by Bob Gorrell for the Creator's Syndidate...

by Steve Kelley for the Times Biscayne...

OK, if Lumiere was running for president, I would TOTALLY vote for him.

I would vote for Lumiere too! He's my favorite.

Leah and Erin,

You ARE voting for Lumiere...be my guest!

mk,
I don't get it...

MK, resistance is futile.

Join the ObamaNation. You'll feel better and "hopeful."

see this, even the Catholic Republicans are getting on board:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWE1ZGU0YWVkZmZmZGZiMGVkM2ZjNjE1NDM2MWZjYjY=

"To date, Senator Obama has kept the essence of his campaign at the level of the statesmen, which is why many Catholics, including myself, find this to be a favorable comparison to the memory of Ronald Wilson Reagan."

Anon,

Doug loves comparing people to cartoon characters, and other people...I think John McCain looks just like Paul Simon, and Obama looks like Lumiere. I also think that Obama puts on a great show and lures you to his "table" with fancy footwork & a lot of pretty words but no substance...

Obama gives me hives. Ugh. He is all smoooooooth talk.
I'll be voting for Lumiere, of course!! :)

Obama has pretty words AND substance. why doesn't that get through to anyone?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/obama-and-subst.html

mk,
Ahhhh, I get it now. Thank you.

Hal,

You're blinded by the fact that abortion is morally wrong, so it comes as no surprise that you are in support of Obama.

Obama is all talk, no substance. Anyone who jumped on his bandwagon is jumping on the bandwagon of words, not thoughts or action. You guys are so wrapped up in his "dream" that you refuse to see that there's nothing behind it. This country is not in a position today to gamble on a crapshoot of a dream. Way too much is at stake regarding this country's security and finances and many other things of greater importance than Obama's mere words.

The cartoon above by Bob Gorrell is perfect.

Anon, research. It isn't difficult to find his stances on isssues or his plans. Heck, he has it fairly laid out at the moment. He knows what he wants to do, and knows how he has to go about to get it done. He can't do it all on his own of course, he does need the help of congress, and he is aware of that, seeing as how he is a member.

in addition:

I would like to clarify my thoughts on Obama. I do think he is an extremely talented man. His speaking skills are exemplary. I also think that he is very intelligent. I think he could definately benefit this country in a position that utilizes his gifts that I mentioned above. However, I don't think that they are gifts that warrant a presidency. Many people are intelligent and many people can speak well in front of crowds. His experience is just not there, YET, to be president of the greatest country in the world. Remember, that's what you're asking of him...to LEAD the greatest country in the world. He may have sponsored bills, but he has not shown that he can LEAD. If he didn't vote "present" so many times, I would have to re-think his leadership skills. Leaders don't vote "present"...they vote.

If you'll notice, after all of Lumiere's presentation, Belle never did get to eat anything.

And she applauded anyway...

mk,
Scary...very scary.

Hal & Dan,
What are some good things that the Bush administration has done that Obama wants to build on? Not demolish by "change", but build on?

I'm voting for Belle.

hamsterforpresident.com/

Cute anarchy!

Do any of you really believe that McCain is pro-life?

To top it off, when he sings "Bomb Iran," proclaims that we'll have "more wars," maintains that we'll stay in Iraq for a hundred years or floats the idea of a draft, don't you quake in your boots?

In terms of troops and money, we can't afford the wars we have. who would vote for a hawk in times like these?

FF,
The bible says that wars will increase.

Do you honestly think that we won't have any more wars? Have you not been paying attention to what's been going on in Israel? Israel is a pre-cursor to what's in store for us.

When 9-11 happened, I seemed to remember almost every US citizen applauding the idea of going out & kicking some butt. Remember that?

mk,
Scary...very scary.

Hal & Dan,
What are some good things that the Bush administration has done that Obama wants to build on? Not demolish by "change", but build on?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 17, 2008 12:39 PM
....................

I'm neither Dan nor Hal, but would be interested in what Bush policies you feel are worthy of expanding upon and in what way.

Is there something wrong with McCain's cheek or jaw on his left side?

"The bible says that wars will increase."

well, that settles it I guess. If the Bible says it, it must be true. Maybe God is sending Obama to make sure?

