Actually, Bemused, I had a flashback of a different sort with Nancy Sinatra. And as I’m typing this, yet another one comes to mind.

The first one I was thinking of is that duet she did with her father, Frank. A little ditty called “Somethin’ Stupid.” It has lines like “But then I think I’ll wait until the evening gets late when I’m alone with you/The time is right, your perfume fills my head, the stars get red, and, oh, the night’s so blue/And then I go and spoil it all by saying somethin’ stupid like I love you.” And this is a romantic love song between a father and daughter.

As for the second flashback, here’s one I think O’Reilly would approve of wholeheartedly: http://www.allmusic.com/album/sugar-mw0000643842 (The cover to her 1967 album, “Sugar.” Though the cover to her “Boots” album—which contained “These Boots Are Made for Walkin’”—isn’t very subtle either; even though she’s as fully covered as can be, the pose is definitely what you’d expect from a Playboy feature. http://www.allmusic.com/album/boots-mw0000171412 )

In the meantime, parents, keep your daughters away from any male offspring of Carlson or PJJ. Without having someone to offset the toxic male chauvinism of these two men, there’s no telling how much of a danger their boys would be to young women.

John, of course not. In the world of FoxNoise, white people can never be “takers”—unless they’re known to be Democrats or fit in with Democratic-leaning demographics (like college students).

Does O’Reilly’s interview mean he doesn’t believe in the Constitution as the source of American law?

Hmm. What was O’Reilly’s opinion when Dubya “hid behind the Constitution” as his reason for not testifying before Congress?

So, Tuck-tuck, affirmative action is a good thing when it benefits right-wingers, but not a good thing when it really matters? Is that what you’re trying to say, sweetie?

It’s easy to forgive people who’ve committed no offenses. Perceived slights or offenses are NOT the other guys’ problem, folkkks, and don’t require forgiveness.

How about Fr Morris take a page from the Bible and “inspect the beam in his own eye before cleaning the speck from someone else’s?”

So, Mr Archbishop, what do you think JESUS would have to say about Obamacare?

Didn’t Jesus have something to say about “render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s?” I kind of think He’d be more than willing to accept the “Caesar” role the government plays with Obamacare and wouldn’t have much of a problem with expecting people of other faiths working for the Church (in what are essentially NOT ministry-related, no matter how much the religious right pretends) to be treated BY the Church the same way they would be treated by any other employer.

On a slightly snide note:

“Second Coming of Jesus Christ is imminent and will happen in our lifetime”—2000 years and counting.

Don’t you think it’s about time to give up the fantasy?

Priscilla, you forgot to mention the “Jefferson Bible”—the one that Thomas Jefferson personally produced in order to remove all the “superstitious nonsense” from it. No mention of any miracles at all. In fact, Jefferson removed ALL references to the Resurrection, so I can’t imagine he was too big on the whole Easter thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

The right-wing doesn’t know the first thing about Jefferson or his religious beliefs. For instance, Jefferson was denounced as an “infidel” during his Presidential run in 1800 as well as being denounced as a “howling atheist” by his political opponents. A New England publication declared that a Jefferson Presidency would lead to the “seal of death on our holy religion” which, presumably, meant “Christianity” as a whole. (A bit of foreshadowing of the election of Barack Obama, perhaps? Or was the vilification of Obama merely a case of “History Repeating”—to borrow from the Propellerheads and Dame Shirley Bassey?)

Sorry, Becky but you’re wrong. Some opinions are NOT acceptable. Ever. And most of what the Bundy klan have been saying and what the FoxNoise kkkrew who’ve been supporting them have been saying ventures dangerously close to TREASONOUS and SEDITIOUS speech.

Hell, a mere decade ago, anyone who dared suggest that Dubya and Company were acting rashly in their plans to invade Iraq were denounced as “traitors.” Dubya himself declared “You’re either with us or against us.” Now, many of the talking heads who were supporting the Government’s effort to demonize “anti-government” speech as “treasonous” are right there actively endorsing treasonous speech.

Maybe someone needs to remind the Fox folkkks who owns a substantial share in FoxNoise AND which country supplied the majority of the REAL 9/11 terrorists and ask if that shareholder isn’t actually a sponsor of terrorism, making FoxNoise an indirect sponsor of terrorism.

