The Real State of the Union - Lets Discuss it

reply to post by ziggystrange


Continued...

OBE has not at all contradicted himself by arguing that we are all equal under the law, but that governments can not create equalities. It is demonstrable from birth that we are not equal outside of the law. No law can make me taller than Michael Jordon, nor make me more feminine than Marilyn Monroe nor make me wealthier than those who've inherited more than I. Conversely, no law can prevent me from trying to be a better basket ball player than Jordan, no law can prevent me from obtaining a sex change operation, (and for clarification sakes I have no desire to have one), and no law can prevent me from earning wealth that would match that of those who inherited theirs.

Unfortunately, when it comes to wealth, there have been acts or bill legislated that have endeavored to re-distribute wealth. These acts or bills of legislation that have done this are no less plunder than that of those called "Robber Barons" or "Pirates" or any other thief. Plunder is plunder and attempting to make legal plunder only undermines the law, and encourages people to hold little regard for that law. How can people be expected to respect the law when legislation has acted to make crime legal? Further, this legal plunder has ignored the basic principle of equality under the law, and has created an inequality under the law, ironically in the name of equality itself.

That said, I admire you greatly Ziggy, when you demonstrate equality under the law by pointing to the rights of women and slavery. Here are two prime examples where an absence of justice created an inequality of law and all that could be done and continue to be done, is in the face of this absence of justice, to put justice in. We can only hope to do so by ensuring that all people are held as equal under the law, but we do no one service when we argue that we are equal. No person, regardless of race, creed or religion, should ever be held as a slave. That it took an Amendment to ensure that in the U.S. no person was held as a slave, is undeniable. That law, however, did not make black people whiter or white people blacker, and any laws legislated that prohibit discrimination of women did not make women more masculine, no men more feminine, what was held as equal, was that all people are entitled to the same respect of law.

As to the issue of the so called "health care" debate, it is sad and frustrating that our common ground forged might dissipate over this important issue. It is extremely frustrating to read your words when you assert that there was no dissent over the issue of "health care" reform, but instead "obstructionism, and lies." While I will not deny that there was indeed obstructionism and lies from both sides of this issue on this, there was and still is also dissent. Indeed, I refuse to settle for being called a liar myself, nor will I settle for OBE being called one, because we hold views you disagree with.

As to my own personal view on this "health care" debate, the lie is that it is about health care when it is demonstrably about health insurance schemes. Long before there were insurance schemes in the whole history of humanity, there was health care and insurance should not at all be made synonymous with health care. If you Ziggy, honestly believe that legislation over health insurance is the best way to fix the current health care issues, I am willing to listen, but I will not at any time agree that health insurance is equal to health care. I would implore you to drop the term "health care" if what you wish to argue is "health insurance", just so that we might keep the discussion honest.

As to the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan, I will continue to remain reticent on this issue. As I have stated I am no where near the military tactician that I can intelligently speak to this issue at this time. I sorely wish that our nation had not engaged in these wars, but then again, I sorely wish I could play basketball just like Mike. As hard as I try, and as I age, it is doubtful that I will ever achieve the skill and craft at basketball that Jordan has, but I can try, and so should we all when it comes to finding the best strategy to deal with the tragic consequences of war.

What that strategy is at this moment, I just don't know. I am willing to listen to all sides and will do what I can to better understand military strategy, but we are at war and this is not good by any stretch of the imagination. As Ike once said to one of the Joint Chief of Staff when proposing D-Day and in response to the criticism that his idea was stupid, Eisenhower said: "With all due respect General, war is stupid."

Your own liberal views are revealed when you argue to OBE in response to his assertion that we are merely stewards of the Constitution and that is all we should be, you state:

Z - "But keep in mind that the Constitution must never shackle those who keep it."

If by this you mean We the People, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. If, however, you mean that those elected or appointed to govern must never be shackled by the Constitution, then I vehemently but respectfully disagree. Indeed, this is truly the difference between you and I when it comes to our argument over the recent SCOTUS ruling. Just as The Supreme Court has ruled, and I wholeheartedly agree, the 1st Amendment has shackled Congress from making any laws that would abridge speech, among other rights of the people.

