How does BillO reconcile the fact that Issa’s refusing to release ANY of the hours of transcripts that, according to Issa, directly link Obama to the IRS “scandal?” I mean, Issa’s been claiming all along that he has all the damning evidence to bring down Obama yet he refuses to release any of it.

Then again, when did BillO need anything as trivial as “evidence” to support his BS? (The only people that BillO deems to need “evidence” are liberals/progressives making accusations against right-wingers—such as those who accuse BillO of having a bias against liberals/progressives. BillO wouldn’t accept any of the evidence, of course.)

Hmmm. Seems to me that if O’Reilly doesn’t like the law as Cuomo is propounding, he should move somewhere he’d be happier. Like Afghanistan or Iran. Or Somalia. Oh. But there is that little problem of the “Moos-lim” thing.

Tell ya what Billy. When YOU get a uterus, we’ll allow you to have a valid opinion on abortion. Or when YOU (and the rest of the anti-choice zealots) offer to pay EVERY woman considering abortion a nice little sum to carry the fetus to term, then we’ll talk further. By the way, that “nice little sum” means an amount of money that (1) allows the woman to eat NUTRITIOUS food during her pregnancy, (2) allows the woman to see an OB/GYN on a regular basis throughout the course of the pregnancy, (3) allows the woman to take time off from her job for these OB/GYN visits and any other medically-related (including delivery AND recovery) time off without her fearing that she’ll lose the job, (4) allows the woman to buy clothing to accomodate her ever-increasing size (and the clothing must be what the WOMAN wants to wear—no skimping on this by deciding she has to wear “hand-me-downs” or thrift shop maternity clothes), and (5) allows the woman to have any necessary counseling from a professional counselor (of HER choice—not yours—and the cost must included anyone else she wishes involved with the pregnancy, whether the “sperm donor” or a member of her own family) to determine whether it’s in her best interests—and by extension, the future baby’s—to keep the child or give it up for adoption. (These points, by the way, are just the MINIMUM requirements for that sum to cover.)

Now, should she decide (after the counseling) to keep the baby, YOU (and the other anti-choice zealots) must ensure that she has enough money to keep her and her new baby off the poverty rolls. This includes paying for the child’s future schooling (up till he or she is at least 18; it’s only fair—you want to play “daddy,” you should be responsible enough to see that the child is cared for via child support) and the child’s pediatrician visits and all those other “incidentals” involved in raising a child.

If she decides to give up the child for adoption, then YOU (and the other anti-choice zealots) must pay for that child for as long as he or she remains in “the system.” After all, adoption agencies don’t usually care for their charges out of the goodness of their hearts—they need funding. And if the kid stays in the system till he or she is 18, well, so be it.

Now, this probably wouldn’t cause YOU (or the other anti-choice zealots) too much financial hardship—IF it were just one or two cases. But you’re looking at (by the anti-choicers’ own estimates) MILLIONS of cases EACH AND EVERY YEAR. Even figuring a minimum of paying $10000 a year per non-aborted child, you’re looking at ten BILLION dollars a year for just a million non-aborted kids. Do YOU (and the rest of the anti-choice zealots) have ten BILLION dollars just lying around? And remember, that’s the cost for ONE year. Each year, you’d still be responsible for the cost of the previous years’ non-aborted children in addition to all the kids not being aborted this year.

Put your money where your (big) mouth is, Billy. Or is it easier to pontificate against choice as long as it’s not costing you anything and the body dealing with the pregnancy isn’t your own?

“He just forgot to mention that the complainants were out-of-town Republicans.”

Ellen, I think that should read “He just FAILED to mention that the complainants were out-of-town Republicans.” “Forgot” suggests an unintended lapse of memory. There is no way you can convince me that Hannity “forgot” the information. He has an agenda that wouldn’t be served by simply “forgetting” the information. By “forgetting” the information, that implies that Hannity would have no problem “correcting” his error at a later date.

CROWLEY: When we talk about past recessions, we’ve always seen an uptick in these kinds of entitlement programs, food stamps, welfare, and so on. But when the economy improved, we always saw those levels retreat, and go back down. This time it’s not happening.

