Megyn Kelly: Jesus and Santa were white.

[Johan]

Megyn is now on what used to bed Sean Hannity's spot. Seanwas one of the toughest, one the most die-hard conservatives on Fox. Megyn Kelly was among the softest. So I guess she's currently adapting her tone to appeal more to Hannity's watchers.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Whitman shot back again with a list of influential figures, “Martin Luther King, Mandela, Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Cleopatra.” Her response sent Whitman storming out of the studio. “I said significant. None of those people are significant.”

Again, what is incorrect about her statement?

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

The same place "liberals" hate white people popped up. And what the fuck do penguins have to do with crackerjacks?

Penguins are what the LIBERAL suggested Santa Clause be replaced with instead of a White male, as that was too upsetting a visage for that liberal pundit on that liberal magazine.

You know, the one mentioned in the original article?

And the people attacking her? Mostly all LIBERALS. Take those shades off and read every once in awhile before commenting.


http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...e_meet_santa_the_penguin_a_new_christmas.html

 

[Philbert]

I am speechless, her ignorance is stunning. I can't even find the appropriate words to say how shocked I am

I see where you would be stunned...same as when you heard Santa only came to good children's houses the first time.
Since the article is a fake, all the idiot Libs commenting on the site are just as stupid as...well, you are, to even bother with a fake article.
I guess , instead of actually watching Fox occasionally, you use the Onion and similar sources to form your info base.
Check with Lickingdick, he has a more developed "silly source" repertoire.
:rofl2:

 

[Philbert]

I remember when Gingrich talked about "liberal maths"... Yep, Newt, you nailed it : Maths have a liberal bias. Science has a liberal bias.

Maybe it's lost in translation, but he was referring to an artful way in which liberal think tanks and Democrats in Congress constructed a budget in order to conceal unrealistic revenue expectations, not bias in basic maths.

Still stupid and uneducated...try something new on occasion, like objective info gathering.
Naaa, not gonna happen...you already have an established identity as a loopy Libbie. Silly me!

 

[xfire]

Penguins are what the LIBERAL suggested Santa Clause be replaced with instead of a White male, as that was too upsetting a visage for that liberal pundit on that liberal magazine.

I just wanted to make sure that's what you were talking about, I didn't want to assume that you weren't going off on some obscure racist tangent.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

I just wanted to make sure that's what you were talking about, I didn't want to assume that you weren't going off on some obscure racist tangent.

There are few things on the internet more irritating than liberals jumping to attack non-liberals without having a clue about the issue at hand.

1. We find that liberals have no argument WHY Kelly is wrong, just that it makes them extremely angry. What we do know of the historical individuals in question points far more to a basis for a White/Caucasian image than against, but that is too much for liberals to even contemplate. It's just all attack, all the time.

2. Few if any liberals actually take the time to read the article Kelly was referring to in the first place.

So what's the point in respecting your opinion?

 

[lurkingdirk]

You really, really need to lay off the liberal vs. conservative rhetoric. You're almost never correct in your vast generalisations, and it makes you look incredibly foolish. Perhaps you could find additional words to use beyond Liberal.

Merely a suggestion.

:2 cents:

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

You really, really need to lay off the liberal vs. conservative rhetoric. You're almost never correct in your vast generalisations, and it makes you look incredibly foolish. Perhaps you could find additional words to use beyond Liberal.

Merely a suggestion.

:2 cents:

Are you kidding?

That was taken from a LIBERAL Web site, Kelly brought it up on air and was attacked by liberals in several outlets and forums.

Even though, yet again, liberals have no argument for why Kelly is incorrect. Just like that anti-White bigot on Slate constructed a poor argument for why Santa Claus should be depicted as a PENGUIN.

It's liberals attacking non-liberals and showing how little they care about the truth, it's not like I inserted the liberal/non-liberal angle into a sports story.


Lastly, your buddy xfire didn't even bother to read the article with a link to the very story in question right at the top, neither did several of the other liberals here who got all pissy and denounced Kelly.


I suggest you stop your faux polite b.s. because you are one of the same liberal dirtbags who has attacked me constantly. Only to have your b.s. shredded. The same type of liberal troll who puts negative tags on my threads. Nothing pisses off a liberal more than asking them to live by the same rules they set for everyone else.

