look i just need something to stuff in joe’s mouth so he stops talking…
(Barack Obama and Joe Biden)
Picture by: dunno source, Caption by: Grimmiekins, Via Advanced Lol Builder
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous OUTSOURCING FAIL | Be vewy, vewy quiet. Next »
look i just need something
» 92 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
crazyalwayswins on Talking Horse Pleads the … Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Tommycat on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Pratrp on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Pratrp on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Pratrp on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Animal Videos: Baby Penguin Cuddle
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Kappa Alpha Tau
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Cyoot Puppy ob teh Day: Redy 4 mai kloseup
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
I Know the Answer
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
THE BREAD. ITS TOO MUCH.
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Not So Shy Panda
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Poor Reginald
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Let's Get Hammered!
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
He's Right About Almost Everything
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
HELENA BONHAM CARTER
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
This Strawberry Totally Looks Like Goldfish Cracker
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Tweedy Squirrels
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
FIRST !
The vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) or vicugna[2] is one of two wild South American camelids, along with the guanaco, which live in the high alpine areas of the Andes. It is a relative of the llama, and is now believed to be the wild ancestor of domesticated alpacas, which are raised for their fiber. Vicuñas produce small amounts of extremely fine wool, which is very expensive because the animal can only be shorn every 3 years. When knitted together, the product of the vicuña’s fur is very soft and warm. It is understood that the Inca raised vicuñas for their wool, and that it was against the law for any but royalty to wear vicuña garments.
Both under the rule of the Inca and today, vicuñas have been protected by law. Before being declared endangered in 1974, only about 6,000 animals were left. Today, the vicuña population has recovered to about 125,000, and while conservation organizations have reduced its level of threat, they still call for active conservation programs to protect population levels from poaching, habitat loss, and other threats.
Funny…but I could suggest that the creator of this lol move the text up a bit for aesthetics…but funny.
Yeah the word balloon is bothering me, but it still got a good chuckle.
Phone Shop Guy – Well Mr Presedent, perhaps you should try “Bill’s Dungeon”, 2 down to the right?
** Warning: Intentionally inflammatory post follows. I am only about 15% serious about it. You have been warned. **
What about the same thing that gets put in the mouth of your supporters everyday, Comrade Hussein Obama?
I’d rather have Obama’s rock than Cheney’s dick.
2nd that!
Halo 3 is a first-person shooter video game developed by Bungie exclusively for the Xbox 360. The game is the third title in the Halo series and concludes the story arc that began in Halo: Combat Evolved and continued in Halo 2. The game was released on September 25, 2007 in Australia, Brazil, India, New Zealand, North America, and Singapore; September 26, 2007 in Europe; and September 27, 2007 in Japan. On the day before its official release, 4.2 million units of Halo 3 were in retail outlets.
Halo 3′s story centers on the interstellar war between 26th century humanity, led by the United Nations Space Command, and a collection of alien races known as the Covenant. The player assumes the role of the Master Chief, a cybernetically enhanced supersoldier, as he wages war in defense of humanity, assisted by human Marines as well as an allied alien race called Elites, which is led by the Arbiter. The game features vehicles, weapons, and gameplay not present in previous titles of the series, as well as the addition of saved gameplay films, file sharing, and the Forge map editor; a utility which allows the player to perform modifications to multiplayer levels.
Halo 3 grossed US$300 million in its first week. More than one million people played Halo 3 on Xbox Live in the first twenty hours. As of January 3, 2008, Halo 3 has sold 8.1 million copies, and was the best-selling video game of 2007 in the U.S.
Overall, the game was very well-received by critics, with the Forge and multiplayer offerings singled out as strong features. By March 2009 more than 1 billion online matches had been played. A prequel to the game, Halo 3: ODST, is currently under development.
What do you mean it doesn’t count as an ordinal post? she said “2nd!!”
Oooh, my BFF is dating a guy who works for these guys!!!
Is there a computer-owning guy on the planet who doesn’t play Halo?!?
Oh–and Eric? You made me laugh!
My wife wanted me to get rid of my Xbox 360 because I played Halo 3 too much. I finally sold it for extra cash (it died 4 months later, or so I heard LOL), and recently I decided I needed some Halo action so I bought Halo 1 for PC. That’s a Halo addict at his most depraved right there.
I don’t mind the Halo–I’m such a book addict, that I can understand. But I think I might have to insist that the BF choose a louder ring tone, so that he actually hears the phone!
