Such as?

Such as defending the use of a racial slur while damning a much more innocuous comment, simply because of your ideological blinders. Context you claim clears your friend, yet you ignore context when it involves one of your ideological 'enemies'. Pick a standard and stick with it.

Do you know how to use a dictionary? If so, I suggest you look up the word "context"...as in reading her entire speech and taking that particular sentence in context of the whole speech...c'mon, you can do it if you try really try...

Are you assuming that James has not read the full quote or that he cannot figure out for himself what it meant in context?

I'm suggesting his opinion is wrong. As is yours.

Yet you are never willing to be held to the standards to which you hold those who disagree with you politically. You constantly bitch and moan about liberal double standards yet daily you apply ridiculous double standards on virtually every political topic.

Such as?

The only people who think that Judge Sotomayor is a "racist" are a small, vocal group of right-wing reactionary loons, like yourself, who, of late, seem to be showing that they have a tenuous grip on reality when it comes to certain viewpoints..

Let's test that.

“I would hope that a wise White Man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than say, a Latina who hasn’t lived that life.”

Would you that statement racist and sexist? Yes, or no question.

But I'll bet you have no problem at all with:

“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.”

Again I ask you; why not?

The only people who think that Judge Sotomayor is a "racist" are a small, vocal group of right-wing reactionary loons, like yourself, who, of late, seem to be showing that they have a tenuous grip on reality when it comes to certain viewpoints...thanks for playing, indeed...

Yet, we can take their word for it or hers. The two seem rather different.

Are you assuming that James has not read the full quote or that he cannot figure out for himself what it meant in context?

And again, it comes down to holding liberals to the standards they set for everyone else.

Yet you are never willing to be held to the standards to which you hold those who disagree with you politically. You constantly bitch and moan about liberal double standards yet daily you apply ridiculous double standards on virtually every political topic. Regardless of your rationalizations this makes you a hypocrite.

Sure. What I gather Sotomayor to have been saying in that particular speech, however, was something pretty benign -- that one's cultural experience shapes one's views on life.

Certainly that was the spin placed on it by the white house. Yet, we can take their word for it or hers. The two seem rather different.

And again, it comes down to holding liberals to the standards they set for everyone else. How would such a statement play had a southern white male Republican senator have uttered it? I think we know the answer to that, don't we?

That's fair enough. But it's idiotic when the Left does it; we shouldn't follow suit.

Part of the idea there is holding them to the standards they themselves set.

I was referring to the vile "spic chick"...can't you do a better job of monitoring your contributors? Or perhaps you approve of such terms...

As I have said I approve of it's editorial use within the context of what is clearly a racially motivated appointment. Here again, I'm holding liberals to their own standards. How is it that you object so loudly to the use of a phrase, claiming racism, and yet you don't notice the racism inherent in this appointment, and the racial attitudes of the appointee? Liberals get tripped up in their own standards every time; this is merely one more time. Thanks for playing.

I really don’t get why many Republicans have taken this opportunity to reinforce the already widespread impression that they are morally odious morons.

LOL, are we discussing evolutionists again?

What a silly thing to type...what does racism have to do with evolution...

rac⋅ism [rey-siz-uhm]
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races

LOL, are we discussing evolutionists again?

"The Republicans have it tough here. Oppose her and the race card is going to played against them. Support her and allow a less than stellar judge on the highest court in the land. For life."

Anyone here remember the Clarence Thomas hearings? His stirring statement about "high tech lynchings" when Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment? How the GOP accused Dems of being "racist" in opposing Thomas; that is, only supporting minorities if they are liberal (still a favorite argument of the Repubs, they love trying to turn the tables on the Dems, "no, YOU'RE the real racists!")? And whoever thinks that Clarence Thomas is a "stellar" member of the Supreme Court, please raise your hand.

Support her and allow a less than stellar judge on the highest court in the land.

Republicans certainly didn't seem to mind that course of action when it came to Clarence Thomas...

I was referring to the vile "spic chick"...can't you do a better job of monitoring your contributors? Or perhaps you approve of such terms...