Myths and falsehoods surrounding the Sotomayor nomination

perhaps in some cases they will, just like your dems did against Bush.

In this case, however, there appear to be significant questions about her judgment and temperament. No thinking person would deny that. The Senate dems have to be cringing over being asked to carry the water on this one.

 

That's not a news flash. I never insinuated any such thing. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me. Even if you disagree with me, you can still see that there are significant questions that must be answered.

I see in my time away you still haven't changed. You still don't read well. And you still break your word.

 

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

http://mediamatters.org/p/about_us/

Hardly an unbiased source.

 

You have taken PL's words so far out of context that it is laughable.

It is even more funny that you don't even realize that you did.

 

So...let me see if I get this straight:

• Sotomayor makes some problematic statements, and some problematic actions of hers come to light.
• A more extreme individual jumps into the fray.
• Because someone deemed "an extremist" has voiced an opinion, it now means that Sotomayor must be given a free pass on all of her previous behaviors.

Nah, that don't fly. Fact is, Obama appointed her, and now it's apparent she's more of a liability than he thought. It's also quite clear that if we consistently applied standards (e.g., had a white male made the comments she did, with the parties reversed), there would be numerous folks on the left and in the media who would be passing their collective kidneys through their collective urethrae.

 

Thank you, GH, we finally agree on something - Ken's biased source. No better than the Huffington Post.

 

Judge Sotomayor said:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"

What if she had said "...reach a better conclusion than a black male who hasn't lived that life."?

Or "...reach a better conclusion than a Native American, etc."

Or, "...reach a better conclusion than a white woman, etc."

 

KenH, it may be time for you to do one of your famous "mea culpa" posts and promise to change your tone, or promise to stop posting, or give us a lecture on maintaining a civil tone.

 

He wouldn't even have to write it. He could just cut and paste from one of his previous ones.

 

Thats the problem today, there are fewer and fewer unbiased and objective places to get news. Seems everyone has an agenda either on the left or the right. I just want consistency, apply the same standard to Liberal appointments that are applied to Conservative appointments. Where in the media does such a thing exist?

The reason you have the Rush's and the Fox News type news is because those of us who are on the conservative side of the fence see the hypocrisy in the mainstream national media so they at least provide a different point of view. Too bad mediamatters wasn't around when Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were going through the process. But that's the problem, it wouldn't matter because their coverage would change based on political agenda.

O'Reilly is the only news source I find who at least trys to be balanced, every one else on the right or left, I take what they say with a big grain of salt. This is why I rarely watch or listen to political news anymore.

I think it is rather amusing that Mediamatters feels the need to monitor Conservative media, The Conservative media that is relegated to one tv network(which has numerous liberals) and talk radio, the rest is controlled by the left. Who is watching them?

 

Which of President Bush's nominees did 'bho" support?

 

There is nothing pathetic about people who want to protect the Constitution and the Republic. The people who are pathetic are those who want to convert this nation into a third world country courtesy of "bho" and all those who voted for him and still support him like some on this forum.

 

It is not who you disagree with that indicates the depth of your thinking, its the nonsense you resumed posting after "taking the pledge".

 

I have news for all of you. The media has never been unbiased. The idea that we deem a media source unbiased is what has changed - not the media. IOW, we have recently adopted a posture of believing our favorite media outlet - be you a conservative with Fox news or a liberal with CNN/MSNBC - was unbiased. While some are less obvious than others, it is entirely foolhearty to think that we aren't getting a biased viewpoint.

Back to the topic at hand.