So, are we hearing that FoxNoise would let American military forces be subjected to facing Iraqi laws? That was, after all, the reason that Obama pulled the troops out of the country (except for a very small handful, mostly as observers and trainers) in the first place—because Iraq would not agree to allow US troops to stay in the country UNLESS Iraq could prosecute American soldiers for crimes committed against Iraqi civilians.

I guess FoxNoise has either forgotten that little fact or they really don’t support the troops.

Here’s a portion of Clarke’s comment, just slightly tweaked:

“When you’re a conservative politician, the tendency is that when you have no solutions to what’s going on in a city, a state, a country, you blame political adversaries.”

I mean, we see that attitude ALL THE TIME.

Scott Walker, for instance. He has NO solutions to the problems his state faces, so he just deflects and does a song and dance, blaming HIS political adversaries for “obstructing” his plans.

Hell, the GOPers in Congress. Vote to repeal the ACA more than 50 times, but, at NO point, offer a serious alternative BEFORE repealing the Act.

And, despite massive budget problems, many (red) state governors and legislatures are wasting time proposing and passing bills that do NOTHING to address their budget problems while blaming political adversaries who challenge these nonsense bills (such as the various “discriminate against the gays if you’re acting under religious beliefs” bills and “personhood” bills) for not letting these bills get passed so “the governor/legislature can get around to dealing with the serious issues.” (It’s just too bad that regular people—ie, “the voters”—don’t get the luxury of paying more attention to the silly things than they do the important things. I mean, if a tree falls on your house, you have to figure out how to pay for the repairs before or even instead of when you’re going to go see “American Sniper” for the umpteenth time.)

@ Lies (and the Lying Liar Who Makes It Worse): Perhaps you should actually look at REAL websites that REAL feminists frequent instead of going to reich-wing websites where rape is nothing but a joking matter or the “men’s rights” websites that don’t believe rape is a real problem.

Hmm. I’ve got an idea. Let’s give Coulter a “literacy test” in Urdu. See how well she does with it.

What Coulter doesn’t seem to understand is that “literacy” has zero to do with listening to a debate. Functionally illiterate individuals can hear and understand quite well, and contrary to what Coulter seems to believe, “literacy” has zero to do with reading or understanding English. And since the US has NO official language, a literacy test done in English has no legal merit.

For the record, the reason why the Feds and more progressive states provide assistance in different languages is primarily for comfort. Someone whose primary language isn’t English may be more easily confused by legalese (hell, English speakers have trouble with legalese and it’s IN English) and most election ballots featuring amendments and other proposals are written in legalese (while Spanish or French or Mandarin versions are actually more concise and accurate when translated into English).

Kind of funny really. For the first couple of hundreds of years for Christians, one of the highest honors was “being killed” PHYSICALLY.

O’Reilly’s supposedly a Roman Catholic. Maybe he should take a refresher course on the Saints. A HUGE number of them earned that honor largely on the principle of having died for their faith.

O’Reilly should consider himself lucky that Christians are ONLY being killed “verbally.” Given the actions of more than a few of our Christian Taliban in the past few years, I’m ready to round them all up and ship them off to the Middle East to fight ISIS—with O’Reilly leading the charge.*

*Well, in O’Reilly’s case, he’d probably be leading the retreat.

I had a thought while reading the story, especially where Priscilla mentions how Doocy’s kids kind of did NOT attend public universities. How many folks working at Campus “Reform” are graduates of or currently attend a public university? You know—the places that are the most frequent targets of right-wing outrage over “liberal curricula.”

I know of one who actually is attending George Washington University—a PRIVATE college. That person happens to be Doocy’s guest, Gabby Morrongiello. (And she transferred from Oregon State University, a PUBLIC college.)

But it does really beg the question as to how many of the outraged right-wingers who comprise Campus “Reform” attend and/or graduated public schools which are usually schools which charge lower tuitions and are a bit less picky in terms of acceptance, compared to private schools which tend to be more expensive and more picky in accepting students. Anyone who deliberately chooses to attend a high-priced university gets no sympathy from me if they don’t like the politics of the instructors or the school itself (not that Campus “Reform” has any valid points anyway).

