Bush, Blair, and Howard reelected

[jersey_guy]

Following Australia's and our lead, today the UK reelected its government two years after it liberated Iraq. Tony Blair's leadership and principled support of America has been rewarded by the British electorate while the terrorism-appeasing Liberal Democrats barely gained any seats in the House of Commons.

Considering that in Italy Berlusconi's government is still sitting strong and that in Poland the current post-Communist government is likely to be replaced in this fall's elections with an even more pro-American right wing government, it's clear that iour relationship with our allies is stronger than ever.

The next step is to wait for the collapse of the anti-American goverment of Paul Martin in Canada and see the Conservatives to finally rise to power there, hopefully just a matter of months. Let the good times roll!

[xcrider]

In all honesty, all three of these elections caused me concern. This news with the fact that gas is down to about 1.94 in some areas near me along with a sunny forecast in the mid to upper 70's for the weekend. What more could you ask for? Except for peace in Iraq, N. korea and Iran to back down.
And interest rates to level out, and for a competent successor to Alan Greenspan,

Also Cnn reported something like 250,000 new jobs this past month. A positive unexpected number. Of course they had to throw in that for the decade the numbers are still low.

[MoMo]

Following Australia's and our lead, today the UK reelected its government two years after it liberated Iraq. Tony Blair's leadership and principled support of America has been rewarded by the British electorate ...
Considering that in Italy Berlusconi's government is still sitting strong...


j_g, j_g, j_g ... where to begin?

If you'd paid the slightest bit of attention, you'd know that Blair was re-elected DESPITE his Iraq involvement, not because of. His majority is sharply reduced, as Labour voter after Labour voter turned away from him -- largely because of Iraq. His re-election was largely due to economics, and the fact that his opponent was a dull and uncharismatic sluggard who would make John Kerry look like Mr. Excitement.

Berlusconi is sitting strong? Are you kidding? He barely survived the recent government turmoil there, and the Iraq war is HUGELY unpopular in Italy, especially after the mess over U.S. troops killing the bodyguard of the just-released Italian hostage -- and over our report clearing the U.S. troops of any responsibility (who knows where the truth is on that, but the Italians definitely don't believe our account).

As to Canada, Paul Martin's in trouble for his own reasons, even though he's been closer to Bush than his predecessor.

[mzungu]

spain had a change of government because of widespread disapproval of their participation in the war and tony blair's margin in parliament dropped from 160 seats to about 66, as a result of his government's justification of the iraq war on false premises. while few reject the notion that freedom provides a good justification for war in certain circumstances, blair's, like bush's argument for war was almost solely based on the existence of wmd. blair, like bush, added the legalistic argument that war was justified because hussein had violated various UN resolutions, but that argument was hardly convincing when you consider that many nations, such as Israel, continually violate UN resolutions without any declaration of war even being sought.

but it's hardly useful to use blair's re-election considering his politics. blair is a centrist, like clinton, but centrism in the british context means something considerably to the left of the democrats. blair's seen an improved british economy in every single year of his tenure, since he rose to power in 1997, and he'll cite lots of stats of increased hospital beds, shorter waits, more doctors, lower unemployment, more public spending, and so forth, in support of his tenure as pm. to his great credit, he is also pledging that great britain will meet the UN goal of spending 0.7% of GNP on poverty elimination in developing countries. George W. Bush should join him, or at the very least start coming through on that promised $15 billion in AIDS money, only a small proportion of which has been spent.

[jersey_guy]

j_g, j_g, j_g ... where to begin?

If you'd paid the slightest bit of attention, you'd know that Blair was re-elected DESPITE his Iraq involvement, not because of. His majority is sharply reduced, as Labour voter after Labour voter turned away from him -- largely because of Iraq. His re-election was largely due to economics, and the fact that his opponent was a dull and uncharismatic sluggard who would make John Kerry look like Mr. Excitement.

Berlusconi is sitting strong? Are you kidding? He barely survived the recent government turmoil there, and the Iraq war is HUGELY unpopular in Italy, especially after the mess over U.S. troops killing the bodyguard of the just-released Italian hostage -- and over our report clearing the U.S. troops of any responsibility (who knows where the truth is on that, but the Italians definitely don't believe our account).

As to Canada, Paul Martin's in trouble for his own reasons, even though he's been closer to Bush than his predecessor.


