Maybe we should take all these “good FoxNoise Catholics” and put them in a time machine set for “Dallas, Texas, circa 1960” so they can see how well-loved Catholics were in many parts of the US. There was a very real fear (among the “Protestant majority”) that a Roman Catholic, if elected President, would follow the Pope’s orders and dictates.

So, FoxNoise hosts a batshoe* who posits “ISIS is in the United States” while the network sits back and ignores the right-wing racist militia groups who’ve been designated as terrorists as well.

I’d almost like to see how FoxNoise would’ve reacted if Cliven Bundy had been Cliven al-Bandi. Is there ANY doubt that FoxNoise would’ve been demanding the US send in the full force of the US military to stop the terrorist’s actions from spreading (instead of offering much love and support—at least, right up to Bundy’s little racially-charged comments)?

So, is O’Reilly now against the conservative’s pet cause of “right-to-work”? Texas is a “right-to-work” state which basically says “You as an employee have no right to work except at the whim of the employer, provided the employer doesn’t violate EEOC laws; of course, the employer doesn’t have to tell why he fires you so you’ll have a hard time determining if the EEOC was violated (bwahahaha!).”

“While Anna Kooima cited “religious minorities,” in her opening report, the pro-life anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-atheist Faulkner gave the impression that these people were all Christians."

If the formatting worked, FIFY, Priscilla.

Kevin, if you saw Nader’s recent appearance on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” you wouldn’t want him on FoxNoise. He displayed as much disgust with Obama as FoxNoise drops on their own and while Maher isn’t one to hold back criticizing Obama, Nader’s spiel against Obama would’ve played just as well as the usual FoxNoise spiel (and you can be damned sure that FoxNoise wouldn’t allow Nader even a second of airtime to comment on anything non-Obama if it might reflect things like raising minimum wage or strengthening environmental protections or anything else).

Steve, most of the rational world would do as you suggest. FoxNoise, as we all know, is anything but rational.

Plus, FoxNoise would have to accept its own fair share of responsibility and blame since it did so much cheerleading for BOTH of Dubya’s wars. And we all know, FoxNoise loves to preach the “responsibility” sermon but isn’t so big on living out the message.

It’s amazing. A couple of years ago, when that right-wing s!!t stain excuse for a human being, Breitbart, died, I let out my feelings over the scum’s death on this site, noting that my feelings might cross the line and acknowledged the post might be deleted (and it was*) but a man who literally took a bullet for his boss dies and the nuts of FoxNation post incredibly sick things. My comment was deleted to avoid the right-wing’s eventual whine of “See how vile those libs are when someone dies.” It’s just too bad that the right-wing’s most prominent sites don’t want to show the same respect when people from the “other side of the aisle” die; instead, they (seemingly) actively endorse that type of behavior. (I was going to change that to read “encourage” but I realize that by NOT deleting the outrageous comments, the sites do “endorse” the behavior.)

I hope that didn’t come off as whiny. It was simply writtent to reflect a statement of fact. I didn’t agree with the idea that the evil dead should be respected (even for the sake of their families—as I pointed out back then, when the family’s aware of despicable behavior and does nothing to mitigate the behavior, the family’s feelings shouldn’t be respected or spared; but that’s me….) but this isn’t my site. I’m a visitor, and like a houseguest, you’re expected to abide by the rules of the house. (Amazing how, at the major holidays, *some people, especially the so-extremely-conservative-they-make-Jesse-Helms-look-like-Sol-Alinsky relatives that they’ll make a political argument out of the least little thing, and they’re allowed to because…….the holidays. But, for some reason, that attitude doesn’t apply to the far-left family members, who are expected to simply suffer in silence while crazy Uncle Jedediah’s ranting whatever absurdly insane Alex Jones/Rush Limbaugh/FoxNoise talking point is currently at #1.)

Would someone care to remind me where Steve Emerson was in August of 2001? Some of you may remember that month as the one in which (the white GOP) President Bush was spending his time at his little “ranch” in Crawford and, when he was presented with a PDB titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,” he promptly ignored it. (Here’s a fun fact: According to Wiki, Dubya got the PDB on August 6, 2001. Now, look again at today’s date. Maybe a cake is in order?)

Now, I ask again: Where was Emerson then? What was HE doing while his President* actually ignored the prospect of a genuine “Islamic terrorist on his way” (nearly a score of them, in fact)?

As the old ads for that other source of “reliable” news, the National Enquirer, used to say, “Inquiring minds want to know.”

*And a FoxNoise fave—at least until late 2006/early 2007

Maybe Liz should volunteer to be tortured by some of her “heroes” so she can experience first-hand the “hard work” of those “heroes.”

Of course, she won’t. That would require her to turn in her chickenhawk card. It’s so much easier to badmouth Obama when you have never put your sorry ass on the line in the service of your country. It’s also kind of funny that she out-Palined Palin in the “Quitter Olympics.” At least Palin served a couple of years as Governor of Alaska before quitting; Cheney quit the Wyoming GOP primary a full 7 months before it even happened.

And I’m sure Tuck-tuck would have no problem whatsoever with an imam at a tax-exempt mosque delivering sermons (or whatever the Muslim equivalent is) for his “flock” to get out and vote against pro-Israeli politicians and openly endorse—in the mosque—for specific candidates.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Sorry. Couldn’t help myself. Of course, Tuck-tuck would be the first demanding that the IRS crack down—and harshly—against such activities.

Hal, maybe you should learn to READ what is written instead of reading what Bill O’Reilly said.

Here’s what proves O’Reilly was lying (and it WAS in the post): According to ICE’s numbers for 2013, “59 percent of all ICE removals, a total of 216,810, had been previously convicted of a crime.” The NY Times reported, in April, that “a program of cooperation between federal immigration authorities and state and local police departments has been effective at focusing deportations on immigrants with a criminal record, according to a report published Tuesday by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization here.” It also notes that “at least 75 percent of immigrants deported by the Obama administration in the last five years through the program, known as Secure Communities, had been convicted of crimes.”

Now, go back to your FoxNation cesspool where your type of brain-dead opinions are not only welcomed but encouraged.

Who wants to bet that this “pastor” and Hasselbeck would be incensed at the prospect of imams in mosques delivering political partisan messages as part of a Friday prayer service?

truman, I’ve got a feeling viewers will be ready for the old-fashioned test pattern. (For those who are too young or have forgotten what they are, back in the olden days, BT*, TV stations would sign off—usually around midnight on weekdays—and the only thing that would appear on the channel would be a funny-looking pattern, usually accompanied by a high-pitched sound. The most widely-remembered one, from the old black-and-white era, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian-head_test_pattern .)

*BT = Before Turner (as in Ted Turner, founder of “Superstation TBS,” one of the first US channels to broadcast 24 hours a day).

Actually, Mr Kurtz should remember that it’s NOT “The Daily Show” or Jon Stewart who ever made any sort of claim of “fairness” to anyone—quite unlike a certain network that provides Mr Kurtz ample opportunity to display his own lack of “fairness” to people who hold different views than his own.