Aria. You’d be correct except you wrote “human being.” Ann Coulter does NOT qualify as such. (Nor did Breitbart nor does almost anyone who accepts a paycheck from the criminals Murdoch and Ailes for their “performances” on FoxNoise, especially when they don’t call out the vile and vicious comments of their guests.)

I’ve been reading too many opinions (from supposedly progressive columnists) condemning the British people who openly rejoiced at Thatcher’s death but then these people would turn right around and determine there were some people (bin Laden’s name popped up with some frequency) deserved to have their deaths celebrated. Anyone who can be so callous regarding other human beings doesn’t deserve the least bit of sympathy.

Here’s a “fair tax” proposal for Hucksterbee: Everyone earning less than $25,000 a year is COMPLETELY exempt from paying the tax (this expands to the whole family, even if members of the family don’t earn anything—a couple earning less than $50K, a family of 3 earning less than $75K, etc). THEN, we lose the cap on Social Security withholding so that a person earning $1 million is NOT paying the same amount as someone earning ~$110K. (See, that’s what’s funny. Social Security withholding is TECHNICALLY a “flat tax” but people earning over a certain amount, currently about $110K a year, don’t pay anything on any amount over that cap—so those folks aren’t paying “their fair share.”)

Now, I know Hucksterbee wouldn’t go for that since he really doesn’t want to pay anything in taxes. Just ask the conservapigs about Britain’s VAT—basically a “sales tax” that’s automatically added to the selling price. If you buy something priced at £10.57, you pay £10.57 at the register because the “sales tax” is already in the price tag. The conservapigs aren’t all that thrilled with VAT either. They’re not happy with the whole idea of “sales” taxes either. (Nearly every time that a municipality or state discusses raising sales taxes, it’s normally the conservapigs who freak out on the matter. No matter how necessary the added revenue may be, the conservapigs find SOME reason to argue against it.)

Has anyone ever noticed how the “Cuban community” in South Florida seems to be lacking much, um, color in its makeup? Why do you suppose that the overwhelming majority of the “exiles” (who are actually self-exiled—Castro, to the best of my knowledge, never exiled anyone, but I digress….) happen to be “light-skinned” and could easily pass for nearly any other “white” group (like German-Americans, Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans)?

Well, historically, back in the “good old days” when Fulgencio Batista was the thug of a dictator (but hey, he was “our” dictator) running the show, those Afro-Cubans about whom Kilmeade seems to be so concerned were at the bottom of the social heap, likely to be in prison as they were out in the sugar or tobacco fields, slaving away (pardon the expression) for Batista’s 1%ers—the bulk of whom led the first Cuban “diaspora” after Castro came to power. And why were those poor Afro-Cubans at the bottom of the social heap? Pretty much for the same reason that African-Americans in the Deep South were at the bottom of the social heap during the 1950s—skin color and good ol’ boy racism. (The white Cubans in the Batista era largely believed in the same racial superiority ideas as white Americans in the 1950s, not just in the South, but fairly widespread—the main difference being that Southern states had largely codified the beliefs while Northern states simply let them exist on a “personal” level; a part of the reason why Betty and Barney Hill’s UFO testimony was so readily dismissed by law enforcement, even though they lived in New Hampshire, was the fact that they were an interracial couple—and the 2nd-season opening episode of “American Horror Story,” set in the early 1960s, featured an interracial couple in New England being harassed by local white boys just before the couple are presumably abducted by aliens.)

Well, Misshell, not everyone can be as lucky to be an anchor baby like you and Bobby Jindal in the “immigration sweepstakes.”

@ mj: When I read the headline, I had a similar thought. In fact, I think a new regular feature for NewsHounds should be “Gutfeld Works to Keep His Audience Ignorant About ______.” Just fill in the blank with almost any topic.

@ mlp !: It’s obvious why cons like their heroes dead—that way they don’t have to deal with the “bad” things those heroes might have done. (In Reagan’s case, for instance, raising taxes on the middle class many, many times, and exploding the budget deficit. In Thatcher’s case, though, I’m guessing most of their lionizing will exclude the last decade or so in which her dementia became obvious as well as how her own party thought she’d become too extreme for Britain—the latter part, especially, since it may strike too close to home for the cons who seem to be having to dealing with near-daily reports of how the GOP is on the verge of civil war with itself.)

