Todd Starnes of Fox News Lies Again: A Texas School Did Not Ban Christmas Trees and the Colors Red & Green

I think this is the third fake story “reported” by Fox News’ Todd Starnes in the past two weeks. But I could be wrong since I’ve only read three of his stories in the past two weeks.

His latest version of “fair and balanced” spin takes us to Frisco, Texas, where Starnes writes that an elementary school has “banned Christmas trees and the colors red & green from an upcoming ‘winter’ party”:

Boys and girls who attend the Nichols Elementary School “Winter Party” will not be able to make any reference to Christmas or any other religious holiday. Christmas trees are also banned — along with the colors red and green.

… after a meeting between the principal and the PTA, the school decided to keep the draconian rules in place.

“She [the principal] said they didn’t want to offend any families and since each family donates money they feel this is the best policy,” read an email sent to [state Rep. Pat Fallon].

Fallon is the politician who authored the unnecessary bill signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry over the summer that allows students to say things like “Merry Christmas” without punishment. (If you’re thinking to yourself, why would anyone ever be punished for that?, you would be correct.)

So is Starnes’ story true?

Of course not.

The Frisco Independent School District issued a statement on Thursday completely contradicting Starnes’ lies:

An unfortunate misunderstanding regarding an email that was sent by a room mom has unfairly portrayed a school and the Frisco ISD as having violated the “Merry Christmas Law.” This is simply incorrect.

The email being referenced was not an official PTA email nor was the school aware of it being sent. The email that was sent by the room mom was sent two weeks before the party planning meeting had even been held. At the party planning meeting held on November 19, prior to any knowledge of the email, the school leaders went over the new law as part of the meeting. Please understand, there has never been a ban on what is worn, what is said, or what is brought to the party…

When the email was forwarded to Mr. Fallon stating no red or green or Christmas trees and no reference to Christmas or another religious holiday, he sent a letter to our Superintendent regarding the law. Our Superintendent called him and assured him these were not our rules. We are still unsure of why the campus and District’s position was misunderstood and why there is the feeling that there is some sort of ban of items or greetings regarding the winter holiday parties at that school.

I can explain the misunderstanding: You see, Starnes is desperate to promote the fake “War on Christmas” and since he can’t find actual stories of people discriminating against Christians, he just makes shit up. It’s Fox News, not the New Yorker.

While we’re on the subject of willful ignorance, Sarah Palin was all too eager to promote the story on Facebook and Twitter.

Say it with me now: There’s no “War on Christmas.” Not even in Texas. There are only liars who love to pretend they’re victims and the gullible masses who believe everything they’re told.

(Image via Shutterstock)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    Sometimes I feel like screaming “If they want war, we’ll give them war.” because I am getting tired of hearing about this fictional war on christmas. There is no actual war just like there is no actual persecution of christians in the united states and yet that is all we hear about.

    • Nico Prime Ferrise

      I do as well sometimes. Then I realize vandalism via removing the decorations and putting them in boxes takes too much time to do in one night v.v

      • Raising_Rlyeh

        Really? Because it is rather quite simple. All you have to do is use all the satanic powers granted to us by our lord and master and then summon forth the spirit of the the grinch in order to steal christmas. Of course this has the downside of teaching people that the true meaning of christmas doesn’t come in a box so I can see why it really isn’t worth it.

        • Nico Prime Ferrise

          but then we run into the problem of random monsters being summoned while we try to get the grinch, That however makes monster hunting Businesses start up and boosting our economy >.> maybe thats not a bad idea

          • Spuddie

            The last time I tried to summon a grinch, I got a grue. Those guys are no fun in the dark.

            • Artor

              They’re easy to feed, though.

    • JT Rager

      What about a “war on the war on christmas”? Perchance we’d make some headway with that?

  • Pepe

    I think this is a brilliant strategy by the right wing. They make up an entire story, the sheep reads these “news” articles and swallows it whole, the officials speak up saying that they were misrepresented/there’s no truth; Starnes, maybe, adds a line at the end of his article about how some of the “facts” in the article might be wrong.

    But by then, the damage (for them, that would be success) is done. Fuck them.

    • Matt Potter

      I have friends and family on FB that post these stories constantly. They do indeed ‘swallow it whole’. After reading their post and completing a grueling 5 minute google search I post something like,” Thanks for sharing but this story is completely inaccurate and a sorry excuse for journalism. Trust but verify. Here’s a link that directly refutes all the nonsense.” This time of year I might even add a ‘Happy Holidays’!

      • Rich Wilson

        I ended up de-friending that family member. I got tired of him saying he agreed with me, and then dredging up the same damn thing three days later.

      • Artor

        “This time of year I might even add a ‘Happy Holidays’!”

        Ooh! Burn!

    • SeekerLancer

      Yes, it doesn’t really matter if its a bold faced lie. The people who they want riled up probably aren’t going to go out of their way to verify the article.

    • UWIR

      And any denial from the school is just brushed out as them lying.

  • Craig Brown

    Looks like there is no comment section on this one? Anyone else try?

  • Craig Brown

    Todd Starnes get to hit the hornets nest and run. What a peice of work.

  • Castilliano

    “I think this is the third fake story “reported” by Fox News’ Todd Starnes in the past two weeks. But I could be wrong since I’ve only read three of his stories in the past two weeks.”

    Didn’t you know, Starnes is working on his B.S. at the Barton School of Journalism?
    I’ve heard that so far he’s scored 100%…

  • Matt Potter

    I decided to brave Mr. Starnes FB page. I can conclusively report that he has posted many more than 3 fake stories in the last two weeks. Please be careful, the stupid still burns.

  • islandbrewer

    Todd Starnes is incapable of publishing non-fake stories, as far as I can tell.

  • Madison Blane

    As an FYI…I just downloaded a new Google Chrome extension called Rbutr (Rebutter lets you know any time an article has been rebutted in another place on the web, so you can read both sides of the story – it’s pretty cool). When I went to read the original Fox article on this story, Rbutr let me know that this page has been linked as a rebuttal.
    I thought the authors and some people here might make use of the extension in the future when responding to popular articles.

