@phelps: You’ve obviously missed the GOP’s side. “We will NOT consider any tax increases. Even if they’re from closing loopholes, that’s tantamount to a tax increase, and it’s off the table.” Those may be my words, but they accurately reflect the GOP’s position.

AND, let’s not forget why this sequester is even around: The fucking GOP’s intransigence on raising the debt ceiling a couple of years ago.

Obama has cut MORE spending than any previous President, but it’s not enough for the teabagging government-hating GOPers. They remain fixed on Norquist’s fantasy of NO government. (You know. Sort of like what they’ve got in Somalia. Except with atomic bombs.)

Go peddle your bullshit somewhere else.

Oh, and your little “households” analogy? When YOU can print money to cover your debts, THEN your analogy can hold a bit of water. See, THAT is why households employ budgets. But, governments are NOT households. Governments are able to borrow at rates that are simply not available to private citizens (by the way, let me know when YOU can take out a loan at 0.75% interest or get a cash advance at 0.75% interest). AND, as noted, the Feds can always print “money” if absolutely necessary. I can’t do that. And I’m damn sure you can’t either. Also, you should remember that, according to the Constitution, it’s CONGRESS’S responsibility for developing and passing a budget—not the President’s; the President merely makes recommendations that he wants to see in the budget. (And some folks need to recall that even Mr “Balanced Budget Amendment” Reagan NEVER even proposed a balanced budget. All of his proposals were heavily laden in red ink. He challenged the Congress to send him a balanced budget but he never made a single proposal that would result in a balanced budget.) I’ll also remind you that many households find themselves in trouble when unexpected expenses come up (little Teddy’s appendix decided to burst or Grandma just had to die, leaving Mom and Dad to deal with paying funeral expenses because she’d cashed in all her life insurance plans after she lost almost all her savings during the 2008 recession), or unforeseen circumstances arise (like having their hours cut at work or they lose their jobs). Now, if a household gets hit with those, they have to figure some way of rescheduling payments, etc, but are YOU going to be the politician who says “Let New Jersey deal with all that hurricane crap” when, just a few months later, YOUR district or state gets hit by a string of tornadoes or massive flooding?

Note: In my previous post, I wasn’t comparing Ms Mackris to a prostitute. My intent was simply to point out that Bill’s actions with Ms Mackris seem to be considered “off-limits” and “no one else’s business,” but anyone else (especially a Dem)? Well, they’re fair game.

“violating KA law” and “the KA Supreme Court”

Priscilla, just a note. The proper 2-letter abbreviation for Kansas is KS, not KA. Not a major problem; just pointing it out.

@chuck: I’d be willing to be it’s not “nuts” but rather “nut”—singular—though displaying his (and, most likely, it’s a he making all the posts) multiple personality disorder.

Judith Miller. Isn’t she the NYT reporter who did so much cheerleading for the Dubya’s cabal in the days before the war in Iraq? And did so much cheerleading during the entire war? And did NO investigation into all those “tough questions” that Dubya had to answer from the “mainstream media”—the same media that FoxNoise accuses of being in the tank for Obama?

Oh, wait. I forgot. Dubya simply didn’t answer any tough questions from mainstream media reporters and journalists. He only answered the questions from reporters and journalists he knew would ask him questions that fed into the whole right-wing propaganda. And if, by some small chance, a real tough question was asked of Dubya, he’d make word salad of it until one of his pets (like porn star/escort-turned reporter, Jeff Gannon—who really didn’t do much to change professions) could rescue him by asking some completely harmless, inane question, at which point Dubya would turn on his little “aw-shucks” routine and get the press conference back on track to what he wanted to talk about. And if he couldn’t do that, well, then, “that’s all the time we have for questions, thank you” and out the door (and I honestly have to wonder how many of the door gaffes were planned to make the reporters forget what he hadn’t talked about).

From the story:

Subject: national defense authorization act

Why isn’t Fox talking about the Ndaa Bill which allows the President to jail anyone without cause or trial or even filing charges?

This was the first step that Hitler used to get control of Germany! This is a direct violation of the Constitution and must be stopped!

