The Next President of the USA will be?

[bigstickbonzo]

McCain's VP choice is really insignificant. If he chooses a middle of the road Democrat like a Lieberman, (Rush) and the wack jobs' heads will explode. If he chooses a Republican like a Romney, he loses most of his grip on the independents. He's in a tough spot trying to angle this thing and I think he realizes that trying to outdo an addition such as Biden to Obama is almost impossible. But we shall see. Plenty of jokers left in his deck.

[Pb Derigable]

McCain's VP choice is really insignificant. If he chooses a middle of the road Democrat like a Lieberman, (Rush) and the wack jobs' heads will explode. If he chooses a Republican like a Romney, he loses most of his grip on the independents. He's in a tough spot trying to angle this thing and I think he realizes that trying to outdo an addition such as Biden to Obama is almost impossible. But we shall see. Plenty of jokers left in his deck.

He can definitely outdo Obama. He can pick Condi Rice, Sarah the Gov. of Alaska. He could pick Rudy former mayor of New York. He could pick Bobby Jindahl. The point is if he picks anyone except a white man, he outdoes obama. but he won't. Exception would be Mayor Rudy.

Yes, we the G.O.P. would hate lieberman, but we still not going to let Obama win.

His best choice would be a governor with an good economic background.

The race is tied right now and after each convention, it should be close to tied. All mccain has to do is to pick one that won't fuck up. Biden will cost Obama a 24hr news cycle and all McCain has to do his VP won't. But good guys like Pawlenty will not be the VP since Biden would eat him up, not on the issues, but in the debate. But maybe Timmy has it in him.

As i said before, Biden is the Dick Cheney to Obama. Thats all good and such, but thats not what Obama stood for, a big time VP selection would be Hilrod.

[I have got a horsey]

While I respect your dedication to your beliefs I'm rather disappointed in you that you can't seperate religion from government and that the abortion issue is a deal breaker for you. Why bother to even find out ANTHING about the candidates then? If you were the press, you'd have one question only for the candidates...yeah, that makes sense.

Of course you have to vote with your heart but let the rest of us who believe in seperation of religion and government vote with our brains.

Which reminds me of another scene out of that Morgan Spurlock documentary. He was talking to a lecturer in Saudia Arabia, and the lecturer said "The biggest problem in Saudia Arabia is the interference of Relgion in Politics. Religion and Politics must be completely seperate, a Religious cleric or leader is not qualified to hold a position in government or politics, because there is no point in that person where the religion ends and the politics begin. There must be a clear dividing line between the two"

As soon as he said that, I thought of the USA and its preference for Presidents to be religiously influenced

[Medhb]

Which reminds me of another scene out of that Morgan Spurlock documentary. He was talking to a lecturer in Saudia Arabia, and the lecturer said "The biggest problem in Saudia Arabia is the interference of Relgion in Politics. Religion and Politics must be completely seperate, a Religious cleric or leader is not qualified to hold a position in government or politics, because there is no point in that person where the religion ends and the politics begin. There must be a clear dividing line between the two"

As soon as he said that, I thought of the USA and its preference for Presidents to be religiously influenced

I know! That soooo pissed me off when the candidates both had to discuss their 'religion'. I think that it should not even be on the table. That was the one thing I liked about Kerry....I liked his attitude toward religion....not that it should EVEN be discussed!!

[I have got a horsey]

I know! That soooo pissed me off when the candidates both had to discuss their 'religion'. I think that it should not even be on the table. That was the one thing I liked about Kerry....I liked his attitude toward religion....not that it should EVEN be discussed!!

This is one of the great enigmas of the USA, I feel. The country that leads the world in porn and gansta rap, has produced so many brilliant thinkers and theories, advancing the way we live as human beings, also has this very old-fashioned tie-in between church and state. In Australia, and Britain, political candidates rarely talk about religion, and if it is felt that a candidate is courting religious groups for votes, they're in for a spanking from the Press. But it seems almost expected in the USA, as a candidate you're expected to believe in God, you're expected to be a high-profile member of your church with a pastor in tow, you hear things like "oh it's rare for a catholic to be elected President", there's still such a dominance of religion in the USA. It's just so odd, a country that is the most liberal and the most conservative all at the one time.

