Did a little checking and it seems that good old Bolling was old enough to have served in the “Gulf War” (where we were misled into “liberating” Kuwait)—but he had the misfortune of having a rotator cuff injury which derailed his oh-so-promising baseball career and probably wouldn’t have let him serve in the military. Of course, he could have joined the military after college but that would never do for a young conservative in the making—not during the Reagan era.

Daniel, he’s NOT a “Navy SEAL”; he’s a FORMER Navy SEAL. If he really wants to help defend his fellow countrymen, he needs to go rejoin the service.

As far as “teaching” people how to “defend” themselves from a terror attack, he’s full of crap. By its very definition, a “terror attack” is going to happen with NO advance warning. Most public places are going to not simply ask, but DEMAND, to check any bag large enough to carry all his “recommended” supplies. And the damn things are going to be pretty difficult to carry into places where terror actions are going to happen. You think you’re going to take that bag through airport security? You think you’re going to take that bag with you into a major sporting event or concert? You think you’re going to take that bag into a place like Macy’s or even Wal-Mart without it being checked? Once you’ve been turned away while carrying the bag, you’re going to be much less likely to try carrying it anywhere. And what good will it do you sitting in your car when some group of terrorists decide to swarm a mall?

It’s too bad these people don’t realize what made the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution so revolutionary—especially when it comes to the matter of “rights.”

Prior to the American Revolution, the US was ruled by England whose monarch (at the time, George III, but this applied to his predecessors back to William III and Mary II), while constrained partially by Parliament, was still considered to be on the throne “through the Grace of God.” While Cromwell and his co-horts in the middle of the 17th century had removed the English monarch’s “Divine Right” status (which still largely applied to the kings and queens “on the Continent”), the monarch remained on the throne through a “divine” connection (the English monarch was also the “Defender of the Faith” as head of the Church of England). In other words, the American revolutionaries (including the Founding Fathers) believed that ALL humans had rights simply because they were human beings (that’s part of the “inalienable” deal) and while they used deistic (not “Christian,” much less this modern right-wing PCism, “Judeo-Christian”) terms to ascribe the origin of these rights, that was simply a reflection of the era (even the evil “evolutionist” Charles Darwin was a devout Christian), that was simply to point out that kings were not really any better than their subjects. Most Europeans living under the rule of monarchs truly believed that their kings were “better” than they were because God put those kings on their thrones and that the common people’s very lives were subject to the king’s whims. The Founding Fathers said, "That’s false. We’re all equal. Kings are no better than their subjects. (It should also be noted that, in Europe, the STATE-SANCTIONED/SUPPORTED CHURCH reinforced this opinion on their flocks. That’s another reason the Founding Fathers put the kibosh on any “official” church—despite the best efforts of right-wingers such as the “cafeteria Christians” at FoxNoise.)

truman, I’m not so sure about that. It would, however, make it much tougher for Carson to get any attention (even on FoxNoise) since his shtick is NO different from the usual (white) right-wing suspects.

With this despicable smear, I do NOT want to hear or read any complaints at the treatment by liberal/progressive sites of Sarah Palin or any other female conservative and their broods.

Well, Eric, you have a gallery of nominees just waiting for your choice: Your co-workers.

After you’ve awarded each of them your glorious award, then award yourself the prize, then retire it.

Fr. Morris asked “what about if I want to desecrate a Koran…and speak pro-Nazi stuff right in front of my church and get people all fired up on a public sidewalk.”

Well, golly gee, Father Sparky, go ahead and do it. The government’s not going to stop you.

Then again, don’t expect the “government” to step in and protect your sorry ass when someone who disagrees with you decides to take exception with your decision. You know, like if someone decides to spray grafitti on that church like “Nazi pig sympathizer” or “Anti-Semitic racist scum,” don’t expect the police to be very quick to investigate. And the Qur’an desecration bit? Don’t be surprised if a bunch of Muslim fanatics issue a fatwa on you (or some poor Catholic relief worker is kidnapped by some Muslim extremist group and beheaded on camera over your actions).

You might want to remember what happened when a group of Nazis decided to march through the predominantly Jewish suburb of Skokie, Illinois. The courts upheld the group’s right to march as part of the price we Americans pay for the right of free speech. The converse, of course, is that very same right does NOT prevent us from being held accountable for what we say.

