War on Christmas Fraud Exposed: The Silent Night “Rewrite” That Wasn’t
War on Christmas Fraud Exposed: The Silent Night “Rewrite” That Wasn’t
On Friday, Bill O’Reilly took to the airwaves to share the latest “War on Christmas” outrage:
In Dodgeville, Wisconsin, the Ridgewood Elementary School has changed the song Silent Night to Cold in the Night and forced the kids to sing the lyrics, “Cold in the night, No one in sight, Winter winds whirl and bite,” to the tune of the original Silent Night.
O’Reilly was by no means the only conservative to repeat this story. During a Dec. 10 appearance on Fox News, Mathew Staver of the Liberty Counsel said the presentation at Ridgewood Elementary had “no balance here. They have no Christian Christmas carols.” He even threatened to sue the school:
People are outraged. We sent a demand letter asking them to immediately change the song and allow the actual lyrics of “Silent Night,” and if they do not, if they insist on this ridiculous course of action, we’ll file a federal lawsuit.
As it turns out, the entire story is a fraud.
Ridgewood Elementary didn’t change the lyrics to “Silent Night.” What they did was perform a 1988 copyrighted play called “The Little Tree’s Christmas Gift.”
That play actually contains numerous songs about Christmas, including the grand finale, an audience-led group singing of “We Wish You A Merry Christmas.” The play’s creator, Dwight Elrich, happens to lead the New Covenant Singers of Bel Air Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles.
In fact, “The Little Tree’s Christmas Gift” has been performed in several churches, including the Oakwood Forest Christian Church in Kingsport, Tennessee, the St. Anthony Parish School in Des Moines, Iowa, and St. Mark’s Episcopal Church of Abeline, Texas.
So why are the Silent Night lyrics changed in “Little Tree’s Christmas”? Because the play is about a small, lonely Christmas tree that is told it is “too scraggly, it will never sell.” That character sings the revised lyrics — “Cold in the night, No one in sight, Winter winds whirl and bite” — in a scene lamenting his sad state. The rewording has absolutely nothing to do with “secularizing” the song.
Sorry, Virginia, there is no “War on Christmas.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Well that figures.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:06 pmWhy would BO let the truth get in the way
of his war on Christmas?
He never lets it get in the way of any other
loony rant.
I am stunned. What will I tell my children?
December 14th, 2005 at 2:07 pmSo much for the War On Christmas! Now they’re moving on to the WAR ON TRUTH!
December 14th, 2005 at 2:12 pmApparently Dwight Elrich was not informed that Christmas carols are holy scripture.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:13 pmWhat the — ? You mean O’Reilly didn’t bother to get the facts on a bullshit story that’s been echoing all over Wingnuttia as gospel truth?
The deuce, you say!
December 14th, 2005 at 2:14 pmthis is the second time in as many days that an example of this supposed “war” has been proven false.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130006
December 14th, 2005 at 2:15 pmMaybe if we write to the Saudi Prince that owns 5% of Fox and ask him to demand that Rupert Murdoch fact-check every story in his prime time line-up, then Fox might conclude that O’Lielly and Hannity aren’t worth the trouble.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:16 pmWhat’s this, like the fifth or sixth incident of O’Reilly slandering an entity to promote his fictitious “War on Christmas”?
December 14th, 2005 at 2:17 pmI really think the man has come unglued.
I think it would be wonderful if Thinkprogress could link all of O’Reilly’s gaffes from his “War on Christmas” into one mega post, so that all of his blabbering rants can be emailed in one nice tidy wrapped present.
Considering that I found out about the subject of last night’s O’Reilly Factor Talking Points Memo “Christmas in the media” from an advert on this Fox page that contians eleven Holiday or Holidays references but no Christmas references, you won’t be surprised that Fox wasn’t mentioned once. Despite their multiple “Holiday” parties.
The advertising blurb was :
Why does Fox hate Christmas so much?
Z.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:18 pmWith all the pain and suffering, shock and awe going on in the world, I can’t think of a less important subject for O’reilly to be concerned about.
Who CARES?
Just because Walmart doesn’t have a banner that says Merry Christmas, doesn’t stop me from celbrating Christmas.
Besides, if he wants to get technical, then I might point out that Jesus was born in April.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:19 pmBTW, I love the BO picture in this post.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:19 pmAre those “falafel” lips, or what?
My bad… They’ve changed the page…
It’s now twelve “Holiday” and still no “Christmas”
Z.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:20 pmI bet someone gets fired (not Bill O’Reilly but one of his researh assistants) over this. If TP finds this so easily, why couldn’t they?
To be fair, I saw that episode … the Silent Night re-word was one of four things mentioned during the “talking points” section.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:20 pmBill making stuff up? Taking things out of context? I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you. I think the folks in Wis. could have a defamation lawsuit on thier hands. At the very least Bill should make amends, not that it will happen, but it should.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:21 pmBill O’Reilly and all the rest of those so-called “Christian CONservatives” who lie about this kind of stuff need to be outed. Email his website, call the TV stations and call these jokers out! Where is the FCC on this? Email them too!!
December 14th, 2005 at 2:21 pmThe stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
They’d been worn all week and needed the air!
How about War On The Poor? Isn’t that the real “War on Christmas?”
Harpy Holidays.
Creator Bless!
Neil
December 14th, 2005 at 2:21 pmit’s time to hold these media monsters accountable. I’m just fed up. It’s an outrage.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:22 pmAnd also … my bet is, he’ll issue a correction … I could be wrong though …
December 14th, 2005 at 2:22 pmWhy does Bill O’Reilly hate Bill O’Reilly?
December 14th, 2005 at 2:22 pmSpeak truth to power……it really is enough isn’t it?
December 14th, 2005 at 2:24 pmThe MSM is just over the edge. It’s not about Christmas…it’s about mental dysfunction and dishonest power plays. The fact that this stuff even flys at all is a sign that Americans in large numbers/America is losing or has lost it.
who lie about this kind of stuff need to be outed
No one’s said he lied … and to assume so is a tad premature, isn’t it?
December 14th, 2005 at 2:24 pmI just called MR. Robert (BOB) Knight at Concerned Women for America, he is the guy who was on CNN with Sam Seder the other day shoveling this shit around.
