Oh. Oh, yeah. You wanna step outside? C'mon, c'mon, bring your brother, I don't care. Bring your whole family, let's go. All right, good. (Door slamming.)

Whew. Now that he's gone I don't have to do this to his face.

You are, of course, exactly right, and when I read the title to your post I felt a reaction. A couple of points.

In my limited defense, and TBs' too, when faced with his extreme statements I respond "Yah, but - - - " and reply just as extremely. That drags on for a while. That's a knee-jerk reaction, and what thought goes into the matter is not about the subject but about how to reply.

Second, you've reminded me of what I sometimes seek but haven't figured out how to do as yet. That's how to make sense out of what he says, how to find a basic premise which has some validity. As you point out, there is one, he's not an idiot. He may come across as a stooge for greedy folks, but no more so than I do for liberal causes.

There is a basic difference in values. That's fundamental and it's classic. His view on the rights of property are countered by mine of the rights of people. To my mind he's not a very good advocate for his, and to his I fail mine. And we're both correct, because as you say reality lays in the middle. Undisturbed, by the way, by either of us.

Another mistake we both make is to try to "win" rather than resolve viewpoints on an issue. I will try from time to time to get us to stay with the topic, but I believe TB brings a street-fight into a debate, he thinks a street-fight IS a debate. To my discredit, I do too sometimes, and yet I believe I have an option not available to him. I can debate.

Bottom line - you are correct, and I shall try harder to see the truth in what he says. A problem is that when greed is the only reality, the only driving force I can acknowledge that but not respect it. I'll have to see how I can work that out.

Arf