[Uncle Bill]

As i said before, Biden is the Dick Cheney to Obama. Thats all good and such, but thats not what Obama stood for, a big time VP selection would be Hilrod.

Agreed. Old school democrats like Biden are a dime a dozen around Washington. Schumer, Levin, Durbin, Lautenberg, Bingham, Kerry, Leahy, Dodd, Harkin etc the list goes on and on, all are 95% plus party line voters, where's the change? He should have picked someone outside the box if he really intends to change anything, not a same ol same ol guy like Biden(96.6% party line). Geez even Kennedy (93.9%)is more independent than these guys. Oh wait, nobama's a 96% party guy too in his admittedly short career. source

btw, will someone who supports the biden pick please reply to my "what do you think of his pro Iraq war history?" post earlier. It probably got lost in all the activity yesterday, I'd really like to hear what you think. Thanks

[Uncle Bill]

I think some of you are mistaking freedom of religion with freedom from religion. The founding fathers were clearly religious and it was a big part of their thinking. Most of the people in this country are some kind of religious and probably do care about that aspect of a candidates life. I don't personally but that's their business.

btw, I'm an agnostic atheist.

[Medhb]

Roe v. Wade is the worst decision ever.

To give women the right to do whatever based on whatever reason is absolutely sick to me. A better decision has to come down soon. I will allow it in some cases but not as means of a birth control measure.

Under 18 have to get parental approval.

You can't cross state lines to do it.

Married women must get approval of the husband and/or father.

Ill go 1 month since conception for women to do whatever they want after that the fetus can only be aborted for the safety of the mother and if the fetus were to be severely handicapped in his life.

Women have as much right as men do.

All abortions is murder, but like war, it's the cost we must pay to live.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the funniest posts I've read on this thread!

"I will allow it in some cases..." Huh? Did I miss something? When were you granted the authority to allow anything?

Also, I find your new avatar to be totally ridiculous....only the very ignorant and uninformed believe that Obama is Muslim in any way, shape, or form and I'm surprised someone as obviously intelligent as you would stoop to such silliness. You know, there actually ARE people that are impressionable enough to buy into that! Thankfully I don't think anyone on this thread but.....

I dunno, maybe I just don't get your sense of humor....I apologize if that's the case

[Medhb]

Yeah thats a hell of an issue for the commander in chief.

It's wierd B. Hussien Obama can spend 20 years in a church and can't come up with an answer to a moral question, but he can spend two weeks in the senate and can give an answer on how to protect this country.

Guess what?! There are many countries in this world that don't require protection. Why do you think that is?

[I have got a horsey]

I think some of you are mistaking freedom of religion with freedom from religion. The founding fathers were clearly religious and it was a big part of their thinking.

I think a lot of Americans need to let go from the 'founding fathers' stuff, that was a looong time ago, you can't keep making decisions based on the founding fathers' intentions, that was over 200 years ago, it's not their country anymore

And there's no mistake about the religion. Religion can have all the freedom it wants, but if you're running for office in a secular country, religious involvement in politics is of little benefit.

[Electrophile]

I think it's funny that Pb says he'll only "allow" abortion (as though he's allowed to make that determination) if the woman is 1 month pregnant or less. Most women don't find out they're pregnant until they're past the one month mark. So you're basically saying, unless you can find out in a very narrow time frame, you're fucked. What if the woman is raped? Would you force that woman to remain pregnant? What if she's on birth control, or some form of birth control is used and it fails? Would you force that woman to remain pregnant? What if she's 14 and gets knocked up by her 18 year old boyfriend? Would you force that girl to remain pregnant?

I agree that it shouldn't be used as a birth control device and I do think too many women abuse the right to get one, by having them multiple times. But for the vast majority of women, that is not their lives. They don't get pregnant repeatedly just to have repeated abortions. Why should those women be punished by those who abuse the privilege? You're punishing the whole for the actions of the part. Then again, that's not an unfamiliar thing for some of you here.

[Dzldoc]

Unless I'm personally involved I steer clear of the issue being that i'm a man.

I'm for preventing it from being an issue in the first place.

What does piss me off to no end are people that will stand around women's health clinics and harass anyone that tries to enter, not everyone that goes there are looking to get an abortion.

How many of these folks are lined up at adoption agencies on a day to day basis?