Call him at: (202) 488-7000
You might actually get him in person. I got his voicemail (his real voicemail) and left him a calm, lengthy message on how we was so wrong about this and that he should check his talking points before he goes on national TV.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:24 pm#19,
The shame of “falafel”, I think.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:25 pmSo why are the Silent Night lyrics changed in “Little Tree’s Christmas� Because the play is about a small, lonely Christmas tree that is told it is “too scraggly, it will never sell.†That character sings the revised lyrics — “Cold in the night, No one in sight, Winter winds whirl and bite†— in a scene lamenting his sad state.
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!
December 14th, 2005 at 2:26 pmGeo,
December 14th, 2005 at 2:26 pmSo you are saying that we should presume stupid before evil?
“And also … my bet is, he’ll issue a correction … I could be wrong though …
Comment by Giacomo”
Hey GeoMetro, the ‘corrections’ rarely get issued by faux news, and when they do, they are rarely ‘clear’ and often only get mentioned on the website. That’s what propagandists like you guys do - lie, and then rarely if ever offer retractions for your lies. You lie on this site all of the time, yet you don’t retract any of the nonsense and retarded comments you post.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:28 pmGiacomo…
What would you call it when someone presents a fact as being correct and it isn’t? I know a specific word for that, and it is “lying”. It could be accidental rather than malicious, but does that make it any better?
My guess is that Fox have special people who check facts. They’re called “researchers”. It would have taken them minutes to call the School and say “Hey, is it true that… ” and then they would have the full story. If they didn’t do that then they were sloppy. If they are that sloppy with such an easy to verify story then would you trust them for REAL news?
So either they are incompetent (they used a “Fact” without checking it) or they are liars. Which is it going to be?
Z.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:29 pm[Comment deleted by admin.]
December 14th, 2005 at 2:29 pmzwack,
Didn’t they crush rather for less? Funny how the pansy republicans their panties in a bunch when it’s a reporter they don’t like, covering a story they don’t believe - but every time one of their propaganda idiots lie, they come to the defense like a bunch of little weiners… Where’s your backbone Geo? Oh wait, you don’t have one!
December 14th, 2005 at 2:31 pm#25,
I think he is setting BO up for the incompetence
December 14th, 2005 at 2:32 pmdefense.
“I can’t check into everything that:
1) Happens in the WH basement (Ronnie version)
2) Happens in the company I am paid billions of
dollars to run (Kenny Boy version)
3) Happens in my stock portfolio even if I
am sent statements all teh time (Frist version)
4) Happens when the mafia I hire rubs someone out
(Abramoff et al version)
5) Gets into one of my loony rants (BO version)
O’Reilly venting garbage is hardly news, but the ABC news article linked is far more insane. Basically, the f*cktards at this “liberty counsel” had the whole issue explained to them and are still insisting they’ll sue if the school doesn’t drop the program.
The article also points out another reason that words are changed to traditional songs… to further the godless, Soros-funded humanist assualt on all that’s Christian? Ummm, actually, so younger kids know the melody.
These people truly are nuts.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:33 pmLast time I checked, the doors to my Lutheran church were open 24/7/365 and no one barred my entrance to the place. Similarly, I haven’t been stopped from praying anytime and any place I want to (I do it silently and inconspicuously, as Jesus suggested). Best part is, my daughter is allowed to do the same in school (often before a test!).
The local mall has a big, decorated tree in the center where the two main hallways come together. It’s a Christmas tree to me, but it’s a holiday tree to plenty of other shoppers. I don’t care what it’s called, the thing is pretty. But there’s enough pagan in me to appreciate nature for nature’s sake-maybe the tree should have been allowed to continue growing so it could provide shelter for birds and other animals…
And just what in blazes does a tree have to do with the birth of Christ anyway?
December 14th, 2005 at 2:35 pmGoddamn it:
http://www.lc.org/ libertyalert/ 2005/ la121405.htm
December 14th, 2005 at 2:35 pmEven though this is a completely fake story, by a fake anchor on a fake news channel, did Bill O’Rielly or this Matthew Staver character ever hear of church and state?
I also like the fact that the Liberty Counsel was given that name like they are advancing people’s liberties, when they are actually trying to get rid of our freedom of religion.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:37 pmI prefer the ‘Daily Show’. Not only is the fake news more entertaining, but it’s actually more accurate than the crap spewed by OLiely.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:40 pmaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha
December 14th, 2005 at 2:41 pmThis is a War on the War on Christmas.
This must stop. How can we fight the War on Christimas while there is a War on the War on Christmas!
Cash in your gold, frankinsense and muhrr and use the money to by guns, ammunitions, and foodstuffs.
The war has entered the final stages.
-Komrade Kringle
December 14th, 2005 at 2:45 pmEven though it is hard to do, can we take this a bit seriously for a moment? Doesn’t credibility count for anything at all at Fox? As bogus as the whole war on Christmas nonsense has been, one would think that O’Reilly and company could have come up with a few REAL examples of “infractions.” There is a lot of talk on this site and others of the “reality-based commmunity” but has this part of the religious right become so unhinged from reality that they don’t even care if the purported examples they give are complete lies? Can’t they somehow be called to account?
December 14th, 2005 at 2:52 pmI think it’s time we put some anti-persecution-complex drug into the city water and calm these people down.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:53 pmEmail Fox News and demand a retraction. If indeed Fox News is a real news channel, then they would automatically retract an incorrect story. If they do not, then I guess we’ve gotten the message that Fox News has nothing to do with news, whatsoever. Yes, we already know that, but it doesn’t hurt to point it out to them over and over again.
Here’s where to email them:
FOX News Channel Comments
December 14th, 2005 at 2:54 pmComments@foxnews.com
Another Fox News hun spouts unresearch right wing babble…where’s the news in the story?
December 14th, 2005 at 2:54 pmWhat would you call it when someone presents a fact as being correct and it isn’t? I know a specific word for that, and it is “lyingâ€.
Well … it does depend. I could call that person ignorant of the truth. If I tell you something I believe to be true, am I lying … or do I have a crappy vetting process, or poor researchers, or false leads, etc. Lying, at least as I’ve taught my kids, is when one purposefully commits (the “I didn’t do it” when they did variety) or ommits (the when your mom asks you how school was, and you skipped the entire day and you say “it was fine” variety) … not when they said something that is later proved to be untrue (but was believed to be truthful at the “saying”).
December 14th, 2005 at 2:58 pmSince I’ve actually watched the show before, and I have seen O’Reilly issue retractions (at the end of his show before he reads the mail). Since most of you would vomit for having watched it, I’ll Tivo and see if he does retract … we’ll see (I think he will).
