Yeah, but if you pay attention (I know it's difficult for you M&Mer's) this clip focuses on her teleprompter gaffe rather than the point of the report. You have to be pretty anti-American or anti-war or anti-whatever to actually walk outside and rip American flags out of the ground. Stating that policy was the reason is complete BS. Home owners associations have the same "policies".
Actually, in South Carolina, they do fly the stars and bars at the capitol and it is part of the southern history, and they replaced them with the stars and stripes.
...or otherwise impaired when they, the yet unborn child, were in the womb!
In a way, I feel sorry for them; these developmentally stunted massively low IQ inbred children aren't really to blame for how ignorant & stupid they are. No, it's the parents, it's society that has allowed this to happen...
So, while those children are left holding the crutch we are left to do not much else but, to laugh & make fun of them!
@Resolution: I agree! In fact, while I wouldn't necessarily say that this applies to all Faux News fans since it seems to only really apply to the most hateful outspoken bigots, the teatard's at the teabagger rally screaming that former crackhead Glenn Beck should run for President, etc., these ppl are smacked with the Double Whammy! The Double Whammy is a phenomena that occurs when one's mommy-grandmother/mommy-sister, etc., got drunk, high, ...
If you don't support our troops or want the "stars and bars" (Really?) displayed everywhere or draped on everyone's shoulders than you can get the hell out of our great country, Uhmerkah! I want my damn 'Merkah back! (spittoon ding)
@securitygaurd81 no your wrong! the stars and bars was the first flag of the confederacy not the confederate flag which good men fought for and died for that flag just like the stars and stripes.
@1222Drod What the hell are you talking about? 1861 stars and bars. and then they had the battleflag. (most common) then they had the white flag with battle in corner shrunk then the final confederate flag was the blood stained banner. Now that u have your history lesson in confederate flags, what are you talking about???
@mover: How are they getting desperate by proving, yet again, that "the F network" is b.s.?! I think that it is perhaps annoying to be hearing them pound the drum so vehemently & redundantly, just as so many other internet users & websites have done. Everyone who matters, everyone with a minimum # of braincells, knows that Faux News is NOT a news network!! They are a conservative propaganda organization, passing off news reports as gospel; & it is real unfortunate that ppl still don't get it!
sure, she was wrong, but the larger mistake is ignored... Fox doesn't believe in private property rights. The entire point of the piece is that they think it's wrong to allow you to decide what you can or can't do with or on your own land. The "patriotism" question is just window dressing.
... Mind you, Bank of America doesn't respect anybody's property rights either (they think they own everything), but the fact that Fox completely ignored that angle shows where they stand, as well.
Faux Boobs is a JOKE. Pure and simple. Anything Faux says, you believe 180 degrees the opposite, and you'll most likely be 100% correct, or real close to it...
Come on MediaMatters, yall are kind of reaching for something to bitch about now. Hell, I myself have at times referred to the US flag as Old Glory, the "stars and stripes", the "stars and bars", "red-white and blue", the "Star Spangled Banner", etc. I may be wrong and she may be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet most of you wouldn't recognize it as incorrect if you heard it for the first time. It's not an obvious offense. The stripes COULD be construed as bars. So, it's kinda splitting hairs.
I think the issue is that Magan Kelly was actually referring to the Confederate Flag and her calling it the 'Stars and Bars' was a way to throw off viewers and reflect negatively on the bank and attitudes towards the U.S. flag in general. Also, the picture they showed wasn't from the bank.
Well that's not surprising. The description should have explained that the US flag is more commonly called "stars and stripes" not "stars and bars." The fact the lady said that is of material value in understanding the viewers who watch and believe this propaganda. The Confederacy never wanted to split from the rule of England. They just wanted their slaves and didn't want to pay taxes. Read a book.
@Elendil176 ah ic, I wasnt aware the specific names were assigned to each flag, I thought it was just a description of the flag. Many thanks Elendil. Send my regards to Isildur.
Again, BLB I notice that while you keep saying that we agree with each other, you have dodged (for the 5th or 6th time) that the loss of Southern generals was not the cause of the South's defeat. The South still had its best General: Robert E. Lee, as well as excellent divisional commanders (Longstreet and AP Hill) and other brigadier generals when they essentially lost the war in 1863. You continue to dodge this with your usual cowardice.
yeah she was incorrect when she called it stars and bars. it was still fucked up for that woman to pull up the flags from. they should have set fire to the bank.
I live in SC and people here, think they're still occupied by the North. They like Fox and the local stations played up as much.
Maybe, they are right (correct), more and more Northerners are coming down here and other Northerners are coming up from Florida, they're called Half-backs. Maybe, some day, when The War of Northern Aggression, that's what it is called here, is over, the Stars & Bars will be laid to rest. But don't hold your breath!
I guess Im technically a half-back then living in North Dakota luckyvanna. The negros should be happy we brought them here for slavery or else they would still be living in shit countries like somolia and killing themselves to feed their families every night. No negro country has every achieved worldwide commerce. Negros are dumb beingssad but true. Face it they need the white man to survive.
Those are stripes. Stars and bars was the term applied to those losers from the south that thought they had a better idea, and got their fucking asses handed to them for it. Someone from Texas should know, but you managed to get "liberal" and "race" in the sentance. Nice move Joe Bob...duh... lmao.
Not tryin to start an argument here. But the South didn't "get their asses handed to them" persay. It was more like the Union was getting whooped for the first half, until the South started to lose their best Generals (Jackson etc). It was only then, that Lee realized that he could not win the war without those men. So surrender was the honorable thing to do.
I still think the whole thing could have been avoided though.
Uh, ok... Have you ever considered loss of life, property loss, or did that not matter. I guess you could say the south won except for that surrender thing. The south was devastated, utterly destroyed, significantly damaged for all time, has yet to recover and doubtfully ever will. But they still wave that fuckin flag, hump their sisters , flunk out of school, die of alcohol poisoning and elect world class idiots to serve in office. Some things never change... E haw...
I wasn't arguing FOR the South my friend. I was saying that Militarily, the South was winning, UNTIL they lost their most valuable assets, Generals. The South NEVER had the industrial compacity to wage a long war, so when it came down to it, they just didn't have enough guns, ammo, cannons, etc etc etc at the end of that war.
Also, their cause wasn't something to laugh at either. It was simply fighting for State's Rights. They just didn't want the Federals telling them what to do.
