[The Urban Sombrero]

The civil discourse rationale is bunk anyway. To me it's like ISIS members insisting those they are about to behead be more polite. Republicans were nicey nicey for decades and look what it got them. As long as they tried to take the high road and not call out the Dems' efforts to terraform the US into some kind of liberal utopia, things between the two parties were tolerably civil. But little by little the Dems' distortions and political bashing took on an ever more outrageous dynamic until, like in the example of the schoolyard bully whose bold demands become more ridiculous with every passing day, the objects of the attacks, (Republicans) were forced to make a stand. And not that they did a particularly good job of doing that with the likes of Paul Ryan taking the political point, but they did at least offer a little resistance.

Like one life boat cannot save the passengers of an entire cruise ship, there is no shinning city when it is subject to being unindated by the whole planet. Especially in the profoundly stupid case of our allowing in a fifth column comprised of those bent on jihad. I don't think the founders were particularly careful about their language when hammering out the Constitution. I believe they called things out as they saw them. In the orderly society I grew up in, one would have never seen teenagers 'cutting line' of people waiting to ride the roller coaster at King's Island. They do it now though. And of course, everybody else is expected to be civil about it. Nothing in the preamble penned by the warrior statesmen of this land suggests 'the people' should be mindless doormats. Respect is a two way street.

In the course of your remarks, civil discourse becomes allowing minority youth to cut line at King's Island (an offense that still gets you thrown out of the park last time I was there) and becoming a doormat.

Basically, what I mean is toning down the hyper-charged rhetoric of good vs. evil and patriot vs. traitor. I am not saying spirited disagreement is not civil discourse. I am not saying that "your overall philosophy is bad for the country" is at odds with civil discourse. I am saying that the art of politics is a bit different from the "near anything goes" of campaigns and getting elected. Building consensus and, to use Trump's phrase, "the art of the deal" constitute the art of politics.

You and I disagree on gun control and other issues. However, I can plainly see you are sincere in your beliefs, think about them, are concerned about the country. I'd say our debates are pretty spirited, but my guess is we could take in a ballgame together and pray over a meal and not feel like the other was an incarnation of the devil simply because we debate pretty fiercely. And, furthermore, if a group of teens, black or green or blue, cut line in front of us, I'd say we'd voice up and have taken the time to know the number to call to get security.