This reader just wants to add that the "cottage industry making a bloody fortune getting us to turn on our neighbors" is actually a long-established, well-developed, multi-faceted, multi-billion dollar industry - apolitical at its heart - that continues to grow and tear society apart.
If the one being asked questions refuses to provide answers, explanations, or clarifications, who controls that difference? The one asking, or the one who refuses to explain?
Kudos for the Sagan quote. Loved the book and show as a kid.
Shaun, many salient points here. I'll zero in on two lines from Yeats: "the centre cannot hold" and "the best lack all conviction." You're right, we've been chased from the screeching fight.
But that surrenders our agency. We've allowed ourselves to be chased. We don't see the power the center has, at this moment. Gaetz showed what a tiny faction can do in evenly-divided times.
What if you and Martin went from starting a newspaper to also forming a political movement? Not a party, more like a "caucus" of citizens. It wouldn't take much to be a formidable block in local elections. Where else can you find a couple of hundred votes that are actually up for grabs.?
I hope that we are starting a conversation more than a movement. Or at the very least, an editorial perspective. One of the more frustrating -- yet expected -- things that we have bumped into is that no one on the left wants to hear from the right; no one on the right wants to hear from the left.
I agree with you that the center is stirring. The more we point at the problem editorially (and I think this is a good thing) the more we might put into words what others are already thinking? Maybe then the "best" will find a bit more conviction knowing they aren't alone.
Once again we get a drawn out effort suggesting a false equivalency. Not a good place to start if trying to generate credibility. There are not, nor has there ever been, two set of facts.
The ones screaming "whatabout" and "false equivalency" are the extremes, whether they admit it or not.
There most certainly is such a thing as two sets of facts -- I show this to my students all the time by holding up an open black notebook to the class. What color is it? White with lines, they say. WRONG. Not only wrong, but totally wrong, and it is a moral failure to admit that this is anything other than black. In fact, one would have to be stupid to argue otherwise and better still -- everyone who said "white with lines" is indeed stupid, ignorant, immoral, etc.
Then the notebook is turned around. "What color is in now, ladies and gentlemen?" Black... with a series of "oh..." coming from the students. No -- it is white with lines, with the same degree of invective and disagreement.
There is one truth. Facts are an aggregation of what we know of the truth, and facts can be distorted and incomplete. Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, if you want to read more.
Once again, Mr. Kenney's comments are long on presumption, thin on facts.
Maybe there are those in the Republican party who can work to fix the stasis and hatred in our political process. For the same reason that Richard Nixon was the one who opened detente with China. He was the only one who could do so, and not get destroyed by Richard Nixon.
I don't know of too many Democrats that have to be worried about being primaried out from the left. That is much more of a Republican phenomenon. So you introduce a false equivalency to justify acting like everyone has a problem to fix. Gets me thinking about Matthew 7:5 more than it does Yeatts.
I do know that if I hear one more analogy regarding the halcyon days of yore and our sainted forefathers, whether they be of the 17th, 18th, 19th, and now 20th century - I might hurl. There are always those who look about at their own troubles, and pretend that somehow - it was better earlier.
I don't want to return to the Republican version of the 1950's - which is, in and of itself, a rose colored fantasy of those soon ageing off this mortal coil than anything close to reality. Certainly not a reality shared by the majority. I'll pass on polio, soot filled air, filth filled water, segregation, caste systems, bacon grease gravy, and no air conditioning. You can keep it.
I don't want to return to the 1890's, when a man had a 1 in 11 chance of getting killed in a steel mill every year, child labor was rampant, and you couldn't trust the food you bought as companies focused more on profits than their customers. A time when robber barons ruled over us like lords.
Yet for the last 50 years, as we have increasingly followed the Republican vision - from Reagan, to Gingrich, to Paul, to Murdoch, to the Tea Party, to the Falwells, to Trump, to now Gosars and Boeberts - we ain't gotta worry about the dumbing down of politics. We're there.
The results? Instead of balance between investing in the future and paying off debt - on a Republican President's watch - who took over an economy in a time of plenty - our debt jumped from 19 to 31 trillion dollars. With little in real value to show for it other than inflation. The disparity between CEO pay and worker pay has never been greater. We are falling in longevity, our OECD rankings on things like healthcare, childcare, food security, etc. are at best middle of the pack.
