Worshiping power to the exclusion of all else, conservatives are adept at recognizing and sucking up to power. The Dems, being so spineless that if they suddenly grew a spine they'd just form a subcommittee, chaired by a rival, to study it to see if it could be determined what it was for, suck up to everyone except their base which they feel they don't need to suck up to because, hey, they're the base, what're they gonna do, vote republican?

Given the sheer benefit of removing an opponent from a position that can hurt you, one must assume Joe had some dirt to lay down.

Diversity is logical not divine.

Once feminists took a condescending attitude to women who CHOOSE to be full time parents as if they were some how sub-woman for doing so, the feminists tainted their own ideology. Feminists should praise anything a woman does by her own choice. Too many think being a full time mom is of less value than a full time whatever else. As if making a legal brief had more objective value than raising a human from infancy to adulthood.

"Why? Because if we allow women to define things, we can ALSO allow men to define things."

The flaw with your argument is that by and large, men DO define things. Just about everything in fact.

To take your example of the 'hollywood slut' I'll merely point out that more than likely a man is exploiting her. And when that hollywood slut is diseased and broke, that guy will be laughing all the way to the bank.

I think what you're doing is taking examples of individual behavior and then ascribing the motives behind those behaviors of individuals to society at large. This doesn't hold up since individuals can always buck the trends of society at large. The trend of society at large is male dominated. In other words, just because a woman got the better of you, its no indication of how women are doing in society.

"Show me how Hollywood sluts are being outlawed or slowed down by anything men are doing."

Are you holding up Britney Spears as an example of female power and control? Are you insane?!?! No wonder your world view is so skewed. Her children were taken away from her, her father was granted a conservatorship over her.

Either way your premise is faulty since it assumes these women are out of control BECAUSE men aren't stopping them. The reality is hollywood sluts are exploited by men. Britney, Lindsey, whoever else aren't an expression of feminism, they are an warped expression of femininity in a male dominated culture.

If the GOP adopted a platform of progressive social issues coupled with fiscal responsibility they'd probably still keep their base AND grab a bunch from the DNC.

"Male dominated MY ASS."

So that's the root of your issues. Glad to hear you admit it. But you should stop taking it out on women.

Ok, not enough of a sample to draw conclusions, but it looks like a dating service for people who don't understand why no one is as awesome as they think they are.

Losers for Losers?

Rather have Hillary in a position that has an end-date and that she can be fired from, instead of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

Better that she should have a position that has a definite end date at most 8 years from now and, even more importantly, that she can be fired from, rather than she, a rabidly political operative who introduced an anti-flag burning amendment and is openly against gay marriage be given a life-time appointment to the Supreme Court.

Yeah, I do think that she's probably pro gay marriage and really doesn't think flag burning should be a crime but the fact that she was willing to adopt those positions for the sake of politics makes me not trust her. The idea that she'd have a position for life with no boss just gives me the heebie jeebies. She's too ambitious to be a good Justice imo. Plus also on a personal note, I'm TIRED of the past 16 years. Even though I loved Bill, I'd be happy to never have to hear about Clintons or Bushs ever again. I don't think she needs a life appointment. As a SoS, she'd have a boss and could be fired. I could live with that.

I think a lot of people have taken Obama's anti-Iraq-War stance, which should be held by any rational person, peacenik or war-monger, and thought it meant that Obama was anti-war altogether. And though he may in fact be anti-war, he's not actually done anything to make anyone believe that.

While I would prefer a strongly progressive administration, the fact is the country is in such a state, that I'd happily, gratefully even, welcome a merely competent administration. If Obama is picking people for their expertise in their field over their loyalty to Obama it'd be a long overdue and damned nice change.

As far as not being anti-war enough, being against the Iraq war, doesn't mean being anti-war. I mean the Iraq war was really really poorly implemented, lets not forget based on lies and mistakes. You don't need to be a hippy to be against the Iraq war. Even warmongers are against the Iraq war. And of course I'd prefer an pro-war but anti-Iraq war admin over any of the alternatives that were available to us in the election.

Its ok to be a child molester but not a woman?

Who says the catholic church has become irrelevant?!