents as they wear ballistic vests. Sounds like the best war to defeat the vest.

[diuretic]

Eastern Europe.

How?

[diuretic]

Yup.

Why?

[diuretic]

A large number would defect to join the 40 million of so regular militia. GovCo doesn't stand a chance.

That's interesting. That of course pre-supposes that a significant number of military personnel would desert their posts. But definitely some would. Perhaps the same number as those who would get the "Resistance" label in the thread with the test regarding Nazism. But the brass would stay in their positions I think. It also pre-supposes that a significant number of Americans would actually want to overthrow the government. Based on what I read in forums and in the media I don't think there is a significant number who would do so, certainly not sufficient to take on the military power of the government.

[diuretic]

Sounds like the best war to defeat the vest.

Of course it is, technically it's sound advice, but what about the moral context?

[glockmail]

How?
Knocking off the USSR.

[glockmail]

Why? Facts. Logic.

[glockmail]

That's interesting. That of course pre-supposes that a significant number of military personnel would desert their posts. But definitely some would. Perhaps the same number as those who would get the "Resistance" label in the thread with the test regarding Nazism. But the brass would stay in their positions I think. It also pre-supposes that a significant number of Americans would actually want to overthrow the government. Based on what I read in forums and in the media I don't think there is a significant number who would do so, certainly not sufficient to take on the military power of the government.

Depends on what the issues is. If the guv'mint attempts a direct attack on The Constitution, as in trying to take away our guns, many would fight. As a conventional attack on the military would be out of the question, guerilla tactics would prevail. Even on a one to one ratio the results would be very bad for the military and guv’mint, and they would sustain much more damage than the pacifist public would be able to take. Look at the pressure the pacifists are putting on Bush for 3500 dead soldiers in Iraq. In reality the number of civilian guns would far outweigh the number of military and police.

[glockmail]

Of course it is, technically it's sound advice, but what about the moral context?
Using your brains (or in this case, his) to repel an act of an aggressor is not immoral.

[avatar4321]

Best of luck if you give it a try, pretty big military you have there, controlled by the president.

By the time I ever got around to trying it, the "big military" would probably be just as divided and ready to move.

[diuretic]

Knocking off the USSR.

He didn't knock off the USSR, Gorbachev did.

[diuretic]

Facts. Logic.

Opinion.

[diuretic]

Depends on what the issues is. If the guv'mint attempts a direct attack on The Constitution, as in trying to take away our guns, many would fight. As a conventional attack on the military would be out of the question, guerilla tactics would prevail. Even on a one to one ratio the results would be very bad for the military and guv’mint, and they would sustain much more damage than the pacifist public would be able to take. Look at the pressure the pacifists are putting on Bush for 3500 dead soldiers in Iraq. In reality the number of civilian guns would far outweigh the number of military and police.

Okay so if there was an attempt at disarming the American public they'd rise up and overthrow the government using guerilla tactics. So millions of people would leave their jobs to become guerillas and fight and bomb and stab and trap and commit acts of sabotage, all without training. And this would continue for how long?

Would you advocate attacking the government if they attacked any other constitutional rights or is the Second Amendment the only one worth the fight?

[diuretic]

Using your brains (or in this case, his) to repel an act of an aggressor is not immoral.

Actually the brains probably belong to the federal agent who just got a headshot from one of G. Gordon's listeners.

Yes he had to heavily qualify his statement later. But in the context he gave the later, qualified advice it was pretty useless anyway. The ATF agents have Kevlar helmets now. He backed out of that one pretty damn quickly.

[diuretic]

By the time I ever got around to trying it, the "big military" would probably be just as divided and ready to move.

So there's no discipline in the US military, so sense of adherence to orders?

[Joe Steel]

President Reagan is in good company. Because the founders who established the Constitution previously wrote this declaration. They would be in complete agreement.

Sorry, no.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence but had nothing to do with the Constitution.

Regardless, the Declaration of Independence is little more than a hack manifesto written to inspire revolution in a population not otherwise interested in it. Consequently, for the first 40 to 50 years of the U. S., no one paid much attention to it. It's not all that important in defining the American political tradition.

[diuretic]

Sorry, no.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence but had nothing to do with the Constitution.

