Hi,
My post was a specific reference to an issue I have with TB. You, of course, are free to join in, and it's good you do so.

There is a caveat, though, and that's that it can get pretty rough between him and me. I don't think you can expect to jump into a dog fight and be treated in a manner contrary to the prevailing context at that time in that place.

You post several times trying to define your "belief" in a logical, appropriate manner, one which lets you enable and be co-dependent, enjoy the values of marriage and family while exempting yourself from those obligations. All of which is fine, seems to tug, bend and stretch the concept so it can excuse what may be inappropriate behaviors. That's a bit amusing to watch again.

In short you're responding to a series of posts about Conservative attitudes with a "yeah, but me, but me, here's what I do, ain't it great, enabling is now compassion and I"m real compassionate and by the way Bowser is like my brother-in-law, just a dry drunk. And he's a dry drunk because he thinks a child's soul is more important than another zero in a relatively rich man's bank account. Bowser is proposing there is something more to life than selfishness, and is he ever screwed up! Look at me, I'm not selfish, I dedicate myself to my family, I enable, I exemplify family values, and Bowser is sick because he would devote resources to taking care of the weak and the helpless.

I think that's sick. No matter how many times you try to define and redefine and explain and describe your behavior and thoughts, no matter how many layers of paint, plaster, gilt and stucco you try to cover it with, no matter how many retractions and explanations you find it necessary to go through.

I believe that people are more important that a rich man's wealth. To me.