December 14th, 2005 at 3:00 pmThe Rude Pundit has a suggestion for fun with BO here:
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Just scroll down to the second bit of rudeness.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:00 pm#43 - Thanks for sacrificing yourself, Giacomo, you’re a brave man.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:01 pmMerry Falafel to all!
December 14th, 2005 at 3:03 pm[…] If you needed another reason to think the conservative message machine is full of shit, here’s a great one. The people backing the “War on Christmas” story have been spreading a line about how a school in Wisconsin rewrote the words to Silent Night to make it less religious. Nico Pitney of ThinkProgress tackles this one and makes O’Reilly look like such a large ass that I almost feel bad for the charlatan. […]
December 14th, 2005 at 3:04 pmSpeaking of the Global War on Christmas, did you guys see Sam Seder on CNN say that we had tortured an elf to get information on the GWOC?
Check it out at Crooks and Liars:
Sam Seder and the War on Christmas
December 14th, 2005 at 3:06 pmI don’t watch that crap. Until hordes of right wing vigilantes storm into my neighborhood shouting “Death to Liberals!” it really doesn’t affect me.
And if they do, I’ll deal with the situation as it unfolds.
Merry Christmas to all (even the wingnuts)!
December 14th, 2005 at 3:07 pmEr…Spudge?
You could also check it out at Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2005/ 12/ 12/ merry-seder-christmas/
December 14th, 2005 at 3:07 pmWhen I was in elementary school, our music teacher actually did change the lyrics of a Christmas carol in order to avoid controversy. The song was “Deck the Halls,” and the objectionable line was “don we now our gay apparel.” Instead, we had to sing “festive apparel.” How dare that heathen teacher mutilate such a godly song? I want the original song back–I want the “gay” lyric back, the way it was intended! Maybe O’Reilly will help keep the gay in Christmas?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:11 pmNice of you to cut off the part of that first paragraph where I said his researchers might just be incompetent. Don’t you think that they should have checked this story BEFORE using it?
Z.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:15 pmBut, it’s the ‘No Spin Zone’???
Can we get him for false advertising now?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:19 pmFox’s version of journalism — shoot your mouth off, get all self-righteous and sanctimonious, rile up the viewers, and THEN get the facts. Retraction? What’s that? We don’t do no stinkin’ retractions!
December 14th, 2005 at 3:19 pmWhat would you call it when someone presents a fact as being correct and it isn’t? I know a specific word for that, and it is “lyingâ€.
Well … it does depend. I could call that person ignorant of the truth.
Ignorant of the truth? What these neocons will call it to avoid using the truth… geesh!
December 14th, 2005 at 3:21 pm#53,
I think they changed it to “spins so far
December 14th, 2005 at 3:26 pmto the right you need an 18″ breaker-bar
to loosen the wingnuts”.
Torque Spec: To infinity, and beyond!
Zwack
I wasn’t trying to misrepresent you … you called it “lying” which assumes that O’Reilly knew what he said to be untruthful (or else he’s not lying). I object to throwing words around that declare motive (not proven) instead of incompetence (clearly proven, in this case) … that’s all.
There’s enough here to object to without drawing a larger unproven conclusion.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:26 pmEquating the birth of Christ(?) with materialism is the real war on Christmas. I’m pretty sure Jesus would agree BO.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:26 pmThis is hysterical. And they blast the “liberal media” for using bad sources…
Bill, you get Judy Miller’s old cell… ;-D
December 14th, 2005 at 3:26 pmIgnorant of the truth? What these neocons will call it to avoid using the truth… geesh!
Don’t word parse, unbelievable. As I said above I “object to throwing words around that declare motive (not proven) instead of incompetence (clearly proven, in this case)”.
I guess you’re free to believe he lied, but there’s only evidence to the fact that he reported something that later turned out to be innacurate … that’s not lying.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:29 pmSo why was Rather run out of town?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:30 pmIt doesn’t matter that the story isn’t true, because Fox viewers will never find out it’s not true. Because it’s Fox. And they hardly ever correct themself on anything. And most Fox viewers seem to take pride(!) in believing everything Fox News tells them is true. Therefore, if Fox says two plus two is five, and they never air a correction or apology, their legion of devoted dupes will start screwing up their checkbooks all across this once-and-still-should-be-great-but-for-the-incompetency-of-this-Administration nation. Rest assured, dinner tables throughout America will be filled with people aghast over this latest battle in The War On Facts, er, Christmas.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:30 pm#56
You sure - that would be accurate - and I am not convinced they know how… :)
December 14th, 2005 at 3:33 pm“The No Spin Zone”? My toilet flushes straight down without a vortex too Bill. It is old,useless,and needs replacing.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:35 pm#60
Don’t word parse, unbelievable. As I said above I “object to throwing words around that declare motive (not proven) instead of incompetence (clearly proven, in this case)â€.
I guess you’re free to believe he lied, but there’s only evidence to the fact that he reported something that later turned out to be innacurate … that’s not lying.
I wasn’t parsing anything, just showing your smoke and mirror tricks for what they are, oh great Wizard of Oz. Should we ignore the man behind the curtain because you say so? I am free to KNOW he lied, and I am also free to think for myself. You really should try it. You’ll like it!
December 14th, 2005 at 3:37 pm#61
Good point!!!
December 14th, 2005 at 3:38 pmYeah. O’Reilly once again gets his facts wrong on the air and you liberals attack him. Marie is a good example here, not holding off to let him use the “No Spin Zone” to weasel out of it. Sure he is a loud-mouthed, womanizing lout who’s turkey neck makes him look like he has a severe case of gout. I won’t argue those points, and leave it to guyhomo or giacomo or whatever to stick up for him.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it reminds me of the “facts” he put out on the “factor” when NOW president Kim Gandy was his guest 2/5/02: he stated adamently that 58% of single-mothers were on welfare and got into a real pissing contest over it. The very next day he stated the report from Washington was bad and his revised number was 52% of single mothers received public assistance. On the following night (2/7) he corrected himself down to 14% of single mothers were on welfare, a far cry from his rude and loutish attack on Gandy two days earlier.
I mean, as for old Bill on this poorly researched and slanderous faux Christmas story about an entire school, lets remember what he said about Dan Rather’s flap: “Dan Rather is guilty of not being skeptical enough about a story that was politically loaded.”