Indeed, the Constitution was forged with the purpose of creating a government and with that creation came certain shackles and chains intended to prevent tyranny. That is why the Constitution must continue to shackle and restrain the three branches of government.

Ziggy, I do not disagree with progress at all, and I would argue that OBE does not either, and I for one have profound respect for progressive attitudes that earnestly attempt to address modern problems through government. Particularly those progressives who do this understanding they must obey the law and can not just conveniently forgo certain Clauses with in the Constitution that governs them, in order to achieve their ends.

I will forgo speaking to your criticism of parties and philosophical beliefs and keep the remainder of this post focused on one of your final arguments where you state:

"SCOTUS just gave the vote to foreign interest."

I will counter that nothing could be further from the truth, and what SCOTUS did was uphold the rule of law and reminded Congress of the very real shackles that exist within that law, those shackles you argue must not act as shackles, and ruled in favor of freedom of speech. No vote was given to foreign interests, and this is merely an argument you make based on what you believe will happen as a consequence of that ruling. I have no doubt that you would agree that there is no language within Citizens United declaring that foreign interests shall now have the right to vote.

Of course, this argument rages between you and I in a different thread, so I will restrain from expounding on it here, and only endeavor to counter your assertions with what I know to be the truth. I believe that you believe the consequences of this ruling will create future problems, but if you are right and they do, then let us all deal with those problems then and celebrate the victory won by a ruling that held as sacrosanct, the freedom of speech.

Surely this is what allows you, OBE and I to engage in such worthy discourse, and surely being equal under the law, all are entitled to it. So, again I offer my humblest respects to your growing strengths as a debater, and I most assuredly look forward to your response, and again I thank ownbestenemy for his considerable contribution in this effort.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Jean Paul,

The problem is this.

You and OBE consider me a liberal and you feel I take liberties with the Constitution. I think I'm a centrist with some left leanings.

I believe that you, and OBE share some common ideals. I believe both of you take liberties with the Constitution by ignoring/negating the nature of the Document.

I will never have your eloquence. The condescension about my improving debating skills may be appropriate if volume is the measure, but so far, with the exception of a few parts of your 3 posts, all you did was the usual twist and shout tactics. But very politely.

I did not call you liars, I lacked eloquence, and you discernment. The dissent in the Congress is obstructionism. So I will cede the point on technical grounds. You will call it an attack, but it's just me stating a fact.

I'm pretty clear in what I say. I felt OBE's post was reasonable except where I responded.

My ultimate understanding of the Constitution, is that in it's brevity, and scope, lies the answer. It is to be shaped, as needed like clay in the hands of craftsmen. I understand it's by amendment.

You insist on limiting the SCOTUS decision to being a strict adherence to the Judicial role. I cry foul! Not so. The strict adherence must consider de facto consequences. It is does not?, then it's not a valid decision. What this decision did is apply a remedy that kills the patient.

Scholars are as split as you and I on this, if I can see your point, why can't you see mine. Why is yours more valid. You have not offered anything more than your interpretation, same as I have.

I felt thet OBE's post had good points. I disagreed with some, I stated why. I did not expect to convince him, or you.

I believe that we will see the consequences of this decision in short order. Let's see how it plays out. I say it's a Constitutional crisis. You say it's freedom of speech. We'll know soon enough.

I have the same right you do to read the materials and come to my conclusion. Same as you.

As to equality, again you look to surface, I look for depth, not because of lack of intelligence, I have enough to understand that there are more than one kind of equality. I'm certain as I am that you can write, that there are multiple disciplines where my eloquence (metaphor) is astronomical compared to yours.

Are we equal? Yes as far as the constitution is concerned. Are my skills equal to yours? depends what skills. Am I stronger, healthier, better looking? these have nothing to do with equality which is inherently granted by common sense and reason.

Equal under the law is what we are discussing. This should not consider attributes of one's exterior, or interior ones like the intellect.

It's a concept that must embody discernment by it's very nature. I know this due to what I do for a living. When I write a research paper on some obscure area of Nonlinear Physics, I have to use extreme prejudice.

When I spout what you consider a Constitutional blasphemy, that you feel is based on lack of information, or an inferior intellect, you're mistaken. I'm a made person. I have nothing to prove. I'm here to share my views with two purposes, to have others think about alternatives, and to represent a dissenting opinion, that I'm sure others share. I do that by poking holes in what others say, if said holes are there, just not apparent, and attempting to explain where they got it wrong.

