Steve Schacher

quote:Apparently, the fact that weapons are available isn't the problem. Read this column by Walter Williams, entitled Kids And Guns. It talks about shootings vs. the availability of guns. [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

When debating whether the Constitution is outdated and flawed, it is wrong to focus only on the Bill Of Rights. One has to look at all the articles and ask whether the general concept of three co-equal branches consisting of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial structures, with all the rules for elections and appointments, and oversight responsibilites are also outdated and flawed. One must also remember that the Constitution was meant to be a "limited powers" document, meaning that the Federal government was authorized to do only what was explicitly written into the Constitution, and anything not expicitly written into the Constitution was reserved to the States, and to the people. The Bill Of Rights was not meant to be an exhaustive list of the rights of individuals to be protected from the Federal government. The Ninth Amendment says that there are other rights that belong to individuals that are not enumerated in the prior eight amendments. The Tenth Amendment says that anything not explicitly written into the Articles of the Constitution belong to the States, and to the people. The Constitution has to be taken as a tapestry, with everything there to support or balance against something else. What is it, exactly, that seems outdated and flawed? [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

I agree. Call it: The Nation Guard, Domestic Chapter. [ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

TICK...tock...TICK...tock...TICK...tock...

quote:BUT, the States already have their "militia" it's called the national guard. From The Information Please Almanac - Encyclopedia Section: quote:National Guard National Guard, U.S. militia. The militia is authorized by the Constitution of the United States, which also defines the militia's functions and the federal and state role. Article 1, Section 8 provides that Congress shall have the power to call forth “the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” Congress was entrusted with organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, but the appointment of officers and the training of the militia were reserved to the states. Further provisions were made in the Second Amendment. In peacetime the National Guard is placed under state jurisdiction and can be used by governors to quell local disturbances and to help in times of local disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. In times of war or other emergencies the National Guard is absorbed into the active service of the United States and the president is commander in chief. The National Guard was partially mobilized for the Korean War (1950–53), the Berlin crisis of 1961, and the Persian Gulf War (1990–91). The National Guard's equipment and personnel are standardized to conform with U.S. army regulations. Enlistment is voluntary; compensation, paid by the federal government, is given for periods of drill and field training. The Air National Guard was formed in 1947. From The Information Please Almanac - Dictionary Section: quote:Na'tional Guard' state military forces, in part equipped, trained, and quartered by the U.S. government, and paid by the U.S. government, that become an active component of the army when called into federal service by the president in civil emergencies. Cf. militia (def. 2). From The Information Please Almanac - Almanac Section: quote:The National Guard The National Guard consists of citizen-soldiers and airmen who serve on both a federal and a state level. The Army National Guard has units in 2,700 communities in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Air National Guard has 88 flying units at more than 170 installations nationwide. National Guard units are organized, trained, and equipped to the same standards as the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force. The National Guard has two roles—one as part of the nation's military force and the other for state emergencies and community support missions. This dual state/federal role for the National Guard is based on a Constitutional mandate. The relationship is unique and sets the National Guard apart from other military reserve forces. Currently, the Army National Guard, 350,000 strong, makes up more than one-half of the total army's ground combat forces and one-third of its support forces. Air National Guard units, with a total strength of 105,000, are closely integrated with the U.S. Air Force and perform worldwide operations on a daily basis. So, it appears that the National Guard is accepted as the Founding Father's definition of a militia. Now there just has to be a way for people who are not combat-fit to also register with the national guard and participate with their own weaponry instead of standardized military issue. If the National Guard is voluntary, can they reject people? If it is made so that they cannot reject people, but instead register them in a "civil defense" unit instead that is not subject to being drafted, would that work? If the National Guard says that anyone who registers is subject to being called into service for civil or international defense, would this be acceptible to gun owners? Would it deter gun owners from joining? Would it bring out eager yahoos who are looking for some gun action? Just some thoughts, but overall, I like the idea of a state-run overseeing body that manages the certification of gun-owner worthiness. I like the idea of calling that body a State Militia/National Guard, but I dislike the part about the Federal Government being able to call it up into service, but I guess you have to take the bad with the good.