[Electrophile]

Moving off the topic of abortion, I wonder when John McCain will get raked over the coals for flogging his military service as much as he does. John Kerry got the shit kicked out of him for constantly mentioning he was in Vietnam. I mean constantly. It seemed at times, it was all he could talk about. And now McCain is going down the same road. How many times must he mention he was a POW? My uncle, who served in Vietnam (not with McCain), thinks it's disrespectful to keep beating people over the head with it. He's voting for him, but he still thinks he needs to cool it, and I've been reading rumblings in the press to the same effect.

I'm curious what some of you have to say about this.

[~tangerine~]

Roe v. Wade is the worst decision ever.

To give women the right to do whatever based on whatever reason is absolutely sick to me. A better decision has to come down soon. I will allow it in some cases but not as means of a birth control measure.

Under 18 have to get parental approval.

You can't cross state lines to do it.

Married women must get approval of the husband and/or father.

Ill go 1 month since conception for women to do whatever they want after that the fetus can only be aborted for the safety of the mother and if the fetus were to be severely handicapped in his life.

Women have as much right as men do.

All abortions is murder, but like war, it's the cost we must pay to live.

When men are the ones getting pregnant, i think that is when they should have a say in what happens (to their body). I particularly enjoyed the one where a married woman needs not only her husbands approval, but her father's. lol.

[Electrophile]

I think he meant the father of the child, if it is not her husband. Although your interpretation might very well be correct too. Hell, he might think women still need their father's/husband's signature to open a checking account.

[Dzldoc]

If they are stay at home moms they still do at least that's what my bank stated.

You have to be employed to open an account. I think it has something to do with the patriot act.

[~tangerine~]

I think he meant the father of the child, if it is not her husband. Although your interpretation might very well be correct too. Hell, he might think women still need their father's/husband's signature to open a checking account.

lol, oh i see what you mean Well that makes more sense then what i was thinking he meant. The whole idea period just gets me laughing. If a married woman wants an abortion, i would wonder what kind of husband she has in the first place.

[59LesPaul]

Moving off the topic of abortion, I wonder when John McCain will get raked over the coals for flogging his military service as much as he does. My uncle, who served in Vietnam (not with McCain), thinks it's disrespectful to keep beating people over the head with it.

I'm curious what some of you have to say about this.

If my uncle had lived through Vietnam,I think he would have agreed.I know my mom(his sister) does.In one way,it almost cheapens and demeans the whole thing.

Hell, he might think women still need their father's/husband's signature to open a checking account.

They don't!?

If they are stay at home moms they still do at least that's what my bank stated.

You have to be employed to open an account. I think it has something to do with the patriot act.

The one that seems to be doing more harm than good?

[Uncle Bill]

Personally I don't see what his POW experience has to do with being president, experience in command of troops, yes.

The thing about Kerry wasn't his service it was his lying about it that got him in trouble. This one is cut and dried, unlike the controversy about his medals and wounds etc. The president he refers to is Nixon and he wasn't even President yet. And no one has been able to find where Nixon or Johnson ever said anything of the sort.

First he says that it was seared into his memory, then they say his memory is faulty, which is it? Once a flip flopper always a flip flopper I guess.

Kerry's Cambodia Whopper

By Joshua Muravchik

Tuesday, August 24, 2004; Page A17

Most of the debate between the former shipmates who swear by John Kerry and the group of other Swift boat veterans who are attacking his military record focuses on matters that few of us have the experience or the moral standing to judge. But one issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry's qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry's apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia.

It is an assertion he made first, insofar as the written record reveals, in 1979 in a letter to the Boston Herald. Since then he has repeated it on at least eight occasions during Senate debate or in news interviews, most recently to The Post this year (an interview posted on Kerry's Web site). The most dramatic iteration came on the floor of the Senate in 1986, when he made it the centerpiece of a carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.

Kerry argued that contra aid could put the United States on the path to deeper involvement despite denials by the Reagan administration of any such intent. Kerry began by reading out similar denials regarding Vietnam from presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Then he offered this devastating riposte:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."

However seared he was, Kerry's spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry's shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry's spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere "between" Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been "near Cambodia." But the point of Kerry's 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was "in Cambodia," as he had often said he was. If he was merely "near," then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech.

