I’d certainly be curious to know why the “Princeton Mom” got a divorce. Did the former “Mr Princeton Mom” suddenly decide she was “too smart” for him, so he needed to trade her in for a “newer, dumber” model?

Does she consider how truly different her own life would’ve been if she’d taken her own advice back then and gotten married young? Does she believe that all she really needed from life was that “MRS” degree and to pop out a few babies and live happily ever after? And how would she have reacted when she discovered her “Mr Right”—several years into the “happy” marriage—was cheating on her and they got a divorce? She’d be there raising a couple of young kids and probably having to take a part-time job at some minimum wage place to help make ends meet (I’m pretty sure that, if I were the divorce judge, I wouldn’t make the husband pay more than a token amount of alimony once I heard that she quit college to get married—unless she’d had the foresight to make some agreement where once he’d finished school and the kids were raised that he’d pay for her to go back to school, but, you know, when you’re head over heels in love, you don’t tend to think about things like that).

I certainly would NOT want to be the wife or daughter or sister of any of these rape apologists. Just imagine how you’d feel if you got raped and your family felt you deserved it for making a “bad choice.”

Heaven forbid that young men should suffer when they make a “wrong choice” and have sex with a girl who’s passed out and can’t very well give consent.

Kenny Rogers’ Tommy (aka “The Coward of the County”) had the right idea because when “[he] left the bar room, not a Gatlin boy was standing.”

Bob, remember who form the majority of FoxNoise’s viewers. The attention span of most Americans barely lasts after the next show has started; the attention span of the average FoxNoise viewer barely lasts past the commercial break.

If they’re not constantly reminded of what they’re supposed to hate and fear, they won’t remember what they’re supposed to hate and fear.

Wow, another troll to smite.

Maybe, “SleezyChimp,” you might want to look at the GOP for a minute. Which party is it that loves to send young men and women to serve in countless wars but, when those people come back to their homeland, defund the very programs designed to serve the veterans? Which party is it that refuses to work with the President to form a workable policy to deal with immigration reform? And, um, if memory serves, the woman at the heart of the IRS “scandal” was put there by the PREVIOUS President. And, really, when you’re seeking TAX-EXEMPT status for a group that seeks TAX CUTS or fearmonger about taxes as your primary purpose, don’t you think you might just come in for a little more scrutiny? Especially when the nationwide number of such groups EXPLODED from a few dozen in 2009 to more than 1000 new groups by 2012? (Incidentally, remind us of exactly how many groups were denied the coveted tax-exempt status during this “scandlous” period. I’ll tell you—ONE. And it was a progressive group.)

But, I guess you and your fellow right-wingers would rather deflect on issues that require BIPARTISAN cooperation to solve than to have your lies without end exposed for the world to see. It’s just too bad you people weren’t as outraged when Dubya was lying his way to causing the deaths of thousands of American servicement (no—you people were hurling the word “traitor” at anyone and everyone who dared challenge Dubya and his cabal of evil on their wrongdoing).

Go back under your bridge.

“So Bill feels that his biggest enemy is Barack Obama.”

This statement is 100% accurate.

If you replace “Barack Obama” with “Ed Klein.”

Oh, I wish I’d been there when Eric asked to be corrected. I’d pull up one very important Executive Action with which we’re still living today: When Ronald Reagan (hallowed be his mighty name) signed an Executive Order raising the minimum legal drinking age to 21 and this order included a provision by which any state which didn’t raise its legal drinking age to 21 would lose Federal highway funding.

That, Eric, was in the mid-1980s (I want to say 1985 for some reason—don’t feel like Googling it). And, as noted, signed by St Ronnie who decided that a part of the Executive Branch’s powers included extortion (raise your drinking age or we won’t send you money to fix your roads) and, let’s not forget St Ronnie was supposed to be one of these “the less Federal regulation, the better/let the states decide local issues” guys.

So, Eric. Why should that be a better use of executive power than anything Obama does? Oh, right. Obama has too much melanin for you reich-wingers.

Hannity should realize that IF Khatalla had been consigned to Gitmo, he quite likely wouldn’t face any charges—and certainly NOT face a possible death penalty.

Well, Mr Ayala—first off, let me welcome you to the site, you obnoxious troll.

As to your comment, then please explain why the FoxNoise folks have spent the last FIVE years (he only took office in Jan 2009—I know you teabagger-types have trouble with difficult subjects, like simple math but really, there is help if only you’ll seek it) smearing Obama if what you wrote was true. Of course, Obama hasn’t “tanked” his presidency (compare Obama’s time in office to Dubya’s—now THERE was a guy who knew how to tank his own presidency).

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you’re NOT entitled to your own facts. (For that, you have to wait until you form a corporation—thanks to the right-wing morons at SCOTUS.)

Sure, Rick, sure.

