Hannity’s Hypocrisy: Criticizing Colleges For Taking Money From Saudi Prince Who Funds Fox
Hannity’s Hypocrisy: Criticizing Colleges For Taking Money From Saudi Prince Who Funds Fox
Sean Hannity and his guest last night attacked Harvard and Georgetown Universities for accepting money from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal:
HANNITY: Now, you may remember this Saudi prince from the days after September 11, when Rudy Giuliani turned down his so-called gift of $10 million, because he said that the U.S. needed to, quote, “reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause,” unquote.
Well, Harvard and Georgetown universities are now accepting $20 million each from Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal for their Islamic studies programs. … This is a bad guy. Rudy was right to decline the money. Why would these universities take money from him?
MINITER (GUEST): Because these universities already believe this message. They already believe that America is the problem, that our support for Israel and our arguments against terrorism are the problem. And some professors on these campuses — Churchill doesn’t teach there, but they still do teach at Harvard and at Georgetown in many cases — they believe his message.
So it’s not as if this Saudi prince is changing their views. He is rewarding them financially for views they already have.
Hannity conveniently forgot to mention that his own employer, Fox News, also accepts money from Talal; he owns 5.5% of Fox News. Not only is Talal “rewarding them [Fox News] financially for views they already have,” he’s also changing their views.
(HT: News Hounds)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’m surprised Murdoch didn’t receive a phone call from the Prince, asking them to change it like he did with the Muslim riots deal in Paris. I guess he must have been watching CSI-Tikrit last night instead of Hannity.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:47 amOh the incredible ignorance feigning as nothing.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:48 amAs an aside, did his mole get bigger since the last picture? Maybe he should have that looked at…
December 14th, 2005 at 11:48 amSo does this mean Hannity will follow the direction of his own sanctimony and quit in objection??? (Cross your fingers everyone!)
December 14th, 2005 at 11:52 amHannity also forgets Bush held hands of a Saudi King Abdula. Hannity also purchases gas from Saudi Arabia.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:53 am…oh, and take the dizzying O’Reilly along with him?
December 14th, 2005 at 11:54 amLove the picture of Hannity here, looks like a real blowhard.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:54 amNever a good thing to talk smack about your boss who owns 1/20th of the stock.
This could cause Hannity to get a Royal Flush. :)
December 14th, 2005 at 12:01 pmUn-friggin-believable!
December 14th, 2005 at 12:01 pmHypocritical jerk.
Guys … there is a difference between accepting a GIFT from an individual, and that same individual buying his or her way into a corporation. The former can be refused by the proposed recipient of the gift … the latter is achieved by purchasing voting shares (which cannot be stopped (except for when an individual is trying to obtain a majority – “poison pills” are in place at Fox to indeed stop this).
The statement made by TP, namely, “Fox News also accepts money from Talal” is misleading, to say the least. Hannity has zero say over Fox News ownership and his comments must be taken in that light.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:19 pmWhy does Hannity hate Fox “News?”
December 14th, 2005 at 12:19 pmLook, this is just another war-hawk who sits high in his perch and belches pro-war rhetoric..he is just a sniveling propogandist, who regurgitates what that drug-addict Limbaugh states. He lives in that rosy Cleaveresque/Rockwellian world…..
December 14th, 2005 at 12:25 pm#11.
Sean Hannity has plenty of say for his own conduct. If his employer is taking money from “purported terrorists” he could resign in indignation. Of course he would lose lots of money, so he takes the morally craven position of pointing out the mote in other peoples’ eyes instead of removing the log from his own.
A phonier man on the planet there is not.
-GSD
December 14th, 2005 at 12:26 pmJacko [Comment deleted by Admin]
Using your “logic”, Hannity should quit, or return 5% of his pay. If he thinks the Prince’s money is so dirty, he should want to cleanse himself of it.
Better yet, Murdoch should fire him. My boss doesn’t let me bad mouth him in public, neither should the Prince.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:42 pmThis is a perfect story for “Media Matters”- if nothing else so they can archive it as further proof of Hannity’s ignorance/insanity.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:44 pm#17 – Do we really need any more proof?
December 14th, 2005 at 12:46 pm#16 I agree with you. If this money is so dirty, I would expect Hannity to be turning in his resignation right about…now.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:01 pm11- the complaint that Hannity, and his guest, does seem to be hypocritical to me, but where is the supporting proof of their charge? The influence this guy has over Fox News would appear to outweigh any influence he has over American university compuses. How does saying that the US needs to “reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause,†make him a bad guy? Because it’s not sufficiently deferential to the Likud party?
December 14th, 2005 at 1:03 pmBut, of course Hannity won’t quit, he won’t complain. He will sit back keep collecting pay and continue being a chicken hawk.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:04 pmI wonder who’s winning the contest for most deleted comments by admin?
Ryan?, maybe IRI … ?
Look, maybe Hannity should resign if he hates the Saudi so much … the guy does have 5% of the voting shares of his employer … however, this argument could also be taken further (ludicrously) by saying since Bush is the president of the US, and since many here hate him/think he’s evil/believe he stole both elections/liken him to Hitler, they then should resign from the USA and move to a new country.
We ALL have worked for companies where there were those amongst the onwership with whom we vehemently disagreed … in most cases, we are so far removed from said persons, that we can reconcile staying.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:05 pmJacko, you are not reading. I disagree with some of my employers views also, I don’t come out publically and call him “a bad guy” or a terrorist.
I am in favor of Bush resigning and moving out of the USA- probably would rather have him tried for war crimes first, but I’ll settle. I’ll leave you to leave the charge for his removal from office.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:10 pmHannity’s points are soooo weak, I don’t know why none of the ‘liberal guests’ invited to the program are able to confront him, are they staged too ??
December 14th, 2005 at 1:13 pm#22
Giacomo,
Your Bush comparison is flawed in the fact that we don’t work for Bush, Bush was hired (voted in) by the American people. He works for us, not the other way around.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:14 pmSpudge, see Hannity taking money from the Prince is different, see, because the universities are liberal. Does that clear it up for you?
Conservatives can take money from terrorists and not have a moral duty to return the money, but liberals must repudiate the terrorists or be called America haters.
I just realized something- Hannity thinks we removed Hussein because he supported terrorists, using his logic shouldn’t Sean be removed because he is a source of funding for terrorists?
Doesn’t the prince make money off of Fox? Doesn’t some of that money go to the terrorist telethons on Saudi TV?
December 14th, 2005 at 1:14 pmGiacomo I feel your logic is flawed. I personally feel one is obligated to hold true to their personal values when taking a job. For example I would never work for a company that pollutes the einvironment. I just would not do it. Hannity is a hypocrite. You are also morally challenged if you allow your pay check to dictate your values.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:15 pmReality
Owner (in the corporate sense) is much different than employer … I’m sure you already know this though. Heck, I own Apple, Best Buy, Microsoft, etc. (about .00000034% of the total I’m sure) … under your logic, no employees of said companies can dislike what I say and declare so publicly. Does that make sense?