There are Halo novels as well. I have all 5. I think there are 5 total. I have 5 of them.
oooh. Thanks for the present idea!
Me.
I play WoW and strategy games
And froo, your BFF is now MY BFF too. I actually applied for a job at Bungie (the studio that makes Halo games). Find out for me if they’re gonna make a Halo 4.
I was considering was Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme court. I don’t know enough about her to make a call either way, but what is bothering me here is that every politician, every news anchor, every analyst and commentator is focusing on her ethnicity, rather than her qualifications.
This doesn’t help ease racial issues and tensions, it only highlights them.
Over at CNN, Ruben Navarrette talks about what a step forward this is. For me, a step forward would have been had Sotomayor been nominated, and no one even remarked on the fact that she was Hispanic. That she got nominated because the President thought she was the best candidate for the job.
Yep. That disappointed me as well. If you get passed over for a position, it’s because of your race. If you get a position, it’s because of your race. There’s no winning, evidently.
BREAKING NEWS: United States not a colorblind society! More details at eleven, plus sports with Asian reporter Tricia Takanawa…
Adam West approves!
Olly says “IT’S RANIN’ SIDEWAYS!”
But there is a VERY good point being made here. All I hear about Sotomayer is that she has a very compelling life story. Great. Awesome. So does Clarence Thomas. I want to hear about what she’s done other than come from a poor neighborhood. I don’t give a damn where she came from, what’s to make me think she isn’t as racially charged as the stories coming out about her?
Personally, race aside, I have more faith that someone (especially a woman) who was raised in a poor or working class environment has a deeper knowledge of the problems most Americans face than the privileged son of a wealthy family. I don’t think that anyone who hasn’t missed any meals or struggled to pay all the bills can possibly understand how difficult it is to be working class in this world. That’s just me, Leftist Class Warrior.
Still, if you’d like to know more about her, here it is (cribbed from HuffPo)
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has arguably lived the American dream. She was born to a Puerto Rican family and grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx.
Her father was a factory worker with a third-grade education, and died when Sotomayor was nine years old. Her mother raised Sotomayor while working as a nurse. After her father’s death, Sotomayor reportedly turned to books for solace, and she says it was her love of Nancy Drew books that ultimately led her to the law.
Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She won a scholarship to Princeton where she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order.
After law school, Sotomayor spent five years as Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan, trying dozens of criminal cases. Robert Morgenthau, who chose her for the position, described her as a “fearless and effective prosecutor.” She entered private practice in 1984, working as an international corporate litigator handling cases involving everything from intellectual property to banking, real estate and contract law.
As Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBlog writes, “Almost all of her career has been in public service — as a prosecutor, trial judge, and now appellate judge. She has almost no money to her name.” The White House notes:
If confirmed for the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. …
In 1992, Republican President George H. W. Bush appointed Sotomayor to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. …Known as a moderate on the court, Sotomayor often forges consensus and agreeing with her more conservative nominees far more frequently than she disagrees with them. In cases where Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican president were on the three-judge panel, Sotomayor and the Republican appointee(s) agreed on the outcome 95% of the time.”]
Naturally, that last worries me most
Sadly, I don’t know why conservatives would oppose a Latino. Demographically, Hispanics tend to be just as conservative as any white boy, if not more so.
/stereotyping…
It’s the fact that they keep referring to it. Clarence Thomas was attacked based on his race, and no one was afraid of losing the “black vote”. Why should anyone be afraid of losing the “Hispanic vote” for attacking a record or several extremely racist statements?
-
If we are doing as Dr. King said and judging based on the content of character, why do we even know this woman’s race?
I thought Clarence Thomas was attacked based on sexual harassment allegations.
That was later. And nothing ever came of it. There were too many conflicting stories.
Well yeah, I knew it never went anywhere. Honestly, I was like 11, I’m surprised I remember that much.
Ditto, LOL. I remember my brother (A total Ditto-head) raging around the house all pissy about it.
All I remember is a pube on a Coke. My childhood was tainted forever.
Yeah, I remember that too.
Being as I’m a bit older than you-all, I recall a very intelligent woman being treated like a total idiot by a bunch of men. After she had been sought out–Anita Hill did not bring herself to the attention of the media or Congress, by the way. Overall,it was not Congress’s finest hour.
I think it’s pretty obvious that our country doesn’t operate as Dr. King envisioned. The reason we know her race is because it’s still the exception to the (white) rule. She would be the first-ever hispanic supreme court justice. It’s noteworthy. It’s also noteworthy that the candidate is a female. Maybe in 100 years it won’t be worth mentioning.