Jaguar said: quote:And like I said, you want to make sure that gunowners Are A: trained in the use, storage, and handling of firearms, B: are capable of knowing when and when not to use a firearm, and C: are not felons or those that should not be handling a firearm ,I say that is FINE!! No problem!! BUT, and here's the BUT, you DO NOT register those owners weapons, period. It is the governments business who can have a firearm, but it NOT the governments business what type and how many firearms that a legal gunowner has!! Hamilton says: quote:A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It is interesting to note the use of the phrase "well-regulated militia" here. Hamilton is referring to the training that a regiment would need in order to qualify as a fighting unit. This leads one to suspect that "well-regulated" refers to the unit's ability to move as one, to make effective use of arms, to be an effective fighting force, etc., not necessarily a regulation on the owenership of arms. Hamilton then says: quote:Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. So, even Hamilton was calling for some sort of periodic assessment of one's knowledge and ability to maintain and use arms. Today, this might take the form of a license with annual or bi-annual competency certifications (Hamilton called for twice a year). I always believed that the best way to do this was to re-establish the concept of the State Militia and make all gun-owners register with the state as members of the militia. The militia would then have the responsibility of overseeing the competency of its members. This would be registering the gun owner, not the gun. One can move closer to the line by making the gun owner certify for certain types of arms (which the owner must provide during certification). This would have the effect of not knowing what arms a person has, but of knowing what arms the person was certified to use. Again, this information would be maintained by the individual state militias. [ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:look at the abuse of the state commerce clause in the constitution, look at Social Security, look at welfare, look at the Department of Education. Where in the constitution does it give the Federal government these powers? From an activist Judiciary. The Left has learned that what they can't pass through legislation in the Congress, they can get enacted through legis-prudence. This is why the liberals are fighting so hard to overturn Bush's judicial nominees as too conservative -- because they want liberal activists willing to interpret rights (or non-rights) that aren't (or are) in the Constitution in order to accomplish what they couldn't through elected representation.

My copy is a version that was written as a doctorate thesis by some colonel. It is a fascinating version because it is footnoted all over with various interpretations for passages based on how one interprets the specific Chinese glyph character. It also includes footnotes from other Chinese scholors who commented on the book over the centuries regarding their interpretations of the passages. My copy is: Sun Tzu - The Art of War, by Samuel B. Griffith. Oxford University Press c. 1963 ISBN: 0-19-501476-6 [ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

There is an aspect to this happening over here, too, but I think that it isn't so much a left/right thing as it is an old heritage/new heritage thing. If you interpret the desire for "somebody [who] is actually fighting for the white people of Oldham" against the Asian influx to really be a desire for new residents to assimilate into the established culture of the country that they are adopting as their own, then it becomes more understandable and less of a bigoted statement. In the USA, the latest rebel cry is that something is from "dead white men," as if this invalidates the need to respect whatever it is that the "dead white men" did. At the simplest level, it is African-Americans demanding that schools named after George Washington and Thomas Jefferson be renamed for more respectable people (meaning people that the African-Americans should be looking up to as role models), because Washington and Jefferson were slave-holders. In order to think this way, people have to forget that there wouldn't be a USA if not for what Washington and Jefferson did. In a larger context, it means not having to follow the laws handed down by "dead white men." But from a societal standpoint, it means losing the links that bind us as a country. As we tear down our historical icons, we tear away our heritage, which may serve the purposes of the Left who, simutaneously are demanding open borders and increased immigration. When the immigrants come to the USA, it isn't so that they can assimilate, but rather, so they can isolate into ?????-American communities and demand that the rest of us adapt (read abandon) our customs to meet their demands of maintaining their customs which originated from a society that they are fleeing. This is just one "living white man's" opinion.

I'm not so sure that confiscation is a foregone conclusion. The Democrats are backing away from the gun control issue and conceding defeat since the last election. The lesson that they learned is that one of their prime constituents is the labor unions, and many, many people in the unions are NRA members who do not favor gun control. This is why the Democrats are backing away from forcing the issue. [ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

