Share this comment
You seem to think we're naive. We've identified three types of people who join us here to debate Devolution. The first category includes people like you who, with a semblance of elegance, subtly convey their beliefs, in this case, in Devolution. The second category is the wholly irrational type whose logic is difficult to follow. The thi…
You seem to think we're naive. We've identified three types of people who join us here to debate Devolution. The first category includes people like you who, with a semblance of elegance, subtly convey their beliefs, in this case, in Devolution. The second category is the wholly irrational type whose logic is difficult to follow. The third is comprised of individuals exhibiting racial prejudice, which we unequivocally do not tolerate.
We also do not accept willful ignorance, especially from those who knowingly perpetuate a narrative designed to hinder civic engagement. We've seen through your tactics, Mr. Meredith. I find it surprising that you remain open to the idea of Devolution, suggesting either you're not taking into account the information Chris, and I are providing, or you're blindly adhering to a baseless belief.
Devolution is a falsehood, sir. The continuity of operations is not what Jon suggests it is, not even remotely. You can continue to weave this narrative of our affiliation with some special forces operation, but it's simply untrue. We've been dealing with your type for a long time. Either you're deluded, or your intellectual capacity is considerably lacking. The only other explanation is that you're attempting to undermine our efforts to guide Americans on the right path. You're perpetuating a narrative that's dividing and distracting Americans from their civic duties. This raises the question: who are you working for?
Given your position on the school board, I'm beginning to question your allegiance to our constitutional republic, which you don't seem to hold in the highest regard. Jon lacks understanding of high-level operations, an area in which I have significant experience. I kindly request that you refrain from participating here, as your attempts to manipulate the discourse aren't working. You might try to influence others, including Devolution followers, but you won't manipulate me or my subscribers. This simply won't happen, Mr. Meredith, if that is indeed your real name.
I find your response very unfortunate. It is not my desire to project that you are naïve. It is obvious in your writing that you are well researched and have strong convictions about your positions. While I have found your writings interesting and thought provoking, I have read other positions that are well sourced and equally compelling. Do I believe that the Devolution "Theory" is fact? No. I think that the arguments for Devolution present one way of trying to make sense of the insanity that we are experiencing in our country.
Until seeing your strong statement about Devolution in your 3rd paragraph, I have not read your writings as being primarily designed to prove a theory contrary to Devolution. One of the first points you made in an earlier article had to do with the value of actively engaging locally in an effort to make a difference within a sphere of influence. As I read your position statement, it seemed to me that you are making a strong case for a grass roots "We the People" effort to turn around the current state of our country using a long gain strategy. I really support this approach, and believe that it is a solid strategy. If I misinterpreted your position, I'm open to more discussion.
I'll conclude with regard to your final paragraph. I have not said that I am on the local school board. Instead, I said that have gone through the steps and I am now on the ballot for the school board at the next election. And yes, I have used my real name because I believe that in the online sphere, it is important to be as transparent as possible. Per your request that I refrain from participating in threads related to your posts, it is unlikely that I will comment in the future. Open transparent discussion is at the foundation of a free society. The defensive tone of your interaction with me, raises many concerns related to this point.
Best.
That’s fine Gregg the article that you’re commenting on was about Devolution and I’m not interested in followers that can’t see the fact or truths especially ones that are going to run for some kind of position anywhere especially positions where you have to read policy laws municipal codes that this Devolution Theory doesn’t believe it, so this is unfortunate But you can’t engage locally when you’re not realistic about the law in the constitution. So again, my apologies but I’m not sure you understood the article or even We The People series.
Good to hear you will refrain from posting. I have seen zero “defensive” tone ever.
Cool, see ya!