She is certainly not the first Hispanic to be nominated, she’s just going to be the first to get there.
-
As far as this country not working the way Dr. King envisioned, all we’ve heard about since way before the election is how a black president will help us all move past our racism and bring the two sides together. Were that true, Obama’s race, Sotomayer’s race, and other racially divisive things would not be harped on. Getting past racism is all in how you handle what’s going on NOW, not dwelling on what WAS. Dwelling on a person’s race simply because she’s got a great life story or is the closes Hispanic to the seat is just silly.
-
That being said, Clarence Thomas is considered a traitor to his race because he’s a conservative. Does that sound helpful in getting past racism? No. Helpful would be that he’s a conservative sitting with several other conservatives and several liberals and one independent. I’m all for never knowing that Alito is Italian-American, or that Roberts is Catholic, or that Sotomayer is Hispanic. Who the hell cares? I’m worried about how they rule, not where they freaking buy their shoes.
So you don’t think it was a step forward to elect a (half) black man President because our country is still talking about race? I don’t see how those two things are mutually exclusive. It was a step forward, but that doesn’t mean race is no longer an issue.
You may be watching/reading/listening to different news than I am, but I don’t think her being Puerto Rican is WHY she’s appointable, and I haven’t seen it pushed that way.
Considering the source, I think they put that last paragraph in there as a token
I honestly feel it should be that way in life as well, especially dealing with a judge. It’s the lawyers that are paid to twist the law around. The judges are paid to enforce what is there.
-
You have to understand where I’m coming from here. My job makes it extremely difficult to NOT be a black and white kind of thinker when it comes to enforcing the rules. If it’s in the book, that’s it. If you run someone over and kill them, it’s murder, and then we decide the actual level of that murder. If you shoot someone, ditto. If you steal, it’s theft regardless as to why you stole. So when I hear someone say that he (or she) will base judgments on life experiences, and that someone from a certain background can make better decisions on the law than someone who isn’t from that background, it worries the crap out of me. The law is the law. The Constitution is the Constitution, and there are some things in there that don’t have wiggle room. For a judge to say that she (or he) plans on or has used person bias in the past to make decisions, to me that nullifies the entire basis of the law. We might as well go around making decisions based on what feels right instead of what is. If the law isn’t fair, change the law, don’t just decide not to enforce it.
-
But you’ll have to forgive me, I work in HR, and what is, is
I get the perspective you’re coming from but imo so much of the law isn’t black and white, especially by the time you get to the Supreme Court level. A case wouldn’t make it that far (hopefully) if it was clear cut.
Like I said, it’s the lawyers who are paid to try and find loopholes. If the law is written down, it’s the judge’s job to enforce said law, and if there is a loophole, to let it pass. There should be no room for allowing the fact that you were born poor, green, and homeless on the banks of the Mississippi River in Southern Idaho on an asparagus farm to cloud your judgment. Empathy doesn’t belong in a jury box, it doesn’t belong on the bench. In fact, when a jury allows empathy to get in the way of actually finding what the law says, it’s called (please don’t shoot me, actual lawyers, correct me gently) “jury nullification”. They ignore the law in favor of an emotional verdict. Lawyers go after that sort of thing.
I think everyone’s past influences their personal moral compass and how they interpret whatever facts they receive. I don’t think that’s the same thing as clouding judgment. Although, I admit freely I’m not really qualified to debate about this since I know little about law and even less about this nominee. We should get Diss in on this.
I’ll admit that my venture into law is watching way too many episodes of “Boston Legal”, LOL. I know not every lawyer (or even most of them) are that flamboyant, but damn, it’s fun to watch every week!
-
Look, I don’t like that she said that a Latina could make a better judge than an old white man. If the old white man had said the same thing in the same context, he’d be impeached. There, I went all talking point on you
i haven’t had time to do any research on that comment at all, any chance it was taken out of context or chopped short? because it just sounds ‘off’ to me, like there was more there to start with?
Here’s a link to a NYT article dealing with it. She attempts to temper her remarks, but it’s still troubling to me. {http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=1}
My understanding of her statement is that it comes off of the fact that all of us view information through the perspective of our own life experiences. If one is an older white male, that perspective has been called ‘logic’ in the past. And any other perspective has been called ‘irrational’. I’ve seen this in action in the workplace, where one person with an issue is dismissed (‘Oh, that’s just Fred’). But when three speak to that same issue, it is considered important (lab safety, in my case–and the solo person HAD been a white male, but also the only chemist on campus at the time).
