Perfect example of the lying wingnuts

By On September 5, 2007 · 5 Comments

I hate driving traffic to RAB, but I can’t pass up this picture-perfect opportunity. Matty said:

I Can?t Tell The Truth

But the Dispatch said:

“The renovation will be underwritten by private donations to the University Foundation, and no tax dollars will be used,” said James C. Schroeder, foundation president.

Maybe the students “don’t care” because they aren’t paying for it, chucklehead. Strickland’s tuition cap has nothing to do with the university renovating the president’s residence with private funds. Nor does it have anything to do with comments made by a former university president.

But don’t let that keep you from trying to score political points, Matty. We all know the truth doesn’t actually matter to conservatives.

UPDATE: Matty is now claiming that he meant that the 2 million could have been used to “ease the burden on tuition payers”. That requires some pretty outlandish juggling. According to the 2007-2012 Capital Plan for OSU, $58.5M dollars of state money are earmarked for capital improvements. The $2M of privately donated money equates to roughly 3.4% of the $58.5M of state capital funds. Please note that state capital funds are not tuition, nor are they tuition related. The University Foundation provides additional funds for capital improvements. The overall budget for all university activities stands in excess of $2.5B.

Of course, that’s not even considering the fact that a well-appointed residence for the president will assist in fundraising efforts.

So, if people want to say that the University Foundation would be spending it’s money more wisely on other capital improvement projects, then say that. This was a poorly executed politically-motivated hack job by RAB.

Evangelize!
  • Print
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
 
  • http://www.plunderbund.com/ Brian

    BTW, saw this gem on RAB today too:

    Regardless of your views on homosexuality, I hope it isn?t a current Republican position to support additional anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. The leader of the Log Cabin Republicans argues as if it would be insane to argue against such intrusive government policies, but then he claims to be a libertarian. geesh

    Yeah, that’s right – anti-discrimination laws are “intrusive government policies”. Apparently you should be allowed to avoiding hiring “Negroes” because, well, look at them! Who cares if they’re more qualified, they’re black! Who cares if they’re more qualified, they’re gay!

    Good lord.

  • Pingback: Does Ted Strickland’s Cap on Higher Education also Cap Improvements to Gordon Gee’s House? « Right Angle Blog

  • Matt N.

    In response to #1, the question isn’t hiring or not hiring based on race. The question at hand is: Should the government… especially the federal government… legislate morality? Not only do I think they shouldn’t but I think such laws are also unconstitutional, as they are based largely on bizarre readings of the commerce clause.

  • http://aberrantequation.blogspot.com/ Joseph

    THAT, Mr. Naugle, is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

    With your anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage opinions, you have consistantly proven that you DO want the government to legislate morality- YOUR morality- based on bizarre readings of the bible.

  • Matt N.

    Well now we are talking about state issues, and it’s perfectly constitutional for a state to pass anti-discrimination laws. And I think that would be more reasonable than the feds having one blanket law since they have now and are trying to add to.

    But in the case of being anti-abortion, I suppose banning abortion is a moral issue- But I can’t imagine a more basic function of government than protecting life and punishing murderers.

    And defending the definition of marriage, in government, is simply protecting a well tested system which arranges people in such a way that they are less likely to count on government assistance… But I suppose to you this is a bad thing, as deemphasizing government in peoples lives is more likely to turn those same people away from the Democrat party. But there are plenty of nutty churches which will “marry” sodomites.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...

Archives

All entries, chronologically...