Chatter Tongue Gossip

Thoughts on Love, Sex & Entertainment


I hope that everyone is ready for he next installment of the Groovy free lovin Gosselins…  The season premier was reported to have had over 9.3 million suckers viewers.  Since then, from what I’ve heard, their viewership has sucked dropped dramatically! 

And what happens when a previously high profile television show starts sucking reaching its end?  You got it!  They have guest stars!  This week it is going to be Emeril! 

If they were going to have a food person on the show they could at least have a real star like hot ass Bobby Flay.   I guess he is too busy traveling the South showing us southerners how to make Bar-B-Q ribs!   I’d like to work him like a Bar-B-Q rib!  Just in case you don’t watch “The Food Network” of which I am a huge fan, that was what his show was about last night.

I’m glad my husband doesn’t read this site!   

Hell, I forgot all about the Gosselins for a minute, sorry…. 

Anyway, They are apparently going to start the whole “Guest Star” thing as they usually do when a show starts to sucknear its end.  I, Margie Weatherbe, have personally contacted the assholes TLC and suggested that they have “The Super Nanny” on the show and have Kate appear on “Wife Swap”.  All I got in response was a standardized kiss my ass form letter from them… 

I think that everyone needs to email TLC and tell them the same!  I would really really love to see, as I’m sure you would,  Kate and Jon interact with “The Super Nanny and Kate be on “Wife Swap” where I’m sure she would have the husband cowering in the corner before the end of the show!   What a night of entertainment that would be……….


You can find this and other articles of interest on our home page.  Just click on this link  Hope to see you there!  

We would Love to hear from you!  Click on comments below and tell us what you think.

June 8, 2009 Posted by | Celebrity Gossip, Jon & Kate Plus 8 | , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments


sotomayor_052609ggord-angryG. Gordon Liddy has continuously launched verbal attacks on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.   First Liddy slammed Sotomayor’s affiliation with the civil rights group La Raza — and referred to the Spanish language as “illegal alien”.


LIDDY: I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race.” And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments.

Finished with the race-based attack, Liddy moved on to denigrate Sotomayor’s gender:

LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Finally, Liddy disputed the entire idea that there’s anything wrong with the paucity of women and total lack of Hispanics on the Court:

LIDDY: And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote. And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body.


I don’t by any means try to portray myself as the smartest rock in the box but isn’t it very unprofessional for him to make statements about her “menstruating or something”?  And if he truly did have a concern about her ability to make clear and rational decisions during her time of of month, shouldn’t it have been handled with a little more tact?

I don’t really know that much about the La Raza but I will be doing more research into the subject.  From what I understand so far the civil rights groups them is “All for the race and none for the rest”!  If this is true, I can see how her affiliation with this group could spark some uncomfortable questions. 

We would LOVE to hear our thoughts.  Click on commetsbelow to leave your opinoins.

May 31, 2009 Posted by | Political | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Judge Sonia Sotmayor, WHAT WAS OBAMA THINKING !

sotomayor_052609I have personally stayed away from this subject of  Judge Sonia Sotomayor being nominated for Supreme Court by none other than President Obama.  I do know that many people instantly started defending her against racial and gender biased comments before any comments had even been made.  In my experience this usually happens in an attempt to hide unfavorable information and to warn anyone who may speak negatively about a particular subject.  From the research that I have done, Judge Sotomayor is a very intelligent and well edjucated woman with the experiance and “cohoonas” to match!  There is no doubt that she is extremely qualified for the position for which she has been nominated. 

When I first began debating with my co-horts over this subject I was uneducated about Judge Sotomayor’s  judicial record, therefore felt unqualified to form opinions concerning her capabilities.  I do, however, have a fair understanding of  right from wrong.  Since this matter had already been divided along lines of race and gender, I debated that there was no question that this nominee was qualified for the position but was she the “most” qualified.  I asked if there was another candidate that was possibly overlooked that was more qualified because of their gender or her ethnic heritage.  I was then bombarded with slurs from those who support her nomination.  Since a debate consists of presenting opposing views I held my ground.  Otherwise it would have turned  into a conversation rather than a debate. 

