For starters, we see O’Reilly’s hypocrisy on display. He desperately wants the woman on his show but when her publicist inquires about the type of questions she can expect, suddenly Billdo starts badmouthing her.

And to Dave, sorry, but you’re wrong. Her business manager is obviously aware of Billdo’s usual style of “interviewing” and is looking to protect his client’s best interests. She has a military background, and, gee, wasn’t there something in the news recently that involved the military and guns? Or maybe the fact that a “non-American” woman won Miss America had something to do with O’Reilly’s wanting to interview her? (I mean, really, who the hell ever interviews a Miss America runner-up aside from the runner-up’s hometown newspaper or TV station?) Seriously, Dave, why the hell do you think Billdo wanted her on the show in the first place? He was going to try to use her to promote whatever his latest talking point happens to be. If you’re expecting to be interviewed by a RESPECTABLE JOURNALIST, then asking for a list of questions would be uncalled for. But this is Bill O’Reilly and two words that most assuredly do NOT describe O’Reilly are “respectable” and “journalist.” I don’t blame her business manager for wanting a list of questions O’Reilly planned to ask. Hell, if I were her business manager, I’d give O’Reilly a list of topics that would be completely off-limits as well as a contract that would have O’Reilly in court the SECOND he broached any of those subjects.

Scott, aside from Puerto Rican voters not having approved statehood to this point*, the big obstacle is language. Under the Puerto Rican Constitution, the Commonwealth has both English and Spanish as official languages for government business, but Spanish is the dominant language of the people. Additionally, Spanish is the dominant language of business in the Commonwealth and public school education is conducted entirely in Spanish (English is taught as a second language).

Even though the United States doesn’t have an official language, conservatives have opposed allowing Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state unless the “new state” drops Spanish as an official language, a condition that even most pro-Statehood Puerto Ricans have adamantly refused to accept.

*There was a non-binding resolution last year in which Puerto Ricans were asked two questions. The first was “Yes/No” on the issue of continuing the current status. The second had three “non-territorial” options: Statehood, Independence or “Sovereign Free Associated State” (the status wasn’t fully defined in the referendum, but was left to be determined at a later date through discussions with the proper US government officials). More than 1.8 million ballots were cast in the first referendum but nearly 80 thousand ballots were blank or invalid for a net of nearly 1.78 million valid votes; the Yes (or Sí) vote received 54% of the valid votes. In the second referendum, though, there were just slightly fewer total votes cast but a far larger number of blank or invalid votes. The leaders of several Puerto Rican political parties opposed the 2nd part and called for people to leave the 2nd part blank. Despite fewer overall votes being cast in the second part, there were still more than 1.8 million ballots in play. Of these, nearly 500,000 ballots were blank or invalid (with over 480,000 being left blank). The pro-statehood vote received 61% of the valid ballots, the independence vote received just 5.5% and the third option got just over 33%. However, as referendum opponents pointed out, if you counted the blank ballots as either being for either independence or third option, that meant the pro-statehood vote only ended up with 45% and this has been part of the hold up with any real progress on Puerto Rico’s future.

I can understand Jarrett’s problem. He’s been watching too many old episodes of “Married….with Children.” People familiar with that show will recall that the Bundy family was always just “getting by” on Al’s job selling women’s shoes at Gary’s Shoes since that job apparently didn’t pay much of anything (and given the quality of Al’s work at the store, I’m surprised he ever made any money; IIRC, Gary—who turned out to be a woman—commented that the only reason she didn’t fire Al was that she couldn’t find anyone willing to work for what she was paying Al). And yet, Peggy (played by the wonderful Katey Sagal) sat around on the couch, watching “Oprah” and eating bon-bons.

Hmm. I wonder what Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal think of Starnes’ comment? Maybe someone should send e-mails to the BHARATI*-AMERICAN governors of South Carolina and Louisiana and find out.

(Bharat is the Hindi language name for the Republic of India. It makes things less confusing for me. I doubt it’ll be accepted anywhere else but I don’t care.)

