I have to disagree with you, for example, on accountability (if they intended to be lawless, they wouldn't bother with the investigation). But your tone is reasonable, so I apologize for mine in my last sentence. I value the fact that people of wide viewpoints can talk to each other here. We need this.
I have to disagree with you, for example, on accountability (if they intended to be lawless, they wouldn't bother with the investigation). But your tone is reasonable, so I apologize for mine in my last sentence. I value the fact that people of wide viewpoints can talk to each other here. We need this.
All good, man. I comment here because people actually seem to read and digest arguments instead of retreat to tiresome partisan or in-group nonsense. And, in my view, our disagreement re: accountability is impossible to settle till we can determine if this thing is actually a good faith investigation with any teeth on it.
I have to disagree with you, for example, on accountability (if they intended to be lawless, they wouldn't bother with the investigation). But your tone is reasonable, so I apologize for mine in my last sentence. I value the fact that people of wide viewpoints can talk to each other here. We need this.
All good, man. I comment here because people actually seem to read and digest arguments instead of retreat to tiresome partisan or in-group nonsense. And, in my view, our disagreement re: accountability is impossible to settle till we can determine if this thing is actually a good faith investigation with any teeth on it.
Cheers.