 

[lurkingdirk]

LIBERAL liberals liberals liberals liberal liberal liberals liberal liberal liberal

A couple of things:
1. I'm not actually a true Liberal. I'm rather conservative on several issues. You'll never get to know that, though, as you like to paint everyone with a broad brush of hate and mistrust. Hope that helps you feel good about yourself.
2. I have never once, not even a little, seen you "shred" anyone's opinion. I find it cute that you think that's what you do. You go and get 'em, big boy.
3. Regarding my "faux polite b.s.," these are called manners. I could spout off like a complete fool, as you do, but I don't want to come off as a complete fucking douche bag, low-life, idiot.
4. I have never put a single tag on any of your threads, but now I think it's a great idea, so perhaps I will start to do so. I'm not sure, though, as you're generally below my radar. I don't typically notice the things you post, because you do things like use the term Liberal in some form 10 times in a relatively short post.

Please let me reiterate - you should really consider addressing more than your incessant obsession with Liberal vs. Conservative issues. It turns out there are other issues in the world that are beyond the scope of what you think Liberals are trying to pull over on you.

Again, merely a suggestion, but please, come at me again. Attack me because you think I'm a Liberal, and I haven't actually said anything relevant to that argument in this post.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

A couple of things:
1. I'm not actually a true Liberal. I'm rather conservative on several issues. You'll never get to know that, though, as you like to paint everyone with a broad brush of hate and mistrust. Hope that helps you feel good about yourself.
2. I have never once, not even a little, seen you "shred" anyone's opinion. I find it cute that you think that's what you do. You go and get 'em, big boy.
3. Regarding my "faux polite b.s.," these are called manners. I could spout off like a complete fool, as you do, but I don't want to come off as a complete fucking douche bag, low-life, idiot.
4. I have never put a single tag on any of your threads, but now I think it's a great idea, so perhaps I will start to do so. I'm not sure, though, as you're generally below my radar. I don't typically notice the things you post, because you do things like use the term Liberal in some form 10 times in a relatively short post.

Please let me reiterate - you should really consider addressing more than your incessant obsession with Liberal vs. Conservative issues. It turns out there are other issues in the world that are beyond the scope of what you think Liberals are trying to pull over on you.

Again, merely a suggestion, but please, come at me again. Attack me because you think I'm a Liberal, and I haven't actually said anything relevant to that argument in this post.

Hahaha, liberals get their talking point questioned, leaving them with NOTHING and you revert to a typical response. Hey, let's not make this about political alignment….Gee, that wasn't what liberals were aiming for when they went on the warpath against Megyn Kelly.


You folks are the equivalent of a guy who punches someone in the back, then gets punched in the face and suddenly loses their taste for fighting.

Edit: Truer words never spoken. Though not as you intended. "I haven't actually said anything relevant to that argument in this post." You rarely do say anything relevant to a discussion in threads like this, just take potshots at non-liberal commenters. When you do make an attempt, they fall flat and/or you offer up comedy gold like the bunch of far-Left sites you used as links last time. MediaMatters is just a font of credible journalism in this last month of 2013

 

[xfire]

There are few things on the internet more irritating than liberals jumping to attack non-liberals without having a clue about the issue at hand.

1. We find that liberals have no argument WHY Kelly is wrong, just that it makes them extremely angry. What we do know of the historical individuals in question points far more to a basis for a White/Caucasian image than against, but that is too much for liberals to even contemplate. It's just all attack, all the time.

2. Few if any liberals actually take the time to read the article Kelly was referring to in the first place.

So what's the point in respecting your opinion?

Get as irritated as you want, you're not going to shutdown discussion with a temper tantrum. As I said, I merely wanted clarification, you gave it, great. You keep going on that I haven't read the Slate article, well surprise surprise, friend, you're wrong about that, too. You're the one that hasn't got a clue, you keep saying that "liberals hate white people", as I've said, an assertion that you couldn't prove even if it were true, which it's not. And again, as I've already stated, she's wrong because everyone has the right to see Santa or Jesus however it fits their own worldview, nobody owns either and to insist that Jesus and Santa are white your favorite Fox News snow bunny just perpetuated and reinforced everything the critics of Fox News have always said in regards to race. You can disrespect my opinion if you want, I really don't care, but until you stop with the generalizations and blanket labeling I doubt if many respect yours.