If the “legalease” is supposed to be about legal language, the Fox moron needs to be informed that it’s properly spelled “legalese.” (The moron might also want to be aware that a spelling error in a legal document can render the whole thing null and void.) If the intent is to help out people with “navigating the legal system,” the best bet would be two words—“legal ease.”

Mark, isn’t it so interesting how the right-wing community feels it’s their right to break the law as they see fit but for everyone else, they turn into the Red Queen?

You just know that if a “liberal” inadvertently violated copyright infringement (such as, say, using a FoxNoise commentator’s statement in a political ad*), the right would be in court demanding an immediate cease-and-desist order be handed down and if the “liberal” didn’t respond within 5 seconds, he’d be slapped with a minimum 7-figure lawsuit. BUT, let a rightie deliberately violate copyright infringement (such as, say, using a rock song as her “theme song” without getting approval by the song’s writer/s or performer/s) and they whine and whine and whine about how it’s “fair use” and they’re “being persecuted for being conservative” and how it was “just a mistake” while not stopping until they’re either sued or threatened with being sued.

*Technically, such use does fall within “fair use” guidelines but there’s also the idea that a “public figure” (even a talking head) does have some right to protecting the use of their own image. It usually requires a court to determine how much unauthorized use of another person’s image can be permitted under the “fair use” doctrine. Actual politicians (even aspiring politicians) lose some of the image protection rights but newscasters are generally more strongly protected, especially when the programs on which they appear are officially copyright protected.

Joe Marsh, I really don’t remember Ms Messinger (I’m not a New Yorker so my political knowledge of the City isn’t all that deep) but I really dislike your slur (and there is NOT another word for it) of Bella Abzug. Ms Abzug was right up there with Shirley Chisholm and Barbara Mikulski and Ann Richards as no-nonsense women who were passionate about their politics. For you to label her as “a screeching, knee jerk liberal” as you did (and don’t weasel around, bud—“from the same mold” puts that label on Abzug as well) is nothing less than a misogynistic attack—one that YOU need to apologize for.

You wrote that you were one of those “liberal” New Yorkers. Now, given your attack on the memory of Ms Abzug, I’m guessing that you were using the term ironically. Also, I believe that you deliberately chose to ignore Giuliani’s “true colors” since the man had run in 1993 to “clean up” the city and he did it during his FIRST term (not sure where you thought it was “early in his second term”). As for his ties to Kerik, most of the “dirt” on Kerik didn’t emerge until YEARS after he’d been out of office. His divorce and how he handled it really had NOTHING to do with his performance as mayor (and the fact that the man had been married previously and had it annulled should’ve been a red flag).

And as to his “worst sin,” bear in mind that New York law PERMITTED his effort. Article III, Section 25 of the New York Constitution states,

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution, the legislature, in order to insure continuity of state and local governmental operations in periods of emergency caused by enemy attack or by disasters (natural or otherwise), shall have the power and the immediate duty (1) to provide for prompt and temporary succession to the powers and duties of public offices, of whatever nature and whether filled by election or appointment, the incumbents of which may become unavailable for carrying on the powers and duties of such offices, and (2) to adopt such other measures as may be necessary and proper for insuring the continuity of governmental operations.

Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit in any way the power of the state to deal with emergencies arising from any cause."

His threats to the mayoral primary candidates notwithstanding, Giuliani did abide by the wishes of the State’s Assembly and Senate which found no extension was necessary and he did step down as required.

I’m guessing that none of these “good Christians” watched Mel Gibson’s little torture-pornfest called “The Passion of the Christ.” Even after NINE YEARS, that film remains the highest-grossing R-rated picture of all time (according to BoxOfficeMojo.com and not accounting for inflation).

