I'd love to hear you explain how Silhouette and I think the same about gays

I find the thought of there possibly being ANYONE who thinks about gays like Sil does disturbing! Not opposing it, but doing so in the bizzaro-world way she does.

That, of course, assumes she is being intellectually honest, rather than just being an attention craving troll.

I'm still a bit troubled by the remark, but not in any important way. Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet — and this is a key point — she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial point

So, it's true that he was “still a bit troubled by the remark, but not in any important way.” (I've added a little emphasis there to make his point clear.)

I continue to think the GOP has little to gain by making a spectacle of this confirmation, and that Obama has the right to name his judges the same way other presidents have. She seems qualified and at this point I hope she is approved with little problem.

You should have read the whole speech. Maybe you'd be willing to read how conservative writer Rod Dreher was honest enough to admit he wrong about that speech, which he complained about yesterday.

CStanley seemed to think there was not much fuss going on. That's why I showed her those links.

Are you saying those aren't leading voices from your side?

********

Also, I'd love to hear you explain how Silhouette and I think the same about gays. Seriously. Can you back that up?

Can you?

and of course all those folks probably all agreed that judge bork wanted to starve little children. and that was just, well, rationale and logical. do you think judge bork wants little children to starve dude? whacha think?

I suspect you and Silhouette think the same about gays, don't you?

Let me help you out.

Limbaugh: She's racist.

Gingrich: She's racist.

Romney: She's troubling.

Huckabee: She's extreme.

Glenn Beck: She's racist.

<a href=”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522205,00.h…>
Pat Robertson: She's an outrage.

Tancredo: She's racist.

uh yeah. lets have them report that BO has spent 2 trillion dollars we dont have. then says “gang fellas, we gotta stop spending”. right. they are going to report that!? if they did that it would, i guess make him look kinda silly. almost dumb. so dont count on it. dont count on the reporting. but COUNT on the silliness. cause that aint all we've seen or heard the last 4 months. stay tuned. as michael palen said “it can get a LOT sillier” – with government funding of course.

is petreaus speaking of big mil vis a vis EITs? or cia? or dia? i assume he speaks for big mil. and my understanmding is big mil has never used EITs. and cia stopped them 4 years ago. so “backing obama's” plan really would mean backing the bush plan, that has already been in place for 4 years. news flash!!! gotta stop the presses there. and cloising gitmo, yes, everyone incl bush wants gitmo closed. so what? let see them DO it guy. see thats the difference. talking about wanting something is all very interesting. doing something is much more reportable. and THATS the rub. that they DONT want to talk about cause thats got REAL world problems. that are actually really (almost) intractable. stories like 'dang, the real world really sucks and is hard, and sometimes theres really no good decision' dont get run above the fold. casue we're suppoed to have already LEARNED that, as grown-ups. some have. some not so have. to paraphrase steve martin.

Sotomayor to Dick Cheney is like manna from Heaven…

[talk about anything but torture!] If fear-mongering doesn't work, a distraction will do..

As managing editor, Mr. Pete, whose spin machine is working faster?

Also, stenography is much easier than research.