[The Urban Sombrero]

I know that's how you see me, and though the ability to accept the truth may be a trait which has become increasingly more rare in our time, it is nonetheless something short of legend. However, it does take more than the ability to copy my writing style to win a debate.

If you had so much as one example to back yourself up, you'd be wearing me out with it. But then your inability to point out a shred of empirical evidence in support any claim that I have erred, is glaring. Feelings continue to be your go-to.

Do you even remotely understand that many of the Founders had slave concubines, in addition to wives, while touting Christian virtue? That Jefferson, if a slave ran off, would hound heaven and earth to see them returned? Evidencing the same restless outrage I've seen in folks who've lost a weedeater to an out building thief? I have provided countless examples. You see as you see. I understand that. However, it is ridiculously disingenuous for you to act like you've gone unanswered. Egalitarian principle, liberty of conscience, these were concepts deeply valued by Roger Williams, by Ben Franklin, by John Quincy Adams, et al. "No, no, you say, these specific words were never uttered." All human beings not granted inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) but born with them; we the people, all people, set to establish justice for all, yet you say "no, no, those exact words." We, in my view, should aspire to the highest, most inclusive interpretation of these principles possible, honoring them in folks with whom we disagree philosophically and morally, because this nation is strong enough to be one nation without being one big block of homogeneity. Somehow, you view that as being a threat to this nation. No, TRT, you err in your diagnosis and your accusation, both which serve to flatter your own elevated notions of your own pedigree.