Do you honestly think that we won't have any more wars? Have you not been paying attention to what's been going on in Israel? Israel is a pre-cursor to what's in store for us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Israel can crumble for all I care. Why we support that pointless catbox is a total mystery to me.
Why we didn't nuke the Saudis after 911 is also a mystery. We invaded the wrong country in order to prosecute a war we're gonna lose to the tune of TWO BILLION dollars a week. What did Iraq ever have to do with 911?

FF,
The bible says that wars will increase.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maybe, but the gnomes, vampires, and the Chupacabra says they won't.

Other things the Bible says:
In defense of Biblical marriage

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for
the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the
definition of marriage…." So here, in support of the Prayer Team's
admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment
codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between
one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut
22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or
deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one
shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your
town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with
him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men
young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of
course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

FF,
The bible says that wars will increase.

Do you honestly think that we won't have any more wars? Have you not been paying attention to what's been going on in Israel? Israel is a pre-cursor to what's in store for us.

When 9-11 happened, I seemed to remember almost every US citizen applauding the idea of going out & kicking some butt. Remember that?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 17, 2008 2:04 PM
................................................

Interesting that you use the Bible to defend acts of revenge.

I'm neither Dan nor Hal, but would be interested in what Bush policies you feel are worthy of expanding upon and in what way.

Take your pick. In the last 7 years, there had to be something that the dems can agree upon that was a good thing that should be built on. Or, are they so adamant that every policy that Bush enforced is a bad thing simply because it was Bush.

I'm able to put food on the table, pay for my home, I've held the same job for the last 6 years, I see businesses booming and homes being built left and right. Our country has not been attacked since 9-11. The whole idea Obama has about "change" frightens me. For the most part, I think most people are comfortable and happy. Why change it all and not change SOME and build on others? My question is what does either Obama or Hillary want to keep in force and build upon?

Don't you believe that progress comes from "building upon" and not from scrapping and rebuilding over & over again?

Actually, the hope message rings true because the republican lead "Values" based group that had office and control of congress has put in a situation where we thirst for anything but the status quo.

McCain has warned of more wars and that we could be in Iraq for 100 years. That sounds HOPEFUL for sure.

Turned out ol W. didn't have much substance did it? Just a hollow man with no respect for the constitution with the propensity to bomb people, put Americans to death and not stop 9.11.

McCain = Bush

I'm neither Dan nor Hal, but would be interested in what Bush policies you feel are worthy of expanding upon and in what way.

Take your pick. In the last 7 years, there had to be something that the dems can agree upon that was a good thing that should be built on. Or, are they so adamant that every policy that Bush enforced is a bad thing simply because it was Bush.

I'm able to put food on the table, pay for my home, I've held the same job for the last 6 years, I see businesses booming and homes being built left and right. Our country has not been attacked since 9-11. The whole idea Obama has about "change" frightens me. For the most part, I think most people are comfortable and happy. Why change it all and not change SOME and build on others? My question is what does either Obama or Hillary want to keep in force and build upon?

Don't you believe that progress comes from "building upon" and not from scrapping and rebuilding over & over again?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 17, 2008 2:44 PM
.......................................................................

My question is what Bush policies you would like to be built upon. Are you saying that Bush legislation has made it possible for you to have work and put food on your table or are you saying that Bush built upon former policy and has made it easier for you to do so?
Certainly you know that a new president doesn't have the power or ability to scrap previous legislation and start from scratch. We don't rewrite the Constitution every time there is a new president.

Sure, PeachPit, because YOU were privy to all of the intelligence that Bush received. You were right there with him getting the same information that he got. You understand the big picture, because you are privy to all of confidential documents that are given to the president. Yeah sure, you were right there and have a legitimate reason to criticize.

MK,

I would totally vote for Paul Simon. I"m thinking of naming my new rabbits simon and garfunkel. I'm going to make sure their appearances match too ;)

All,

In case you didn't see this in the previous post, a new music video is FINALLY up.

It's a parody of Knocked Up, set to the Velvet Underground. I'm sad some of the details are lost b/c the quality isn't there, but you know, you do what you can. The humor is not exactly clean so you are forewarned ;)
With all honesty I did help nix the extremely wrong jokes that we thought up. You can probably imagine what kind of stuff we thought up, we are college students after all.