Oh really, O’Really?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:43 pmThis mess is unbelievable. Does Bill O’Reilly have transcripts anywhere so I can read his own words on this issue? I can’t believe that someone objects to a new song using an old tune — this is very very common. “Silent Night” was originally composed in German, are we to start screaming that only the original intent of the song writer must be used?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:43 pmGiacomo,
I agree that there’s a big difference between knowingly saying something that is untrue and inadvertently saying something that turns out to be incorrect. The problem many of us have with Bill O’Reilly is that he doesn’t care if what he says is true or not, just as long as it sounds like it supports whatever point he’s trying to make (this month it’s his imaginary “War on Christmasâ€). And if anyone tries to correct him with those pesky little things called “factsâ€, he’ll just respond “Well that’s just your opinion†and move onto another topic.
And, in case you didn’t realize it (because I am open-minded and I’m allowing for the possibility that you didn’t know this), O’Reilly has a long history of getting his “facts†wrong and not caring about it afterwards. Just for fun, go check out http://www.mediamatters.org and see their file on Bill O’Reilly. Even if you wish to dispute whether this constitutes “lyingâ€, you have to agree that O’Reilly really doesn’t care if he gets it right, only that he gets it across. Maybe he isn’t intentionally misleading his viewers and listeners, but he’s definitely not going out of his way to make sure his facts are in order before presenting them to the public. Does that make him a “liarâ€? Or simply “untrustworthyâ€?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:44 pmI guess you’re free to believe he lied, but there’s only evidence to the fact that he reported something that later turned out to be innacurate … that’s not lying.
Of course, we all know that. After all, that’s the basis of the entire foreign policy of the Bush administration. It’s a hallmark of conservatives, ever since Reagan when he declared, “I still believe we did not trade arms for hostages, but now the facts tell me otherwise.”
Yeah, it’s not lying if you convince yourself first.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:48 pmHey Bill I’ve got another outrage for ya. My kid wore a coat to school with holes in it and they sent him home saying “it is forbidden to wear holy attire on the premises”
December 14th, 2005 at 3:50 pm#32
Excellent post!
As for this so-called War on Christmas, our local paper is seeing its fair share of supporters and detractors in the Letters to the Editor section. I get irritated everytime I see someone writing in saying how offended they are when someone tells them Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings.
And to think that a friend or stranger spouting these words to the “offended” as an effort to deny them the right to worship Christ is, well, ignorant. If I wanted to offend these people, I’d tell them how fat and ugly they are…now I know that telling them Happy Holidays will accomplish the same effect in a nicer way.
As for denying them the right to worship, words just ain’t gonna do it. It takes action. And like Dodgeball in #32 above, I just don’t see it happening. None of the churches in my city have been boarded up, no one or no group that I know of has demanded that the members of these churches quit worshipping Christ, and several weeks ago, there were no groups who attended the annual community gathering for the lighting of the Christmas tree located that made an effort to break up the crowd.
People, get over it.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:54 pmShould we ignore the man behind the curtain because you say so? I am free to KNOW he lied, and I am also free to think for myself.
This is an unbelievable statement (groan, I know I’m not funny). You can believe he lied … to say you “know” is dumb. Just because I point out that your confidence is misplaced in this instance doesn’t meen I want to confuse you with smoke and mirrors. I don’t … why ascribe motive without proof (beyond the “I think it is so, so it is so” variety).
And, in case you didn’t realize it (because I am open-minded and I’m allowing for the possibility that you didn’t know this), O’Reilly has a long history of getting his “facts†wrong and not caring about it afterwards.
Admitedly, Wayne, I did not know this (or that this accusation had been leveled). I’ve watched the show before … I liked some segments, others seemed pure BS. I have seen him issue a retractions so we’ll see if he does now.
And if anyone tries to correct him with those pesky little things called “factsâ€, he’ll just respond “Well that’s just your opinion†and move onto another topic.
He does seem to have an aversion to dissent (with his ideas) at times.
Does that make him a “liar� Or simply “untrustworthy�
If the shoe fits in this case, I’d say untrustworthy.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:55 pm“War on Christmas” Fraud Exposed
Debunking the myth that an elementary school rewrote “Silent Night” to offend Christians.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:56 pmThe So Called News just keep Spinning Farther and Farther AWAY From What Really Started the WAR in the FIRST PLACE! Hasn,t any one realized that yet?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:56 pmI,m Thinking Bush Wants it that way.
Bush Loves it when News Dumbs down the Why of the WAR!
#27
What would you call it when someone presents a fact as being correct and it isn’t?
Bill O’Reilly would call it satire.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:57 pmWhy oh why do Huffingtonpost and ThinkProgress spend so much real estate on Fox News?
It’s beginning to look alot like - “this is the cheaper way to look like you’re talking about something important, when all you’re doing is spinning something someone else said, who spun something someone else said, etc., etc.”
If Fox news can do it, then why not ThinkProgress, Huffington, et al. Talk about what Tim Russert, O’Reilly, and any other talking head on TV says, rather than talking about issues. I get it.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:57 pmYeah, it’s not lying if you convince yourself first.
Let’s play nice now … that’s not what I said, and nowhere near what I believe. Truth is truth regardless of ideologys and self-delusion. This business of “convincing yourself” isn’t in play, as far as I’m concerned.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:57 pmI Thought the War was to Capture Osama Bin Laden, Since He was the Supposed Terrorist of 911.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:58 pmLEST WE FORGET 911.
#73
Bill O’Reilly has openly confessed that he checks his own facts. Unless he was lying about that, then I know he was lying about this… see my point?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:58 pmMaybe O’Reilly will help keep the gay in Christmas?
How do you clean coffee-spray off the monitor?
Really this is just another in a long line of GOP “wedge” issues:
Iraq
Schiavo
Gay Marriage Amendment
Flag Burning Amendment
And I’m sure we can name many, many others. Hand it to the GOP and their mouthpieces, most notably Faux “News;” if there is a way divide Americans and turn them against each other, the GOP is working on making it a compaign issue. That most seem to be merely a chance to grandstand and end up becoming displays of self-righteous, false piety, seems to have been lost on the rubes.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:59 pmThe reality is”There Is a TWO FRONT WAR Going ON,.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:00 pmThe Purpose?
Well, here’s my email to Fox:
I would like to respectfully ask that a retraction be issued regarding Bill O’Reilly and his *story* regarding the Wisconsin School changing lyrics to “Silent Night”.
