(VIDEO) Elena Kagan a Lesbian? Four Harvard Students Out Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee…

I really want a copy of those pictures. Do you know where I can get some?

Bet she made them a lot of money

The U.S. Taxpayers made them a lot of money. Goldman Sachs somehow convinced the government to transfer individual citizens wealth to itself through bailouts.

thats an art form that is honed over a life time of screwing folks. Only a damn good lawyer could do such an act. or a damn good conman or in this case conwoman . I am so low on the scale that it has no effect on my life. But hey I can see where somebody that has a lot to loose would be worried. I'm not.

no one is ashamed
its sexual preference baiting

MMMM slim jims are the bomb

voted way up!

You are absolutely right..Her sexuality shouldn't be an issue in her confirmation, however it is..If you think that the Conservatives are not involved in the speculations about her lifestyle, you are out of touch with reality..The Wall Street Journal published an article insinuating that she is a Lesbian because she played softball at seventeen...

in what way? Please explain how She is unfit to serve I would like to know. I thought She was a prime candidate. So if you could let me know why She is not I would be truly grateful.

There are several issues that are a bit worrisome.
1) she stated in a brief that she believes in "redistribution of free speech", that is, that she believes free speech should be curtailed if the government believes it could be "dangerous". Think about that for a few minutes and get back to me.
2) she stated that she is NOT sympathetic to citizens who live in areas like Washington DC and Chicago who live in dangerous areas and whose gun ownership is banned by local laws, while criminals run around the area armed. She therefore stands in conflict with the recent Supreme Court finding on the Washington DC case, and her vote could harm Chicago citizens (and many millions of others) who wish to protect themselves.
3) She was reprimanded for not investigating a leak of information that came from her office when someone who worked for her called and let an environmental terrorist group know that Law Enforcement was about to raid them and arrest them. This put LE officers in danger. Yet she never made any effort to find out who had leaked the info. Suspicious at best.
4) Kagan violated national law when she banned the presence of the military when she was president of Harvard because of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" "policy". She is unfit to be a Supreme Court judge when 1) she did not know the difference between what she called a "policy" and which was, to the contrary, federal law, 2) she violated federal law with her actions, and 3) encouraged others to flaunt the law. By the way, that law she flaunted had been passed by Clinton, who had been her boss. Hmmm.

I'm sure there are other issues about which I don't know anything today. Give it time. She sounds like another ultra-liberal moron.

An ultra-liberal moron indeed!

sounds like it.

Additional details:
"A good lawyer, or even a bad one, can put loopholes in any proposal. To wit, Elena Kagans explanation of the First Amendment. It's perfectly OK, she wrote in the University of Chicago Law Review, for the government to restrict free speech as long as it means well and calls it something else. The word "restrictions" sounds bad, like a leather restraint, but Mzz Kagan's "redistribution of speech" can sound benign, like free cheese. Who doesn't like cheese? She argued that the government can employ Orwellian restrictions on speech if it thinks such speech might "harm" others, either by direct action or inciting someone else to take direct action. Who gets to decide when such restrictions are imposed for the greater good? Why, the government, of course.
...Here's how the Founding Fathers, ever suspicious of ambitious Lilliputians, wrote the guarantee of free speech: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Note that the First Amendment does not say that Congress "should" make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or that it would be nice if it didn't. The operative words are "shall make no law."
...She does not identify, exactly, what speech the government could regard as inflicting such "harm" as to justify suspending the Constitution, but she offers as examples incitement to violence, "hate speech" and "fighting words." Since certain friends of the White House have suggested that "tea party" activists may have already been guilty of sedition, we can imagine what some of the violations might one day be. "

Bewarned, people: when the government (any government) begins expanding its definition of banned speech, today it may control your political enemies, but tomorrow, it will be YOU and your leaders who are arrested and detained for daring to speak the truth.

"hate speech". What an amazingly broad concept. Today it may mean calling a homosexual a "fag", but tomorrow it may mean simply stating that "homosexuality is a sin" (witness the minister in England who was arrested for precisely that offense).

Then we suddenly find ourselves in a country like Venezuela, where ANY comment that "offends the honor" of a government official is illegal. Journalists who have speculated about evidence suggesting that Chavez cooperates with drug cartels and the FARC terrorists are detained. Politicians who criticize the government policies are arrested, or forced into exile.

