Hannity igniting revolt against left-wing profs

[HankB]

ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Despite the ongoing war which has mandated war funding, Bush has opposed thousands of pet project spending by Dems.

I challenge you to name one spending bill he's vetoed.

Just one. That's all.

Since Bush took office, spending has increased 33% . . .

Note that Bush's medicare drug program alone is, by current estimates, going to account for $17,000,000,000,000 (yep, that's seventeen trillion) dollars of new spending over the next 20 years, more than twice what LBJ's "Great Society" poverty programs have cost us so far.

So you're not going to vote for GOP...going to vote for a Democrat? That's really showing your loyalty!

Hmmm . . . why SHOULD people show loyalty to a party that has difficulty following it's own principles, and seems to be taking it's conservative base for granted?

 

[Danus ex]

Huh? So the prof can have the 1st ammendment, but not the student? Try doing what the prof did at YOUR job. See how far you get.

Of course the student can, should, and does have that right. Do we protect one person's right to free speech by squelching another's?

 

[R.H. Lee]

ON ABORTION: Bush has appointed conservative judges, made illegal mid-term abortions, and is against abortion.

I'm against abortion on demand too. Why is it the federal government's job to regulate it?

ON TAXES: Bush has held to no new taxes pledge, achieved tax cuts, and opposes all new taxes.

One token tax cut does not reform make. Especially a token tax cut with the $500 'advance refund' gimmick. A real conservative would attempt to 'starve' government through tax cuts. Instead, the Bush administration spends and borrows, imposing increased taxes on future generations.

ON TERRORISM: Bush has taken the unpopular hard-line approach to terrorism, gone after it, and prevented further acts of terror on our soil.

State sponsored terrorism did not exist in Iraq. Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, maybe. Why haven't we invaded/regime-changed those countries? 'Hard-line'? With open borders? haha.

ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Despite the ongoing war which has mandated war funding, Bush has opposed thousands of pet project spending by Dems.

So Republican big spending is good, but Democrat big spending is evil?? haha.

ON SOCIAL SECURITY: Bush has recommended we fix bankrupt Social Security program before it becomes insolvent and among his solutions are privatization of some Social Security tasks to REDUCE the size of the Social Security program.

Right. Divert money away from the system just as the biggest benefit demand begins. Then with all that money, let the federal government manipulate Wall Street. A fatcat Republican wet dream. I think not.

ON EDUCATION: Bush has reduced the federal education presence by transferring to states responsibility for meeting No Child Left Behind minimum education standards...

Yeah. Pass a federal law then require the states to fund it. This one could have come out of the Kremlin during the Cold War.

Conservatives are supposed to limit government and empower people. This administration is doing the exact opposite. Yet the Hannity/Rush cult continue to make excuses for it. It boggles the mind.

 

[Camp David]

I challenge you to name one spending bill he's vetoed.

Just one. That's all.

Since Bush took office, spending has increased 33% . . .

Simply vetoeing spending bills is a last ditch stunt... he has crafted bipartisan legislation that has avoided such spending to begin with; vetoeing a spending bill often means vetoeing good legislation that has a spending bill as a rider... as I said, a political stunt! Much of increase in gov't since Bush took office is due to 1) War on Terror cost, 2) rehabilitating gov't to better fight terror and domestic security, and 3) recessionary measures... as an example, just after Pearl Harbor, our gov't spending increased 72%... Reagan raised DoD spending 2.5 % to win Cold War! Simply citing spending increase as a sign of lack of conservative credentials makes no sense...

Note that Bush's medicare drug program alone is, by current estimates, going to account for $17,000,000,000,000 (yep, that's seventeen trillion) dollars of new spending over the next 20 years, more than twice what LBJ's "Great Society" poverty programs have cost us so far. . . .

Addressing long-term challenges distinguishes a great leader...would you have preferred he cancel medicare program? Prescription drugs are expensive... fact of life... seniors who need prescription drugs need them or they will die...simple fact of life... And you are misinformed about cost of this program; I quote:
"Reform Brought Medicare Into The 21st Century. Medicare was created 40 years ago to provide health care for seniors and people with disabilities, but it had not kept up with advances in medicine. For example, Medicare would pay $28,000 for ulcer surgery, but not $500 for prescription drugs to prevent ulcers. In addition, Medicare would pay for heart surgery, but not for drugs to prevent the heart surgery from being needed. Reform had been promised for years. The Medicare Modernization Act signed by President Bush got it done" Long term savings from President's prescription drug program will alleviate costs... See here for more detail:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/medicare/index.html

Hmmm . . . why SHOULD people show loyalty to a party that has difficulty following it's own principles, and seems to be taking it's conservative base for granted?