---

Oh, so NOW Crowley’s willing to admit the economy’s “improved” but how many of the rest of the FoxNoise talking heads keep reporting how BAD the economy is (indeed, even salivating over every bad report)? What this “rhymes-with-witch” is forgetting is that the “new jobs” people are getting are so low-paying that they still need those “entitlement” programs just to get by. Because FoxNoise and its talking heads are firmly on the side of the “abolish, don’t raise, the minimum wage” argument, they fail to realize that paying workers an actual living wage would actually reduce the number of folks needing all these evil “entitlements.”

A couple of brief points:

1) “O’REILLY: So it seems to me that President Obama had legitimate reasons for opposing the judge’s ruling which he did.”

Oh, you just know that HAD to hurt. O’Reilly’s actually praising something Obama did. (I wonder what he did after the show—go for the mouthwash or go for the soap?)

2) “Instead of pointing out any of those facts, O’Reilly helped promote unsubstantiated panic.”

And, in other late-breaking news, the sun comes up in the east, water is wet, and Francisco Franco is still dead. Since when does O’Reilly ever point out facts? If a fact ever comes out of O’Reilly’s mouth, it’s entirely by accident.

Sommers’ The Five defenders are either unaware of or are willfully ignoring military rules which state that “public disparagement of anyone up the chain of command, the Commander-in-Chief in the White House obviously included, is conduct unbecoming a wearer of the uniform.”

---

I wonder how the Five would’ve reacted if a soldier had publicly decried Dubya as a “cokehead” or made jokes about all of Jeff Gannon’s “visits” to the Dubya White House (where he’d check in but didn’t check out) or posted a blog about how “embarrassing” it was to see Dubya in the flight suit after forcing the ship to turn BACK out to sea so he could pull that stunt? Somehow, I’d bet the Five would be calling for that hypothetical soldier’s head on a platter and that he should face a court-martial for his “public disparagement of the Commander-in-Chief.”

Oh, wait a minute. While the Five didn’t necessarily do anything, I DO seem to recall a case of a white soldier, serving in the Clinton era, who made a big stink out of refusing to follow orders (something about a NATO mission or a UN peacekeeper force—I don’t recall the details at this time*) and the usual right-wing suspects were touting the guy as a “hero” for “standing up to illegal orders.” Again. It seems the CONS only appreciate illegal orders being followed and illegal actions being taken when it’s THEIR guys giving them and THEIR guys following the orders or taking the actions. (It may be a bit wrong to say but I almost wish some white soldier would be caught shooting at his fellow troops on a US military base and, during the ensuing investigation, it turns out the guy had all sorts of white supremacist and right-wing conservative teabagger propaganda among his personal effects. Somehow I doubt the Five or anyone at FoxNoise would be giving the story any coverage; at least, not until Alex Jones could devise a conspiracy theory that “proved” the guy was actually innocent and that all the evidence had been planted—even the guy’s internet footprints had been completely faked and the guy didn’t know how to turn on a computer. Even though there’s almost zero chance a modern soldier would be THAT computer illiterate, you can be sure the FoxNoise folkkks would lap it up and make sure that the “truth” got out.)

*I really don’t feel like hitting the Google to check on the details.

Rupert probably realized she wasn’t worth it. After all, she didn’t draw any blood while defending Rupie much less pull her victim’s still-beating heart out and eat it. And Rupie probably decided he needs a newer model—one that’s more vicious and willing to kill to protect him. (I’ve got a feeling he may just decide to HIRE a professional bodyguard rather than get married again. You can always test a new applicant’s mettle by getting him to kill your current bodyguard. With a new wife, you have to go through all those legal formalities of prenups and lengthy negotiations over how much it’ll cost each time to have sex and, inevitably, all the grief and stress of a divorce; and a wife’s “untimely and unexpected death” is never fun to go through—people treat you as if you had something to do with it instead of allowing you the proper time to grieve with that young barely legal piece of fluff hanging around you all the time trying to help comfort you.)

“But Media Matters does and they put together a mashup that throws such a stark spotlight on Hannity’s rank, partisan hypocrisy, I don’t know how anyone can ever take his bullyboy punditry seriously again.”

