Recent Comments

1. over 15 years ago on Non Sequitur

   P.S: Love Non-Sequitur, will not stop reading it, even if I disagree with a particular installment. :)

   Michael.

2. over 15 years ago on Non Sequitur

   re: “Simply put, the truth hurts. Of course they know that they put President Deciderer into office and not once but twice because he was “funner””

   The qualifier is the problem, it insults the electorate based on the supposition that people did it because Bush was “Funner”, or as the comic puts it, the kind of guy you’d like to have a beer with.

   That is not just a needless insult it’s also FALSE.

   People re-elected Bush largely because they didn’t trust the Democrats to do anything but pull America out of the war against terrorism.

   In other words, it was FEAR that re-elected Bush, fear of the terrorists, fear of further attacks on America, fear of head-in-the-sand wishful-thinking/denial of the dangers, fear of non-action or insufficient action, not beer-buddy’ism.

   It’s also more than fear, half the country don’t trust the Democrats specifically when it comes to running a war, right or wrong, the impression is that they’ll find a way to justify turning tail and running, and if you listen to HALF of what Obama says, he fulfills this stereotype, because that’s precisely what he’s saying he wants to do in Iraq.

   BUT if we listen to ALL of what Obama says, it’s another story. He ALSO agrees that the war on terrorism is necessary.

   Maybe if both sides tried to UNDERSTAND eachother and recognize each party has strengths and weaknesses that we need at different moments in history, instead of attacking eachother with mindless superficial insults meant to demean eachother, we’d be better off?

   I’d vote for Obama, but I’m not holding my breath that he’ll do anything much different than any other politician (ie. cowtow to corporate interests) he shows signs of that already. Both Obama and McCain were on the SAME page (“bailout the corporations/Banks”)

   The same corporations that gave donations/money to Obama and McCain and Bush and Clinton, et cetera, are the same corporations that are getting bailed out.

   for example. Not a good sign.

   But there is at least SOME hope that Obama might do something new, once he is President. so I’m willing to roll the dice, THIS time.

   In the middle of the early stages of a war though? no way, most people stayed with Bush because it was not the right time to change leaders or course.

   Now, I think it is the right time for a change in course and therefore leadership.

   We’re at a crossroads in the war now, the Iraq stage seems to be winding down, and it’s moving to Afghanistan and the border-regions in Pakistan.

   Again, BOTH Obama and McCain are on the SAME page here concerning a new shift in focus on the war on terrorism.

   Even Obama believes it’s necessary.

   Though they argue semantics in public, BOTH sides are indicating an agreement that Bin Laden and the Taliban must be dealt with.

   The difference is subtle but imo necessary.

   Bush’s initial response to 9/11 was to hit back and hit back HARD, and for good or bad, the bottom line is that it has kept America SAFE, but as a byproduct it has resulted in some of our allies feeling alienated, now we could try a bit of diplomacy too, and that’s clearly Obama’s forte.

   I think the right man or woman comes along at the right time in history, though of course half the country won’t agree at the time, because the electorate is split virtually 50/50 Rep/Dem.

   That’s my view anyway.

   Michael.

3. over 15 years ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Good catch Mr. Bill.

   of course it ought ‘ave been obvious that Hobbes would be a fellow leftie.

   pause

   he’s a South Paw!

   [Pathud]

   mXm