Presidential Election Tomorrow...

[Dr_Woland]

>> I would submit, in contrast, that the Democratic Party was the Party of Slavery and of Jim Crow! <<

I'm not interested in what you think of the Democrats since (i) it's a diversion from answering the questions and (ii) you're just requoting what your leaders have told you to say when confronted with tricky questions.

I am asking you this: can you honestly tell me that there are no racists and fascists in the REPUBLICAN PARTY?

Any answer which begins to talk about the Democrats by comparison will be construed as an admission of guilt by omission.

Because I think George W Bush is a stupid, moronic, right-wing, redneck FASCIST.

And GOD help the planet if this mental midget is elected President.

You asked for the international perspective on US issues, and there it is. We all live in mortal fear of a moron as President of the USA.

Dr W.

[Ronald_Barbour]

Dear Dr. W.:

Response:

1. You ignore the well documented racist past of the Democratic Party because you cannot defend it! You ignore the many historial and contemporary examples of the Republican Party's attempt to bring African & European Americans together.

2. I do not say that there are NO Republican racists and fascist in the GOP! This is a giant political group of approximately 50 million members -- but I will say -- without fear of contradiction -- that they have no following and keep their opinions very quiet.

In contrast, it is the Democratic Party that keeps fanning the flames of racism. For instance, the modern NAACP is nothing more than a front for the Democratic Party in the African- American community charged with getting out the votes for Democratic candidates and keeping the race pot boiling. By the way -- the present leader of the NAACP is a former Democratic Congressman.

3. G.W. Bush: "stupid, moronic, fascist" You missed drunk. SHOW ME THE PROOF! Clearly, a man who wins the votes of half the voting population must have something on the ball and stand for something that those voters believe in (and it ain't racism and fascism).

In regards to being a drunk -- I'll grant you that Bush did have a drinking problem years ago. However, he has been dry for more than ten years now. It is interesting to note that U.S. Grant, a reformed drunk, was often charged with "drinking on duty" in the U.S. Civil War -- But he beat ole Bobby Lee, and won the presidency.

4. GOD? You believe in GOD? I find this extremely hard to believe! Personally, I think you are an athetist, as you would not engage in character assassination if you really believed all men are brothers. Of course, there is nothing wrong with disagreement on political issues, but you can disagree without being disagreeable. After all, a supporter of Bush could take it personally when you call the guy they voted for "stupid, moronic and fascist."

I, of course, do not.

Sincerely, Ronbo274@aol.com

[Dr_Woland]

Hello Ron

>> You ignore the well documented racist past <<

I am interested in the present. I don't care what Calvin Coolidge felt. Your interest in the Democrats' past seems oddly out of proportion to your lack of interest in the Republicans' present.

>> In contrast, it is the Democratic Party that keeps fanning the flames of racism. <<

Really? Sorry, I got distracted by a pig flying by the window.

>> SHOW ME THE PROOF! <<

Did you read the quotes I posted from him? This man is a bungling idiot. Or would you like to have him "prove" his idiocy at the helm of your country? In which case, as I said before, God help us all.

>> In regards to being a drunk <<

I didn't mention "drunk". You did. It's America which has the neurosis about alcohol, not Europe. Churchill drank considerably more than he should have, but remains one of Britain's greatest leaders.

>> You believe in GOD? I find this extremely hard to believe! Personally, I think you are an athetist <<

No, I'm an atheist :-)

There is nothing personal in my political views. As I said, I have the greatest respect for certain prominent Republicans. However, from his own words, George W Bush has proven himself to be stupid, and this is an objective assessment. You asked for the European perspective, and I'm giving it to you. You could have a look at newspapers throughout Europe and get similar views to mine, I am in no way in an extreme position on this point.

I find it the greatest hypocrisy of all, that the US seeks to limit the nuclear arsenals of other countries.... yet when it comes down to it, it's the personal judgement of the President (as we saw in Kosovo, where he mobilised the troops before consulting Congress) which determines the US's military strategy. Bush is a deranged fascist, and I tremble to think that his finger is on the button.

Dr W.

[Ronald_Barbour]

Dear DW:

Pigs flying by your window in Moscow, or is it London? Whatever...

I do believe that it was your Champion of the People, one William Jefferson Clinton, that sent the bombers to the Balkans.