It is incredibly hilarious how the same people who normally revile the government’s very existence will turn (almost on a dime) to that very same government to help them when it benefits them. FoxNoise has zero problem supporting beset-upon Christians who can’t wear crosses in schools (dress codes prohibiting jewelry) or who can’t pass out Christian propaganda* in schools (because the school doesn’t allow any other religious propaganda from being distributed) but when a true minority religious group (Wiccans, Muslims, Satanists, even the non-religious) seeks to express ITS Constitutionally-protected rights, then FoxNoise gets all huffy about it.

Apparently, Tuck-tuck must’ve skipped out the day his parish priest delivered the homily centered on the following passage from the Gospel of Luke:

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

(Chapter 18, verses 9-14)

See, Tuck-tuck, even Jesus himself felt that prayer was something between a person and God, rather than something used for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion.

Oh, please. This “marriage penalty” tax crap is so stupid. There’s no such thing (at least, not for a couple of decades anyway). Look at the tax rates and you’ll see it’s not real.

A single person earning $50,000 a year pays the SAME taxes that a “couple, filing jointly” on earnings of $100,000 (that’s combined earnings, whether each spouse earns roughly the same or one spouse earns the full $100K on his/her own or some split in between). It’s only if married couples file individually that there may be a “penalty”; then again, they have a CHOICE of filing options to determine which is more optimal for them—unlike a single person who works more than one job (when a single person works multiple jobs, all that income has to be combined into one total which could put the worker in a higher tax bracket while the moneys withheld from each separate job could result in a hefty refund if the worker could file separate returns for each job; that’s effectively what married couples get to do with the joint-vs-separately filing every single year). Even a single person who files “head of household” doesn’t get as much of a break as a married couple filing jointly (IMS, he or she can earn around $70K and pay the same tax rate as a “regular” single person pays on $50K).

Then, too, most married couples have a number of other deductions lessening their actual tax bill that are less likely to be available to single filers. Housing costs, for instance. Single people are less likely to OWN their own homes (even when “heads of household”) than couples, so there’s no luxury of deducting mortgage interest. And dependents? That’s why single people get the “head of household” option; otherwise, you can’t really claim dependents (but you do get a choice of form 1040s—single with no dependents or other deductions gets EZ, single with dependents or some deductions gets A and single with dependents and a LOT of deductions gets the regular form; married filers can use the EZ, but only if they have one income, are filing jointly and have no dependents). But the standard deductions available are $X for singles and $2X for married couples filing jointly (and, effectively, $2X for married filing individually since each person gets the $X deduction on their returns).

But, right now, the only married people who are getting screwed over on their taxes are same-sex couples in states that don’t recognize same-sex marriages. At the moment, they can file a joint federal return for the Feds, but have to file separate federal returns for their states and separate state returns as well.

The women of “Outnumbered” bear a striking resemblance to the Greek mythical Graeae, also known as the Stygian witches. The only difference is the mythical witches were three sisters who shared a single eye and single tooth; the witches of “Outnumbered” share a single brain. (Even at that, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt—a single brain CELL might be more realistic.)

Antoinette, for one of Palin’s children to “write a tell-all book” would require them to be able to write anything. Perhaps, “We hope one of her children dictates a tell-all book” is a bit more on the mark.

’Sfunny, Daniel, but I seem to recall Ann Coulter describing the widows of 9/11 first responders in rather less-than-glowing terms (actually, somewhat reprehensible terms to be honest) and yet the “good” folkkkks at FoxNoise never argued against her nor did they bar her from appearing on the network.

Furthermore, it’s worth reminding you that Bill Maher was fired by ABC for his comments about the terrorists, and yet, he was NOT incorrect. It did take some guts and personal courage to hijack a plane and fly it into a buiilding as compared to flying a jet 20,000+ feet and dropping bombs on completely unknown targets. (There was an episode of “M*A*S*H” that involved a pilot who dropped bombs on the “enemy” and flew back to Tokyo after a “hard day’s work.” Hawkeye decided to show the guy some of the victims of the bombings and the pilot’s biggest concern was whether the bomb fragments were American or the enemy’s, to which Hawkeye basically said, “It doesn’t matter to the kid.”) Of course, in the post-9/11 heyday, rational thought went out the window and right to the stratosphere. Churchill’s comments may have been a bit raw but he was largely analyzing from a purely objective view point—not letting an absurd sense of mock patriotism blind his analysis (unlike FoxNoise which allows its right-wing conservative bias to determine its “fair and balanced” agenda—such as how it views Obama).