Regardless, the Declaration of Independence is little more than a hack manifesto written to inspire revolution in a population not otherwise interested in it. Consequently, for the first 40 to 50 years of the U. S., no one paid much attention to it. It's not all that important in defining the American political tradition.

Bugger - I quite like the language in it.

[Joe Steel]

Bugger - I quite like the language in it.

I have to agree. It's an inspiring piece. Fomenting rebellion, after all was its purpose.

[diuretic]

I have to agree. It's an inspiring piece. Fomenting rebellion, after all was its purpose.

And a necessary rebellion. I know there's a bit of revisionism about King George III and the Brits at that time but I think the early Americans knew one of the great truths about human nature - privilege never gave anything up without a struggle.

[glockmail]

He didn't knock off the USSR, Gorbachev did. Revisionism.

[glockmail]

Opinion. The correct one based on the facts and his legacy.

[glockmail]

Okay so if there was an attempt at disarming the American public they'd rise up and overthrow the government using guerilla tactics. So millions of people would leave their jobs to become guerillas and fight and bomb and stab and trap and commit acts of sabotage, all without training. And this would continue for how long?

Would you advocate attacking the government if they attacked any other constitutional rights or is the Second Amendment the only one worth the fight? It would continue until the Constitution was reinstated.

Depends on what the issue is.

[glockmail]

Actually the brains probably belong to the federal agent who just got a headshot from one of G. Gordon's listeners.

Yes he had to heavily qualify his statement later. But in the context he gave the later, qualified advice it was pretty useless anyway. The ATF agents have Kevlar helmets now. He backed out of that one pretty damn quickly.

The kevlar represents more of a challenge, but not insurmountable.

[diuretic]

Revisionism.

Not at all. Fact. Gorbachev started the process that opened up the USSR. Remeber the perestroika and glasnost policies?

I do believe in credit where it's due and the credit for the dismantling of the USSR has to go to Gorbachev. Those are the facts. It's not my opinion.

[diuretic]

The correct one based on the facts and his legacy.

If you're claiming to base your opinion on facts then I'm going to have to ask you to cite them or cite a reference or something.

[diuretic]

It would continue until the Constitution was reinstated.

Depends on what the issue is.

It might continue until the Constutition was reinstated but it might also be that the resistance is simply overcome by the force of the government. Interesting though.

Okay on the issue, which parts of the Constitution would you defend and which would you simply shrug your shoulders at and walk away with an air of indifference if they were removed?

[diuretic]

The kevlar represents more of a challenge, but not insurmountable.

You're right, you have to aim for the face.

[typomaniac]

Not at all. Fact. Gorbachev started the process that opened up the USSR. Remeber the perestroika and glasnost policies?

I do believe in credit where it's due and the credit for the dismantling of the USSR has to go to Gorbachev. Those are the facts. It's not my opinion.I agree completely, but remember that Glockmail is a complete waste of everyone's time. Best to ignore him or respond with nothing more than one of the more ridiculous smileys before he uses it.

[diuretic]

I agree completely, but remember that Glockmail is a complete waste of everyone's time. Best to ignore him or respond with nothing more than one of the more ridiculous smileys before he uses it.

Oh well, at least get a chance to differentiate what I know as fact from what I think as opinion, nothing like a bit of adversary to sharpen both up :D

[glockmail]

Not at all. Fact. Gorbachev started the process that opened up the USSR. Remeber the perestroika and glasnost policies?

I do believe in credit where it's due and the credit for the dismantling of the USSR has to go to Gorbachev. Those are the facts. It's not my opinion.

You libs are infatuated with ol' gravy stain head cuz by doing so it allows you to dis Reagan. Fact is the USSR was destroyed because of the enormous economic pressure of keeping up with America's military. If Gorby was such a great leader he would have been able to keep up.

[glockmail]

If you're claiming to base your opinion on facts then I'm going to have to ask you to cite them or cite a reference or something.
Try google.

[glockmail]

It might continue until the Constutition was reinstated but it might also be that the resistance is simply overcome by the force of the government. Interesting though.

Okay on the issue, which parts of the Constitution would you defend and which would you simply shrug your shoulders at and walk away with an air of indifference if they were removed?

The parts that recognize the power of the citizens over the guv'mint.

