posted
"I was pointing out that Clinton was continuing the cuts to defense that Cheney started."
Indeed. However, I remember hearing about some major unhappiness over some bases being closed in the 90s, and it was getting blamed on Clinton.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, I'm a Clinton supporter, and I really don't like Cheney. But, as they say, I'm willing to give the devil his due.
I'm not really sure, myself, of what to make of OSC's political stance. In the ending commentary in Empire, he talks about the importance of NOT casting one's self as either strictly blue or red, because then one typically has to tow the party line and be totally, irrationally opposed to the opposing stance. (And why OSC then uses such negative terms when refering to democrats and liberals remains a mystery to me).
So I thought I'd make a point that even in the bad (Cheney), there can be some good (cancellnig a doomed military program). But, at the same time, I'm not yet ready to give the chicken coop fully over to the watchful eyes of possible wolves (or would that be hawks..?)
I'm mixing metaphors faster than a duck mixes drinks!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Well, you didn't hear it from me, but the Times article sounds either even-handed or, perhaps, a little pro-Cheney!
Too bad the V-22 Osprey program wasn't cancelled--IIRC, it had over $70 BILLION in development costs, and "With the first combat deployment of the MV-22 in October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the aircraft as unsafe, overpriced, and completely inadequate" (a WIKI article).
But the WIKI article about Cheney also calls "Haliburton" an energy company, not a defence company. And (if I am to remain the cynical wise-a$$), who knows if the programs he cut allowed Haliburton to later come in and reap additional profits by making up for the cuts...?
I have read wildly differing points of view on the Osprey. Congress by and large seems to think that it's a waste of money, and was from the beginning, and that we should have spent the money building a better helicopter from the start. But commanders in the field will point out that it carries more people than a blackhawk, takes off fast and flies out of the range of shoulder mounted rockets, which no helicopter does, and flies at least twice as fast as the fastest helicopter, and has very probably saved more lives than it has cost by getting injured soldiers to field hospitals in time to save their lives. I hear a lot of complaints about the things, from all over the place, and I even hear interviews with pilots and soldiers who are leery of the thing...but field commanders and other soldiers seem to think they are indispensible. So take your pick.
I think the idea of a tiltrotor VTOL aircraft is fantastic. I don't know if the Osprey is the best iteration of the idea, but her abilities, for all the risk, aren't matched by any other aircraft in our arsenal. Something to consider.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, the V-22 is not twice as fast as the fastest helicopter. It's not even twice as fast as the Blackhawk.
Congress or some Congresspeople today may think it's a waste of money, but it was Congress that saved it when Cheney wanted to kill it.
By and large I think Cheney was right. It's marginally better than helicopters in a few areas. But the development costs were staggering, and not worth it. It should have just been a research project, not a production contract, and when the research was done or nearly so they could have contracted for production.
Now that all the research money is gone, the per-plane cost might be worth it, I'm not sure.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Further, IMO, it's extremely rude to question someone's self-identification."
If someone said he was a Laker, but always cheers for the other team whenever the Lakers are playing, it's not rude to say "man, you're not a Lakers fan". It's common sense. It's pretty much definitional. Screw self-identification.
Same thing with Democrats-vs-Republicans. At some point OSC will have to stop playing with the words and admit to himself that if he's consistently supporting the Republicans, he's a bloody Republican! No matter what party he happens to be registered with.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That only works if parties are unofficial. If you're a registered Republican, you're a bloody Republican, and same for Democrats. You even have to register to be independent!
It's different if you use the words "conservative" and "liberal." That is more up for interpretation.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone said he was a Laker, but always cheers for the other team whenever the Lakers are playing, it's not rude to say "man, you're not a Lakers fan". It's common sense. It's pretty much definitional. Screw self-identification.
Mmmm...I disagree. It would be rude.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Lyrhawn, the V-22 is not twice as fast as the fastest helicopter. It's not even twice as fast as the Blackhawk.
Congress or some Congresspeople today may think it's a waste of money, but it was Congress that saved it when Cheney wanted to kill it.
By and large I think Cheney was right. It's marginally better than helicopters in a few areas. But the development costs were staggering, and not worth it. It should have just been a research project, not a production contract, and when the research was done or nearly so they could have contracted for production.
Now that all the research money is gone, the per-plane cost might be worth it, I'm not sure.