The reasons for Blair's reelection will be quickly forgotten a few months down the road when we ask for British help in the war against North Korea. Mind you, the Conservatives supported the liberation of Iraq even stronger than Labour.

Berlusconi has been the longest-serving prime minister in post-WW2 Italy, and yesterday he reiterated that he will keep 3000 Italian troops in Iraq, despite the "incident" (and the truth is on our side because the satellite/GPS data confirmed that their car did not stop at the checkpoint).

Liberals in Canada are in trouble for their corruption and their hatred of Bush's government. Their days are counted - yesterday Conservatives in parliament almost pushed through a no-confidence vote against Martin.

[Jwaksman]

A little simplistic, momo. The Spanish government was well on its way to re-election before the train bombings in the week before the elections. The country simply had a moment of cowardice and jumped ship to the socialist party. If there was really widespread disapproval than the previous government would not have been leading in the polls up until the bombing.

And, Blair was helped by a conservative candidate (Howard) who was a nativist. He basically wanted to close the borders, and he was a little too loud about it and it certainly made a lot of British queasy.


There are other factors as well. You always have this pattern of taking things that happened in history that have 10 causes and ignore 9 of them in favor of the 1 that makes leftists look the best... The world isn't as simple as you pretend it to be.

[exjersey1]

gas is down to about 1.94 in some areas near me.


$1.94???


That's not even fair. I've got a couple of stations back down to $2.47. Even most of the Valero stations are still in the mid-$2.50's.

[jersey_guy]

The liberal media are trying to portray this as Blair's failed referendum on Iraq, but the truth is that the UK experienced a swing to the RIGHT, with Conservatives picking up 100 seats. The latest results have Labor at 36% and Conservatives at 33%, which does not bode very well for the success of the EU constitution in the UK (Conservatives vehemantly oppose it).

In either case, "Bush's poodle" was reelected, which will mean the continuation of British help in crushing the terrorists worldwide, especially in Iraq.

[jersey_guy]

$1.94???

That's not even fair. I've got a couple of stations back down to $2.47. Even most of the Valero stations are still in the mid-$2.50's.

That's what you get for moving from NJ to People's Republic of San Francisco. We have the cheapest gas in the nation, mostly thanks to the low gas taxes.

[exjersey1]

That's what you get for moving from NJ to People's Republic of San Francisco. We have the cheapest gas in the nation, mostly thanks to the low gas taxes.

What're you paying now?

[mzungu]

"mzungu
Member Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

spain had a change of government because of widespread disapproval of their participation in the war"

mzungu, not momo.

there were very high percentages of people in spain and great britain opposing the war. so, you believe the right thing to do was to ignore the people? and you believe the people's antipathy to the war had nothing to do with voting them out in spain. if it had been a conservative government in great britain with the iraqi war, the labour party would have capitalized heavily and won this election over howard or whoever. instead, it was the labour party that got into the war on false pretenses and they were penalized, even though they presided over a very long economic success. the labour party was split over this issue, which is why they lost seats. the conservatives received 33% against a split labour party and a liberal democratic party with a leader not well thought of by many. but in any case, there were roughly 53% going to the two major left parties and 33% to the major right wing party. spaniards weren't cowards; they were wise to leave the coalition. what are the results in iraq? more than 20,000 publicly reported civilian dead, 20-30 dead virtually every day for weeks, well over 1500 dead american soldiers, and worldwide terrorist attacks have TRIPLED since 9/11. now that's an effective war against terrorism.

pew some time ago had 81% oppose the war in Spain, 13% supported it; 17% supported it in Italy, 27% in Germany, 20% in France, and 39% in Britain.
At the time, majorities of Americans supported the war, but most recently roughly 59% of Americans in a USA TODAY-Gallup Poll said that the war was not worth it.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=680

[MoMo]

A little simplistic, momo. The Spanish government was well ...


There you go again, jwack. mZUNGU was talking about the Spanish.

He and I are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE!!! I know such fine distinctions may be hard for you to make... I know you think all non-Limbaugh supporters are ONE PERSON. But the world is just a bit more complicated than that.

[exjersey1]

There you go again, jwack. mZUNGU was talking about the Spanish.

He and I are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE!!! I know such fine distinctions may be hard for you to make... I know you think all non-Limbaugh supporters are ONE PERSON. But the world is just a bit more complicated than that.

