[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……

Attitudes do not transmit between people by osmosis. To not only assume that people internalize values of ANYONE through proximity, but then to also accuse people of internalizing their associates' values is presumptuous to the extreme. It has no place in serious investigatory journalism.

Do you understand the concept of "primary source" evidence? "My" level of requirement would be met by quotations rather than speculation. There are NO quotes presented that prove racism on the part of Wright or Davis, unlike Minister Farrakhan.

To misrepresent speculation as fact is dishonest. To accuse someone of any offense based on such speculation is a serious breach of integrity.

Add to that, she worked for a Puerto Rican group that is similar to LA RAZA, WHICH MOST ASSUREDLY is kinda of a racist organization, except that there is no such thing as an Hispanic race!

Rev Wright did far more than just "associate" with Louis Farrakhan………….he featured him on the front covers of Trinity Church's magazine, had many a GLOWING article about him inside said magazine, had him give speeches at the church, and gave him some sort of medal and honors. Rev Wright also sent many of his male parishioners to D.C., INCLUDING OBAMA, for screwy Louis "MILLION ( it never even reached 1/2 a million and that was including children ! ) MAN MARCH !

If all of THAT isn't enough "proof" for you, then NOTHING will ever reach your level or requirements.

Yes, I have to quit this nonsense. I wasted a good part of the day and need to write only if I can eventualy get paid for it.

Enough of this. Back to work.

TY

She is making a comparison between SOME Latinas and whites, not a categorical comparison. The statement did not mention herself at all. Do you need the definition again?

You can always speculate as to motive, but accusations should be based on empirical evidence.

BTW: All caps is "screaming." Capitalizing one word is done for emphasis.

1. She did not say that Latinas WILL reach better conclusions. A hope is not a declaration of fact.
2. She spoke of "wise Latina." She not not speak of ALL Latinas.
3. She did not even say that SHE is a wise Latina. She did not say she is anything in this statement.

If you erase all of the qualifiers from her statement AND make certain assumptions, then your inference would be true. In the same respect, if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses when they jumped.

As it is, though, you must evaluate statements as they are actually presented, including qualifiers. For example: The Iraq NIE contained numerous qualifiers about WMD. The Bush administration misrepresented the NIE by saying "there is no doubt" Iraq had WMD. Such misrepresentation either by the Bush administration regarding the NIE, or by you regarding the Sotomayor statement, is dishonest.

She is saying that she is more qualified than every White man. That is pure racism.