You're right, it doesn't go twice as fast as a blackhawk (I wasn't referring to AHs, my bad, I meant UHs in general). It does however go considerably faster. Blackhawks aren't supposed to go above 222mph, whereas the Osprey can go up to 316mph. The Boeing website and the Bell website both say it's twice as fast, that's where I got it from. It's almost 100mph faster. But those are top speeds, I'm wondering what the average cruising speed of a Blackhawk is. Either way that's pretty impressive. The Osprey carries almost twice as many troops, almost twice as much payload by weight (depending on the blackhawk configuration, and whether or not it's external or internal) and flies about a mile and a half higher, putting it out of the range of shoulder fired missiles, something the Blackhawk has been vulnerable to. It's rate of climb is more than three times that of the Blackhawk. It also sports a much greater range without refueling than the Blackhawk. That means it takes off, gets into the air faster, flies higher, carries more people, carries more cargo, and goes further on a tank of gas, than the Blackhawk.
It's considerably more expensive, but arguably it's worth it. I don't personally have an opinion, but I wonder how they could have made a transport helicopter that has the same specifications.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it really hypocrisy? I think OSC picked a party in about 1975, and hasn't examined the idea of changing parties since. I suppose you could call it all sorts of things, but I'm not sure hypocritical would be at the top of my list. Lazy, possibly. Focused on other things, definitely. I think it would be pretty easy to spin it positive, negative, or neutral. Dunno, my nizzles.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Is it really hypocrisy? I think OSC picked a party in about 1975, and hasn't examined the idea of changing parties since.
I think that's what you call conservative.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it [being rude] does matter but I also think it's a poor reason to avoid exposing a person's hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy doesn't enter into this discussion at all. That is, OSC isn't being hypocritical when he condemns the Democrats' war plans, but maintains he's still a Democrat.
That said, one can point out someone's hypocrisy without being rude.
quote: I think OSC picked a party in about 1975, and hasn't examined the idea of changing parties since. I suppose you could call it all sorts of things, but I'm not sure hypocritical would be at the top of my list. Lazy, possibly. Focused on other things, definitely. I think it would be pretty easy to spin it positive, negative, or neutral. Dunno, my nizzles.
Can you support the claim that OSC hasn't examined the idea of changing parties since 1975, steven?
Are you willing to allow other people to claim to understand the shallowness of your commitment to your own personal ideals?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is, OSC isn't being hypocritical when he condemns the Democrats' war plans, but maintains he's still a Democrat.
I would argue that calling yourself a Democrat as a rhetorical device while urging people to vote for anyone but Democrats is probably hypocritical. I suppose it depends on how you're going to define "Democrat."
To someone who defines "Democrat" as "someone who calls himself a Democrat," there's no logical disconnect here at all. To someone who defines "Democrat" as "someone who's registered to vote in a Democratic primary," there's probably only the occasional quibble. And to someone who defines "Democrat" as "someone who supports and votes for Democratic candidates," there's a huge gulf.
You're arguing, Scott, that any claims of group membership be judged as if they were of the first sort -- I call myself a Christian or firefighter or folk singer, and therefore I am -- and while I'm sympathetic to that to some degree, it does occur to me that at some point someone who claims to be a folk singer will be dismissed unless he actually does some singing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would argue that calling yourself a Democrat as a rhetorical device while urging people to vote for anyone but Democrats is probably hypocritical
It can be denounced as being sneaky, as being manipulative, or something like that; but hypocrisy, it is not.
OSC says he's a Democrat. Personally, I don't care about whether or not he registers as a Democrat, or who he votes for. If I have to evaluate whether or not he's telling the truth about his self-identification (which I'm loath to do, for reasons expressed here and elsewhere), I'd look at what he says are the reasons he self-identifies that way. If I've understood what OSC has written on the subject, topics like welfare tend to bend him toward the Democratic party. Consistent adherence to a philosophical ideal, more than registry or voting habits, is a better indicator of philosophical allegiance than transient values (like whatever politician is on the slate).
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, let's keep in mind that OSC written largely about national elections; we don't know how he's voted about local issues. (Though I think he's hammered the Greensboro schoolboard a bit, and I know he's taken the city/county council to task for poor planning in regards to their water shortage)
So we don't know the whole story.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Consistent adherence to a philosophical ideal, more than registry or voting habits, is a better indicator of philosophical allegiance...
I think the (IMO, very antiquated) idea that a given major-label party represents any particular philosophy may be at the core of this dispute. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I thought the core of this dispute was that strangers can't know the mind of other strangers and should therefore refrain from posting about them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe that many people have posted regarding the *minds* of strangers, Scott. Certainly I haven't.