Anyways enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nummLSSajQo

"I'm neither Dan nor Hal, but would be interested in what Bush policies you feel are worthy of expanding upon and in what way."

Well, we've been free from attack for more than 7 years now. I'll have some more of that, please.

"Is there something wrong with McCain's cheek or jaw on his left side?"

I think he had some kind of Hodgkin's disease, or lymphoma, or something like that. Not sure, though.

We don't rewrite the Constitution every time there is a new president.

Posted by: Sally at February 17, 2008 2:57 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, but 'Dumbya sure tried:

New Page 1
BEGALA:
There's equally no doubt this a man (Bush) who hates our Constitution. He wants seven, seven, new amendments to Mr. Madison's masterpiece, seven, one on gay marriage, one on school prayer, one on flag burning, one on abortion, one on a line-item veto, one on crime victims bill of rights. And just to show us he has a sense of humor, he wants a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget.

Maybe Jess is right... Just announced - 143 million pounds of beef recalled, largest recall in US history.

"I'm neither Dan nor Hal, but would be interested in what Bush policies you feel are worthy of expanding upon and in what way."

Well, we've been free from attack for more than 7 years now. I'll have some more of that, please.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 17, 2008 3:01 PM
.............................................................

I'm more likely to die of a domestic terrorist attack in a school, a mall, my own home than I am of a foreign attack. That was true before 9/11 and is still true now. I was in much more danger of terrorist attack when I was a military wife living in Europe.
It is interesting how closed many American's eyes were to violence even in their own country before 9/11.

The Obama cartoon paints a good picture of his lack of substance. What we do know of positions is enough to vote against him though.

Finally the last music video is up.

It's a remake of Michael and Janet Jackson's scream. I actually recommend you watch the original too because the titles and a lot of the jokes are derived straight from the original.

And this is a video strictly for 18 and up. I may change the settings to make it only viewable for 18 and older users if I get complaints. But yeah some offensive and graphic images, partial nudity and simulated drug effects in the midst of just silliness.

If you look really hard there is an abortion picture in there!

Anyway, here is the link to our video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkThkCEdsGk

The Obama cartoon paints a good picture of his lack of substance. What we do know of positions is enough to vote against him though.

Posted by: Shane Vander Hart at February 17, 2008 4:49 PM
........................

We? Got a mouse in your pocket?

What are some good things that the Bush administration has done that Obama wants to build on? Not demolish by "change", but build on?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 17, 2008 12:39 PM

Obama will continue Bush's legacy of increasing entitlement programs. I don't know how we will pay for it. I don't think anyone does. But I think he will spend money like water just like
Bush.

I'm more likely to die of a domestic terrorist attack in a school, a mall, my own home than I am of a foreign attack. That was true before 9/11 and is still true now. I was in much more danger of terrorist attack when I was a military wife living in Europe.
It is interesting how closed many American's eyes were to violence even in their own country before 9/11.

Posted by: Sally at February 17, 2008 3:19 PM

You got that right.

The homocide rate in some US cities rivals the per capita death toll in some war zones.

Well now,
Isn't this an interesting bit of info.

# the killing of a human being by another human being
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Homicide (Latin homicidium, homo human being + caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of killing another human being. It can also describe a person who has committed such an act, though this use is rare in modern English. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide

Murder is just a form of homocide.

So perhaps we should stop calling abortion murder, and call it homocide.

The killing of one human being, by another human being...hmmmmmm...

mk,

war is homicide.

killing in self defense is homicide.

Death penalty is homicide.

etc. It goes on and on.

you could make a case that its homicide, but one could also make a case as to whether or not it fits each piece of criteria to be considered alive in the first place. Cant kill something if it isn't alive. It's all, not subjective. What am I looking for....maybe murky best fits?

Anon,

I know Obama wants to add to the economic stimulus package. Only thing I know off the top of my head that he wants to continue of Bush's. There could be more, but honestly I'm kind of hoping not. Bush really has hurt more than help.