Also, to further expound this resign concept … there are those that said here Hannity should resign if he doesn’t like those that hold the power within his company (and he certainly should not be allowed to speak out about their behavior) … applying that same logic could mean anyone who has the gall to criticise those in power (like Bush, for example) should have the decency to resign if they are indeed “principled” (from the USA, for example) …
I was trying to point out that it’s ridiculous for anyone to say he should resign, and that calling for such a resignation would be hypocritical if they were unwilling to take their own advice … I get it though, you don’t like Hannity.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:20 pmIt’s Rovian/Heritage Foundation political strategy 101. Tackle and smear on issues on which you are most vulnerable. Bush is a chickenhawk so he runs as a “war president” and attacks Kerry (the honest Vietnam war hero) over his war record via the Swifties. The GOP suppresses and steals the vote in breathtaking fashion in both 00 and 04 and the smear machine counters accusations with “Democrats are the vote-stealing dirty-tricksters.”
They control the media message so they can lie and manipulate on every front with impunity. The “liberals” make one wrong move and they’re eviscerated.
The Democrats haven’t improved as viable opposition save for a Harry Reid move here or a John Murtha smackdown there. We MUST impress upon these spineless Dems that they will NOT get our votes if they don’t start to do the right thing!
December 14th, 2005 at 1:22 pmYour Bush comparison is flawed in the fact that we don’t work for Bush, Bush was hired (voted in) by the American people.
That’s a good point … I wasn’t really trying to make a hard 1 to 1 correlation.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:24 pmI get it though, you don’t like Hannity.
Comment by Giacomo — December
Giacomo… your argument is that FOX Hannity should not feel like hypocrites for taking money and generating income for a Saudi Prince… However these Universities should not take the donations from the same Saudi Prince because they may result in terrorist sympathizing. Is this your argument?
December 14th, 2005 at 1:26 pmFor example I would never work for a company that pollutes the einvironment. I just would not do it. Hannity is a hypocrite. You are also morally challenged if you allow your pay check to dictate your values.
Again, I think we’re mistaking “owner” (shareholder) with the actual company and its management … no one should work for a company that they have moral issues with, but we have zero say (and most people don’t even know) who the major “owners” are in a public company.
Your company may be public … would you resign if Bill O’Reilly had a 5% share of their voting stock … maybe … probably not.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:27 pmInteresting. The republicans always like to spout that Bush graduated from Yale (C average). But, then they turn around and attack the universities for being liberal.
Sounds like another old fashion Amreican flip flop to me.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:30 pm(Is) your argument that FOX Hannity should not feel like hypocrites for taking money and generating income for a Saudi Prince… However these Universities should not take the donations from the same Saudi Prince because they may result in terrorist sympathizing.
Again, review my previous post … TPs comments are trying to equate “owner” of a public company and “benefactor” to a private one. The issues are nowhere near the same.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:30 pmYou don’t one 1/20 of any of those companies. As soon as you do, you will have a say as to what happens and who works there.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:32 pmYour company may be public … would you resign if Bill O’Reilly had a 5% share of their voting stock … maybe … probably not.
Comment by Giacomo — December
Your right… probably not. But I would also not get on TV requesting my University to refuse a donation from that idiot. Because I am not a hypocrite
December 14th, 2005 at 1:32 pmGiocomo please admit that FOX must be the most hypocritical and outrageous “news” station on TV. At least hypocritical!
December 14th, 2005 at 1:34 pmI’m mostly playing devils advocate here guys … I don’t think there’s a “fire” here, in spite of the fact that many of you “smell smoke”.
Hannity is entitled to his opinion on the Saudi … the universities are also entitled to take the money. In the universities case (and to some degree Fox News’ case), we must ask what’s expected in return. Fox news is an investment for the Prince … we can draw a clear conclusion as to why his money flowed in that direction. This is not as easy to delineate with the universities … that’s why Hannity doesn’t like it (he also draws a conclusion that the acceptance of the money is the acceptance of the Prince’s idealogy about 9/11 … which is a stretch to me).
The fact that the universities are “liberal” makes no difference to me (maybe it does to Hannity).
December 14th, 2005 at 1:37 pmClearly this segment by FOX is rediculously hypocritical. classic “do as i say not as i do” bs. Their reputation as a legitimate news source has long been dead.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:37 pm“Your company may be public … would you resign if Bill O’Reilly had a 5% share of their voting stock … maybe … probably not.”
I would. I wouldn’t work for a company that Bill O’Rielly, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, or any of the other republican freaks owned a voting percentage of stock in. Period. No F’ing way. my honor is worth way too much to me. I wouldn’t be able to look my girlfriend in the eyes.
I wouldn’t work for Halliburton or any of it’s subsidiaries. I wouldn’t work for MVM or any other company with ties to this corrupt administration. I have honor and won’t let it be tainted by these jerks.
When it all comes down, I will have a very clean conscience.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:40 pmYou don’t one 1/20 of any of those companies. As soon as you do, you will have a say as to what happens and who works there
That’s not necessarily the case … the owners vote in the board … the board hires the CEO … all else trickles down from the CEO. Aside from voting about dividends and board memberships (and other smaller items) … stockholders (and by stockholders I mean, minority holders) cannot and do not dictate company direction … the prince is a minority holder (he does get “mad” amounts of votes for the composition of the board … about 5%).
December 14th, 2005 at 1:41 pmHere you go Spudge:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081505Y.shtml
CIA Stuff
December 14th, 2005 at 1:42 pmPlease admit that FOX must be the most hypocritical and outrageous “news†station on TV. At least hypocritical!
I think a (weak) case could be made to say this about Hannity … alas, Hannity does not equal Fox as a whole (despite the fact that you don’t seem to like the whole).
December 14th, 2005 at 1:43 pm“we can draw a clear conclusion as to why his money flowed in that direction. This is not as easy to delineate with the universities … that’s why Hannity doesn’t like it” -comment by Giacomo.
So Hannity does aprove of the same Prince editing FOX news’ scrolling bottom line but not donating to a particular school. Minor detail I know but also kill your argument about you owning .000095% of a company being similar to the Prince owning 5.5% of a massive news organization.
I too am playing devils advocate here. I just dont like lemmings who defend everything FOX says.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:46 pmI wouldn’t work for a company that Bill O’Rielly, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, or any of the other republican freaks owned a voting percentage of stock in. Period. No F’ing way. my honor is worth way too much to me. I wouldn’t be able to look my girlfriend in the eyes.