In all fairness to the boy, maybe Mzungu's post was just so coherent that he thought it was yours.

[MoMo]

Good one, exjersey! Haha.


As to j_g insisting that Paul Martin is being punished for not being sufficiently pro-Bush, that's nonsense. Bush is the most unpopular president in Canada since Nixon. Eighty percent of Canadians opposed the Iraq war.
Twenty years ago, only 8 percent of Canadians viewed our country unfavorably. Now it's 45 percent.

I guess j_g thinks Canadians are upset that Martin didn't cooperate with us on missile defense. What he doesn't understand is that the best way for a Canadian leader to gain popularity points is to go against anything Bush does or says.

Coherently Yours, the MoMeister

[Jwaksman]

There you go again, jwack. mZUNGU was talking about the Spanish.

He and I are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE!!! I know such fine distinctions may be hard for you to make... I know you think all non-Limbaugh supporters are ONE PERSON. But the world is just a bit more complicated than that.



This from someone who pays such close attention to my posts that he thinks that I support Limbaugh?? Huh? He's as irrational as you are.


The thing is that, as you cannot deny, your posts, mzungu's, and herr's are all identical. Without reading the names on the posts they're impossible to differentiate. You guys are all just the definitions of leftists, and bring up the same Democratic Party talking points over and over again. Sometime I just forget to look at whichever name is on the post... doesn't really matter since the response would be the same for any of you.

[Jwaksman]

A healthy economy gains and loses more than a million jobs per month. For this past month our economy lost, on average, 321,000 jobs a week. And we gained 274,000 jobs for the month - that says something about the great fluid market that we have right now. Even in a good year, about 10-15% of a country's jobs are destroyed. That is why economic policies that prevent people from being fired often hurt economies, because they put friction in a natural system that helps create more and better jobs in the long run.


But what the BLS data means is that 250,000 more jobs were created than were destroyed in April. That is according to the payroll survey, which had 133,019,000 jobs in March and 133,293,000 in April. Other good news that came out was that previous numbers for February and March were actually understated - so those months also gained more jobs than was originally reported.


The biggest reason that unemployment rates don't always move in the same direction as job numbers is that they come from a different survey, the household survey. This survey includes farm workers and people who work at home in their own businesses. People who run their own websites, for example. This survey also doesn't have double-counting, like the payroll survey does. It should be a more accurate sample of our country, since more and more people own their own businesses - except that it samples a much smaller number of people and has a high margin of error (about 130,000 or so). This makes it fairly useless for month-to-month analysis. It is only useful for longterm analysis, when bumps in the curve are smoothed out. Anyway, according to that survey, we now have 141,099,000 jobs. Meanwhile, 148,762,000 consider themselves part of the labor force, meaning that we have 7,663,000 unemployed Americans. Dividing that by the labor force leads to an unemployment rate of 5.15% - slightly lower than last month, but not by much.

[mzungu]

when is job growth going to make up for the population growth over the last four years?

[Jwaksman]

I have an idea. How about once in your life you do the research and present us with a real statistic from a non-biased source.


All you ever do is make these arbitrary statements like "job growth is bad" and never, ever, EVER actually say: "Here is what the numbers are" and present them. I have to do the research over and over again to prove your assinine statements wrong.


How about, just this once, you go to the official source and do the research yourself.

[mzungu]

look at the rest of the website for a hundred proven claims i made with statistics.

[Jwaksman]

You have never, in the past 2 years, quoted the Bureau of Labor & Statistics, which is the official source of economic data. Why don't you go on there and find the statistics yourself.

[jersey_guy]

What're you paying now?

Most stations between $2.00 and $2.10, although there are some where you can still get it for under 2 bucks.

[jersey_guy]

spaniards weren't cowards; they were wise to leave the coalition. what are the results in iraq? more than 20,000 publicly reported civilian dead, 20-30 dead virtually every day for weeks, well over 1500 dead american soldiers, and worldwide terrorist attacks have TRIPLED since 9/11. now that's an effective war against terrorism.


And you're still mourning the fact that Saddam isn't in power anymore, that he can't massacre hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, that he can't sponsor suicide bombers in Israel, that Iraq has a democratic government, that piss-scared Syria ended the occupation of Lebanon, that al Qaida is almost completely wiped out in the West, and that the next 4 years of Bush will mean MORE OF THE SAME!