We spend more on our military than the next 20 countries combined. We have more guns per capita than anyone. Incarcerate more of our citizens, including children. And spend more on healthcare.
Is it working? Do we feel safe? Healthy, happy? If you're in the majority of Americans, following the Republican ideals has not been working out.
Next - the idea that HE is the center. The best. Is he? Everyman considers himself the hero in his own story. I'm more convinced by that 20th century poet and philosopher, Mark Knopfler:
Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong.....
There are those of us who can see a difference between expressions of angst from citizens, including those which turn violent, and a cold, calculated - planned overthrow of our Constitution which resulted in the first non-peaceful exchange in our history that was led by the one man who had the greatest duty to protect that Constitution.
And yet, that man led and leads Mr Kenney's party. His assistant is his chosen nominee to lead the House of Representatives. Those two actions are not the same thing. We've had riots before. Never a violent coup attempt. You want your party to lead a form of government which you have no commitment to. Whose ideals you despise. If that's the center, I don't want to be there. No matter how decent they consider themselves.
You insist that the most important thing we do is to be more kindly. Which seems to translate into never holding one accountable for their actions. Which makes sense, if your the one gaining from your actions. How'd Desmond Tutu put it?
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
I say that, realizing - that if I have to explain to you why I am against torturing children to control their parents - I likely cannot explain it. Not because it isn't true, but that if you cannot see that on your own, there is little common ground to work with.
So the best I can come up with is the same way I would talk with inmates, back in the day. I would be honest, and do my utmost to be fair, and base my responses upon stated principles and laws. And if respect is mutual, I welcome it. But not to the point of dishonesty.
And yes, off year elections where the billionaire class and corporations have heavily invested do tend to skew Republican - you may very well be right. Isn't that the point of our continual election process in Virginia? To keep everyday people from voting? I'm more interested in how much early voting is able to offset the effect.
Should it happen, and Republicans do control everything - it will be interesting to see how quickly they abandon the middle to appease their base and what laws they pass unimpeded.
What I am more interest in, based upon your stated desire to rule from the "middle" - is, as a Republican standard, what concessions would you be okay with House Republicans offering Democrats in the House in order to gain some of their votes to offset the zealots which are currently calling the shots?
What would you expect in return?
With Youngkin in charge, VA will be leaning more into partisanship - not less. That's a given.
But there's a real chance for non-partisanship rather than Trump's choice in the House. How would you make that happen, o' wise one at the center of the Earth?
You say you want to talk, and the problem is no one talks to you as they should. And yet, on multiple occasions, including now - you deign it beneath you to engage in a conversation regarding the core problem holding up any attempt to "move on", or "work together".
The leader of your political alliance made a serious attempt to overthrow the Constitution that we all agree to live by. The one, where if you are a combat veteran, as you claim - not only he, but YOU, swore an oath to defend.
Against all enemies. foreign and domestic. Was there an asterisk on your oath when you swore? I didn't see one on mine. So why and how can you look away?
Not only how dare he, but how dare YOU not do your duty? Did you consider yourself free of it, once you no longer got a paycheck? What 30 pieces of silver have you accepted for your soul? A 15% corporate tax rate? "Owning" Democrats? Just being welcome at the club?
What?
And rather than hold him accountable, or acknowledge your part in enabling him - your party leaders, though they initially said what everyone else already knew - that he WAS accountable, and he WAS unfit - they went home, listened to you, your media, your polling - and meekly went to Mar a Lago and bent a knee in service to him rather than our country.
And your party supported them all the way. Not only have you not rejected that, nor challenged it - you proclaim your obedience to be the Republican Standard.
Your party runs out anyone who would dare question the narrative. They did after the riot, and they still do. With the only people willing to say different are the ones who know they are leaving anyway. And yet, when they are freed from the need to appease you, they do say it.
Time and again. Not only why do you consider me a liar for saying it, how do you reconcile THEM saying it?
Mattis, Kelly, Romney, et. al. - all of those lifelong Republicans are liars, but the man with over 30,000 public lies in a 4 year period is somehow a fount of truth?
You presume to speak of God with Hallmark card sayings.