As for not being attacked, Obama is strong on that front. He's cosponsored bills in the senate to keep nukes out of terrorist hands, and isn't opposed to war as a whole (which could come into play later) but he DOES want to be sure the intelligence is reliable before taking action, and is sure that any conflict is justified. He is willing to strike known terrorist bases wherever they may be. I wouldnt exactly call that weak on terror, or in general.

Well now,
Isn't this an interesting bit of info.

# the killing of a human being by another human being
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Homicide (Latin homicidium, homo human being + caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of killing another human being. It can also describe a person who has committed such an act, though this use is rare in modern English. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide

Murder is just a form of homocide.

So perhaps we should stop calling abortion murder, and call it homocide.

The killing of one human being, by another human being...hmmmmmm...

Posted by: mk at February 17, 2008 7:40 PM
......................................

Why not simply call the procedure by it's name? Abortion. The termination of a pregnancy.

I have adored Charles Barkley ever since he declared that he wasn't a role model, and suggested that people were responsible for raising their own children, not him.
Apparently he cut loose on political matters on CNN, and I love him even more:
Charles Barkley Slams Conservatives: They're "Fake Christians" [VIDEO]

Posted by Adam Howard, AlterNet at 7:25 AM on February 16, 2008.

Barkley also reiterated a claim he has made before regarding his intention to run for governor of Alabama. Post Tools
Video RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

The former NBA star's comments came after he was asked about his reasons for supporting presidential candidate Barack Obama, instead of Hillary Clinton or any of the Republican candidates.

"I've got great respect for Sen. McCain, great respect, but I don't like the way Republicans have taken this country," said Barkley. "Every time I hear the word 'conservative,' it makes me sick to my stomach, because they're really just fake Christians, as I call them. That's all they are."

"I think they want to be judge and jury," Barkley said. "Like, I'm for gay marriage. It's none of my business if gay people want to get married. I'm pro-choice. And I think these Christians, first of all, they're not supposed to judge other people. But they're the most hypocritical judge of people we have in the country. And it bugs the hell out of me. They act like they're Christians. They're not forgiving at all."

Check out the video to your right for more.

Tagged as: abortion, gay marriage, religion, conservatives, blitzer, barkley

mk,

war is homicide.

killing in self defense is homicide.

Death penalty is homicide.

etc. It goes on and on.

you could make a case that its homicide, but one could also make a case as to whether or not it fits each piece of criteria to be considered alive in the first place. Cant kill something if it isn't alive. It's all, not subjective. What am I looking for....maybe murky best fits?

Posted by: Dan at February 17, 2008 7:51 PM

A human being is alive, therefore we must assume that the teeny-tiny, smallest bit of it in the beginning is also alive. You can't start something from nothing (unless you're God). Hey, I think I just proved the existence of God.

janet, that is a bad assumption for multiple reasons. One being that it may not fit the criteria considered for life, I THINK there are 5 in Biology if I remember correctly, havent taken Bio for 3 years though. Anyway. The tiniest bit of it is alive is untrue. Skin cells, typically, are the smallest bit of a human being, and many of them on the surface are actually dead. However, it was at one point alive as I'm sure you'd point out. However, looking to the beginning, there is a point at which the cell isnt alive (before it becomes an independent body after it splits from the previous cell, once again, if I remember the life cycle of cells correctly). Also, look at still borns. Many never were alive, some died in the womb. That supports the argument that in the beginning it isnt alive instantaneously.

Second, it isnt something from nothing. It gains life during the process, but it isnt immediately alive.

FF,
Well there you have it. I betcha all the Christians 'round the world after reading a statement from an NBA star are just going to stop believing what God said, and start following the wisdom of Charles Barkley. the same man that wrote the book "I May Be Wrong But I Doubt It.

Please.

Christians do forgive sinful behavior or lifestyles. They admit they are sinners themselves and have ALL fallen short of the Glory of God.

They just don't condone sinful behavior or lifestyles. Don't we have the right as Americans to our say on moral issues just as you do? Must we accept EVERYTHING thrown our way?

It's reality, FF. If I thought that there was nothing wrong with drowning baby kittens in a cloth sack for a living, wouldn't you have a say about it? It's none of your business what I do for a living, and the dead kittens don't affect your life at all. Why the uproar, then? Because you think that a lifestyle of a kitten killer is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

P.S.