    • chicago dyke, TOWAN

      even mighty google isn’t going to be able to find every story rebutting every story about anything that’s out there. i’d be careful with a technology like that, and my reputation. chasing down sources and understanding the difference between primary and tertiary source material, not to mention the language barriers and cultural context challenges… sorry, there’s no “app” that can substitute for all that real and actual hard, critical work.

      • Helanna

        I don’t think she was implying the app was a substitute for anything, but it sure looks handy for finding sources. If somebody’s too stupid to figure out how to use those sources, well, that’s hardly the app’s fault.

        Thanks Madison, I’ve installed it and am going to try it out. It does look really useful!

      • Madison Blane

        The app isn’t about what google can find. It is for authors to easily link their responses to the page it rebutts. So that, when you open a page (say ‘Natural News’ for example) a little box pops up that tells you everyone who has written a direct response to that claim – so you can read both sides of a story. It lets you know if Snopes has already done the work of finding this claim false. It keeps one from forwarding a claim that has already been debunked. It isn’t so much for research as it is for awareness of truth and a balanced perspective.
        It’s a place to begin, not a place to end.

      • Artor

        It’s a crowd-sourced app. It doesn’t catch everything, but it can still be a useful tool.

    • Artor

      I just got Rbutr myself. I’m looking forward to seeing how it works.

  • Jeff Simons

    There actually IS a war on christmas, it’s Thanksgiving trying to get it’s time back.

    • SeekerLancer

      There’s no telling how much longer Halloween can hold the line.

      • Jeff Simons

        I give it another 2 years.

        • Mario Strada

          I was in a store not a week after Halloween and they already had Xmas music blaring from their loudspeakers. It was a pet store, but I forget which nearly identical franchise it was.

          • Matt Potter

            The day after Halloween I was in Wal-Mart and their seasonal section was filled with Christmas. The only Thanksgiving type items took up half of a little aisle and a large portion of what was there consisted of Halloween type products that could also double for Thanksgiving, i.e. decorative fake pumpkins,etc.

      • Castilliano

        I often see Christmas displays before Halloween. Have even set a few up myself. *slap my wrist*

        Several years back, I saw large Santas for sale in Wal-Mart.
        In July.
        Feel dirty every time I go there. Have yet to buy something.

      • Artor

        I think we should just cancel Xmas, Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day, and just make them all Halloween.

  • LutherW

    How many real, loving, omnipotent gods would it take to keep such false stories from starting? Only one. We must be just short of that number by one.

  • LesterBallard

    Lying for Jesus pieces of shit.

    • diogeneslamp0

      No, we have to say that so often that we need an abbreviation: L4JPOS.

      • LesterBallard

        You just made my life a bit easier.

  • newshound1000000

    So, liberals make up the whole “war on women” by the GOP. But now they are getting twisted in a knot over being accused of waging a “war on christmas.” Karma.

    • Feminerd

      I consider it a war on my ‘kind’ when my basic bodily autonomy and health care are considered unimportant and put on the chopping block to appease people who think there’s an invisible wizard up in the sky. I consider it a war when people call me a thing instead of a person and try to get that view enshrined into law.

      But hey, maybe you don’t think that’s a war.

      • newshound1000000

        “my basic bodily autonomy”

        I’ll assume you mean abortion, including partial birth abortion. So, basically you feel it is your right to murder your unborn child that you made voluntarily. Why don’t we extend that until they turn 18. Then if things get too difficult you can just off them later. Of course, they might behave better in that case. But seriously, what is the difference between a child 5 minutes before they are born and 5 minutes after they are born?

        “when people call me a thing instead of a person”

        Oh the hypocrisy.

        • Feminerd

          Well, I mean abortion and contraception and sterilization.

          First of all, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Additionally, not all sex is even voluntary. Second, there is a massive difference between living in my body feeding off my very flesh and just existing around me. An infant, a five year old, a 17 year old- you can always hand them off to someone else to care for. An embryo? Not so much. Come back to me when we have effective artificial uteruses and a safe transplant mechanism and we can talk about the morality of expelling unwanted bodily invaders into certain death then. Third, the difference between a fetus and a baby is a fetus is attached to my body by an umbilicus and a baby isn’t. That’s a pretty significant difference.

          You’re calling me an incubator, a heart-lung machine, an object. You think my brains, wants, desires, hopes, and personality are irrelevant so long as I can function as a life support system for another entity. That’s pretty horrible. I’m just treating an unwanted fetus like any other invader of my body- I want it out, and whether it lives or dies is not my concern. I can kill a rapist. I can kill dozens of people by refusing to donate my blood, my bone marrow, my kidney, my liver, and my lung to them. If I can kill a baby by not donating blood to it, why do you think I should be legally obligated to donate blood and body and nutrients to a fetus?

          • newshound1000000

            First off, I’m not calling you anything. And I don’t think any of the things you say, so you are way off there.

            5 minutes before, 5 minutes after. 10 minutes is too long to wait. Murder is the better option. I should remember that the next time the line is too long at the drive-thru.

            Connected by an umbilical cord is the difference? So let’s deliver a baby but don’t cut the cord. It doesn’t look good enough? It has red hair? It’s a girl but they really wanted a boy? Well, just slash its throat and try again. Really?

            I may even be a little inconsistent in my position as I will say the right to abortion in the case of rape or incest does need to be protected. But there were over a million abortions last year. I doubt there weren’t more than a small percentage that were the result of rape. But when a rape happens, there are no good options. Every option leads to a bad place.

            Even morning after pills in the case of unprotected sex don’t upset me as that happens routinely in nature. At that stage there is no way for the fetus to sense anything, anyways.

            If 90% of abortions were morning after pills or were the result of rape, I would say, okay, good enough, We will never get it perfect and we can’t restrict the 90% to try and reduce the 10%. But that’s not where we are. We are reverse. We have too many damn people not giving any thought whatsoever to the outcome of their actions.

            Bottom line is this. If you don’t want a baby, then don’t make a baby.

            • Rich Wilson

              Do you happen to know how many 3rd trimester abortions are for any reason other than the life of the mother? I don’t.


              • newshound1000000

                Do you happen to know how many are done for the life of the mother? Other than this one article about one incident out of a million abortions that year.