Next, the campaign leaked a new version through the medium of historian Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty," a laudatory book on Kerry's military service. Last week Brinkley told the London Telegraph that while Kerry had been 50 miles from the border on Christmas, he "went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions." Oddly, though, while Brinkley devotes nearly 100 pages of his book to Kerry's activities that January and February, pinpointing the locations of various battles and often placing Kerry near Cambodia, he nowhere mentions Kerry's crossing into Cambodia, an inconceivable omission if it were true.

Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry "on one occasion crossed into Cambodia," on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry's campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry's own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley's book says: "The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side." His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry's final mission.

After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks." Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs, but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud. And his own over-the-top generalization that such "crimes [were] committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" could be charged up to youthfulness and the fevers of the times.

But Kerry has repeated his Cambodia tale throughout his adult life. He has claimed that the epiphany he had that Christmas of 1968 was about truthfulness. "One of the things that most struck me about Vietnam was how people were lied to," he explained in a subsequent interview. If -- as seems almost surely the case -- Kerry himself has lied about what he did in Vietnam, and has done so not merely to spice his biography but to influence national policy, then he is surely not the kind of man we want as our president.

The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

[~tangerine~]

"OLD" mouthy, in your face, run back and hide Joe Biden. The funny thing is that he likes McCain more then he does Obama. With his past history of sticking his foot in his mouth this will be so fun. LOL

Joe and John share a long time friendship. Saying he likes John more than Obama is irrelevant.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics...n_good_sel.html

John McCain: Joe Biden 'good selection'

Posted August 23, 2008 8:00 PM

by Mark Silva

DENVER -- Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican candidate for president, had this to say today about Sen. Joe Biden, his longtime Democratic Senate colleague from Delaware and now running mate for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois:

"I think he's a good selection,'' McCain told Katie Couric, of CBS News. "Joe and I have been friends for many, many years, and we know each other very well, and so I think he's made a very wise selection. ''

Never mind the TV ads that McCain's campaign already is launching underscoring what Biden has said about his own team-mate's inability to lead -- words from a party primary past. McCain apparently will let his campaign, and perhaps his running mate, take care of Biden. For his part, McCain is playing the good Senate sport here:

"I know that Joe will campagn well for Sen. Obama, and so I think he's going to be very formidable,'' McCain added. "Obviously, Joe and I have been on different philosophical sides, but we have been - I consider him a good friend and good man."

Will this make it more difficult to criticize Obama, the Democratic Party's candidate for president, McCain was asked: "Do you think it wil be more difficult now, Sen. McCain, to criticize Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials, when someone like Joe Biden is on the ticket, a very experienced and respected voice on Capitol Hill in these matters?" Couric asked.

"Well, I've always respected Joe Biden, but I disagreed with him from the time he voted against the first Gulf War to his position where he said you had to break Iraq up into three different countries,'' McCain said. "I never agreed with that.

"But I appreciate very much his dedication to trying to solve this genocide that's going on in Darfur and other things that Joe Biden has done,'' McCain added. "But we really have different approaches to many national security issues. I look forward to whoever my running mate will be having a respectful debate with him on that as well."

[~tangerine~]

sorry, double post.

[Electrophile]

Do you have some problem with people who treat their pets as though they were human members of the family? I don't see why you would or why you should. Nothing in Medbh's post deserved any kind of mocking or derision.

[Medhb]

lol, oh i see what you mean Well that makes more sense then what i was thinking he meant. The whole idea period just gets me laughing. If a married woman wants an abortion, i would wonder what kind of husband she has in the first place.

Curiously, more and more couples are deciding together that they don't want to either bring children into the world or parent a child. For whatever reasons....between my husbands family and mine....6 kids...only one of them has children, my brother! My husband and I don't have children, both of my husbands sisters don't have children, and my sister doens't have children....and it's not like any of us couldn't provide for children. We are upper middle class and have our reasons for not having children.

I am not ashamed to admit I had an abortion when I was 19 or 20, I don't even remember. I married the man who fathered our child and we were together for 13 years. We did divorce but still remain very, very close friends. It just was not our time to bring a child into the world. We were not yet married and I was NOT going to marry 'because' I was pregnant. I don't regret it to this day. Though I will admit, it was an odd feeling the first time I held one of his children with his second wife....LOL! And it must have been a bit of an odd feeling for her also to see me, the ex-wife, holding THEIR child, Ahhahhahaha!!

