I referenced several topics and queries in my missive. None were broached in your response.

You zeroed in on "hiding something."  You offer your name and other personal info. I feel this is the "strawman technique." (Oh how can I be so rude as to claim you've not addressed anything of substance when you've so kindly provided such in depth content). This is the game: Put something out that sounds important, might make others seem inappropriate for pressing further or disagreeing, and hope most won't notice or take time. But it's off topic and misleading at best.  

Surely you can see that I didn't ask your name or any other personal question. I can't see where it's my business, what the info contributes, or where it's helpful in having a dialog (here).  I can't see where it's unreasonable to supply (that info) or withhold.  It (actually) doesn't have anything to do with my little story. It doesn't have anything to do with current affairs, foreign and domestic policy, the election process and who is involved, or anything that would concern everyone in MI.

Yet, you say, "dialog between groups and individuals with vastly different opinions and philosophies is a good thing. I think we'd all be better off if there were more of it."  I couldn't agree more. But you said it, so you are burdened with making good on your words.

Therefore, when we are on a topic and someone points something out, asks a question, expresses a concern, we ought to be able to dialog about the (actual) things being addressed. Do you agree to a dialog here?

If so, I have a couple of questions. I ask them directly and indirectly. It comes glaring through in many of my comments. Snarky and otherwise. Do you pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? Also, do you hold our Constitution, Bill Of Rights, and Declaration Of Independence in utmost respect as the basis for your belief in what this country stands for, is, and the direction it should go, as well as a premise for your thoughts on policy?
If so, a simple 'yes' is understood. We can dialog (on interpretive points) as we respond to other topics in the future.
But...