Do you work for a public company? If so, I’ll be glad to tell you (or link you) all the (sizable) owners … I think you may have meant to say “I wouldn’t work for a company that…republican freaks owned a LARGE voting percentage of stock in” (or else you’d need to start penning that resignation now)
Please understand that ownership is nothing more than investment terminology (and that 99% have zero control over your company). I don’t think your resignation will be needed (but principles are always nice).
December 14th, 2005 at 1:50 pmJacko, there is no point in my explaining it to you further. Seemingly, you will do anything to excuse someone on the right. My fault, I thought you had an open mind.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:54 pmSo Hannity does aprove of the same Prince editing FOX news’ scrolling bottom line but not donating to a particular school. Minor detail I know but also kill your argument about you owning .000095% of a company being similar to the Prince owning 5.5% of a massive news organization.
I too am playing devils advocate here. I just dont like lemmings who defend everything FOX says.
1) I read that story about the Muslims in France (and the Princes subsequent call) … what you may not understand is that Fox could’ve told the Prince “tough tarts” and that’d be the end of it (and he would have zero recourse) … they changed it because 1) he was right and 2) he’s rich. The most the Prince could do is SELL HIS SHARES which would immediately be gobbled up in the open market … he has enough shares to be a large investment … not enough to dictate crapola.
2) Hannity has made no claim that this “incident” is agreeable to him so any comments about his opinions are conjecture.
3) While 5% is certainly much larger than .00000065% and does give the Prince more, “hey check me out, I’m rich power” (which we all know does have sway) it doesn’t legally or actually give him more sway. Thats the hard truth. We can go back and forth about how much “human” sway 5% engenders, but factually, he gets the same as John Q. Public (in terms of policy and direction making for the company).
4) Lemmings have been proven to not be the “suicidal followers” you infer … leave the lemmings out of it (besides they’re cute).
I’ll reiterate because it bears thought … why is the Prince giving American Universities money. Does he then have sway in their Muslim curriculum … is this somehow more comfortable to those here than him having a minority (and as I’ve said, relatively powerless) share in Fox news?
As for my opinion, the universities can do whatever they want … Hannity needs to have evidence that they are being “bought” if he wants to continue to be upset.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:03 pmMINITER (GUEST): “Because these universities already believe this message. They already believe that America is the problem, that our support for Israel and our arguments against terrorism are the problem. And some professors on these campuses — Churchill doesn’t teach there, but they still do teach at Harvard and at Georgetown in many cases — they believe his message.
So it’s not as if this Saudi prince is changing their views. He is rewarding them financially for views they already have.”
I have a problem with this bit of distortion right here. While I can agree that some may view the U.S. as a problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (it would be hard not to since we do favor one side over the other), but that these Universities believe our arguments against terrorism are the problem?
WHO SAYS THAT? WHO THINKS THAT? This is just another right-wing political hack trying to put liberals next to terrorists, claiming “they believe this message.”
Hackery ran amok!
December 14th, 2005 at 2:07 pmThere is no point in my explaining it to you further
Maybe you didn’t explain it correctly then. If you don’t like Hannity (or his comments) that’s perfectly in your right … but lets be fair when we try to pin the label of “hypocrite” because that’s very inflamatory label. I would prefer that the “shoe” be a much better “fit” before slinging that term around.
You will do anything to excuse someone on the right
This comment is nonsense … I try and defend the left with the same passion when I see Conservatives falling for cheap examples and poor logic. It’s not about the “right” … it looks that way because EVERY story here is about the right (except the ones about Joe Lieberman … which some say is, in fact, right … anyway, I defend him too … maybe that’s a bad example)
I thought you had an open mind
I very much have an open mind … don’t confuse my lack of agreement with being “closed”. I can disagree here and remain open to other comments and ideas.
The right has made enough legitimate mistakes, ethical blunders, and downright crappy decisions to attack without trying to create a “problem” where none (or a very minor) one exists.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:11 pmI agree with Matt O. (I said as much in an earlier comment). The line that Miniter is drawing (these universities already believe this message) and their acceptance of these funds is proof of some idealogy is very thin … why can’t people just say “they shouldn’t take money from this guy because …” if that’s what they think and not delve into wild hyperbole.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:16 pmVintage Hannity, there is always the smear first, without any useful, constructive or logical argument about what it might mean. It’s absolutely about pandering to the biases of his audience. He is so predictable, the pattern is crysal clear. Listen to him a couple of times and the rhetoric is always the same, no matter the subject.
Limbaugh is the same, they pander to the paranoia and prejudices of their audience. They certainly dont get too many repeat visits from anyone with a progressive or constructive point of view.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:30 pmsorry about that…meant to hilite the word vintage…
December 14th, 2005 at 2:31 pmFox also allows Saudi princes to dictate how they word their headlines…
December 14th, 2005 at 2:34 pm#50
I have read all of the comments here, but I am addressing Giacomo. I know you say that you’re playing devil’s advocate here, but it’s really not that hard to understand the outrage of some of the other bloggers.
For arguments sake, let’s not use the word hypocritical. Do you think it was disengenuous of Hannity to attack the “liberal” institutions that accept money from “the evil prince” without disclosing the fact that said prince is part owner of FoxNews?
By not doing so, do you think Mr. Hannity gave the impression to his viewers that “liberals” are in bed with the terrorists, but conservatives never would be?
December 14th, 2005 at 2:39 pmKeep in mind Giacomo that Hannity referred to the prince as “a bad guy”. Why would they take money from this bad guy? You really don’t think he was obligated to inform his viewers that the “bad guy” is one of his bosses?
December 14th, 2005 at 2:43 pmHannity needs to be Hannitized by his own brainwashing machine. Bill O’Reilly to the rescue!
December 14th, 2005 at 2:59 pmNo I do not. But, if some republican “freak” (your word not mine) was the CEO, I wouldn’t be working here.
Somebody that owns 5.5% or 1/20th of a company DOES have a say so in a companies direction. If you don’t think so, that is your problem, not mine.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:16 pmFor arguments sake, let’s not use the word hypocritical. Do you think it was disengenuous of Hannity to attack the “liberal†institutions that accept money from “the evil prince†without disclosing the fact that said prince is part owner of FoxNews?
Perhaps ……….. Disengenuous is much more applicable here. If I were in his shoes, I would likely not have made such an issue with the Prince without referencing his minority onwership of Fox News.
By not doing so, do you think Mr. Hannity gave the impression to his viewers that “liberals†are in bed with the terrorists, but conservatives never would be?
Again, perhaps … I don’t think it’s the actual message he’s sending (maybe he inferred it). I would agree that the general consensus was that a) the universities are liberal and b) acceptance of the gift proves that they agree with the Princes “soft on terror” comments … I’ve already said that this idea is total BS.
Keep in mind Giacomo that Hannity referred to the prince as “a bad guyâ€. Why would they take money from this bad guy? You really don’t think he was obligated to inform his viewers that the “bad guy†is one of his bosses?