I'm more moved by words from the Bible itself, such as 2 Timothy 4:3: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"
And yet, after punting on holding him accountable at an impeachment trial on the matter, and saying it was not their business, but rather for the voters and the courts to decide - they now studiously ignore the findings of a bipartisan hearing regarding the matter and the pending charges which show his unfitness, with the most outrageous defenses of his actions coming from the man they would now make Speaker of the House - after he has received Trump's blessing.
As 90% of your "moderates" supporting him.
90%.
Now that's a mandate, as compared to the 4 measly votes you lead by in the House overall.
And rubbing salt in the wound, not only did you as a party refuse to hold him accountable then, with 90+ felony charges looming, many coming from that bloody day and his actions and your party leaders actions leading up to it - you have made him the leading nominee, with a majority of your members supporting him - as he promises to do even worse this time around. An existential threat of your making, lining up to happen again.
And the best you can do when asked how someone should trust you to not try to kill us again, or destroy the Constitution and rule of laws again that we too have taken an oath to defend - is to get offended that anyone would dare to ask those questions. Somehow, noting reality is deigned to be "extremist".
Or you studiously and repeatedly refuse to answer those questions for the most part. Or if you do, to minimize the actions committed, or engage in the whataboutism that you complain is the problem with the discourse of others.
BLM wasn't at the Capitol that day. The reason 140 cops got beaten within an inch of their lives wasn't because they forgot to lock the door. You insult them and their service by saying otherwise.
God also gave you two eyes with which to read, billions of brain cells to use, and 10 fingers to type.
But the best you come up with is platitudes and New Age adages in lieu of facts and accountability.
In such an atmosphere of denial; talking for its own sake seems more like a way of placation and appeasement of entitled children who would again do us harm, than anything of merit.
Your leader tried to kill us and overturn our Constitution. He is lining up to do it again.
Let's talk about that when you're ready.
Until then, think I'll spend the day listening to Natalie Merchant. She does a soul touching take on Florence Reece's "Which Side Are You On?".
A song written in other times when Republicans thought might made right, and attacked those who questioned it.
Turns out that some things are fairly simple.
Just not the ones you mention. But rather, the ones you ignore.
Facts matter. No matter how much you would prefer we pretend they don't.
Yes, you do appear to have a certain form of illiteracy.
In that somehow, it you fail to either understand or acknowledge that the leader of your party, a party whom you purport to represent, made a serious attempt to overthrow our form of government, never accepted accountability for that action, minimizes the damage caused by your actions, and continues to support the man who was the one charged for inciting those actions.
And that he is the leading nominee, by far, of your party to return to the Presidency, and that he wields so much influence that his hand-picked choice and defender in the House has an overwhelming number of Republican Representatives, including all of Virginia's Republican Representatives voting for him, to the tune of 90%.
As he calls for executions, and plans to gather more power to himself should he be elected again.
A threat to our Constitution and people.
Whom you swore to defend.
I would say it is unique, but it isn't. I've seen it before. When a fraud does accounting where it is always in his favor, then it's not a mistake. Much akin to Trump's accounting, as found by a judge in a court of law.
So, I doubt it's true ignorance, so much as a fear of admitting a liability which would require responsible action.
I suspect most folks can figure out my point, no matter how strong your claims that you cannot. I'm okay with letting them judge which of us is speaking clearly and honestly, and which is trying to win a debate of semantics.
In other news, Sidney Powell just pled guilty in Georgia to the crimes whose very existence Mr Kenney refuses to acknowledge, much less is willing to discuss, as he slowly wraps himself in his Socratic semantics instead.
And in another thread today, he provides an excellent example of his idea of courteous, meaningful, respectful discussion of the issues of contention in Spotsy.
Compare his discourse with the others you regularly find on here from Mr Davis. See which ones you consider to be more fair, balanced, and substantive as compared to pejorative.
Yep. Hard to figure out why there's so much lack of civility.
This reader just wants to add that the "cottage industry making a bloody fortune getting us to turn on our neighbors" is actually a long-established, well-developed, multi-faceted, multi-billion dollar industry - apolitical at its heart - that continues to grow and tear society apart.
Susan —
I could not agree more.
w/r
Really? How so?
Because you're confusing a monologue for dialogue.
