Quoting something and acting as if the opposite was quoted is a bit rude.The Nazis confiscated the guns, yes.
I did not "act" like anything. I read your statement, quoted it accurately for reference purposes, and gave you mine.Quoting something and acting as if the opposite was quoted is a bit rude.
You ended your sentence with yes, as if you were agreeing with me, while actually contradicting me.I did not "act" like anything. I read your statement, quoted it accurately for reference purposes, and gave you mine.
And again you claim I said something that I didn't.I see now what you were thinking, but the reason I included the yes, was to acknowledge your point about the government policy towards the private ownership of guns. They confiscate them, and yes, I had thought of that point while I was writing out the long list of government actions detailed in my previous post but then forgot to include it.
I will try to remember hereafter that you do not care to be quoted .
No, the conferees were trying to redefine "conservative nationalism". Zack Beauchamp made the point, valid in my opinion, that "conservative" nationalism isn't the only form of nationalism possible.And again, the conference is trying to redefine “nationalism.”
Very much so.Arguing that his definition of nationalism doesn’t agree with yours seems a bit silly in that context.
You're not going to win many friends by bringing facts into threads like these.What like privatising the banks?(one of their first actions)