 

[lurkingdirk]

You didn't address anything in my post, and you're saying I'm the one who is avoiding things? I haven't avoided anything whatsoever. Ms. Kelly was wrong in making Santa white, and Jesus white. She was wrong to make this an issue that gets discussed on the news.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Get as irritated as you want, you're not going to shutdown discussion with a temper tantrum. As I said, I merely wanted clarification, you gave it, great. You keep going on that I haven't read the Slate article, well surprise surprise, friend, you're wrong about that, too. You're the one that hasn't got a clue, you keep saying that "liberals hate white people", as I've said, an assertion that you couldn't prove even if it were true, which it's not. And again, as I've already stated, she's wrong because everyone has the right to see Santa or Jesus however it fits their own worldview, nobody owns either and to insist that Jesus and Santa are white your favorite Fox News snow bunny just perpetuated and reinforced everything the critics of Fox News have always said in regards to race. You can disrespect my opinion if you want, I really don't care, but until you stop with the generalizations and blanket labeling I doubt if many respect yours.

It's clear you didn't read the article, as you had no idea what article Kelly was referring to. Heck, even a lazy person can click on the link and see a huge penguin cartoon right there on the article. So it's clear you didn't even bother.

Still waiting for liberals to make any argument for why their attack on Kelly is even justified. CNN even had Aisha Harris on to give her response and she never once was able to explain rationale.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

You didn't address anything in my post, and you're saying I'm the one who is avoiding things? I haven't avoided anything whatsoever. Ms. Kelly was wrong in making Santa white, and Jesus white. She was wrong to make this an issue that gets discussed on the news.

How is she wrong about Santa Clause? Based on an ethnic Greek saint and appropriated in the 1890s as a White man using Christian and European folklore…gee, not a White man at all.
Remember, it was liberal Aisha Harris who said she had a problem with Santa Clause being depicted as an "old white male."

Liberals started this nonsense, got called out for it and now want no part of it…typical.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Get as irritated as you want, you're not going to shutdown discussion with a temper tantrum. As I said, I merely wanted clarification, you gave it, great. You keep going on that I haven't read the Slate article, well surprise surprise, friend, you're wrong about that, too. You're the one that hasn't got a clue, you keep saying that "liberals hate white people", as I've said, an assertion that you couldn't prove even if it were true, which it's not. And again, as I've already stated, she's wrong because everyone has the right to see Santa or Jesus however it fits their own worldview, nobody owns either and to insist that Jesus and Santa are white your favorite Fox News snow bunny just perpetuated and reinforced everything the critics of Fox News have always said in regards to race. You can disrespect my opinion if you want, I really don't care, but until you stop with the generalizations and blanket labeling I doubt if many respect yours.

How am I "shutting down discussion" by replying on a thread you created? By pointing out the actual contents of the article? By being one of the only people in YOUR thread to note the historical and legal basis for why Kelly could be right on both counts?

If anything, your buddy LurkingDirk was trying to shut it down by saying that 'hey, let's not make this an issue of liberals trying to make S.C. and Jesus an ideological and political issue around Christmas'…even though liberals were doing just that before they got called out and people starting replying with facts about the two men.

 

[xfire]

It's clear you didn't read the article, as you had no idea what article Kelly was referring to. Heck, even a lazy person can click on the link and see a huge penguin cartoon right there on the article. So it's clear you didn't even bother.

Still waiting for liberals to make any argument for why their attack on Kelly is even justified. CNN even had Aisha Harris on to give her response and she never once was able to explain rationale.

It's clear that you have no clue what I did or didn't do. But hey, if that's what you think, great. I had a reason for asking for clarification, not reading the article wasn't it, but you think you're scoring some kind of point by dancing on it, keep it up, you just look foolish. It's really not surprising that you don't understand why Kelly was wrong, after all, the fact that you're foolish is well established.

How am I "shutting down discussion" by replying on a thread you created? By pointing out the actual contents of the article? By being one of the only people in YOUR thread to note the historical and legal basis for why Kelly could be right on both counts? If anything, your buddy LurkingDirk was trying to shut it down by saying that 'hey, let's not make this an issue of liberals trying to make S.C. and Jesus an ideological and political issue around Christmas'…even though liberals were doing just that before they got called out and people starting replying with facts about the two men.

You said you were irritated and you're throwing a tantrum, pretty good ways to try to shut down a discussion. You throw around labels and make accusations you can't prove. It's pretty clear that you have nothing but unfounded objections, and those are based on your own bigotry, otherwise you would see perfectly why Kelly was wrong.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Get as irritated as you want, you're not going to shutdown discussion with a temper tantrum. As I said, I merely wanted clarification, you gave it, great. You keep going on that I haven't read the Slate article, well surprise surprise, friend, you're wrong about that, too. You're the one that hasn't got a clue, you keep saying that "liberals hate white people", as I've said, an assertion that you couldn't prove even if it were true, which it's not. And again, as I've already stated, she's wrong because everyone has the right to see Santa or Jesus however it fits their own worldview, nobody owns either and to insist that Jesus and Santa are white your favorite Fox News snow bunny just perpetuated and reinforced everything the critics of Fox News have always said in regards to race. You can disrespect my opinion if you want, I really don't care, but until you stop with the generalizations and blanket labeling I doubt if many respect yours.