I’ve answered this somewhat already … “they” aren’t really taking money from him as much as he purchased voting shares in the open market. In addition, he’s no more a “boss” than any other minority shareholder. I do think if Hannity was smart about it, he would’ve recognized that his comments left him an easy target and he should’ve prefaced those comments in some way.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:16 pmSomebody that owns 5.5% or 1/20th of a company DOES have a say so in a companies direction.
Not in terms of the implicit and explicit powers that 5% onwership carries with it … you may have a case that most companies consider a 5% owner to be a major-minority owner and will act in deference to that individual when possible. This is pure speculation though (but carries with it a lot of common sense).
Fox does not HAVE to act in any manner that the Prince desires … they could tell him “tough” and he’d be without recourse (except divesting).
December 14th, 2005 at 3:21 pm#58
You give FoxNews far too much credit Giacomo. How many times do they have to get caught excluding relevant information before you recognize it as intentional?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:22 pmFOX News is not news, it’s raunchy and crude entertainment for grown men who are mentally stunted to the degree of fitting within the prime 18-25 year old marketing demographic.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:26 pmHannity should have declared that Fox takes money from the same source. Fair disclosure is fair disclosure.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:32 pmYou give FoxNews far too much credit Giacomo. How many times do they have to get caught excluding relevant information before you recognize it as intentional?
I have no allegiance to Fox, per se. I actually watch CNBC more. I haven’t actually heard of them excluding relevant news (remember Hannity and Colmes is op-ed) but if I do, I’d watch them even less (which is like 5 minutes a day as is).
December 14th, 2005 at 3:33 pmGiacomo: According to the Counterterrorism Blog, bin Talal is the 4th largest voting shareholder of News Corporation.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:36 pmFox takes money from the same source
Aaaaaarrgggh … this is driving me crazy. Fox doesn’t decide who invests in them in the open market (nor can they) … They don’t “take” money from anyone (unless it’s a gift, which I’m sure the Prince did not do to gain his 5%). Hannity could’ve said that “this guy is bad … and I’m not afraid to say it even though he owns a 5% stake in Fox” – bam, problem solved.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:36 pmAccording to the Counterterrorism Blog, bin Talal is the 4th largest voting shareholder of News Corporation.
Guys … 5% is 5%. He may be the fourth largest (I can’t open that link for some reason) but he’s way behind the Murdoch family, Liberty Media and Fidelity (which, if memory serves, own about 65% together).
December 14th, 2005 at 3:41 pmFox does not HAVE to act in any manner that the Prince desires
Comment by Giacomo — December 14, 2005 @ 3:21 pm
True. But fact is they did. Obviuosly the Prince’s stock ownership and/or wealth does/b> give him some clout as to what is done at FoxNews.
[FoxNews] could tell him “tough” and he’d be without recourse (except divesting).
Comment by Giacomo — December 14, 2005 @ 3:21 pm
In the universities case (and to some degree Fox News’ case), we must ask what’s expected in return.
Comment by Giacomo — December 14, 2005 @ 1:37 pm
Why would we ask what’s expected in return from the universities, anymore than what’s expected from FoxNews? They could also tell him “tough” and he would be without recourse.
([Hannity] also draws a conclusion that the acceptance of the money is the acceptance of the Prince’s idealogy about 9/11 … which is a stretch to me).
Comment by Giacomo — December 14, 2005 @ 1:37 pm
So, you admit that one of the goals in Hannity’s rant was to smear Harvard and Georgetown Universities and to make it look like somehow they agree with the Prince -who is “a bad guy”.
And finally, how is the Prince a bad guy for saying: “the US needs to reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause”? The timing for issuing the statement was unfortunate, to be sure. But does the statement in itsef sound to you like it is coming from a bad guy?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:57 pmarrgh… I hate it when I mess up the formatting like that!
December 14th, 2005 at 3:58 pmWhy would we ask what’s expected in return from the universities, anymore than what’s expected from FoxNews? They could also tell him “tough†and he would be without recourse.
Maybe … donations can be a quid pro quo situation … investments (especially those in large public companies) rarely are. In addition, Fox doesn’t “need” the Princes money in the same regard as a university does … if the Prince sells, those stocks would be gobbled up in the open market … not for profit agencies (schools, hospitals) don’t have this luxury …
So, you admit that one of the goals in Hannity’s rant was to smear Harvard and Georgetown Universities and to make it look like somehow they agree with the Prince -who is “a bad guyâ€.
Yes
how is the Prince a bad guy for saying: “the US needs to reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause�
It was timing (as you said) mostly … It’d be not unlike me going to a funeral of someone who died from lung cancer and saying “they should’ve stopped smoking”. His comments were also callous given that a plurality of terrorists were from his country.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:19 pmIn addition, Fox doesn’t “need” the Princes money in the same regard as a university does …
Comment by Giacomo — December 14, 2005 @ 4:19 pm
Agreed. But fact remains that it only took a phone call from the prince to get FoxNews to change a headline. Say what you will -money and wealth wield power.
if the Prince sells, those stocks would be gobbled up in the open market … not for profit agencies (schools, hospitals) don’t have this luxury …
Again, I agree -but for Hannity to try to smear the universities for accepting donations from the prince was unethical.
I am glad we can agree Hannity’s was an attempt at smearing. You are obviously free to infer Hannity’s ethics or lack thereof.
His comments were also callous given that a plurality of terrorists were from his country.
Again, we agree. His statement was callous, although at the time he could not have known most hijackers were Saudis.
That still does not make him a “bad guy”. Just someone with a different opinion and an awfully lousy sense of timing.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:41 pm“It was timing (as you said) mostly … It’d be not unlike me going to a funeral of someone who died from lung cancer and saying “they should’ve stopped smokingâ€.
Comment by Giacomo ”
Republicans have called the war on terrorism a ‘generational’ war, perhaps you prefer they wait several generations before bringing up the topics?
You’re a fool.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:41 pmIn addition, Fox doesn’t “need†the Princes money in the same regard as a university does …
Comment by Giacomo
Why does any university need an Islamic studies program funded by the same people who brought us 9-11.?
Interesting that they’ll allow those people in to spew their Moon God Cult hate and recruit followers but won’t allow the US Army in to recruit officer material. Can anyone say ratbastardcommiemofotraitors?
December 14th, 2005 at 4:58 pmGiacamo, were you the least bit offended when Bush held Abdullah’s hand on his ranch? Your president having this man — who funded 9/11 — step on American soil?
You don’t find that the least bit offensive? Hannity doesn’t.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:00 pmIRI did you vote for the President who held hands with the man who funded 9/11 through Islamic charities? You did? You can renounce your US citizenship now. Don’t let the border guards hit you on the way out.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:02 pmIRI, Guacamole, et al:
Look carefully at this picture:
http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2005/04/25/image690875x.jpg
Which of the two men here is a traitor to his country?
