LOLBucky Ryan clings to the delusion that Obama is Muslim. That's some mighty smart fans you've got, Martin. Next thing you know, your loyal following will be waxing nostalgic for those wunnerful days when T rex gamboled with A&E in the GofE.Back in the real world, there's still nary a whisper of any hard numbers that tell us exactly (dollar amounts, please - don't try to fool us with that funny Italian currency) how many of Martin's tax dollars are being spent directly by UK for liberal political activism.(The reason is simple - the answer is essentially zero.)And there are no numbers that support (or not) Martin's argument - still no data that tells us the liberal-conservative breakdown in any department or program at UK.Hmm..... I think I get it. DI operative. Arguments with no supporting data. Essentially pulling "controversies" out of thin air. I think I detect a trend here.
Um, Art, I suggest you read the letter a little more carefully. It is obviously a tongue-in-cheek response to my article, written by someone from your side, not mine.But good try.
Art,I do not know how many tax dollars are spent on political activism at UK. Is this one of those questions like the one you asked about the public cost of domestic partner benefits at UK that you ask and I answer (according to their own report it will eventually cost as much as $630,000 a year) and then you just move on to the next question without acknowledging that you were wrong on the previous one?You have asked this question before, and I produced the language from the Gender and Women's Studies Department where they say they are studying issues from a specifically feminist perspective. And what do you do? You completely ignore it.Not only don't you read letter to the editor very well, you don't read previous posts too well--or, for that matter, UK's own website.
Pots? Kettles? Wasn't it Martin Cothran who proclaimed that studying Latin produced the smartest kids when his own reference (misrepresented at that) showed that those who took AP classes outperformed all others? jah
Hi Martin,A few remarks this morning.1. We've been over this before - the UK partners policy costs taxpayers nothing. Insurance enrollees (of all sorts - not just homosexuals) pay the difference between single and family coverage out of their own pockets. And they do not get pay raises dedicated specifically to cover the costs.2. Last time I looked, GWS at UK already had a sizable "roster". You and the TFF are claiming that every one of these is liberal, nary a conservative among them. I want to see the data. (Or the simple admission that you've pulled this "fact" from the same place the TFF gets most of its "facts" - from out of thin air.)So, once again I ask - show us some numbers. (And, preferably, your work.) How much of your own bank account goes to the UK partners policy? To political activism? How many of the roster of GWS or any dept. or program at UK ate liberal or conservative?
Um, that would be how many of the roster of GWS or any dept. or program at UK are liberal or conservative?Sorry 'bout that.
Post a Comment