[glockmail]

I agree completely, but remember that Glockmail is a complete waste of everyone's time. Best to ignore him or respond with nothing more than one of the more ridiculous smileys before he uses it. I'm a waste of your time cuz you're a closed minded liberal. :pee:

[diuretic]

I'm a waste of your time cuz you're a closed minded liberal. :pee:

Close-minded liberal - oxymoron - "liberal" and "close-minded".

[diuretic]

You libs are infatuated with ol' gravy stain head cuz by doing so it allows you to dis Reagan. Fact is the USSR was destroyed because of the enormous economic pressure of keeping up with America's military. If Gorby was such a great leader he would have been able to keep up.

Fact is you are wrong.

[diuretic]

Try google.

Try an answer.

[diuretic]

The parts that recognize the power of the citizens over the guv'mint.

That's a start. Care to list them?

[glockmail]

Close-minded liberal - oxymoron - "liberal" and "close-minded". Incorrect. They are usually one in the same.

[diuretic]

Incorrect. They are usually one in the same.

Because you say so I suppose? Are you sure you're not suffering some sort of arrested development? I mean it's common for children to be extremely egotistical, the world revolves around them and everything they assert just "is" because they asserted it. But adults understand that isn't the case.
However adult sociopaths have child-like egoism problems as well, they are extremely egocentric. You probably need to get over your egoism.

Now to your assertion - if they're "usually" one and the same then it means that sometimes they're not. So when are they not one and the same and when are they one and the same?

I'll wait for some examples.

[glockmail]

Because you say so I suppose? Are you sure you're not suffering some sort of arrested development? I mean it's common for children to be extremely egotistical, the world revolves around them and everything they assert just "is" because they asserted it. But adults understand that isn't the case.
However adult sociopaths have child-like egoism problems as well, they are extremely egocentric. You probably need to get over your egoism.

Now to your assertion - if they're "usually" one and the same then it means that sometimes they're not. So when are they not one and the same and when are they one and the same?

I'll wait for some examples.

My opinion is based on discussions with liberals such as yourself, on this board, others, and face to face, over many years of political discourse. They never admit they are wrong, even with faced with overwhelming facts, and are unwilling to listen seriously to your argument. That is close mindedness.

You are the one who asserts that liberal = open minded. Prove it.

[diuretic]

My opinion is based on discussions with liberals such as yourself, on this board, others, and face to face, over many years of political discourse. They never admit they are wrong, even with faced with overwhelming facts, and are unwilling to listen seriously to your argument. That is close mindedness.

You are the one who asserts that liberal = open minded. Prove it.

I agree with your definition of close-mindedness. I agree that someone who can never admit they're wrong is close-minded, yes, I'm politically liberal and I agree with your contention.

QED - you now have your proof :salute:

[Kathianne]

I agree with your definition of close-mindedness. I agree that someone who can never admit they're wrong is close-minded, yes, I'm politically liberal and I agree with your contention.

QED - you now have your proof :salute:

Can't rep you twice in a row.

[diuretic]

Can't rep you twice in a row.

As a much wittier poster than me once said, "it's the thought that counts." I'll go along with that. Thank you for the note :cheers2:

[typomaniac]

I agree with your definition of close-mindedness. I agree that someone who can never admit they're wrong is close-minded, yes, I'm politically liberal and I agree with your contention.

QED - you now have your proof :salute:I got tired of waiting for glockmail to reply to this one, so I'll just post the reply he would have made:

:pee:

[glockmail]

I agree with your definition of close-mindedness. I agree that someone who can never admit they're wrong is close-minded, yes, I'm politically liberal and I agree with your contention.

QED - you now have your proof :salute: That is now the degree of evidence required for a proof? :lame2:

[glockmail]

I got tired of waiting for glockmail to reply to this one, so I'll just post the reply he would have made:

:pee:

You too need to get a life I see. Whouda thunk?

[diuretic]

That is now the degree of evidence required for a proof? :lame2:

Sorry no second prizes - you're done.

[glockmail]

Sorry no second prizes - you're done. I'll just keep my gold medal then. :pee:

[diuretic]

I'll just keep my gold medal then. :pee:

We all have our fetishes and shibboleths.