Sorry about that. I meant the 1st amendment, of course.
It's not that easy, though. Calm rebuttals to cloesly held ideals here, and pretty much any forum, cause passionate responses from some. So it's often not anything posted to de-rail a discussion, it's that some folks just do not want to acknowledge anything but their own viewpoint that lead to most meltdowns, in my experience.
But Phil did make a rule about this. And I like to respect forum owners rules. I'm an Admin on a large forum and have over 60K posts on that forum alone. We struggled with this same issue for years, but we were hard and fast. Political stuff got nuked immediately. We finally made a politics forum, and it takes fair amount of moderation to keep it in line. But it's what the users wanted, so it is what it is.
Point being, I know politics can be volatile on any board. That's why I read and understand a forums rules. I don't mind talking politics at all. But I like to have clear rules in which to do it. Even Phil admits he made a rule and then allowed it to be violated. So I guess we are left to feel our way along on this one. Not putting Phil down, just still a bit confused.