It is clear the story was a complete fallacy. It was a play, a school play. That Bill O’Reilly scandalized a school play is horrific to me. I am also more than dismayed that this *story* reached the air in the first place. One phone call to the school would have ended the story right there. Now a school is villified, and quite frankly, your station and Mr. O’Reilly look like complete fools.
A retraction and an On Air apology is warranted.
Sincerely,
Think it’ll happen?
December 14th, 2005 at 4:02 pmOSAMA IS FREE!
December 14th, 2005 at 4:02 pm#73
Do you believe in God? How do you know? See my point yet?
December 14th, 2005 at 4:02 pm“Does that make him a “liarâ€? Or simply “untrustworthyâ€?
If the shoe fits in this case, I’d say untrustworthy.
Comment by Giacomo”
Untrustworthy is a synonym for dishonest (eg. someone that lies). You should have spent some time in vocabulary class while you were attending your MBA ‘nightschool’. Your command of the english language is as inept as that of politics, economics, or virtually every topic you touch…
Republican moron.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:03 pmBill O’Reilly has openly confessed that he checks his own facts. Unless he was lying about that, then I know he was lying about this… see my point?
OK, now I get you … he has said that before, hasn’t he. Well, call me naive (I’m sure several will), but I think this is an example of incomplete vetting (he found out that it did happen, but not why) … I’ll Tivo it and see what he says (if anything).
December 14th, 2005 at 4:03 pm“Let’s play nice now … that’s not what I said, and nowhere near what I believe. Truth is truth regardless of ideologys and self-delusion. This business of “convincing yourself†isn’t in play, as far as I’m concerned.
Comment by Giacomo”
And yet you post crap daily that’s untrue.
You’re a fool.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:03 pmThat a way Nico! Exposing O’Scumbag for the lying propagandist he is, priceless!
Dwight Elrich and the Ridgewood Elementary School should be filing defamation lawsuits against O’Scumbag.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:04 pmGREED
December 14th, 2005 at 4:04 pm#87
I think it’s just Bill O’Reilly trying to raise his sinking viewership. He’s jumped the shark and now he’s picking on school children to raise his ratings. His lack of ethics goes hand in hand with his inability to tell the truth.
Let us know what he says tonight. Should be interesting…
December 14th, 2005 at 4:07 pmHi Ryan
Untrustworthy - unworthy of belief; fails to take responsibility for conduct and obligations
You should have spent some time in vocabulary class while you were attending your MBA ‘nightschool’.
I chose between the two words that Wayned offered … in the context offered they weren’t synonyms but juxtaposed … why do I even explain this to you.
I do wish for once that you’d be “fair” in your response and not just quibble over one part of what I said.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:08 pm#22 Ted wrote..I just called MR. Robert (BOB) Knight at Concerned Women for America, he is the guy who was on CNN with Sam Seder the other day shoveling this shit around.
Call him at: (202) 488-7000
Thanks Ted, I left a message with Mr. Knight and I also wished him a Merry Christmas.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:10 pmAnd yet you post crap daily that’s untrue.
Why must you always argue semantically?
December 14th, 2005 at 4:11 pmWell, call me naive (I’m sure several will), but I think this is an example of incomplete vetting (he found out that it did happen, but not why) … I’ll Tivo it and see what he says (if anything).
Comment by Giacomo — December 14, 2005 @ 4:03 pm
Well, Giacomo, you have to agree that O’Reilly is guilty of, at least, sloppy reporting (if what he does can be called reporting).
How can he/his team air a “news” piece that was so blatantly false, and that could have been “nipped” before airing by simply calling the school?
If O’Reilly is so untrustworthy in a story as simple as this one, how can anyone expect accuracy in his show on more complex, hard-to-verify issues?
December 14th, 2005 at 4:13 pmThe Fox News comment mailbox is full.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:16 pmIf O’Reilly is so untrustworthy in a story as simple as this one, how can anyone expect accuracy in his show on more complex, hard-to-verify issues?
A valid question that must be answered by O’Reilly.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:21 pm#73If the shoe fits in this case, I’d say untrustworthy.
Well that’s just your opinion. :)
Seriously, though. Check out the Media Matters site. It may seem at times that they are notpicking, I know, but they do it because the man sets himself up to be so self-righteous and smug. He’s practically begging to be taken down a peg or two.
O’Reilly has also said that if you smear someone, you have an obligation to face that person or else you’re a coward. (Perhaps you’ve heard him say that.) O’Reilly constantly smears David Brock and Media Matters yet refuses to have Mr. Brock come on his show and debate him about anything. O’Reilly also likes to smear George Soros because of how he chooses to spend his billions on liberal causes, but he won’t say anything about Richard Mellon Scaife who does the same thing for the right with his money. I have written to O’Reilly often just to remind him that by his own definition, he’s a coward. I admit that it’s a guilty pleasure of mine. But you know me, I’m a bit of a hedonist. :)
December 14th, 2005 at 4:22 pmOkay, that should be “nitpicking”, not “notpicking.” I know I’m going to get “notpicked” to death for that one.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:25 pm#98
Wayne,
Did you see the debate (more like knock out actually) between O’Reilly and Michael Moore around the 2004 election? If not, you should look for it online. It will satisfy your Hedonistic sweet tooth :)
December 14th, 2005 at 4:27 pm#86 and #92
Relax, it was my choice of words, not his. I was making up what i was going to write as I was writing it and I just needed a word that was similar but without the same connotations.
Perhaps instead of “untrustworthy”, I should have used the word “unreliable.” That was the sense in distinction I was aiming for. Though I do think “foolish”, “ignorant”, and “disingenuous” may also apply.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:31 pmAll O’Nut-job did by reporting this alleged non-story, was try to stir the pot. He’s probably been told by his handlers to try to increase his numbers in Red States that he needs to better in. It’s entertainment, not news. Just wait though…at some point here very soon, he’s going to be getting down (for lack of a better term), on the movie “Brokeback Mountain” and its ‘love story’, just to stir the pot a little more and get his numbers up a little more. It may have already started with Rush and some of the other media dirt clods, but I don’t listen to them and won’t start now, just to research my comment. My wife and I have decided we will go see that movie now, if it’s going to piss off some conservative, fundamentalist loser.