On my part I've just posted about the party affiliation of someone who's given us lots of info about his political views and voting patterns in the last couple decades.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me, Aris, that your point has been that OSC cannot be Democrat because he speaks out frequently in support of a Republican president, and criticizes the Democrats. I'm hesitant to touch your point about his voting patterns, since as I pointed out above, we've only got a view of his priorities on a national scale.
Steven's point, from his first post, is that OSC isn't exposed to Democrats (which I contend he cannot know without a personal relationship with OSC, which as far as we're aware, doesn't exist), and is thus out of touch with them.
I argue that allowing someone to self-identify however they want, then confronting their positions on the specific issues rather than on their self-identification is the better route. (Since self-identification is tied up in things that are not widely accessible)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
<i>It seems to me, Aris, that your point has been that OSC cannot be Democrat because he speaks out frequently in support of a Republican president, and criticizes the Democrats</i>
Why do I have to repeat my "point" so many times? My point (to repeat it yet again) is that OSC isn't a Democrat because nobody remembers him mentioning a single occasion where he has voted for the Democrat candidate. And we all remember a dozen occasions of the opposite.
But perhaps I'm just being parochial, and Americans care more about registrations than about actual votes. I live in Europe, and in my country atleast support for a party is usually expressed with voting for it, not via membership. (And I consider myself independent as I've voted for right-wing or left-wing candidates in different occasions, and in the last Greek elections I eschewed both major parties to vote for a small libertarian one)
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought the core of this dispute was that strangers can't know the mind of other strangers and should therefore refrain from posting about them.
Only if you believe that determining whether someone really is or is not a Democrat requires being able to read his mind.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:OSC isn't a Democrat because nobody remembers him mentioning a single occasion where he has voted for the Democrat candidate. And we all remember a dozen occasions of the opposite.
Hmmm...
I don't remember a "dozen" occasions, because there haven't been a dozen presidential elections he's written about.
At the most, there have been five-- Reagan, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and the current crop of hopefuls.
Take into consideration, too, that there are many more elections than these in America. Local elections, for example, for which as far as I know, there is no record.
I think I said something about this earlier.
Assuming that every candidate that gets nominated for the presidential election really is the objective, best candidate for their party, we STILL don't have enough data to draw the conclusion you've come to.
quote:Only if you believe that determining whether someone really is or is not a Democrat requires being able to read his mind.
I think that it's more productive to discuss where ideologies depart from one another, rather than discussing why one self-identifies the way one does.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
<i>At the most, there have been five-- Reagan, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and the current crop of hopefuls. </i>
Reagan was two elections, and Clinton was another two.
"Take into consideration, too, that there are many more elections than these in America. "
Yeah, do please take them into consideration: he also supported the Republicans in their recent Congress elections. (And he's spoken positively about the Republicans taking hold of congress in the Clinton years as well)
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"rather than discussing why one self-identifies the way one does."
I don't care to discuss *why* Orson Card self-identifies with a party he hasn't actually supported in living memory -- I'm not a psychologist.
Only saying that he oughtn't expect people to accept his "self-identification" as anything approaching reality.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only saying that he oughtn't expect people to accept his "self-identification" as anything approaching reality.
:shrug:
It's reality, whether you accept it or not. OSC seems to self-identify as a Democrat, despite disagreeing stridently with Democratic leadership.
It IS possible to belong to a group without agreeing with the leadership of that group. This is why I believe that if we're going to go about judging people on this topic (and that's a poor idea, IMO) it should be done by an examination of the philosophical tenants to which they adhere, which are also held by others who claim to belong to the same group.
(Please note as well that OSC has been fairly critical of Reagan. FYI.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention that he says over and over that he really wants to vote for somebody from "his party" and in his last world watch essay went as far as to say that he would probably vote for Obama in the general elections.
But nope, he is a wolf in Democratic ass clothing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"(Please note as well that OSC has been fairly critical of Reagan. FYI.)"
But he voted for Reagan nonetheless, so he must have been even more critical of the Democrat opposition.
"It IS possible to belong to a group without agreeing with the leadership of that group."
It doesn't have anything to do with criticism or with disagreement. (tired of repeating myself on this) It has to do with *choice*.
If he agrees with the Democrats in a hundred small issues and with the Republicans on one big issue, then I'll take HIS OWN CHOICE AS EXPRESSED BY HIS VOTE (aka: when it actually counts), on whether it's the one big issue or the hundred little ones that should take precedence.
