Yes

I'm actually grateful for that. How is McCain going to save us from Obama? By regulating abortion? By further infringing upon our freedom of speech? Well, at least you're voting. Unlike some of the members who refuse to exercise this right, in this utterly important election. My opinion is that those who think that Obama and McCain are more alike than different in their various issues have not been paying attention. Or they are just playing the nihilist game. Utter nonsense.

Well, then it's not "across the board" spending cuts that McCain proposes, then is it? I heard McCain state his proposed cuts were going to be across the board. That's how I interpret it. That no government agency is safe, no mater what its virtue. I do agree that neither candidate has an acceptable solution to the government budget crisis.

We can do that but such cuts have to result in a quality government- one whose objectives are clearly to protect our rights. McCain's proposal for across the board cuts is a time-worn solution to a real problem that has proven itself to be wrong, since it makes cuts in defense spending and law enforcement, when it should be aimed at transferring socially oriented services to the private sector.

Nowhere, of course. Given the "issues" both candidates misfire on health care, education, taxation, and the economy, in my opinion. It all boils down to continuing the sorry status quo. McCain taxing business so he gan give individuals a tax credit for health insurance is a big crock. He won't get my vote.

Just think what Sarah Palin's presence on the scene did to jump-start Tina Fey's career!

I would refer you to that Procol Harem quote in your signature as it suits you quite well. All your response is utter nonsense. I want someone who is intelligent and insightful to run, not some buffoon whose only claim to fame is running a state with the population of Boston. I cannot understand how it is you could support the Iraq war. It has drained the economy of billions while resulting in the emboldening of Al Qaeda and Iran. The Bush administration is a total failure. I cannot wait for Obama to whip their sorry asses in this election. As for you, may you wallow in your own idiocy.

If you are torn it's because you lack focus, for no other reason. I cannot comment on Mexico since I cannot perceive it as being any more free market than America, but I think the focus has to be on the preservation of one's individual rights. And this has to be the main, and only important, criteria for who you elect. I don't see a return to back alley abortions in an Obama administration. I do see an end to the senseless Iraq war, which has sapped the American economy of billions of dollars. I do see a potential for mandatory service under a McCain administration. Although I'm too old to worry about the draft, I see it sapping the American populus of many a productive citizen. Ultimately, it's all about one's individual rights and how the new administration plans to protect them.

Utter nonsense. Palin's command of the english language in her speeches is no better than that of the average person on the street. As far as her track record, check out her reversal regarding funding for the so-called "bridge to nowhere" in which her state earmarked Federal funding. Later, she came on in opposition of earmarking, even though she's a good example of seeking "earmarking." So her track record of getting things done is garbage. All of it. On top of it, she is opposed to abortion. You want an anti-individual rights imbecile like Palin to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? I don't. Palin opens herself up to attacks by her stupidity.

In many respects it was a prophesy. Rand had ample evidence and exposure to facts to relate to in Atlas Shrugged, written circa 1957. Since the politicians refused to pay much heed, let alone those businessmen who allied themselves to the government (like AIG) the downward spiral Rand tells in Atlas Shrugged has very much come to light. And Tina Fey's impersonation of Palin is both funny and brutally sarcastic of a second-hander who has no clue. BRAVO TINA FEY!

Sarah Palin has created her own woes, by her responses to questions regarding her views, which have exposed her for the imbecile she is. She is clearly out of step with the other three candidates in terms of intelligence. Had Palin had any intelligence, she would have garnered more respect. It's all too obvious.

Sheer garbage. Are you NOT concerned that your rights will be relinquished under a Religious Right theocracy? Go ahead and vote for the flipper and his imbecilic mate. Prove Ayn Rand right about the downward spiral this country is going through.

It seems as though the McCain campaign is trying desperately to limit Sarah Palin's interviews with reporters. Do they really consider her to be that much of a loose cannon? And Tina Fey does a neat impersonation of Palin, good satire, very funny. What is NOT funny is how much of an imbecile that Palin has proven herself to be. To think she could be a heartbeat away from the presidency is appalling. Ayn Rand's prophecy in Atlas Shrugged is really coming to light this fall.

I think we all need to go to their various websites to find out what it is these clowns stand for. For example, Obama: Immigration: “The time to fix our broken immigration system is now… We need stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace… But for reform to work, we also must respond to what pulls people to America… Where we can reunite families, we should. Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should" Change? Perhaps. As far as enforcement at our borders, we need to protect America against immigration by those who are obvious criminals, and those who carry infectious diseases. All others could be admitted. I'm reading a policy here that is a meager step in the right direction. Iraq: Obama wants to set as a goal withdrawal. Does McCain? Yes, that constitutes change what he wants to do. Taxes: Neither candidate has an acceptable solution to the tax problem. But the notion that Obama plans to raise taxes is without solid proof. And many at this site have bought into this nonsense lock, stock, and barrel. Given the propensity for the current candidates to continue the mixed bag "democracy" and make their "changes" to that, I'd say my goal as a capitalist is to seek out the candidate who will preserve whatever individual rights we as Americans have left. 1. For women, the right to their bodies and for men and women who are doctors, no regulation regarding abortions. 2. For all of us, the right to our lives without the government mandating that we enter upon service- you know, the draft, which I understand McCain favors. It becomes clear to me that that candidate is Barack Obama. The notion that a religious-based conservative team who will stack the court with anti-abortion judges scares the heck out of me. For those who want to stay away from the polls, I think that's the very worst thing that you could do.