If I ever, at this stage in my life, felt a maternal urge...I will adopt some poor child whose mother was unable to get an abortion for whatever reason.

[Medhb]

Personally I don't see what his POW experience has to do with being president, experience in command of troops, yes.

The thing about Kerry wasn't his service it was his lying about it that got him in trouble. This one is cut and dried, unlike the controversy about his medals and wounds etc. The president he refers to is Nixon and he wasn't even President yet. And no one has been able to find where Nixon or Johnson ever said anything of the sort.

First he says that it was seared into his memory, then they say his memory is faulty, which is it? Once a flip flopper always a flip flopper I guess.

Kerry's Cambodia Whopper

By Joshua Muravchik

Tuesday, August 24, 2004; Page A17

Most of the debate between the former shipmates who swear by John Kerry and the group of other Swift boat veterans who are attacking his military record focuses on matters that few of us have the experience or the moral standing to judge. But one issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry's qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry's apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia.

It is an assertion he made first, insofar as the written record reveals, in 1979 in a letter to the Boston Herald. Since then he has repeated it on at least eight occasions during Senate debate or in news interviews, most recently to The Post this year (an interview posted on Kerry's Web site). The most dramatic iteration came on the floor of the Senate in 1986, when he made it the centerpiece of a carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.

Kerry argued that contra aid could put the United States on the path to deeper involvement despite denials by the Reagan administration of any such intent. Kerry began by reading out similar denials regarding Vietnam from presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Then he offered this devastating riposte:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."

However seared he was, Kerry's spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry's shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry's spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere "between" Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been "near Cambodia." But the point of Kerry's 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was "in Cambodia," as he had often said he was. If he was merely "near," then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech.

Next, the campaign leaked a new version through the medium of historian Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty," a laudatory book on Kerry's military service. Last week Brinkley told the London Telegraph that while Kerry had been 50 miles from the border on Christmas, he "went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions." Oddly, though, while Brinkley devotes nearly 100 pages of his book to Kerry's activities that January and February, pinpointing the locations of various battles and often placing Kerry near Cambodia, he nowhere mentions Kerry's crossing into Cambodia, an inconceivable omission if it were true.

Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry "on one occasion crossed into Cambodia," on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry's campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry's own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley's book says: "The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side." His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry's final mission.

After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks." Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs, but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud. And his own over-the-top generalization that such "crimes [were] committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" could be charged up to youthfulness and the fevers of the times.

But Kerry has repeated his Cambodia tale throughout his adult life. He has claimed that the epiphany he had that Christmas of 1968 was about truthfulness. "One of the things that most struck me about Vietnam was how people were lied to," he explained in a subsequent interview. If -- as seems almost surely the case -- Kerry himself has lied about what he did in Vietnam, and has done so not merely to spice his biography but to influence national policy, then he is surely not the kind of man we want as our president.

The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

I will agree with that because, let's face it, it's not like McCain volunteered to be a POW. I have the UTMOST respect for what he went through but what choice did he have? About the same choice as an unmarried mother, who didn't get an abortion because people were throwing shit at her when she tried to enter the clinic, raising her child alone has.

As much as I admire the courage and service it doesn't make him more qualified to run the country...

[Medhb]

I just about could not finnish reading this account about your caring, thoughtfulness, and agonizing over your "dog". (give me a break) And, your having more empathy for animals then humans does not surprise me at all. LOL

You claim that Del thinks with his heart more then his brain in regards to abortion. Maybe you should try to look towards aborted babies with more heart then the heart you show your "Animals".

srplane....no probs, and I'm not being combative but....guess what? If you had been aborted I don't think you'd give a shit...you woulnd't have even known...and guess what else? The world wouldn't have suffered for it either...sorry if that sounds cruel but it's the truth.

As you'll see in a later post of mine, I have no children so my pets are my children. I have 3 cats and a dog. There are poor animals behind bars and being mistreated or used as pit bull bait and THEY can't defend themselves. They are at OUR mercy and I have compassion and love for animals. Yeah, I'll admit, I prefer most other species of mammals over humans....AHahahahah!! Nahhh, I like people...but there are a lot of dumb shits out there....you KNOW that! Some people REALLY shouldn't have been brought into this world.