Your post reminds me of somebody acquainted with debating people who fit into the stereotypical mould you are trying to cast me into. Another fantastic technique of undermining your opposition of course. Exagerate what they say and succeed because very few people will make the assumption you're talking shit. Majority satisfied.
If my post came across as trying to cast you into a stereotypical mold, it's because it appears that you were implying that only Republicans stoop to such behavior. I recognize both parties as being flawed (to put it mildly), and I see the Republican party as being a bit closer (though still pretty far away) to being what I would consider ideal as far as what I consider in my own personal best interest, and also for the greater good of all. I'm sure this sort of thing could be argued forever, however.
If I were to deconstruct your post using a similar method I might suggest that you are infering that democrats are racists, sexist and homophobic. I might go on to say that they're all self loathing, ignorant and quick to criticise republican behaviour. 
No, I'm but I'm certainly IMPLYING that Democrats take the opposite position (as do virtually all members of all parties do nowadays, as it is the pc thing to do). I was simply using a relative as an example of someone who is very out of touch with the realities of that which he holds so dear to him. In my experience, most people with racist, homophobic, and sexist tendencies gravitate towards right wing political ideologies. This is NOT to imply that all or even most Republicans have these tendencies...
Traditionally, the Republican party has been more to the right, the Democrats more the left. In recent years, both parties seem to move closer together on social issues - I perceive this move to be more on the part of the Republicans going to the left than vice versa.
Rather than engage you on this further, I'll just point this out. I don't care what you think I am, I'm making commentary on a common technique used by republicans particularly for undermining unrest. I feel sorry for anybody who makes these types of "anti american" comments because nobody who actually thought for themselves would make such hasty ridiculous jumps in conclusions. You're right, a common technique used by Liberals is to mistrust every single thing said/done by Republicans. The difference between that and avoiding debates (instead, undermining your opposition) is that atleast things are analysed by being critical.
I simply pointed out that the way your post was worded came across as very biased. I used the example of a relative of mine to point out the biased nature of multi-party politics - a minor inconvenience when one considers other alternatives, such as dictatorships. But I suppose this bias is to be expected in a country where there are basically only two parties, as opposed to three or more strong parties.
Perhaps my own wording and analogy were a bit harsh and stereotypical themselves. But I can concede that both parties are simply two heads of the same monster, and are really not that much different from one another nowadays. I simply tend to support the party which strikes me as the slightly lesser of the two evils.
My point was that anyone who blindly supports one and condemns the other no matter what is either behaving very foolishly or is in major denial. I guess you are also now saying the same thing. It's just that your earlier comment painted a different picture IMO.
Political idealogy aside, Bush is clearly a halfwit and no halfwit should run a country. Especially an embarassment like him. I'll be first to buy the highlights DVD of his trainwreck public demeanour when it comes out. It really does amuse me to see 300 million people have to pretend that their top chap isn't a moron of the highest order but I think most people know deep down he's more than a bit of a twit.
Or did you think Lee Priest is anti american because he doesn't respect bush aswell? .
I'll agree that Bush is no Einstein, and public speaking / debating is not his strongpoint. But I also believe that people are too harsh on him. I'm also fairly certain that he, Chaney and company are privy to information that the rest of us are not. And even if you don't agree with the war in Iraq, and you don't believe there were ever any WMD for us to be worried about, remember that when Clinton was in office, he, Gore, and others also stated publically that Saddam was a threat and that they had reason to believe that there were WMD in Iraq to be concerned about. The belief in the elusive WMD didn't start in 2000.
I tend to agree with those who believe that the war is mainly rooted (at least theoretically) in securing the economic prosperity of the US (and the rest of the world, to a lesser extent). But regradless of whatever longterm good (hopefully) comes of the war, it is always a horrific tragedy when so many Americans die. I say this even though those who volunteered for service knew (just as I knew when I volunteered four years of my life many years ago) that the possibility of war always exists. But hopefully the ends will somewhat justify the means.
BTW, do you always use the lower case "a" for the "A" in "America"? I'm sure I come across as somewhat of a "Nationalist"...
