Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 720 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 7:00:38 AM PDT
Lie No.6

Hannity pushes dubious claim that Koh might apply "sharia law in American courts"
From Page 60 of Conservative Victory:

Equally troubling is [State Department legal adviser Harold] Koh's attitude toward the application of Muslim sharia law in American courts. In a 2007 speech to the Yale Club of Greenwich, Connecticut, he said that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

Hannity has repeatedly advanced the dubious claim on his Fox News show. The claim originated in March 2007, when National Review Online blogger Carol Innone posted a letter from New York lawyer Steven J. Stein, who claimed to have heard Koh suggest that Sharia law could be applied in the United States during a Yale University alumni event Stein attended.

Koh and event organizer have refuted claim. The claim has been denied by Koh himself during Senate testimony, Koh's spokesman, and Robin Reeves Zorthian, the organizer of the Yale University alumni event at which Koh supposedly made the Sharia law remarks. Zorthian said that claims about Koh are "totally fictitious and inaccurate" and "never did Koh state or suggest that other forms of law should govern ... the American legal system."

Koh has denounced Iran for imposing strict Sharia law. University of California-Davis law professor Anupam Chander wrote in an April 2, 2009, blog post that "[i]n the 71 articles penned by Harold Koh that appear in the Westlaw law review database, there is but one article that mentions Sharia," and in that article, Koh "denounces the government of Iran for 'impos[ing] a strict form of Sharia law that denies basic rights to women and minorities.' " Slate senior editor and legal reporter Dahlia Lithwick similarly wrote that "Koh in all his academic articles and many public statements has never said anything to suggest some dogged fealty to Sharia."

Posted on Apr 8, 2010 7:02:10 AM PDT
Lie No. 7

Hannity distortion: Johnsen believes "that pregnancy can be comparable to involuntary servitude"
From Page 60 of Conservative Victory:

Obama appointed Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel despite her radical views -- including that pregnancy can be comparable to involuntary servitude.

PolitiFact: Johnsen compared "forced pregnancy" to involuntary servitude. From a March 24, 2009, PolitiFact article:

The Republicans are referring to a 1989 brief in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, a case that tested whether states could prohibit abortions in public health institutions. Johnsen was then legal director of the National Abortion Rights Action League, one of 77 organizations to sign the brief.

Footnote 23, part of the brief that Johnsen said in a Senate hearing that she wrote, said the following: "While a woman might choose to bear children gladly and voluntarily, statutes that curtail her abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest. Indeed, the actual process of delivery demands work of the most intense and physical kind: labor of 12 or more grueling hours of contractions is not uncommon."

So Johnsen compared "forced pregnancy" -- not motherhood -- to involuntary servitude.

After we asked the Republican Conference about the claim, staffer Ericka Andersen acknowledged it was wrong. "You are correct that the post was written inaccurately," she told us in an e-mail. She corrected the post to say Johnsen "equated forced pregnancy with 'involuntary servitude.'"

Kudos to the conference for acknowledging the error. But we still find the original claim False.

Posted on Apr 8, 2010 7:03:18 AM PDT
Lie No. 8

Hannity falsely claims Democrats are "allocating monies" to ACORN to "ensure their own reelection"
From Page 65 of Conservative Victory:

Congress, under Obama's Democrats, is not just passively ceding its powers to the executive branch in areas it shouldn't. In concert with Obama, it too is stealing power from the people. Congressmen are deliberately ignoring their own rules (such as Al Franken cutting off Republican senators speaking in opposition to Obama's agenda); they're voting on legislation when not only have they not read it, but it hasn't even been written; they're spending trillions of dollars we don't have and can't possibly acquire; they're allocating monies to corrupt groups like ACORN to ensure their own reelection rather than for any legitimate legislative purpose; and they're doing all this in defiance of the will of the people.

Obama and Democrats have not been "allocating monies" to ACORN. Hannity offers no evidence or footnote to support his claim about ACORN. However, Hannity falsely claimed on his February 19 Fox News show that Obama's budget "is going to give [ACORN] $3 billion." In fact, Obama's budget contains no language specific to ACORN. In previous years, Republicans have repeatedly claimed that Democrats were going to "give" ACORN millions or billions of dollars when, in fact, the various legislations they reference don't contain any language mentioning ACORN. In September 2009, Hannity falsely claimed that ACORN is "on schedule to get eight and a half trillion dollars of stimulus money."

