The Racist Attack on Sotomayor

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="4">
The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme
Court as sparked an all out campaign by the Republican Party to
derail her nomination. In the process, the Republican Right is showing
its racist ass; and very few, if any, of the moderates are willing or able
to call them it.

</font size>
 
<font size="4"><center>

Limbaugh interprets Obama's speech as "street talk" -
"could have been Al Sharpton saying that"

</font size>




<object width="320" height="260"><param name="movie" value="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg?flv=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/05/28/limbaugh-20090528-street.flv"></param><embed src="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg?flv=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/05/28/limbaugh-20090528-street.flv" width="320" height="260"></embed></object>



</center>
 
Racist attack?

So I guess what the democrats did with Alberto Gonzales, and Clarance Thomas do not count right?
 
<font size="4"><center>

Limbaugh interprets Obama's speech as "street talk" -
"could have been Al Sharpton saying that"

</font size>




<object width="320" height="260"><param name="movie" value="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg?flv=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/05/28/limbaugh-20090528-street.flv"></param><embed src="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg?flv=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/05/28/limbaugh-20090528-street.flv" width="320" height="260"></embed></object>



</center>

people need to ignore that fat pill popping faggot. he needs to OD
 
Racist attack?

So I guess what the democrats did with Alberto Gonzales, and Clarance Thomas do not count right?

So this is simply payback to discuss this woman's menstrual cycle, call her a reverse racist and dismiss her experience and education outright because you guys want to revenge Clarance Thomas? No wonder you are the few left in that party. You never mature. Just get old, forgetful and bitter.

people need to ignore that fat pill popping faggot. he needs to OD

Co-sign. That's the reason he lost his ability to hear and now needs circuit boards attached to his big ass head to hear. All those drugs for so many years destroyed his hearing.

-VG
 
Racist attack?

So I guess what the democrats did with Alberto Gonzales, and Clarance Thomas do not count right?

c/s I am not really paying attention to most of this because it's business as usual in DC. The only reason most people are getting bent out of shape about this is because this is Obama's pick and when ever you go against Obama you are racist. I don't like the attacks on any nominee no matter what party is in control. If the president nominates them and they are qualified then that really should be the end of it. But its not and when there is a republican in office nominating someone then the cycle will start all over.
 
c/s I am not really paying attention to most of this because it's business as usual in DC. The only reason most people are getting bent out of shape about this is because this is Obama's pick and when ever you go against Obama you are racist. I don't like the attacks on any nominee no matter what party is in control. If the president nominates them and they are qualified then that really should be the end of it. But its not and when there is a republican in office nominating someone then the cycle will start all over.

And you are living in Racist Denial.

QueEx
 
<font size="5"><center>
Limbaugh: "Nominating Sotomayor Like
Nominating David Duke"</font size></center>


</center>


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XAdyfUxyaM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XAdyfUxyaM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
So this is simply payback to discuss this woman's menstrual cycle, call her a reverse racist and dismiss her experience and education outright because you guys want to revenge Clarance Thomas? No wonder you are the few left in that party. You never mature. Just get old, forgetful and bitter.



Co-sign. That's the reason he lost his ability to hear and now needs circuit boards attached to his big ass head to hear. All those drugs for so many years destroyed his hearing.

-VG


Did I say that I endorse that action? John Cornyn had the best way to approach this situation. Just be fair.

BTW, so are you saying that its ok that democrats can be racist because you support them? Anything republicans do similar, its a huge problem? Please be consistent dude. If you have a problem about how some conservatives *I won't say the republicans because not too many cats outside of the talk show/ former republican officials have said anything* you should have a problem about how the democrats treated CT, and many others INCLUDING CONDI RICE. If not, you should log off right now, because you are officially full of shit!!!

If you believe the democrats was fair with Bush, or anybody with an "R" beside their name, then you are officially a political bigot.
 
c/s I am not really paying attention to most of this because it's business as usual in DC. The only reason most people are getting bent out of shape about this is because this is Obama's pick and when ever you go against Obama you are racist. I don't like the attacks on any nominee no matter what party is in control. If the president nominates them and they are qualified then that really should be the end of it. But its not and when there is a republican in office nominating someone then the cycle will start all over.

Its called a double standard. Just like women can call other women bitches, but get mad if we do. Just like how we get mad if someone outside our race calls us the N-word, yet we can bullshit around and call each other one.