If the one being asked questions refuses to provide answers, explanations, or clarifications, who controls that difference? The one asking, or the one who refuses to explain?
Have I been asked questions? Or merely harangued?
Your sense of aggrieved victimhood when challenged does help me to understand today's Republican party much better. For that, I thank you.
Again, moving on.
Didn't see a question in that. Right on.
Kudos for the Sagan quote. Loved the book and show as a kid.
Shaun, many salient points here. I'll zero in on two lines from Yeats: "the centre cannot hold" and "the best lack all conviction." You're right, we've been chased from the screeching fight.
But that surrenders our agency. We've allowed ourselves to be chased. We don't see the power the center has, at this moment. Gaetz showed what a tiny faction can do in evenly-divided times.
What if you and Martin went from starting a newspaper to also forming a political movement? Not a party, more like a "caucus" of citizens. It wouldn't take much to be a formidable block in local elections. Where else can you find a couple of hundred votes that are actually up for grabs.?
Paul --
I hope that we are starting a conversation more than a movement. Or at the very least, an editorial perspective. One of the more frustrating -- yet expected -- things that we have bumped into is that no one on the left wants to hear from the right; no one on the right wants to hear from the left.
I agree with you that the center is stirring. The more we point at the problem editorially (and I think this is a good thing) the more we might put into words what others are already thinking? Maybe then the "best" will find a bit more conviction knowing they aren't alone.
Once again we get a drawn out effort suggesting a false equivalency. Not a good place to start if trying to generate credibility. There are not, nor has there ever been, two set of facts.
And there it is.
The ones screaming "whatabout" and "false equivalency" are the extremes, whether they admit it or not.
There most certainly is such a thing as two sets of facts -- I show this to my students all the time by holding up an open black notebook to the class. What color is it? White with lines, they say. WRONG. Not only wrong, but totally wrong, and it is a moral failure to admit that this is anything other than black. In fact, one would have to be stupid to argue otherwise and better still -- everyone who said "white with lines" is indeed stupid, ignorant, immoral, etc.
Then the notebook is turned around. "What color is in now, ladies and gentlemen?" Black... with a series of "oh..." coming from the students. No -- it is white with lines, with the same degree of invective and disagreement.
There is one truth. Facts are an aggregation of what we know of the truth, and facts can be distorted and incomplete. Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, if you want to read more.
Once again, Mr. Kenney's comments are long on presumption, thin on facts.
Maybe there are those in the Republican party who can work to fix the stasis and hatred in our political process. For the same reason that Richard Nixon was the one who opened detente with China. He was the only one who could do so, and not get destroyed by Richard Nixon.
I don't know of too many Democrats that have to be worried about being primaried out from the left. That is much more of a Republican phenomenon. So you introduce a false equivalency to justify acting like everyone has a problem to fix. Gets me thinking about Matthew 7:5 more than it does Yeatts.
I do know that if I hear one more analogy regarding the halcyon days of yore and our sainted forefathers, whether they be of the 17th, 18th, 19th, and now 20th century - I might hurl. There are always those who look about at their own troubles, and pretend that somehow - it was better earlier.
I don't want to return to the Republican version of the 1950's - which is, in and of itself, a rose colored fantasy of those soon ageing off this mortal coil than anything close to reality. Certainly not a reality shared by the majority. I'll pass on polio, soot filled air, filth filled water, segregation, caste systems, bacon grease gravy, and no air conditioning. You can keep it.
I don't want to return to the 1890's, when a man had a 1 in 11 chance of getting killed in a steel mill every year, child labor was rampant, and you couldn't trust the food you bought as companies focused more on profits than their customers. A time when robber barons ruled over us like lords.
Yet for the last 50 years, as we have increasingly followed the Republican vision - from Reagan, to Gingrich, to Paul, to Murdoch, to the Tea Party, to the Falwells, to Trump, to now Gosars and Boeberts - we ain't gotta worry about the dumbing down of politics. We're there.
The results? Instead of balance between investing in the future and paying off debt - on a Republican President's watch - who took over an economy in a time of plenty - our debt jumped from 19 to 31 trillion dollars. With little in real value to show for it other than inflation. The disparity between CEO pay and worker pay has never been greater. We are falling in longevity, our OECD rankings on things like healthcare, childcare, food security, etc. are at best middle of the pack.