The Second Amendment also has the phrase In order to form a well-regulated militia... Since the word militia was a term-of-art back then, meaning the population-at-large, having some form of regulation on arms for the general population would not be against the spirit of the Second Amendment, as long as it is well-regulated. Also in keeping with the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, these regulations must come from the States, not the Federal government. We went over this in April (Here's the link, startingat the bottom of page 1). I'm inlcuding my relevant points again here. ------------------------------------------- Why not go straight to the source and include a Founding Father in the debate. In The Federalist #8, Alexander Hamilton states the fear of having a standing army. quote:The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority. The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard. A militia of the people, or Posse Comitatus would be a counter-balance to a standing army. In The Federalist #29, Hamilton states the need for a militia to be regulated by the States, not the Federal government: quote:THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert; an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." Hamilton then argues that the formation of the militia by itself should be enough to prevent a standing army from forming. quote:Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. Hamilton now argues that it is impractical to expect a militia to act as a standing army. quote:``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. Hamilton then reasons that if there should be a need for a standing army, there should at least also be a disciplined militia to offset the power of the army. quote:"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." Finally, Hamilton supposes that a militia under the control of the States would resist the temptation of a Federal authority using it for it's own purposes. quote:There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia. A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths? If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs. Here is a link to the entire set of Federalist Papers. Even though these were written in 1788, the principles still hold true today.

Bear in mind that the government can legally ban guns, but to do so, they will have to pass an amendment that repeals the Second Amendment. To do that, they will have to get an amendment passed in Congress and then get 3/4ths of the the States to ratify it. That will not happen.

quote:I actually believe the US will concoct some scheme to take over most of the world's countries all but in name I thought that this was the Clinton/Blair/Annan/Schroeder New World Order. The USA doesn't want any part of it. Only the extreme Left wing here wants that to happen.

I actually believe that a more long-term likelyhood (50-100 years) is that the USA, Canada and Mexico all become the United States of North America.

Hey, I agree... Did you notice the bio of the author, down at the bottom of the article? It just goes to show that the media has fools all over the world.

Finally, the End of Canada FrontPageMagazine.com | June 6, 2001 Excerpt: quote:ALMOST HALF of Canadians believe it is highly likely Canada will join the United States within ten years. That’s what an opinion poll, released on June 3 by EKOS Research Associates, a Canadian polling and research firm, tells us. Here is the link to the full article. I'm ducking for cover now...

quote:The Elian Gonzalez case is probably one of the single most horrifying things that the USA has done in recent past. True, except that this was entirely a Clinton/Reno action, not the USA in general. This was the case of the most corrupt politician in American history corrupting everyone around him, too. He had no qualms about violating the Fourth Amendment, and he had a grudge to settle with Cubans (in this case, Cuban-Americans). quote:It was probably the most significant case of the police (in this case, FBI) abusing their power, The FBI refused to get involved, which is why Clinton got the INS to bring in Border Patrols. It was the Border Patrol, not the FBI, that you saw.

quote:Castro has negotiated population exchanges with the US before. That's a very interesting way to refer to the Mariel boatlift and Elian Gonzalez. The only other population exchange that I remember is Castro's agreeing to take back the seven inmates that rioted in Louisiana a few weeks after Elian Gonzalez washed up on shore. Prior to the inmate riot, US State Department spokespeople said that the Gonzalez affair was a Florida family court issue, but after "secret" meetings with Cuban diplomats, the Cubans agreed to take back the rioting inmates and the State Department changed their tune regarding Gonzalez. A Clinton State Department spokesperson said that there was no deal made for Gonzalez, however.

Haven't you all noticed the upper left hand corner of the banner which states: quote:May 2001 A monthly online parody and satire periodical This is just an Onion lookalike.

quote:The arms race was initiated by the USA when they dropped the A-bombs on Japan. The arms race began when the Germans began testing rockets to deploy bombs. Werner von Braun. The Manhattan Project was the USA's attempt to catch up and surpass Germany. We won the race -- we didn't start the race. After the war, the Americans and the Russians raced to see who could get the best German scientists. We got Braun.

