You go out of your way to discuss the nuances of issues that are the most contentious between liberals and conservatives -- and then you seem aghast when some of the responses are in-your-face.
I think we should be able to zero in on any issue or point, and still keep the responses on topic and off member.
I have watered myself down to nothing on political issues because I have given up being able to address most subjects without recieving personal attacks. Since I have grown fond of most members, and since most members are liberal, and since most of these afore mentioned folk get personal in topics they don't like--I'm not really a political poster anymore. (I would like to say this isn't a liberal phenomenon. It is a pack mentality feeding frenzy, commonly perpetrated by the majority anywhere. Here, it is lib... and not ALL, but the majority.)
If McG berates Clinton, applauds Coutler, or says he enjoyed a cross-burning last Saturday night--why can't people respond to the issue--cut the thought down to the quick, without insulting McG?
It seems Frank's statement can be reduced to-- If you say something I/we really don't like, you asked for a personal attack.
I feel McG's pain. MANY times, we could have a rollicking discourse, but the more conservative members IMO pass many discussions, leaving the libs in their Amen Corner. I wish we could try the TOS, and really
not respond personally.
Of course, I have no complaint, as I am treated well. Because I have largely capitulated in an effort to maintain friendly vibes.
McG-- I hope you stay.