By the way. Why is Morrongiello even attending college? She should be acting like the good little conservative girl and finding herself a husband so she can do her real job—housewife.

I’m not sure why Bill thinks (hah—that’s an example of what they call “oxymoron”) Hillary would “go” to Media Matters. MM doesn’t actually do interviews; the site reports on what other people do and say.

So, Hillary would only “go” to MM if she’s the subject of a story that MM is reporting.

Currently, MM’s home page features the following “Hillary Clinton” pieces:

—Fox’s Tantaros speculates that Hillary Clinton went to Chipotle’s for “Hispanic Outreach”

—O’Reilly: “Hillary Clinton Has An Advantage” Because “It’s Open Season” On White Men In The U.S. (also video)

—Watch Right-Wing Media Praise Hillary Clinton (also video)

—On The Ed Show, Eric Boehlert Explains That Conservative Media Campaign Against Hillary Clinton Is “All About Conspiracy Theories”

—Hannity’s Sexist, Ageist Attack Against Hillary Clinton

Those are just, basically, the first 5 articles dealing with Hillary. NOT A SINGLE ONE involves MM’s actually interviewing Hillary. They’re all just stories dealing with deranged right-wingers attacking Hillary.

@ Anita: No. Even as an agnostic, I’m not willing to blame the Lord for O’Reilly’s existence.

I DO, however, blame Bill’s parents, the Catholic Church (for banning contraceptives and abortions) and whatever brand of liquor was involved the night Bill was conceived.

Yeah, Megyn.

And I suppose you’re still waiting on that sparkly unicorn that you wanted for Christmas.

I doubt you’re going to see any real Democrats appear on FoxNews anytime soon.

Cause to paraphrase Jack Nicholson’s Colonel Jessup (from “A Few Good Men”):

YOU CAN’T HANDLE A REAL DEMOCRAT!!

I should add, to run for any office, you do need to have a bit of an ego but you also need to not let it take over, and that’s the Donald’s real problem. He HAS to be the center of attention at all times but the best politicians are those who step aside to allow others to take the spotlight from time to time; Trump won’t allow anyone else to take that spotlight—not even for a second.

To the troll: What “American hero?” Are you referring to Kyle? The man’s dead. He—quite literally—doesn’t give a rat’s ass about “support” now.

And considering none of the people involved in this latest bit of fake outrage served even one day in the military, their “support” is all talk.

And, just to put this out there, what Kyle did in Iraq was NOT a case of “fighting for our freedoms.” Iraq was NEVER a party to what al-Qaeda did (Saddam, in fact, was the key reason why al-Qaeda wasn’t able to gain a foothold in Iraq) and NEVER posed a threat to the US, much less “our freedoms.” Kyle’s job was to murder people who’d been hopelessly embroiled in violence because the US government (in the form of Dubya and Darth Cheney) got the people of Iraq into a mess.

I’m also just a bit curious: Why do Doocy and his guest hate capitalism and free speech so much? They hate capitalism because they’re forcing the university to host a film that the students (more likely than not) could go see at a local movie theater. I did a quick check at IMDb.com and there are 4 theaters within 50 miles which are still playing “Sniper” so Doocy and his little cohort (emphasis on the middle two letters) are basically attacking the whole free enterprise system. And then’ there’s that “entitlement” thing. It’s a freaking university. Why should the people of the State of Michigan—not to mention the students’ parents—be paying to have a movie (especially one that’s made a buttload of money) shown on campus? And for nothing more than “entertainment.” Hell, the right freaks out as it is when universities show films that are part of a curriculum (especially when taxpayer dollars help fund the showing).

As to the free speech matter, shouldn’t the school be giving as much attention to those who opposed the movie’s showing? Where’s the “fair and balanced” attitude here?

“Other than being Fox News contributors, it wasn’t clear that any of them had been inside a campaign in a decade or more.”