If I run into someone that uses questionable tactics to obfuscate, or deceive then I attempt to prove it.

Simple stuff. I detest ignorance, but I tolerate it. You don't see me here picking debates with just anybody. I have an agenda. I follow my conscience. I'm not on a guilt trip because life has been good to me.
I believe strongly in justice for all, and equality of people under the law, and even more importantly, whatever people consider their God, maker, or deity.

Which ultimately is what validates my argument for me, and countless others.
Much like you and countless others disagree strongly. I believe like most Founding Fathers, that men of superior intellect understood what they were doing. That they knew no document could encompass the parameters of Life, Liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, any more than it could absolutely define a gubernatorial structure and cover every possible contingency.

It's both humanitarian, and political, as well as dynamic and self evident.

Therein lies our difference. Partisan politics aside, yours I don't really know, OBE seems to be pro Republican.

So what to do. I can try to explain myself, I don't hate you, but I'll oppose you. I understand your position, I can see how you can think as you do. I don't find it bizarre or evil, maybe narrow minded but a progressive would think that of a Conservative.

I know Obama is a Politician, I know he is going to act like one.
But I trust him more than the others.

So my friend, we continue.

You have the floor.

Ziggy

reply to post by ziggystrange


Ziggy

I hope you understand that the evolution of our relationship, in terms of communicating ideas to one another has become vastly different than from when we first locked horns.

I will give you a little background. It isn't asked for, but I believe it will help you understand where a lot of my arguments derive from; you will also understand that I may have Republican leanings, but do not hold the ideals of many that reside within that party.

First off, my political mentors so to speak reside within two people, John Adams and Barry Goldwater. Whenever I seek political guidance, I apply my own thinking and logic to the logic of their politics as for I most associate with their type of thinking. Freedom for all, strong conviction, love for this country and a natural ability to have a disdain for being involved in politics (it sounds contradictory, but knowing those two people and have studied both, it makes sense.)

Just as you have stated, the label liberal I believe wasn't directly applied to you, but more your political views. Although you hold strong convictions in how it is applied. There is a greatness in that. It is appreciated and sought after as it allows me to process a different view on things and also allows me to check my logic in subjects I am versed in as well as subjects I am not.

You are correct to state that the Founding Fathers held the notion that no document can ever create the freedoms they so wished to hold; not even the Constitution. That is because it was created by man. Man is fallible and man will always seek gain for themselves. It is our nature to manipulate our surroundings in attempts to provide the best situation for ourselves.

In my original first draft of what I believe would have been a good State of the Union, I mentioned a letter that Benjamin Franklin sent to the delegates prior to them signing.

In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered: and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Benjamin Franklin gave an ominous warning. We are there. People have become corrupted. They use government for their needs. We continue down the path that we are on, and soon we will herald in a Despotic Government with trumpets blaring. We have shown in general that we have not the capacity to govern ourselves.

He continues with the following:

For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men, all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected?

No document produced will ever be perfect. It will have errors and will have downfalls. The spirit of the Constitution is to ensure that the People hold their fates in their own hands. Do you see it that way today? I do not. We have willingly knelt before the alter of Government and handed them our fates. We have accepted in general that we wish not to govern ourselves but rather have someone tell us what we should do: buy health insurance; how we should think: rid yourself of all prejudice thought; how we should live: ban smoking within your confines of your private property (some communities have attempted such a thing!)

If that is not Despotism, then I don't know what is. Just because it is not one person, but rather, the whole Government itself doesn't make it any less Despotic.

When I offered what I believe to be the real State of the Union and how it should have been delivered it was an attempt to show how we have not had leadership in this country for a very long time. We have no one at the helm of this Country, as they are all preparing their lifeboats for when it comes time to abandon ship.

We are a society of catch phrases, and even though past Presidents have used them; President Obama has become the king. Focus groups dictate his language, not his heart.

I know I have become off topic in the matter and I shall leave you with....

Unfaithfulness in public stations is deeply criminal. But there is no encouragement to be faithful. Neither profit, nor honor, nor applause is acquired by faithfulness....There is too much corruption, even in this infant age of our Republic. Virtue is not in fashion. Vice is not infamous

- John Adams

Seems we have not stepped far from our beginnings...