Because the folks who will take Hannity’s punditry seriously in the first place wouldn’t give Media Matters the time of day. Except, of course, to follow the orders of their FoxNoise and Ruscist masters to flood the site with so much outrage that the site’s servers go down. For every 10000 outrage righties visiting the site to protest the “attack on ______,” you might get 1 who’ll actually try to read the story and watch the video.

The aunt, predictably, accused Sebelius of letting “politics get in the way of common sense and goodness.”
……..
I’m curious. Isn’t this the SAME Kathleen Sebelius who, just a little over a year ago, overruled the FDA’s decision to expand Plan B emergency contraception to minors? I guess when the issue is “abortion politics” (how the far right was framing the Plan B issue), then “politics” is allowed to “get in the way of common sense and goodness.”

I’d just like to have asked the aunt this question: What makes YOUR niece so much more special than all the other children who’ve now lost THEIR chances of getting a necessary transplant? Somehow, I’ve got a feeling she’d be showing a lot less “goodness” herself.

“They are the most – foreign-born Hispanics – the most anti-Semitic in the country.”

And why exactly is this of any importance? Whether it’s true or not, what does it matter to Coulter?

Here’s why I ask. From the Wiki article on Coulter comes this:
Confronting some critics’ views that her content and style of writing is un-Christian-like,⁶⁵⁶⁶ Coulter stated that “I’m a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don’t you ever forget it.”⁶⁷ She also said, “Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy—you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism”.⁶⁸. . . Coulter was accused of anti-semitism in an October 8, 2007 interview with Donny Deutsch on The Big Idea. During the interview, Coulter stated that the United States is a Christian nation, and said that she wants “Jews to be perfected, as they say”.⁷⁰ Deutsch, a practicing Jew, implied that this was an anti-semitic remark, but Coulter said she didn’t consider it to be a hateful comment.⁷¹ Three days after the interview, Deutsch noted that when he challenged her comments, Coulter appeared “to back off” and “seemed a little upset,” adding, “I think she got frightened that maybe she had crossed a line, that this was maybe a faux pas of great proportions”.⁷²

Coulter, like almost every self-described conservative, certainly seems to put an emphasis on the “con” in conservative since it’s more than willing to pull shit out of its ass and call it “proven fact” and like all the rest of the con artists, takes an Orwellian worldview by the meme of “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.”

O’Reilly: “The big question: the media, which is obviously liberal in America, the national media is, there’s no doubt about it and they would be sympathetic to the African American teenager who’s unarmed and was killed. So Zimmerman’s brother and I think a lot of people feel that the deck is stacked.”

Okay, I don’t actually see a “question” there. You’d think O’Reilly would know to wait to say “the big question” UNTIL he’s actually ready to propose it.

Having said that, I should point out to O’Reilly (since he’s obviously SO fucking stupid he doesn’t get it) that the sympathy towards Martin has NOTHING to do with “liberal media” (which, in this country, doesn’t exist—ask Newt Gingrich about that little meme) but rather with the idea of being a human. Unless Martin has some previously unheard of secret martial arts skills, the rule of thumb in sympathizing is to go with the UNARMED person rather than the mofo with the gun. It’s not like we, the American people, all sympathized with Adam Lanza or James Holmes or Jared Loughner or Lee Harvey Oswald or John Hinckley Jr or Sirhan Sirhan or James Earl Ray or Arthur Bremer or Scott Roeder. Maybe YOU did, BillO, because you’ve got the emotional reactions of a rattlesnake but I’m sure even your regular viewers (as racist as they may be) will sympathize with THE VICTIM OF A SHOOTING rather than the KILLER WITH THE GUN.

As for Zimmerman’s brother, maybe he’d be a bit more sympathetic to the man who was killed by his brother if HE had been on the receiving end of his brother’s bullets. I’m sorry that Zimmerman’s brother has to live with the knowledge that he’s related to a killer (after all, we don’t get to choose our family) but I’m more sorry that he doesn’t get the fact that HIS BROTHER IS A KILLER.

And truman is 1000% correct.

mj, I was going to make a similar comment—that I strongly doubt the coloring books are being sold to adults with the purpose of giving them to the kids but rather the adults are buying them to use themselves.