Given the alternative (i.e., accepting the Dmeocrat solution that no plan is a good plan), I'll accept GWB and his administration for his demonstrated success and his loyalty to conservative platform... if you wanted someone to simply cut federal budget, you need to remove the unavoidable reality of the War on Terror, which has shadowed the current administration...

 

[Camp David]

I'm against abortion on demand too. Why is it the federal government's job to regulate it?

If regulation works to prevent the murder of human life, so be it... We have regulations against homocide, why not abortion? If we can overturn Roe V. Wade later great; for now lets regulate what we cannot legislate against.

One token tax cut does not reform make. Especially a token tax cut with the $500 'advance refund' gimmick. A real conservative would attempt to 'starve' government through tax cuts. Instead, the Bush administration spends and borrows, imposing increased taxes on future generations.

There have been at least three rounds of tax cuts, in addition to the $500 tax credit you mention...Further exemptions passed by this administration add to total tax savings by average middle class family... ignoring all the tax cuts this administration has proposed is a great liberal tactic, but unfair for all the good achieved for the economy,.

State sponsored terrorism did not exist in Iraq. Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, maybe.

Ever hear of the Munich Olympics (state sponsored terror by Iran) Ever hear of the Iranian Hostage Situation under Carter (state sponsored terror by Iran)... Your statement has so many holes it is incredible... Syria is composed of terrorists of all stripes... as was Iraq prior to invasion... House is Saud is next as well.

Why haven't we invaded/regime-changed those countries?

We achieve some victories with gentle persuasion; i.e., North Korea and some with tanks; i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan...

Right. Divert money away from the system just as the biggest benefit demand begins. Then with all that money, let the federal government manipulate Wall Street. A fatcat Republican wet dream. I think not...

Any Economist will tell you the Social Security system is untenable and needs a fix now... ignoring it will yield a bakruptcy downstream...

 

[R.H. Lee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.H. Lee
State sponsored terrorism did not exist in Iraq. Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, maybe.

Ever hear of the Munich Olympics (state sponsored terror by Iran) Ever hear of the Iranian Hostage Situation under Carter (state sponsored terror by Iran)... Your statement has so many holes it is incredible... Syria is composed of terrorists of all stripes... as was Iraq prior to invasion... House is Saud is next as well.

Do you even read a statement before you regurgitate the party line?? I said state sponsored terrorism exists in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, but not Iraq. Even the great GWB has admitted that.

Sheesh.

 

[Geno]

Ding, Ding, Ding! Wrong answer! No free speech in the classroom!

The courts have consistently ruled that neither teachers nor professors have "free speech" in the classroom, inasmuch as the classroom is a "paid forum". However, college and university professors do have more latitude because they are NOT dealing with young, impressionable minds.

All the same I, as a professor, am being paid to deliver instruction regarding the established curriculum for any given course. I am, of course, permitted to express myself, to the same extent that others may in turn express their own opinions. While not complete free speech, it too is not a dictatorial forum of scripted, or canned curriculum in which a "teacher" simply stands at the front of the classroom and reads a pre-determined text, such as what follows:

Step 1: Take attendance:

Step 2: Greet students. While looking at the class state: "Good morning class, today we will study:__________."

Step 3: Advise students to open textbook to page X. Read: "Students, open your textbooks to page ____."

And the scripted text goes on, and on, and on. Completely controlled. ZERO free speech! ZERO instruction. Can you believe that there are actually jackass schools, jackass administrators and other jackass fools who promote such "controlled" speech?!

Is that where America wants it's children educated? Besides, we are talking college students...adults, age 18+, voting age. They get their chance to evaluate the professor at the end of the semester. It seems to me the real problem is that the students do not do as I did...investigate the professor BEFORE you take his or her class.

For my part, in the college classroom, I express professional reflections based on my 21 years of educational experience. Maybe that's why on average, my student evaluations range from 95% to 100%! But, then I did have 2 out of my first 400 students' evaluations who rated me around a 50%. Gee, what, I'm expected to please everyone?

Regarding launching complaints against the "politicos", there is plenty of room to lodge complaints against both our illustrious "Dim-wit-ocrats" and Re-puke-licans". Did I have professors like this? Sure, and professors who were the exact opposite. In closing, college students are paying for education…give them what they came to receive…an education, not an opinion. If they want your opinion, they will request it.

Doc2005

 

[Camp David]

I said state sponsored terrorism exists in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, but not Iraq.

I read what you wrote; then and now...I suppose the gassing of Iranians and of Kurds by Saddam Hussein prior to our invasion was somehow "not terrorism" in your estimation! I further gather that the killing of thousands of his own Iraqi people by Saddam was "not terrorism" in your estimation! And finally, I gather that terrorists such as Abu Nidal and many many others, that operated from Baghdad prior to our invasion, was not terrorism, in your estimation! Your estimation is wrong! See here:

Liberals Say: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."