Ellen, I’m shocked. You seem to write that like being “inside a (recent) campaign” makes any difference to FoxNoise. There’s only ONE requirement for a gig at FoxNoise: Bash Democrats (especially the ones named “Clinton” or “Obama”). As other businesses might say, “No other experience necessary.”

Faulkner moved on to compare Clinton’s announcement to Ted Cruz’s. “Liberty University, huge crowd, big spiritually-led message, motivational, talked about all sorts of things, right? And then you have this on tape,” Faulkner said.

And other people might suggest it’s a way of dealing with insecurity. You know, like the stereotypical way that middle-aged men deal with a “midlife crisis” by having affairs with women (or men) half their age or buying flashy sports cars. For a politician, nothing screams “insecurity” quite so loudly as "appearing before a hand-picked (and “forced to attend or else”) crowd at a very friendly venue and resorting to meaningless platitudes designed to fit the target audience. (I mean, it’s not like Cruz really made any realistic announcements that would appeal to people OUTSIDE his target audience. Any appeals to defending civil rights or ensuring that the American right to vote would be protected from real fraud—mostly proven to have been done by GOPers—or ensuring that he would heed Jesus’s words and treat “the least” of people as he would treat Jesus? Not that I’m aware of.) Hillary, by contrast, has little reason to feel a need for some grandiose gesture. In fact, you just know if Hillary had made some Cruzian-style announcement, she’d be getting grief from the FoxNoise types as well.

And look, if Elizabeth Warren had the courage of her convictions, rather than her ambitions, she would run now, when the Democrats want her, and Hillary would be in deep trouble.

Huh? FoxNoise would be all over Warren for being “too ambitious” if she announced/announces a run for the Democratic nomination. They wouldn’t think she had “the courage of her convictions” in a bid for the White House—hell, they’d probably lambaste her as harshly as they did Obama, given Warren’s only been in the Senate since Jan 2013 and Obama had only been US Senator for 2 years when he made his first run; granted, Cruz has only been in the Senate for a little over 2 years but he’s a GOPer and that makes all the difference to FoxNoise.

@ Rob: I admit to doing some research to find the specific section from the Flag Code, but I did know the basic law regarding the US flag being displayed with foreign flags. (IOW, I could’ve made the argument but didn’t have the support right off the top of my head.)

Just a little off-topic, I really used to like “The Daily Banter.” Right up to the point they decided to go to the “subscription” model.

After Ben Cohen made the decision to go “full-on” subscriber mode, I had some legitimate questions and concerns—especially on the “non-subscriber” ability to view pages. Ben said that non-subscribers would get to view 3 pages (per week!) without a problem. If someone didn’t want to subscribe, they’d be able to “buy” page views on a daily basis but this was already after they’d done a SPECIAL “members only” series of pages. So I questioned a number of points that he’d made (and rather civilly, as I recall) and then I had to get ready to go to work.

When I got home that night and went to The Banter, I read an article and started to comment (through Disqus) and got a notice that there was a problem with my comment. So I sent an email to The Banter requesting information as to what the problem was. Ben’s response was VERY uncivil—he called me an a-hole (and didn’t abbreviate the term) and that they could ban me because they wanted to. He also said he was blocking my e-mail address so I couldn’t respond to him. I sent an e-mail to another Banter contributor (including the text of Ben’s e-mail) and, admittedly, I got a little heated about Ben’s behavior but the other contributor was nice enough to respond back and he acknowledged I had a right to be upset (I never got upset at this guy) and he’d see what he could do. Well, I never heard back and I’m kind of afraid I may have gotten him fired because I noticed his contributions to The Banter seem to have dried up just a couple of days after I’d e-mailed him

I still occasionally visit The Banter but it turns out their “3-page views a week” actually includes the home page (meaning once you’ve read two articles, you’re basically blocked from accessing anything else—well, you can click on anything you like but all you get is a pay-wall page).