@LordBLB You are very wrong. The South was never winning the war. Robert E. Lee constantly forced the Union to retreat, but since they never even had the chance of holding a handful of Union soil, they cannot be said to have ever been winning. The North, even in defeat still managed to grab Southern soil in Tennessee and eventually the entire Mississippi River.
Their cause was not for State Rights but slavery. It says so in the Confederate Constitution and secession statements.
@LordBLB Take off your KKK outfit. I am talking about the war, not just battles. Again, you miss the point (probably because you cannot read and spend most of your time fucking goats in the back country). The South made the Union retreat constantly, but it could not hold onto any of its gains. The Union could and did. Pretty simple concept to understand, even for you.
As for slavery, you dodge how the protection of slavery was in the Confederate Constitution and secession declarations.
@LordBLB "Fuck you for that." Oh please, stop pretending to be offended by being an ignorant racist.
You speak nothing but ignorance and lies. You've dodged: (1) that slavery was protected in the Confederate Constitution, (2) that slavery was a reason given in state's secession statements, and (3) that the Union could hold its territorial gains while the South could not.
Your comments are typical of ignorant Nazi losers.
@LordBLB It doesn't need to be offered as a question to be dodged in the first fuckin place, ignoramus. Actually, by just saying that a point needs to be in a question form, YOU've just argued semantics. Wow you're a liar.
Again, you dodge: (1) protection of slavery in the Confederate Constitution, (2) protection of slavery in secession declarations, and (3) the Union could hold its territorial gains, the South could not.
I'm tellin you you're an ignorant Nazi. That's what you knew.
I'm a middle of the road Independent voter from Pittsburgh with no party affiliations, or biased views towards anyone. How does that make me 'typical' of an 'ignorant Nazi loser'? LoL!
@LordBLB Good, I like the way you dodged the debunking of your argument that the Confederacy wasn't fighting for slavery and that they would have won had they not lost their best generals by dodging the three points I mentioned: (1) the Confederacy had slavery protected in the Constitution, (2) state secession declarations defended slavery and (3) the Union could hold its territorial gains while the Confederacy could not.
@LordBLB Nice response to the facts. So that's how all you have to say when the facts show your defense of the Confederacy to be false? So then you do admit that the only thing which sustains your arguments about the Confederacy is not facts but your racial hatred against people who are not white? I just owned your Nazi ass and you made it all too easy.
@LordBLB I don't care about your time, Nazi boy. I'm just pointing out that you have dodged the facts about 5 times now. You can laugh all you want, but you're still dodging the facts that the Confederacy was fighting to defend slavery and that it was not a loss of generals which caused the South to lose. Keep on laughing though. I'm sure nobody notices you dodging the facts.
@LordBLB Also, we are not saying the exact same thing. Since you spend most of your time laughing and dodging, you probably didn't notice this. Let me explain to you what you said:
(1) "I was saying that Militarily, the South was winning, UNTIL they lost their most valuable assets, Generals."
- Wrong, they lost while they still had their best generals.
@tubular87 "they lost while they still had their best generals"
Really? So Jackson doesn't count? Are you fuckin kidding me? Lee himself wrote that he had lost his Right Hand when Jackson died. Morale in the Virginians stooped very low after Jackson died as well.
@LordBLB (2) "Also, their cause wasn't something to laugh at either. It was simply fighting for State's Rights."
- Wrong, they were fighting to maintain slavery, not for "State's Rights."
First you dodge, now you say we have been in agreement all along. I wonder what your next ruse will be. Maybe you should make your last post your "final" one, as you clearly are too stupid to discuss any topic more complicated than banging your sis in your shack.
"fighting to maintain slavery, not for "State's Rights."
SEMANTICS. The War was fought over a States Rights to SECEDE FROM THE UNION. Which was brought about BY SLAVERY! What don't you understand? Can you not both read AND comprehend the similarity in our words? You've GOT to be fuckin retarded if you can't see that we are both saying the same thing...
@LordBLB Again, idiot, we were not arguing about what the war was fought over, but whether the South was fighting for State's Rights or Slavery. Already explained that to you, and you still don't understand. You must be mentally handicapped since you are inbred.
@LordBLB Ah good for you, you finally decided to stop cropping my words to pretend that I agree with you. Bravo. In any case, the main point of our disagreement was not in the "main cry" but about what was the Southern "cause" (your word), not their talking points for going to war (which still contradict your comments of just states' rights anyway).
@BLB Oh? No defense of how the South was "simply fighting for State's Rights?" No defense of how the Confederacy lost because "they lost their most valuable assets, Generals?" No attempt to acknowledge that defense of slavery was written into the Confederate Constitution and secession declarations? No attempt to defend that the Confederacy still had most of its best generals when they lost the turning point? Even after I repeatedly bring it up to you?
@LordBLB I know a lot about you. You've told me a lot with your responses. You told me that you have no class by your quick resort to rudeness after I disagreed with you. You told me you are dishonest by pretending to be knowledgeable about a subject you are clearly not. You showed me you are a liar by constantly dodging my counterpoints to what you said and you showed me you're a Nazi by calling me a "Mongoloid." You are a Nazi coward and your grandfather would be ashamed of you.
@LordBLB "Like calling someone a Nazi for disagreeing with them?" You started the rudeness, I simply said that you are wrong about the South fighting for "states' rights."
"Like you not even understanding that we were saying the same thing?" We're not saying the same thing, as I've repeatedly shown you. You cannot defend your comments and you don't have the honesty to admit you're wrong, so you lie and say we are not in disagreement.
@BLB "I was never asked I direct question, therefore, I dodged nothing. I replied with facts, and you ignored them. Period."
You made several statements that I disputed as factually incorrect. You would not address this. Instead you lie and say that my disagreement with you is actually agreement.
" If I'm a Nazi, then you are too.."
No, you're a Nazi, that's why you call people "Mongoloid." Also, the KKK would also agree with you that the South was "simply fighting for State's Rights."
@BLB You did not address it. You claimed that the South was "simply fighting for States' Rights." This is not true. The South was simply fighting to maintain slavery. Big difference. The South was not fighting for a right to secede as 99% of people do not care about abstract legal Constitutional rights. No one goes to war for an abstract interpretation of a legal document.
Additionally, you have dodged many times now the military claim you made, which I have debunked for you several times.
1st your statement now contradicts your earlier statement: "simply fighting for States' Rights." Your earlier statement means only fighting for an abstract interpretation of the Constitution. Your new statement means fighting for slavery. Big difference. 2nd the South did not seize on their state rights as there is no states rights to secede. So I disagree with you & you simply cannot admit that your statement is false. 3rd we disagree on your military claim which you dodge for the 8th/9th time.