We spend more on our military than the next 20 countries combined. We have more guns per capita than anyone. Incarcerate more of our citizens, including children. And spend more on healthcare.
Is it working? Do we feel safe? Healthy, happy? If you're in the majority of Americans, following the Republican ideals has not been working out.
Next - the idea that HE is the center. The best. Is he? Everyman considers himself the hero in his own story. I'm more convinced by that 20th century poet and philosopher, Mark Knopfler:
Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong.....
There are those of us who can see a difference between expressions of angst from citizens, including those which turn violent, and a cold, calculated - planned overthrow of our Constitution which resulted in the first non-peaceful exchange in our history that was led by the one man who had the greatest duty to protect that Constitution.
And yet, that man led and leads Mr Kenney's party. His assistant is his chosen nominee to lead the House of Representatives. Those two actions are not the same thing. We've had riots before. Never a violent coup attempt. You want your party to lead a form of government which you have no commitment to. Whose ideals you despise. If that's the center, I don't want to be there. No matter how decent they consider themselves.
You insist that the most important thing we do is to be more kindly. Which seems to translate into never holding one accountable for their actions. Which makes sense, if your the one gaining from your actions. How'd Desmond Tutu put it?
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
I say that, realizing - that if I have to explain to you why I am against torturing children to control their parents - I likely cannot explain it. Not because it isn't true, but that if you cannot see that on your own, there is little common ground to work with.
So the best I can come up with is the same way I would talk with inmates, back in the day. I would be honest, and do my utmost to be fair, and base my responses upon stated principles and laws. And if respect is mutual, I welcome it. But not to the point of dishonesty.
And yes, off year elections where the billionaire class and corporations have heavily invested do tend to skew Republican - you may very well be right. Isn't that the point of our continual election process in Virginia? To keep everyday people from voting? I'm more interested in how much early voting is able to offset the effect.
Should it happen, and Republicans do control everything - it will be interesting to see how quickly they abandon the middle to appease their base and what laws they pass unimpeded.
What I am more interest in, based upon your stated desire to rule from the "middle" - is, as a Republican standard, what concessions would you be okay with House Republicans offering Democrats in the House in order to gain some of their votes to offset the zealots which are currently calling the shots?
What would you expect in return?
With Youngkin in charge, VA will be leaning more into partisanship - not less. That's a given.
But there's a real chance for non-partisanship rather than Trump's choice in the House. How would you make that happen, o' wise one at the center of the Earth?
Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmm............
It's not a question of concessions, but rather how we talk about these things and understanding where people are coming from on questions that matter.
Listening more than talking. The reason why God gave us two ears and one mouth -- yes?
Texans call that all hat and no cattle.
You say you want to talk, and the problem is no one talks to you as they should. And yet, on multiple occasions, including now - you deign it beneath you to engage in a conversation regarding the core problem holding up any attempt to "move on", or "work together".
The leader of your political alliance made a serious attempt to overthrow the Constitution that we all agree to live by. The one, where if you are a combat veteran, as you claim - not only he, but YOU, swore an oath to defend.
Against all enemies. foreign and domestic. Was there an asterisk on your oath when you swore? I didn't see one on mine. So why and how can you look away?
Not only how dare he, but how dare YOU not do your duty? Did you consider yourself free of it, once you no longer got a paycheck? What 30 pieces of silver have you accepted for your soul? A 15% corporate tax rate? "Owning" Democrats? Just being welcome at the club?
What?
And rather than hold him accountable, or acknowledge your part in enabling him - your party leaders, though they initially said what everyone else already knew - that he WAS accountable, and he WAS unfit - they went home, listened to you, your media, your polling - and meekly went to Mar a Lago and bent a knee in service to him rather than our country.
And your party supported them all the way. Not only have you not rejected that, nor challenged it - you proclaim your obedience to be the Republican Standard.
Your party runs out anyone who would dare question the narrative. They did after the riot, and they still do. With the only people willing to say different are the ones who know they are leaving anyway. And yet, when they are freed from the need to appease you, they do say it.
Time and again. Not only why do you consider me a liar for saying it, how do you reconcile THEM saying it?
Mattis, Kelly, Romney, et. al. - all of those lifelong Republicans are liars, but the man with over 30,000 public lies in a 4 year period is somehow a fount of truth?