Now, maybe these whiney little cretins would like to get a little sympathy from the producers of the documentary “Bully.” A film which exhibited no on-screen movie violence (ie, no special effects of stabbings or being shot and no choreographed fighting; there was, however, real violence—a boy is hit and even has his head pushed into the back of a bus seat WHILE BEING FILMED) and had no nudity but the MPAA felt the “language” was “too coarse” for anyone under 17—despite the fact that ALL the “coarse language” was being uttered by kids under 17—and the film was slapped with an “R” rating. The documentary filmmakers re-edited the film to get a PG-13 rating (which, of course, lessened much of the film’s impact). (What’s even more interesting, of course, is how much coverage that old woman bus monitor got from the media over her being “bullied” with all the tut-tutting from right-wingers at how mean those kids were to the old woman but when it comes to kids bullying other kids, well, that’s not important.)

Of course, these whiney little right-wing Christian “victims” COULD always do what other filmmakers have done when the MPAA slapped them with an “unfair” rating: Edit the film (They could always do the other major option—release it without a rating. Of course, the problem with that is that almost no movie theater—especially a multiplex—will play an unrated film and almost no newspaper will accept advertising for an unrated film.) But, I suppose it’s always easier to take the “victim” route, supplied by FoxNoise, than do something that might “cost them money.” After doing a little searching, I found out that the church is the Retta Baptist Church and it doesn’t really strike me as being “a small country church”—6 ministers (with 5 of them being “specialty” ministers) plus 4 “support staff” (who, as the church’s website states, "focus more on the “incorporated” aspect of our church") and 12 “deacons” (all male but who “handle” needs of the congregation that they can’t handle themselves). Also, all of the folks in these positions just happen to be, shall we say, as melanin-challenged as the FoxNoise hosts.

I’ll also go a bit further than Greg did. Here’s the movie website’s own description of the film:

“Cadon wasn’t going anywhere . . . until he met Jess. Now that Jess and her young son Austin are living with him, his life seems to have direction and purpose. But when they lose custody of Austin under questionable circumstances, Cadon feels responsible. His hope of having a normal family is all but lost. Desperate to keep Jess, Cadon turns to his lifelong friend Bo for help to reclaim their son. He is willing to do anything.

Love Has No Limits. As their plan unfolds and tensions escalate, Cadon finds himself trapped in a hostage crisis in a small church. With the situation spiraling out of control, Cadon, Jess and Bo will each have life-changing decisions to make. MY SON tells the story behind a too-real tragedy interwoven with a message of hope that can overcome even our worst choices."

And, if you go to the movie’s official website, there’s an image—presumably, the film’s theatrical poster—showing a man, facing away from the camera wearing “action-hero-style clothes” and wielding some sort of automatic rifle, and standing in front of a church. Sorry. But with the tag line “Love Has No Limits” emblazoned across the poster, I’m not at all surprised that the MPAA would slap the film with an “R.” The FoxFiends might also want to remember that the MPAA did slap “Olympus Has Fallen” with an “R” (apparently, it had more intense violence than “White House Down”) and “Magic Mike” got an “R” (but it didn’t really have all that much violence—lots of drugs and extreme language, yeah but not really that much violence). Oh. And guess what other much-loved-by-conservatives film was also slapped with an “R” despite having NO staged movie violence and very little profanity and virtually no sexual content or depicted drug use? If you guessed “Fahrenheit 9/11,” you’re right. It got slapped with the “R” for showing NEWS FOOTAGE. Does anyone remember how FoxNoise reacted to “Fahrenheit 9/11” being slapped with an “R” ‘cause I sure don’t? (If I’m correct, I think FoxNoise was leading the calls for the film to be banned because it was the work of a “traitor” and it dared to show Dubya for the worthless piece of crap he was. Also, its release just before Dubya received his party renomination didn’t sit well with the FoxNoise folks.)

Funny. I don’t recall anything in the Constitution about a “right to ride motorcycles.” Oh, but that’s right. They’re using that special right-wing Constitution—where rights appear and disappear as the reader wants (or the “Founders” would “intend”).

Also funny: The fact that the still graphic for the video has these morons misspelling “Constitutional”; they left out the third “t”—truly ironic for a “tea party”-supported group.