You keep saying that his choice in self-identification can be the consistent opposite with his choice in vote. I just don't believe this makes any sense: it either trivializes the meaning of his vote or his self-identification.
Hasn't OSC bashed people who claim they believe in God but nonetheless behave as if God doesn't exist? It seems to me the same deal here.
I could accept him as a Democrat even if he voted for Democrats one third of the times. But nobody here remembers a single time that he said he voted for the Democrat instead of the Republican. He probably *has* voted for some Democrat *sometime*, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
"But nope, he is a wolf in Democratic ass clothing."
He's a Republican that just happens to be registered as a Democrat.
There's nothing inherently bad about being a Republican, I just wish he was honest with himself on this regard.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could accept him as a Democrat even if he voted for Democrats one third of the times. But nobody here remembers a single time that he said he voted for the Democrat instead of the Republican. He probably *has* voted for some Democrat *sometime*, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
In the course of a single Presidential term, a voter will vote on average for two congressmen, one and a half senators, two state legislators, a governor, two or more other state-wide officers such as attorney general or lieutenant governor, numerous local legislators (county commissioners or city council members), a local executive (such as a mayor), possibly a school board member or three, maybe a sheriff, and numerous smaller offices. It is extremely common for people to split their votes across parties.
You know, what, 7 out of more than a hundred votes he's cast since he voted for Reagan the first time and you feel confident to make this declaration?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's entirely possible to identify with the ideals of a particular party, but to strongly dislike the current nominees and/or activities of that party. You could prefer the Democratic party's ideals to any other alternative, but also think that the present actions of the Dems really stink and don't deserve support. Politicians don't always act in the way we'd like them to, even when they're "our team."
For example, I generally like the libertarian view of politics, but you will never catch me doing anything but sneering at a Ron Paul sign, and you can bet I won't be voting for him.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I only have OSC's own words regarding his own votes to use as my guide. Did he mention voting for a Democrat in any single one of those hundreds of votes?
Is it just coincidence that only has him mentioning his votes for Republicans in his articles, and never a peep about all those Democrats we need *imagine* him voting for (because he's never claimed himself to vote for one).
It's not as if we hear him say good things about Democrat presidents of the past either, btw -- Kennedy was horrible, Johnson escalated Vietnam war but never meant to win it, Roosevelt tricked the American nation into WW2, etc, etc. Of historical presidents we've seen him admire Eisenhower - a Republican.
So, though he's not loving the Democrat party's present, it's not as if he feels attracted to its *past* either.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, I only have OSC's own words regarding his own votes to use as my guide. Did he mention voting for a Democrat in any single one of those hundreds of votes?
Is it just coincidence that only has him mentioning his votes for Republicans in his articles, and never a peep about all those Democrats we need *imagine* him voting for (because he's never claimed himself to vote for one).
He didn't mention any of those hundreds of votes at all. Why would he? Even though it's a local column, World Watch is certainly targeted at a national article and covers national topics.
You're taking the elections he has talked about and generalizing. And, in doing that, ignoring his explicit statements on economic regulation, immigration, gun control, welfare, and a host of other issues on which he agrees with the Democrats far more than Republicans.
Moreover, the primary issue where he disagrees with the democrats - foreign policy - is most important in the elections he's talked about the most, and matters not at all in the elections he hasn't discussed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take issue with the accusation that Card calls himself a Democrat as some sort of manipulation to gain credibility when criticizing Democrats. He may mention it to try to show that he is criticizing from an insider perspective, but tha5 doesn't mean he's pretending.
If one reads his essays on affirmative action and immigration, one would not call him a Republican. He also has very non-Republican fiscal ideals. He also support Bush, who is not really loved by conservative Republicans.
He may be holding onto an idiosyncratic definition of the party that is not as characteristic of it today, but that does not mean he is being disingenuous or out of touch with current society (please!).
He may think that the two Democrat contenders would be bad presidents, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't ideally want a Democrat as president.
I think some things for him transcend party, like religious freedom, and I think he sees connections between the war, fanatical environmentalism, and the like to this freedom.
Disclaimers: 1) I do not think Card walks on water or is free from the biases and self-deceptions inherent in our human existence. 2) Card needs to write more novels...I'm almost done with them all.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the issues I see discussed in this thread were already answered by Card in his Feb. 3 Worldwatch Article.
quote: For thirty years I've been an "embarrassed Democrat"; flip a coin and I would have been a "humiliated Republican." But what I've always been is a moderate.
