RR> If they held off on the name-calling and reasoned quietly
 RR> they might get somewhere but instead they yammer off like the
 RR> religeous fanatic screaming at everyone that 
 RR> they're going to burn in
 RR> hell unless they get down on their knees and 
 RR> worship _his_ way right
 RR> then and there. 
 GP> This is an inaccurate assessment of my position.  
 GP> My defining someone's
 GP> political position as anti-gun, because they in 
 GP> fact cast anti-gun votes,
 GP> is _not_ "name calling."  That continuing 
 GP> accusation comes from big babies
 GP> who absolutely refuse to face up to the obvious 
 GP> fact that they are voting
 GP> for anti-gunners, therefore adopting the anti-gun political position.
 
Thanks for another example. Substitute "sinners" for "anti-gun" and you have 
a perfect example of the condemner on the corner.
 
We've already agreed that Dole isn't our ideal. But we have also established 
that Clinton is a hell of a lot worse. Now you want us to vote for someone 
NOBODY in the general population even knows is running and who has ZERO shot 
at even registering on the scale.
 
You then tell us that the Illuminated Ones have it rigged anyway, so it 
doesn't matter in any case.
 
And then you call us babies.
 
Someone here is having a tantrum, acting bad, and reflecting badly on all he 
endorses and it is not me or the others you're fighting with.
 
 GP> I'm _not_ a Libertarian . . . . damnit.  Have you 
 GP> ever heard me say I was
 GP> voting for Browne?  No, you haven't, have you?  
 GP> I'll probably be voting for
 GP> Collins.  So much for your "wild Libertarian" fallacy.
 
Libertarian, Constitutional, etc. You still reflect badly.
 
 RR> In simple terms: you can't convert people by 
 RR> calling them insulting
 RR> names, acting in an enraged manner, 
 GP> Convert them to what?  You mean convert gun owners 
 GP> to being pro-gun?  Have
 GP> you ever torpedoed an anti-gunner when you saw them 
 GP> post in a gun echo?
 
Convert them to voting for the same candidate, of course. 
 
I have tried to reason with antis but when they get to the abuse stage I 
start returning the favor.
 
 GP> Republicans aren't "left of center," they are hard-
 GP> left-wing Fascists.  No,
 GP> there is no such thing as a right-wing Fascist . . . .
 
Regardless, they are characterized as "right-wing extremists" intent on 
"giving assault weopons to felons," "polluting our air and water," "coming 
after our women and children," and "getting the old people," just to mention 
the most popular things thrown at them. Imagine the amount of education 
needed just to get the public _that_ far to the right, let alone to the other 
side of the road.
 
 RR> Imagine the reception
 RR> someone who wants to repeal Social Security, 
 RR> all gun laws, subsidies,
 RR> etc. is going to get. _Then_ tell us all how 
 RR> Browne is going to be the
 RR> next president. 
 GP> Then I suppose you want to keep SS, gun laws, subsidies, etc.
 
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said or hinted any such thing.
 
The point that went flying over your head was that anyone who proposes 
cutting back or doing away with these handouts is going to have everybody who 
profits from them allied against him. Most of the old people around here are 
scared to death that the republicans will take away their SS and Medicare. 
Never mind that it's not true. The Dems keep saying it and "the big lie" 
still works. 
 
Now just imagine how they and their relatives would welcome a candidate who 
said those programs were unconstitutional and he'd work to repeal them. Never 
mind that many of them are gun owners. They'd suddenly be more concerned with 
other issues.
 
THAT is how things work in the real world. And that is what we're trying to 
deal with. 
 
Repeat the situation with farm subsidies, college grants, school subsidies, 
public transit subsidies, etc. and watch the numbers grow.
 
(Continued next message)
 
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------