[mzungu]

you would think that donald rumsfeld and dick cheney would be mourning the absence of saddam hussein much more, since it was rummy who normalized ties with iraq in 1985 and cheney who presided over massive support for hussein until the invasion of kuwait in 1990.

[mzungu]

I quoted the bureau of labor statistics just last month. several times. and in the past two days I have posted at least four or five different statistics or sources, ranging from free press stats to GNI in 1992.

[jersey_guy]

you would think that donald rumsfeld and dick cheney would be mourning the absence of saddam hussein much more, since it was rummy who normalized ties with iraq in 1985 and cheney who presided over massive support for hussein until the invasion of kuwait in 1990.

How many times do I have to repeat that we used Saddam to fight the violently anti-American Iranian ayatollahs? That was before Halabja, before the Shia genocide, before the invasion of Kuwait (I believe the first time since WW2 that any country in the world completely annexed its neighbor), before his mass sponsorship of terrorism, and definitely before 9/11.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, does the fact that we were allies with the Soviet Union during World War II mean that they couldn't be our enemies during the Cold War. I mean, since we're never allowed to change our allies ever?


It's not like we ever liked the Soviet Union. It was just the old "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing - defeating the Nazis was most important. Just as defeating the Iranians was more important than defeating the Iraqis back in the 1980's.

[mzungu]

we didn't give the soviet union nuclear weapons at the end of the war, did we? however, we did, or rather, donald rumsfeld and dick cheney and ronald reagan and george h.w. bush did give saddam hussein 1) billions of dollars in aid THROUGH JULY 1990, 2) satellite data and helicopters and poison gas used in mass murdering the kurds, as well as the iranians.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, I have a question.


Why do you live in America?


I've never met anyone who hates America as much as you do. Even Jersey_Guy at his worst last year didn't hate America as much as you do. Why would you bother to live here? You have more nice words to say for the Sudanese government than you do for ours, so why not move there? Why not move to France, which apparently is the greatest country in the world, as you never hesitate to remind me.


So why not move there? Why bother to live where the values that you hold to (regulation, income equality, white liberal guilt) are second place to values that you depise (wealth, freedom of opinion, and individualism)?

[KenA55]

Our government gets nice words where and when it deserves and earns it. When it deserves and earns condemnation it gets plenty of that, too. Those who are looking for a citizenry that is effectively a cheerleading squad for its government are probably the ones who need to go somewhere else and find a nice iron-handed and ruthless dictator that everybody will express support for no matter what.

[gesser]

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/05/08/seven_us_servicemembers_killed_in_iraq/

7 Americans dead today. How many tomorrow? It's sad everyday to come up to Boston.com's homepage and read about brethren dying each day 1000s of miles away from home.

Ugh, when will it end?

[jersey_guy]

And 70 Americans died today on the highways and probably even more from smoking and being fat. How many tomorrow?

Ugh, when will it end?

[Jwaksman]

Our government gets nice words where and when it deserves and earns it. When it deserves and earns condemnation it gets plenty of that, too. Those who are looking for a citizenry that is effectively a cheerleading squad for its government are probably the ones who need to go somewhere else and find a nice iron-handed and ruthless dictator that everybody will express support for no matter what.



mzungu/momo/herr have never, ever have a kind word to say about anyone who wasn't a Democrat. Ever. All they ever do is bash, bash, bash about how horrible America is. How it's the worst country on the planet. And I've never seen them ever say a negative word about France. So why not move there if it's so great? As long as they don't come back when they're 70 and they realize that with health care, you generally get what you pay for... :D

[xcrider]

Where do you live? I'm moving out to wherever you are, this purported haven of gas at $1.94 per gallon.

I think that a healthy economy can gain and lose 400,000 jobs in a month and that's normal, so 250,000 isn't really anything special. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

I live in Missouri. 1.83 in Cape Girardeau. 1.85 in Springfield, Mo

I think people have cut back on fuel and that has helped prices. I hope this decrease doesn't cause people to increase their consumption again just because it is down to 1.85. I'd like to see 1.50 or so.

[gesser]

And 70 Americans died today on the highways and probably even more from smoking and being fat. How many tomorrow?

Ugh, when will it end?

That's possibly the worst counter-argument ever.

[Sebrle]

I live in Missouri. 1.83 in Cape Girardeau. 1.85 in Springfield, Mo

I think people have cut back on fuel and that has helped prices. I hope this decrease doesn't cause people to increase their consumption again just because it is down to 1.85. I'd like to see 1.50 or so.