I have issue with it because it’s not an answer that will get her on a jury, and if she can’t qualify for a jury, why do we need her as a judge? Any bias whatsoever, for whatever reason, should get ALL of them kicked. It’s a function of the job to be able to leave your sh!t at the door and make an impartial judgment.
I see your point, and agree with it. Except that it is almost impossible to get past some of the expectations that come with life experience. Some of that is mental laziness, some of it is neural hard-wiring–if you keep using one pattern of thought, the nerve cells do re-enforce that series of connections. I’m not saying it is right, but it is a factor that we need to consider.
Right, you can’t get away from it, but is it conducive to be so OK with it that you allow it to form your judgments? Be aware of your bias, and work around it, don’t just accept the bias as part of who you are and flow with it. Therein lies the issue. She’s flowing with it, allowing it to channel her thoughts and decisions.
I think you’ve got it clear there–ALL jurists (all genders, ethnicities, etc) need to take the time to be aware of their inherent biases, and to work around them. Unfortunately, the standard education in the US doesn’t encourage this self-awareness. I’ve personally only encountered discussion of this in feminist theory books, a course on qualitative research methods, and in discussion with my twp philosophy-major friends. But certainly not in any other courses or situations, which is pretty sad, actually!
Having said that, if you’re up for nomination for the highest court in the land, dont’ you think you’d be pretty damn self-aware at that point of your own bias?
I’m just saying I don’t think she’s a good candidate based on her own words. Plus, all we hear about her is (as DWN said) the Lifetime Movie Channel story of her life. I dont’ give a damn where she came from. What has she done on the bench, and WHY is she qualified.
I imagine the actual ‘what have you done’ will come out in the hearings. The media just isn’t all that interested in the nuts and bolts stuff–for which they should be ashamed. We are getting fed ‘gotcha’ bits in the meantime.
I’d have more faith in the nuts and bolts coming out during the hearings if we had anything other than some Republican pantywaists in Congress at the moment. They’re so cowed by being in the minority, and by Pelosi running her steamroller over them (“It doesn’t matter, we don’t need you to pass this bill anyway”), and by Gibbs telling them to “be careful what you say about this woman” that they won’t open their mouths. She’ll get in, and then we’ll have to live with her, good or bad.
-
I’m so tired of having dickless bastards running the country…….*sigh*
Yeah, well, don’t get me started about Anton Scalia’s efforts to write the Catholic church’s dictates into the constitution. Speaking about bias! Sigh. Ah well, at least we know where he stands!
Like I said, bias should get them booted out, regardless of where that bias originates. I’m an equal-opportunity booter
OK, let’s go boot shopping, and then sing a round of Nancy Sinatra! “These boots were made for walking (kicking)…”! Sounds like fun!!
The context of her remarks was important: She was talking about cases dealing with racial and sexual discrimination. Ladies, (and those of you who aren’t of northern European descent), do you really think I, a white man over40, understand the challenges you face in our nation as well as you do? ‘Cause if you do, I’ve got your advice RIGHT HERE!
(first off, quit getting so mad when your boss asks for a little sumpin’ sumpin’ in exchange for that raise) 
WAITAMINUTE! You totally skipped over:
graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She won a scholarship to Princeton where she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order.
After law school, Sotomayor spent five years as Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan, trying dozens of criminal cases. Robert Morgenthau, who chose her for the position, described her as a “fearless and effective prosecutor.” She entered private practice in 1984, working as an international corporate litigator handling cases involving everything from intellectual property to banking, real estate and contract law.
As Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBlog writes, “Almost all of her career has been in public service — as a prosecutor, trial judge, and now appellate judge. She has almost no money to her name.”
and
If confirmed for the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years.
I love ya Froo, but… selective reading much?
thanks for the link froo, much appreciated. just started back to school and the bus ride each way is longer than i stay at school…. stinks! wastes my whole day, but i get to sleep in until 7:30 this way.
and as a side, can i come get some good boots and join you gals with nancy sinatra?
i don’t like bias either when it comes to positions of authority that are supposed to be bias free. (and this old hag knows how to stir up a tempest without disturbing a strand of hair, lol)
@pm – thanks, that was part of what i couldn’t figure out – such an odd remark to make out of the blue, yet nobody was explaining the bigger pic.