Posted on Apr 8, 2010 7:04:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2010 7:05:33 AM PDT
Lie No. 9

Hannity falsely claims Reid pushed provision for "unrepealable" Medicare board
Hannity: Reid "aims to make the bill's proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) unrepealable." From Page 65 of Conservative Victory:

But among the Democrats' many shameless attempts to seize power away from the people, the granddaddy of them all is contained in the Senate health-care bill. Unbeknownst to many, that bill contains an amendment, inserted by Majority Leader Harry Reid, that aims to make the bill's proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) unrepealable. The amendment would change certain Senate rules to prohibit future Congresses from repealing the IMAB (which some refer to as a death panel). But current Senate rules require sixty-seven votes for a rule change. The Democrats, who had already changed the rule with their sixty-vote (not sixty-seven-vote) majority, claimed they weren't changing the rule, just changing a "procedure." But their intentions were clear: Obama's Senate was not only trying to make their provision for death panels unrepealable -- violating our first principles of popular sovereignty at their core -- but in the process they were also violating their own rules through semantic deception.

FactCheck.org: IMAB is repealable. In a January 15 article, when asked if the IMAB "can't be repealed" if enacted into law, FactCheck.org replied: "No ... that could be repealed by a vote of three-fifths of the Senate

Posted on Apr 8, 2010 7:06:23 AM PDT
Lie No. 10

Hannity falsely claims Independent Medicare Advisory Board is a "death panel"
From Page 65 of Conservative Victory:

But among the Democrats' many shameless attempts to seize power away from the people, the granddaddy of them all is contained in the Senate health-care bill. Unbeknownst to many, that bill contains an amendment, inserted by Majority Leader Harry Reid, that aims to make the bill's proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) unrepealable. The amendment would change certain Senate rules to prohibit future Congresses from repealing the IMAB (which some refer to as a death panel). But current Senate rules require sixty-seven votes for a rule change. The Democrats, who had already changed the rule with their sixty-vote (not sixty-seven-vote) majority, claimed they weren't changing the rule, just changing a "procedure." But their intentions were clear: Obama's Senate was not only trying to make their provision for death panels unrepealable -- violating our first principles of popular sovereignty at their core -- but in the process they were also violating their own rules through semantic deception.

Independent Medicare Advisory Board is specifically prohibited from rationing health care or modifying benefits. According to the legislation, when the "projected per capita growth rate under Medicare" exceeds "the target growth rate for that year," the board is required to "develop and submit" to Congress a "proposal containing recommendations to reduce the Medicare per capita growth rate to the extent required by this section." But the legislation explicitly states that the board may not include recommendations to "ration health care," "restrict benefits," or "modify eligibility criteria." From Section 3403 of the Senate health care bill:

(ii) The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.

The Congressional Budget Office found that the advisory board provision "would place a number of limitations on the actions available to the board, including a prohibition against modifying eligibility or benefits."

FactCheck.org: The "Medicare Board is no 'death panel.' " From FactCheck.org's January 15 article:

Footnote: Despite a few lingering claims to the contrary, the Medicare Board is no "death panel." The bill explicitly states that its cost-saving proposals:

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: ...shall not include any recommendation to ration heatlh care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums...increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 7:10:55 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2010 7:13:49 AM PDT
I've listed 10, J. S. There are 21. How much evidence do you require to wake up and smell the coffee i.e. realize that Hannity is the troublemaker, the propagandist, and the agitator that wll tear down this country?

If you want more lies, I will give them to you from my own list. Just say the word!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 7:51:07 AM PDT
J. S. says:
Ty for taking the time to put this stuff here. I am at work and will review your info and reply when I can. I am curious though, have you heard any lies from chris matthews, rachael maddows, obermann, etc?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 8:19:58 AM PDT
Yes, I watch Olbermann regularly. In fact I try not to miss him. I have heard him apologize on several occasions. One example comes to mind. I thought his "special comment" of Candidate Brown of MA was way over the top, shrill, desperate, and wrong. To my surprise, he apologized the following Monday or Tuesday, I think, admitting exactly the way I had perceived his comments to be.

Recently he made a joke of a woman journalist falling to the floor in a Dallas TV news station. He made light of it without knowing that she was dealing with muscular dystrophy. He apologized the next evening.