                • Rich Wilson

                  I asked you first, because I don’t know. My one article happens to be about one of the most extreme ‘pro-life’ers out there- Santorum.

                  I asked you because although you talk about “We will never get it perfect” you also seem to want to talk about ‘partial birth’ abortions and “We have too many damn people not giving any thought whatsoever to the outcome of their actions.” It seems like you think women are having partial birth abortions for the hell of it. The real reason I linked Santorum’s story was the agony they went through. Do you think a 3rd trimester, let alone a ‘partial birth’ abortion is something anyone takes lightly?

                  I think you’d agree with me in desiring a) fewer unwanted pregnancies (i.e. fewer abortions) and b) abortions that do occur to occur as early in term as possible, and be as safe as possible (i.e. no coat hangers)

                  So, should we make sex ed comprehensive, or teach abstinence only? Should we make it hard to get contraception or easy? Should we make it hard to get morning-after pills, or easy? Should women who decided they need an abortion have to undergo further procedures and wait to try to get them to change their minds? Should we make it difficult to get an abortion by de-funding planned parenthood, so women have to travel out of state to get a safe abortion? Bonus: should we have more programs like food stamps and WIC and subsidized daycare to help single mothers, or let them ‘fend for themselves’?

                  And after answering those, ask your self which side you align most closely with policy wise: ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’.

                • newshound1000000

                  I’ll answer the last since: which side? neither one, like most Americans I think. Both are controlled by extremists. Pro-lifers are unwilling to make an exception for rape/incest because they think it will be abused (which it will). Pro-choicers are unwilling to admit that PBA unless for health of mother is murder because anything less than abortion on demand is unacceptable.

                  So, the large majority of Americans are really no longer represented because both parties play to their extremists and the rest of us sit in the middle trying to apply “common” sense which, unfortunately, is increasingly uncommon.

                  “It seems like you think women are having partial birth abortions for the hell of it” No, I talked about PBA because it is a way to gauge their reasonableness. If someone defends PBA in all cases, then there is no point in conversation at all.

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  Why do you think that women have PBA’s at 8 or 9 months for purely frivolous reasons? Don’t you think that if someone does not want to be pregnant that they won’t just let pregnancy run its full course and *then* get an abortion shortly before birth??? It’s nonsensical. How much jail time should women serve for abortion?

                • phantomreader42

                  He’s finally admitted that he doesn’t actually think women are having abortions at nine months on a whim, he just pretends to believe that because he’s a lying sack of shit.

                • bluebeard cattown

                  yeah, he’s a moron

                • Rich Wilson

                  I think your ‘reasonable test’ is a strawman. I don’t think there are any “PBA”s that aren’t for the health of the mother. And if there are, they would be virtually eliminated by making abortion freely available.

                  I fully support “abortion on demand” because (among other things) I think it’s necessary to reducing late term abortions.

                • newshound1000000

                  “I don’t think there are any “PBA”s that aren’t for the health of the mother”
                  If there were, would you have a different opinion? If there isn’t, what is wrong with a law saying no PBA except for the physical health of the mother?

                  And no its not a straw man argument. I was trying to gauge the poster’s reasonableness. If they believe that as long as the umbilical cord hasn’t been cut, they can do what they want, for whatever reason they want(red hair/wrong gender/not pretty enough), then there is no common ground, in my opinion, on which any discussion can take place.

                • allein

                  Why would we need to pass a law against something that doesn’t happen?

                • newshound1000000


                  “the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development”

                  Never happens?

                • night porter

                  See, I knew he would class 20 weeks as ‘late term’. I guess he thinks that fetal dismemberment is somehow an improvement.

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  It’s so convenient for him to ignore me. I ask a couple of inconvenient questions, and he refuses to answer.

                  Yet here he is, making up bullshit about how he has to gauge the reasonableness of other posters.

                • Spuddie

                  “If someone defends PBA in all cases, then there is no point in conversation at all.”

                  Because the term is inherently dishonest. There is still no chance of viability in a late term abortion. Given the inherent danger to the mother, its not even considered by medical professionals unless its for her health. If it can survive outside the womb, no need to terminate.

                • Feminerd

                  Well, they terminate the pregnancy for viable fetuses, but we usually call that “birth”.

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  Does health count? Or are women a special class of slave that should be forced to undergo disfigurement and disability to save another?

                • Rich Wilson

                  Along those lines, I don’t get grouping incest with rape. If it’s consensual incest then how is it like rape? If it’s not, then it’s rape. And if it’s because one is worried about genetic defects (actually not much more likely in siblings than in 1st cousins) then why not general ‘health of the baby’ restrictions?

                  The fact that people lump incest with rape means they’re not thinking with their brains, IMO.

                • Gaiuse Strome


                • newshound1000000

                  Usually, if you just say rape the next retort is what about incest. So, just to preclude that. Of course, I am talking about underage incest but that would/should be included under rape.

            • Gaiuse Strome

              How much jail time should women serve if they procure an abortion? 30years? Life?

            • Gaiuse Strome

              How is a rape baby different from a normal baby?

              • newshound1000000

                What’s your point?

                Are the babies physically different? No I don’t believe so.

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  Then why a rape exception? And should women who procure abortion be punished as murderers?

                • newshound1000000

                  Because the women didn’t voluntarily participate in the creation of the baby. It would victimize them again to make them carry to term a resulting child.

                  You ask a lot of questions without providing ANY of your viewpoint. I suppose this is so you can take potshots at others without leaving your viewpoint open to examination. If this will be your modus operandi then I will not respond further.

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  Why punish the baby for the crimes of the father. Two wrongs do not make a right? Listen, you feel very strongly that abortion is murder. Soooo, you should be able to answer the question easily. How much jail time for women who murder the unborn?

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  There is nothing wrong with asking you to clarify your view. If you believe in your heart that abortion is murder, and that every embryo is a child, then you should have no problems opposing abortion for rape victims and putting women who abort in jail. You have the moral highground here. These other people are supporting baby killing.

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  So you cannot answer a question *truthfully* based on whether I am pro-choice or pro-life?

                  You have to see what side I am on so you can bullshit your way out of looking bad?

                  Doesn’t sound to me like you are arguing in good faith, sir.

                  tsk tsk

                • Gaiuse Strome


                  Tell the rape baby that he/she doesn’t deserve life because of how he/she was created.