If anyone is interested, I'm still looking for an add-on blogger. Preferably someone leaning more conservative, just to generate more discussion ;). It isnt exactly read often or anything, so youd only need to post maybe once, twice a week.

Why the uproar, then? Because you think that a lifestyle of a kitten killer is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 17, 2008 9:18 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You believe that gay marriage and abortion are the equivalent of drowning a sack of kittens?

There's more wrong with you than anyone can fix.

You are so hell-bent on making your sarcastic comments that you don't even bother to actually READ the words and TRY to understand the underlying points.

Sad, but I forgive you.

"Second, it isnt something from nothing. It gains life during the process, but it isnt immediately alive."

@Dan: It's alive the entire time. Biologically a sperm and egg are alive as they perform metabolic processes. A zygote/blastocyst is also alive as it also performs metabolic processes. After all, amoebas and bacteria are considered "living" and they lack consciousness. :)

Life is a continuum, it never really "begins", there is no set point in which "life begins". To say otherwise is silly.

Here's some interesting reading for all of you "Obama" fans.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/obama-echoes-de.html

It echoes the sentiments of the cartoon.

Anon,

I have absolutely no issue with that. I mean, come on. Yes, words do have the ability to inspire, but most originate from somewhere. In all honesty, I have recognized things Obama has said as very similar to Deval Patrick, whom I also supported during his gubernatorial run here. It makes sense, first of all, considering the similarities that were pointed out in the article, not to mention the friendship between the two.

On top of that, everyone words things based upon their own inspirations, role models, etc. Not to mention, the article seems to mention they echo each other, they go back and forth. i've got no issue with that at all. If they were twisted, etc, I would be angry. However, it fits, and Obama had the previous platform from his own political runs before this which Patrick built off of, which then Obama built off of. Wasnt someone saying earlier that building off of previous work is how one gets progress?

Ari, I was referring to the overall life of the fetus with that second portion. Individual cells, etc are alive, however the fetus itself is not.

George W. Bush is a killer. Obama is not. There you go....

Oh my goodness, call the FBI! President Bush has killed someone?

"Ari, I was referring to the overall life of the fetus with that second portion. Individual cells, etc are alive, however the fetus itself is not."

@Dan: What do you mean "overall life"? Are you defining life by the more philosophical term, by including "personhood" and "consciousness" as being a synonym for "life"?

Because if you think about it, we are nothing more than a clump of cells ourselves, the only reason we're alive is because our cells are alive. No cells...no life. That's that. Biologically you are no more alive than an egg, sperm, blastocyst or fetus. As far as I'm concerned, biological life is the only thing that matters, philosophical life is too subjective.

And for something completely off-topic: I love the term "fetal spleen". It combines my two favorite words, "fetus" and "spleen". Thank you Immunology...

Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

MK, you wrote: "So perhaps we should stop calling abortion murder, and call it homocide(sic)"

I call it justifiable homicide.

"George W. Bush is a killer. Obama is not. There you go...."

By this standard, so was George Washington, Abraham Lincoln (Happy President's day, by the way), TR, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson (especially JFK and Johnson, having prosecuted an "unnecessary war") and so on....

Anyone who is running for president needs to be ready to make tough decisions concerning whether to go to war. Sometimes history will vindicate those decisions; sometimes not. However, when making those decisions, the president does not have the benefit of hindsight. Presidents, for many different reasons, need to be ready and willing to go to war. This does not make them "killers".

S.

Actually Anonymous...he is a killer....first and foremost of Americans. And I would agree with you, those above were also killers, just a little more justified according to most.

Our administration is made up of a bunch of chickenhawks...plain and simple.

We have a better chance of losing American lives if McCain wins.

I call it justifiable homicide.

Posted by: SoMG at February 18, 2008 10:47 AM

So did the jerks that massacred those kids at Colombine.

"Actually Anonymous...he is a killer....first and foremost of Americans. And I would agree with you, those above were also killers, just a little more justified according to most.

Our administration is made up of a bunch of chickenhawks...plain and simple.

We have a better chance of losing American lives if McCain wins."