2.60 here in the Evergreen State with another 10 cent tax signed today...

[MoMo]

mzungu/momo/herr have never, ever have a kind word to say about anyone who wasn't a Democrat. Ever. All they ever do is bash, bash, bash about how horrible America is. How it's the worst country on the planet. And I've never seen them ever say a negative word about France. So why not move there?

A closed mind is a terrible waste. First, I know it's easier to lump the three of us together, but we're actually different people with different views on many things. Second, I've made a point regularly of praising a number of Republicans -- Bush Sr., McCain, Lugar, Hagel, etc. Third, I've NEVER said America was horrible. Can you not comprehend that a defense of a (misunderstood) European country does not amount to an attack on America? It's NOT a zero-sum game. Both can do things right, both can do things wrong. You'd hear me saying more about what's wrong with France, but why should I bother? You've pretty much said it all.

[Jwaksman]

I have never seen you make a post praising any of those guys. I've seen you repeat Democratic talking points about Republican politicians more than 100,000 times, but never seen you say a positive thing. If you said a nice thing about Richard Lugar one time then it's news to me.


You won't even go to objective sources to make your arguments better. A classic example was a couple weeks ago where you wanted to prove how bad the economy is so you found some stats that said that the unemployment rate was worse than it really was. You knew where to find the official statistics, but you didn't want them because they didn't make Republicans look as bad as you wanted them to. Your dishonest arguments really need to stop, or else debate is impossible. Everytime I back you up against a wall you invent some "statistic" to try to get away. I'm not going to go Kalaby on you, but just try to be a little more objective...

[MoMo]

Reminds me of the famous line -- "If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: Don't exaggerate!"

Anyway, if you haven't seen my posts praising Bush Sr., McCain, etc., then you simply haven't been reading my (oh so coherent) posts.

Cuz I've done it at least 100,000 times.

;)

[mzungu]

I have never seen you make a post praising any of those guys. I've seen you repeat Democratic talking points about Republican politicians more than 100,000 times, but never seen you say a positive thing. If you said a nice thing about Richard Lugar one time then it's news to me.


You won't even go to objective sources to make your arguments better. A classic example was a couple weeks ago where you wanted to prove how bad the economy is so you found some stats that said that the unemployment rate was worse than it really was. You knew where to find the official statistics, but you didn't want them because they didn't make Republicans look as bad as you wanted them to. Your dishonest arguments really need to stop, or else debate is impossible. Everytime I back you up against a wall you invent some "statistic" to try to get away. I'm not going to go Kalaby on you, but just try to be a little more objective...

you're confusing momo with me again here. I am the one who argued that the economy was not doing as well as jersey_guy claimed and I backed it up with statistics straight from the whitehouse.gov, official gov't stats. momo is not a numbers guy. momo has praised republicans for various things. i almost never praise them for anything, because i don't believe they deserve it.

[mzungu]

mzungu, I have a question.

Why do you live in America?

I've never met anyone who hates America as much as you do. Even Jersey_Guy at his worst last year didn't hate America as much as you do. Why would you bother to live here? You have more nice words to say for the Sudanese government than you do for ours, so why not move there? Why not move to France, which apparently is the greatest country in the world, as you never hesitate to remind me.

So why not move there? Why bother to live where the values that you hold to (regulation, income equality, white liberal guilt) are second place to values that you depise (wealth, freedom of opinion, and individualism)?

A better question would be why YOU live in America, when your political party receives less than 1% of the vote. The majority of American people did not vote for my political party this year, but it was close (48% of the electorate) and majorities of American people currently share my view that the Iraq War was not worth it (59%--gallup poll), that abortion should be legal (i believe this was about 70-75%), that we should take care of the environment, and so forth. I have never called this a horrible country, and what you want us to believe, amazingly, is that anyone who criticizes bush/cheney is anti-American. By the way, accusing anyone who disagrees with republicans of anti-Americanism is indicative of your hatred for freedom of opinion. Making laws banning doctors from referring to birth control or abortion is indicative of hatred for freedom of speech (as bush has done). I don't believe in income equality as a realizable goal, but I do believe that other things being equal it is better to have more equality than less. Look at the corrupting effects of wealth on our political system. More income equality tends to produce or at least is associated with better economies as well. As the Clinton era saw a great economy, income inequality decreased, and among the group of countries with vast economic inequality (GINI over 40), the United States is the only industrialized nation. All the other (or virtually all the other) industrialized nations have significantly less income disparity.