CIA Analysis, January 2003: Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report): "Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism."

Liberals Say: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."

CIA Analysis, January 2003--Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report): "Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies."

Liberals Say: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 315):
"The CIA provided 78 reports, from multiple sources, [redacted] documenting instances in which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them to carry out attacks."

Liberals Say: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316): "Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s."

Liberals Say: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel."

Liberals Say: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"Throughout 2002, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests. The CIA provided eight reports to support this assessment."

Liberals Say: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 331):
"Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's [chemical, biological, nuclear] CBW efforts."

 

[R.H. Lee]

...I suppose the gassing of Iranians and of Kurds by Saddam Hussein prior to our invasion was somehow "not terrorism" in your estimation! I further gather that the killing of thousands of his own Iraqi people by Saddam was "not terrorism" in your estimation!

Bait and switch. Iraq's internal politics do not a U.S. security issue make, let alone justify an invasion. You have been well indoctrinated, but it won't fly. Bait and switch, just like 'regime change', then 'WMD's', now 'democratization'. The American people aren't buying it, which is why the Republicans are worried and Hannity is diverting.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Hannity is on right now. More apologetics re: Iraq and 'democratization', the current theme. Of course it started out as 'regime change', then progressed to 'WMD's. Fact is, the Bush administration has nothing going for it other than the WOT. And the reason support is dwindling is that the War in Iraq was poorly defined, poorly executed, and poorly explained. GWB failed miserably to persuade the American people the war was necessary, which is why the Hannity/Rush lapdogs have to pick up the slack.

If the administration's policies had any merit, they would not be so susceptible to criticism from the wacko looney left. GWB is the CIC of the most powerful military force in the history of the world. Yet he can't eliminate 10,000 terrorists in a third world country? What's wrong with that picture? All he has to do is win the 'war' and come on home, but that would remove the raison d existe for his administration, and undermine the WOT powergrab.

Is the Republican party so weak, so devoid of leadership and principles, that it must resort to these tactics to remain in power?

I still wish Hannity luck in purging leftist profs, but he needs to be honest about motives.

 

[Camp David]

Bait and switch. Iraq's internal politics do not a U.S. security issue make, let alone justify an invasion...

So if Hussein managed to gas Americans then we would be justified, in your estimation, to invade?

Do you frequently lock the barn door after the horse has left?

We ignored Al Qaeda under Clinton and 3,000 Americans died! Bush was not going to ignore Saddam and he did not!

Further, the United Nations sanctioned Iraq for 14 years for WMD... you accuse them of "bait & switch" much?

 

[R.H. Lee]

We ignored Al Qaeda under Clinton and 3,000 Americans died! Bush was not going to ignore Saddam and he did not!

I think you got your bad guys confused. OBL was the target after 9/11, remember? But he got away, so GWB replaced him with Saddam.

 

[jsalcedo]

Luckily I formed all of my political beliefs before college because most universities do not like free speech unless it comes from the left.

Hats off to Hannity.

 

[c_yeager]

So if Hussein managed to gas Americans then we would be justified, in your estimation, to invade?

Gassed them with what exactly?

 

[R.H. Lee]

Now Hannity's making me barf. "The winds of democracy continue to blow in the middleast..........blah blah blah......you're a great American". Two and a half hours now. I can't take it anymore. I'm getting a migraine.

 

[jcoiii]

I graduated two and a half years ago from a state run institution(college) I did have both conservative and liberal teachers, with the majority leaning (if not falling off) to the left. The few that I did have who were conservative discussed politics outside the classroom (or in humor rarely). The same was true of most of my liberal professors. There were a couple that would grade your "opinion" papers and mark them down if your opinion differed from theirs. These papers would be full of red ink with suggestions on what you should think/believe/write. Forunately, I did not have the professor that a friend of mine currently has in his doctoral program for Education Administration. She is a far-left (NOW, EPA, PETA, etc) member (as she stated in the class so I am told), and if you voice a contrary opinion, your grade is directly affected.

So, in my cases, and my friend's, you learn to tell the teacher what they want to hear so that you can move on with a good grade. The problem is that there are some who are intimidated into believing whatever this left-wing socialist teacher spouts. It is sickening that someone can hamper your future because you disagree with them. yeah, that's free speech all right. That a professor has a right to say whatever they want and if you don't like it, well I'll just fail you. (This is not to say that all liberal teachers are like this. Most of my teachers I liked immensely)

 

[jcoiii]

I think you got your bad guys confused. OBL was the target after 9/11, remember? But he got away, so GWB replaced him with Saddam.