Again though folks, it’s talk radio/talk television and therfore is nothing more than entertainment, not news. They are playing to a very reactionary, uneducated audience.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:34 pmI cant say “have a happy holiday” when referring to Christmas?
Christmas is no longer a holiday?
Wish somebody would have told me.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:34 pm#100 unbelievable
No, I did see the Tim Russert show with O’Reilly and Paul Krugman. O’Reilly gave himself some pretty high but undeserved marks for his debating skills there. I thought Prof. Krugman held up quite nicely against him. I didn’t know O’Reilly debated Michael Moore. That I would like to see. Unfortunately, no internet access at home.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:34 pm#78 And yet, that is the strategy used by conservatives across the board. Aluminum tubes, Niger yellowcake, the necessity of a gay marriage amendment, and Christmas story rewrite. What do they have in common? They are not “lies” because apparently a lie is almost impossible to tell. In order to call a conservative a liar, you practically need a mind-reading device. Otherwise, it’s just a factual mistake. Oopsie we invaded Iraq! Bad intelligence. Mistakes were made.
Karl Rove did not leak Valerie Wilson’s name. Bush promised to get to the bottom of the leak. O’Reiley simply forgot to check if the holiday song was a cute take-off on a well-known tune or a sinister liberal plot to destroy your religion.
It’s all B.S., but apparently not lies.
Absolutely disgusting, isn’t it?
December 14th, 2005 at 4:34 pmSo this is what passes for researched debate on ThinkProgress - everyone jumping on board to agree that Bill O’Reilly is a buffoon.
Gawd what a joke this blog is. You know the country is in trouble when people who purport to be concerned about national security get all in a froth about an ahole on TV who’s job it is to say things to get people like you to do exactly what you’re doing - talking about him. That’s what he wants - for you to talk about him, and dis him, and talk about him some more. And tomorrow he’ll say something else outrageous and yet more hours will be spent talking about him - and he’ll keep doing it
don’t you get it yet? jeez you supposed progressives are dense
December 14th, 2005 at 4:50 pmGawd what a joke this blog is.
And still you post here… Telling.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:52 pmDavid
December 14th, 2005 at 4:54 pmThat’s good. so now attack me. that’s fine. i’ll sit back now and watch all you seasoned debaters do your ‘research’ and try not to call me too many names to be banned - you’re just proving my point David - you might as well face it - if it weren’t for people like O’Reilly this blog would have nothing to talk about - except to attack other bloggers
Can you blame us for being a bit defensive? We have the country’s leaders and media personalities questioning our patriotism, morals, religion, and claiming we’re out to destroy the country. Any opinion that disagrees with the ruling conservatives is branded anti-American. We’re called traitors because we don’t support Bush. So excuse the hell out of us if we let out a little steam at those who attack us.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:57 pmIn other words, Nico, the words of the song were changed. Your spin doesn’t change that fact.
Groups such as the ACLU have sued to remove Christmas displays on public property in a number of communities. These facts cannot be denied by any sane or honest person.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:58 pmNo, it is the left that is doing that.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:59 pmLemmings. Conservative - fox - nipple - feeding - parroted - sheeple lemmings. Funniest thing I have read all week.
Now to Master of Nothing comment. It is these budinski’s conservatives that have made this canard of the war on christmas into an issue… and now you say that we’ve people who purport to be concerned about national security. Jesus. They made-up this issue to wage a war against progressives to futher support their false assertion that liberal are against mainstream, traditional values… ie Christmas.
They are the first to deflect from the Iraq issue, our national security by this silliness. Regardless, it must be answered and challanged. Now if we didn’t can you guess what would be said? Oh liberals are week.
This is swift boat if it isn’t painfully apparent. Just the scale is different but the means, the type of lie and application and impleementation is exactly the same.
I rather fight the fight.
Besides. Moderates, liberals, can do both.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:01 pmCynical ex
Oh please - stop the cry baby routine - i’m probably older than you and have a son that could end up with his ass in Iraq - I’ve protested my way through Vietnam war and this one - I’m sick of it - and I’m sick of how the supposed progressives do absolutely nothing except buy into the structure that’s handed to them, and then complain about it, and then watch some more, and then get into a hissy fit because O’Reilly is a jerk. Can we just settle this. The man is a class one jerk. He’s bought and paid for whore for the WH and the neo-cons, as is most of msm. So stop expecting anything else from them.
When are you going to just turn off Fox news and stop watching. That will be the most revolutionary thing you’ll do in a long time - Just turn it off and don’t buy the products advertised. And stop talking about O’Reilly. If every left-wing, moderate, progressive, whatever blog just stopped paying any attention to the NYTimes, Tim Russert, O’Reilly - that would be progress.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:01 pmwwallace: Groups such as the ACLU have sued to remove Christmas displays on public property in a number of communities. These facts cannot be denied by any sane or honest person.
And you understand why that is Wallace? Do you understand why that is? I doubt you do. Your a lemming that only has the talking points, framed, for you to state as such. A simple google would suffice. NOw you can agree with it, or disagree with it. If you take the latter, over the former, you’ll understand the depth of the suit. Your ilk wants your religion shoved in every public space, without consideration to others religion. You represent the dominion theology, whether you are aware of it not. My guess, you’re played like a fiddle, lemming, and don’t realize it.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:06 pmQuicksand
They made up this war on christmas because people will watch - it’s like any entertainment - it grabs your attention because it has the word “war” and “christmas” in it. Please. You are being had by hackneyed low brow entertainment methods - give ‘em a show and keep ‘em coming - and you think it has any importance?
Every time Pat Robertson gets on his channel and says anti-war people are traitors and they should all be hanged, he’s doing it to beef up his ratings. And he gets rewarded by having his ratings up - it’s like Pavlov’s dog - you ring the bell and the dog salivates
O’Reilly says war on christmas and the progressives go nuts - just stop reacting to it and get on with real issues - like the fact that the Congress is getting ready to cut 50 billion from food stamps, and health care.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:07 pmM.O.N,
I hear you and your right in some parts and in others I do however, disagree. We speak the truth, they speak rhetoric and when they speak it is in non-sequitars. lies by removing the context or changing the context - a common tactic of the dishonest.
If I say Flip-Floper… who do you think of right away?
This is preception marketing. This is branding.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:10 pmComment by wwallace — December 14, 2005 @ 4:58 pm:
Just curious–would you object to having Muslim, Hindu or {insert any non-Christian religion here} displays on public property?