Gotcha, Peach Pit - at least you are being consistent! I guess we'll have to cordially agree to disagree then - I do believe war is sometimes necessary and a President must have the coglioni (or the female counterpart of those, if you prefer :) to make the unpopular decision to wage it. It seems that you believe that all or most wars are unjustified.

I believe that McCain has the knowledge and experience to wage this war properly. Obama will just run from it, and it will come back to haunt us in a few years.

McCain = More Americans Dying

WoooHoooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

"McCain = More Americans Dying

WoooHoooo!!!!!!!!!!!!"

OK, where is any proof of that? Cite some proof. I actually prefaced my comment with "I believe" so no proof is needed or possible. Furthermore, even if several thousand more troops die in the war, that will still likely be less than the number of Americans who would die in a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack or attacks on this country that could very well happen in the event that we prosecute the war on terror as the democratic candidates have proposed.

John McCain is a dotty old man. If we elect him, he'll die in office.

Oh Anonymous....you naive puppet that has been brainwashed by our administration. You must feel so lucky to be picked by the GOP to be used as a pawn for their rhetoric. Still bringing up nuclear, chemical huh? That's a page out of the old Rumsfeld Condeleeza playbook, good job. You played that just how they wanted you to.

McCain will kill more Americans by promising more wars and more time in Iraq. Yes, that is American's dying. No one feels the impact of this war because NO ONE has had to sacrifice for it but the soldiers. Let me guess, you have a ribbon sticker on the car?

How does it feel to be played like a puppet?

"Oh Anonymous....you naive puppet that has been brainwashed by our administration. You must feel so lucky to be picked by the GOP to be used as a pawn for their rhetoric. Still bringing up nuclear, chemical huh? That's a page out of the old Rumsfeld Condeleeza playbook, good job. You played that just how they wanted you to."

Let's just say I tried to debate this in a civil fashion with you, but your response, not so much. No, I'm not a puppet. I've actually voted both democrat and republican in the past, and I've never been a registered member of either party. (Also, I used to be pro-choice; now I'm pro-life, so I'm no stranger to re-evaluating and changing my ideas mid-course, if, upon difficult analysis, they do not hold up). I do, however, believe that the threat of terrorism is real and unrelenting, and if we don't take steps to deal with it now in its infant stages, it will, in the future, grow into a monster that we will be unable to deal with without great loss and bloodshed. I'm not the only independently thinking person around who believes this, ya know. Also, the failure to find WMD in Iraq is not dispositive of the matter for the future. Terrorists have tried in the past, and continue to try, to get their hands on nuclear and other materials. Without vigilence, it can and will happen.

"McCain will kill more Americans by promising more wars and more time in Iraq. Yes, that is American's dying."

Again, where's the proof? There is none; this is your belief. There is no more proof to it than there is to my belief. A person could have said the same about Reagan in 1980 based on his hawkish rhetoric. However, just the opposite happened. Reagan did not start or increase any wars, and in fact, his policies led to the demise of the Soviet Union, which in the long run may have saved lives.

"No one feels the impact of this war because NO ONE has had to sacrifice for it but the soldiers. Let me guess, you have a ribbon sticker on the car?"

Nope, no sticker here. The only people who need ribbon stickers on their cars are those who support Obama or Hillary. They need to show that they "support the troops" because their every action and belief screams otherwise. They doth protest too much. I don't need a sticker on my car, because it's obvious that I support the troops and their mission. No stickers for me. I've never worn or used any of them. I'm not like those guys on Seinfeld with the armoire.

All of that being said (and flippantly - I might add), if this war has affected you personally, and if you've suffered and sacrificed due to it, I am sorry for your suffering and thankful for your sacrifice.

Finally, in response to someone else's post about McCain dying in office: his as-yet-unnamed vp will be better as president that either hillary or lumiere!

More wars...let's do this.

So perhaps we should stop calling abortion murder, and call it homocide.

MK, you're on the right track there.....

Hey, I think I just proved the existence of God.

Janet, at the most, I think you only proved the existence of Burger King.

Doug,

If that were true, we'd have no McDonald's.

Nay, worthy Janet. Burger King in no way means no Mack the Knife.