He then goes on to put this statement into context by giving his definition of Moderate. How I read this is that he's so close to the center that he could flip a coin to determine the suffix, so long as the prefix remains 'Moderate'.
You guys are comparing A Sharp with B Flat, They're the same thing. Red+blue and blue+red are both purple. You choose the label based on convenience. I'm sure he had a reason to call himself a Democrat at the time he chose it, but as time wore on, the differences were so negligible that he likely saw no reason to change it.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what this proves is less what Political Party OSC belongs to, and more the football mentality of American Politics. I am a full blown Republican and therefore hold on to the position of the most Republican of positions. That said, I think I see where OSC is coming from. He is a Democrat because of philosophical reasons he shares with them and not the current ideological positions.
I just find it funny that you have to hold "these particular positions" and vote for "these particular people" or you are OTHER. I am not fond of McCain for various reasons (I disagree with him on too many issues and dislike his personality), but there are many Republicans who believe that McCain is really a Democrat with the letter R. I actually believe that myself, but that doesn't mean he isn't a Republican. It just means he isn't MY kind of Republican.
In the end, I think that neither party likes a moderate. That goes for myself, but I am at least open to admitting such. Democrats have painted the Republican Party as extremists, but I think this year at least the Democratic Party has proven they are the extremists. Neither Obama or Hillary has done or said anything that has forced any serious disagreements other than perhaps tactics. On the other hand, besides Iraq (other than Paul), the Republican choices have actually been choices.
Perhaps OSC should become Republican. Not because he is a Conservative (although he is on some things) but because the Republicans have (if they like it or not) become the moderate party. At least for this year's elections. Imagine that!
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the end, I think that neither party likes a moderate.
Are you kidding? Neither party likes an extremist. If you think there are any extremists left in the race, you've clearly never actually met any real extremists. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like after Kerry lost, there was a lot of talk about the Democratic Party needing to search for its soul. I don't think it's the case that the Democratic Party is a marching band where you have to match every step. Obama keeps calling it a tent. I'm inclined to think Obama is the new soul of the party.
Card has skewed away from the party on a couple of recent issues: Same Sex Marriage and the Iraq War. But he's still viewed by the majority of Mormons as dangerously liberal. He's not pro-life (which I'd define as saying life begins at conception), I don't believe he favors capital punishment, he's not tax-phobic and doesn't feel that welfare and immigration are what's wrong with America.
P.S. I have no idea why Card would have voted for Reagan, but I read where he said he plugged his nose and went ahead -- because he didn't like Reagan. He may have found Reagan's policy on Israel to be superior, and Card doesn't believe in moderation when it comes to our commitment to Israel.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:P.S. I have no idea why Card would have voted for Reagan, but I read where he said he plugged his nose and went ahead -- because he didn't like Reagan. He may have found Reagan's policy on Israel to be superior, and Card doesn't believe in moderation when it comes to our commitment to Israel.
Some of us didn't vote for Regan. We wrote in Jimmy Carter. I have often ended up doing that in a presidential year.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the end, I think that neither party likes a moderate.
Are you kidding? Neither party likes an extremist. If you think there are any extremists left in the race, you've clearly never actually met any real extremists.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Card has skewed away from the party on a couple of recent issues: Same Sex Marriage and the Iraq War. But he's still viewed by the majority of Mormons as dangerously liberal. He's not pro-life (which I'd define as saying life begins at conception), I don't believe he favors capital punishment, he's not tax-phobic and doesn't feel that welfare and immigration are what's wrong with America.
Out of curiosity, where have you seen his views on pro-life and capital punishment? I don't recall reading his views on abortion one way or another, and seem to recall a discussion once or twice on stem-cell research, but I don't recall what his conclusion was.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this may shock some of you, but Mormons aren't a hive-mind (in spite of their predilection for bee and hive imagery.) Not all Mormons are into capital punishment, think taxes are evil, and want to kick out all the Mexicans. They actually do have individual opinions.
Okay, I'm teasing Pooka, of course. But I do agree with her in that OSC does seem to be considered unusually liberal among many LDS folks.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember this: When it comes to politics, nobody is correct. So don't try to guess what anyone thinks about anything. Even your definition of a Democrat or Republic, Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative. They're all wrong because everyone things differently about them. I can call myself a Democrat by my standards and it won't mean a thing because all you will associate that with is what stereotypes you believe about Democrats. If you say that you're open minded than you're even more wrong because the fact that you think you are open minded means you aren't. So just don't read into it.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