                  You want to punish a few thousand rape babies with *death* all because of how they were conceived?

                  There is no defending that.

            • Spuddie

              The umbilical cord is the only difference we have to take into account. Beings who need umbilical cords to survive can’t be considered people with their own autonomous existence. Their existence is tied to the woman on the other end of it. Therefore that woman is the only one we have to consider. Pregnancy is a zero sum situation. You can’t “protect” the fetus without harming the mother. You really avoid discussing her. She does not exist in the discussion for you.

              A fetus is not like a baby because of that umbilical cord. A born baby’s existence is not tied to one unique person. Anyone can care for a baby, only a mother keeps a fetus alive.

              • Gaiuse Strome

                And the placenta. It can’t survive without that either.

              • newshound1000000

                “can’t be considered people”
                So a boyfriend slips his girlfriend a drug that will not cause her any harm whatsoever, but it will kill the fetus. Does he deserve jail? For assault? For murder? Murder of what, a non-person? According to your theory, as I understand it, he did no more than cut her hair while she was sleeping. A simple assault.

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  So what kind of punishment should women receive for procuring abortions?

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  You consider a fetus to be a person with all of the rights that should come with being a person…

                  yet you won’t tell us how much time a woman should spend in prison for murdering an unborn person?

                  what have you got to hide kiddo?

                • Spuddie

                  Its only according to YOUR ideas about pregnant women. They seem to be completely incapable of consideration in your view.

                  Stupid conflation and still ignoring the woman here. Never mind it is an assault on her body (in a legal sense), you are only concerned with the fetus. You seem to forget that the issue is her choice as to terminate a pregnancy. Choice and agency doesn’t factor into your view for women. Its just about the fetus for you.

                  You seem to have trouble discerning between what someone chooses to do with their body, by their volition and what is an attack. You have the logic of a rapist. Forcible acts are no different from consensual to you.

                  A fetus has no rights or existence outside of the mother’s will to do so. No other being has such existence. So you can’t equate it with born people.

                • newshound1000000

                  “You have the logic of a rapist”
                  All I can say to that is WOW, just WOW. I cannot possibly fathom the thought process that lead you to that conclusion.

                • phantomreader42

                  A rapist doesn’t give a flying fuck about consent. You have made it painfully clear that YOU don’t give a flying fuck about consent. Your attitude toward consent is not different in any meaningful way from that of a rapist. If you don’t like being compared to a rapist, maybe you should stop repeating nonsense that’s indistinguishable from the kind of bullshit a rapist would be expected to say to justify his crimes.

                • newshound1000000

                  And here we have the bile and invective that Spuddie was talking about. When all else fails, break out the expletives. The left, once again, in all its glory of hate-filled speech.

                • phantomreader42

                  So, you don’t like being insulted, but you have nothing to offer but idiotic ad hominems and a pathetic whine that someone dared say “fuck”.

                  Can you show that anything I said was factually incorrect? Does your attitude toward consent differ in any meaningful way from that of the average rapist? Not according to anything you’ve said here. Again, if you don’t like being compared to a rapist, you could stop talking and acting like one.

                • newshound1000000

                  EVERYTHING you said was incorrect.

                • phantomreader42

                  You’re projecting, noisehound.

                • Oranje

                  Fine, I’ll play. At what point does life begin? When is it a collection of cells and when is it a person?

                  Because so far you’ve thrown out a strawman argument, the “both sides are too extreme and I’m in the middle” argument, and abused several verbs and nouns.

                • newshound1000000

                  Well, since children as young as 21 weeks have survived, I would say at least that age.

                  “strawman argument” Repeating someone’s else false assertion doesn’t make it true. Why don’t you make your own arguments?

                  “both sides…” Not really an argument. It is just where I believe myself to be.

                  “abused several verbs and nouns” Well I have had to make about 50 posts, so I suppose there could be mistakes. I’m not writing a term paper. But, please edify me, grammarian. Cite your examples if you are going to make the accusation so I can see the horrendous English crimes I have committed.

            • Feminerd

              So you know that unwanted pregnancy is a massive violation of the body and will of a person, because you won’t force a rape victim through it and victimize her a second time.

              Why would you force any woman through it and victimize her a first time?

              • newshound1000000

                I’m not forcing her through anything. She’s the one who decided to engage in activity whose natural result is pregnancy.

                I’ll say it again in case you missed it the first time: If you don’t want a baby, don’t make a baby.

                I posed this to Spuddie earlier: So a boyfriend slips his girlfriend a drug that will not cause her any harm whatsoever, but it will kill the fetus. Does he deserve jail? For assault? For murder? Murder of what, a non-person? So, no jail since it wasn’t a person. Simple assault on the girlfriend. Suspended sentence. Is that the world you want to live in?

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  Do you believe that women who procure abortions should go to jail?

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  So you are implying that a boyfriend who slips a woman an abortifacient should spend time in jail…yet you still refuse to answer my very simple question about sending the murderous sluts to jail.

                  What are you afraid of?

                • RedStateKitty

                  Answer. Whatever the law says a murderer should pay for the crime with. Jail time, life in prison, electric chair.

                • night porter

                  That is a great answer. Ty

                • Feminerd

                  Yes, yes it is a world I want to live in. A fetus is not a person. This hypothetical poison you speak of- it’s actually assault with a deadly weapon (miscarriage is potentially quite deadly, fyi), which is quite a jail sentence, as well as whatever charges stealing an organ would entail.

                  I try very hard not to make blastocysts, thank you. I use birth control. I am explicitly not consenting to making blastocysts or letting them implant into my body. So if I were to get pregnant, would you force me to gestate a potentially deadly biological parasite that could cost me my job, my health, and even my life?

                  Remember, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and even if it was, consent must be both enthusiastic and revocable to be counted as true consent. That is, one must say ‘yes’ instead of merely not saying ‘no’, and one must be able to revoke consent at any time during the episode.

                • newshound1000000

                  What organ? It was an invading parasite, remember? The drug isn’t deadly to the mother, so there may be an assault charge. The man in Tampa was facing a murder charge for the fetus and that’s why he pled to the charges he did.