I presented that a team is only as strong as its weakest link.  America is after all a team. If we start accepting people of lesser qualifications due to their gender or racial background we all suffer. There is no substitution for quality in any aspect of your government.  

There are some racist people out there in the world, sure!  However, there are a lot of people that are not racist that have legitimate concerns about the direction that the direction that our country is heading. Not just the government but the whole United States.

If you have two people that are ( equally ) qualified for a position, I can see selecting someone who is of a minority race or the gender that is not equally represented in that forum. However, when you have two people that are not ( equally ) qualified for a position and the person who is less qualified receives the job because of their race or gender then it is wrong.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, in a written statement, said Tuesday he’s concerned Sotomayor has shown “personal bias based on ethnicity and gender.” 

“Judge Sotomayor will need to reassure the country that she will set aside her biases, uphold the rule of law and interpret the Constitution as written, not as she believes it should have been written,” said Smith, who will have no vote in the matter, as the confirmation is a Senate matter.

Perhaps Sotomayor’s most controversial decision was in Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she was part of a panel ruling against a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. — they objected after the city threw out the results of a promotion test because too many white firefighters, and not enough minority firefighters, scored high. 

She and two other judges summarily dismissed the case without tackling the complex issues outlined in stacks of briefs and debated in extended oral arguments. Instead, the court issued an unsigned, one-paragraph opinion. Sotomayor’s colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, was so concerned that he wrote a lengthy dissent highlighting what many saw as an attempt to bury the case. 

“This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal,” he wrote. 

The discrimination case was later kicked up to the Supreme Court, and a decision is expected by late June. 

Sotomayor has a record of being rebuffed by the high court. Of the six decisions she was a part of that came before the high court, five were reversed. In the sixth, the court disagreed with Sotomayor’s reasoning. 

Senior administration officials said they have no concerns about the reversal rate or Sotomayor’s position in the firefighter case. But that and other cases are now ripe for analysis. 

— In one case reversed by the Supreme Court, Sotomayor and the majority on the appeals court ruled that an inmate could sue a private corporation for injuries he suffered in a halfway house run by that company. Though the company operated the house on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons, Sotomayor argued that the company was not shielded from liability. The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision in 2001. 

— In another case, Sotomayor dissented in a 2006 opinion that rejected a challenge to a New York law denying convicted felons the right to vote. She argued in her own dissenting opinion that the state law “disqualifies a group of people from voting.” 

— Sotomayor, in 2003, also wrote an opinion that reversed a district court decision that a Muslim inmate’s rights were not violated when he was denied a holiday feast. Sotomayor argued that the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the feast was important to his religion. 

— In 1999, Sotomayor dissented in a decision to dismiss a case in which a black student claimed his school discriminated against him by transferring him mid-year from first grade to kindergarten. Sotomayor argued that the “lone black child” in the class was not given an “equal chance.” 

— In 2007, Sotomayor wrote an opinion holding that the Environmental Protection Agency could not perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine the “best technology available.” She wrote it could only consider cost as a factor in more limited ways. This decision, too, was overturned by the Supreme Court. 

— In 1993, Sotomayor threw out evidence obtained by police in a drug case, because a detective lied to obtain the search warrant — prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain. However, during sentencing Sotomayor made controversial statements by criticizing the five-year mandatory sentence, calling it an “abomination” that the defendant did not deserve.

I am glad to lve in America.  As a woman I have the opportunity to become whatever I may want to become.  I look to Sonia Mayor as both a roll model and in inspiration not only to me but to all women.  She stands as a shinning example of what a woman and someone of a minority heritage can achieve in America.  After reading and researching many of her cases, however, I must question the validity of her nomination to the Supreme Court and the intentions of President Obama who chose her.  It doesn’t seem logical to me that a “person” not a “woman or Hispanic” who has had to have so many decisions overturned and that is obviously bias should have been nominated.

We would love to hear your thoughts.  Click on “comments” below to leave your opinions.

May 28, 2009 Posted by | Political | , , , | 2 Comments