December 14th, 2005 at 5:05 pm#75 Hahahahaha. That ought to shut ‘em up. I have become quite enchanted with the troll’s defense of, well, anything. They are just SO EASY. I used to get mad but since it has become so over the top, it is actually entertaining.
I know, crazy, but I can’t help it. They are so obtuse defending the Saudis and then blaming the Saudis. It is gold, Jerry.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:24 pmIRI, Guacamole, et al:
Look carefully at this picture:
http://www.cbsnews.com/ images/ 2005/ 04/ 25/ image690875x.jpg
Which of the two men here is a traitor to his country?
Comment by cynical ex-hippie
Neither. They are both doing what’s best for their own. And that’s a lot more than I can say for you American traitors.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:34 pmYour president having this man — who funded 9/11 — step on American soil?
You don’t find that the least bit offensive? Hannity doesn’t.
Comment by cynical ex-hippie
That is a lie. Bin Laden funded 9-11 out of his lunch money.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:36 pmIRI, you have to be from Texas, your loyalty to your school of thought is to be commended. Bush is more a Texan than I beleive anything else. Thanks for your deliveries.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:37 pmIRI, you have to be from Texas, your loyalty to your school of thought is to be commended. Bush is more a Texan than I beleive anything else. Thanks for your deliveries.
Comment by the Fly-man
I’m an American. You should try it.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:38 pm#77
IRI, I figure you’ve never seen this:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It’s not treason to speak out. It is treason to consort with the enemy. If anyone is a trailor, it’s your beloved King George.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:40 pm#78 Did you know we shut down many Saudi charities because of their direct ties to 9/11? Did you know Abdullah directly controls these charities? Did you know the Saudi royal family has been directly tied to funding of 9/11?
If not, then why do you have a problem with the same people giving money to Harvard for Islamic studies?
Look what you said:
Why does any university need an Islamic studies program funded by the same people who brought us 9-11.?
Now these same people who brought us 9/11 are the exact same people Bush had as his guests on his ranch. At least twice between 9/11 and the 2004 election. So my question stands: Did you vote for the President who held hands with the man who funded 9/11?
If you did, you can admit your treason and renounce your US citizenship now please. Thank you.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:45 pmMy place in this discussion was merely to point out that it was incorrect to equate a stock “owner” with a university “benefactor” … I still haven’t figured out Bush and the Saudis given that most of the 9/11 goons were from Saudi Arabia.
Likely, it’s for expedience … they have oil and are willing to “play ball” in our war on terrorism … the enemy of my enemy line.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:53 pmI don’t think they are playing ball in the GWOT. Saudi Arabia spends billions on military weapons. Yet their army is pathetically under-equipped. Their special forces use obsolete helicopters. Where does that military equipment go? Ever wonder?
They don’t play ball in terms of access to prisoners, cracking down on hate speech, and a number of other key areas.
The oil angle is probably a big part of it. I think you’re right there.
But I have a hard time respecting anyone who voted for Bush after his hand-holding escapade with Abdullah. That is simply offensive.
I see the difference between stockholder and benefactor, but not the importance. Is it an important distinction whether bin Laden is a stockholder or benefactor in your organization? And where is he anyway? We still have not asked his family.
December 14th, 2005 at 6:12 pmWhy does any university need an Islamic studies program funded by the same people who brought us 9-11.? (…) Can anyone say ratbastardcommiemofotraitors?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 14, 2005 @ 4:58 pm
That is a lie. Bin Laden funded 9-11 out of his lunch money.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 14, 2005 @ 5:36 pm
Maybe you should explain your posts… Did the house of Saud fund 9/11 or did Bin Laden? If they did, is anyone associated with them a traitor?
December 14th, 2005 at 6:22 pmSean Hannity: Corporate Tool Of Disinformation
It’s nothing new. Plain and simple, Sean Hannity is a tool for Fox News, complicit within the US/Saudi power plan. I posted an example of his hypocrisy a few months back, covering his opaque speaking fees in Utah last year
December 14th, 2005 at 6:34 pmGive IRI a commemorative set of flip-flops!
December 14th, 2005 at 6:35 pmI see the difference between stockholder and benefactor, but not the importance.
In this case, the importance is the difference.
Is it an important distinction whether bin Laden is a stockholder or benefactor in your organization?
It is given that organizations have stock in the open market available for purchase by anyone … OBL has front companies and likely owns Microsoft, GE, ExxonMobil, etc (blue chips) … taking a gift from OBL is obviously different than having him buy your company stock in the capital market.
December 14th, 2005 at 6:49 pmTrue that since our government has chosen to overlook the Saudi’s role in 9/11 their business in American companies is perfectly legal. And so is a university endowment. The government could decide that Saudi investment firms are tainted by terrorism just as easily as a university could. To hold a university accountable where you do not hold the federal regulatory agencies seems a bit disingenuous, IMHO.
The real issue is Bush’s decision that Abdullah is an “ally” while people like Michael Moore who warn of their insidious influence are somehow not. Bush chose to attempt to punish people who were right about Iraqi WMD, and reward those who funded 9/11.
And the REAL real problem is the 51% of Americans who voted for that policy.
December 14th, 2005 at 7:05 pmIt is not true that anyone can buy stock on the open market. Al Capone cannot. Drug lords cannot. OBL cannot. His Saudi benefactors can. That is ultimately Bush’s decision.
December 14th, 2005 at 7:07 pmI-RIGHT-I,
This flip flip is for you:
December 14th, 2005 at 7:39 pmI am loyal to my beliefs and flourish the thought you are also to yours. I vote, I read, i PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. I am the unelected opposition. You have opinions and archaic dogma, I will promise you nothing and say as little as necessary, for you and the Simple have decided the game. Insult is your injury. American is not your sole franchise.
December 14th, 2005 at 7:42 pmDoesn’t Sean look like he’s about to give someone a delicious blopwjob? Is this guy married? Straight? Human?
December 14th, 2005 at 8:12 pm[...] First, check out this Think Progress post. [...]
December 14th, 2005 at 8:33 pmHannity is an opportunist first, a right wing Christian conservative second. If the 2 conflict, opportunism wins. Oh I forgot, isn’t right wing conservatism defined as “that morality which you perceive to advance your own cause at a given time.”
December 14th, 2005 at 9:04 pmQuestion: What is 10 inches long and hangs between Bush’s legs?
Answer: Sean Hannity’s tie
December 15th, 2005 at 1:03 amMaybe you didn’t explain it correctly then. If you don’t like Hannity (or his comments) that’s perfectly in your right … but lets be fair when we try to pin the label of “hypocrite†because that’s very inflamatory label. I would prefer that the “shoe†be a much better “fit†before slinging that term around.
whacko-jacko the child molester
I admit it Ryan. I was wrong. He’s a complete idiot.