Dear Pinhead, We’re sorry you feel that way but we’re unable to talk about the subject because, invariably, those liberal media scum and their lapdog bloggers would turn it all around and blame King George W Bush and His Illustrious Excellency Dick Cheney for it. I mean, can you believe it? Those liberals actually think that those two had nefarious purposes in mind when they forced the Congress to approve all those post-9/11 measures that would allow the Pentagon and CIA and FBI to read your e-mails and other personal communications and phone calls and that we in the Republica- I mean, at FoxNews never raised any criticisms of those measures before the Kenyan was elected. We in the Republica- I mean, at FoxNews cannot allow Bush’s legacy to be tarnished any further than the liberals have already done. So sorry that we can’t be of any further assistance, but we’re sure that you, as a good FoxNews viewer and loyal American patriot (as though one could be one without being the other—LOL), can understand our position.

Q: “How Many Times Can A Democratic Guest Be Interrupted On Fox News?”

A: As often as the Dem begins to speak.

It’s too bad that someone close to O’Reilly can’t make a wish à la “Liar, Liar” and get BillO to tell the truth for a whole day. (Actually, I’d be happy with just the hour that he spends bloviating on the air but I digress….)

“In July, 2010, Daddy Cheney had a 36% favorability and that was after he had been out of office for more than a year. That was up from the 13% when he left office but still not exactly the kind of numbers you want to crow about.”

The only reason his favorability ratings were that high is that, when the numbers were broken down, 14% knew he was still alive and still viewed him favorably while 21% thought he was dead so they didn’t see any reason to not view him favorably and 1% were drunk fratguys who thought they were being asked a question about their genitals.

Certain trolls might want to consider that the reason no one other than FoxNoise brings up Benghazi is because it’s all been covered. FoxNoise thought it had something to ruin Obama’s chances of being re-elected and when that didn’t happen, they had no choice but to double down. And, of course, all their pets in the Senate have to follow suit, displaying to the world, once and for all, how insane the GOP and their propaganda arm truly are.

I just wish certain Democrats would, every time that Benghazi is mentioned, ask the GOPers where all those WMDs that Saddam had were? I mean, aside from the “north and south and east and west of Baghdad” comment. And maybe they could ask why Dubya and Cheney shut down the unit that was hunting Osama and ask exactly what Dubya’s conversations with the Taliban involved while he was Governor of Texas.

If the GOP wants to rehash a past tragedy that killed Americans, maybe there could be some time spent asking Dubya and Cheney why no one seemed too interested in that “daily briefing” handed to Dubya in August of 2001. Maybe you remember that? About a month before 3000 Americans died. It’s interesting how the GOP were all quiet on the subject of investigating THAT and felt there was no need for the President to answer questions in front of a Congressional committee.

As for the “155 times in one day,” MSNBC was obviously just making up for the ZERO times that FoxNoise showed it.

Go home, troll. Go home. (We’ll make sure that you get your 25 cents from your overlords.)

@lakeview Pigeon: Yeah. It is kinda funny how O’Reilly seems to have forgotten there are a lot of other great baseball hitters who DIDN’T go the ’roid route whose advice would be a bit better.

And if anyone really thinks that O’Reilly wouldn’t take golfing advice from “marriage cheat” Tiger Woods, then I’ve got some nice real estate about 10 miles west of Key West, FL, that I’d be willing to sell.

Oh. Incidentally, does anyone else think that O’Reilly’s got a lot of nerve calling out Tiger on his marital infidelity when O’Reilly’s currently separated from his wife and sort of crossed legal lines to get his wife’s, um, “gentleman friend” investigated? Bill. I’ve got a pot and kettle that you might like to meet.

sandman1: As a technicality, Lincoln did NOT free the slaves. He delivered the Emancipation Proclamation but not one slave was freed as a result of it. In fact, the contents of the Proclamation applied ONLY to areas “still in rebellion” after Jan 1, 1863, and specifically excluded CSA territory that was under Union control when Lincoln delivered the Proclamation (notably, the Hampton Roads area of Virginia and the New Orleans area) as well as the states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware (in fact, Delaware didn’t formally ratify the 13th Amendment until 1901 and Kentucky didn’t do so until 1976).