Let's not let anyone--from the Left or the Right--tinker with our first amendment rights, can we all agree on that?

Because Limbaugh-haw-haw said so...Why didn't he move to Costa Rica like he said he would if health care passed anyway? ...yet just another lie from the head of the GOP...

Well I guess he never thought it would pass also if you believed him in the first place then you are easly fooled.

Yo numb nutz, he didn't say he'd move to Costa Rica. He said if the gov't passed health care, he'd go there for treatment when we can't get decent care here anymore.

You obviously get all your information from the Media Matters-not

The same thing would apply. He would be getting SOCIALIZED health care. You still don't see the contradiction there, do you...Einstein? Wake up.

it started with Newsweek, not the republicans.

a wink is as good as a nod to a blindman

but whos gunna take the bait and run with it?
fox

Thats not going to happen.

what exactly is "common maturity"?
and how exactly does kagan exemplify that ambiguous "virtue"?

common maturity? I guess thats just what I'm not agreed? Ya know we need to get togeather for a cold drink sometime. My treat:-)

Dewd, such fn bullshit. "most republicans have sex with dudes in airport bathrooms" please, one or two closet homosexuals does not make all republicans gay, anymore than the dozens of closet communists makes all democrats communists.

generalizations about any group is wrong.
but thier is a great frequency of muslums terrorizing
priests pedophiling
and conservatives sodomizing

Those ain't taco's she likes, unless we're talking about fish tacos.

Why was this voted down Because I said queers? I will tell ya if I vote a comment down so why doesn't the person that voted this down come out and say what is on their mind. Don't be shy. speak your mind or are you so used to hiding that you can only attack from the shadows? thats kind of chicken shit way to do things. let me guess your a republican.

I voted your immature and stupid ass down not because you used the word "queer", but because you made an idiotic generalization based upon a few closet homosexuals in the party you tried to brand all republicans as gay.

if that kind of logic were true, then ALL Democrats would be gay because there are so many openly gay Dems in office. Or all Hispanics could be branded as violent because a few got violent in their recent marches. Or all Blacks...well, why go on? you get the point (you have any intelligence at all).

I voted it down not because you said "queers" but because you said "who really gives a rats ass who She sheeping with?"

I do happen to care who she's sleeping with. If she's sleeping with the President, then I'd like to know. If she's sleeping with that Nancy Pelo- (however you spell her name) then I'd like to know that also. If she's sleeping with my wife, then I think it's important that I know about it.

Well Ok first off I'm not stupid I am uneducated there is a diffrence. second i like the fact that I'm immature I really enjoy it. I also did not say that all republicans are queer I asked if they were a bunch of queers. I also never put all those peole in the same catagory as you just did. i also have nothing aganest those that are queer. So how long have you been a republican and are you queer also? Now thats going to get flagged right? Not that I really care. Oh yea I'm sure there are a few more democrats in the closet and I find it a real shame that they have to hide who they are. Oh well life goes on.

you really should get out more and she may be sleeping with your wife but hey at least she's not sleeping with cheany.

oh yea if you do catch her sleeping with your wife get video of it for me Ok.

"I am nut stoopud I am un educatud. their iz a difrunce."
Sorry to split hairs, Mr self-proclaimed Uneducated Genius, but reading your posts, in which you struggle to spell common words and form concise sentences that don’t contradict themselves, you reveal that you are both stupid AND uneducated. Ignorance can be cured, but I suspect your problem is permanent.

Why thank you :-) now that we have cleared the air on that are you a gay republican or not? you seem to defending them in a strong manner for some reason. I could see if you were and scared to come out. oh yea i never said i was a genius I just said I was not stupid. also I hope you have a good evening. It's going to be beautiful here this evening.

you sure seem fixated on sexuality today. having your own doubts, are you?

Nope not yet but i will make sure your the first I talk to about it when I do.

probably because it is just a stupid thing to say about a group of people

I didn't even vote it down!