Anyone who defends Hannity in particular or Faux News in general is a dupe. If I owned 5.5 % of a company, I would think that anyone who controlled a larger % of shares would have a bit more of an influence. Perhaps his % of shares is the largest single voting block owned by an individual, but I doubt it. See Syriana..
Read this by a former Faux News producer.
Sorry, whacko. There is no defense for Faux News.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:05 amCan anyone say ratbastardcommiemofotraitors?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 14, 2005
ratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitorsratbastardcommiemofotraitors
December 15th, 2005 at 2:07 amTP has issues with Firefox.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:08 amMy place in this discussion was merely to point out that it was incorrect to equate a stock “owner†with a university “benefactor†… I still haven’t figured out Bush and the Saudis given that most of the 9/11 goons were from Saudi Arabia.
Whacko-jacko
In a perfect world without the evil web of Scaife money and Abramoff and Viguerie like corrupt and illegal money laundering schemes designed to fund the undermining of democracy in America, perhaps. But we don’t live in that world and if you weren’t a dupe of the right wing noise machine, you might just know that. There is no excuse for defending this turd, or the company he works for.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:14 amYou are not a very good Christian after all.
Hannity is an opportunist first, a right wing Christian conservative second.
You got the first part right, Big dave. I’m not sure if I would classify that scummy little turd Hannity as a right wing conservative Christian. He’s a bit to the right of that, I think.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:17 amAs far as the Prince’s ability to influence decisions at Fox “News”, be aware that his 5% stake in that company is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. The amount of American debt that is owned by Saudi Arabia is enough to guarantee that the U.S. gov. will not stand in the way of an unhappy Saudi. We literally cannot afford to offend them. Our current administration has given us AMPLE demonstrations of the havoc a spoiled brat can inflict on us all. Just a thought…
December 15th, 2005 at 2:53 amSo, in this time of ignorance about many things, including Americans’ ignorance of Islam, why is it so bad to set up a place of learning where someone might lose some of their fear through education? Perhaps the Prince wants to help our societies cut through the fog of ignorance so that we can live in peace. Oh…sorry. What was I thinking?
December 15th, 2005 at 10:18 amGiacomo – You are maintaining a headstrong position about the ideal situation involving companies, owners, management, stockholders (etc.). The postitions that you outline are true, but only in a textbook model. In real life the distribution of power and influence is much more complicated. A shareholder of enough stock, who has highly placed political friends (ala Bush and co), and wields other political powers in the world DOES have a say, as we saw. Fox did not alter that headline because it was inflammatory – THAT was the reason they wrote that headline in the first place! They altered it because a wealthy and politically powerful shareholder didn’t like it. Period. Every nobody Muslim American in the country could have called in to complain, and they would not have changed it (hell, they’d have taken that as a compliment that their slander worked, and that maybe the ratings would go up). When any one man makes a single call and gets Fox to alter an already issued headline, then that man has influence in the company. You cannot argue it any other way (you can test this by calling – once – to any major news agency to complain about a headline: if a majority of their readers complain, they MIGHT change it, but more likely (and easier for them) is to apologize to offended readers, but keep it: but ONE PERSON calling is not going to change anything… UNLESS you have influence). If this prince were recognized as a terrorist or terrorist funder (particularly of 9/11), then I do not think that he would be allowed to still hold (much less purchase more) stock in any American comapny. Hannitty claims he IS a terrorist, and that the evil America-hating universities (yep, education is truly an evil thing – without a good healthy dose of mindless patriotic brainwashing thrown in, that is) are accepting the money. Hannity really was not attacking the Saudi – the attack was aimed at the Universities (oh, those liberal dens of America-hating people: Conservatives – don’t send your children to any university, they are all liberal evil hell holes. Please, DON’T send your children to college). But to make the attack, the Saudi had to be villanized (yeah, I know….). If the fellow is not an evil man, then there is NO PROBLEM AT ALL with a university accepting money from him. If he is a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist supporter then he should not be allowed to hold any stock in any American company. You can’t have it both ways and maintain any integrity. If he can invest in American companies then he is perfectly in his rights to donate money where he pleases.
December 15th, 2005 at 10:57 amAnd this is not a “non-issue”, as you claim. It has a bit of relevance, and more than many may realize. The main point is: is this guy a terrorist or funding terrorism? If he is, WHY is he allowed to hold a major portion (sorry, but one man with 5% is a pretty major portion (not “majority”), all in all). If he is a “bad guy”, then why is this allowed, and why are his wishes aquiesed to by an American news agency? (they knew the nature of the headline, OR every one involved, to include the proofers and editors, are complete and totally inept morons… and as funny as that is, it is not the case. So, they KNEW it was bad, but wanted to run with it anyway. That is until a major stockholder complained). If he is NOT a bad guy, then what business of Hannities (or yours) is it where he legally and properly puts his money (the other matter is, he probably gets some kind of tax break for that… well, assuming he pays taxes. I don’t know, but think he ought to, as he owns part of an American company).
So, in this time of ignorance about many things, including Americans’ ignorance of Islam, why is it so bad to set up a place of learning where someone might lose some of their fear through education? Perhaps the Prince wants to help our societies cut through the fog of ignorance so that we can live in peace. Oh…sorry. What was I thinking?
Comment by Mark
Well, isn’t that special? American’s are ignrorant of Islam. In the spirit of shining the light and chasing away the darkness of this ignorance allow me to tell you a few things about Islam you will learn if you attend one of the many madrasses in the United States:
Islam commands its believers to convert the entire world to Islam by any means expedient, including force and subterfuge. This worldwide jihad will end only when all men everywhere are subject to the authority of the Islamic Khalifah or Caliph, and when the shari’a, the Islamic law code, is the only law code recognized for all humanity.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:30 amIslam does not recognize any source of authority apart from itself. It regards secular governments as inherently illegitimate. Thus, there can be no separation of Church from State in Islam’s view.
Islam demands that a Muslim who abandons the faith be put to death. Islam also demands the death of anyone who criticizes Islam or Muhammad.
Islam demands that all “infidelsâ€â€”i.e., non-Muslims—be subjugated into dhimmi status. Dhimmis must pay a special tax, must show subservience before all Muslims, are forbidden to build places of worship, and must wear special clothes to exhibit their second-class status.
Islam sanctifies the killing of prisoners, whether enemy soldiers or unfortunate civilians, taken in jihad.
Islam sanctifies the taking of slaves. Indeed, the Islamic world is the last place on Earth where slavery is still practiced.
Islam considers women to be the chattels of men. A woman in Islamic society is forbidden to leave her home without a male relative as chaperon, and is never permitted to be in the company of a male non-relative unless similarly chaperoned.