The church down the street from us has a huge, lighted nativity scene out front, facing the road–that’s as it should be. The public school across the street from the church doesn’t. As a Christian, I’m happy to see the nativity scene in front of the church (and in the living room of our house). But I could care less if it’s in the schoolyard or on the lawn in front of the capitol building.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:11 pmO’Lielly speaks, O’Lielly lies.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:12 pmQuicksand
December 14th, 2005 at 5:13 pmI agree that it is all lies - they speak only rhetoric and we try to speak truth - but we fritter out time corretcting their rhetoric - Why? Why bother sending emails to O’Reilly - everytime his email box gets full - he gets elated cause he knows he’s succeeded in getting attention - Maybe the people who had been through parenthood will udnerstand this better
When you reward bad behavior - it gets repeated
Every time we email O’Reilly about his bad behavior, we are rewarding him
A valid question that must be answered by O’Reilly.
Comment by Giacomo — December 14, 2005 @ 4:21 pm
The question: “If O’Reilly is so untrustworthy in a story as simple as this one, how can anyone expect accuracy in his show on more complex, hard-to-verify issues?” must be answered by his viewers who expect facts and accuracy on the news.
In light of this failing, can you, Giacomo, safely expect accuracy from O’Reilly’s show?
December 14th, 2005 at 5:13 pmI will now stop talking any more about Bill O’Reilly or the fact that this blog spends too much time talking about Bill O’Reilly. And if this blog is really serious about issues and research and debate, it too will stop talking about Bill O’Reilly. Otherwise, it is just another gossip column on the internet.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:14 pmThe Bed-Wetting Conservative Keyboarders are a funny bunch.
I haven’t heard this much bitching and moaning over nothing at all since the first season of Survivor!
The cons are behaving like a boderline personality disorder girlfriend: Making shit up to try and pick a fight. Key point: Making shit up.
They’ve got nothing. No one who’s not already a thumb-sucking matress stainer believes their padded room rantings about Christmas being under attack.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:17 pmYour juvenile ad hominem attacks will not change the facts, quicksand.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:18 pmM.O.N: When you reward bad behavior - it gets repeated
Exactly. Have you noticed how outrageous he’s gotten recently, like Farwell by their big mouths from these over-the-top statements?
It may be a reward to them in some ways, but we get the bigger reward…their mouths do the work, we just highlight it for the reasonable republicans, conservatives, and others that are left. The more they connect themselves to the right, the more the divide grows between the extreme right wing loonie-moonies, pushing them torward our more reasonable and nunanced worldview.
At least that’s the way I see it, and if we disagree, its okay.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:20 pmwwallace: Your juvenile ad hominem attacks will not change the facts, quicksand.
Awww poor baby. Of course I’ve insulted you. If you had any backbone and any clue at all, you’ve would have ignored it and refute me with those facts that you’ve alluded to above. But you didn’t, because your argument does not rest on facts, but distortions thereof.
Boo hoo Wallace, Boo hoo.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:24 pmI grew up in the “Bible Belt”, where killing Americans to defend the right to keep slaves, bigotry, and hating people who believe differently are considered good Christian moral values. And yet, I’ve heard “Happy Holidays”, “Holiday Season”, and “Holiday Celebrations” all my life. Why? Because, oddly enough, other holidays happen around the same time as Christmas. No, I’m not talking about Hanukkah or Kwanzaa…remember, this is the deep south. Remember Thanksgiving and New Years?
Want to know the safest place in the world? That wide, open space between BO and the truth…
December 14th, 2005 at 5:26 pmI know this is off subject, but thought it might be worth the detour…
I just saw that Bush said he was not going to leave Iraq until we won the war, right after he said that we went to war on faulty intelligence. I’m confused. If we went to war on faulty intelligence, then what’s still left to fight or, for that matter, win???
December 14th, 2005 at 5:28 pm#104
Michael Moore kept telling O’Reilly that if he was so certain that Bush was right to invade Iraq, then would Bill send his own offspring to justify that war. Well, O’Reilly couldn’t say “No way - never!” so he just tried to spin, but Michael Moore kept repeating the question until O’Reilly began to babble. It’s was a beautiful moment. I think I cried :).
December 14th, 2005 at 5:33 pmUnbelievable, we’re fighting for democracy in the Middle East, didn’t you get the memo?
Oh wait, we were fighting to uncover and destroy the WMD’s and nuclear program Saddam had.
Oh, no, we were fighting because Saddam aided and abetted the terrorists who attacked American on 9/11.
Jeez, I’m confused too, unbelievable. Sorry.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:33 pm#129
Well, thanks anyway Marc…
December 14th, 2005 at 5:34 pmBO: Fra-gee-lay. That must be Italian.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:41 pmMrs. Parker: Uh, I think that says FRAGILE, dear.
BO: Oh, yeah.
War on Christmas? Another weapon of mass distraction.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:44 pmSo what do we have to do to make the espousal of a “War on Christmas” a lie? At what point is it disproven sufficiently that anyone claiming its truth is a liar?
It appears that until we convince the wing nuts that there is no WoC, their assertions will not be lies. At least not by the Karl Rove Morality [tm].
Isn’t that odd?
December 14th, 2005 at 5:50 pmAnother O’Lielly lie. I just heard on NPR that Bill O’Rielly stated on his show that the Dallas Independent School District would not allow kids to wear red and green because the colors represent Christmas. They followed this with a comment from a DISD spokesperson who stated this is not true and never was.
Again, I ask, where the hell is the FCC in all of this? I am calling Faux News, their advertisers, and anyone else associated with this nut to voice my outrage. America has got to hold the MSM accountable for allowing this poison to continue. It has to stop. Starting a boycott is the only way we will make our voices heard. I have heard enough conservative propanganda in the last 5 years to last a lifetime. Enough is enough. I want the truth. I want my country back.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:50 pmThe more I read about stuff like this, I can only assume that some nutcase hears about something from some other nutcase third or fourth hand and emails O’Reilly with “proof”. Bill, being the ace reporter on the front lines of the battles being waged on christmas quickly makes sure the world hears about the new assault before satan takes over… Its really not his fault… He is just trying to save the christian world… right?
December 14th, 2005 at 5:56 pmThe war on Christmas is “The Immaculate Deception”
December 14th, 2005 at 6:00 pmYour Freedoms are >NOT
December 14th, 2005 at 6:02 pmI’m one of the ones who sent a message to Fox,(see #83) but I am a bit dismayed at the amt. of attention he’s getting here at TP.