You presume to speak of God with Hallmark card sayings.
I'm more moved by words from the Bible itself, such as 2 Timothy 4:3: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"
And yet, after punting on holding him accountable at an impeachment trial on the matter, and saying it was not their business, but rather for the voters and the courts to decide - they now studiously ignore the findings of a bipartisan hearing regarding the matter and the pending charges which show his unfitness, with the most outrageous defenses of his actions coming from the man they would now make Speaker of the House - after he has received Trump's blessing.
As 90% of your "moderates" supporting him.
90%.
Now that's a mandate, as compared to the 4 measly votes you lead by in the House overall.
And rubbing salt in the wound, not only did you as a party refuse to hold him accountable then, with 90+ felony charges looming, many coming from that bloody day and his actions and your party leaders actions leading up to it - you have made him the leading nominee, with a majority of your members supporting him - as he promises to do even worse this time around. An existential threat of your making, lining up to happen again.
And the best you can do when asked how someone should trust you to not try to kill us again, or destroy the Constitution and rule of laws again that we too have taken an oath to defend - is to get offended that anyone would dare to ask those questions. Somehow, noting reality is deigned to be "extremist".
Or you studiously and repeatedly refuse to answer those questions for the most part. Or if you do, to minimize the actions committed, or engage in the whataboutism that you complain is the problem with the discourse of others.
BLM wasn't at the Capitol that day. The reason 140 cops got beaten within an inch of their lives wasn't because they forgot to lock the door. You insult them and their service by saying otherwise.
God also gave you two eyes with which to read, billions of brain cells to use, and 10 fingers to type.
But the best you come up with is platitudes and New Age adages in lieu of facts and accountability.
In such an atmosphere of denial; talking for its own sake seems more like a way of placation and appeasement of entitled children who would again do us harm, than anything of merit.
Your leader tried to kill us and overturn our Constitution. He is lining up to do it again.
Let's talk about that when you're ready.
Until then, think I'll spend the day listening to Natalie Merchant. She does a soul touching take on Florence Reece's "Which Side Are You On?".
A song written in other times when Republicans thought might made right, and attacked those who questioned it.
Turns out that some things are fairly simple.
Just not the ones you mention. But rather, the ones you ignore.
Facts matter. No matter how much you would prefer we pretend they don't.
I have no idea what you are actually trying to say here.
Yes, you do appear to have a certain form of illiteracy.
In that somehow, it you fail to either understand or acknowledge that the leader of your party, a party whom you purport to represent, made a serious attempt to overthrow our form of government, never accepted accountability for that action, minimizes the damage caused by your actions, and continues to support the man who was the one charged for inciting those actions.
And that he is the leading nominee, by far, of your party to return to the Presidency, and that he wields so much influence that his hand-picked choice and defender in the House has an overwhelming number of Republican Representatives, including all of Virginia's Republican Representatives voting for him, to the tune of 90%.
As he calls for executions, and plans to gather more power to himself should he be elected again.
A threat to our Constitution and people.
Whom you swore to defend.
I would say it is unique, but it isn't. I've seen it before. When a fraud does accounting where it is always in his favor, then it's not a mistake. Much akin to Trump's accounting, as found by a judge in a court of law.
So, I doubt it's true ignorance, so much as a fear of admitting a liability which would require responsible action.
I suspect most folks can figure out my point, no matter how strong your claims that you cannot. I'm okay with letting them judge which of us is speaking clearly and honestly, and which is trying to win a debate of semantics.
I'm sorry -- who are you talking to? Clearly it isn't me.
In other news, Sidney Powell just pled guilty in Georgia to the crimes whose very existence Mr Kenney refuses to acknowledge, much less is willing to discuss, as he slowly wraps himself in his Socratic semantics instead.
And in another thread today, he provides an excellent example of his idea of courteous, meaningful, respectful discussion of the issues of contention in Spotsy.
Compare his discourse with the others you regularly find on here from Mr Davis. See which ones you consider to be more fair, balanced, and substantive as compared to pejorative.
Yep. Hard to figure out why there's so much lack of civility.
Real conundrum, it is.
Real conundrum.
...because this is civility? Speaking for other people? LOL.