idrankwhat

Nope. Only some. I respect those who disagree with me but choose to discuss it in a fair manner. When the idea of "discussion" is reduced to leading with a talking point and then yelling over any attempt at a counter point before turning off the other guys mic as you repeat your talking point, then that's simply ignorance peddling.

You're forgetting Abe Fortas. But that aside, the Democrat's only tool that they had at their disposal during those years was the filibuster. They had already ok'd the vast majority of Bush's picks but they had a problem with a few. The filibuster was the tool at their disposal in their weakened political state. Recall that things were so bad with the Republicans in power at the time that they were even hiding conference meetings from Democratic members. Rep. Rangle tried to find a Ways and Means Committee meeting that was chaired by Bill Thomas. When Rangle finally found the meeting Thomas kept him out, stating that it was only open to the "coalition of the willing". You might as well have had a bunch of kindergartners running Capitol Hill. The filibuster was a legal tool, just as much so as when the Republicans held over 60 Clinton nominations in committee. You pick your battles and use the tools at your disposal, provided they are legal.

The real problem with his brand of entertainment is that it's viral. He makes a good living doing it as do the broadcasters. When other outlets see that that "product" is selling, they want in on the the action too. And when entertainment is substituted for "news" you end up with things like a significant portion of the public thinking that Saddam was involved in the WTC attack. That's ignorance.

What better place to get my info than from AM 790. He's on 12:00-3:00 PM five days per week. I listen to as much as I can stomach and tune away, having reconfirmed that he's an arrogant blabbermouth windbag who does a disservice to thoughtful debate. When I first heard him it was in the early 90's. I thought he was funny in a really f'd up way. But then I came to realize that some people were actually taking him seriously. Seeing people nodding their heads instead of laughing, that was a seriously scary awakening.

Maybe that's what he meant but that's not what I said. Regardless, his statements aren't much different than Hagee's. That's why neither of them needs to be involved in public policy debates.

Because of the tendency for some people to substitute "news entertainment" for actual "news". And when his ignorance peddling gets to the level that he drives the national debate then he's left his status as a simple "entertainer" well behind. Do you think that Randi Rhodes would be a good choice for de facto leader of the Democratic party?

I wouldn't agree with his "it's the Jews" comment. If he had rephrased to "it's AIPAC" then I think that would be a better argument. I'd carry it even further. "It's the PAC's".

I don't know. But I'm willing to bet that she doesn't think that race is more important than judicial experience or an inability elevate the law over political bias. I believe that he was nominated because of his pro-business bias (in an effort to stack the courts) and because he is Latino. However, filibustering his nomination because of inexperience and his unwillingness to share his previous writings doesn't mean that he was being rejected because of his race. And don't forget the politics of the time. It was one party rule, one vote majority equals "will of the people" and "with us or against us" with a side order of "freedom fries". Not our best hour.

You're going to be hard pressed to find a judge who is not part of a race. Besides, she'll fit in just fine. "When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account." Samuel Alito, 2006. So did Alito. Your race and your experiences make you who you are. How you integrate those experiences into your decision making is how you define and apply your philosophy. Sotomayor clearly states this point during the speech. "I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." Earlier in the speech she noted that she "believe(s) that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown." But while that's true, she asserts that there is value to having a diversity of race and gender on the court. Recognizing the value of diversity in a ruling body does not equate to racism. It indicates the belief that the sum is greater than its parts. The court will be improved through added diversity. In matters of involving race she will have some unique and significant experiences to add to the court's decision, as will her counterparts. As I pointed out earlier, a "Judge McCain" would no doubt have a highly valued argument to offer to a discussion on torture. And if there were a case involving privileged Ivy League favoritism I'd expect that "Judge Honkie Legacy Baby" would be able to offer some unique and valuable insight to the discussion. But with that in mind, it comes down to the law. And what you have to decide is whether or not you think that the judge will be able to bring their unique viewpoints to the court but not let it interfere with the application of the law. A good judge can do that, and I believe that Sotomayor has certainly shown that she possesses that capability.

I don't care enough about this argument to repeatedly repeat what has been repeated, especially when it's been stated that her positions are not the issue but that battling her is simply a political ploy to galvanize the base and as payback for perceived past wrongs. But I will point out again that this issue is a no win for her. She simply cannot deal with any discussion involving race that her detractors won't use against her by calling her a racist, regardless of which way her decision goes. So if you want to play politics then go ahead, but realize that most of us recognize it for what it is.

And what do you mean by "fun"?

I think we're not communicating very well. I completely agree with the point you just made. Especially since that was the point that I was making. Marc was implying that we needed to listen to Limbaugh's blabbering in its entirety so we could "understand" the unspoken nuances that apparently reside in the bile. However when the same degree of respect for context is demanded of someone seeking a lifetime appointment, the dittoheads prefer her sound bites over her complete record. So, once again. I completely agree with you.

Because he's not in a position to be seated in a lifetime appointment to the most powerful judicial body in the country? So it doesn't really matter what he thinks or says? I agree with the second but I don't understand your first question/reply. It seems you're saying that we should consider Rush's quotes in full context because he's not a SC nominee, however it's ok to paraphrase Sotomayor's comments because she is being considered for a lifetime appointment. I don't think that's what you meant.

Maybe I shouldn't use skydivers as a representative population. Too many variables. Bunch-o-phreaks!

Both you and rehmwa bring up good points. Just getting your passport stamped on the way to the luxury hotel doesn't expose you to much culture. You have to spend more time with the local people in order to better understand/appreciate their lifestyle. I've done both, but I couldn't have had either experience without traveling there.

Excellent, thanks.

How about, "skydivers who jump more often are likely to have a more thorough understanding of body flight than those who stay at home and read about it?" While it's certainly true that the couch flyer could have an equal or even better understanding of the physics involved he likely would come up short in describing the actual experience of the interaction between falling bodies during a four way scrambles competition.

Ya think>? So, why should we give Rush more latitude or respect for context than a SC nominee?

By ignoring "facts" listed in the thread that address your context concerns. Simply because one particular poster hasn't provided the information doesn't mean that the information hasn't been provided.

Can you transfer from the internal memory to the flash card for download? Seems that would be necessary if you were using NLE due to the absence of the ieee connection.

Fitting

Did he say those things or not? I'd hate to think that you're implying that context may be a factor

Trunk put together a really nice summary here

Positive vibes beaming your way. Heal well and fast, for your own sake as well as ours. Your forum of five fingered fotographers misses you.

...or maybe they are unqualified according to the test. One of the guys who passed the test is Hispanic. Ahhhh HAAA! Ok. Nope. I don't see the point you're trying to make. Thanks for the article though. The quote towards the end of the article seems to sum it up nicely. "The decision ruled that New Haven’s civil service board “had no good alternatives” and was protected because it “was simply trying to fulfill its obligations” under a federal civil rights law when it was “confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact.”" And I really don't see how she's going to ever win in the eyes of her detractors in a case involving race if they decide that the best political tactical move is to call her a racist. If she ruled against Ricci then she's labelled an "unsympathetic racist". If she ignores the federal statute and rules in favor of Ricci then she's a racist who is "legislating from the bench". Either way she's going to be raked over the coals by those who wish to use her nomination as a rallying cry.