The last paragraph is misleading. She’s got exactly one year more experience than the other judges, and two other judges have more appellate experience than she does. According to the fact check website I follow, Obama seems to be only counting her legal experience obtained on the federal district courts or the court of appeals. Compared with the sitting judges, she is the only one to have experience on both district and appellate levels. That follows the more varied claim, but it’s misleading to say she’s got more than anyone in the last 100 years. It doesn’t significantly oustrip anyone else’s experience.
-
Also, like I said, were I her, I’d be pissed that people were being warned off me as far as challenging my record. You’re giving me really good information as far as her past goes, and her past education, now give me some stuff on issues that matter. Where have her rulings fallen? What about the racially charged stuff that she’s accused of, especially in the case of the discrimination of white firefighters that is in front of the supreme court now? Should she be appointed, will she recuse herself from even hearing that case, considering the conflict of interest? That’s my worry.
I just realized I pulled a cheap trick: referring to a site I frequent without actually linking it. It’s a pretty good fact-finding site, and one that seems to be fairly unbiased. In fact, I get mad at some of the Obama stuff, even though it’s true (chalk it up to butt-hurt
). Anyway, this is a really good site, and I urge you to go to it. It clearly shows that both sides of the Sotomayer issue are dealing in (at best) half-truths about everything. It’s also got the Obameter, which is in response to Obama asking to be fact-checked and watched during his presidency to make sure he’s keeping promises. Every president needs one of these!!!
-
Here’s the link: {http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/} It’s also got a Twitter link, and updates almost on a daily basis.
“What you just said (”first off, quit getting so mad when your boss asks for a little sumpin’ sumpin’ in exchange for that raise”) would be wrong no matter if a white man asked it of a white woman, or if a black woman asked it of a Hispanic male.”
I’m gonna ask Seth to find out what the name of this particular specious argument is, but let me explain where it’s not quite spot on.
You’re actually right, in one sense. Abusing a position of power for personal gain is wrong wrong wrong.
In another sense, it just doesn’t apply at all. White men (for the record, I’m a tall, muscular Irish/Dutch hybrid, I’m not pointing fingers at other people) have the power in our society. Here and there, and under certain circumstances, women and racial minorities are gaining power to equal ours. This is a good thing, imo.
Really, I’m not sure I want Sotomayor appointed to the Supreme Court, but my objections are based on her time as a corporate lawyer. I’m afraid she’ll rule in favor of the next company that doesn’t pay overtime to it’s employees, or in favor of companies who want to restrict my access to the internet because they’re afraid I might download a song illegally.
I’m not at all afraid she’ll cause the Supreme Court to rule that I, as a white man, deserve to be discriminated against.
Nice discussing this with you Froo. Good luck with your new little one!
I’m enjoying hashing this out with you, Mark. It’s helping me to have a new perspective on things
)
I dont’ like Sotomayer’s positions on a number of things, but this is a case (for me) like the election. It’s almost a foregone conclusion what will happen, so all I can do is watch and hope that I’m not given the opportunity to say “I told you so” with a lifetime appointment. I plan to be like Eric, and rub it in as shamelessly as possible 
-
While your notion that women should get preferential treatment because they are women is noble, and appeals to my need to be taken care of, it’s certainly not what is considered “kosher” in this day and age. I refuse to believe that a woman is equal to a man in intelligence and strength, but so many women have fought for so hard to be treated as equals that I’d hate to take that away from them. Getting mad when a man holds open a door is silly, but not getting mad when a woman is placed in the protected role when she has asked to be treated equally is warranted. (Having said that, I have a bumper sticker on Facebook that reads: “I don’t want equal treatment, I want better treatment”
-
I’ll admit again that my perspective is somewhat black and white because of my job. I have a very narrow scope that I am allowed to make decisions in HR, and if it ain’t in the book, it doesn’t happen. I’m not allowed to look at who the person is, what color they are, how long they’ve been here…….in the case of funeral leave, I’m not even allowed to look at the circumstances around the situation. If there isn’t an obit stating that the employee is related in a certain way to the deceased, then they don’t get credit for the days missed. While there are a BUNCH of cases that I don’t agree with, I have to dole out policy matters based on what IS, not what I want. That line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, and if we cross it for one, we have to cross it for all.
-
I realize that the law isn’t always as cut and dried. There are a lot of instances where the situation is murky and can be seen two or three different ways by two or three different people. I also know that in the majority of cases, that line in the sand is extremely clear, and race, religion, sex, or personal experience *should have* no bearing on the decision.