                  You’ve heard about the knockout game. How about they start a new one, the abort-out game. They go up to unsuspecting pregnant women and punch them in the stomach hard enough to cause a miscarriage. If they get caught, they can only be charged with assault on the mother (since the fetus isn’t a person). But they get props from their buddies if they cause a miscarriage. This sounds like a pretty crappy place to live.

                  “I try very hard not to make blastocysts” Then you are being responsible. But don’t tell me those one million abortions were all contraception failures.

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  You don’t really believe that a blastocyst is a person, do you?

                  Is that why you won’t answer my questions?

                  Is that the reason for the rape exception?

                • Feminerd

                  It’s a parasite, but if it’s a wanted one, the man’s still assaulting the woman, no? Consent. Read about it. It’s a good thing. If I consent to let you have my blood to survive, you can have it, then if someone steals the bag of blood they’re hurting both of us. If I don’t consent, you don’t get to take my blood, and you are now committing the theft and assault if you try to take it. No one should ever be charged with murder for the death of a fetus, because a fetus is not a person.

                  Do remember that if trying to force a miscarriage, that is assault with a deadly weapon. That’s a pretty serious crime, no? Besides, some states have criminal statutes related to forced abortion, and I agree with those. Just as bad as forcing a woman to carry to term is forcing her to abort. Her body, her choice, remember? That goes both ways. A crappy place to live is where people think punching people and possibly killing them is funny, but hey, we already live there. A crappier place is where people think punching people and possibly killing them is funny and women can be enslaved to a clump of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Your world sucks. I don’t want to live in a place where I can be treated like a heart-lung machine for a fetus instead of a person in control of my own body.

                • newshound1000000

                  “Do remember that if trying to force a miscarriage, that is assault with a deadly weapon.” That’s only because of the effect on the fetus. But if we are going to say it’s not a person, then this shouldn’t apply either.

                  So, some lawyer out there should argue that its just an assault on the mother. Not murder of an unborn. As a juror, I would be inclined to buy that argument.

                  Look, I understand your point. You’re being responsible and you want options, to control your own destiny, should something happen. I get that.

                  But I also think that the ease of access allows too many to be irresponsible. And that some number of those abortions are of sentient beings whose fates are being decided by someone who gave no thought to the future or the consequences before creating that life.

                • Feminerd

                  No, it is because a miscarriage can be quite dangerous for the woman. Women used to die, not infrequently, from miscarriage. An embryo or fetus that dies inside of a woman poses a pretty big risk to her life and health. Thus, killing the embryo or fetus is assault with a deadly weapon on the woman if the woman has not consented to the process.

                  And again, you’ve still slipped the woman a drug against her will. You’ve still taken from her something she wanted (the pregnancy). Forcing an abortion is just as bad as forcing pregnancy; both remove choice from the only person who has the right to make that choice. That’s why criminalizing forced abortion makes sense as a unique crime subject to severe penalties.

                  As for abortions being “too easy” to get- in what universe do you live, exactly? Because it’s not the real world. The way to reduce abortions is to make birth control accessible and cheap/free while having real sex education (none of this abstinence only bullshit) in schools that is mandatory. Making abortions harder to get only makes women with unwanted pregnancies more desperate, without actually reducing abortion rates. Ease of access saves women’s lives by not opening up space for back alley butchers because no one needs to go to them. It doesn’t encourage anyone to actually get an abortion, though- abortions are still uncomfortable and not cheap. Nobody gets one for shits and giggles.

                  EDIT: Sentience isn’t possible in a fetus until 24 weeks at the very earliest, and most likely not until 28 weeks. Some rather convincing studies suggest a fetus is so hypoxic sentience isn’t possible until birth. At any rate, abortions after 24 weeks are incredibly rare and happen only for life/health of the mother or birth defects incompatible with life. You cannot argue that sentient fetuses are aborted with any regularity, because that’s simply not true, and it only happens in extreme circumstances where the fetus was usually wanted.

                • newshound1000000

                  From this website,

                  2-4 years for assault with a deadly weapon. That should be the maximum sentence if we are going to be fair.

                • Feminerd

                  Seems legit. That’s a reasonably heavy sentence if we look at all crimes excepting drug ones, which are known to carry disproportionate punishment. It’s also a felony assault, which goes on your record forever and really does fuck up your life.

                  I added some stuff, FYI, so you may want to go back and reread the previous post by reloading the page.

                • Spuddie

                  “But I also think that the ease of access allows too many to be
                  irresponsible. And that some number of those abortions are of sentient
                  beings whose fates are being decided by someone who gave no thought to
                  the future or the consequences before creating that life.”

                  I think this is a stupid moralistic statement essentially declaring yourself morally superior to all women. You seem to think they should all defer to your opinion as to very personal private matters. You do not think they are capable of making a rational decision concerning their own bodies.

                  And nobody has to give a flying crap whether you think a fetus is sentient. As long as its in her body, her will keeps it alive. It is nobody’s business but her. The notion of a right to privacy seems to elude you. There are some decisions which never have to be made the subject of public scrutiny.

                • newshound1000000

                  “I think this is a stupid moralistic statement essentially declaring yourself morally superior to all women.”
                  Do you decide what your reply will be before even reading a post? Seriously, where did you get this idea from what I said?

            • phantomreader42

              newshound1000000 babbled:

              5 minutes before, 5 minutes after. 10 minutes is too long to wait.
              Murder is the better option. I should remember that the next time the
              line is too long at the drive-thru.

              With this you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have no interest whatsoever in discussing this in good faith. I see lying fetus-fetishist pieces of shit try to pretend there are such things as abortions on a whim minutes before birth, and every single time, they are LYING. This is not a thing, and if you actually had a single functioning brain cell you’d know it. The fact that you can only defend your bullshit by hallucinating up a kind of abortion that has NEVER HAPPENED IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE while ignoring the fact that not only has no abortion like that ever been performed, but the vast majority of abortions that actually happen in the real world bear no resemblance whatsoever to your ridiculous strawman, just goes to show that you and your death cult are full of shit. Congratulations, you’ve just proven that the “pro-life” cause is nothing more than a pack of moronic liars.

