- Well, it was a most pleasant idea, being part of a group that supports Condi Rice. However, how in the world a socialist group supporting Condi Rice makes sense...I surly cannot fathom. Sir, you are sorely mistaken if you think anything you have written would find the approval of Condi Rice. I'm happy that somehow you see her value, even through the visor of the socialist perspective.Condi, however, would vehemently disagree with you as I do. She is a conservative Republican, thoroughly dedicated to the principles upon which this country was founded. One of those principles happens to be capitalism. That is what we Americans have been and that is what the conservatives of this country intend to ensure that we continue to be.I have not offered you an opinion about what you should do in your country and with your country. I would not be so presumptuous. However, you have taken it upon yourself to lecture me about the politics of my country. I am appalled at such supreme arrogance.If you like socialism for your country, all the more power for you. If you like democrats -- bully for you. Kindly do not lecture me upon that which I have devoted considerable time and effort in research and thought and heart-searching. You are most presumptuous.It is the ignorant who makes assumptions about that which he knows nothing: So you have made an assumption that I need to be taught what the Democrats really are about.Sir, until early 2003 I was a registered Democrat. I know all about that party. I was a Democrat. My parents were Democrats, my grandparents were Democrats. As I am second-generation American ... that is as far back as I can go. But I tell you that I know the Democratic Party intimately. I campaigned for the likes of Bobby Kennedy while in high school. But, somewhere along the way, I didn't leave the Democratic Party -- it left me.Those words are not coined by me, a great Republican said them: Ronald W. Reagan.You may praise Clinton, and you certainly have a right to your opinion. However, to lecture me about him is presumption beyond endurance. I was deciding how to vote for Clinton likely far before you ever heard his name! I voted against him in 1992. And against him again in 1996. You may favor him, but will you kindly do me the courtesy of keeping your supercilious lecture to yourself. I have well researched the man. I never supported him. Even when I was quite the Democrat.I'm not going to engage you in dialog. You have made up your mind, to the point that you --- a Scotsman --- presume to lecture me --- an American --- about the political situation in my native country. Frankly sir, you have a nerve.As to being against the ones who permitted 9/11 to happen, I most vehemently am against Clinton. He had full warning by the spring of 1993, when the World Trade Center was bombed, that the terrorists intended to attack us upon our homeland. He did nothing. I lay the whole mess at his feet. I live in New York City, sir ... and again, I think you have a nerve to lecture me about 9/11. The closest you got to that was holding a newspaper with a picture, most likely. I live in Manhattan. I understand exactly what happened and why. I have independently researched the matter. I had to ... I was extremely upset and had to learn why this happened. If you are an adherent of the Michael Moore film, I really have to laugh. You assert you are educated yet believe in obvious garbage and lies? Comical, actually.As to wanting to keep inflammatory rhetoric at a minimum in your group, I have no problem with changing rhetorical gears. But whether it be with the tools of partisan rhetoric or simple English, I assert that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a threat to the security of this nation.As to debating you on socialism, I wouldn't bother. Not because I won't debate country to country, but because you can't read plain English. I provided you with a detailed example of how compassionate conservatism functions in this country, in my hometown -- New York City. You reply with worn out rhetoric about taking money from the unemployed. Well ... sir ... if you cannot read the simple declarative sentences which I wrote in my prior post, I see no point in absorbing more bandwidth in repeating the same explanation.Perhaps you should continue studying ... mayhap at some point your reading comprehension will rise to the point that you will actually absorb the simple explanation which I provided. One can only hope.As to your closing quip: I can see you are a man with issues.I think that the problem of babies having babies is a far cry from the issues of a middle aged man who can't get laid. But if you can't see the difference ... why would I bother to further converse with you?I leave you to work on your pick up line. Maybe you can find a babe at the local pub. Of course most women prefer a man with a job. It's a female thing. Living on the dole simply does not exude masculinity.No, I have REAL things to do ... things more important than debate a supercilious middle-aged student who can't get a job or a girl.I like Condi Rice a lot. And this group has nothing to do with her. I am posting this letter, then unsubscribing.Anne M.
ICQ - You get the message, anywhere!
Get it @ http://www.icq.com