To clear the semantic fog of asininity being flung out hereabouts, here is what SH itself said:

"By your continued crying, you're really only saying one of two things.

1. We're not happy because of the fact that GWB is the one leading the way of freedom that is being offered to a once-suppressed people and providing the freedom that is everybody's human right.
- or -
2. We're only saying that we want eqality for all because it sounds good. Actually, we really mean that only those that think "progressives" can do it better should be the only ones that really deserve it.

So...which is it? Are you jealous or just out and out racist?"

Neither of SH's propositions are tenable or rational, and both are based on his own kind of short-sighted bias. But, in his challenging, antagonistic manner, he required his identified target group -- those protesting Bush, or the war, or both -- as being either jealous of Bush or racist. Since Bobert is not jealous of Bush, whom he despises, it is clear that the only interpretation that can be made is "IF Bobert protests (the war or Bush or both) THEN Bobert is a racist".

This having been established, the only "shoe" that one need claim a fit for in this equation is (not being jealous of Bush) AND (protesting Bush's actions or his war), which millions of people in this country do most vehemently. SH itself has referred to this whole class, including Bobert, as racist by his text. Work out the propositional Boolean equations for yourself.

I suggest you withdraw your remarks, SH, or else admit to a problem with logic, semantics, or other reasoning powers.

A