Originally posted by ziggystrange
Are we equal? Yes as far as the constitution is concerned. Are my skills equal to yours? depends what skills. Am I stronger, healthier, better looking? these have nothing to do with equality which is inherently granted by common sense and reason.

Equal under the law is what we are discussing. This should not consider attributes of one's exterior, or interior ones like the intellect.

This is where we but heads so to speak. Maybe I am just not fully understanding what you are conveying.

Equal Under the Law: This implies that the law sees all Men equal in its eyes. Equal in stature and ability. Only this can be construed and has been. I am for people with disabilities to do work if they are capable. As many are. There are some jobs though that they are not. Under the guise you have presented, equality must be provided regardless of ability because they are "equal under the law"

Equal Protection Under the Law: This implies that the law is afforded the same protections to all Men regardless of Color, Creed, Ability, Wealth, etc. Under this notion, you and I are to be held accountable for our actions equally regardless.

The exclusion of the word 'protection' allows politicians to get away with granting equality where equality should not. Under your notion, a person with no legs (and no prosthetic) has the ability to fight in court that they should be allowed to teach a Spinning class regardless of the fact they cannot perform the function. That is creating equality in a distorted manner.

Sophistry of words.....

reply to post by mrbarber


You too, are partially correct. I will concede my inaccurate statement that the current legislation doesn't specify the tax. I really wanted you to go out and read the bills. I think there's three right now (that I could find); HR 3200, HR 3400, and HR 3962.

Of the three, only one has reached the senate. HR 3962, Title V, Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart A:

Amends the IRC to impose an additional tax on individuals who do not obtain health care coverage deemed acceptable by this Act. Makes such tax equal to 2.5% of a specified portion of individual modified adjusted gross income, but not more than the national average health care premium for the taxable year. Allows exemptions from such tax for dependents, nonresident aliens, certain individuals residing outside the United States and in possessions of the United States, and individuals objecting on religious grounds. Makes such tax effective after 2012. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for imposing such tax and for granting waivers in cases of de minimis lapses of acceptable coverage and hardship. Sets forth reporting requirements for health insurance providers with respect to such tax.

The important part in all that is 'Part 1's title; Shared responsibility.

We want to cover every American without creating a federal insurance company (public option). How do we do that and reign in costs? Impose a tax. It's only fair to those that actually get insurance to cover those that don't. If you're planning on not getting insurance, prepare to help pay anyway.

This already happens: An excuse made my insurance companies regarding high cost of coverage is the cost of emergency room visits that don't get paid for. Charging those that pay more for those that don't pay. The government would reverse the role, charging those that don't pay to help cover everyone, including themselves.

reply to post by ziggystrange


Hi Ziggy and thank you for ceding the floor to me and my apologies for taking so long to respond. There were several reasons I have waited this long to reply, one being, and the biggest reason, that I keep busy with work and find little time to contribute to the site lately, and when debating or discussing issues with you, time and consideration becomes necessary. Secondly, I am unsure of how to respond to your last post as there is not much to rebut by way of political discourse, yet much to consider in terms of your personal feelings and how you perceive my own. Lastly, I wanted to wait a bit in hopes that someone else would post in between OBE and myself, as I fear that you may have felt a little ganged up upon by the both of us, and this is the last thing I want, and I strongly suspect it would not be what OBE wants either.

Before I address some of your earlier thoughts in your last post, allow me to jump forward a bit and speak to your feelings that I condescended to you by praising your most recent posts as improved debate. It deeply saddens me and truly frustrates me that you believe I was being condescending to you. Saddens me because your past few posts, prior to this last one addressed to me, were argued well, spoke directly to issues and points of discussion, and while I did not agree with most of what you said, I was most assuredly impressed with how you said it, and how you reasoned it.

Your most recent post, however, frustrates me because it was, ironically, a regression back to your former style of debate and reasoning. Which is to say, you seemed to drop the form of discussing the issues and points made in favor of discussing my own style and form as a debater. Ziggy, my style of debate is my style, and I make no apologies for it, nor do I expect any praise for it. As to my form, I attempt to speak to those issues and points that I believe need to be addressed. Frustratingly, there is little to speak to and address in response to your last post, since much of it is just a discussion of my style and form.