And you are living in Racist Denial.

QueEx

Que if you believe that democrats are fair with anyone with race OUTSIDE of the democratic party. Then, you're living in Racist Denial.
<font size="5"><center>
Limbaugh: "Nominating Sotomayor Like
Nominating David Duke"</font size></center>


</center>


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XAdyfUxyaM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XAdyfUxyaM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Now lets be fair people, if lets say Alito said "a white judge is better than any minority judge because a white judge understands the constitution better", everyone would be on here calling him an ex klansmen, racist, ect.
 
<font size="5"><center>
Gingrich Calls Sotomayor “Racist”</font size></center>



url



ABC News
Jake Tapper, Senior
White House Correspondent
May 27, 2009


“Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman,’” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., blogged today.

“Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”

He also tweeted similar comments, in so doing joined the ranks of conservative voices such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh accusing Judge Sonia Sotomayor of being a racist for her 2001 comments.

The conservatives are decrying a comment made by Judge Sotomayor in 2001, addressing former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's famous quote that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases."

"I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement," Sotomayor said. "First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society,” she said.

(For the full context of the remarks, Click HERE.)

Asked about the comments, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, "I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation. I think we're satisfied that, when the people of America and the people of the Senate get a chance to look at more than just the blog of a former lawmaker that they'll come to the same conclusion that the president did.”




http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/gingrich-calls.html
 
Que if you believe that democrats are fair with anyone with race OUTSIDE of the democratic party. Then, you're living in Racist Denial.

<font size="3">Let me give you some advice that I doubt you will heed:
  • <font size="3">Stop endorsing political parties; and stop talking, constantly, in terms of republicans vs. democrats vs. librarians, vs. etc., unless you can't stand alone and you need a "party crutch" to prop you up. </font size>

  • <font size="3">Please look at these politicians INDIVIDUALLY; and analyze what they do and what they say, INDIVIDUALLY.</font size>

  • <font size="3">Defend YOUR principles; but be careful of adopting, co-signing, ditto'ing and defending, WITHOUT QUESTIONING the principles of others.</font size>

Blind Democrats are no more blind, than blind Republicans; and

Blind Republicans are no less blind, than blind Democrats.
</font size>

QueEx
 
<font size="4">

P.S.

Librarians are blinder than them both.

:lol:

</font size>

<font size="1">j/k</font size>

<font size="3">
QueE</font size>
 
<font size="3">Let me give you some advice that I doubt you will heed:
  • <font size="3">Stop endorsing political parties; and stop talking, constantly, in terms of republicans vs. democrats vs. librarians, vs. etc., unless you can't stand alone and you need a "party crutch" to prop you up. </font size>

  • <font size="3">Please look at these politicians INDIVIDUALLY; and analyze what they do and what they say, INDIVIDUALLY.</font size>

  • <font size="3">Defend YOUR principles; but be careful of adopting, co-signing, ditto'ing and defending, WITHOUT QUESTIONING the principles of others.</font size>

Blind Democrats are no more blind, than blind Republicans; and

Blind Republicans are no less blind, than blind Democrats.
</font size>

QueEx

Applauses-200px-border.jpg
Applauses-200px-border.jpg
Applauses-200px-border.jpg

Applauses-200px-border.jpg
Applauses-200px-border.jpg
Applauses-200px-border.jpg
 
Did I say that I endorse that action? John Cornyn had the best way to approach this situation. Just be fair.

BTW, so are you saying that its ok that democrats can be racist because you support them? Anything republicans do similar, its a huge problem? Please be consistent dude. If you have a problem about how some conservatives *I won't say the republicans because not too many cats outside of the talk show/ former republican officials have said anything* you should have a problem about how the democrats treated CT, and many others INCLUDING CONDI RICE. If not, you should log off right now, because you are officially full of shit!!!

If you believe the democrats was fair with Bush, or anybody with an "R" beside their name, then you are officially a political bigot.

Yes you did. Rather than condemn the action, the first words out of your mouth is to look for parity to justify it to support your white racist brethren. Which makes you just as culpable as those who started on this bullshit path of very personal insult. Talking about the woman's heritage as if its' some kind of play toy. Did you guys just give up on behaving like Men? It's easier to put your hands in the toilet, swirl it around until you find the most disgusting diseased fecal matter you could find and show the world?

