Next Show: ...loading...

Washington Potpourri

May 28, 2009
  • More on the next Justice Sonia Sotomayor
  • Why Illinois Senator Roland Burris needs to resign
  • The GM Bankruptcy
  • How California’s “direct democracy” is bankrupting not just California but the rest of the nation as well.
  • How to respond to North Korea
  • Obama in the Middle East

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Mark June 2, 2009 1:46 pm

    I think you said better than I did!
    Thanks for your comment.

  • Johnny Democracy June 2, 2009 8:16 am

    Defining Thinking
    We are what we think,
    what we have faith in,
    the sense
    and the nonsense
    of what is possible
    or impossible,
    the ease or the stress
    seen in any situation,
    capabilities are habits
    to be learned
    and/or unlearned
    in the willingness for happiness,
    we are our excuses,
    our misalignments,
    our mental viruses,
    and our geniuses,
    social rules aren’t reasons
    for doing anything
    or nothing,
    legality doesn’t define our destiny,
    we are our contemplation,
    our passion and imagination
    that sets into motion
    all of the creative forces
    of the universe,
    and as we think like God,
    we become divine.

  • Jeff June 2, 2009 4:36 am

    Mark, Mark Mark!
    Thank you for going beyond the sound byte of “Wise Latina”. You are one of three liberals who have told the unwashed truth on this matter. The others just defend the sound byte because they think all the commas will give the commoners indigestion.
    Here’s my argument that I successfully used at work:
    “I would hope that all women were gorgeous, horny, loose, and lived right next door.”
    Almost any time a person starts a thought with “I would hope…” whatever they say after that would be followed with a “but” that reflects reality.
    “…However I rarely meet horny loose women. At least they don’t let me in on it.”
    I think anyone with half a brain would understand that Sotomayor was NOT saying that a “wise Latina woman” would be better. She was saying the opposite: You can’t stereotype!
    It is agonizingly annoying to hear liberal after liberal talking head try to defend her out of context statement, which is indefensible, that being Latina makes her better, rather than read the freaking speech like I did, and defend good logic.
    Over and over, Liberals push the notion that a “wise Latina” would be better than a wise white man or woman.
    Actually the out of context statement does NOT state that Latinas are better. She WOULD just HOPE they were. Not that she actually DID hope, but it is so absurd a notion that she doesn’t BOTHER TO hope. Any writer knows why she said it that way. She was not talking about reality.
    Republicans say she said she was better because she’s a Latina. Liberals accept their aggressive cynical redefinition of her words and repeatedly defend what she did not say instead of what she clearly said.
    It makes Liberals seem as bigoted as republicans claim when they defend the remark out of context as redefined by republican liars! I’ve actually seen liberal talking heads choke on the defense.
    Sure, republicans will lose on this one, but their stupid constituency will see our lack of logic because they are looking for it. They will see us blindly defending her and we mostly are! The people on TV, even Matt Rothschild during a PSA on your own show, defended that a Latina [perhaps any Latina] would be better than a white man.

  • Hobo Hal May 30, 2009 9:07 am

    Have Navy SEALS blow a peace-sign three-feet deep with bangalore torpedoes into the lawn of the Emporer’s Palace in North Korea