The real effect of the Proclamation was propaganda. Since the CSA’s major trading partners at the time were Britain and France, both of which had abolished slavery within their empires* at least 20 years previously, Lincoln relied on the “will of the people” in those countries to protest their “support” of slavery. Somewhat ironically, during the Revolutionary War, the British offered freedom to any slaves who would rebel against their masters and join the British side; of course, the British didn’t offer freedom to slaves in any of their other colonies—only the 13 North American colonies in a state of rebellion. The American “patriots” (including Washington, Jefferson, and all the other Southern, and handful of Northern, Founding Fathers) who owned slaves didn’t recognize this offer as valid and threatened to kill any slave who dared join the British side. Historians in the last couple of decades have uncovered records documenting the killing of hundreds of slaves, especially in more rural areas of the Carolinas, simply because of the existence of the offer (not that there’s any evidence that any slaves actually joined the British side).

*The term doesn’t refer to style of government but the fact they held overseas possessions.

truman, it could be that Lindsey’s the other kind of teabagger. Of course, he probably prefers being the dunkee, rather than the dunker.

I guess Kimberley wasn’t paying very carefully when she was attending her Catholic Church lessons. According to the Church, the whole point of Lent is to give up (or sacrifice) something that you “love so much.” Additionally, the more of an indulgence the item is, the better it is as a choice. That’s really the whole point of Lent—to remind people of Christ’s own sacrifice (which is one reason why Fr Johnny should remember that non-Christians have no purpose in observing Lent).

Of course, since Kimberley is a multiple divorcee, that’s just further evidence she didn’t pay much attention to her Catholic training.

“Fox News just can’t seem to pass up an opportunity to paint President Obama as the Supreme Welfare Queen enabler. Or maybe it’s just that they hate public education.”

Why make it a choice? With FoxNoise, can’t it be both? We know how the right-wing has been trying to get rid of public education since at least the days of St Ronnie of Raygun was in office and how the right-wing has been trying to get rid of Obama since Nov 5, 2008 (and arguments could be made that the right-wing’s been out to get rid of Obama since June 1, 2008 when the DNC gave Obama enough delegates to win the nomination or even since Feb 1, 2008 after the race for Dem nominee got winnowed down to just Hillary and Barack).

“Rather than give up something, Bill suggested that the boy do at least one act of kindness during each day of Lent and then write a short note about it.”

So, this sounds like Bill isn’t satisfied with Church Doctrine regarding Lent. I’m not Catholic, but my understanding of Lent is that giving something up is a REQUIREMENT, not a “suggestion.” This “act of kindness” is something that would be alright with the Church IN ADDITION TO the self-deprivation act but I don’t know of any Catholic teaching that would accept a substitution.

Apparently, the mad troll doesn’t quite get the difference between a news WEBSITE and a network news show that has one host.

Correct me if I’m mistaken but didn’t O’Reilly join the hatefest—oh, I’m sorry—the “lack of disrespect” to Sandra Fluke last year?

Hey Bill. You want to clear up this “epidemic of disrespect?” You might want to clean up your own house first.

Or, in words that you might have heard (and if you haven’t, I’m sure Father Johnny would show you where to find it):

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

But mlp !, my understanding was that you only give up something that you ADMIT to doing. Since priests aren’t supposed to admit to engaging in any sort of sexual activity (not even “pummeling the priest,” “beating the bishop,” or “polishing the Pope”), I’d think it would hard for them to give up “playing with the boys” even for Lent.

Hume says Obama is "more preoccupied with equality of opportunity or even equality of income and with social justice than he is with the growth of the economy.

Well, I say, the GOP doesn’t care about social justice any more than it cares about the economy. Why do I say that? Well, I’m just going by the GOP’s actions (or inaction, as the case may be) in Congress over the past 49 months.

Now, between the two of us, who do you believe presents the more accurate statement?