@ Rogers: And WAY to miss the point. The lawsuit had NOTHING to do with “gay marriage” but ALL to do with a sanctimonious pig acting in an ILLEGALLY DISCRIMINATORY manner. The cow knows that she would NEVER be allowed to get away with using “religious beliefs” to discriminate against an interfaith or interracial couple but she feels her discrimination should be allowed because this particular couple is gay. IMS, from other stories I’ve read on the issue, one of the men who was discriminated against by this cow was a LONG-TIME CUSTOMER, and the cow KNEW that he’s gay. So, obviously her “religious beliefs” aren’t strong enough to turn him away as a customer for his other floral needs but only when he went to her (a cow whose business he’d been patronizing for many years) for flowers for his (legal in the State of Washington) impending marriage.

When pigs choose to BREAK THE LAW by practicing blatant discrimination, it doesn’t fucking matter what their religious beliefs are. This cow was operating a business, open to the public at large. That makes it a “public accomodation” and in the State of Washington, you are NOT allowed to discriminate against anyone.

As for Carolla, he’s also a washed-up hack and his religious (or lack of religious) views as well as his marijuana legalization views have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. He’s not a lawyer; he has no legal insight. And his “legal” opinions have no more merit or weight than yours or mine. Again. This cow is being sued because she chose to discriminate which, in Washington, is against the law.

Uh-oh. If I were Mr Maida, I’d go into hiding for the next few weeks. He’s done the unthinkable—not playing by FoxNoise’s rules and letting the FoxNoise folks make their “we need more guns” point.

To Todd Starnes: Is English your first language or did you lose your Douchebag-to-English dictionary? Anyone with half a brain (which obviously leaves out Starnes since I don’t think he’s even got that much) knows that “baby daddy” is a singular construction, much like “lying FoxNoisecaster.”

But, for the purpose of Starnes’ education, here’s how the phrase works:
One man is a baby daddy.
Two or more men are baby daddies.
One man with more than one baby is a babies daddy.
Two or more men who each have more than one baby are babies daddies.
With the last two sentences, the forms are somewhat optional since the phrase “baby daddy” is used by women and there really aren’t many women who are quite as “loose” as to have multiple children by the same guy.

O’Reilly IS correct that the cuts are a BAAAAD idea (hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day—unless it has an AM/PM feature) but, on the other hand, this whole plan is EXACTLY what the right-wing have been advocating for the last 30 years.

(I chose to post this comment separately from my previous O’Reilly comment since I didn’t want anything to lessen my disgust at the falafelmeister’s using his elderly mother to attack Obama.)

@ AAP: I hate you. (Making me have to visit a “FoxNoise” website, even if it is the “Latino” site. Anyways…..) I did check the article and comments and, for some reason, I don’t think the commenters who had posted when I read the story are part of the intended FoxLatino audience. Now, granted, I have no idea what a conservative Latino would choose for a handle but, for some reason, screen names like “commonrail,” “jimbobWO3,” “jetjam619,” “liebemeinland,” and “70coffee” just don’t come to mind when I think “Latino.”

And even if she were up to the task of disapproving of Obama’s policies, does anyone seriously think she’d be trumpeting it? When was the last time a European leader stuck their nose into American economic policy?

More importantly, if a European leader had publicly disapproved of Dubya (as more than a few actually did) or any other GOP President, there’s no way that FoxNoise would even bother reporting it—except to harangue and criticize the leader who DARED say something bad about Amerikkka’s fearless leader (and probably demand a complete and total elimination of any and all foreign aid to that leader’s country).

I say that Thatcher can burn in Hell for all the shit she put Britain’s gay and lesbian population through during the late 1980s. From largely ignoring the AIDS crisis (much as her “buddy” Reagan did in this country) to basically removing the very word “homosexual” from the dictionary. (Google Section 28 for Thatcher’s very war on the gay community. You might compare some aspects of Thatcher’s war on gays with the right-wing’s continuing war here.) Considering how gloomy Britain’s LGBT prospects were by the time Thatcher was finally dumped by her own party, the turnaround has been nothing short of miraculous.