I ask you again since you tossed out Clarance Thomas once again, was this attack on this woman, Judge Sotomayor's heritage, and personal hygiene to defend a 17 year old beef?

I already have my answer but there is something really unpleasant about the ease and swiftness at which your party attacks women and children. :smh:

-VG
 
<font size="3">Let me give you some advice that I doubt you will heed:
  • <font size="3">Stop endorsing political parties; and stop talking, constantly, in terms of republicans vs. democrats vs. librarians, vs. etc., unless you can't stand alone and you need a "party crutch" to prop you up. </font size>

  • <font size="3">Please look at these politicians INDIVIDUALLY; and analyze what they do and what they say, INDIVIDUALLY.</font size>

  • <font size="3">Defend YOUR principles; but be careful of adopting, co-signing, ditto'ing and defending, WITHOUT QUESTIONING the principles of others.</font size>

Blind Democrats are no more blind, than blind Republicans; and

Blind Republicans are no less blind, than blind Democrats.
</font size>

QueEx

Fuck all of that. It's funny how when I criticize a party, I need to look at the individual, yet everyone criticize all of the republicans. Dude, life is partisan to some degree. There's some liberal stance I agree with socially MAKING ME A LIBERTARIAN. To say we need to look at the individuals when it comes to democrats is asinine. I mean the treatment of Clarance Thomas was widely accepted throughout the left. I wonder why? Yet, when the right brings it up you want to say "we need to look at the individuals, not the whole party". How about this, find me a Democrat that thought the treatment of Clarance Thomas was wrong, and then I would support your notion about the different parties.

Yes you did. Rather than condemn the action, the first words out of your mouth is to look for parity to justify it to support your white racist brethren. Which makes you just as culpable as those who started on this bullshit path of very personal insult. Talking about the woman's heritage as if its' some kind of play toy. Did you guys just give up on behaving like Men? It's easier to put your hands in the toilet, swirl it around until you find the most disgusting diseased fecal matter you could find and show the world?

I ask you again since you tossed out Clarance Thomas once again, was this attack on this woman, Judge Sotomayor's heritage, and personal hygiene to defend a 17 year old beef?

I already have my answer but there is something really unpleasant about the ease and swiftness at which your party attacks women and children. :smh:

-VG

Read my first post on Que's first thread about Sotomayor. I'm not about to kiss ass ,and condemn anyone because I know there's a double standard. You can kiss this libertarian ass if you think I'm going to do that. I basically said that the republicans need to be fair to Sotomayor. Also, that this pick was actually a good pick coming from Obama. I mean Bush Sr, and Clinton both supported her.

The point of me bringing up CT was to say that Democrats cannot get mad at republicans if they grill her. Personally, I do not think grilling her *unless she says something stupid* would do republicans too much justice. It's all politics.

ACTIN!!
 
Fuck all of that.
As you will note, I didn't think that you would take heed.


It's funny how when I criticize a party, I need to look at the individual, yet everyone criticize all of the republicans. Dude, life is partisan to some degree.

Nor did I think you would understand.

There's some liberal stance I agree with socially MAKING ME A LIBERTARIAN.
And, thats what you think makes a Libertarian. :lol:

Where is Lamar, Cruise & BigUnc . . .


To say we need to look at the individuals when it comes to democrats is asinine.

Why am I not surprised you feel this way ???


I mean the treatment of Clarance Thomas was widely accepted throughout the left. I wonder why?
You really are carrying a 17 year old beef.


How about this, find me a Democrat that thought the treatment of Clarance Thomas was wrong, and then I would support your notion about the different parties.

Still with the labels, I see.

Listen, I don't want you to, or give a shit if you do - switch or change your view of the political parties. I was merely trying to get you to see the political forest, instead of Democratic, Republican and Librarian trees.

QueEx
 
Fuck all of that. It's funny how when I criticize a party, I need to look at the individual, yet everyone criticize all of the republicans. Dude, life is partisan to some degree. There's some liberal stance I agree with socially MAKING ME A LIBERTARIAN. To say we need to look at the individuals when it comes to democrats is asinine. I mean the treatment of Clarance Thomas was widely accepted throughout the left. I wonder why? Yet, when the right brings it up you want to say "we need to look at the individuals, not the whole party". How about this, find me a Democrat that thought the treatment of Clarance Thomas was wrong, and then I would support your notion about the different parties.