December 14th, 2005 at 6:52 pmHow about some of that anger vented at the post regarding the lack of Ethics Hearings against some of these House / Senate Members.
If you all went over there and emailed the Committee Members, you’d actually be doing more for our country than we’re doing here.
Just wanted to through a personal opinion out. Hope I haven’t offended anyone.
This is the same lie that Bob Knight from one of those “pro-family” organizations used against Sam Seder the toher day. It makes it look even more obvious that someone passes out talking points to all the Republican officials, Fox News anchors and the Jesus-freak crowd. They all just repeat the same talking points and hope people believe it.
December 14th, 2005 at 6:59 pmWow!
I haven’t seen a string this long with so much silence from the right in I don’t know how long. Says a lot when the rabid dog won’t bite, eh?
Gotta give WWallace credit, though. He’s hinging his point on the fact that the words were actually changed. True to the letter of the law but unhinged from obvious reality.
Wwallace, do you understand the concept of “context”? It’s taught in 3rd or 4th grade or so. Apparently, the churches that put this play on at Christmastime do. The whole point of using the familiar Christmas song and these lyrics was to illustrate the true Christian meaning of Christmas.
On the other hand, O’Reilly used this fact as evidence of the exact opposite, that the creator of the play is part of a vastly powerful Liberal conspiracy caught in the act of attempting to subvert the true meaning of Christmas.
This playwright is the enemy of Christmas? With enemies like that, Christmas will suffer no Casualties in this (contemptuous harrumph) “war on Christmas.”
I hope your contortions of logic don’t hurt your back.
And BTW, Happy Chanukah! (Not your religion? How about “Happy Kwanzaa!” Oh… not your religion either… I guess “Merry Solstice! will do… oh… not your religion either… how about “Merry Christmas!” Is that the right one… ah, good. I guess I should just say Happy Holidays, out of respect for the many possible holidays you may be celebrating…)
Wishing people a happy holiday is fundamentally respectful of all religious differences and the fact that there are several holidays celebrated by different groups in the US, and that we give equal respect and merit to all.
When someone says “Merry Christmas” to me, should I retort, “I’m not a Christian and I’m offended by your broad assumption that I am one… you are waging a war on non-Christians!” NO. That would be overly sensitive. Overly “politically correct.” I hate that PC sh*t. So don’t accuse me of the same when I wish you a happy whatever-it-is-you-celebrate.
Republicans and Right wing Christians seem to want mob rule to replace civil democracy.
This is not a Christian nation. There is no state religion. And article 6 of the US constitution forbids religious tests for office holders. That is direct evidence of the intent to separate church and state by the founders.
Peace to you all, even those of you who disrespect me and question my patriotism.
December 14th, 2005 at 7:09 pm#50
MLDB,
Sorry, I just moved and just got my PC plugged in. I had no access to them Internets until today. I thought I was gonna die going for 3 days without getting a chance to bash Bush, but my friend got himself a new republican girlfriend for me to Bush bash live, so I survived. :)
December 14th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
December 14th, 2005 at 7:23 pm#140
I-RIGHT-I’s blow up doll dumped him this week… I think he’s sulking.
December 14th, 2005 at 7:37 pmIn other words, Nico, the words of the song were changed. Your spin doesn’t change that fact.
Comment by wwallace — December 14, 2005 @ 4:58 pm
There is no spin, my logically-impaired fiend, just an explanation that, if you cared to read the story, would lead you to understand that the elementary school staged a Christian play with Christian songs.
The play has been performed at churches, and its creator is the musical director at a Presbiterian church in LA.
O’Reilly misinformed his audience when he presented this as another evidence on the “war on Christmas”.
Your feeble, pathetic attempt at a jab on the ACLU is going nowhere simply because they had nothing to do with the change of the lyrics.
December 14th, 2005 at 7:38 pmThere is no war on christmas? That would explain why my kids schools won’t let them say christmas in their “Winter Assemblys” and why Kwanza gets billboarded on the stage but the word christmas doesn’t…I’m sure it’s just an oversight…
December 14th, 2005 at 8:28 pm#145
No, there isn’t. Sure, there might be battles by people who have had enough of the Zealots trying to force religion on people who don’t want it. But there is no war.
By the way, if you don’t like being in the minority of those who are oppressed, then remember that feeling of exclusion the next time you want to be the oppressor… What do you all say “Do unto others…”???
December 14th, 2005 at 8:35 pmunbelievable: “I’m confused.”
You sure are. Thanks for the admission.
December 14th, 2005 at 8:45 pmHey y’all. Read this:
http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10784
This is from a former Fox News producer. To summarize, he states that it is Fox’s policy to bring up divisive issues on purpose, such as the “War on Christmas.”
December 14th, 2005 at 8:45 pmA “former” employee? LOL
December 14th, 2005 at 8:48 pmThank you Gregor, your typical weasely dishonesty was expected.
December 14th, 2005 at 8:49 pm#149
And your point is…?
December 14th, 2005 at 8:55 pm#151, your source is biased.
December 14th, 2005 at 8:59 pmHey wwallace:
ROTFLMAO!
December 14th, 2005 at 9:02 pmTurk,
December 14th, 2005 at 9:22 pmThat is such crappola and you know it.
School concerts sing ALL of the Christmas carols.
My kid’s H.S. just did one. The ONLY secular one was
“Let it Snow”.
BTW: We live in Massachusetts. REAL liberal state. I live about 1 1/2 miles from the Kennedy Compound. So I don’t want to hear that crap about school’s forbidding anything “Christmassy”.
Thank you wwallace, your typical weasely dishonesty was expected.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:27 pmwwallace, what’s left of your brain is biased and retarded :()
December 14th, 2005 at 9:27 pmI predict Ryan will continue to offer nothing but childish insults, in blatant violation of the site Terms of Use, but Judd will let it go because he agrees with Ryan’s politics.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:31 pmSeriously, wwallace…you really do make me laugh.
Is that the best you can do? You seem to be implying that he is biased simply because he is a former employee.
Please elaborate. Instead of short one-liners you like to use, such as “that’s a lie” and “your source is biased,” how about a serious discussion on this. Think you can handle that? Better yet, go read the article again and point out the author’s bias. And back up your accusations…tell me why you feel that it is bias. And then tell me that the subject of