That said, there are a few points you did make that are issues worthy of debate, and by debate I mean issues not resolved that require discussion from all angles, including the proponents and dissent. First, let me speak to why I view you as a "liberal". I know that you understand what I mean by this and need no explanation as to what I mean by it, but for simple clarification sakes and some cohesion, I will again make clear that my own conservatism exists because there are people who take far too "liberal" of a view of the Constitution.

Without this "liberalism" there would be no need for my conservatism. I make no judgment on this dynamic, other than too much liberalism requires a strong response of conservatism. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I have all ready explained that when you argue that the government must not be shackled by the Constitution, this is a liberal view taken of a Constitution whose sole purpose is to shackle and restrain government. You counter that I am taking "liberties" with the Constitution by ignoring or negating the nature of the document.

What exactly you mean by this it remains unclear, as it seems to me to be clear that I believe the nature of that document to be one that establishes a limited government, granting limited powers, to certain individuals, for a limited time. Thus, the limitations I speak of are necessarily the shackles I spoke to, as well as The Bill of Rights that are clear and undeniable in their purpose of restraining and shackling the government from abrogation or derogation of rights of the individual. What it is you mean by me taking liberties and ignoring/negating the nature of the Constitution will have to be clarified by you before I can speak to this intelligently.

You do, I believe, offer some clarification to this idea that I am negating and ignoring the nature of the Constitution when you argue that it is a document that is to be shaped, as needed like clay, by craftsmen, and you understand this to be by Amendment. Forgive me for taking you to task for your metaphor as I do not wish to put you on the defensive over eloquence, as I believe you to be every bit as eloquent as I, and a fine wordsmith in your own right. I only take your metaphor and suggest that a craftsman shapes clay as needed, and once shaped, if it were indeed a craftsman who shaped it, then allows the clay to harden and function as it was intended to.

An artist will shape and mold clay into the form and style that artist is seeking, and once accomplished, will then allow the clay to dry and harden, so that it stays in that shape for posterity. The same applies to the potter or plate and cup maker. It is not as if, a plate or cup or pot made of clay remains malleable after the craftsman has molded it into the shape chosen, as such malleability would not be functional. Part of the process of crafting clay, is allowing it to dry and harden into its final product.

Further, particularly with an artist or artisan who works with clay, the idea of creating a product then intended to be improved upon by future and unknown artists and artisans is, I believe, not what these craftsman and artists intended at all. While one can use glues and other adhesives to fix what has been broken of clay product, continually adding fresh clay to what has all ready been crafted seems counter productive. I do not make these arguments to dismiss your considered analogy of clay to Constitution, but to suggest that these liberal views of the Constitution are mistaken.

The Amendment process to the Constitution does indeed demonstrate a certain nature to the Constitution that allows for addendum's and necessary clarifications of a legal document that could have never hoped to address all legal matters of a young and growing nation. Part of the reason to my confusion on why you believe I ignore or negate this nature is due to the fact that I don't ignore this nor do I negate it. It is not as if I have argued that it is wrong to legislate Amendments. I have argued that certain Amendments written after the Bill of Rights have acted in ways contrary to the very Constitution those Amendments attempt to add to or clarify, and in doing so, are possibly unconstitutional.

In other threads you and I have had discussions over the 14th Amendment of which I have referred to as an unfortunate piece of legislation because of its arrogant notion that it could grant rights that all ready existed. I have, in other threads, questioned the validity of the 17th Amendment, but I have never argued nor insisted that these Amendments couldn't be legislated, nor have I argued that Congress had no right to do so, I have merely questioned their legality, as in their harmony with the Constitution itself. That the 18th Amendment was later repealed by the 21st Amendment demonstrates that just because Congress passes an Amendment does not make it good or proper legislation.

The Amendment process, I believe, is a process that allows Congress to address problems not spoken to by the original document that are necessary to the purpose of government. Of course, I firmly believe that the purpose of government is to protect and serve the rights of the individual. Thus, any Amendments that acknowledge rights or restrain government from abrogation or derogation of rights, are necessary Amendments and any Amendments that negate or alter the original document are Amendments that should be challenged and reviewed by a judicial process.

