Well, maybe not for dinner but at least for a snack. Was that you, David, coming down the steps at the end of the vid?

Truly an insipid idiot. Someone should tell her that the USSC is not infallible, that they have indeed made decisions as bad as anything state courts have done (Dred Scott, for example).

But, if thats the enemy, I think we have won.

Dave, I owe you an apology. Somebody posted some pics from the line over on subguns and I mistook Cramer for you.

I'm still better looking than both of you, but I don't own a Thompson. So, you got that on me.

:)

>>>But, if thats the enemy, I think we have won.

No. Everything Clayton tried to say sailed right over her empty head. She hadn't a clue about what he was saying.

Many people are just like her. It's hard to win a debate with a box of rocks.

Well, actually it's quite easy to win a debate with these types. The nearly insurmountable difficulty lies in getting them to acknowledge the fact. Either they're so obtuse that they don't notice they've been completely obliterated, or they simply refuse to admit it, responding "Nuh-uh!" and going on about their oblivious way.

Had she been intellectually honest, she would have covered her ears and shouted LALALALALA

I used to talk about a variety of issues, including gun control, with a guy like that - basically, after having every argument answered, he would go back to the first one and start over again, and his final word was always something along the lines of "well, that may be true, but it still FEELS wrong to say that [insert subject matter of conversation here]".

Some ignorance is simply invincible.

She was so ill-equipped for that "debate" it almost wasn't fair. Like others have said, and I tend to agree with, you can only argue with them for so long before it becomes boring.

He did not have her for lunch because while he came off as inteligent and informed she came off as impervious to either intelligence or information.