“A loathsome creature like Stephanie Cutter, the roots jutting out from her blonde dye job as black as the recesses of her soul, can push her way onto national television. . . .”

I thought Ms Cutter was working for CNN, not FoxNoise.

I wonder how the bleached-blonde bobbleheads journalists at FoxNoise will respond to Carlson’s sexist comments (considering how very close to home they hit with them)?

Well, Aria, this “Obamacare” is basically the *GOP*’s health care plan from the early 1990s—the one they used as the “sensible alternative” to “Hillarycare.”

Like so much else, the GOP loves plans—until a Democrat puts them into action.

Ironic, ain’t it? The right-wingers have been calling Obama a Marxist for the last 5 years, and who is FoxNoise giving mad props and major hugs to? The REAL Marxist, Vladimir Putin.

(Okay. I’m not really sure if Putin is still a Marxist/Communist but he sure does like acting like the Soviet dictators of the 20th century. All right. The Soviet dictators were basically acting like the previous authoritarian tsars—just coming from the other end of the political spectrum.)

Gee. It’s just too bad that the US didn’t suffer some massive terrorist strike by Saudi, Yemeni and UAE nationals in 2011 so that Obama could’ve forced the GOP to kowtow under the “you’re either with us or against us” line. And then, Obama would be able to have time to line up his cards and get Kerry go before the UN with a lot of faked intelligence to get a Security Council resolution to launch a massive invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the terror strike with the GOPers having to fall all over themselves trying to outdo each other as to who was offering the President the most help against the terrorist threat.

You know, kind of like George W Bush did a decade ago.

I know the right-wing is incredibly fond of rewriting history (a standard Soviet activity of which, apparently, the right approved so much they chose to emulate it) but that’s only because they can’t exist in the real world. Pan’s Lost Boys of Neverland were more grown-up than most of the folks on the right.

“Whether you agree with Obama’s policy toward Syria or not, to say a president is going to take military action because of his vanity and/or ego is appalling.”

Yeah. How dare Obama? Who the hell does he think he is? Dubya?

Maybe someone should check Brit Hume’s record from late 2002 when Dubya was ramping up his war plans for Iraq. Somehow, I don’t think he was there attacking Dubya’s plans because of Dubya’s vanity and ego. (And speaking of “vanity/ego,” someone might want to remind Mr Hume of Dubya’s little “mission accomplished” stunt. Not just the “flight suit” landing but the very fact that the ship was forced to turn back from shore so Dubya’s landing would be more impressive. To use Mr Hume’s own words: “In other words, once again, it’s all about him.”)

John, not really sure if you’re practicing your sarcasm but, in case you think pRick is posting satire, you sadly mistaken. Sadly, SADLY mistaken.

No one—not even Stephen Colbert—has mastered satire to the degree that would be required for pRick to be writing satire.

@ pRick Patel: For starters, let me ask you this: When did you CHOOSE to be straight? Huh? Tell me that, you sack of sheep dung. When you ADMIT that you CHOSE to be straight—after having a d*ck in your mouth and a c*ck up your behind—then we’ll continue the conversation.

Until then, sod off, you troll.

I didn’t realize that Sarah Palin had registered with NewsHounds under the name “Shein Areily.” Either I’m reading “Shein’s” comment relatively late and I’m more tired than I thought, or that is the biggest batch of word salad since Palin’s last public speech.

Nope. After rereading it, it’s word salad.

Janet, you may have forgotten about the photographer in New Mexico whose claim that her “religious freedoms” were being denied if she had to do the photography for a same-sex wedding and the people in Oregon and Washington who ran afoul of those states’ anti-discrimination laws because they claimed they couldn’t provide their services to same-sex weddings because of their “strongly-held religious beliefs.” Of course, none of their “religious beliefs” were strong enough to keep them from obtaining state-issued business licenses which came with those silly little restrictions that the businesses NOT discriminate against people for a variety of reasons.