Favorite Frank Zappa quote: "I'm a businessman, not a hippie." Zappa was popular in the 60s and 70s when hippies were also a prominent part of our culture. His refuting hippies still gets my attention. I loved that comment!

One need only look within the system to find that there are institutions which are privately run whose purpose is to care for such individuals.

In my lifetime, Bush is the worst president. My lifetime does not span the 230 plus years of this country, but began in 1948. So it is not easy fo me to pass judgment regarding presidents like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt who existed prior to my lifetime. I have to admit my opinion here is based upon my own adjustments in philosophy, as I grew older. I originally thought that Nixon deserved this dishonor, since he cut the student loan guarantees, forcing myself and my peers into greater debt. But, I realized later in life that the government had no business whatsoever to participate in the student loan business. The free market had always worked out financial assistance to worthy students in the form of privately sponsored grants, scholarships and fellowships. My other arguments against Nixon revolved around his administrations mishandling on foreign policy, and his trip to China. The America of today is a lousy compromise of socially-oriented government and free enterprise. There is so much wrong with the American government from a capitalist point of view that I'd need volumes to synopsize what I thought. But given the sharp decline in the state of America from 2001 to today, I offer the opinion that the Bush administration has been an abject failure in virtually every respect.

...and that's the tip of the iceberg! That is what makes McCain so dangerous for this country. The last thing this country needs is for its producing individuals to have to relinquish any more of their rights to government control. What you are missing is really a negative- that McCain will continue the beyond-bankrupt policies of Bush in the Middle East. Those policies have served to destabilize that region, and also to wreak havoc upon our foreign relations with "free" Europe. As a result, our dollar has taken a pounding abroad, gas prices are insanely high and going higher, and those who heat their homes with oil are in for something more catastrophic than a rude awakening this winter. At this point, in my view, the Republican party has betrayed America and should be thrown the hell out in the upcoming election.

Government structure has been meant to make communications with the constituents easier, and therefore make government more accessible to all. The real problem with government is not so much the structure but the system set up since our independence from England. Government needs to redefine itself as a protector of our rights. We as Americans pay dearly for government that pretends to take care of us. That is wrong. Caretaker government is far too inaccessible because it is so massive in scope. So the most obvious change to the governmental structure is to abolish all forms of social-related programs, since they are wasteful and unresponsive anyhow.

I saw "An Inconvenient Truth." Though well-crafted, it has many philosophical and scientific flaws. For example, in order to develop a valid scientific argument regarding the increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere one must identify and sample the atmosphere in a variety of locations to determine where the most and least carbon dioxide accumulations are- then try to come up with an average figure. And I didn't know that temperature readings were actually kept for thousands of years. Such evidence was presented to support the argument that there indeed is global warming. And if one were to even consider that global climate changes that drastic have taken place, the solution is NOT going to happen by our consuming less fuel. Serious human intervention is going to have to occur, and such intervention will have to be by modern science and the best man's mind has to offer. Such human intervention would possibly focus on how man is to survive such global climate changes.

Thanks, Moose, for the headsup! We know John Stossel as the investigative reporter and host of ABC's 20/20, one of few programs I watch on TV these days. So there are few closer to all the media hype than Stossel. From this point on, I will direct you to Walter Williams' commentary on this book. Next time I'm in Barnes and Noble, I'm getting this book.

So you would challenge long-established biological fact? That fact is that man, by nature, is omnivorous, and is able to eat both meat and plants. Man, in his rational nature, has that choice upon which to eat whatever he thinks he needs to survive, and that may include meat. My point is government has no right to deny him that choice- or right.

Rather, say QUAAAAAAACKKKKKK! Sorry, my friends, but I find the banning of foie gras to be beyond ridiculous. And the vegan movement, that challenger of nature which flagrantly disobeys nature, gets emboldened by the banning of such moves. I find that beyond appalling. Why not challenge this new ban in courts? It has nothing to do with safety. it regulates, rather than protects, one's rights. I am in strong disagreement with the vegetarian movement. Human beings are omnivorous by nature, and need meat as well as vegetables and fruits to survive in good health. If, despite that basic law of nature, one still wants to be vegan, so be it. But vegetarians have no place in the legislative movements to disrupt the rights of others.

He should be remanded to a Maximum security penitentiary, where he may meet the same fate as Jeffrey Dahmer. There is no guarantee that, when among fellow rapists, hoodlums, and murderers, he would survive.

We need to engage in brinkmanship with Iran, at the very least. Seems like our current leadership is lousy at brinkmanship. We need to aim some serious missiles at those Iranian nuke plants, with the aim of destroying them unless Iran meets our demands. To date, President Bush and his administration has not exercised one ounce of courage to stand up to this continual threat to the west.

It's highly unusual for an entity to obtain property without first agreeing to maintain a right-of way access to the property of others, as a condition of sale. As an architect and planner, I have been in these situations numerous times. The subject of a right-of way or other such access typically comes up in a title search. Usually the provisions of what is allowed and what is not in a ROW are clearly stipulated in the agreement, which ususally is filed in the town's land records. Since this is the reality, and the reality of the situation is that it would be well nigh impossible for Wal-Stor to obtain this property without the right-of-way provision, any act by Wal-Stor to block access to such property could be viewed as a violation, and could be, in fact, subject to criminal and/or civil prosecution (or complaint), since it is highly likely that Owner H would file a complaint.