Read my first post on Que's first thread about Sotomayor. I'm not about to kiss ass ,and condemn anyone because I know there's a double standard. You can kiss this libertarian ass if you think I'm going to do that. I basically said that the republicans need to be fair to Sotomayor. Also, that this pick was actually a good pick coming from Obama. I mean Bush Sr, and Clinton both supported her.

The point of me bringing up CT was to say that Democrats cannot get mad at republicans if they grill her. Personally, I do not think grilling her *unless she says something stupid* would do republicans too much justice. It's all politics.

ACTIN!!

I don't recall democrats getting upset by any grilling of Sotomayor. What I hear is objections to the very unseemly and demeaning way right wingers are beating up on this woman. If you haven't noticed, I have.

Right wingers will beat up on democrats who are men but when it's the democrat women like Hillary, Judge Sotomayor, Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Obama or their children, it's torqued up in another got damn gear. They really turn into the school yard bully.

Even female celebs get crucified from right wingers. Britney Spears sister get pregnant, foxnews pissed all over their parents for being irresponsible. But let Palin's unwed daughter Bristol Palin do the same thing, it then becomes a "family matter."

I didn't defend left wingers when they pissed on Condi Rice and I don't condone wingnuts when then get reckless about Sotomayor either.

-VG
 
<font size="5"><center>
Tancredo Calls Sotomayor 'Racist';
Compares La Raza to KKK </font size></center>



160px-Tom_Tancredo%2C_official_Congressional_photo.jpg

Thomas Gerard Tancredo
is a former Republican
member of the United States
House of Representatives from
Colorado's 6th congressional
district, and the current honorary
chairman of Youth for Western
Civilization


HispanicBusiness.com
By: Rob Kuznia
May 29, 2009


Immigration hawk and former Republican Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo found himself back in the hot seat Thursday, calling Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a "racist," and comparing a Hispanic advocacy organization of which she is a member to the KKK.

Speaking on the show of CNN host Rick Sanchez, Tancredo, a former U.S. representative from Colorado, said the advocacy group, The National Council of La Raza, is a "Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses."

"If you belong to something like that, you have to explain in a way that's going to convince me and a whole lot of other people, that it's got nothing to do with race," he said, "even though the logo for La Raza is 'All for the race, nothing for the rest.'"

In response, La Raza officials said Tancredo has his facts mixed up, and added that it isn't the first time.

"If you look at Mr. Tancredos' record, he's often spoken about things he doesn't know anything about," National Council of La Raza spokesperson Lisa Navarrete told The Colorado Independent.

"It's not anybody's motto," she added, referring to Tancredo's claim. "He doesn't really know what he's talking about if he doesn't know the difference between a logo and a motto."

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/politics/2009/5/29/tancredo_calls_sotomayor_racist_compares_la.htm
 
<font size="4">
Tancredo: Sotomayor "Appears To Be A Racist"
</font size>




<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6ZQIVs4I0Qw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6ZQIVs4I0Qw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UqzHoVyFP88&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UqzHoVyFP88&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Tancredo came off like a real dick head with that whole KKK crap he was spouting all over on hardball last friday (5/29).

It seems that the Republicans are purposely destroying themselves. Maybe it's because they know that can't win shit nowadays and are going down talking whatever kind of shit that they want.
 
gop-mens-room-knees.jpg
gop-mens-room-knees.jpg
gop-mens-room-knees.jpg
gop-mens-room-knees.jpg

kkk_2.jpg
kkk-mccain-palin.jpg



The Neanderthal knuckle-dragging RepubliKlan cabal are now fully exposed to the steadily shrinking pool of US voters who were unaware of the RepubliKlans unconcealed white-supremacy and hatred of Multiculturalism. Who were these few in the shrinking pool? They were a small slice of affluent white voters, highly educated who had stuck with the dying Republiklan solely due to the issue of taxes. The open bigotry & sexism the white men running the RepubliKlans are exhibiting on national television will drive this slice out of the party. The percentage of the remaining delusional Hispanic RepubliKlan voters will continue to erode as they watch the savaging of Judge Sotomayor. The videos below show us why this will occur.