Obviously the “immigrant patriot” isn’t aware of what conditions existed in Cuba before Castro. “Third-world hell-hole” pretty much described it for the average Cuban who didn’t have the connections to the Batista government. (And that was when the US had free and open relations with the Cuban government as opposed to operating a trade embargo for 50 years.)

“Immigrant Patriot” (why do I get the feeling that the “immigrant” refers to some white guy whose only connection to immigration was a grandparent or great-grandparent?), perhaps you might want to think about why African-American unemployment is so bad. It ALL has to do with the very group you’re suggesting should run an African-American: The Right-Wing. I trust you’re aware that African-American unemployment has ALWAYS been roughly twice that of whites with it being most exacerbated under right-wing, GOP Presidencies which, not so surprisingly, then turn around and want to cut off all the programs which would actually help African-Americans who suffer from such high rates of unemployment. And then, let’s look at how your beloved right-wing has felt about the unemployed (regardless of skin color) during this period of recession. When Obama pressed to extend benefits for the LONG-TERM unemployed, remind me who was most strongly opposed to those benefits? It wasn’t Democrats, but rather your teabagging, right-wing GOPers—the same folks you NOW suggest need to run an African-American for President. Do you REALLY believe, deep down in whatever piece of hardware passes for your heart, that life would improve for African-Americans just because the right-wing decides to run a “token” for President? If you do, you are beyond ignorant (even by teabagging standards).

sandman, I’m not really sure (after reading some of the atrocious spellings) that those folks would be able to read their own post-it notes.

JJ Troll blathered,

“Here are two truths regarding marriage: (1) Creating a family with another man is not equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.”

See, Troll, you’re forgetting a little bit about your “two truths.” Number 1 is that you seem to have ignored the FACT that same-sex relationships are NOT limited to males. There’s a whole group known as Lesbians (those are women who like to have sex with other women). Your first “truth” doesn’t take lesbians into account. (Or, you’re actually admitting that a family of two lesbians—ie, two women—is, at the very least, equal to a family created by a man and a woman.) Number 2 is that your “truth” is nothing but a SUBJECTIVE OPINION with absolutely NO basis in reality. Heterosexual couples divorce on a fairly routine basis and it’s usually the mother who ends up raising the child(ren) at home (frequently, all alone since the father has decided to shack up with some young thing half his age). Meanwhile, lesbian couples have successfully raised children without having a man “at home” (in point of fact, most same-sex couple DO have a person or a set of people of “both genders” available to help IF needed—in many cases, the most common people are called “grandparents”; if the grandparents aren’t available—for whatever reason—most same-sex couples have a variety of opposite-gender friends or relatives who can be called upon IF needed).

Basically, JJ Troll, you’re ignorant and you revel in your ignorance. Like way too many so-called Christians. (And while I’m on the subject, you might want to recall that neither of Jesus’s two dads were full-time daddies while he was growing up. The big J was pretty absent once He knocked up Mary, and Joseph seems to have completely disappeared from the “Holy Family” narrative before Jesus became a teenager. Mary pretty much appears to have been a “single mom”—at least, until someone finds the story telling Jesus’s “missing years.”)

Who wants to be the one to sneak on to Hannity’s show with a basketball and throw it at him on the air to see how much he enjoys it?

And anyone want to bet that if someone hit Hannity with a belt NOW, the person with the belt would be facing a lawsuit for assault and battery?

Well, I say that Sean Hannity and the anti-choice movement support REAL infanticide by supporting politicians who don’t give two s**ts about children once they’ve exited the vagina.

“But I’m sure that Hemmer and Fox News would be equally supportive of Koranic verses being displayed in a public high school – ya think!?!”

I’d be interested in finding out the FoxNoise kkkrew’s reaction if the Jesus portrait hanging in a public school just happened to have an image that was a bit more, shall we say, “ethnically more appropriate”—such as looking like one of His adherents who live in modern Bethlehem or Nazareth. Or, heaven forbid, the image of “Black Jesus” from the same-titled episode of the 1970s sitcom, “Good Times.” (Actually, if you just do a Google Image search for “Black Jesus,” you’ll get a lot of images—including a couple of stills from the “Good Times” episode. There are a few images that I don’t quite get—and quite a few that would really cause some FoxNoise heads to explode.)