I hope not, and yet even if they don't, that he might inspire in his supporters this kind of passionate hatred of their compatriots is frightening. At the rate you are all ratcheting it up, the Sunni and Shi'a will soon be on better terms with each other than you will be with your fellow Americans who disagree with you.

This is the kind of vitriol that sooner or later leads to blood flowing the the streets.

And over what?

The remote possibility that a Supreme Court case may be overturned requiring a vote on abortion in each state, 90-100% of which would keep it legal?

Whether government should control 42-43% of our economy instead of the 36 or 37% it now controls?

Whether more Iraqis would have died from continuing sanctions and Saddam's oppression, vs. IEDs and revenge killings?

Whether nuclear power or wind power are better ways of addressing energy concerns, and whether we agree on how quickly we have to wean ourselves off of oil?

Whether minimum wage hikes hurt more people than they help, or vice versa?

These are all very important things and there are lots more, but they are not things to hate each other over. Moreover, persuasion of those who are undecided that is based on stirring up emotions of anger or hatred instead of reasoned discussion is simply demagogic, while persuasion based on reasoned discussion is impossible if you cannot fairly state and answer your opponent's argument, which you can't do while you're frothing at the mouth.

I'd like the national debt to go down, too, but I suspect you would rather do it by raising taxes and I would rather do it by cutting spending. The national debt, as a percentage of GDP, was higher during FDR's and Truman's admininstrations than now, and also higher during the first few years of Clinton's first administration, until the Republicans took control of Congress. Those high deficits did not result in the collapse of the country. Instead, they created pressure to either cut spending or raise taxes. When raised taxes were resisted, the deficits went down.

The point of my post, though, was that these disagreements between us don't justify talking like we want to kill each other, which is where many of the posters here seem to be heading. I'm just suggesting everybody take a deep breath. (Besides, if and when we get to the point of killing each other, has it occurred to anybody that NRA members are the ones most likely to be armed?)

George, do you realize you spent 80% of your post characterizing me, a total stranger, as a fundamentalist ignoramus, to account for your inability to conduct a reasoned discussion with me?

I happen to be a pro-choice atheist with a law degree and the ability to find on a map not only Iraq but pretty much every other country in the world (other than a few South Pacific island nations), along with all the States of Mexico and provinces of China. We could have our discussion in English or Spanish, or if in writing, I could read your views in Italian, Portuguese, French or (with a dictionary) Russian. I grew up abroad and have traveled fairly widely.

Yes, I know some of the Republicans you're talking about, but they are a small fraction of the whole and the truth is I've always had a more tolerant and accepting welcome after disclosing that I'm atheist and pro-choice at my Republican precinct caucus than I have disclosing I'm a Republican in a group of Unitarians or other collection of Democrats.

To respond to the 20% of your post that was not ad hominem, I haven't checked the accuracy of your claim regarding defense spending, but even if true, I'm not sure after-inflation adjusted dollars is the appropriate comparison. Surely a more meaningful comparison would be percentage of GDP? During WWII, defense spending was about 38% of GDP, now it's about 4.5%, and a much higher percentage of that (more than half, I believe) is for non-war elements, like veterans' benefits, and improvements in pay, education, and medical care.

In my view, which also "leans libertarian," national defense is the primary duty of the federal government, so another useful measurement is the proportion of tax revenue that is devoted to defense, which is also dramatically lower now than in WWII.

As for whether that's too much, well, I assume, given what government in a democracy is, that 50 cents of every dollar is a total waste, but to the extent I "trust" any politician, which is very slight, I trust McCain wielding a scalpel rather than Obama wielding an axe when it comes to cutting military spending. And I realize, as most people would agree if they thought about it, that the military does not get credited budgetarily for the benefits of its advances in medicine and technology, and its role in safeguarding global trade and transportation.

The debate about empire is indeed one that should be tackled. I could take your tack and just claim that it is impossible to argue rationally about it because the first suggestion that our global role should be other than as a deep pocket for the UN is met with cries of "neo-con!" (The visual here is Donald Sutherland in the last scene of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.) But I won't, and just say that I should have left for work 20 minutes ago, and if reasoned discussion is possible it will have to be left for a later time.

With the utmost good will, George, signing off for now.