              • bluebeard cattown

                If he was at all interested in discussing this in good faith he would have answered my questions. But he refused. Doesn’t want to be put ‘on the spot’

              • newshound1000000

                When did I say this had ever happened? Where?

                And I have specifically said, in other posts, that I am not a pro-lifer. Both ‘pro’ camps are filled with people like you.

                • phantomreader42

                  So, you’re just refusing to address reality and babbling nonsense about things you know have never happened because you’re an asshole who likes lying. About what I expected judging by the bullshit you’ve been posting.

                • newshound1000000

                  Let me simplify it for you. It was an attempt to gather the poster’s opinion on when life does start and the fetus has to be considered. The poster’s response was: when the umbilical cord is cut.

                  Now do you understand? I hope so, as I don’t know if I could simplify it any further.

                • phantomreader42

                  I wonder if it’s possible to explain the concept of bodily autonomy to you in a way that you might be capable of understanding. I notice you haven’t posted your address and medical info so your organs can be harvested. Lots of folks waiting on kidneys and blood and bone marrow, but you don’t actually give a fuck about them because you can’t use them as an excuse to deny the humanity of women.

        • Obazervazi

          “partial-birth abortion”

          Ye gods, you’re a Fox News viewer. aren’t you?

          • newshound1000000

            I actually don’t have cable or satellite. ITV for me. Last week I was reading the SFO Chronicle. You know that right wing publication don’t you?

        • phantomreader42

          Since you don’t think a woman has a right to control of her own organs, post your address and medical details so YOUR organs can be harvested for the use of others. I know a guy who needs a kidney…

        • PsiCop

          Re: “So, basically you feel it is your right to murder your unborn child that you made voluntarily.”

          Another little piece of illogic from you. You assume all fetuses were made “voluntarily,” but in reality, that’s not true. Maybe you and Todd Akin think so … but that’s counter-factual.

          Stop lying for Jesus because you think you’re entitled to. You’ve been caught at it several times, right here. Grown adults who truly have veracity on their side, don’t need to lie in order to make their points. That you’d resort to doing so … quite readily, too … tells me you aren’t secure in your beliefs and that, in turn, doesn’t lend them any credibility.

          In other words, the more you lie for your Jesus, the more of a liar you make your Jesus into. You can either continue lying for Jesus and thus continue making the religion he founded look more and more false … or you can act like a grown up, admit what you’ve done, ask for forgiveness, and stop the lying, fercryinoutloud.

          • newshound1000000

            Dude, you once again are so far off base its unreal. If only you knew. I am NOT a Bible-thumper. I haven’t been to a church service in over 30 years and only then because it was part of high school. LMAO right now.

            • PsiCop

              Re: “I am NOT a Bible-thumper.”

              Of course you are.

              Re: “I haven’t been to a church service in over 30 years and only then because it was part of high school.”

              Riiiiiight. And I’ve got prime beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. How stupid do you really think I am?

              Re: “LMAO right now.”

              … because you’re too infantilized to realize how far out of your element you are, right now.

              • newshound1000000

                Now, I really do think you are stupid. If you think everything I say is a lie, why are you bothering to continue this. If I thought you were lying to me I wouldn’t reply further. What would be the point? Which brings up the point, that although you have attacked my for my position, you have provided little information on your position.

                I guess you can’t believe that someone would have an issue with abortion unless they’re some fundamentalist or something. Well, I think there are a lot of Americans in the middle that look at both camps as full of idiots; that see abortion as occurring way too often; don’t want it made completely illegal but would like to see a whole lot less of them but don’t know how to make that happen.

                If you want any further reply from me, accept what I have said so far as truthful. If you want to believe I am lying, go ahead. But, in that case, I would just be wasting my time continuing this conversation

          • newshound1000000

            Dude, seriously, a reading comprehension course. This is so much work trying to explain things to people that can’t read and understand without it being spoon-fed to them.

            The little segment already included a rape exclusion. We weren’t talking about pregnancies resulting from rape, which are a small (single digit?) percentage of abortions.

            • PsiCop

              Re: “Dude, seriously, a reading comprehension course.”

              Dude, seriously, just stop already with the sniveling, the excuse-making, the evasions, and the lies … not to mention the accusations that I can’t read what you clearly wrote. Which, if you’ll remember, was:

              “So, basically you feel it is your right to murder your unborn child that you made voluntarily.”

              Nothing in that statement mentions a “rape exclusion.” Not. One. F’ing. Thing.

              Re: “We weren’t talking about pregnancies resulting from rape, which are a small (single digit?) percentage of abortions.”

              The frequency — or infrequency — of pregnancy resulting from rape, is irrelevant. The statement you made was that pregnancies were “voluntary.” You offered no caveats or exceptions. The number of rape-pregnancies is immaterial to the statement you made. So long as there has even been JUST ONE, and only one, of them, completely invalidates what you said.

              Look, I get it. Really, I do. You think you can just hurl generalizations and blanket statements around without qualification and without care, because you’re doing it for your Jesus. He grants you license to lie. Honestly, I understand your game, and I know the rationales you’re relying on in order to excuse it.

              Unfortunately for you, however, I don’t buy into any of them. When you lie, or employ a fallacy, that you think you’ve got a license to do so, doesn’t matter to me. Your rationales mean nothing to anyone but yourself and your fellow Rightists.

              You, my friend, are a sterling example of why I’m no longer a fundamentalist Christian. With your every comment, you further condemn yourself as a juvenile whiner who can say anything at all, any time at all, and no one can say “boo” to it, because you refuse to accept correction … you just stamp and fume and whine and bluster.

              Well, keep it up, little baby. Yes, baby. You are an intellectual infant. Go ahead with whatever snarky little response you can think of. It will be every bit as childish as everything else you’ve posted here.

              Unless, of course, you want to admit what you’ve been doing … which is to lie for your Jesus. That would show both maturity and courage on your part. I dare you to try it. Just once in your sniveling little excuse for a life.

              • newshound1000000

                So now I’m a fundamentalist christian? That is just too funny. You’ve got me all figured out in your little mind. Seriously, again, you could not be more wrong.

                “You are an intellectual infant”
                I’ll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week. If you want to go there, you had better be in the top 1% or you should just skulk back into your own little fantasy world where you have everyone figured out.

