>Let me quote:

>Ehh, who did attack who? The republicans made an art of making the word 'Liberal' thrown totally out of context. This is something the republican party did, with mudthrowing on you totally corrupt media using all kinds of discusting techniques (RATS).

>I say again: To imply that this is a Republican-invented tactic is both asinine and ignorant of American politics.

And this is exactly what I meant. There is no need for any republican to feel better than a democrat. You also have an extensive record of ugly mud throwing.

>>You take two things out of context. The first line is targetted at republicans, the second at John.

>How is this out of context? I'm a Republican. I take great offense at your statements. How ELSE could I see it? I do my share of liberal-bashing, but not to the extent that I hear the left blast the right. Apparently, that makes me narrow-minded, with the same IQ and morals as a peanut. But it's OK for liberals to do?

The two statement were not in a direct relation and have different explanations. But putting them together and make one statement about them is causing it getting of of context. If you say you're guilty of liberal bashing, why do you complain when someone bashes republicans? See you're making the point I'm trying to make.


>Again, I think you have no idea how politics works over here. It ain't pretty. There's a lot of name-calling, mud-slinging, and poison barbs thrown around. This is not new. And it isn't unique to the US, either.

That is what I've been saying all along. You're making my point. It might not be unique, but you certainly made an art out of it.

>>HOWEVER, this liberal bashing by making using the word liberal for name calling is way out of line. Therefore I vote to give an extra dimension to the word republican to retain balance. Hence the statement.

>Carp. If you find the use of the term "liberal" by certain loud-mouthed attention whores offensive, your skin is not thick enough to be spouting off in public. If your statement was meant as a joke, it certainly wasn't framed as one.

It was ment as a provocation, if that was not obvious enough. As we like to say: who fits the shoe will put it on.

>>I do have respect for people who do not share my viewpoints.
>
>If you do, it isn't shown in any of your posts on the UT. At least none that I've read recently.

That is because you can't read it. You enter my reading biased and simply don't see what I'm telling. I've stated before that I admire certain aspects of americans.

>>LOL, You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
>
>No?
>
>Then tell me, what is wrong with this statement:
>
>You should deepen yourself in politics as held in europe. It will give you a new view on what civilisation means.
>
>Now, compare it to the points I laid out. Isn't France part of Europe? Riots, 12% unemployment, a national policy of cooperation with Saddam Hussein to get around UN sanctions.

Ehh, how does france get arround UN sanctions? The rioting was an incident, but has its roots at a bigger problem that indeed is a problem in europe we have to solve. A problem you barely have because your geographical location, colonial history and immigration policy.

>Or, how about Germany? Again, double-digit unemployment.

Quality of life is still higher in Germany than in the US. You still will be covered for health insurance and you'll have enough money to eat and send your children to school. Also, you will be taken care of without relying on charity if something bad happens to you.

And again, don't think the situation is much better in the US. There are no reliable statistics in your country. A lot of people just don't get listed, because they don't get payed.

>Or, Russia? They got caught with their hands in the oil-for-food cookie jar too.

Russia will be the rising economical force within a decade, But most of russia is not a part of europe.

>Or Sweden? With an insanely high tax rate?

LOL, You really think that you are better off when taxes are low? That is the stupidest remark I ever heard. Learn some economics and learn that the lower the taxes, the poorer joe average. Income taxes dropped from 50% to some 38% a few years ago up here. Do you really think I have more to spend? Hahaha. I wish it was so. You're beeing tricked, by a very simple economic rule. Well let me tell you. Low taxes is great if you've got an awfull lot of money, but bad if you just have barely enough to feed your family.

>Or how about the continent-wide problem with immigration?

You might be surprised what the background of this is. America has way more immigration than we have. The problem is that we have a lot of immigration of people that are not much of economical use and not seldomly cause problems because of huge cultural differences. It is true that the US does this better than much of europe, but we will have to face the fact that we need more people in europe for ensuring the future. That is why we have to solve the problem surrounding immigration of low skilled people. That is really a challenge.

>You claimed Europe as a role model. Either defend that, or change your statement.

I've never said that Europe is a complete role model (You really need to read better, you're not doing a good job here). America could learn an awfull lot of europe. And europe currently already is learning from america.

>>3. governments gladly doing business with madmen. Yes, business with your madman government. The pot is calling the cattle black. Your government is a madman.

>I could beat on the respect horse a little more, but I won't.

Yes, you did.

>>4. history of instability. Hmmmm, lets see. Modern america only exists for a couple of hundred years. In the last century you've been involved in wars with WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Servia, Afghanistan, Iraq. And of course the wars before that (civil war, wars of independance, etc) don't count either. And of course you don't have european ancesters either (French I assume).
>
>Ah, the old older-and-wiser dodge. Let's do a little comparison shopping, shall we?

>WW1: started by Europeans
>WW2: started by Europeans
>Korea: started by North Korea, with assistance from China
>Viet Nam: a direct result of French occupation of Indo-China

America started the war, and lost.

>Serbia: started by Europeans

So we are bomb as agressors here. How about more recently Iraq and afghanistan? What about other bombings (e.g. libia) in the recent past.

>Tell me, do you have any clue as to who drew up the boundaries of most Middle East countries?

Sure, europeans, a long time ago.

>Especially Iraq? Or the Balkans? Or Africa? I would charge that European meddling and failed colonial policies have had - and will continue to have - severe repurcussions for the nations they tampered with.

>Now, let's get to the meat of the issue here. Not once have I held up the US as a perfect role model. You, on the other hand, keep shoving this notion that we "...should deepen yourself in politics as held in europe>. It will give you a new view on what civilisation means."

Yes, as I will say again as long as you defend this administration.

>Sorry, I remain unconvinced. Oh, and my European ancestors - French, Scotish, and Sicilian, to be exact - they LEFT Europe. Something about wars, persecution, failed economic policies...

And they will turn in their grave if they saw what they have done :) You totally ignore the fact that you are comparing the America of today with the Europe of yesterday. Now that, my friend is where the meat is. Compare those and you'll be surprised which huge steps have been set since WWII. Revolutions are neccesary to create a new world. There is nothing you can do about that.

Walter,