Charles, I think you have me confused with Sunanta. In my post, I said that conservatism is about individual responsibility and accountability, while liberalism is about federal subsidies and government solutions. [ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:The founding fathers, who were determined to succeed where the Romans failed, incorporated a similar government, which has worked to this day. America itself has obviously become more liberal: The requirement of owning land to vote was dropped in favor of the poor, there was the abolition of slavery, then women's suffrage, then direct congressional elections, and legalized abortion. Attempts throughout history to forcibly reestablish conservativism have always and always will be doomed to failure. Let's be careful with our terminology. quote:America itself has obviously become more liberal I would say that America has obviously become more permissive. quote:direct congressional elections Initially, we had direct elections for the House, and the House elected the Senate. The Senate is now elected directly by the people. Also, we had State elections for the Electoral College and the College elected the president. Direct presidential elections began in 1820. quote:legalized abortion Abortion was always legal, but it was a State's rights issue. Individual states decided whether to allow abortion. Roe v. Wade came about because Texas did not allow abortion and Louisiana did, but Roe was too poor to travel to Lousiana and sued Texas for the right to an abortion. The Supreme Court said that there was a Federal right to abortion throughout the entire country, but there is nowhere in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to make this decree. That is the crux of the argument. If Roe v. Wade were overturned by the Supreme Court, it would not ban abortion, but only revert it back to the states. I can't think of any state (other than Utah, maybe) that would ban abortion these days. quote:Attempts throughout history to forcibly reestablish conservativism have always and always will be doomed to failure Conservatism is about individual responsibility and accountability. It is about creating an environment where people have incentives to improve themselves to the point where they become self-sufficient, while providing government safety-nets for those who stumble onto hard time. It is not about creating a welfare state as a way of life and ensaring people into a life of dependency on government programs and handouts. That is what today's liberal left agenda is all about.

quote:I do NOT blame everything on the US. I just think they are responsible for more problems than you think they are. I think that, like all countries, the USA's image is only as good as it's leader's. Looking back over time, we had these presidents and their major initiatives/conflicts: Kennedy (3 years) and Kruschev, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Apollo Johnson (5 years) and Viet Nam Nixon (6 years) and ending Viet Nam, openings to China and Watergate Ford (6 years) and, um, ... (besides pardoning Nixon) Carter (4 years) and Iran, the oil embargo, Cardigan sweaters, and the great malaise (good ex-president, though) Reagan (8 years) and Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev (aka The Evil Empire), tax cuts, rebuilding the military, Greneda, firing the Air Traffic Controllers, Libya and Lebanon, Iran-Contra Bush (4 years) and Saddam Hussein and the Persian Gulf coalition Clinton (8 years) and illegal FBI files, the unknown hiring of bar-bouncer Craig Livingston as WH security chief, firing the WH travel office and framing Billy Dale for embezzlement to cover it up, Vince Foster, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Somalia, Haiti, tax increases, technology to China, campaign funds from China scandal, Monica Lewinsky, Los Alamos, impeachment, wagging the dog in Kosovo, White House sleepovers, coffee klatches, Elian Gonzalez, pardons to fugitives and drug lords, stealing WH furniture Bush (4 months) and tax cuts -- I don't think that we can honestly attribute anything else to Bush yet, as he has only been in office for 1/12th of a term. Anything else would only be partisan posturing at this point. Clearly, America's image over the last decade has been dominated by Clinton's behavior as president. It is my opinion that anything and everything that Clinton ever did was motivated by how it enhanced him politically, and impact to others was secondary. If the world is a more dangerous place, it is because other world leaders recognized Clinton as either a man who could not be trusted, or a man who could be bought. If there is world-wide apprehension about Bush, it is because he will not give the other leaders the free ride that Clinton did.

quote:Jesus Christ, this place is obviously Conservative Country. An interesting statistic is that, as people get older (and acquire more wealth), they become more conservative in their views. It would be an interesting exercise to correlate age (and income) with the political views expressed here. quote:Come visit Australia one day, and witness the Americanization of our culture. This is happening all around the world. National identities are deteriorating, self-determination is diminishing (again!). This is what hegemonies do, and then some! I would attribute this to the desire for a global marketplace and the globalization of business. The Clinton/Blair/Schroeder/Annan New World Order is more responsible for this than American superiority (in my opinion).

quote:Prediction that the dems take control of the house in the 2002 election and gain a few more seats in the senate. The Republicans would be wise to run on a slogan of "Bush Country" and use the Red/Blue county map that USA Today created to show, county by county, how Americans voted in the last election. I believe that the reason the election was as close as it was is that Left-leaning groups are much more energized than right-leaning (conservative) groups are. Conservative, by definition, is a bit more reserved and inhibited, and therefore is an easy target for others. The Bush Country map would show just how many people really do agree with each other, and hopefully could be used as a rally flag to energize the Right. If that happens, then all bets are off. [ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]