How you have come to the conclusion that this belief of mine somehow ignores or negates the nature of the Constitution is just not all that clear to me.

reply to post by ziggystrange


Continuing...

As to your insistence that I insist on limiting the recent SCOTUS decision of Citizens United v. F.E.C. to being a strict adherence to the Judicial role, is another statement of yours that I do not understand what you mean by this. Indeed, in this very thread I have argued that President Obama should not be criticized for taking The Supreme Court to task for their ruling, and went further and I argued that the President was right to encourage Congress to respond and I further argued that Congress should.

So, what you mean by your statement requires further clarification because I do not see why it is you believe I insist on limiting the most recent SC ruling to strictly the Judicial. What I do insist, in regards to this recent ruling, is that the truth be told about it, and that the accusations that SCOTUS "granted rights" to corporations is fallacious, and I further insist that the truth of this ruling be clarified, that the primary legal reasoning was based upon the language of the 1st Amendment. This has been my stance, of which you have called "mantra", and it remains my stance.

You point out that scholars are as split between this decision as you and I, and ask why I won't validate your view implying that you've validated mine. You ask why is my view any more valid than yours, and I ask you the same. I was not the one who started threads declaring that SCOTUS sold the nation to corporations, I was not the one who started threads declaring that President Obama say's this ruling is a blow to democracy, and I did not use various threads to call those who disagreed with this ruling, cowards, and treasonous redcoats. Indeed, I did not start any thread at all, and waited to post a single word on the matter until I had read, re-read and read again the entirety of the ruling itself.

So, when you imply you have validated my interpretation of this ruling, I am skeptical of the veracity of such a claim. Further, it was you that from the get go demanded to know where all the conservatives were on the matter and why they weren't defending the ruling. Then when conservatives did begin defending, presumably taking the time they needed to read the ruling first, you at some point, changed your tune and now ask why we wont validate your viewpoint. You asked for debate on this issue, you got debate and now you question why we should debate it and why not just agree to disagree. Attack, retreat and evade.

You say that you believe that we will see the consequences of this ruling and I say that is fine, whatever consequences come, let us deal with them as they come rather than deal with them before they do, as whatever consequences they be, hindsight is always clearer than foresight, and law should not be legislated based upon clairvoyance and should always be legislated based upon hindsight. Justice can not be created, and it is only in the absence of justice that we come to understand the value and need for justice, and the best we can do is attempt to create a situation that returns us to justice.

You further claim that you only meant to address the equality of law when challenging OBE's insistence that equality could not be given or made, arguing he had contradicted himself. However, if you agree we are all discussing the nature of equality under the law, then exactly how has OBE contradicted himself by his claims? By your own admissions you say you lean left with your politics and that left leaning, as I understand it, is based upon Marxist ideals that insist that a laborer is equal to the one who created the business in which that person labors. This is not equality of law, but is an ideal, a theory, and theory by definition is not law.

Much of your arguments in your last post are interpretations of my feelings, and as such misinterpretations of my feelings. You argue that I feel you possess an inferior intellect, yet this is not at all a true representation of my feelings, and can only be more reflective of your own feelings than mine. I have no desire to see you defend yourself, merely your arguments.

That you follow your conscience is good, and something I do not doubt. That you feel so compelled to defend that is not of my making Ziggy, as I would defend to my death your right to follow your conscience and to speak to it as freely as you like. I am a strong proponent of freedom of speech and the only time I would argue that speech is not a right is when it does harm. Even your own insistence in another thread that I belong in prison for simply exercising my own right to speech, I have not endeavored to silence. I have challenged this, I have taken you to task for this, as is my right to do so, but I have not once attempted to silence you.

I have enjoyed our debates between each other Ziggy, and I come to enjoy them even more as I come to better know you. You say you do not hate me for having my views and I respond I love you, not because of your views, but because you are my brother. I find you to be no more evil or bizarre than you do I, and while you say you may find me narrow-minded, you only make me smile with appreciation for your own honest self reflection when you follow such a statement with this is how a progressive would view a conservative. It is statements like this, that only make me come to appreciate you further, and I look forward to a long and fruitful relationship rooted in opposition, yet always in brotherhood.