So do all the idiot males who voted for Bush deserve to have their bodies controlled by the court? I suppose I see what you're trying to say but wow, how offensive can you be.

-- edspickles

Do you really think that threat of yours is going to garner votes?

-- Greeneyedkzin

I just think that women angry over what they see as sexism would express that anger by voting for someone like McCain is so stupid that:

A. Anyone thinking that way needs a good offensive verbal attack in their face to shake them out of it.

B. Its actually probably a very small actual group of people so no big deal to mock them.

C. I just enjoy being offensive. What of it?

"Unless, of course, you're a Republican doing disinformation. Are you?"

And what disinformation am I giving out by pointing out that a vote for McCain is a vote for back-alley abortions, un-equal pay, and the death of your children in unending war?

You don't disagree with my message but my tone. Besides my post only applies to woman who are saying they are voting for McCain already, the only thing I could be doing is offending them,or possibly making them realize what a huge mistake they are contemplating. And who cares about them anyway? They deserve to be offended if they are voting for McCain because they are angered by sexism. Its just so stupid.

"Up until they pull the lever, they haven't voted for McCain.

Now, you can try to win votes, or you can get your rocks off by enjoying the nastiness you dish out.

I know which one I'd choose. Granted, it's fun to talk about how stupid people are, but it's not giving you and yours a good name, and that could cost you."

You misunderstand my motives.

I'm not trying to win votes. I'm not an operative. I'm merely posing my view on the current situation which I happen to find laughably stupid. So I voice my opinion in the manner and tone I choose to. In other words, I don't care if these ladies do vote for McCain, I'm not here to talk em out of it, I just want them to know that if they do, then they are far more anti-woman than they've imagined people have been to Hillary.

I'd like to add that this group of Hillary supporters that have conflated dislike or offensive treatment towards her as being misogynistic or sexist to women in general, risk hurting their cause as many die-hard feminists (male and female)who have a lot of good reasons for preferring Obama over Hillary might be a little offended by the sexist notion that not liking Hillary makes you a sexist.

This group of petulant sore losers don't need to be mollified or catered to. If they continue to insist on this sexist offensive attitude they need to be left behind.

McClellan is full of it. He's not contrite or regretful about anything. He's just trying to sell books. Case in point:

I catch Scott on NPR discussing his book and the interviewer asks him about the Jeff Gannon, ex-male prostitute, daily press passes to the Whitehouse to ask softball questions. Scott dances around it and won't discuss it. Now if you can't come clean about letting a male prostitute get a daily press pass to the Whitehouse so he can ask softball questions, how contrite can you really be?

I'm sick of hearing these ex-admin people peddling bullshit. If its not admissible as evidence in court, your revelations are useless!

Despite the truth of many things you've said about how Clinton was treated, it is a mistake, and actually by definition sexist to automatically equate treatment of Hillary with sexism.

The point is she is unliked by many and also as some have noted she is a woman. To attack her in away that acknowledges her gender, even negatively is in no way indicative of how a person feels about women in general.

Perhaps these strident feminists had better think about the backlash against their own movement when many supporters are embittered by their unwarranted broad strokes of sexism because we didn't like THEIR candidate.

"If Bush pardons everyone connected to his illegal spying program, as many have speculated he might, then Obama's Secret Plan -- even if it existed -- would be instantaneously extinguished."

How can Bush pardon the telcos for their crimes if they haven't even been charged with crimes much less convicted of them?

The president can pardon people who may be charged in the future?

Clark didn't attack McCain either. I wish the general would respond to this manufactured drama by simply saying, when questioned on it:

How does riding in a jet and being a POW make you qualified to be president?

Our attempt to control regular seasonal flooding creates the conditions that allow for massive catastrophic flooding. Just as our attempts to prevent seasonal regular food minor food shortages created the conditions that set in motion catastrophic famine. Ya, we're smart and all, but the systems we're attempting to control are really really big.

Also as I stated in the title of my post, I differentiate between people of our culture and all humans, because all humans don't engage in this kind of behavior. Only humans that belong to cultures that see the planet as belonging to them and thus feel it is right and natural that they control everything.

Actually its the controlled events, trying to stop regular small uncontrolled events, that creates the conditions for the massive catastrophic uncontrolled events. When we set up systems to stop regular seasonal flooding we set up conditions that create catastrophic flooding. All the dikes and levees set up that lets large populations live in areas that used to flood seasonally just sets in motion an eventual catastrophic event.

Abortion as choice is no good.

Abortion as a function of the free market must be ok right?