Wow, selective memory? Try 1998 when Clinton turned down OBL who was suspected of some of the previous attacks against the US. But don't let the facts stand in the way.

 

[Drysdale]

It really pisses me off when extremist conservatives start sounding crazy enough that LaVeigh starts to become the voice of reason. If Hannity had any interest at all in even the appearance of balance he would be striking out against bias IN GENERAL. What he is doing now is called "pandering" and it's insulting.

For the record I have encountered every single kind of imaginable bias in school, and that includes conservative bias as well as liberal.

The point you're so eloquently missing is that conservative bias is so miniscule at college campuses, it really doesn't need to be addressed. You're looking at a nearly liberal-owned medium in colleges today. You're basically saying the equivalent of "Malcolm-X should be striking out at blacks who won't give whites a job." No it's not quite that bad, but it's close. I've been back in school for a few years and it's bad. I live in Fort Worth Texas, one of the most conservative places you'll find, and the schools are still liberal bastions! From the Jr. Colleges on up. And Dallas is worse. I can't imagine a place like Berkely or Yale! And you're griping about the endangered species eating the occasional cow... Get off it and take a REAL look at the problem.

 

[Biker]

Wow, selective memory? Try 1998 when Clinton turned down OBL who was suspected of some of the previous attacks against the US. But don't let the facts stand in the way.

What in the hell does Clinton's shortcomings have to do with Bush's shortcomings? Who did Clinton inherit his OBL problems from?
The argument is pointless. Clinton failed as did Bush. You want to absolve Bush due to Clinton's failures? All well and cool, just keep tracing that cancer back to the source, if you can.
So, where does the buck stop?
Biker

 

[R.H. Lee]

Wow, selective memory? Try 1998 when Clinton turned down OBL who was suspected of some of the previous attacks against the US. But don't let the facts stand in the way.

So anybody who is critical of GWB is automatically a Clintoon supporter? No more koolaid for you.

 

[jcoiii]

What in the hell does Clinton's shortcomings have to do with Bush's shortcomings? Who did Clinton inherit his OBL problems from?
The argument is pointless. Clinton failed as did Bush. You want to absolve Bush due to Clinton's failures? All well and cool, just keep tracing that cancer back to the source, if you can.
So, where does the buck stop?
Biker

I am only pointing out that OBL was not only bush's problem as the poster whom I quoted was stating. which was the following

Originally Posted by R.H. Lee
I think you got your bad guys confused. OBL was the target after 9/11, remember? But he got away, so GWB replaced him with Saddam.

I do not absolve Bush, but I also don't pretend that the problems did not exist beforehand.

 

[GoRon]

State sponsored terrorism did not exist in Iraq. Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, maybe.

And coincidently we now have a very large military presence on the borders of who?......... Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

I just read this thread due to Hannity not interesting me. Sorry I am late, LoL.

If he is advocating shining the light on leftist professors then I say more power to him.

If the professors cannot handle their opinions being challenged by their students they have no business being professors.

 

[Camp David]

Gassed them with what exactly?

The Baath Regime, as ordered by Saddam, used sarin gas, or a combination of sarin VX and hydrogen cyanide, on the Kurds and Iranians... that's the fact jack... the United Nations passed sanction after sanction on Iraq for this WMD use, long before GWB was elected. It was such a WMD threat that existed, in the days following 09/11/01, that compelled our invasion of Iraq. So if you criticize the current administration for attacking Iraq, you also criticize the United Nations, and you criticize all those that died as a result of Iraq's WMD use.

 

[DRZinn]

To continue the thread drift....

would you have preferred he cancel medicare program?

Yes.

 

[gunsmith]

what seperation of church & state

All it say in the Constitution is "congress shall make no law respecting establishment" in other words you cant leglistate a church of the USA.
Our founders were unhappy with the church of England... the wall of seperation is from a T Jefferson letter. & if we are going to base everything on TJ's letters then lets start with "Americans have the right to every terrible weapon of war".
Taliban shot women in soccer stadiums for entertainment our Christian Fundamentalist while sometimes annoying hardly compare & it's a common (if stupid) tactic of the uninformed liberal to compare them .
It's like those fools who compare Bush to Hitler, you expose your own idiocy & lack of basic 8th grade history to say something so pathethicly stupid.....Now lets get back on topic, shall we?

I saw Beach on Hannity and She was not only sharp and articulate & intelligent but a real looker too!
Look out Anne Coulter you have real competion coming your way....

Thank God we have young people like her standing up to crummy fascist/commie anti semetic hopolophobic fake intellectual trash!...We had to get rid of damm saddam, he was paying the families of suicide bombers who were killing kids in pizza parlors in Israel...only a matter of time and they would have been here.
Hats off to Hannity & Bush! they're both great Americans!!!