Ironic. A network whose talking heads are largely Catholic bemoaning “Meatless Mondays.” Maybe I’m falsely attributing the reason, but I seem to recall how most of my school lunches tended to serve fish on Fridays—no fried chicken or hamburgers or hot dogs. Now, wasn’t there a particular religious denomination that forbade its followers adherents from partaking of meat on Fridays?

Most schools now say they can’t afford to offer multiple food choices. And if it’s too expensive to provide the government’s healthy food suggestions, how can it be any cheaper to offer students a choice of entrees? Even if the variety of entrees are nothing but highly processed frozen foods, the schools are going to wind up with a fair amount of waste if they’ve got to feed 1000 kids; the schools aren’t going to know which kids want chicken nuggets versus hamburgers each day (let’s say they make 500 servings of chicken and 500 burgers but the first 500 kids in line scarf up the burgers and the next dozen kids in line wanted a burger but have to “make do” with the chicken; kids are pretty fickle—the next day they make more burgers and some kids whine because they wanted the chicken but the cafeteria ran out).

Richard, I hadn’t even considered the clothing aspect. I wonder how “Judge” Pirro would react to someone appearing before her in court dressed the same way she is? I mean, granted—being on TV allows a bit more leeway than for court, but isn’t it funny how men on TV almost always wear full suits (especially on “serious” programs, especially the news—even what passes for news on FoxNoise) just as they would for court, but women are given more “leeway” in their TV wardrobe?

I realize I don’t watch FoxNoise (that’s why I rely on NewsHounds—to do the watching for me) so I don’t know if the network has covered any of the “dress code” stories being imposed on female students but, given the level of attire so many of the FoxNoise females* wear, I’m guessing they don’t. It would be kind of difficult to harangue about how teenage girls being surprised at being punished for not adhering to a school’s dress code policy when the female FoxNoise talking head wouldn’t pass that same dress code policy. I mean, girls are told they can’t wear this or that because “they’re distractions to the male students” but why else do the FoxNoise females select their wardrobe if NOT to distract their male viewers?

Too bad we can’t go back to the days immediately following 9/11 when dozens of innocent Sikhs and Muslims were harassed, even KILLED by “good” Americans

Where do you suppose FoxNoise’s sympathies lay back then? With the INNOCENT victims or the (mostly white) “domestic terrorists?” I’m betting with the terrorists.

Richard, that’s NOT possible. You’re operating under the misguided notion that Carlson even has a brain.

Steve, the only thing about Bowie and Cooper is their makeup was largely a theatrical stunt. Bowie did have an admittedly bisexual reputation at the time but TV appearances, whenever the makeup issue came up, definitely confirmed it was part of the costume. George, on the other hand, confessed to wearing makeup as part of his regular daily routine. Oakey, compared to his fellow male Human League bandmates, was very heavily made up while compared to the group’s female contingent was almost barefaced (he wore lipstick, or at least lip blush, on a regular basis and some eyeliner; the women in the group wore blush and eye shadow); his makeup may have been for “theatre” (as it were)—the group didn’t really sit down for many interviews in the US and when they were interviewed, it was usually in conjunction with a performance (as opposed to something like a “Tonight Show” type interview).

And the hair metal bands in the 80s was largely theatrical to a degree, but I know some of the groups’ lead singers did admit to wearing eyeliner and lip blush (or full-out lipstick) on a daily basis rather than just “for the show.” The more outlandish looks (such as Dee Snider’s from Twisted Sister that more closely resembled “traditional” war paint) were definitely for theater but quite a few of guys did wear simple makeup out in public.

So, how does Mr Braverman reconcile the fact that the first American infected with Ebola to be flown back here for treatment is a CHRISTIAN doctor, working for a CHRISTIAN charity organization, Samaritan’s Purse? One would think that a CHRISTIAN working for a CHRISTIAN charity would follow “Judeo-CHRISTIAN” principles. (Of course, this whole “Judeo-Christian” crap is right-wing conservative Christian code for “We gotta somehow reconcile the fact that Jesus was a Hebe and we can’t keep sounding like Jew-haters, even though none of us can stand the little beasts, so we’ll say their principles are the same as ours even though we all know we only have to accept the ones we want and ignore the rest.”)

Kennedy was barely tolerable back when she was an MTV VJ. Obviously, she proves that all you need in order to host a FoxNoise network program is to spout right-wing nonsense—you certainly don’t need any real qualifications.