<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="10"</hr>

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/30971477#30971477" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>

<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="10"</hr>

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31006967#31006967" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>

<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="10"</hr>

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31007428#31007428" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>

<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="10"</hr>

gop-mens-room-knees.jpg
gop-mens-room-knees.jpg
gop-mens-room-knees.jpg
gop-mens-room-knees.jpg
 
Last edited:
Seems Clarance Thomas can bring a little sum sum of his personal life experiences to the court and somehow, its not racist. Moreover, dems don't pitch a fit about it.

Can't embed their videos. Need an assist if you know how.

-VG

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,18,0" width="425" height="319" id="divflv"><param name="movie" value="http://www.divshare.com/flash/video2?myId=7525923-ddf" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.divshare.com/flash/video2?myId=7525923-ddf" width="425" height="319" name="divflv" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>
 
I don't recall democrats getting upset by any grilling of Sotomayor. What I hear is objections to the very unseemly and demeaning way right wingers are beating up on this woman. If you haven't noticed, I have.

Right wingers will beat up on democrats who are men but when it's the democrat women like Hillary, Judge Sotomayor, Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Obama or their children, it's torqued up in another got damn gear. They really turn into the school yard bully.

Even female celebs get B]crucified from right wingers. Britney Spears sister get pregnant, foxnews pissed all over their parents for being irresponsible. But let Palin's unwed daughter Bristol Palin do the same thing, it then becomes a "family matter."[/B]

I didn't defend left wingers when they pissed on Condi Rice and I don't condone wingnuts when then get reckless about Sotomayor either.

-VG

All excellent points! Also, the republicans smeared Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton. And of course Dick Cheney’s daughter, Mary is a lesbian who had a child! Faux Snooze, Limbaugh and the like will make negatives comments about Barney Frank, but where are the comments about Mary Cheney?

source: The Nation

Welcome, Baby Cheney

May 30, 2007

Thank the Almighty, whatever that might mean, for planting the seed of life in the lesbian body of Mary Cheney and for granting her parents the opportunity to show support for a homosexual couple raising a child in an atmosphere of love. The message, carried prominently in news reports throughout the world, is that America has come of age in recognizing, as do most truly modern countries, that homosexuality is indeed normal.

Perhaps they knew not what they did, but the picture the White House released of Vice President Dick Cheney, coming as close as he does to a smile, and his beaming wife, Lynne, cradling their newborn grandson, Samuel David Cheney, was a milestone in the nation's struggle for human rights for all. Never again will it be possible for conservative Republicans to shun homosexuals in any facet of American life without appearing outrageously hypocritical.

If it is right for Mary Cheney and Heather Poe, partners of fifteen years, to be entrusted with the birthing and raising of a child, then how is it logical, as this White House has insisted, to deny the legal status of marriage to same-sex couples seeking to have their commitment legally acknowledged? Does not the life of Mary Cheney, born to God-fearing parents in a home of presumably high moral tone, and herself an activist in the Republican Party that has exploited homophobia for temporal political advantage, definitively answer the argument that homosexuality is not a fickle choice but a facet of the natural order of things? On what basis could this nation logically deny Mary Cheney the right to equal participation in any aspect of our publicly governed life, be it through military or civic institutions?

The problem is that the inalienable human rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness do not, according to the law, apply to Mary Cheney. Living as she does in Virginia, she must assume full responsibility for her child without being able to legally rely on her partner, who has no state-recognized connection to the child. As another example of the absurd contradictions that mark the law in this area, had Mary Cheney sought to fight in the war in Iraq, which her father did so much to cause, she would have been rejected because of the very honesty she exhibited in her personal life.

Surely Mary Cheney's commitment to a monogamous relationship would indicate that she would be less likely to engage in any sexual philandering that might disturb the tranquility of barracks life. One cannot imagine her participating in the abuse, with its bizarre perversion of same-sex contact, that heterosexual men and women in the US military staged at Abu Ghraib prison to the shock of the world.

And certainly her energetic work as a staffer in the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign should provide ample assurance that homosexuals can be as mindlessly pro-war as anyone. Given that papa Cheney ducked the draft when it was his turn to fight, a Mary Cheney in the military would have done much to demonstrate that this family is willing to share in the sacrifice they demand from others.