                I reread the earlier section, and yes, the rape exclusion came up later in my conversation with the other poster. So sue me. No sane person wouldn’t include it. You get one point. Your assertion about the fallacy is still a lie.

                But please continue with the name calling. It just shows more about you than me when you do.

                • night porter

                  The fact that you refused to answer a simple question tells us a lot about you.

    • usorthem3

      FYI, Jesus Christ according to your bible was NOT born Dec. 25th.

      • newshound1000000

        Does anyone here actually stick to what is written instead of just making stuff up inside their own head?

        The fact that he wasn’t born on Dec 25th isn’t a newsflash. I’m not sure why you even bother to write it.

  • Rich Wilson

    Very slightly off topic…

  • Aspieguy

    Why isn’t this liar fired from Fox News?

    • newshound1000000

      If the networks fired every liar, MSNBC would have to go off the air for lack of content.

      • PsiCop

        Bzzt! Wrong. This is known as “two wrongs make a right” thinking, and is fallacious. It doesn’t become acceptable for Starnes to lie on Fox News merely because you perceive MSNBC to have broadcast lies, too.

        Either Starnes lied — and it certainly appears he did — or he didn’t. If he lied, he was wrong to have done so; he and his network at the very least need to apologize. That’s where this begins and ends. MSNBC has nothing to do with it. No one at MSNBC forced Starnes and Fox News to lie. They weren’t involved at all.

        Grow up and get over it already. Stop being a whining Rightist crybaby.

        • newshound1000000

          You really need a reading comprehension course.

          I never justified Starnes actions. I never equated two situations and stated that action on one should not take place unless action took place on another. I never whined.

          And if you are going to start with labels like “Rightist crybaby,” then I will just assume that you are an extremist with no real thought process. I would guess you just go around assigning labels to make everything simple for yourself.

          • Spuddie

            How about something a little more accurate. Your statement is an irrelevant fallacy called “Tu Quoque”. It has no value to the discussion nor adds anything of value rhetorically.

            • newshound1000000

              Actually, that doesn’t apply here. Perhaps you should go back and reread your word-a-day calendar. I never attacked anyone for inconsistency. I simply stated a supposition. There’s a difference.
              Can’t anyone on here read more than talking points? I guess I came to the wrong site for intelligent conversation.

              • Gaiuse Strome

                You have zero credibility since you are incapable of answering a simple question.

              • Spuddie

                Isn’t there an “internet law” that states when insulting a poster’s intelligence, you end up sounding stupider than the post you were responding to?

                Anyway Starnes is a liar. You have nothing intelligent to say on the subject. You have hijacked it to talk about abortion.

                Hurling invective and using well worn talking points has been the entirety of your postings. If anyone wants an intelligent conversation here, they should just ignore you.

                • newshound1000000

                  Seriously, find a reading comprehension course. Where did I attack your intelligence? Where? Was it the word-a-day comment? Well you took an obscure term and used it inappropriately. That just sounds like someone reading the one sentence about something and thinking they know how to use it.

                  I didn’t bring up abortion, Feminerd did.

                  What invective, what talking points?

                  Really, your post should be in reply to your own previous post.

                • Gaiuse Strome

                  What kind of punishment should women who procure abortions receive?

                  And why do you think rape babies should be killed?

                • Spuddie

                  Your last post was nothing but bile and invective. You continue to do so. I used the term appropriately.

                  You still have no opinion on Starnes?

                • newshound1000000

                  Quote, specifically, what was invective. I’m waiting.

                • Spuddie

                  You know what you wrote. You have 2 choices. Either discuss Starnes or continue following the conversation up your sphincter as if I give a crap as to what you “really meant to say”.

                • newshound1000000

                  I’ll read between the lines of your lack of quoting my invective. Apology accepted.

                  Apparently, Starnes was repeating a story from a local TV station. Just because someone says something that is untrue, doesn’t mean they are lying. He could have been lying. He could have misspoke. He could be mistaken. The first requires a sincere apology and explanation. The last two require a correction.

                • Spuddie

                  What apology? And bullshit. Starnes was lying. The story was untrue and he repeated it nationwide either knowing it was not true or not caring one way or the other.

                  It has been a pattern for the last 2 weeks of filing stories which turned out to be completely false. So he does not get the benefit of the doubt. It has been part and parcel with creating an atmosphere of phony persecution which plays well for excitable viewers.

                • phantomreader42

                  Either Starnes knew the story was false when he promoted it, in which case he is a lying sack of shit. Or he made no effort whatsoever to investigate whether or not the story was true before promoting it (after getting caught spreading falsehoods before), in which case he has no interest in doing his job correctly, and any claim that he’s a qualified journalist is a lie. Or he is hopelessly incompetent to ascertain the truth or falsehood of a story, in which case he’s also lying about being a journalist. There really is no way to paint him as honest or competent. He’s either stupid, lazy, lying, or all three.

          • PsiCop

            Re: “I never justified Starnes actions.”

            By citing MSNBC as a lying network, you did precisely that.

            Re: “I never equated two situations and stated that action on one should not take place unless action took place on another.”

            By citing MSNBC as a lying network, you did precisely that.

            Re: “And if you are going to start with labels like ‘Rightist crybaby,’ then I will just assume that you are an extremist with no real thought process.”

            I’m actually no “extremist.” I simply recognize fallacy when I see it, and call it out, when I do. You can accuse me of having “no real thought process,” but I was able to detect the fallacy you’d fallen into, and you weren’t.

            Re: “I would guess you just go around assigning labels to make everything simple for yourself.”

            I assign apt labels to whomever deserves them, whenever they deserve them. Your whine about MSNBC (and yes, it was a childish whine, whether or not you wish to admit it) alludes to the Right’s common fantasy that “the Mass Media are all ‘biased’ against them.” I can debunk that fantasy easily, by citing some rather well-known mass media outlets: Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, & the Washington Times. These, and many others, are all most assuredly a part of the “mass media,” yet they’re as far Right as they can go.

            The media are NOT out to get you, no matter how fervently you think they are. That you think so is an illusion, a combined product of simple human nature and decades of relentless ad nauseam droning by Rush Limbaugh et al.