Sorry for going off-topic but when I saw Tommy Christopher’s name and saw the link to The Banter, it just raised issues for me. I actually enjoyed most of Tommy’s contributions to The Banter (especially as he covered the White House and gave such wonderful insights of the press conferences and the usual inane antics and questions of the FoxNoise reporters). I don’t know if the “ban” is still in effect; it happened in September and I haven’t been to the site in a couple of months or so (the last time I went, I had to scan the front page to see what 2 items most appealed to me, and, of course, there were more than half a dozen interesting pieces so I had to pick the two MOST interesting of the various interesting pieces, and I didn’t bother trying to comment; in fact, I didn’t even bother reading the comment sections anyways).

What “Bubbles” (that’s how I read “Bblz”) doesn’t seem to get is that Paul will have to rely on the “mainstream media” if he ever really wants to get his “message” across. After all, it’s the “mainstream media” that most political ads rely on to lure in voters.

Or is Paul somehow going to just beam his message into voters’ minds via telepathy or some even more devious (and definitely counter-libertarian) method?

Oh, Bubbles, please remind us of the last time that Paul treated a MALE interviewer with the same level of disrespect he directed at Ms Guthrie. I can’t wait to see Paul try to pull that behavior on Bill O’Reilly. (And it’s not like Guthrie is that tough an interviewer in the first place.)

Funny how Steyn disparages (Christian) people with the term “social justice warrior.” Apparently he’s never read the Gospels (you know—something that should be a mandatory read for “Christians”) or he’d see the Gospels are FILLED with tales of one of the first “social justice warriors.”

It was, in fact, Jesus’s “social justice warrior” behavior that prompted the Jewish* authorities into getting him turned over to the Romans and eventually crucified. All that silliness about “loving your neighbor as yourself” and “doing to others as you would have them do to you” and “render to Caesar that which is Caesar” (one of the first recorded pleas for separation of church and state?)—stuff that’s been passed down through centuries, even millennia, to make life better for all.

You know, for folks who like to claim that America was founded on “Christian principles,” they do tend to prefer the Puritanical take on things. And as I recall, the Puritans weren’t all that het on abiding by the specific words of Jesus but were very intent on abiding by the REST of the Bible, with all its nitpicky, judgmental words (kind of forgetting how even Jesus indicated that there was only one true judge).

Maybe Hannutty and Steyn (incidentally, “Steyn” seems a variation of “Stein”—a standard German Jewish name ending—meaning “stone”; rather fitting for the man’s heart) need to ask whether they want to live in the diverse United States or in a Talibanized/ISIS version. (Just like all these “Christians” who go out of their way to put bans on any attempts at Shariah law while ignoring how their own efforts to compel Christianity on the populace is little different from what the Taliban and ISIS are doing).

Rand Paul blathered, “That’s because I get independent vote and because I think I’m getting a percentage of the minority vote.”

Riiiiight, Mr Aqua Buddha. Of course, you do realize you have to win votes in the REPUBLICON PRIMARY before you can get the nomination, right? And you do realize a lot of GOP primaries and caucuses (especially, the caucuses) are restricted to GOP voters. And there aren’t really a lot of “independent” or “minority” voters who vote in GOP primaries or caucuses.

Of course, a lot of those “independent” and “minority” voters could do for you what they did for that Mississippi Republicon and help you win the nomination and then turn around and vote for their preferred Democrat in the general election. (That latter part didn’t work in Mississippi because that state’s so racist Republicon now that Dems are largely “token” candidates in statewide races. The national level, however, especially in “blue and purple” states, could be a completely different matter.)

OTOH, I strongly doubt that once those “independent” and “minority” voters are presented with the real Rand Paul (complete with your not-so-libertarian policies towards LGBTs and women as well as your stated desire to repeal the hard-fought civil rights laws from the 1960s), they’ll see you’re nothing but a typical GOPig and head directly for the Democratic ballot.

Michael—porn star ONLY if she wore a mask or (more fittingly) a leather hood with only a zipper over the mouth.

As they say, Tantaros is a “butterface.” She may have a nice body, “but her face”…………yikes!