[mburbank]

Naldo: You know that "Communism" has a deffinition, right? And you know it's not the same one as "Socialism"? Right? I'm just trying to figure out if your a liar.

I kniow you were talking to Sspad, but I'm guessing you couldn't tell us apart without our user pick, so pardon my response.

"I could say that you blindly disprove of everything the administration does. And then what?"

I thought it was nice he upped Aids funding for Africa. Name one W policy you disagree with.

"I could just say that you only focus on the negative...and then what? "

Freedom of speech is alive and well. What do you dislike about our country? Not the actions of citizens, our country. What do you think we, as a political entity, do wrong?

"I could just say that you think everything Republicans do is wrong" Tuff call, since when I've supported members of the republican prty you told me they weren't real republicans. Back when Republicans believed in eliminating the defficit I was all for it. Wht Democratic position in yopur voting life have you been on board with?

"And as you can see you are a hypocrite because everything you accuse me of, you do yourself."

Again, I'm not Sspad, but I don't do ANY of the things you just wrote, and I'm pretty sure neither does he. I'm offering you the chance AGAIN to say where if anywhere you differ from the party line. And none of this "I have issues" pap. If you won't say hat the issues are, that statement is like my saying "I have issues with welfare". Which, by the way, I do. But you don't know what they are.

"Then why don't you direct your attention to the person who can end it all by disarming?....Saddam!! "

Just for the sake of argument, what if he did? How would we know? Were you ever asked in school to prove a negative? I think he should disarm. I applaud the pressure the Bush administration has brought to bear. What I'm against is war, which I see not as leverage here, but the intent of the adminsitration for several months. War isn't a threat if everyone knows you are going to do it. You do recall your own sttement that the adminsitration intends to go to war with Iraq, right? That the dates were already set?

"We'll if Saddam gets away with not disarming.....he will win and without war he will not disarm. It's that simple."

Unless the administration is wrong or even LIEING about the threat they represent. Can you even imagine that possibility the way I have imagined the administration being right? Just as an excercise, try it out. I don't think you can. I think you are literally incapable of examining a viewpoint other than your own.

"They are going to try to attack us anyway. Look into a history book. look up Neville Chamberlin. "
A shallow argument provided to you whole from shallow minds. Were there sanctions against Hitlers Germany, or weapons inspections. When they invaded Poland were they driven back the way Saddam was driven from Kuwait, which by the way I supported? Was their trade limmited, were they isolated? Were no fly zones estblished? Was there military capability routinely targeted? Was there a United Nations? The situation we find ourselves in now far more parallels the begining of the first world war. You are the one who needs to read history. I doubt you could even sketch Chamberlins position beyond the word "appeasement" and I imagine you only know the name from someone elses argument.

Unlike Ranx, I find much to praise in America, even during dark and unamerican times such as these. This administration, however is an insult to the American I love. MOST of the time.