I halfway wish Dubya were still in office. I’d love to see one of the FoxNoise kkkrew ask him, “Mr President, you once said that you looked into Mr Putin’s soul and saw a good man. Do you still believe that applies to him, given the way he’s threatened to invade Ukraine as a prelude to annexing Ukrainian territory?”

Of course, none of the FoxNoise kkkrew would even think of asking such an “impertinent” question (especially as they know they’d be fired—personally by Ailes—the next day). And, you just know how the FoxNoise “loyalists” would treat any of the “liberal media” who dared ask such a question of Dubya. Until Dubya publicly described Putin as “the new Hitler” (something which would only happen after one of his speechwriters came up with the term), FoxNoise wouldn’t have anything bad to say about Putin. After Dubya put Putin alongside Saddam and Hitler in the “history’s greatest villains” category, FoxNoise would have to hire people to make the necessary changes to all their pro-Putin archival files (shades of “1984”).

“PS Am I the only one who thinks that Hannity’s “conservative solutions” (discussed later in this segment) is part of a preparation to run for public office, possibly as a U.S. Senator? It fits in with a possible move out of New York, where he’d never get elected. He also recently said on the air he is considering a run."

Well, it all depends on where he ends up in that “possible move out of New York.” A move to Texas would mean no run until 2018 at the earliest since the state’s already had its GOP Primary election (unless, of course, Hannutty wants to try his luck this year as an “independent”—an “independent” run against Cornyn would likely be the best way to swing the election to the Dems which would destroy Hannutty’s reputation with his “base”). A move to Florida would mean no run until 2016 at the earliest since Florida doesn’t have a Senate race until then, and THAT would mean a run against Marco Rubio. And pretty much any other state wouldn’t have the kind of “prestige” that would stoke Hannutty’s ego enough (even with the title of “Senator”). I mean, there’s no way he could get elected in California (especially if he doesn’t think he could get elected in New York). Pennsylvania and the Midwest don’t really have the type of cachet that would appeal to Hannutty (the people who would vote for him don’t live in the cities that Hannutty would want to have as a residence and the cities where he’d want to have as a residence don’t really have the “kind” of people who’d want him as their Senator). In the Deep South, his politics wouldn’t set him apart from any of the rest of the pack—so even his name wouldn’t really draw that much interest (he’d have to outcrazy Ted Cruz to get any political media attention); in the “not-so-Deep” South, he could likely alienate independent and moderate voters (the ones who routinely do vote for GOPers but could vote for an “acceptable” Democrat, especially if the GOPer was seen as unfairly attacking his/her opponent). The Rocky Mountain States would react to Hannutty the same way that Wyoming reacted to Mary Cheney.

It’s too bad somebody didn’t suggest there were WMD’s on the Bundy Ranch back in 2001/2002. FoxNoise would’ve been cheerleading for the man’s execution for his treasonous actions.

What a difference a decade (and a different President) can make in a “news” network’s perspective.

sandman1, I know about the FoxNoise suit which allows them to be considered entertainment rather than news, but even “entertainment” and entertainers aren’t allowed to cross certain lines. Even FoxNoise attacks certain forms of entertainment when the nutwork believes the entertainment (video games, rap music, etc) is responsible for violence in society.

As long as he pronounces the word with the proper emphasis, he’s quite accurate. Unfortunately, I doubt he’s going to emphasize the CON.

Thx4 Fish, you almost had it right. I’ll fix it for you:

“Breaking the law is OK when …
you*’re white and* are taking money from the government — BUT the government doesn’t want you to take it. But if you take something the government wants to give you, and you’re Black or Latino-like food stamps or unemployment, then you are a lazy taker.”

Richard French, spend a bit more time reading what is IN the Constitution and not what you “think” is in it.

Article IV, Section 3 includes this clause: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Furthermore, I know you right-wingers don’t like it but the power of the Federal government to supersede state laws was put into place in Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

If you knew anything about the history of the US (beyond those lies and that BS crap that right-wingers like to pass as history), you’d know the reason for these Articles was because the previous “constitution,” aka the Articles of Confederation, was incredibly weak. And because of the Articles’ weaknesses, the Founding Fathers insisted that the Federal Government be strengthed UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. For your benefit, here’s a link to a good explanation that shows the major differences between the Articles and the Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html