@BLC "It's what I've been saying all along..." No it hasn't been. "Simply fighting for States' Rights" is the 180 degree opposite of "the South wanted to keep Slavery in tact. So they seized on their States Rights, to keep the Federal Government from telling them what to do (like emancipating the slaves)."
"Valid reasons?" According to who, you? Are you saying that in your own personal opinion it is justifiable to go to war if you think your state's rights are being violated? It's not. As you so aptly demonstrated, anyone can say their state's rights are violated for any reason. There is no support anywhere in the Constitution for secession.
Regardless of your unsubstantiated claims about what the South said, the 10th still makes no mention of overthrow of federal authority. You are wrong.
@LordBLB Your comments are simply too wrong to be called disagreement. To call your comments disagreement would be like saying that you disagree that Robert E. Lee was the best general of the war and that Ambrose Burnside was the best (of course you are also too ignorant to know that he is generally accepted as the worst army commander of the war). I could no more disagree with you than I could disagree with a dog.
"They were seizing on their rights given by the U.S. Constitution that mentions the Citizens overthrowing a corrupt government by force."
It doesn't depend on you look at it, but what is written in the Constitution. There is no right to secede and no mention of overthrowing a corrupt government by force. The 10th Amendment makes no mention of this. Wrong again.
@LordBLB I give a rat's ass about your personal life. I'm just debunking your claims about states' rights and military history and you're going through a series of dodges and other nonsense to avoid said debunking.
I maintain these statements "Simply fighting for States' Rights" [slavery is protected in the Confederate Constitution and maintenance of slavery is detailed in state secession declarations] and "I was saying that Militarily, the South was winning" UNTIL they lost their most valuable assets, Generals" [Lee was whipped at Gettysburg with almost all of his senior staff alive] are completely wrong due. If you want to stop talking about it, then walk away.
Ah so after several days of dodging, you finally begin to defend your military claim. Going back to what you said: "I was saying that Militarily, the South was winning, UNTIL they lost their most valuable assets, Generals."
Wrong. The South was losing in the West since the very first major battle of the Western Theater (Shiloh). It's very possible that the Union could have beat the South even if it had lost at Gettysburg, due to the victory at Vicksburg the same day. (cont'd)
@LordBLB Secondly, Lee lost at Gettysburg with almost all of his senior command still intact despite your claim that it was the loss of generals that was key. Lee, AP Hill, Longstreet, Stuart and Early were all there. Only Jackson had been killed at that point. Lee still lost the battle and thus lost the war. You've shown neither a knowledge of tactics, strategy or history.
I supposed to be impressed? Just rattling off a list of who won the battles by memory? I can do that with at least 4 times the number of battles you listed in the Civil War.
In any case, the question is not about who won more battles. The question is whether your statement: "I was saying that Militarily, the South was winning" UNTIL they lost their most valuable assets, Generals" is right or wrong. Given that Lee was beaten with most of senior staff alive at Gettysburg the statement is wrong.
God Bless the anonymity of the Internet. That keeps the assholes like yourself from getting their teeth knocked out, saying shit they wouldn't say to someone in person, eh?
@LordBLB Come on down and meet me then, Nazi boy. I'll be glad to bash your face in. You're the coward here whose talking trash on the internet. Come on down to Norfolk and show me you're not totally worthless.
@BLB Firstly, not "again" because you are now disagreeing with statements that are outside of our original disagreement.
(1, 2, 3) Our disagreement is not what the Civil War was "fought over" but whether or not the South was fighting for State's Rights. Try reading your own words.
Although your last comment is not what we disagreed about, you are wrong there too. The South's main cry was states rights and the defense of slavery. Had you read what I referenced, you might have realized this.
@LordBLB Check and mate on your dishonesty. You only achieve your check mate by cropping the parts of my comment that disagree with you. You simply abbreviate my comment "the South's main cry was states rights and the defense of slavery" to "the South's main cry was states rights." Now you say that because you cut out parts of my quote, that I have a hard time reading. Obviously, you are a liar and you are desperate to win an internet argument, rather than understand the truth. You are a child.
@LordBLB I've seen far right dirt bags like you dodge facts dozens of times, I guess you decided to stop at 4 dodges. Too bad you're too much of a coward to live up to your tough talk by actually facing facts rather than running away from them like a bitch.
Funny thing, it's not really the people who live there it's the politicos that represent them. The south has in the past and is now guilty of holding this country back on vital issues like race. They won't admit it however but only a dumb cracker from the "dark lands" would miss it.
Pathetic wasteland of fools, who jumped on the cross to save us all from ourselves, and those darkies, fuck em... I think the people from the south would like to change, but nobody's there to tell them how...
@TheShrinkRap Oh! lol I thought you were talking about southerners until you started talking about the humping of sisters, flunking out of school, dying of alcohol poisoning and the like. You yanks have got the lock down on those categories. lol
@TheShrinkRap In major battles, the ending tally was 13 Union wins vs. 8 Confederate wins. The turning point was the Battle of Gettysburg. Had Custard not accidentally ran across one of the generals, I believe it was Miller but I'm bad with General names; who was supplying reinforcements to the Confederacy and was going to flank the Union line at Picketts Charge, and engaged him, the Union would have lost Gettysburg and that would have given them the push they needed to take D.C. Dumb luck for N
how far does this reach., btw? people say they dont want their fellow man paying for thier healthcare. Thats quite benificient. Can we also not pay for the hundreds of thousands of other things our taxes pay for that do not affect others directly? We pay an awful lot of taxes, why not prefer seeing it make sure everyone has access to healthcare and cut the 3 martini lunches our taxes already supply to government officials?
We need health care for the NEEDY not the LAZY, FIRE all the SORRY SOB that work for medcare, We have a system that in play to help are old our sick but you have these SOB that will not do there job and will send health care benf to the dead or double pay for services, Run the medcal sytem to make a profit, Not tax the working class for there screw up, Im a single White male that can no longer work because a Dr screwed up my surgie and now as a vet and a long x tax payer I cant get medcal
I have no intention of answering questions posed by a member of the Cracker nation, bucko. Not worth the typing and you wouldn't understand the answer anyway...
You have to be ablt to think, reason and READ to understand a cogent answer. I think you lack at least 2 out of 3.
That damn liberal Bank of America!! The manager was a democrat who hates this country soo much to remove old glory!Bank of America was my bank but now I'm switching to Commerce those liberal, communist, racist, terrorist, baby killing, socialsit democrats!
Since when does Fox give a shit about dead soldiers? They rarely mentioned them for eight years. Montel williams pointed that out on Fox and Fox killed his talk show by contacting all their affiliates nationwide and demanding they stop buying it.
that good but fox is seem to me pro while i have not seen other wearing the pin of the brance of military their kid are in like fox, if im wrong please let me know
The piece was about the flag. It is like a piece about Russia when they tell you "Helmut Kohl the king of the republic of France arrived in his palace in Warsaw."
confederate flag is cooler, maybe the coolest flag ever (after basque country's, of course.)
doctormartensboots 2 months ago
Oh, this place is filled with American Patriots, I better go somewhere else
shiptech2k9 3 months ago
Stars and Bars forever! Down with the Donkey, up with the Cross!!!!
Porty1119 5 months ago
You guys back off Megyn Kelly. She is my future ex wife.
pchtermino1 5 months ago
Yeah, but if you pay attention (I know it's difficult for you M&Mer's) this clip focuses on her teleprompter gaffe rather than the point of the report. You have to be pretty anti-American or anti-war or anti-whatever to actually walk outside and rip American flags out of the ground. Stating that policy was the reason is complete BS. Home owners associations have the same "policies".
jtnoodle 5 months ago
Actually, in South Carolina, they do fly the stars and bars at the capitol and it is part of the southern history, and they replaced them with the stars and stripes.
Zippertheslipper 5 months ago
I like that.. he was a marine fighting for his country in AFGANISTAN..
AndresMAGEdudeOK 6 months ago
But when company policy is anti-Muslim they are all for "free speech" and the power of business.
jw12yrsctch 6 months ago
@Resolution:
...or otherwise impaired when they, the yet unborn child, were in the womb!
In a way, I feel sorry for them; these developmentally stunted massively low IQ inbred children aren't really to blame for how ignorant & stupid they are. No, it's the parents, it's society that has allowed this to happen...
So, while those children are left holding the crutch we are left to do not much else but, to laugh & make fun of them!
SpookeyR 6 months ago
@Resolution: I agree! In fact, while I wouldn't necessarily say that this applies to all Faux News fans since it seems to only really apply to the most hateful outspoken bigots, the teatard's at the teabagger rally screaming that former crackhead Glenn Beck should run for President, etc., these ppl are smacked with the Double Whammy! The Double Whammy is a phenomena that occurs when one's mommy-grandmother/mommy-sister, etc., got drunk, high, ...
SpookeyR 6 months ago
@SpookeyR
Nice. That wasn't hateful or mean-spirited at all. Good job.
jtnoodle 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noodle: "Nice. That wasn't hateful or mean-spirited at all. Good job."
You're welcome!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
well we have stars but not bars we have stripes but i still love fox news!
GuyPennebaker 6 months ago
If you don't support our troops or want the "stars and bars" (Really?) displayed everywhere or draped on everyone's shoulders than you can get the hell out of our great country, Uhmerkah! I want my damn 'Merkah back! (spittoon ding)
manmadesounds 8 months ago 4
@manmade: Comments like yours, for reasons just like that, is why this country isn't that great!
SpookeyR 7 months ago
FOX NOISE is a misunderstanding. "Stars and bars," what a bitch.
nolaeast 8 months ago
The BANK had a misunderstanding?! Look who’s talking!
Radioguy54 8 months ago
It's the stars and stripes! not the stars and bars. that is the confederate flag..
securitygaurd81 9 months ago 10
@securitygaurd81 no your wrong! the stars and bars was the first flag of the confederacy not the confederate flag which good men fought for and died for that flag just like the stars and stripes.
1222Drod 2 months ago
@1222Drod What the hell are you talking about? 1861 stars and bars. and then they had the battleflag. (most common) then they had the white flag with battle in corner shrunk then the final confederate flag was the blood stained banner. Now that u have your history lesson in confederate flags, what are you talking about???
securitygaurd81 1 month ago
Media Matters getting REAL desperate! Petty and Picayune as usual!
forwardmover 9 months ago
@mover: How are they getting desperate by proving, yet again, that "the F network" is b.s.?! I think that it is perhaps annoying to be hearing them pound the drum so vehemently & redundantly, just as so many other internet users & websites have done. Everyone who matters, everyone with a minimum # of braincells, knows that Faux News is NOT a news network!! They are a conservative propaganda organization, passing off news reports as gospel; & it is real unfortunate that ppl still don't get it!
SpookeyR 7 months ago
@SpookeyR I agree. I used to be a fan of Fox news. Now it turns my stomach.
logibear64 6 months ago
...
avenqer 9 months ago
sure, she was wrong, but the larger mistake is ignored... Fox doesn't believe in private property rights. The entire point of the piece is that they think it's wrong to allow you to decide what you can or can't do with or on your own land. The "patriotism" question is just window dressing.
... Mind you, Bank of America doesn't respect anybody's property rights either (they think they own everything), but the fact that Fox completely ignored that angle shows where they stand, as well.
JonasPlanck 9 months ago
i want to have dirty sex with her and slap her silly at the same time. Is that wrong?
bdhcarbon 9 months ago 2
She Dumb Dumb
mrthebillman 10 months ago
Snoop Doggy Dogg gonna cut yo throat
guntpunch 10 months ago
The krakka was just digging deep into her American roots of red, white, and blue Mrs. Grannie Smiths apple pie
PeaceAndJustice357 11 months ago
Faux Boobs is a JOKE. Pure and simple. Anything Faux says, you believe 180 degrees the opposite, and you'll most likely be 100% correct, or real close to it...
marcomariaz26 11 months ago
media matters fucking rocks. so who is this insider? someone who works for megyn kelly? she is such a fox tool.
tomitstube 11 months ago
Come on MediaMatters, yall are kind of reaching for something to bitch about now. Hell, I myself have at times referred to the US flag as Old Glory, the "stars and stripes", the "stars and bars", "red-white and blue", the "Star Spangled Banner", etc. I may be wrong and she may be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet most of you wouldn't recognize it as incorrect if you heard it for the first time. It's not an obvious offense. The stripes COULD be construed as bars. So, it's kinda splitting hairs.
singingcowboy674 1 year ago
Comment removed
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@singingcowboy674 It's done on purpose. Like when Clinton split hairs. He was trying to get away with something, and so is Faux.
marcomariaz26 11 months ago
@singingcowboy674
I think the issue is that Magan Kelly was actually referring to the Confederate Flag and her calling it the 'Stars and Bars' was a way to throw off viewers and reflect negatively on the bank and attitudes towards the U.S. flag in general. Also, the picture they showed wasn't from the bank.
robinhoodOO7 10 months ago
Well that's not surprising. The description should have explained that the US flag is more commonly called "stars and stripes" not "stars and bars." The fact the lady said that is of material value in understanding the viewers who watch and believe this propaganda. The Confederacy never wanted to split from the rule of England. They just wanted their slaves and didn't want to pay taxes. Read a book.
HostileNegotiator 1 year ago
@HostileNegotiator The rule of England? England had already abolished slavery by that time.
Connerisawesome 1 year ago
@Connerisawesome Different time periods same confederacy.
HostileNegotiator 1 year ago
@HostileNegotiator What do you mean?
Connerisawesome 1 year ago
uh what? I hate fox but the American flag IS stars and bars!
farizzal 1 year ago
@farizzal The American flag is referred to as the "stars and stripes". The "stars and bars" is a colloquial term for the Confederate flag.
Elendil176 1 year ago
@Elendil176 ah ic, I wasnt aware the specific names were assigned to each flag, I thought it was just a description of the flag. Many thanks Elendil. Send my regards to Isildur.
farizzal 1 year ago
Don't be fooled, she is nothing but a TREASONOUS and a sellout to the criminal Jew (her masters).
WATCH: 911 Missing Links
jayezzo 1 year ago
@jayezzo what? lol dumb kid
redryan20000 1 year ago
Not really the most earth shattering news.
MrPlaid81 1 year ago
All for pulling up and getting rid of flags!
PhilJRose 1 year ago
Media Matters should be blown up by an extremist. Like Bill Ayers. Or driven in to a river like Ted Kennedy did to a young girl.
000MrAnderson 1 year ago
tubular87 1 year ago
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
tubular87 1 year ago
Again, BLB I notice that while you keep saying that we agree with each other, you have dodged (for the 5th or 6th time) that the loss of Southern generals was not the cause of the South's defeat. The South still had its best General: Robert E. Lee, as well as excellent divisional commanders (Longstreet and AP Hill) and other brigadier generals when they essentially lost the war in 1863. You continue to dodge this with your usual cowardice.
tubular87 1 year ago
Typical Fox stupidity -
billoakesattablthree 1 year ago
yeah she was incorrect when she called it stars and bars. it was still fucked up for that woman to pull up the flags from. they should have set fire to the bank.
mountainmanNC 1 year ago
Stars and Bars, of course, it's South Carolina!
I live in SC and people here, think they're still occupied by the North. They like Fox and the local stations played up as much.
Maybe, they are right (correct), more and more Northerners are coming down here and other Northerners are coming up from Florida, they're called Half-backs. Maybe, some day, when The War of Northern Aggression, that's what it is called here, is over, the Stars & Bars will be laid to rest. But don't hold your breath!
luckyvanna 2 years ago
I guess Im technically a half-back then living in North Dakota luckyvanna. The negros should be happy we brought them here for slavery or else they would still be living in shit countries like somolia and killing themselves to feed their families every night. No negro country has every achieved worldwide commerce. Negros are dumb beingssad but true. Face it they need the white man to survive.
jdrock0 2 years ago
before i watch the video i hope she corrects or self or i might get a laugh attack...
dopestories 2 years ago
STARS AND STRIPES
Unless you a splay brained southern douchenozzle that works for "What the Fox"
Perhaps you believe the South will rise again.
Stars and bars, indeed.
TheShrinkRap 2 years ago
DEO VINDICE!
joesphx19 2 years ago
BofA's company policy is not allegiance to America, it's allegiance to the dollar. This is not news.
DukeofSanchez 2 years ago
Well. She wasn't hired for her brains.
Neweddy24 2 years ago 13
@Neweddy24 omfg go back to the sewer u asshole u never actually listened to her u just heard this slander and judged well u missjudged LOL
OrcsRDorks 1 year ago
@Neweddy24
...and she obviously isn't kept around for them, either...
bushputz 1 year ago
The Flag has STARS AND BARS ON IT, Liberals just cannot let racism die can they.
TexasJediKnight 2 years ago
as long as u can make a buck of race, then u will never see it fully gone
jlockuptj 2 years ago
Those are stripes. Stars and bars was the term applied to those losers from the south that thought they had a better idea, and got their fucking asses handed to them for it. Someone from Texas should know, but you managed to get "liberal" and "race" in the sentance. Nice move Joe Bob...duh... lmao.
TheShrinkRap 2 years ago
'got their asses handed to them for it'
Not tryin to start an argument here. But the South didn't "get their asses handed to them" persay. It was more like the Union was getting whooped for the first half, until the South started to lose their best Generals (Jackson etc). It was only then, that Lee realized that he could not win the war without those men. So surrender was the honorable thing to do.
I still think the whole thing could have been avoided though.
LordBLB 2 years ago
Uh, ok... Have you ever considered loss of life, property loss, or did that not matter. I guess you could say the south won except for that surrender thing. The south was devastated, utterly destroyed, significantly damaged for all time, has yet to recover and doubtfully ever will. But they still wave that fuckin flag, hump their sisters , flunk out of school, die of alcohol poisoning and elect world class idiots to serve in office. Some things never change... E haw...
TheShrinkRap 2 years ago
I wasn't arguing FOR the South my friend. I was saying that Militarily, the South was winning, UNTIL they lost their most valuable assets, Generals. The South NEVER had the industrial compacity to wage a long war, so when it came down to it, they just didn't have enough guns, ammo, cannons, etc etc etc at the end of that war.
Also, their cause wasn't something to laugh at either. It was simply fighting for State's Rights. They just didn't want the Federals telling them what to do.
LordBLB 2 years ago 2
@LordBLB You are very wrong. The South was never winning the war. Robert E. Lee constantly forced the Union to retreat, but since they never even had the chance of holding a handful of Union soil, they cannot be said to have ever been winning. The North, even in defeat still managed to grab Southern soil in Tennessee and eventually the entire Mississippi River.
Their cause was not for State Rights but slavery. It says so in the Confederate Constitution and secession statements.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB Take off your KKK outfit. I am talking about the war, not just battles. Again, you miss the point (probably because you cannot read and spend most of your time fucking goats in the back country). The South made the Union retreat constantly, but it could not hold onto any of its gains. The Union could and did. Pretty simple concept to understand, even for you.
As for slavery, you dodge how the protection of slavery was in the Confederate Constitution and secession declarations.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB "Fuck you for that." Oh please, stop pretending to be offended by being an ignorant racist.
You speak nothing but ignorance and lies. You've dodged: (1) that slavery was protected in the Confederate Constitution, (2) that slavery was a reason given in state's secession statements, and (3) that the Union could hold its territorial gains while the South could not.
Your comments are typical of ignorant Nazi losers.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB It doesn't need to be offered as a question to be dodged in the first fuckin place, ignoramus. Actually, by just saying that a point needs to be in a question form, YOU've just argued semantics. Wow you're a liar.
Again, you dodge: (1) protection of slavery in the Confederate Constitution, (2) protection of slavery in secession declarations, and (3) the Union could hold its territorial gains, the South could not.
I'm tellin you you're an ignorant Nazi. That's what you knew.
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87 "typical of ignorant Nazi losers"
I'm a middle of the road Independent voter from Pittsburgh with no party affiliations, or biased views towards anyone. How does that make me 'typical' of an 'ignorant Nazi loser'? LoL!
Someone's panties are showing...
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB You're an uneducated Nazi skinhead who bangs his sister in a backwater cabin.
As for panties, they wouldn't be your mom's. The bitch doesn't wear any.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB Good, I like the way you dodged the debunking of your argument that the Confederacy wasn't fighting for slavery and that they would have won had they not lost their best generals by dodging the three points I mentioned: (1) the Confederacy had slavery protected in the Constitution, (2) state secession declarations defended slavery and (3) the Union could hold its territorial gains while the Confederacy could not.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB Nice response to the facts. So that's how all you have to say when the facts show your defense of the Confederacy to be false? So then you do admit that the only thing which sustains your arguments about the Confederacy is not facts but your racial hatred against people who are not white? I just owned your Nazi ass and you made it all too easy.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB I don't care about your time, Nazi boy. I'm just pointing out that you have dodged the facts about 5 times now. You can laugh all you want, but you're still dodging the facts that the Confederacy was fighting to defend slavery and that it was not a loss of generals which caused the South to lose. Keep on laughing though. I'm sure nobody notices you dodging the facts.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB "And I don't care about yours, Mongoloid."
Again, you verify that you are a neo-Nazi. I'd rather be a "Mongoloid" than inbred Nazi scum like you.
tubular87 1 year ago
@LordBLB Also, we are not saying the exact same thing. Since you spend most of your time laughing and dodging, you probably didn't notice this. Let me explain to you what you said:
(1) "I was saying that Militarily, the South was winning, UNTIL they lost their most valuable assets, Generals."
- Wrong, they lost while they still had their best generals.
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87 "they lost while they still had their best generals"
Really? So Jackson doesn't count? Are you fuckin kidding me? Lee himself wrote that he had lost his Right Hand when Jackson died. Morale in the Virginians stooped very low after Jackson died as well.
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB (2) "Also, their cause wasn't something to laugh at either. It was simply fighting for State's Rights."
- Wrong, they were fighting to maintain slavery, not for "State's Rights."
First you dodge, now you say we have been in agreement all along. I wonder what your next ruse will be. Maybe you should make your last post your "final" one, as you clearly are too stupid to discuss any topic more complicated than banging your sis in your shack.
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87
"fighting to maintain slavery, not for "State's Rights."
SEMANTICS. The War was fought over a States Rights to SECEDE FROM THE UNION. Which was brought about BY SLAVERY! What don't you understand? Can you not both read AND comprehend the similarity in our words? You've GOT to be fuckin retarded if you can't see that we are both saying the same thing...
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB Again, idiot, we were not arguing about what the war was fought over, but whether the South was fighting for State's Rights or Slavery. Already explained that to you, and you still don't understand. You must be mentally handicapped since you are inbred.
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87 "but whether the South was fighting for State's Rights"
Yup. Just like you just said in YOUR OWN WORDS. Here's the quote again...
"The South's main cry was STATES RIGHTS, and Slavery"
-tubular87
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB Ah good for you, you finally decided to stop cropping my words to pretend that I agree with you. Bravo. In any case, the main point of our disagreement was not in the "main cry" but about what was the Southern "cause" (your word), not their talking points for going to war (which still contradict your comments of just states' rights anyway).
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87 LoL whatever dude. I'm done...
LordBLB 1 year ago
@BLB Oh? No defense of how the South was "simply fighting for State's Rights?" No defense of how the Confederacy lost because "they lost their most valuable assets, Generals?" No attempt to acknowledge that defense of slavery was written into the Confederate Constitution and secession declarations? No attempt to defend that the Confederacy still had most of its best generals when they lost the turning point? Even after I repeatedly bring it up to you?
Right, I forgot you're a Nazi coward.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB I know a lot about you. You've told me a lot with your responses. You told me that you have no class by your quick resort to rudeness after I disagreed with you. You told me you are dishonest by pretending to be knowledgeable about a subject you are clearly not. You showed me you are a liar by constantly dodging my counterpoints to what you said and you showed me you're a Nazi by calling me a "Mongoloid." You are a Nazi coward and your grandfather would be ashamed of you.
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87
"you have no class / resort to rudeness"
Like calling someone a Nazi for disagreeing with them?
"knowledgeable about a subject you are not"
Like you not even understanding that we were saying the same thing?
"liar / dodging"
I was never asked I direct question, therefore, I dodged nothing. I replied with facts, and you ignored them. Period.
"You are a Nazi coward and your grandfather would be ashamed"
*sigh* If I'm a Nazi, then you are too...
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB "Like calling someone a Nazi for disagreeing with them?" You started the rudeness, I simply said that you are wrong about the South fighting for "states' rights."
"Like you not even understanding that we were saying the same thing?" We're not saying the same thing, as I've repeatedly shown you. You cannot defend your comments and you don't have the honesty to admit you're wrong, so you lie and say we are not in disagreement.
tubular87 1 year ago
@BLB "I was never asked I direct question, therefore, I dodged nothing. I replied with facts, and you ignored them. Period."
You made several statements that I disputed as factually incorrect. You would not address this. Instead you lie and say that my disagreement with you is actually agreement.
" If I'm a Nazi, then you are too.."
No, you're a Nazi, that's why you call people "Mongoloid." Also, the KKK would also agree with you that the South was "simply fighting for State's Rights."
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87
"I disputed as factually incorrect / would not address this"
Did address it, as we were saying the same things, in different words.
Like I said
War fought over a States Right to seceded from the Union.
Brought about by the issue of Slavery.
So saying the war was fought over either of those, is technically CORRECT. Therefore, we are BOTH right.
End of conversation.
LordBLB 1 year ago
@BLB You did not address it. You claimed that the South was "simply fighting for States' Rights." This is not true. The South was simply fighting to maintain slavery. Big difference. The South was not fighting for a right to secede as 99% of people do not care about abstract legal Constitutional rights. No one goes to war for an abstract interpretation of a legal document.
Additionally, you have dodged many times now the military claim you made, which I have debunked for you several times.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
1st your statement now contradicts your earlier statement: "simply fighting for States' Rights." Your earlier statement means only fighting for an abstract interpretation of the Constitution. Your new statement means fighting for slavery. Big difference. 2nd the South did not seize on their state rights as there is no states rights to secede. So I disagree with you & you simply cannot admit that your statement is false. 3rd we disagree on your military claim which you dodge for the 8th/9th time.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
@BLC "It's what I've been saying all along..." No it hasn't been. "Simply fighting for States' Rights" is the 180 degree opposite of "the South wanted to keep Slavery in tact. So they seized on their States Rights, to keep the Federal Government from telling them what to do (like emancipating the slaves)."
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
"Valid reasons?" According to who, you? Are you saying that in your own personal opinion it is justifiable to go to war if you think your state's rights are being violated? It's not. As you so aptly demonstrated, anyone can say their state's rights are violated for any reason. There is no support anywhere in the Constitution for secession.
Regardless of your unsubstantiated claims about what the South said, the 10th still makes no mention of overthrow of federal authority. You are wrong.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
@tubular87 "I do not agree to disagree. Your comments are wrong and ignore the very facts they supposedly rely on."
And I disagree. Thanks for agreeing to disagree. G'day
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB Your comments are simply too wrong to be called disagreement. To call your comments disagreement would be like saying that you disagree that Robert E. Lee was the best general of the war and that Ambrose Burnside was the best (of course you are also too ignorant to know that he is generally accepted as the worst army commander of the war). I could no more disagree with you than I could disagree with a dog.
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87 LOL @ ur name!!!
OrcsRDorks 1 year ago
LoL @tubular87
LordBLB 1 year ago
"They were seizing on their rights given by the U.S. Constitution that mentions the Citizens overthrowing a corrupt government by force."
It doesn't depend on you look at it, but what is written in the Constitution. There is no right to secede and no mention of overthrowing a corrupt government by force. The 10th Amendment makes no mention of this. Wrong again.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB I give a rat's ass about your personal life. I'm just debunking your claims about states' rights and military history and you're going through a series of dodges and other nonsense to avoid said debunking.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I maintain these statements "Simply fighting for States' Rights" [slavery is protected in the Confederate Constitution and maintenance of slavery is detailed in state secession declarations] and "I was saying that Militarily, the South was winning" UNTIL they lost their most valuable assets, Generals" [Lee was whipped at Gettysburg with almost all of his senior staff alive] are completely wrong due. If you want to stop talking about it, then walk away.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
Ah so after several days of dodging, you finally begin to defend your military claim. Going back to what you said: "I was saying that Militarily, the South was winning, UNTIL they lost their most valuable assets, Generals."
Wrong. The South was losing in the West since the very first major battle of the Western Theater (Shiloh). It's very possible that the Union could have beat the South even if it had lost at Gettysburg, due to the victory at Vicksburg the same day. (cont'd)
tubular87 1 year ago
@LordBLB Secondly, Lee lost at Gettysburg with almost all of his senior command still intact despite your claim that it was the loss of generals that was key. Lee, AP Hill, Longstreet, Stuart and Early were all there. Only Jackson had been killed at that point. Lee still lost the battle and thus lost the war. You've shown neither a knowledge of tactics, strategy or history.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 1 year ago
I supposed to be impressed? Just rattling off a list of who won the battles by memory? I can do that with at least 4 times the number of battles you listed in the Civil War.
In any case, the question is not about who won more battles. The question is whether your statement: "I was saying that Militarily, the South was winning" UNTIL they lost their most valuable assets, Generals" is right or wrong. Given that Lee was beaten with most of senior staff alive at Gettysburg the statement is wrong.
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87
Agree to disagree, and let's be done with it.
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB I do not agree to disagree. Your comments are wrong and ignore the very facts they supposedly rely on.
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87
"grandfather would be ashamed of you"
God Bless the anonymity of the Internet. That keeps the assholes like yourself from getting their teeth knocked out, saying shit they wouldn't say to someone in person, eh?
Grow up already.
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB Come on down and meet me then, Nazi boy. I'll be glad to bash your face in. You're the coward here whose talking trash on the internet. Come on down to Norfolk and show me you're not totally worthless.
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87 "come on down and meet me then"
Address?
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB I take my lunch break every day at noon in the park of the USS Wisconsin in Norfolk, VA. Come down and see me any time.
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87 "come down and see me any time"
How am I to find you? You're gonna have to be a little more specific boy-o
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB Glasses, tan skin, 5' 11', 200 lbs. Ask for Nick, my ignorant friend.
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87 Again and for the final time.
The Civil War was fought over
1. A State's Rights to secede from the Union
2. Brought about chiefly because of the Slavery issue
3. Other issues, such as taxes and the Federal Postage issue were also there.
4. The main cry from the South was they wanted no Feds telling them what they could and could not do.
That's what I wrote. That's what YOU denied. I believe we're done here. Unless you disagree with what I wrote.
Bye
LordBLB 1 year ago
@BLB Firstly, not "again" because you are now disagreeing with statements that are outside of our original disagreement.
(1, 2, 3) Our disagreement is not what the Civil War was "fought over" but whether or not the South was fighting for State's Rights. Try reading your own words.
Although your last comment is not what we disagreed about, you are wrong there too. The South's main cry was states rights and the defense of slavery. Had you read what I referenced, you might have realized this.
tubular87 1 year ago
@tubular87
"The South's main cry was "STATES RIGHTS""
CHECK AND MATE, dumbass. That was my entire point! And you just said it yourself. You must have a hard time reading...
LordBLB 1 year ago
@LordBLB Check and mate on your dishonesty. You only achieve your check mate by cropping the parts of my comment that disagree with you. You simply abbreviate my comment "the South's main cry was states rights and the defense of slavery" to "the South's main cry was states rights." Now you say that because you cut out parts of my quote, that I have a hard time reading. Obviously, you are a liar and you are desperate to win an internet argument, rather than understand the truth. You are a child.
tubular87 1 year ago
@LordBLB I've seen far right dirt bags like you dodge facts dozens of times, I guess you decided to stop at 4 dodges. Too bad you're too much of a coward to live up to your tough talk by actually facing facts rather than running away from them like a bitch.
tubular87 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordBLB 2 years ago
Funny thing, it's not really the people who live there it's the politicos that represent them. The south has in the past and is now guilty of holding this country back on vital issues like race. They won't admit it however but only a dumb cracker from the "dark lands" would miss it.