But here’s the rub: Your employer’s “religious beliefs” are NOT allowed to trump your own. That’s a part of your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. In fact, it’s absolutely ILLEGAL for an employer to ask you (or any other job applicant) about your religious beliefs. Check with the EEOC, if you have questions about that. Now, if you—as a potential job applicant—have “deeply held religious beliefs” that would potentially have a conflict with your job hours (eg, an observant Jew who cannot work between sunset Friday night and sunset Saturday night due to the Sabbath—unless he lives within walking distance) the company is required to accomodate your religious beliefs. If your beliefs mandate a separation between the sexes and you’re not allowed to deal with unrelated members of the opposite sex, then your employer wouldn’t be able to fire you over that but your beliefs would need to be accomodated as best as possible (perhaps by moving you to another department) but, at the same time, this would likely be a matter that should’ve come up in the interview.

BUT, this also works the other way. Your employer isn’t allowed to use HIS religious beliefs to force you into something that violates your civil rights or causes you to be treated differently than other employees. If HL doesn’t have a problem with male employees over 50 having access to Viagra or Cialis UNLESS they’re still married to the same woman they’ve been married to (unfortunately, a lot of 50+ men seem to be more interested in women much younger and who would be unlikely to get involved with such a man suffering from ED UNLESS they’re looking to start a family themselves), then it’s really none of HL’s business getting involved in their FEMALE employees’ sexual adventures.

Comment edited: Please avoid flaming and name calling.

Mike. It doesn’t matter that it was “only 4.” The fact is that NONE of those items did what either Hobby Lobby’s owners OR the SCOTUS morons think they do. NONE of them are abortifacients, and the SCIENCE says so. If these people actually knew even 1/1000th about the process of conception as they think they know, they’d be aware that those 4 items do NOT cause an abortion.

Unfortunately, we’ve got people who don’t understand science ruling on issues that science has already explained.

And, Mike, please explain how Hobby Lobby manages to rationalize importing so much merchandise from the People’s Republic of China. As the Wiki entry on “Abortion in China” begins, “Abortion in China is legal and is a government service available on request for women. In addition to virtually universal access to contraception, abortion is a way for China to contain its population in accordance with its one-child policy.” So, I guess HL doesn’t care if Chinese “babies” are aborted as a routine national policy as long as HL’s female employees are kept from medications that DON’T cause abortions.

Comment edited: Please avoid flaming.

Roger, as despicable as this ruling is, there is only ONE way for it to be overridden, and it won’t happen this year. The ONLY course of action to overturn a Supreme Court ruling is by Congressional action. And since we’ve got a House of Representatives that has 233 members that share the same worldview as the 5 SCOTUS idiots who made this stupid decision, there won’t be a bill from the House to change the ruling. And with 45 Senators sharing the same viewpoint as the SCOTUS 5, any chance of a Senate bill even making to a floor vote is not going to happen—since the Senate rules have changed somewhat to make a “threatened” filibuster nearly impossible, a for-real filibuster would need to happen, but I’m sure some GOP blockhead will be more than happy to block any Democrat-led bill.

It’s going to take a massive turnout by Democratic voters to flip at least 20 GOP House seats and, for safety’s sake, flip at least 6 Senate seats to have the slightest chance of overruling the Supreme Court’s heinous actions.

Darlene, there’s not really any need since the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were added.

Well, Todd. I don’t see anyone stopping you from launching your own invasion.

What’s that? You don’t want to do the dirty work yourself? Well, color me surprised.

Maybe Mr Lynch needs to spend some time updating his profile at IMDb.com. The last thing listed there is his “classic” documentary, “They Come to America” (from 2012). How will his “fans” ever connect or find out what his latest propaganda-fest is if he doesn’t let them know? (Seriously. Check the “reviews” up at IMDb.com for “They Come to America.” A whole bunch of obvious FoxNoise viewers, bemoaning how the “evil liberals” are attacking this “fair and unbiased” film.)

I love the irony of the guy complaining about “Shep Smith.” He whines that Smith is “too liberal” and then ends the comment with “I’m from Mississippi”—as if his residency there is supposed to suggest how “moderate” or “fair and balanced” he is himself.

FoxNoise viewers from Mississippi are liable to think that Eric Cantor is “too liberal.”

Well, Megyn, I know for a fact (I know you Foxies may not understand what that word means, but dictionaries are everywhere—use one) that “some people say” we should just stop paying Congress. Especially the members of the “Teabagger Caucus.”

Considering YOUR party has done NOTHING in terms of meaningful legislation since 1/3/2011 (when the GOP took over the House with the aid of the Teabaggers), I’d say it’s LONG overdue that Congress stops getting paid.

But, isn’t it funny that the majority of YOUR party—the folks responsible for the government shutdown—insisted on getting their government paychecks during the shutdown and had to be shamed into making sure that the innocent government workers/pawns of the shutdown got paid (something that had been done after previous shutdowns the SECOND that Congress got back in session)? And you want to stop paying Holder? Just because you and “some folks” don’t like him (mainly ‘cause he’s black) is NOT sufficient reason to stop paying his salary. You find a legitimate reason that he shouldn’t be paid and you present it for serious consideration. Until then, Megyn, shut your piehole. (At least until Rupert and Roger need your “other” oral services. I mean, “some people say” that’s the real reason you work for FoxNoise.)