Let's just work with Santa Claus to show a little of how liberals demonize White people for political gain and ideological purposes.
Aisha Harris shows her disdain for Whites right there in the article, using White as a pejorative as usual. Who calls her out? Not most of the liberal regulars on the site, especially not for her racism. She feels extremely comfortable using her real name to spew anti-White racism. Why? Because she knows liberals will either support her or keep their mouths shut. Why?
Just the SIGHT of a White face on Santa Claus upsets her and few liberals are willing to question her motives for writing that piece?
Huffingtonpost, another liberal site decides to look around and find that she's not even the first liberal to be so outraged by the public display of a Santa Claus with a White face!

- - - Updated - - -

Get as irritated as you want, you're not going to shutdown discussion with a temper tantrum. As I said, I merely wanted clarification, you gave it, great. You keep going on that I haven't read the Slate article, well surprise surprise, friend, you're wrong about that, too. You're the one that hasn't got a clue, you keep saying that "liberals hate white people", as I've said, an assertion that you couldn't prove even if it were true, which it's not. And again, as I've already stated, she's wrong because everyone has the right to see Santa or Jesus however it fits their own worldview, nobody owns either and to insist that Jesus and Santa are white your favorite Fox News snow bunny just perpetuated and reinforced everything the critics of Fox News have always said in regards to race. You can disrespect my opinion if you want, I really don't care, but until you stop with the generalizations and blanket labeling I doubt if many respect yours.

Let's just work with Santa Claus to show a little of how liberals demonize White people for political gain and ideological purposes.
Aisha Harris shows her disdain for Whites right there in the article, using White as a pejorative as usual. Who calls her out? Not most of the liberal regulars on the site, especially not for her racism. She feels extremely comfortable using her real name to spew anti-White racism. Why? Because she knows liberals will either support her or keep their mouths shut. Why?
Just the SIGHT of a White face on Santa Claus upsets her and few liberals are willing to question her motives for writing that piece?
Huffingtonpost, another liberal site decides to look around and find that she's not even the first liberal to be so outraged by the public display of a Santa Claus with a White face!

 

[lurkingdirk]

How is she wrong about Santa Clause? Based on an ethnic Greek saint and appropriated in the 1890s as a White man using Christian and European folklore…gee, not a White man at all.
Remember, it was liberal Aisha Harris who said she had a problem with Santa Clause being depicted as an "old white male."

Liberals started this nonsense, got called out for it and now want no part of it…typical.

Okay, if you had left your last sentence off, this would have been a moderately good post.

So, I engage you on this, stay engaged in the debate, bring up new questions, but I'm apparently a liberal who wants no part of it?

_I_ have a problem with her description of Santa and Jesus. Not because I'm a liberal, but because it is absolutely idiotic to think that it is news worthy to talk about Santa's ethnicity. I don't care what was said afterwards, or what her intentions were. I am very convinced that she had no thought in her head that Santa was based on a dude from what is now turkey, she was thinking the holly, jolly old Santa that has a red nose and white beard. She was offended at the idea that he should be called anything but white. THAT is the only issue here.

Jesus was born to Jews in a Jewish part of the world. She was offended that Jesus be considered anything other than white. That's problematic, and someone who is a news anchor on a major network should not speak in ridiculous absolutes like this.

So, there it is. I do want part of this, I'm not a Liberal, I haven't distinguished between a Conservative and a Liberal argument, I merely addressed what she said, and how it's relevant. Think you could do the same?

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

It's clear that you have no clue what I did or didn't do. But hey, if that's what you think, great. I had a reason for asking for clarification, not reading the article wasn't it, but you think you're scoring some kind of point by dancing on it, keep it up, you just look foolish. It's really not surprising that you don't understand why Kelly was wrong, after all, the fact that you're foolish is well established.



You said you were irritated and you're throwing a tantrum, pretty good ways to try to shut down a discussion. You throw around labels and make accusations you can't prove. It's pretty clear that you have nothing but unfounded objections, and those are based on your own bigotry, otherwise you would see perfectly why Kelly was wrong.

If it's so clear that she's wrong on both counts, why can't any of you folks say it? Still waiting for that information to be declassified by the DNC?