Paul:

I'm glad to see that you are at least applying more thought into your position then most pro-lifers I have met. Most of them settle for the "life begins at conception" argument in all cases and that's it. I don't know if that's what you believe but my experience with conservatives and thinking issues through has been very little. I have heard the arugment that we should not bother to protect the environment because God will not allow it to be destroyed. This position was presented in all seriousness and was expected to be given the same merit as someone who as actually studied the environment.

Jim:

So you are saying that certain segments of the population should be denied the same legal benefits you get becuase certain words feel better in your head? I suppose we should go back to calling black people niggers because it feels better in some racists heads too. Do you even understand this issue at all? This isn't about the meaning of words, it is about who gets certain protections under the law. Your uncomfortablness with the word "marriage" being used by two guys is as nothing compared to the hassles those two guys are going to go through if one of them gets sick and sent to the hospital or dies and the other one can't inherit the rights to his property. I'm sure they'll feel so bad for you and your dictionary.

I guess I just don't think it's worth having a big argument over a word. As for my crass language, I am so used to dealing with people who are militantly anti-gay that it sets off certain defense mechanisms. Shock seems to be the only way to get through to some people, at least that has been my experience. I am glad you are not one of them. As for whoever said the state should just grant civil unions to everyone and let them get "married" on their own, that's not a bad idea.

If I remember correctly, I beleive I read somewhere that the red states actually recieve MORE federal funding (despite their claims of opposition to the federal government) then blue ones. If this is indeed the case, why not just cut off the water at the pump? I live in a red state and I feel it is time to punish them for their bigotry. As tempting as cecesion sounds to many, even to many conservatives here in the red states, I think it would create more problems then it would solve. Not the least of which the lives of liberals who would be put in danger that couldn't leave due to economic circumstance. If you think racism was bad forty years ago, imagine how much the black community in the south will be punished for voting democratic now once the threat of federal protection is lifted.

And I doubt that the northern states could handle the refugee crisis that would emerge from the south even if they managed to get out. There may not be enough of us to win elections down here but there are certainly enough of us to create problems up north if we all moved enmass out of it.

It seems to me that if liberals in the north want to punish the south for it's bigotry and, for that matter, hypocracy (taking your money while blaming natural disasters on your "sinful lifestyle"), the best solution is for voters in states like California, especially the San Fransisco and Los Angeles area, and New York, to demand that their elected officials no longer support their tax dollars go to bigoted states. Conservatives do this all the time, demand that their tax dollars not go to places that don't fall into line with their hateful beliefs. Look at how much Planned Parenthood has suffered due to cut backs. They actually have to put out advertisements now just to get customers.

The urban areas, in all parts of the country, are more liberal anyway and it is safe to assume I think that they generate more tax revenue then the suburbs. If that is indeed the case, perhaps we can spread the efforts into other urban areas around the country to not spread the wealth. Keep it at home where it can help with REAL social progress. If the bigots hate federal funding so much, let them live without it. Let's see how long they last. I think this could actually work if liberals up north were serious about it.

get turned into a slam Obama fest? The point of the cartoon is that many of the same people who were "on the fence" and voted for Bush four to eight years ago are now having doubts about Obama for being as inexperienced as Bush was (even though Obama actually has MORE political experience then either Bush or Hillary). That's it. It's not that complicated. If you can't stay on topic, go back to little green footballs or whatever right wing site you came from and read "Mallard Fillmore" or whatever you cons consider entertainment.

Funny, that's exactly the same attitude the right has about gays, lesbians, immigrants, muslims, "wellfare queens", wiccans, atheists, agnostics, anyone who believes in evolution, people who actually think healthcare should be affordable, etc., ect., etc.

Do you really want to get into a debate about which side is more bigoted?