To those of you wanting "solid evidence" of malfeasance in the 2004 election: You aren't gonna get it.

Look at the Valerie Plame affair. The strongest charge against Libby is obstruction. That means he successfully blocked the prosecutors from finding out the "whole truth." We will never know significantly more than we know now.

I just don't understand why people find it so hard to believe that the election was stolen. Forget for a moment that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim. Please someone address this question:

What was stopping them from trying?

Given the unprecedented power the Republicans had going into the election, Democrats and Independents simply didn't have the necessary access to find anything, nor the necessary majority in Congress to do anything, if in fact they ever found any "evidence."

I just wish someone would tell me why there is any reason for me to "trust" that the Republicans didn't steal this election. They had the motive, the means--the election was there for the taking. It's no worse than lying about weapons of mass destruction. Just because the evidence is thin, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I was curious about the new car Larry drives in the new season, too. I know Ford has a hybrid, I bet that's it. It's certainly not the Toytota Highlander Hybrid, it's too small.

Also, what's up with the "doesn't think liberals are funny" bit? Liberals are the only people who ARE funny! Name me ONE funny conservative, I dare you! And no, Dennis Miller isn't funny, at least not anymore.

This is a bit off-topic, but does anyone else get frustrated watching pro fooball these days? Especially Monday Night Football?

Specifically, it's the way they show replays. I'm one of those people who dares to multi-task and do other things while the game is on, and often need to see the replay if something dramatic happens. The Cowboy-Eagles game was an excellent example. There were several dramatic, long, passing plays, and when they got around to the replay, it was some weird angle close-up that robbed the play of all it's perspective.

The original shot they show, from up high, ALWAYS looks more impressive and dramatic, but they only ever show that angle live, and if you miss it, you have to wait for SportsCenter.

This doesn't mean so much to me. What were those geniuses thinking a year ago?

Let me start off by saying that my advice is to keep your mouth shut and get over it. "Playing with fire" in this case isn't just a cliche, it's a reality!

After having said that, it's not unreasonable to think about "Mr. Jump off a Cliff's" story. It worked out well for him, even though the chances were really remote and it caused a very big mess.

But if your priority is REALLY to your wife and kids, and if it's REALLY more important that your marriage stays together, and that your friend's marriage stays together, I don't see any real gain to getting this off your chest. To me, the choices are: (1) Keep your mouth shut and get over it. Or, (2) do What Mr. Jump off the Cliff did. But to do that, you first have to accept ALL of the consequences--most of which are bad. The potential is there for so much pain for several innocent people, all in tha name of getting something off your chest. The only "good" reason to let your feelings be known would be that they are reciprocated and acted upon. If you can't handle that, then keep your mouth shut! Also, keep in mind that there's more to this picure than we, or even Mr. "In Love with Too Many" are aware of at this point. There always is.

Finally, I think it's a healthy thing to have a few fantasies that you never act upon as long as you can keep your feelings and actions in check.

One other issue here is that I don't believe that this guy really knows this woman all that well. She is too "perfect" in his mind at this point. His impression of her is way too unrealistic. If he REALLY knew her, he would probably find her more "resistable." So in that sense, I think it's best that he not pull away or end the friendship now, because doing so would freeze his impression of her in its current state. Wait unitl he knows her better, finds her more "human," and is more aware of her faults, frailties and pecadillos. By then, maybe he'll have calmed down enough to be completely comfortable with her. But to end the relationship in its current state would make her all that much harder to get over. He'll always have that unrealistic impression stuck in his head.

"Lost in LA" doesn't sound like the sort of person who should have ever married, with or without children. He seems like a classic "Peter Pan" case who should've spent his life as a playboy, forever chasing the unattainable "perfect woman." Expecting him to "grow up" is asking a lot from someone who can't appreciate a glass that is 85% full. What a sad story.

Madonna has only ever been good at one thing: getting attention. Every effort is simply a means to that end. I'm glad I won't be around in 100 years when people look back at this time and see that Madonna and George W. Bush were two of our biggest cultural icons. Oh, and Michael Jackson.

Making the "they would have died anyway" point demeans the sacrifices those men and women have made and are making.

So does the "People join the military because they have nothing better to do and have no other way to contribute to society," argument.

We have women and men over in Iraq putting their lives on the line everyday for no good reason... For reasons based on lies and greed and selfishness.

Please honor their sacrifice and bring them home.