Greetings from The War On Christmas

Just when you thought hostilities were subsiding, Fox Nation is escalating the War on Christmas. Their new volley of seasonal aggression kicks off with insinuations questioning President Obama’s sincerity with regard to his faith:

Fox Nation Obama Christmas

So the Obama’s cards don’t mention Christmas. Well, that must mean they are secret Muslim after all. Except for…..Uh oh…..

Click to enlarge:

These are the “Holiday” cards sent out by George and Laura Bush in 2006, 2007, and 2008. None of them mention Christmas either. I wonder what religion the Bush’s belonged to secretly. I’m going to guess it’s the Snake Handlers. That would explain how they could work so closely with people like Cheney and Rove.

Advertisement:

9 thoughts on “Greetings from The War On Christmas

  1. So I guess we can add memory and history to the neocon strong suits; along with honesty, accuracy, and integrity. 🙂

  2. This is funny…

    Johnny Dollar, noted Fox fluffer, is taking me to task for this article. His objection is that I didn’t link to the Fox Nation article about the Obama’s holiday cards. So what? I did include a screen capture of the part I was referencing.

    J$ seems to think there is something significant about my not providing a link. He attributes it to the fact that Fox Nation links its article to one in the Chicago Tribune. So what? I wasn’t writing about the Trib, I was writing about the representation of the story on Fox Nation. And the Trib, contrary to J$’s snide insinuation, is just another right-wing publication anyway.

    J$ also asserted that my allegations of bias at Fox Nation are illegitimate because Bill O’Reilly happened to point out that the Bush’s didn’t mention Christmas on their cards either. So what? This article isn’t about O’Reilly, it’s about Fox Nation.

    For J$ to assert that Fox Nation is not biased is evidence of a severe mental breakdown. Also, for J$ to use O’Reilly as evidence of anything absolving Fox of responsibility for the War on Christmas is beyond hysterical. O’Reilly didn’t invent it, but he sure promoted more than anyone else at Fox.

  3. Comment by Mark
    2009-12-13 18:20:23

    Just to see if I understand correctly… FOX Nation links to an article from the Chi Trib, but it’s THEIR fault that the article doesn’t contain certain information YOU think they should have? Then isn’t J$ correct? Shouldn’t your objection be with Chi Trib, not with FN… aren’t THEY responsible?

    Furthermore let’s look at the actual article itself:

    So… an article that points out the difference between the Obamas’ card, and the Bushs’ AND Clintons’ is bad? Using your logic from before, I would have to point out that nowhere in the article does it complain that there’s no mention of Christmas, or suggest that the Bushs’ or Clintons’ card did. So YOUR need to compare them seems unnecessary.

    However (again as J$ pointed out), O’Reilly mentioned the comparison, stating that the Obamas’ card was no different in that respect. Perhaps you could give O’Reilly a “nice job,” or a “thank you” or an “atta-boy” for doing a good job. You know… that would help show it’s the ISSUES you’re concerned about, not just slamming FOX over and over and over again. And you are concerned about the issues right? Not just an anti-FNC troll… right?

    • Let me make this simple for you: The headline that Fox Nation posted is what I have written about here. I don’t care about the Trib article. I didn’t say it was either good or bad. I said nothing about it at all. The Trib did not write Fox Nation’s headline and it is the Fox Nation headline that I am commenting on here – not the Trib article or O’Reilly or anything else. Got it?

      Fox Nation has made a habit of posting headlines that misrepresent the articles they link to. They do so because they know that their misrepresentation will stick in peoples’ minds, whether or not they read the article.

      • Okay, I get it.

        You’re complaint is that the headline used, while mentioning an actual fact listed in the story, is “too interesting” or “eye grabbing,” and should have been blander. Your complaint isn’t with the content of the story (because it was written by the Trib), rather the headline for mentioning a part of the story you think was less important than other parts.

        Got it.

        But with all that in mind, how do you justify YOUR OWN description of the article:

        Just when you thought hostilities were subsiding, Fox Nation is escalating the War on Christmas. Their new volley of seasonal aggression kicks off with insinuations questioning President Obama’s sincerity with regard to his faith:

        The headline didn’t question his faith. The article didn’t question his faith. Where’s that “question” coming from?

        So the Obama’s cards don’t mention Christmas. Well, that must mean they are secret Muslim after all. Except for…..Uh oh…..

        Who said that? I mean… besides you… right there?

        I don’t understand how you can write a whole article about another article posted on FN’s site, and suggest over and over again that someone is questioning the Obamas’ religion… when NOBODY did that.. but you. The Trib article was 100% positive, and the FN headline only mentioned a “controversial” line in the article as a tease. YOU, however, turned that into a question over Obama’s religion. How can you complain about sensationalism… while doing it (x2) yourself? Isn’t that hypocrisy?

        • If you don’t see that the Fox Nation headline was deliberately implying that the Obama’s lacked reverence for Christmas, you are terminally naive.

        • No no, my friend. I didn’t say it didn’t “imply a lack of reverence for Christmas.”

          But then again, that’s not what YOU said either:

          Their new volley of seasonal aggression kicks off with insinuations questioning President Obama’s sincerity with regard to his faith:

          “Regard to his faith,” not his “reverence for Christmas” is what YOU said. So YOU’RE deliberately implying that FOX questioned his RELIGION, not his appreciation for a specific holiday, aren’t you?

          It sure seems that way, especially when you add in the second like of:

          So the Obama’s cards don’t mention Christmas. Well, that must mean they are secret Muslim after all.

          The FN headline questioned his support for “Christmas,” not his support for “Christianity.” That’s what YOU seem to imply… and isn’t that hypocritical?

        • OMG. This is a pointless debate. It seems to me that you are being deliberately obtuse. Implying a lack of reverence for Christmas is the same as implying a lack of sincerity in a faith that is defined by what Christmas represents – the birth of a savior.

          You just want to argue for the sake of arguing, and I haven’t got time for that. It’s funny, because you previously questioned why I would write “a whole article” about this, even though my article was really nothing more than a brief comment. You have already written 3 or 4 times more about it than I did. c ya.

Comments are closed.