Well, no one ever said FoxNoise doesn’t know what their (old white Viagra-dependent male) viewers want to see. The real problem is FoxNoise can’t give them as much as the viewers or FoxNoise would like to see since not even FoxNoise can get around rules governing the airing of porn (even softcore) between 6am and midnight on “basic cable.” If FoxNoise were to go to a “premium, pay cable” basis, they could spend as much time showing pole dancers and women parading around in lingerie or even less.

“Personally, I think people who use the word ‘thug’ or believe that the word ‘thug’ is a racist [word] is racist themselves,” Houck opined. “You know, because I call somebody a thug, I’m a racist? No. I don’t think so. I mean, that’s crazy.”

Well, it all depends on WHOM you call a “thug.” While the word is actually pretty neutral, we don’t routinely hear it being used by white men or conservatives EXCEPT in pejorative senses, such as “union thugs” or certain young men of the African-American persuasion. When the word is used in the latter sense, then YES, it IS racist and YOU are a racist. That you have to ask such a thing shows that you don’t know what racism involves, you Hack.

“Spittle was flying as Morris read a comment, from his Facebook, from an evil atheist who said that if Christians want to pray, “do it privately.” (Right, padre, you aren’t entitled to an audience.)"

Actually, it’s not so much the “evil atheist” who’s wrong here. Even Jesus Himself advocated to pray in private.

“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.” (Luke 18:9-14, KJV)

This is known as the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. Perhaps Father Sugarlips might want to review his own Holy Book before condemning an “evil atheist” who seems to know what the “Good Book” actually says.

Hey, Average American Patriot! I DEMAND you retract that vicious maligning of one of America’s greatest personalities. You want to malign Keith Ablow? Fine. By all means, do it. But you damned well better leave out Dr Demento’s name in doing so.

A man who’s spent several decades bringing us some of the all-time finest comedy and novelty recordings deserves better than to have his good name used to mock Ablow.

mj posted “Holder did not “brand” anyone a criminal simply by requesting a warrant, anymore than the police don’t automatically brand someone a criminal when they obtain a search warrant.”

mj, we ARE talking about FoxNoise here. Their grasp of how the law works is very tenuous at best (and that’s despite all the “lawyers” they have working at the network IN FRONT OF the camera). Remember that, during the Dubya years, FoxNoise and the rest of the GOP cons were eagerly advocating the position that “if you don’t do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from the law.” Which is why they didn’t have any problem with Dubya’s White House spying on people’s phone records or e-mails or the profiling of “certain” individuals boarding planes or driving on roads.

Of course, they’d have problems if this were being done by ANY Democrat, but the added fact that the President AND the Attorney General are varying shades of brown is cause enough for the FoxNoise panties to turn their own shades of brown.

The war criminal obviously has forgotten some other quotes from Cicero.

“Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his errors.” (Quite applicable to the war criminal.)

“The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.” (Sounds like a prediction of the Teabagger movement and the 21st century GOP.)

“It is the particular quality of a fool to perceive the faults of others and to forget his own.” (Very applicable to any of the FoxNoise hosts and most of the GOP.)

“According to the law of nature, it is only fair that no one should become richer through damages and injuries suffered by another.” (Hmm. Sounds a bit commie to me.)

“In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have predominant power.” (Hmm. Taken one way, and it’s eerie how it applies to Senate GOPers and the filibuster. Obviously, Cicero didn’t intend it to be taken like that.)

“Let us not listen to those who think we ought to be angry with our enemies, and who believe this to be great and manly. Nothing is so praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and noble soul, as clemency and readiness to forgive.” (Sounds like the flip to what the war criminal wrote in the WashPo rag.)

And, to wrap things up, a pair of quotes that the war criminal should take to heart:

“I prefer tongue-tied knowledge to ignorant loquacity.”
and
“I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.” (That one should be tattooed on the war criminal’s forehead as a lesson to be learned for the rest of his misbegotten life.)

I didn’t bother playing the videoclip but I just have to ask were any “minorities” on the panel? It would be interesting to see how O’Reilly would’ve posed the question if some of FoxNoise’s “favorite minorities” (like Allen West and Herman Cain or Marco Rubio).