Well, if you want funny ...

No flip flops for Charlie Rangel?

Shoes? I understand the level of insult there, but some of these folks deserve something much harder and painful than shoes, like jail sentences!

Re: the inclusion of Rick Warren -
Isn't wanting to hurl footwear at someone expressing one of two basic opinions in a divisive cultural issue a little, um, narrow minded? (Next year's choice: People Who Are -horrors! - Pro-Life)

Once you begin to throw shoes, you'll find it therapeutic. You'll probably start with a politician but then you'll realize that it works for coworkers, angry drivers, crappy news outlets, postal employees, etc. The list grows and grows and grows ...

also a little peeved with inclusion of r warren. he has an opinion. he's not a thief, a whore, or a murderer. he's as fair as any evangelical gets, and demonizing him doesn't broaden the debate. come on, db. free your mind before you become a fashion-less, model-less vanity fair...

Too funny!

To jackblack--
It's not that your dear Mr. Warren deserves a shoe for simply expressing his opinion, my dear. It's that he is hell-bent (oops!) on enacting legislation that serves his viewpoint. In his world--women can't choose abortions; gay people cannot live their lives as they choose. Everyone must subscribe to a "Biblical" path--OR ELSE.
Therein lies the paradox of Evangelism--One is free (to embrace the Evangelist's view). And the Evangelist is free to insist that you do. No other freedoms are entertained. Evangelists insist that you believe that the Bible is the source of all that is true. Plus they insist that their beliefs be codified into law for the rest of us. Can you imagine what would happen if Agnostics or--horrors!!--Atheists insisted on such a thing. But they do not. All they're asking for is a little common courtesy; a little reciprocity.
And--horrors!--being Pro-Choice isn't being Anti-Life. Roe v. Wade doesn't stipulate that a woman must have an abortion;only that she be allowed the choice. But if the Pro-Life movement had its way--the legislation wouldn't allow me a choice. And to that I say--think about what you're asking...do you really think that you,personally,deserve to dictate that a woman keep a child she knows has congenital defects, or one conceived of rape, or incest?? Are you so cavalier in your view of life that your answer to these dilemma is to give the child up for adoption? Do you think you have the right to meddle in these very private affairs? You do not.
I am glad that my nieces, my granddaughter, and I do not have to have the rest of society involved in such a decision (as yet).
Anyone with a strong "pro-life" bent can have all the children she wants. Leave the rest of us alone. You simply cannot live our lives.

And if this guy sprouts one more chin it'll just make him an easier target for the shoes.

It is sad to see folks like Rick Warren and Elizabeth Hasselbeck equated with Madoff and OJ. Maybe it would be tolerable if the partisans who made the list included jerks like Olbermann or Rosie O'Donnell.

It speaks volumes about both the intolerance of liberals to views contrary to their own and the provincial nature of NYC bubble dwellers.

spinozareader -

Your comments peg you as the liberal counterpart of the fundamentalists that you clearly hate so passionately. Actually, your bigotry and intolerance puts theirs to shame.

Brendino--
Truly, and with due respect--you posit that"The average Evangelical believes that abortion is murder." Do you not understand that there are many of us who do not believe this to be true;that many of us aren't Evangelical;and that therein lies the rub?? You go on to compare abortion to one man's choice to murder another...These are not equivalent states of being as far as I am concerned. NO. I do no feel the need to protect the fetus on "the other side of the womb" as you seem to. If the fetus I'm carrying is mentally retarded, I don't want to give birth to that being. If the fetus I'm carrying is one with multiple congenital anomalies, I do not want to bring it into this world. And I do not want to have to justify this to youl. It is not your business. You can feel free to call me callous,but I have cared for these people. When their parents are no longer living, who will take care of these poor creatures? Strangers?--people who don't have an emotional investment in these people? I would not want to exist in the state in which I see many of these people. Why do you insist on romanticizing such a state--of making it seem noble rather than pitiable?? I will never insist that you give birth to, and impose upon the rest of society, the care of a human who cannot speak, or laugh, or play, or win or lose at love, or dance, or any of the myriad other things the rest of us do and take for granted. But if you wish to do so, you have my blessing. Please believe me, I am a loving person. But there is nothing loving about bringing someone unwanted or mentally disabled into this life of ours. I am a pragmatist. And I have both lived a life knowing what it is to be unwanted, and observed the life of other poor wretched creatures who cannot participate fully in living as the rest of us can. There is nothing--absolutely nothing--precious or dear about being crippled or severely mentally retarded.
I suppose that, sadly, we will never be able to agree because you view someone like me as a murderer rather than someone capable of deep and abiding love.
I view you as cruel and short-sighted. You see me as a "baby killer." We will never agree.
There is absolutely nothing charming or precious about a human who must spend its existence crippled, mute, and in diapers. Would you choose such a fate for anyone?? I wouldn't. What a cruel sentence your "benevolence" imposes on some humans. If you want to worship a heartbeat--as I view your concept of living--fine. All I ask is that you not impose that awful definition of life upon me and others who believe that life is much more than a pulse. You must not ever have worked around people in a persistent vegetative state. I have. No feeling human could wish such a condition on another. Yet the pro-life people insist on fighting for the "rights" of people like Terry Schiavo. May I tell you--ahead of time--don't waste your time "fighting" your fight over me if I'm in such a state. Leave me, and my family, alone. Get your unholy mitts off of my life and live your own.

Here's the problem with saying "everyone brings their morality to the political field". It implies that all moral beliefs are equal (moral relativism!!), and skips over the fact that only certain people insist that their moral views be codified into law for all.
Particularly , it is extreme thinking that every instance of human pregnancy should be regarded as a sacred event. Take this to the limit. Let's say a psycopath is obsessed with a woman. He could rape and impregnate her, and could tell her, "You may reject me, and I may go to prison, but the ""pro-lifers"" will force you to bear my child!"
The truth is, any fertile man and woman can do the reproductive act at anytime, and there's nothing sacred about it. Pro-lifers are not about life, they are about controlling the sexual act of others, as religious people have always done to gain power.