Clearly, you suffer from a bad case of Political Incorrectness, as it is a virtue for a leftist to use raw naked military force against small countries! It makes for a bump in your poll numbers too.

Sincerely, Ronbo

[Dr_Woland]

>> I do believe that it was your Champion of the People, one William Jefferson Clinton, that sent the bombers to the Balkans. <<

Please make up your mind. First you say I'm a Russian spy, now you try to claim I'm an American Democrat?

It was the PRESIDENT OF THE USA who sent the bombers to the Balkans. The point of my raising this in the context of this topic, is that we are discussing (or were, before you found the going too hot to handle and launched your "divert their fire" operation) who will become the NEXT holder of that post.

The power of the President Of The USA (whoever the incumbent may be and from whichever party) is absolute. On his word alone, bombs rain down upon other countries, as Sudan and Montenegro (two entirely innocent countries you've bombed with no justification at all in the past three years) have found out.

>> it is a virtue for a leftist to use raw naked military force against small countries! <<

Wrong, boy. We're talking here about good-ole yankee STOOPIDITY AND ARROGANCE. You and your ******* army go around the world bombing and killing in the name of your God, but without even a damn MAP. Without knowing where the HELL you are.

Say, boys, we're REAL sore! Whaddya say we go and BOMB SUDAN, 'cos the name of the country sounds real like "Saddam", don't it? No, they ain't done nuthin', but when we yankees get mad, we like to BOMB THE HELL out of someone, and we don't care who!!

It's nothing to do with Left/Right politics. It's about the abuse of power. America picks on small countries which can barely defend themselves.

And you talk about the "abuse of human rights". THEN you jump into bed with China and make love all night!

What a bunch of fat hypocrites!

Dr W.

[Ronald_Barbour]

Dearest DW:

Americans are a bunch of "fat hypocrites" going around the world bombing poor defenseless third world countries???

Well, mate if that's true it comes with our Anglo-Saxon genes: If memory serves correct John Bull was very active in places like the Sudan, about hundred years ago. Why don't you tell your American cousins about how you Brits got that piece of China called Hong Kong? What about India? What about seizing control of about half of Africa? Imperialism run amok! One-Sixth of the world under direct control of the Colonial Office in London, and the world's oceans dominated by the Royal Navy in 1900!

I've said it once and I'll say it again: the USA did not want to be the world's policeman, but that role was forced upon us by the collapse of the British Empire after after World War II!!!

Furthermore, I'm not a bloody YANK! I'm a Floridian: a SOUTHERNER!!!!

Sincerely, Ronbo@aol.com

[Dr_Woland]

>> Americans are a bunch of "fat hypocrites" going around the world bombing poor defenseless third world countries??? <<

Well, tell me what the rationale for bombing (a) Sudan and/or (b) Montenegro was? You WERE in Military Intelligence, right?

Or are you ADMITTING that you bomb defenseless third world countries with no reason whatsoever, and using events over a hundred years ago committed by MY country as an excuse? At least when GB took colonial possessions it was because we WANTED to, rather than US activities in countries you didn't know existed because you didn't have a map!

Let's go over Montenegro, briefly. Montenegro is the only remaining republic within Yugoslavia with the exception of Serbia itself. It has been struggling to break-free of Serbia for long years, as the other ex-Yugoslav Republics had. An Anti-Milosevic Govt was in power, with a slightly shakey but usuable majority. They looked to the West for help.

And what did you do? You BOMBED THE HELL OUT OF THEM because you had them down on your stupid maps as "Yugoslavia". So right at the moment they might have taken advantage of Serbia's pariah position to break free, you drove them back into the arms of Milosevic (who is Montenegrin himself) with fleets of bombers!!

This wasn't "accidental" bombing - like the bombs you "accidentally" dropped on Bulgaria and Albania. This was outright STUPIDITY at its crassest.

Now what happens when George Dubya Bush gets to be President? Do you think HE knows the difference between Serbia and Montenegro? Do you think he even CARES a hoot?

No, screw them, bomb those dumb little European people into the ground, who cares if they die, they should live in a country on US-Military-Issue Maps, damn them?

OK, now tell me about that raid on Sudan? Who did you catch there? What dangers did they pose to the free world, or the USA in particular?

Dr W.