>>>>>>But my belief is that on the whole and generalizing - Republicans want power to be able to help the people and the country, whereas Democrats want power in able to gratify and help them.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is more to it than that. If Gore looses then Janet Reno, Clinton's lap dog, goes. Then, perhaps, someone with a better sense of ethics and fidelity to the nation and the Consitution will become Attorney General. And then, perhaps, he will find out how two bums could acquire over 1,000 FBI records and not be held accountable -- and no one at the Whitehouse could figure out who hired them? Ya. Right. A tooth fairy. The subsequent illegal 'leaks' of personal and private information by the Whitehouse against opponents is obvious use of those files. Billing records that go unfound for two years and suddenly appear on tables in the living quarters. Ya. Laying there for two years and no one noticed. Some more fairy dust. Then there is Gore's use of Government facilities for personal and political purposes. Gore claims he can't be held accountable because there is " no legal controlling authority". Ya Right. I must have missed the repeal of the Constitution and the
>civil
>>>>>code. Gore, as president, claiming there is no legal controlling authority which can hold him accountable for his illegal would make his presidency indistinguishable from a dictatorship. He is already making agreements concerning nuclear weapons and weapons grade nuclear fuel with Putin and concealing those agreements from Congress. An act which puts our county at risk and is illegal to say the least. If elelcted, when will he dismiss Congress and take full control?
>>>>
>>>>Jerry,
>>>>
>>>>When the United Nations, with help from the communists in our country (ie. Democrats) attack us, will you still have a high speed Internet connection to the Universal Thread from your bunker in the mountains?
>>>
>>>Funny. When debaters loose credibility they resort to ridicule.
>>>But, for another laugh, which side would you be shooting from?
>>>
>>>I don't own any weapons and wouldn't use them to shoot someone else if I did. Which communist countries are you implying have sufficient military strength to engage the US? I can't think of any. The UN? You should read the UN Charter.
>>>It states that the UN 'rights' superceed soverign rights of all countries. It is on that basis that the UN (with their blue helmuts and US financial and military support) invades other countries for their humanitarian purposes. Like Croatia, Sudan, etc... Fundamentally, might makes right. Both the UN and the USA prove that over and over.
>>
>>It's a joke, Jerry, lighten up. Can you cite where the UN charter says that?
>
>Cite it? It's on the internet at the UN site. Look it up. That's the way I found it. Some guy was making claims about it which I didn't believe. He was right. My mental picture of the UN was an organization, started as the LN and later the UN, pushed by the USA, as a world governing body with essentially the same attitudes about human rights and liberties as the Constitution. Wrong.

I was asking you to cite to be snotty, although it probably came across that way. I am generally interested, but am having having trouble. Do you have any idea what chapter it is in?