[Jwaksman]

You insist on associating me with the Libertarian Party because you don't understand a world where people have their own opinions. I have a lot of gripes about the Libertarian Party and how it's been run since its success in 1980. My beliefs are Libertarian, but that does not mean that I'm just a pure partisan. You're the one who is incapable of having his own opinions outside of party dogma. Also, another thing that you don't realize is that the vast majority of the Democratic Party is far, far to the right of you. Polls show that more than 1/3 of Democrats oppose civil unions & gay marriage, only 2/3 support upholding Roe v. Wade, and 1/3 opposed the assault weapons ban. To you, the only people that oppose civil unions, roe v. wade & gun rights are right wing whacko hicks.



I know that the United States is the richest, freest, and greatest nation in the world. You don't. Why don't you live in whatever you think is the best country in the world?

[MoMo]

Sorry, but when did richest/freest/greatest become PERFECT and ABOVE ALL CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTARY?

When did richest/freest/greatest mean that our TEMPORARY elected leaders -- Bush has not yet been anointed King George -- are PERFECT and ABOVE ALL CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTARY?

When did constructive commentary mean that the critic HATES America and should move to France?

I'm really disappointed in you jwack. You're reasonably intelligent, but the love it or leave it argument is generally the last resort of the defeated or the unimaginative, of the intolerant and insecure. Don't join those ranks.

[jersey_guy]

Look at the corrupting effects of wealth on our political system.

You should really spend a few months living in Haiti, Somalia, or Ukraine and see the corrupting effects of lack of wealth on their political systems. The US is one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

[Jwaksman]

Are you kidding, I criticize the US all the time? I have opposed just about every law that our government has passed recently. You constantly put words in my mouth because it's the only way that you can argue. You are simply unable to have an intelligent debate with anyone that you disagree with. That's the problem with universities where all of the faculty believes in the same liberal dogma - you never get a chance to debate with people who you disagree with....

I said that the US was the richest and most free country in the world. It is far, far from perfect. But it's still the best.

[mzungu]

on this occasion in which jwaksman accuses everyone on the left of anti-americanism, it does the heart good to go back 52 years to the sweet words of the founder of modern conservatism, a la jwaksman, william f. buckley:

After the philosopher Brand Blanshard wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times (July 1, 1953), saying that, as an American travelling in Europe, he found it tiresome to apologize continually for Joseph McCarthy, William F. Buckley wrote:

"What about Mr. Blanshard--Phi Beta Kappa, senior professor of philosophy in Yale University, sometime co-president of the American Philosophical Association, member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences? Why Mr. Blanshard is, in respect of ... McCarthyism, a charlatan. He has, in fact, according to all academic rules, given his university grounds for dismissing him. Not, heaven knows, because he disagrees with McCarthy--in American universities, people are HIRED, not FIRED, because they disagree with McCarthy--but because to make such a statement as that McCarthy is engaged in searching out 'men who have dared to utter liberal opinions, even in the remote past, and branding them as Communists,' is to say a demonstrable untruth, and the person who utters it, in the teeth of the evidence, demonstrably ignorant or mendacious."

[of course, there were hundreds of academics fired in the late 1940s and 1950s for McCarthyist reasons, and most of them had never been communists.]

[Jwaksman]

You constantly put words in my mouth because it's the only way that you can argue.



When did I say that everyone on the left is anti-American?? There are plenty of pretty patriotic people on the left. Heck, Wesley Clark is pretty far to the left - pretty hard to call him anti-American. BUT, there are a small number of people on the very, very, very far left who do hate America. And you are one of them.


I ask again, why do you live in a country that you bash so much? You can't deny that you don't think it's even one of the five best countries in the world, so why not live in a better country?

[mzungu]

the last refuge of the scoundrel is really calling americans anti-american.

the logical fallacies in your constant attacks are: ad hominem attack, specifically the abusive ad hominem, red herring, poisoning the well.

but logical fallacies also take a back seat to truth:
1. your claim is that i hate america.
2. in fact, i love this country and its ideals, and i put my time where my mouth is in serving this country for two years.

in other words, you're wrong AND your arguments are invalid.