This has been an interesting and educational thread; I do enjoy debating a controversial issue, be it theology or politics ("forbidden topics" in polite society, I am told) with those of alternative perspective who demonstrate some intelligence, experience, and can articulate their position well - as you all do, in my humble opinion. It is a challange, good intellectual excersize, and an opportunity to learn, if someone can credably and convincingly present their issue with documented and verifiable data, facts, and evidence. I may be a hard - headed old Yankee, but I try to stay reasonably flexable, open minded, and ameinable to growth.

Thanks for the feedback on my run-on text; since this format requires HTML codes for paragraph breaks and sometimes my mind outruns my formatting, I get lazy. I'll try and do better.

One of you wondered if I "really beleived" all the stuff I present here; very perceptive, indeed! Actually, I do... for the most part. Let me qualify that by adding that on accasion I will throw out a red herring which I know is mostly speculation or unverified "buzz", but which I also know has high inflamation potential, just to see who takes a shot at it, and how good their aim is. Another reason I do this is to stir up controversy, draw some fire, and stimulate some thoughtful alternative viewpoint, which I usually find at least interesting. Although this usually also sends up a cloud or two of hatred and discontent, this is usually not the primary objective - it serves as a form of topical "bait". I am capable, on occasion, of advocating a position which I may have little or no personal adhesion to, or even oppose just to rile someone up and get them thinking. Considering the way I am, and have been most of my life, it is nothing short of a miracle that I have lived to be as old as I am.

It's getting late and I have not the mental energy or have done prerequisite research to refute opposing allegations or defend my own previously stated and subsequently challenged contentions, but hope to before long. What I would like to leave here for those who wish to consider is:
Proposed:

Individual or collective human behavior tends to develop and follow certain patterns within the context of a given environment, group, or society. One of the more reliable ways to evaluate or predict the most likely forms of future behavior is to project on the basis of previous behavior patterns. The more accurately these patterns are observed over a period of time, the more reliable said projections are apt to be.
It's called HISTORY, Dearly Beloved... and you know how it has a nasty habit of coming back around to haunt us if we don't observe, project, and prepare.
What is the history of the Clinton/Gore "administration" ( I rather prefer the term "Syndicate")? What have they "fixed" vs. what they have complained about? What of cultural, moral, or tactical value have they diminished / compromised / destroyed? What happens to a lot of people close to them? Who do they associate with? Are their stated values and objectives consistant with their behavior? Can they be relied upon to tell the Truth? Obey the Law? Respect the sanctity of Life? The Constitution? The Institutions of a free society?
Perhaps tomorrow the sore loser will admit it and the "winner", if you can call him that, can get on with facilitating such healing as may be humanly possible. We can hope.

Selah.