            • newshound1000000

              So you have deduced that I think that the media is out to get me and I listen to Limbaugh. Heres a newsflash for you. The only person on the radio that I listen to is Clark Howard. And even that is by his podcast. So, you’re not as smart as you think you are. Probably nowhere close.

              As for the rest of your post where you attempt to reassert the same thing again, it is just as wrong the second time. Don’t blame me for the inferences YOU make. Nothing I said implied justification for Starnes.

              • PsiCop

                Re: “Heres a newsflash for you. The only person on the radio that I listen to is Clark Howard.”

                Uh huh. OK. Whatever. That’s not relevant, nor is it credible even if it were, but OK. You can tell me that if you want.

                Re: “So, you’re not as smart as you think you are. Probably nowhere close.”

                I will repeat: I was able to detect the fallacy you’d fallen into, whereas you were not … and even now you aren’t willing to concede that.

                Re: “Don’t blame me for the inferences YOU make.”

                When your comment is nothing more than a petulant whine about MSNBC broadcasting lies, it’s not merely my “inference” that you’re using MSNBC to justify Starnes’s lies. It’s all you said. It’s all there is to go on.

                Re: “Nothing I said implied justification for Starnes.”

                Again, I repeat: By citing MSNBC as a lying network, you did precisely that.

                You can either admit what’s plain and obvious to the rest of us … or you can continue stamping and fuming and carrying on that someone called you out on it and keep insisting it’s not true. It’s your choice, but whatever you decide to do, reveals more and more about your character and maturity level.

                • newshound1000000

                  Repeating the same lie again doesn’t make in true. At this point you are as big a liar as Starnes.

                  But notice, that still doesn’t justify Starnes, I am just saying that YOU are a liar. I hope you can tell the difference this time.

                • PsiCop

                  Re :”Repeating the same lie again doesn’t make in true.”

                  That’s true, but I haven’t lied. You, on the other hand, have. You said something very short and very clear, yet you’ve backpedaled from it, and whined about me having called you out on it.

                  Re: “At this point you are as big a liar as Starnes.”

                  … except, I haven’t lied, but Starnes did, and you’re now lying about not having justified his lie, when in reality, you did so.

                  Keep going, dude. With every response, you more clearly exhibit all the childishness and dishonesty shown by Starnes, and which I’ve grown expect in advocates for the Religious Right.

                  Of, you can decide to “man up,” take responsibility for what you said, admit you approved of Starnes’s lie based on your belief that MSNBC is a lying network, and ‘fess up to your fallacy. I’m guessing you haven’t the courage to do so, or else, you approve of lying for Jesus and have no reservations about continuing to do so in his name, so you don’t view it as a problem which you need to admit to.

                  Note that ‘fessing up cannot and will never hurt you, and it might salvage your (diminished) reputation here. What have you got to lose, except your pride? You might want to keep in mind what your own Bible says about pride.

                • newshound1000000

                  Dude, this will be my last back and forth with you on this. What you said I meant, isn’t what I meant. It wasn’t what I said either. If you want to read that into it, have at it. Feel free. But anyone with a college level understanding of English should be able to tell the difference.

                  As for Starnes, I have no idea what he said. Never saw the report. And guess what? I don’t care what he said. I don’t watch him or the network. You guys that get your news from MSNBC are just as bad the the Fox viewers. You’re being led around by the nose because you’re getting your news from one source. You are all being lied to. There is no truth requirement in broadcasting. It’s all about the bottom line. You might think I’m whining again, but let me explain this part to you: I was just listing facts. Can you tell the difference now?

                  As far as Jesus and the bible, my response to that is in my response to your other post.

      • TCC

        This is simply a false equivalence. Fox News and MSNBC might be (roughly) equivalently biased, but that does not mean that they are both equivalently untruthful. This article is about one guy at Fox who relentlessly spreads untruths when it riles up their readership. Please try to stay on topic.

        • newshound1000000

          What equivalence? Did I compare Fox/Starnes with MSNBC? NO. People, please read and understand what is written and know what is your own inference.

          • TCC

            Oh, no, I’m sorry, you merely implied that MSNBC only employs liars. Do you think that’s a stronger and more defensible claim?

            • newshound1000000

              Well I didn’t really imply that either but oh well. It was of course tongue in cheek. It was also a reflection that all networks don’t care about truthfulness. Networks care about ratings because that means dollars to them.

              But on the times that I have watched MSNBC I have found their narrative to be so biased or untrue as to have no informational value at all.

              • TCC

                No, that is the direct implication of saying that “MSNBC would have to go off the air for lack of content” if they fired any liar.

                As far as MSNBC goes, though, the quality really depends on who’s presenting material. Chris Hayes, Steve Kornacki, and Rachel Maddow all do a pretty decent job of giving facts in an accurate context. I wouldn’t rely on Ed Schultz or Al Sharpton in particular, though.

                On the other hand, who does Fox News have who is good about providing facts rather than sensationalism? The only person I can really think of is Chris Wallace, and even that is a pretty hard case to make.

                • newshound1000000

                  Had I said “off the air for not having any content,” then the implication would have been there. But losing 50% of your content would make the economics of the channel difficult, if not impossible, to maintain.

                  As for Fox, when I have seen it, I appreciated Barnes, Kondracke and Krauthammer the most.

    • Artor

      Why would Fox News fire someone for lying? That’s their entire business plan.

  • busterggi

    Ban Red Green? Damned anti-Canadaists!

  • Artor

    If only there were some moral code that Starnes could follow, that would show him that lying is wrong. Maybe it should be super authoritarian, just to get through his thick skull. Something like “Thou shalt not bear false witness!”
    Nah, he probably still wouldn’t get it.

    • Pitabred

      Lying doesn’t count as long as you’re doing it for Jeebus

    • Tor

      The poor boy doesn’t understand the definition of “false witness.” Too comlex.

  • climate3

    When does Todd Starnes NOT lie?

  • usorthem3

    Faux News fear mongering again. Must be Monday.

  • Tor

    I’m an atheist, and I say “Merry Christmas.” I also say “Happy Hanukkah,” and happy whatever holiday is near. I just like happiness. I do also admit saying the terrible “Happy Holidays” on occasion.

  • spacegod

    Here’s what I say: