Yes, poor Santa.
He died when trying to visit the millions and millions of homes of good Christian children in one day. After having invented the flying reindeer who could run at close to the speed of light, he forgot to invent a protective suit that could stand the G-forces around 3000 x gravity and the 10 000 degrees of heat created by the drag of the thousands of tons of Christmas presents traveling trough the atmosphere at the speed of light… RIP
(anyone remember and have a link to that site where all the facts are?)
Disproving the existence of Santa. What could be fun and more of an intellectual challenge?
Since Santa is dead, everything is discounted.
Yes. I’m looking forward to scoring some bargains.
That pic is hilarious! 
I like this one too. 
That’s just WRONG! You are all very disturbed people. 
That’s so funny… hahah… not.
Fear not, children! Santa’s not dead! NORAD’s already preparing to track his journey on Christmas Eve!
http://www.noradsanta.org/en/home.htm
Redwolf
NORAD may be tracking him but the Home Land Security still wants him to have a passport if he is flying into the United States, if he isn’t already on a no fly list. Now if he was to land in say Windsor, Ontario Canada and wants to drive the reindeer and sleigh through the tunnel or over the bridge then all he needs is a valid photo id and birth certificate from the country he is leaving.
Anstapa
For you naysayers out there, (Annie, Lamby), let me explain.
The pictures are actually “Photoshops”. That is, someone took a picture of a child crying, (a common enough occurance for little ones), and by the use of sophisticated computer banks transplanted those images onto another image giving the impression that the child was suffering as a result of the background image. No children were injured or mentally unbalanced in the making of the images.
The quality of subsequent image depends on the ability of the “Photoshopper” to cut the child image from it’s original context using a technique called “feathering”. Too much feathering will leave a fuzzy area around the original cut image. Too little will leave a hard line around the image.
The other technique, of equal importance, is the lighting of the subjects. Matching the lights and shadows between the images are of utmost importance in convincing the viewer.
Mastery of these two techniques alone will give the viewers hours of pleasure.
Thank you.
I know that. I still don’t find them funny.
I knew you knew this but I enjoy being snarky.
Snarky.
Now, that’s funny.
T
Who came up with the “Santa” picture? Now that would make anybody cry.
Just think of all the trauma the photoshopped “photo” will cause! I know I’m feeling traumatized right now!
It’s politically incorrect to post even a hint of ridicule of Hanukkah, but it’s perfectly ok to smear St. Nick.
It isn’t the temple oil ITSELF that is important, but the miracle that underlies it – the faith, the hope, and the dedication. It isn’t Elijah coming in the door that is important–that’s just a vehicle to teach something larger.
It is very difficult to communicate the abstract concepts of faith, hope, love, and charity to children unless you do so by showing them via an example. That’s what the tradition of St. Nicholas/Sinter Klaus/Santa Claus does – you see where the name comes from? – it teaches children about giving and accepting love. Which is what the Christ Child’s birth is all about.
If that wasn’t part of your tradition, for whatever reason, and if you don’t understand, then you might want to check out those links Redwolf pasted to “Virginia’s” answer. They explain the concept much better than I could.
And if that doesn’t work, then perhaps you could just refrain from grinchifying? I don’t want to have a mental image all year of you with a sneer and green skin.
But I still like those pictures.
And I still get a kick out of that picture of you swimming in your underpants. 