Taconicus-Thank you for noticing that I have tried to stick to issues... and I hope YOU noticed that I was not one who shortened your name...(your complaint did follow directly your remarks to me.)

I see your posting history was very intermittent until recently, so I have not 'crossed words' with you until this. My major concern (having been a Philosophy major many years ago) is to sort out truth from fiction and good arguments from flawed logic & specious rhetoric. There are a couple of conservative posters here who also will try to follow this route, but sadly, I find few conservative pundits who will eschew BS for reason. If we were neighbors, I could sit in front of a TV with you and point and explain in real time. I don't know what you watch/listen to, but Rachel Maddow & Lawrence O'Donnell largely try to at least have their facts lined up and make coherent arguments, whether one agrees with their conclusions or not.
I would LOVE to know...from anyone, not just Taconicus... which conservative pundits might be trying to make sense instead of 'points'.
   (I was watching Bill O'Reilly pontificating to Chris Wallace on Fox the other night, and it 'seemed' to me Wallace was squirming as he tried not to call O'Reilly down for the BS he was spouting. Wallace had just tried to clarify and calm some issue, and he obviously wasn't making any headway. I 'think' Wallace might be one who would like to be part of a 'sane' conservative program if he could.... much as Joe Scarbourough and Par Buchanan have toned down their rhetoric in the last few years. [Joe used to be one of my major gripes, and I think he was ummm... 'encouraged' to do so at the time. Now he is right of center, but reasonably .... reasonable.] Buchanan is 'almost' so until you hit certain hot buttons.)

   I miss William F. Buckley... he made me WORK to find flaws in his logic and approach.