But what of the future of baby Samuel David Cheney? Considering the homophobia that his grandpa's Grand Old Party has perpetuated in past decades, it is not likely that he will have an easy time. Chances are overwhelming that he will turn out heterosexual--and admiring of his homosexual parents--given the statistical precedents. After all, the mind-numbing contradiction in any public discussion of the so-called "homosexual lifestyle" is that the gay community often approximates the ideal of hardworking, taxpaying stability that has provided a healthy core to the renewal of just about every city in the red or blue zone.

Yes, baby Samuel, even in the care of far less famous gay couples, would be more likely exposed to the best family values, not to mention a higher level of art, music and croissants, than he would had he been born to a heterosexual family. But if the GOP base that put Cheney in power continues to have its way with our politics, the stigma that has tainted Mary Cheney's life will harm the vice president's grandson in ways that are as varied as they are immoral. So how about it, Grandpa? Take the next step and join PFLAG, or Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, whose members have done so much to redress the grievances with which you have long been associated.
 
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,18,0" width="425" height="319" id="divflv"><param name="movie" value="http://www.divshare.com/flash/video2?myId=7525923-ddf" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.divshare.com/flash/video2?myId=7525923-ddf" width="425" height="319" name="divflv" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

It works for me.
 
I don't recall democrats getting upset by any grilling of Sotomayor. What I hear is objections to the very unseemly and demeaning way right wingers are beating up on this woman. If you haven't noticed, I have.

Right wingers will beat up on democrats who are men but when it's the democrat women like Hillary, Judge Sotomayor, Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Obama or their children, it's torqued up in another got damn gear. They really turn into the school yard bully.

Even female celebs get crucified from right wingers. Britney Spears sister get pregnant, foxnews pissed all over their parents for being irresponsible. But let Palin's unwed daughter Bristol Palin do the same thing, it then becomes a "family matter."

I didn't defend left wingers when they pissed on Condi Rice and I don't condone wingnuts when then get reckless about Sotomayor either.

-VG

What kind of idiotic shit is this?

I was commenting on the treatment of Clarance Thomas by the Democrats. The point is that both sides do it. So why is it EXTRA harmful when republicans do it?

So you mean to tell me that they didn't try to destroy Bristol Palin? Really?

I guess the hit pieces on Palin during the election was all made up. Don't let me get on the treatment of McCain. All I want from everyone is CONSISTENCY!!!!! If I had my way, we would stick to the issues. Something many on the left cannot/will not do.

Just to remind you, the real issue about Sotomayor is her comment about making policy from the bench. That's the main issue republicans need to stay with.
 
What kind of idiotic shit is this?

I was commenting on the treatment of Clarance Thomas by the Democrats. The point is that both sides do it. So why is it EXTRA harmful when republicans do it?

So you mean to tell me that they didn't try to destroy Bristol Palin? Really?

I guess the hit pieces on Palin during the election was all made up. Don't let me get on the treatment of McCain. All I want from everyone is CONSISTENCY!!!!! If I had my way, we would stick to the issues. Something many on the left cannot/will not do.

Just to remind you, the real issue about Sotomayor is her comment about making policy from the bench. That's the main issue republicans need to stay with.

So you mean to tell me that they didn't try to destroy Bristol Palin?

No they didn’t. All they did was state that if Sasha or Malia had gotten pregnant out of wedlock the republicans/right wingers would have been working overtime to rip them apart and labeling them morally corrupt and what bad examples Barack and Michelle are of parents. You know that is true, you would have been among the most vocal to post snide comments about this! The fact that you claim that someone is trying to “destroy” Bristol for even broaching the topic displays YOUR hypocrisy! And most of the comments about Bristol were about the rights hypocrisy about abstinence as a method of birth control. If the conservative base of the Republican Party’s choice for president’s daughter failed at it, then you know it’s a failed policy. In other words, the GOP wants to preach that other people, whose children have gotten pregnant out of wedlock are morally lacking and promiscuous if they have sex outside of marriage, but if a republican/right winger’s child does it, don’t judge them, this is a family matter, off limits. This sums up the hypocrisy of most everything about the current Republican Party in a nut shell!

...and don’t get me started about the Mary Cheney hypocrisy.

Just to remind you, the real issue about Sotomayor is her comment about making policy from the bench. That's the main issue republicans need to stay with.

