About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Gingrich admits there is "no evidence" in Sotomayor's "court decisions" that she is a "racist"

June 04, 2009 10:21 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Dem02020 (June 04, 2009 11:30 pm ET)
      8  

      I watched the video clip, but w/o the sound, because I could not care less to hear what newt gingrich has to say on this or any other matter...

      But watching the video, I'm stuck by what a repulsive and flaccid sad sack of shifty and dull-eyed flesh newt gingrich is...

      I mean that in a respectful and even admiring way of course.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (June 05, 2009 1:45 am ET)
          15
        That is a brilliant way to make a judgement.

        I mean that in a respectful and even admiring way of course.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 05, 2009 8:21 am ET)
          8  
          That is a brilliant way to make a judgement (sic).
          It must be, because it's more correct and cogent than anything you have ever posted.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2009 12:09 pm ET)
          5  
          Oh, you mean brilliant as in... say... Mark Levin taking cheap shots at other people's looks, uh, libs that is? But completely silent when it comes to fugly conservatives. What say you on that? Oh, lemme guess. He's an 'entertainer' so he can say whatever the hell he wants, right?

          Ever occurred to you that perhaps Dem is an entertainer too? One who is actually funny?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (June 05, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
              7
            Oh so you disagree with Levin's cheap shots about looks but you agree with Dems cheap shots about looks. A classic hypocrite.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Victor Colorado (June 05, 2009 2:26 pm ET)
              8  
              I didn't read your posts, but I bet this one in particular really sucks.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
                3  
                All his posts suck. He's not even an amateur at this. Some of the other cons here at least put forth the effort... the same cannot be said for fairlibby.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Preston (June 05, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
                2  
                He's like a dumb version of Tommy. At least with Tommy you knew he was arguing from a libertarian/Randian/Reaganite position, at least you saw a framework in Tommy's thought process. Fauxliberal? Nah, he's just a typical freeper who seeks attention from those libs he holds in contempt.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Victor Colorado (June 05, 2009 3:29 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Agreed. I'm not going to read his posts anymore. I tried discourse with him, but it's just a waste of time with fakename.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
              1  
              Find where I said I agree with Levin's shots and Dem's shots.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (June 05, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
                5  
                Remember that the strawman argument is sacred to the dimmer wingnuts
                Report Abuse
                • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2009 4:23 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Thanks, solon. I'm still learning. Learning about the 'thought processes' of wingnuts is a challenge, their language is alien to my rational mindset.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (June 06, 2009 12:17 pm ET)
               
            LEVIN is a pathetic, worthless piece of garbage.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by jbrantow (June 04, 2009 11:52 pm ET)
      6  
      So when newt called Ms Sotomayer a racist....he was just talking out of his butt? Is that how he governed as speaker of the house....and how he would govern if he were ever elected to anything in the future. Newt the chicken hawk hypocrite.
      Tell us newt......is it true,the third marriage is a charm?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by phredicles (June 05, 2009 12:12 am ET)
        5  
        "he was just talking out of his butt? Is that how he governed as speaker of the house"

        Well, there's an emphatic "yes".
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 05, 2009 8:25 am ET)
        3  
        he was just talking out of his butt? Is that how he governed as speaker of the house
        Well, he was the "chairman" of the House...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (June 05, 2009 12:47 am ET)
      6  
      Is this what they call a flip-flop...?

      Or is this just the bewildered ravings of modern con-servatism?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (June 05, 2009 4:58 am ET)
        3  
        You can call it a flip-flop, but lets not use words that Newt doesn't know how to spell.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 05, 2009 8:26 am ET)
        5  
        It's called "letting the lie get halfway around the world before putting shoes on the truth and letting it start walking."
        Report Abuse
    • Author by buckeyekarl8288 (June 05, 2009 1:25 am ET)
      2  
      newt needs to shut up, he is a hypocrite and nothing but a right wing gasbag. just like hannity.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (June 05, 2009 9:49 am ET)
      7  
      Oh, goody.... it's "Truth Day" in the Republican Party. Does that mean that they are finally going to admit that invading Iraq was the stupidest foreign policy decision of the past quarter century?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 05, 2009 10:27 am ET)
      5  
      Thanks Newt. Now how about a nice hot, steaming cup of shut the f--- up?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by goshzilla (June 05, 2009 9:49 pm ET)
      2  
      Coming next, Newt praises single payer health care? No of course not until he sees the polls mess with the repug's chances of winning.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by whattodo (June 06, 2009 1:05 pm ET)
         
      Did any of you watch the clip? He said that he misspoke when he called HER a racist, but the statement remains a racit statement. You are talking about people talking out of their butts. Then wouldn't it make sense that Sotomayor was "talking out of her butt" (4 times by the way) when she made a statement that requires all the libs to clarify her "context". Do you all make an effort to determine O'reilley's context or Hannity's? Of course you don't. When see an opportunity to rip on them, you do, context and intent aside. Now don't get me wrong, they do it often, but, isn't it a bit hypocritical to allow context to play such a role in those you approve, but, not in the case of those you disagree with?

      And by the way, anyone with basic reading comprehension skills would know that her statement was racist. It breaks down to Latina women make better decisions than white males. The qualifier is latina women. So, she is saying latina women make better judges than white males. It is as simple as that. And she was not speaking about the same cases during the four speeches she gave. So that argument is out. I see this actually becoming a bigger deal than you all think. Tie that to the New Haven decision where she flat out said the test did not promote enough african americans, even though they did not score well, leaves many questions
      Report Abuse
      • Author by davemccarthymusic9410 (June 06, 2009 2:13 pm ET)
           
        what to do says-

        "the qualifier is latina women. So, she is saying latina women make better decisions than white males."

        yeah, well, she NEVER said that. (that would be racist!)This is why context actually IS important. She was speaking in terms of rulings involving race and gender discrimination. (this is something a Latina would likely be more familiar and conversant with than a white guy.)

        See how context works?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by davemccarthymusic9410 (June 06, 2009 2:22 pm ET)
           
        hey, I actually have far better than basic reading comprehension skills, which is why I seem to know exactly what she said, and YOU DO NOT.

        Also, your summary of the decision in New Haven is exactly 100% off the mark.

        Other than that, you done good.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by whattodo (June 07, 2009 9:52 am ET)
             
          You can infer all you want but the words are the words. You are just blind to anything that is contrary to your desire. The truth is, if you were honest with your self and read the sentence you would understand exactly what she said. More often than not a latina woman would make better decisions than a white male. As a result of her being a latina woman, she makes better decisions. But, continue blocking your ears and yelling so you can't hear anyone. Otherwise, without claiming to read her mind or tweak her words to create a less malignant statement, you tell me how you can interpret it any other way.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by whattodo (June 07, 2009 5:52 pm ET)
             
          Then please explain. I am here to learn. I will give you the words of her quote and you explain them to me, without adding words or telling me what she "meant". You do not know that unless you can read minds.

          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, my interepretation is as follows,
          wise latina woman, reach better conclusion than white male. Because of the experiences unique to a latina woman.

          You tell me, where am I wrong? And don't tell me she was saying it in regards to a specific case. That is a lie, she said it at least 7 times, when not speaking about racial or gender issues.

          Truthfully, unless I am missing something, I believe you all are incapable of acknowledging what was said, because you do not want it to be true.
          Report Abuse