Islam gives women no rights over the marital bond. A Muslim man can divorce his wife at will, whereas a woman cannot free herself of her Muslim husband without his cooperation.
Islam sets women’s rights of inheritance and their acceptability as witnesses in court at far less than those of men.
Islam requires a woman who has been raped to produce four male Muslim witnesses to the act if she wants to prosecute it. If she cannot but complains of it anyway, she may be put to death for fornication on the strength of her complaint itself.
A Muslim woman who marries an “infidel†is considered to have committed apostasy, and must be put to death. However, a Muslim man may marry an “infidel†woman without penalty.
Islam regards Arabs as the Master Race, and all other peoples as their inferiors.
Islam specifically identifies the Jews as the enemies of God, who must all be killed in the final stages of the worldwide ascendancy of the Caliphate.
Islam teaches that Muslims have no duty of fidelity toward any “infidel.†It is perfectly acceptable for a Muslim to deceive, defraud, betray or brutalize an “infidel†if it serves the interests of Islam or Muslims. By corollary, in any dispute between a Muslim and an “infidel,†it is obligatory for all other Muslims to take the Muslim’s side, regardless of the merits.
Islam encourages its members to seek death in jihad, fighting for the extension of Dar al-Islam—the “House of Islamâ€â€”by promising such “martyrs†an afterlife of orgiastic pleasures.
Islam’s shari’a law code punishes homosexuality, adultery, fornication, blasphemy, heresy, and several other “offenses†with death. Islam punishes lesser crimes, such as murdering a female relative who has “dishonored her family,†with a slap on the wrist.
Speaking of wrists, shari’a punishes several offenses with the amputation of a hand or a foot.
So then I-RIGHT-I, why would we want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, a strict secularist, in favor of creating an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?
December 15th, 2005 at 11:55 amYou know what’s funny? Americans are even more ignorant about Christianity.
All of you Christians – you know who you are, doing Jesus’s work, you are not Christian in any way. You know Jesus would approve of war. You know Jesus was a capitalist. Don’t be morons. You are liers, plain and simple. Because you attach yourself to goodness does not make you good. Just like hanging out with cool kids does not make you cool. You are users with no morals. Saying “killing babies is bad” does not make you a good person.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:53 pm105 I-Right-I (hey, what happened to your left eye? Just asking?)
I would love to comment at length on this post, but that would be TOOO incredilby long. I will take a few examples.
Much of what you present is also valid to another group, and just as true:
Fundamentalist Christianity commands its believers to convert the entire world to Christianity by any means expedient, including force and subterfuge. This worldwide evangelicism will end only when all men everywhere are subject to the authority of the Christian Church, and when the Christian Bible is the only law code recognized for all humanity.
Christianity does not recognize any source of authority apart from itself. It regards secular governments as inherently illegitimate. Thus, there can be no separation of Church from State in Christianity’s view.
Islam sanctifies the killing of prisoners, whether enemy soldiers or unfortunate civilians, in the War on Terror.
Christianity sanctifies the taking of slaves (Read the Bible – it’s okey-dokey by the Book).
Christianity considers women to be the chattels of men. (Although you, a misogynist BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, shoud love that part – eh? And all the rest that goes with it)
There is a lot more, but you get it. The ‘alterations’ (not ‘corrections’ – as far as my knowledge extends, most of that is true) that I presented are also accurate and true, and the list goes on. ANY religion taken to an extreme and forced upon others (what’s the “mission” of an evangelical?….) is EVIL.
But post 106 is an excellent question. Why DID we remove a secular dictator and replace him with an ISLAMIC THEOCRACY? Or is that ok with you? Want another pair of flip flops?
December 15th, 2005 at 1:05 pmIRI – But you do agree, then, that this Islamic who holds 5% of an AMERICAN news agency (by the comments of the right you all claim they are the number one influential news source) is just fine with you? You hate Islam, but you’ll trust the news that comes from a news agency that is 5% owned by an Islamic terrorist sympathizer who, by the by, hates Israel? Not to mention that he can call them up and get headlines changed? Seems like faux likes sleeping with the enemy, and providing information based on the enemy’s preference.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:11 pmHey jagg-off-more#65,
Who cares! Hannity is a scum of the earth parasite who feeds propaganda to illiterate inbreds for personal profit. He should’ve (along with all of his bosses and their masters in Washington) been placed on gurney’s facing and next to Tookie’s.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:14 pmmysticagent #108,
Don’t forget the part about burnng everybody that doesn’t accept Christianity in hellfire forever and ever.
Who’s sick I-Trite-I?
December 15th, 2005 at 1:44 pm#111 This is true. and in fact, by the rhetoric (I’m not so sure “by the Book”), if you do not “accept Jesus as your personal savior” you will burn in hell for eternity, regardless of how ‘good’ you were in life. Ah, well, apparently the Christian God does condone torture…
December 15th, 2005 at 2:39 pmand in post 108 I missed changing one “Islam” to Christianity. Oops. No way to fix it. By the way, thank you very much, IRI. I like how applicable that rant is in describing the fundamentalist Christian view – it is DEAD ON. I live in America, and the muslims here are not a threat, but those Christians (who LIVE to try to force everyone to live by THEIR beliefs, and who want nothing more than every law to based on what they believe, and not tolerate other viewpoints or beliefs – or lack thereof).
IRI #72 A bit off topic – but “officer material” does not need to be sought out and recruited. Those who will make good officers will be those who decide on thier own to sign up, without any pressure or badgering. There is also a huge difference between teaching (say, a comparative religion class, or even a class that focuses on a single religion) and rcruitment. Recruitment serves NO purpose in educating children (or adults). Of course, you are comparing apples and oranges, as the one relates to young children still in the care of their parents (who are supposed to be able to determine what influences their dependent children – or do think that parents don’t have the authority to determine that? Perhaps the State should decide those things?…. hmmm…fascism……), and the other relates to University level courses that adults go to and must choose (ever been to college? Didn’t think so – well, it’s nnot like high school – no one tells you what courses to take). Just like I don’t have to watch any of the numerous Christian chnnaels – gee I really CAN just change the channel and not be offended, and they can continue doing their thing because it is (supposed to be) a free country – no one HAS to go to a university and take a class on … ANYTHING.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:47 pmThanks for playing, come again.
ROFLMAO!!! THIS IS TOO FUNNY!!
I love watching teh Crack pot conservative scramble to justify thier hypocrisy
December 15th, 2005 at 4:52 pmIRI – But you do agree, then, that this Islamic who holds 5% of an AMERICAN news agency (by the comments of the right you all claim they are the number one influential news source) is just fine with you? You hate Islam, but you’ll trust the news that comes from a news agency that is 5% owned by an Islamic terrorist sympathizer who, by the by, hates Israel? Not to mention that he can call them up and get headlines changed? Seems like faux likes sleeping with the enemy, and providing information based on the enemy’s preference.
