A neutral position requires all parties to an issue to participate, or no parties to the issue participate. Which of these is the most practical and realistic way to remain neutral?
What if only one party to an issue wants to buy advertising or co-brand? Do you give their opposition free access?
Did the WWP take advertising or co-branding from the Brady Campaign, but refused Stevens Arms? If so, then they are "antis" and not neutral. Or did they refuse all reference to guns? That's what they said they were doing. If that's true, then they are neutral on guns. But of course that wouldn't be good enough, because "If you aren't with us, you're against us" no matter how dumb an idea that is.
How come this doesn't apply to any corporation that isn't co-branded with an organization in the arms industry? Why if you want to drive a Ford with a Colt emblem on the door, you'll have to put it there yourself because Ford won't; must be they're anti-guns. How come there isn't a Smith & Wesson emblem on my AAA card? Why doesn't that green lizard from Australia have a quick-draw rig on to show he and his insurance company are pro-gun? Must be they're anti gun, he isn't armed at all.
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
Last edited by Uncle Billy; November 24, 2012 at 12:43 AM.