First of all: "Muslim-Americans". This is nothing but sloppy writing, Mr. Cole. It's just as meaningless a phrase, if not more so, than "Islamic fascists". "Muslim" describes a religious identity, while "American" describes a national identity. Do you go around calling people "Catholic-Americans" or "Jewish-Americans"? Of course not; they're Catholics or Jews. Next time you criticize another's ridiculous conflations (however right you are), try not to fall into the same hole yourself.

Next,

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," Tancredo declared.

Bwahaha!! I cracked up the first time I heard that, and it still tickles me. What is it with these people? Do they learn NOTHING? Yeah, threaten the guys willing to strap ten pounds of dynamite to the asses in the name of Allah with a nuke on their holy site. That'll get them to back off. AND Santa Claus will bring a pony as a reward!!

They're comedy gold, they really are. If it weren't for all those hundreds of thousands of dead Muslims, I'd say they're funnier than Carlin. In a pigheaded asinine kinda way, of course.

Mohammed organized or led over 65 campaigns against his neighbors during his lifetime, many of them at night, and most of them resulting in the robbery, arson, and extortion of peaceful communities. One ended with the mass murder of 900 men and boys, personally supervised by Mohammed, and the sex-enslavement of the women and children.

Good point. I would add that's chump change compared to the pillage and rapine narrated in the Bible. 900? Try thousands. Those holy, God-inspired Hebrews cut a bloody swathe for a hell of a long time, burning down villages, stealing and destroying goods, slaughtering everyone except the young virgins, whom GOD told them to take as sex slaves.

So maybe Mohammed didn't come up with the idea on his own? Maybe he got it from that book he was so keen on improving, whaddaya think?

Every Sunday there's a passle of letters on this page twiterpating [sic] over how unfunny this comic is. I have never seen one that I thought was less than funny or wonderfully clever--let alone the stinker that so many complainers make them out to be.

I think a lot of comics are funny and very clever, and none of them deserve half the whining that this excellent strip gets, either.

Somebody please explain to me the allure of all this bitching and moaning.

because media snipes like YOU kept going on and on about stupid crap that didn't mean anything, eh? Maybe if he'd been given half a chance from the beginning by media attention whores like YOU he might have been our candidate.

But NO. You all had to go for the glamour candidates. How can we assure our "place in history" (that's a laugh) by hitching our wagons to the one who'll win? How can WE get the most attention? How can WE make sure we're seen as cool?

No, Traister. Don't even fucking go there. If Edwards lost out, it's because of people like YOU. So quit your bitching and suck it up. You don't know who to vote for? Boo to the motherfucking HOO. You should've put your money where your mouth now is, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

No sympathy here, kid. Not the slightest iota. Go cry to your mama, you ain't getting any pats on the back here.

Jeez, dude, gullible much? Since when is Drudge a reliable reporter of anything?

I'm in L.A., and there was no problem at all where I went. Smooth lines, everything working fine.

Methinks you've been had, man. Next time, check with somebody not known for Fox-style scare-mongering, OK?

It's a sweet story and all, and I sure sympathize. But...is that all? It ended kind of abruptly there, and I had the impression the writer had more to say. Pity.

I once took a dog in because he'd injured his foot, expecting that the vet would treat the wound and bandage him up. He did, and then told me they'd taken x-rays of his WHOLE BODY, and were now saying I had to get him surgery for some hip condition or other. The dog had never shown any signs of trouble moving about, but this guy wanted me to pay $3,000 to get this supposed problem fixed. I freaked out, told them they had no right to extort money from me for something I had NOT asked for, and demanded that they return the dog to me. They did, reluctantly. We went home, the dog lived another six years without any "hip trouble" and died an old guy.

Oh, and the next day I asked my friend who used to be a vet nurse about it, and she sighed. "Yeah, they'll do that," she said. "Fishing for extra money. But it's not legal or binding. When you take an animal in, you're only obligated to consider the cost of whatever you took the animal in for. And you're not under any obligation to accept any treatment you can't afford. The pet belongs to you, and you're the only one who can determine what will happen to it. It was good you stuck to your guns."

Don't let anybody tell you what you can or can't have done to your animal. Vets and people in that business have become experts at guilt-tripping you into doing what they want, paying exorbitant amounts of money for these treatments, many of which (as the author noted) are unnecessary. If we can't afford medical treatment for ourselves, who the hell are they to insist that we lavish ridiculous amounts of money on our pets??

This country has gone insane, I swear.