See, this is why I don’t respond when you post shit. Your knowledge base is nothing more than right wing talk radio, right wing web sites and Faux Snooze. It wouldn’t be so bad, but you don’t even think about what they are spewing. Here is a challenge, you wrote that Sotomayor was “making policy from the bench.” List a specific example. I know this has been the next talking point the RNC has distributed to their lemmings. Let’s see if you care to accept their sound byte blindly and if you are intellectually deep enough to make your own decision on her. I will be waiting for an answer, for a long time no doubt.
 
What kind of idiotic shit is this?

I was commenting on the treatment of Clarance Thomas by the Democrats. The point is that both sides do it. So why is it EXTRA harmful when republicans do it?

So you mean to tell me that they didn't try to destroy Bristol Palin? Really?

I guess the hit pieces on Palin during the election was all made up. Don't let me get on the treatment of McCain. All I want from everyone is CONSISTENCY!!!!! If I had my way, we would stick to the issues. Something many on the left cannot/will not do.

Just to remind you, the real issue about Sotomayor is her comment about making policy from the bench. That's the main issue republicans need to stay with.

I got that a long time ago. You got a 17 year old beef and even though Clarance really don't give a fuck about it, you guys use this as the trigger to say some of the most racially degrading things you can think of.
So I'm wit it man.

I know that party and they wear hoods.

Now here you go, time to defend McCain/Palin huh? The issue isn't them or Clarance Thomas. The issue is this these racist attacks against this very accomplished Latino woman and judge.

You guys won't deal with her intellect or even that comment you twisted the fuck out of context but claim you find fault with. It is enough to launch your racism on her: the food she eats, her personal hygiene, how American should not have to pronounce her Latino name and she should change it, and on and on.

Some mad cacestry right there.

I wish you would think for yourself for once and see these people are not your friends. They sold the nation out for a few bucks and all you want to do is fight old battles.

-VG
 
I got that a long time ago. You got a 17 year old beef and even though Clarance really don't give a fuck about it, you guys use this as the trigger to say some of the most racially degrading things you can think of.
So I'm wit it man.

I know that party and they wear hoods.

Now here you go, time to defend McCain/Palin huh? The issue isn't them or Clarance Thomas. The issue is this these racist attacks against this very accomplished Latino woman and judge.

You guys won't deal with her intellect or even that comment you twisted the fuck out of context but claim you find fault with. It is enough to launch your racism on her: the food she eats, her personal hygiene, how American should not have to pronounce her Latino name and she should change it, and on and on.

Some mad cacestry right there.

I wish you would think for yourself for once and see these people are not your friends. They sold the nation out for a few bucks and all you want to do is fight old battles.

-VG

Wrong sir. The issue is consistency. To my knowledge, this is the first time me speaking out about the treatment of McCain, and Palin. Instead, I asked what does Obama stand for. Remember my first "opinion post"?

This is from the "confirming Sotomayor" thread :
This was a smart decision on Obama's part. The only thing the republicans can challenge her on is the "making policies on the bench" question. No need to get ugly with the chick only because former republicans have endorsed her. Although, people raised hell with Alberto Gonzales, there's no need to follow the liberal mindset when it comes to opposing views.


This is what I said. I'm standing on being fair towards her. The problem is, VG, is that the side you support *if you wanna admit it, or not...If you didn't support them, then you wouldn't carry on this debate* cannot fathom the fact that some republicans would probably do the same thing THEY do to our nominees. The shit sucks when you get dealt the same cards republicans get dealt with ALL the time. Bush couldn't do anything right in majority of the left eyes BEFORE/AFTER 9-11. The dude could of cured cancer, and I would see Thoughtone finding a Huffington Post talking about "the effects of Bush curing cancer may destroy TREES". So, VG, it goes back to this, it's ok when YOUR peeps do some of the hateful things, but DO NOT LET REPUBLICANS DO ANYTHING REMOTELY HATEFUL to your people. That's where you stand, and thats why I think you're more a political bigot than even RUSH LIMBAUGH.

*edit* If the republicans sold this nation out, why do most of their programs would ultimately help the American people? A lot of people say that IRAQ was all about oil. Do we not drive cars? Do we not use plastic? Do we not put grease/oil sheen on our hair? Does this not ultimately give more jobs to......AUTO COMPANIES? Don't republicans support DRILLING FOR OUR OWN OIL? How would that hurt the American people? How do cutting spending, and lowering taxes for the job making class hurt American people? How do building up our military HURT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top