To those arguing this, Yes, majority is a quantitative measurement but that quantity does NOT have to be 'of people'. I.E. A small number of people can hold the majority of the power. The mistake people are making is in assuming that each person in this country wields an equal amount of power, thus a determination of who is in control is an easy calculation. This is not true. A simple analysis of history up til, *looks at watch* now, easily proves that men wield a far greater share of the power, a majority of the power.

But again I say, considering what women have and continue to put up with in this country, you should be plenty embarrassed and frankly not much of a man to think this is discrimination.

The person who called me a racist is a laughable idiot.

Yes this is so true. The "diversity" industry at my local college is the most powerful group on campus. That makes them the majority by your definition, and an oppressive racist one at that.

Your example like your mind is small and senseless. If you're capable of any kind of coherent linear thought you'd be able to realize that the 'most' doesn't equal the 'majority'. For instance, if I owned 25% of the stock in a company and no other stockholder held more, I'd be the biggest stockholder, but I'd NOT have the majority of stock since a group of shareholders could team up to come up with more than 25%. Concepts like this can seem confusing if you're a bit slow so I won't feel bad if you don't get it.

As far as your specific example goes, I'm guessing you're an idiot who failed to get into college and finds it comforting to blame the diversity committee rather than your own sub-par brain.

A presidential candidate admits to using illegal drugs.

Another presidential candidate mentions it.

This reflect poorly on the presidential candidate that... mentioned it.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Drug Rule!!!!

Calling my dealer now. Gonna smoke a phattie for Obama!

Who would you rather smoke a doobie with?

On one hand you figure Obama's got a better connection for chronic hydro.

But with Hillary, maybe she loosens up a bit, lets Bill out to play, now its an orgy/bbq.

Tuff call.

While accepting rides from strangers, at night, if you're a girl is stupid, as we've all been taught, I do think that actually being raped was enough of a lesson, without needing a sanctimonious ass to rub your face in it.

Ya, she was stupid, but she was also raped, how bout a little compassion?

And GOD BLESS THE INTERNET!!!

Has any intrepid reporter pointed out to Huck that he's wrong about the NIE coming out that day he was asked about it?

I like how he blames his fear of what the media will think if he didn't show the media the ad after canceling it to prove he made it, and also claims that he doesn't care what the media thinks if the media takes a 'cynical' view of him showing the ad to the media after canceling it.

Oh the delicious shadenfruede of the repub primaries. Only downside of each candidate's misstep is the sad realization that they help another repub candidate.

I support and heartily applaud anyone or thing that beats rudy (either in an election or with a 2x4)

Vilsack said. "When she started the process she was way behind -- it's now by all standards a competitive race."

Funny, when this whole process started I seem to remember Hillary and the MSM behaving as if she'd already been elected.

eight years of on-the-job training

This is the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard. Follow this logically and ANYONE who followed closely the 8 years of Clinton's administration is qualified to be president.

And let's not forget that her real experience as an elected politician includes her SPONSORING an anti-flag burning amendment.

As a man, as long as I can cum, I've all the reproductive rights I need.

Giuiliani said that "time will tell" what the best strategy is, and that he's happy to report that there's now "a group of candidates" in the running.

And he ain't one of them!

Interesting to see if Fox includes Giuliani and excludes Ron Paul in future debates. Well I mean not IF but more how they'll justify it.

Let them roam the halls of congress and the white house.

No animal belongs in a zoo. Its like prison except they're all innocent.

It seems rather obvious to me, and easy to explain since it has so little to do with policy or positions. Its fatigue. How many people regardless of what they believe in would like to wake up in an America where Bush/Clinton baggage isn't dominating the political landscape? When we can at last as a nation, rather embarrassingly close the chapter on the last 15 years of American politics. Again this has nothing to do with policy. Personally I think Bill Clinton was probably one of our greatest presidents ever, yet nonetheless would like to put that behind me.

Yeah, in the pure political judge of things, Obama is probably no better or no worse than any other candidate, but since when has the electorate voted based on positions? It's always been a popularity contest. And I don't think that the fact that its a popularity contest even reflects poorly on the electorate. I mean, given the way we interact with candidates during a campaign, who can honestly say who stands for what? I think most people try but at the end they go with their gut. And America's gut is fatigued. Granted that the fatigue is almost entirely the fault of the right-wing and the current Bush admin, but that doesn't spare the Clintons.