It’s possible that Sisyphus’s Stone thought this sentence in your OP: “I want to talk about our politics, and the reason that we are all here (at the SDMB)” meant you think the reason we’re all here is politics, instead of ignorance and reducing levels of the same. I read it as “I want to talk about our politics, and the reason that we are all here (at the SDMB), which is to fight ignorance.” (emphasis and perception, of course, mine)
Yes, that is in essence what I was trying to say. That, although there are things that divide us, we do ostensibly share this common goal
BWAHAHAHAHA!! 
Another coffee-through-nose moment, brought to you by the SDMB!
Funny…I thought what Sisyphus’ Stone was whining about was that by using our and we, you were excluding our foreign brethren and sistren, of whish SS is one.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, I promise not to either:
a. Do a Snoopydance of Victory
or
b. retire to my room to sulk and polish my guns.
Face it…what makes the other side so aggravating is that they have valid points.
When life hands you olive branches . . .
Crush the olives, grease up with the oil, and start the grappling.
I think it’d be nice to bottle the whine. 
I must say, it’s a good thing that our foreign members aren’t subject to partisan bickering and viciousness, like we benighted Americans. Thank you Sisyphus for straightening us out over here.
Deliberately? No. But then again, my four-year-old doesn’t deliberately go out of the way to burn down our house; that still doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea to give him the matches, however.
I believe he places the interests of Corporate America in gneral, and his Texas oil buddies in particular, ahead of the interests of American citizens, which is worrysome. When that prioritizing allows him to boldly lie about Iraqi WMDs and start a war with Iraq primarily to promote those corporate interests, I think the term “monster” does come into play somewhere.
I have to respectfully disagree; I get very suspicious whenever people present politics to me in sound bites, as it’s a sure sign that someone is trying to paper over a complex issue. And it seems to me this oversimplification of the news has been coming from the Right lately – “The terrorists hate our freedoms,” “Saddam has stockpiles of WMDs,” and “the institution of marriage is under attack” are three examples that come to mind.
I see where you’re coming from, but you mustn’t overlook the fact that sometimes people do lie.
The problem is that there are other motivating points between these two extremes, such as “acting in his own self-interest.”
That’s okay, we forgive you anyway. 
Well, in a generalized way that may be a valid criticism of US character. It is also true that when I started a thread on this predominantly American message board specifically talking about partisan politics in a year in which this country is holding an election that I did not, in fact, include him. I guess that just makes me part of the problem.
Another possibility is that he was just looking for something to be mad about.