Pathetic wasteland of fools, who jumped on the cross to save us all from ourselves, and those darkies, fuck em... I think the people from the south would like to change, but nobody's there to tell them how...
TheShrinkRap 2 years ago
Its race (like blacks) that has been holding this country back, and in a big way.
calimar28 2 years ago
Had that argument already, sorry...
TheShrinkRap 2 years ago
well im pretty sure the north voted obama in so dont blaim the south for liberal stupidity
edgehead31593 1 year ago
@edgehead31593 OK egghead
TheFiatLux 1 year ago
@TheShrinkRap Oh! lol I thought you were talking about southerners until you started talking about the humping of sisters, flunking out of school, dying of alcohol poisoning and the like. You yanks have got the lock down on those categories. lol
singingcowboy674 1 year ago
@TheShrinkRap In major battles, the ending tally was 13 Union wins vs. 8 Confederate wins. The turning point was the Battle of Gettysburg. Had Custard not accidentally ran across one of the generals, I believe it was Miller but I'm bad with General names; who was supplying reinforcements to the Confederacy and was going to flank the Union line at Picketts Charge, and engaged him, the Union would have lost Gettysburg and that would have given them the push they needed to take D.C. Dumb luck for N
singingcowboy674 1 year ago
lol
balancedeath 2 years ago
The truth is coming out! lol...
mewimi 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Too stupid to understand science and too unstable to accept reality? Then Religion may be right for you!
ProgressiveAction10 2 years ago
how far does this reach., btw? people say they dont want their fellow man paying for thier healthcare. Thats quite benificient. Can we also not pay for the hundreds of thousands of other things our taxes pay for that do not affect others directly? We pay an awful lot of taxes, why not prefer seeing it make sure everyone has access to healthcare and cut the 3 martini lunches our taxes already supply to government officials?
ocerg1111 2 years ago 2
We need health care for the NEEDY not the LAZY, FIRE all the SORRY SOB that work for medcare, We have a system that in play to help are old our sick but you have these SOB that will not do there job and will send health care benf to the dead or double pay for services, Run the medcal sytem to make a profit, Not tax the working class for there screw up, Im a single White male that can no longer work because a Dr screwed up my surgie and now as a vet and a long x tax payer I cant get medcal
jlockuptj 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So calling it "stars and bars" is now a crime?
She also called it "Old Glory." No credit for that, huh?
Media Matters is only looking out for one thing: Hillary Rotten Clinton, Madame du Communiste.
IntellectualAddict 2 years ago
"Stars and Bars" refers to the Confederate flag, you moron.
You are a stupid as she is.
172677 2 years ago 2
""Stars and Bars" refers to the Confederate flag"
Umm.... yeah. I know that. You realize you replied without answering my question, like a dumbshit.
"You are a stupid as she is."
I think we've both shown you're the moron here. It's amazing dumbshit Libs like you can actually function in society.
IntellectualAddict 2 years ago
I have no intention of answering questions posed by a member of the Cracker nation, bucko. Not worth the typing and you wouldn't understand the answer anyway...
You have to be ablt to think, reason and READ to understand a cogent answer. I think you lack at least 2 out of 3.
172677 2 years ago
Comment removed
zodeloni 2 years ago
That's so funny!!! "Misunderstanding." LOL!!! Go back to your history books young lady. Look up "Stars and Bars" .
You know what's really funny. She has no clue what she said and probably doesn't care.
benbur69 2 years ago
Fox News is pathetic jingoistic nationalism masquerading as news.
jensen1901 2 years ago
yeah, but even though their hosts are retarded, so are Obama zombies
wearethenightmare 2 years ago
Her bad she still had memories of the last nights klan meeting still dancing in her head =D
angelaj1939 2 years ago
Stars and bars my ass. As a Damn Yankee, I want an apology from Kelly.☺
upsilon054 2 years ago
Deep Thoughts: With Megan Kelly:
That damn liberal Bank of America!! The manager was a democrat who hates this country soo much to remove old glory!Bank of America was my bank but now I'm switching to Commerce those liberal, communist, racist, terrorist, baby killing, socialsit democrats!
quack,,,quack,,,,quack,,,,quackquack,,,quack,,,,quack,,,,quackquack,,,quack,,,,quack,,,,quack,,quack,,,quack,,,,quack,,,,quack,quack,,,quack,,,,quack,,,,quack,,,quack,,,quack,,,,quack,,,,quackquack,,,quack
renijohn012270 2 years ago
killing babies means freedom
TheKylebeetis 2 years ago
What is the white culture?
Lungyao1 2 years ago
Since when does Fox give a shit about dead soldiers? They rarely mentioned them for eight years. Montel williams pointed that out on Fox and Fox killed his talk show by contacting all their affiliates nationwide and demanding they stop buying it.
andrewh23 2 years ago 3
@andrewh23
Since they felt it would help their ratings.
nidodson 2 years ago
What a stupid bitch
Deadlytrick 2 years ago 4
and second when the fuck does foxnews care about dead soldiers>??
zodeloni 2 years ago
Some of the FOX News employee and news caster have sons and daughters in the military
jlockuptj 2 years ago
screw you for even pointing that out.
whats wrong with you?
zodeloni 2 years ago
SO WHAT?
Both CNN and MSNBC employees also have sons and daughters in the military.
jensen1901 2 years ago
that good but fox is seem to me pro while i have not seen other wearing the pin of the brance of military their kid are in like fox, if im wrong please let me know
jlockuptj 2 years ago
haha i have to agree with wtfoof
DocRocafella 2 years ago 2
Who cares? This isn't noteworthy, Media matters.
Nictusempra 2 years ago
Actually it says a GREAT deal about more of the mindset that is present here. Long live Stars and Stripes!!
23Kite 2 years ago
She clearly just misspoke, though, is the thing.
I don't believe in placing so much stock in essentially meaningless expressions that are meant to represent patriotism or lack thereof.
Nictusempra 2 years ago
The piece was about the flag. It is like a piece about Russia when they tell you "Helmut Kohl the king of the republic of France arrived in his palace in Warsaw."
GoldeneBremm 2 years ago