Well you can vote it down if you like. hey I'm an easy going guy that does not worry about the point system here. I know who and what i am and what I stand for.

being liberal allows our alternative lifestyle members to be open
consevatism in order to appeal to thier base requires it be closeted
on the left those who are gay or animal rights activist or vegans or whatever are valued on thier professional worth alone
on the right it these things indicate you arent one of us
ask a dem if he is gay his answer comes with no political fallout within his party
ask a repub and they will say they are straight despite being gay so its a constant that any republican could be gay.
from confirmed bacholer charlie crist to larry "wide stance"craig

thats why i love ya bailey (in regards to this thread ill mention its a hetero love) ya talk out of your ass all the time and as a result of immaturity are usually wrong. but you arent aggressive or hurtful, so rock on brother.
express what ever you want-you are free speech personified

Umm Thanks? I just say what comes to mind even if nobody agrees with me . I like me today and thats all that matters in this world is that one loves who they are. Oh yea I think curtisreed may be a Gay republican that is scared to come out of the closet. But thats Ok so long as he is happy with his self.

as jon stewart would say "zing!!"

Umm is that a good thing or am I going to be sending someone to talk to you?

good and silly

Thanks if I could only make a liveing out of being silly. I would have a good life again.

well you kind of blend religious conservativism with the other forms of conservativism (fiscal, national security, immigration...in other words, there are plenty of "fiscal conservatives" who are also socially liberal--McCain and Liz Cheney are good examples)

so your comment expresses one way of seeing it. The other perspective is that for liberals, there is no limit to debaseness or perversion that is not acceptable. "express yourself, not that there's anything wrong with that" There ARE gay Republicans, most conservatives are not nearly as worked up about their sexual orientation as they are on the policies they promote. Even most very conservative Christians who don't approve of homosexuality "hate the sin, but love the sinner" and try to avoid being hateful.

You guys constantly assume that conservatives are not environmentalists, which is just silly. There is a close relationship between conservatism, gun ownership, hunting and a love of the environment. But their perspective on HOW to preserve the environment is just different fromt hat of the liberals. Conservatives are wary about the Govt buying up land, they'd rather see private owners protect the land.

You don't think there are any conservatives who are careful about their diet? Even some vegetarians? How about black conservatives? (there is a record number of black conservatives running for office this year--so many it's the most since Reconstruction!) How about Hispanics?

my point is that Liberals often err in their assumption that Republicans are nothing but white, old, christian bigots (I know this for a fact; back when I was a lib and hung out with democrats, I remember very well how all the conservations went and what they all thought...it took me years to figure out what a bunch of bullshit it all was) IF that were true, there is no way there'd be enough that they would have dominated politically over the past couple of decades.

bailey, everytime you make this kind of comment, you simply prove you are not the open minded liberal you think you are. You use this "gay republican" comment like you think it's somekind of insult, a tendency that hints that you are actually a pretty closed minded, dare I say, bigoted, person.

I really couldn't care less what you think and I have no intention of responding to your childish insults.

I know I'm not a open minded liberal. I really don't care if you respond to anything I type hell I don't really care if anyone replies to any thing i type at all. You think I do this for attention I do this because it's what I want to do. I say what ever comes to mind well Ok I don't use the cuss words that come to mind but none the less I just say what an how I feel about what ever the topic is. I don't care where you stick you little friend or what anyone else does with there body parts so long as it between two adults. So you see I don't care if you reply or not.

dems think repubs have cloven hooves and pointy tails and repubs think dems are pansies living in a fantasy world.
but in the end who carries water for whom
how many dems are anti gay anything?
how many dems vote business over environment.?
how many dems take us to war?
thier are pathologies from wich these opinions are derived, but what strikes me is (and i have the same problem) you can stop lefty bullshit coming a mile away (right bullshit for me) but get trapped by the other sides blind accusations.
this idea that liberal progressives are pro "what ever feels good" is propaganda.
no legislation supporting pedophiles
no legislation supporting beastiality
just the right to be free and freedom feels good

does She look a little like Rosie O'donnell ?

She looks more like John Lovitz than she does Rosie O'donnell

Oh my I think your right about that it's like John Lovitz and Rosie O'donnell had a child togeather and this is the off spring of that union

When I first saw her I thought Chaz Bono/Kathy Bates..?

ya but they can't really breed tho.

Although they'd probably love to, you are absolutely correct.

so my final say will be.. the secret love child of Kathy Bates and Jon Lovitz

Now thats a story i will buy.