-
I dunno. I know I’m talking to an empty set of bleachers here, but it’s allowing me to get some thoughts out of my head
The problem is that she won’t be vetted, not by the pansies we have in the Republican party. The types of attacks on character, record, and other things that were thrown at Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Bork, and (sh!t, drew a blank) the Hispanic guy Bush wanted as Atty Gen won’t be done here, because everyone has been warned off doing it. In fact, Gibbs said the other day that everyone needs to be “really careful about what they say about her”, as though a strong woman can’t hold her own water against an attack against her. If I was Sotomayor I’d be pissed.
True, she deserves the respect to be vetted like anybody else and found worthy like EVERYBODY ELSE.
What gets me is that when I see people asking for qualifications, I get the Lifetime made for television story time. I didn’t ask for story time, tell me why the woman should be on the bench…
*gives the man a banana for stating the problem exactly* Would you like peanut butter with that?
Yes, Nanner and PB sounds great right about now. I’ll explain when I get on AIM tonight, unless I forget and you’ll be in the dark still.
Again, going off memory here (this is a bad habit to get into) but I thought the Hispanic guy (also don’t remember his name, but did it start with an R?) had illegal immigrants working for him, and that was the problem.
Ok, so why isn’t that a problem for people like Geithner and the several other people (I’m pulling the same memory trick that you’re pulling, I’m sorry!!!!!!) in the current administration? I’ll have to research the actual problem keeping the guy out of office and get back with you. I’m sure Wiki has it somewhere, hehe.
-
There is an obvious double standard here, and I really don’t think it comes down to party lines. It comes down to which party is in power at the time. Which one can afford to get away with the attacks and slams against character and upbringing. It just seems like people are being warned off this woman *because* she’s Hispanic and female. Like I said, if I were her, I’d be pissed that the men didn’t think my record would stand under scrutiny.
“Ok, so why isn’t that a problem for people like Geithner and the several other people (I’m pulling the same memory trick that you’re pulling, I’m sorry!!!!!!) in the current administration?”
I dunno what the heck you’re talking about, but for the sake of argument, let’s posit you are correct.
In Sotomayor’s case, we’re talking about a lifetime appointment, not serving at the pleasure of the president.
And a lifetime appointment should be viewed with even more scrutiny and more vetting than just a normal “Oh, he hired an illegal maid for a couple of summers while his kid was in school”. Sotomayor and every other appointment to the bench should go through an extremely grueling test to even be considered, and the fact that she wouldn’t even make muster as a member of a jury should make you hesitate.
Wait there’s a judge named Bork?
Nope, that’s the point. His name has become a verb. “To be borked” means to have everything but the kitchen sink thrown at you to keep you out. Ted Kennedy was on the Senate floor less than 45 minutes after Bork was announced, calling him a racist bigot who would make blacks and women go back to the back of the bus. It was shameful.
“I want qualifications, not a Lifetime movie.”
I’m gonna have to remember that line.
You are most welcome, I am here for the rest of the week.
That being said, I want pretty much anything before I want a lifetime movie. Except maybe spiders, zombies, tornadoes, and nuns.
Still to be looking for the funny- am not finding it.
That’s because you came to Pundit Kitchen. For funny, please check out FailBlog or the LOLCat site.
I’ve been looking for quite a while.
Looking for LOLs in all the wrong places
Looking for LOLs that aren’t by head cases
Searching the boards, looking for traces
of what.. I’m dreaming of…
Hoping to find a LOL that is clever
I may be looking forever
For a LOL that I can love
Yesssss. Come over to the dark side. *insert sibilant giggling here*
Might I suggest a ball gag, you kinky president you.
Or he could just get one of the teabaggers to put his balls in Biden’s mouth.
Well, that’s a win for everyone involved, I’d say.
Talk about a ball gag.
How about that “55″ thing bside the telephone?
“55 more words and you’re a goner!”
Normally Plugs Biden (the dumbest man to ever be VP) has his mouth stuffed with Michelle Obama’s penis.
Bitter troll is bitter.
and b^tt-hurt too
And a Ditto-/Levin-head….
Hahaha!!
By all means, let the oafish lout speak!
He might uncover something besides Obama’s
use of teleprompters, one day. Honsetly, though! Obama’s asked for more air time than many of the previous presidents. But wait, we should let Biden talk. All this about right-wingers being dangerous and crap, well maybe Biden will reveal something about the presidency that would not stand well with the lefties.
WACHOWT, I’M A DANGEROUS RIGHT WING RADICAL!!!!!!!1!!11!!!!
At least Joe is honest.