Comment by mysticagent
Nothing’s perfect and there’s no law against Prince Abu owning American stock just like there’s no law against 90% of the rest of American Media being run by Ratbastardcommiemofos. Sleeping with the enemy????? In your case the joke is you’re in bed with our enemies but you ain’t sleeping.
December 15th, 2005 at 6:47 pm[...] Today, Think Progress covered Hannity berating colleges for taking money from Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal for their Islamic studies programs, also calling him a hypocrite. Quotes from Hannity: "…Now, you may remember this Saudi prince from the days after September 11, when Rudy Giuliani turned down his so-called gift of $10 million, because he said that the U.S. needed to, quote, “reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause,†unquote…" [...]
December 16th, 2005 at 12:55 amMy Dad used to say, “You’re showing your ignorance” when I would say something and not know what I was talking about. Sean does this all the time, and so does the far right, but I guess it’s ok as long as you yell it.
December 16th, 2005 at 1:20 amMerry Chrismas America.
Thank you for the murder, torture of Iraqi civilians.
December 16th, 2005 at 2:30 amThank you for your cowardly bombings on peasant huts in Afghanistan.
Thank you for stealing our resources.
to Ryan the Angry Midget #4 post
Did you mean the mole on Hannity’s shoulders?
December 16th, 2005 at 8:40 amDid everyone hear? The Iraqis had “fair and free” elections- even with over 7,556 candidates in over 100 parties and an occupying army on the outskirts of their towns!
I wonder if they could possibly show us ignorant, bassackward Americans how to do that?
December 16th, 2005 at 9:09 amIRI, you have to be from Texas, your loyalty to your school of thought is to be commended. Bush is more a Texan than I beleive anything else. Thanks for your deliveries.
Comment by the Fly-man — December 14, 2005
Careful there Fly-man,
There IS diversity in Texas:
Right wing Al Cracker Bushite Crawford, Texas scum
…and the rest.
Bushiva is from (Joe Lieberstraurmndrung)Connecticut or Kennebumfu**, ME.
He (and the Crawford/ Pearland DeLay faithful) are Halliburton bi-products!
December 16th, 2005 at 9:21 amIRI
“Nothing’s perfect and there’s no law against Prince Abu owning American stock”
As that was a response to my, “this Islamic who holds 5% of an AMERICAN news agency (by the comments of the right you all claim they are the number one influential news source) is just fine with you? You hate Islam, but you’ll trust the news that comes from a news agency that is 5% owned by an Islamic terrorist sympathizer who, by the by, hates Israel?”
So, you don’t have a problem with a fanatical Islamic terrorist sympathizer owning and influencing American news. Wow.
IRI – “just like there’s no law against 90% of the rest of American Media being run by Ratbastardcommiemofos.”
Glad to see you’re on board with this part, at least. The Republican control of the media IS intolerable.
IRI “Sleeping with the enemy????? In your case the joke is you’re in bed with our enemies but you ain’t sleeping.”
December 16th, 2005 at 10:58 amAnd, to keep in form, you just have to include a personal attack. I did not insult you, I began a discussion. Your insult has no relevance or signifigance to the discussion. But you want to play? o.k.
But speaking of ‘enemy’, here’s some of your own opinion on that: “I didn’t make anyone “the enemyâ€. I recognize the Filthy Left for what it is; the enemy of free nations.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — November 4, 2005 @ 8:55 am”.
O.k.. The ‘enemy’ I refered to were the terrorists. You’re definition is apparently different. Am I sleeping with leftist women? Mmmmm… yep. I assume I am enjoying that more than you are enjoying your inflatable date (hey, Walmart is having a sale on puncture repair kits – you can have her functional in no time….). Merry Christmas… oops… I mean, Happy Holidays! :)
(hey, Walmart is having a sale on puncture repair kits – you can have her functional in no time….). Merry Christmas… oops… I mean, Happy Holidays! :)
Comment by mysticagent
Yo mysticagent #122,
That WalMart comment was totally unnecessary, I-Trite-I hasn’t punctured anything with that flaccid tumorous growth since his and Bushiva’s days at Andover Academy at the cheerleading squad’s annual (all boys) toga party.
Why the heck do you think he’s so hostile?
December 16th, 2005 at 11:30 amSo then I-RIGHT-I, why would we want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, a strict secularist, in favor of creating an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq?
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Ho there Spudge_Boy #106,
Me thinkst thou dost speak heresy, for which the Bushite progeny of familial frolicking are yet again rendered speechless!
December 16th, 2005 at 11:34 amhey i-right…i think the spike network is running some billy mays commercials, better grab your hand cream and lock the door…
December 16th, 2005 at 12:10 pmWill’s Blood Money
December 13, 2005
“The entitlement mentality produces petulant insistence on an ever-higher ratio of rights to responsibilities†so saith George F. Will. In his article “Entitlement mentality flourishes on campuses†Will ponderously, as always, takes the long road to insure clarity in the public forum. To the introductory paragraph what he’s trying to come across is that hand-outs breed contempt to obligation and duty. But in truth it’s quite the opposite. Will accused the universities of travesty for refusing military recruitment in their campuses. His reasoning is that since universities receives tens of billion of federal dollars then military recruitment has the right to put up their booth. Will’s further position is that Justice Antonin Scalia, questioning whether the universities supporting recruitment meant endorsing the war, and the answer is they aren’t. Then Will toss in the First Amendment protection, muddling its intent by comparing the university’s right to object to that of its past support for racial segregation. Finally, the political marginalization of higher education since 1960: Contrary to Will’s flight of fantasy, that’s when the universities began breaking away from the control of the government—and marginalization. They were against an immoral war back then as they are today. And no amount of blood money will coax the universities to look the other way when our troops are dying for nothing in that Big Fat Lie known as the Iraq war.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:51 am[...] The blogosphere [Crooks & Liars (video available), ThinkProgress, et al] have swarmed over Sean Hannity's comments pertaining to Harvard and Georgetown universities accepting millions in donations from Saudi Prince Al-waleed bin Talal. Wednesday's edition of The Majority Report hosted by "(Christmas) warmongerer" Sam Seder played the comments in which Hannity appeared on television in which he stated: SEAN HANNITY: "This is a bad guy [Talal]. Rudy [Giuliani] was right to decline the money [$10 million offered to New York after the 9/11 attacks in which he reportedly said that the U.S. needed to reassess its policies towards the Palestinian cause]… Why would these universities take money from him?" [...]
November 1st, 2006 at 3:41 amchristmas gift ideas for dad
Do you think many people may consider it?
March 14th, 2008 at 6:32 amElizabeth
I just wanted to write to say that you have a great site and a wonderful resource for all to share.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:50 amJack
I just wanted to tell you that your site is really awesome and is of a fantastic quality. The content is great and I will be returning.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:50 am