I have also seen Rachel Maddow apologize when she reported a story inaccurately--several times. I have also seen Chris Matthews do the same thing.

While Keith Olbermann can sound condescending and sarcastic, he always has video backup to demonstrate the contradictions in what people like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and Rupert Murdoch claim. He routinely catches that Fox show where a woman and two men sit on a couch when they present their show.

I have repeatedly caught right wing author Buzz Patterson in lie after lie, and I nailed him.

That is one of many reasons I turned from conservative to liberal starting in the '90s.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 10:04:23 AM PDT
These guys Hannity et al primarily make assumptions and theorize. Since when does Hannity a drop out have any expertise on economics, or the law. They do have bimbos that come on Fox to give airhead opinions. Ever notice they are almost all cover girl types. Gee, I wonder why. Orielly have any more sex harrassment suits to settle? Limbaugh have any more Oxycontin? Beck is just plain weird. You follow these guys? Hmm

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 12:10:16 PM PDT
Just watch any of the occassional ones he interviews on his alleged All Star panel. He usually allows one for every 3 conservatives. Plus him and its 4 to 1. Just like on the radio. He talks forever only his side and calls everyone who disagrees a name. Then he cuts them off so he can have the last word. Try listening objectively

Posted on Apr 8, 2010 12:12:29 PM PDT
I love your post. I dont take the trouble to write down all Hannitys lies. I just listen and realize almost all of is nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 12:46:15 PM PDT
I love it. You do more research than Hannity for the truth

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 12:49:01 PM PDT
That is just like a Hannity debate, to try and change the topic so it all the lies are not bad because others do it to.

The point is that extremists on the left and right are both bad. Why would you listen to Hannity, a known liar. The biggest lie is he calls himself FAIR AND BALANCED. Do you agree with that? If you do, then there is no hope for you and no independent thought.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 2:13:30 PM PDT
These were easy to find, John. Just google "Hannity lies" and the only problem you'll have is deciding which link to look at first.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 2:31:57 PM PDT
W. Wilson says:
Edwin,

Have you ever tried calling Hannity's show? I'm tempted to call but I hear what happens when someone calls and challenges him; he talks over them, doesn't let them finish a thought, puts words in their mouths, and then the call ends with a prerecorded insult!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 3:00:44 PM PDT
A. Nelms says:
And you use that sight adjustment regardless of the wind conditions, distance and relative elevation of your target? You must be a laugh a minute at the range.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 3:11:43 PM PDT
Your post is foolish. Have you ever heard of Bill Gates?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 3:26:31 PM PDT
As a matter of fact, I was damned good out to 400 meters, and it was a windy day when I qualified too.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 3:35:47 PM PDT
No, I would never do that.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2010 3:36:10 PM PDT
A. Nelms says:
And what did Bush do in a mere 2 months to actually CAUSE a recession?

Posted on Apr 8, 2010 3:45:24 PM PDT
What do you mean by a mere two months?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 9, 2010 5:24:48 AM PDT
I know. He has insulting names for everyone who is not a conservative. He is really an insulting extremist. He wants civil talk and fair and balanced, but he is the complete opposite. Why does he keep calling Emanuel DEAD FISH. I cant even remember the other insults. He is sooo angry. He insults the callers too instead of trying to debate them. I cant believe some people dont see this.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 9, 2010 7:07:11 AM PDT
Runner Girl, have read your posts with ref to your husband's your childhood & what you & he doing now for kids. Most impressive. Putting back 'in' after taking 'out'. Nice un. Wife & I are doing the same in UK - but on a smaller scale - that you're doing. Keep up the good work. I truly believe if you want something done "give it to a busy person".

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 9, 2010 7:33:39 PM PDT
C. Bickler says:
Get off your high horse. The crap they teach in college is a joke anyway. I have a degree and It is of no use except on a resume or if you are in a speciality. Albert Einstein failed Algebra, does that make him stupid. Get a grip

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 9, 2010 7:52:08 PM PDT
u just ruined your own argument. The specialty would be ecomonics. Look the best economy indicator. the stock market and company earnings are way up
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 29 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  97
Total posts:  720
Initial post:  Feb 23, 2010
Latest post:  Jan 9, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda
Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda by Sean Hannity (Paperback - March 30, 2010)
3.7 out of 5 stars   (340)