[joeclarke]

Cool...

But why is that when a I pull a plank outta the Rep platform and toss it on the table for discussion...

I've...

"conflated two things into cause/effect for purposes of "winning" an argument"

and I have magically morphed and somehow...

"..you've become what you despise. A bigot."

and I am apparently guilty of...

"...brainwashing or be brainwashed into the thinking that Republicans want to glue a bible to your person or something."

These are all examples of sweet flowing rhetoric unto themselves (and who knows, maybe there's even some truth to them), but I certainly don't see in this thread where I have pushed anything into the realms contemplated in the foregoing statements.

I love you guys dearly - but you punish the left for being Pollyannas in the face of mssrs Hussien et al and scold them for hiding their heads in the sand about the virulent threats to health, wealth and nation lurking everywhere. Then with your next breath you attack a socially left-leaner (that's me) for playing Chicken Little for calmly observing and opining on a stated posture of the GOP.

Come on you guys - which way do you want it? (rhetorical question in case you're framing your response as you read this)

Oh and JP - (recognizing that I have invited further eloquent attack for playing mechanic with your profundities) - I really don't need to speak to:

"...your 2nd para scares me in that it seems to suggest that every group, no matter how small, and no matter what their issue, should be championed by legislators. And, by extension, championed to a liberal end."

...do I? Well what the heck, might as well be shot for a sheep as a lamb...

Your blatant context flipping where the learned Mr. Bonker held that a fundamental role of the constitution is to protect against the differentially prejudical acts of the legislature is lame. No championing needed here. We need not seek a constitional amendment banning constitutional amendments that would seek to ban yellow dog ownership by eskimos west of the Mississippi do we? Nor in the obverse, as you would have it; do we need to bother passing an amendment to enshrine the entitlement to such pooch (or is it poocha?) ownership in the constitution. As you would (and did) say - nice try.

Thanks again for the entertainment - I hope that you think about the application of your writing skills to the field of fiction at some point - (oops - I guess you already have).