…anyone could condone the killing on an unarmed man (Warning put down anything you are drinking before you read on):
The adult sons of Osama bin Laden have lashed out at President Obama over their father’s death, accusing the United States of violating its basic legal principles by killing an unarmed man, shooting his family members and disposing of his body in the sea.
The major actors in Libya around the globe have the message: Gaddafi’s days are numbered. Generally speaking, the only people to whom the obvious is not clear are the same men who involved us in an eight-year war, like Rumsfeld.
“If you say someone is qualified when they are not you lose credibility!”
Mika Brzezinski on Mitt Romney saying Sarah Palin is qualified for president. Morning Joe Dec 2 2010
Forgetting the inherent Palin derangement syndrome for the moment and the fact that Palin is the only reason anyone is talking about Romney today, did I actually hear a member of the mainstream media say that sentence out-loud?
Did you support Barack Obama? Did the Entire MSNBC staff support Obama? Did the entire non-Fox media wax orgasmic over the man in 2008?
That a liberal member of the media could say that sentence without having a clue about the irony is simply priceless.
This isn’t projection, this is a twelve screen movie complex with all the Harry Potter Movies playing 24/7 With the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Gone with the wind and Titanic on the side.
According to this fellow something that he accuses of Durant doing 10 years ago (that has no basis in reality) proves that Durant is trying to steal an election that he has been ahead of in every single count. This is even though in every city where Mr. Durant won, the recounts were held in a professional manner and matched exactly to the counts of election night.
Meanwhile in Southbridge you had a ballot boxes cracked open, one box not tied, no controls on the people in the area of the recounts and (by an odd coincidence) you have two extra votes for the democratic candidate (recall that the initial reported lead for Durant’s was 2 votes) and the town clerk happens to be the cousin of the democratic candidate. Yet this gentleman sees nothing odd here.
Let’s remind this gentleman that the judge who heard this case a decade ago took all of five minutes to decide that arguments of the lawyers opposing Durant had all the credibility of the candidacy Alvin Greene of South Carolina.
However who needs that when you have this:
Keep in mind Howard Potash told me that over 200 dead voters voted in the Great Recall Election
Tell me did Mr. Potash tell him that the Moon is populated by Mice with spiked haircuts? I suspect if he did this gentleman would believe him since apparently the arguments made before a judge in a court of law can’t compare to hearsay told to a blogger by a lawyer in a losing case not under oath.
Ya gotta love the left, they are never more fun than when they are in panic.
You know how when you wake up you’re kinda groggy. I woke up today exactly that way and took a peek at a few headlines kinda half asleep scanning a story or two. Then I read the end of this post concerning media outlets banning employees from the Stewart rally where a lady named Emily Bell of Columbia University commented thus about NPR:
She also noted that the case with NPR is different because it is partially publicly funded, which means that it is held to a higher standard to not appear biased.
“NPR has the right approach because they are in the business of serving the public,” She said. “I think it is perfectly consistent to require a higher standard of impartiality.”
There is nothing like a good shock to wake a person totally up. Nobody except a person involved in the liberal academia could have suggested that NPR holds itself to a “higher standard impartiality.”
All that being said I’d let them all go if they want to. I think that way when people read the story they can be aware of the bias of the author and can give that bias as much or as little weight as they think it deserves. No restriction but full disclosure.
Anyone who tells me that no election in Massachusetts is leaning GOP isn’t paying attention to stuff like this:
“You can call me an insider, but (Beacon Hill lawmakers) treat me like an outsider a lot of the time,” Patrick said during a wide-ranging interview with Herald editors and reporters yesterday. “We have differences. Some of them are sharp, most of them principled — but nonetheless we’ve been able to deliver the most productive legislative session in 30 years.”
Amid a throw-the-bums-out clamor and saddled with low job-approval ratings, Patrick worked to distance himself from State House leaders and even his own party — welcoming Scott Brown backers and invoking his battle with Democratic House Speaker Robert DeLeo over racinos as proof that he’s taken on the Democratic establishment.
When the democratic governor of the bluest state you can find is making the case that is an outsider and fighting the democratic establishment then Mr. Cook, start moving your races!
Via Glenn who I hope wasn’t drinking when he read it.
The Great Recession has done wonders for the Republican Party. Two years after being tossed out of power at every level, it’s about to waltz right back in, kicking aside the corpses of Democrats foolish enough to go along with the designs of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. This is good news for most conservatives. It’s slightly worse news for a smaller group of conservatives—namely, the ones who spent the end of the ’00s explaining why a Republican comeback like this was not really possible.
This piece is absolutely classic as all those like Sam Tanenhaus who’s book did so good on Amazon but somehow can’t wrap their head around what has happened.
Of course, to the horror of the smart set, this is exactly what is happening. The conservative base looked at any attempt to answer the Democrats on policy as a cave-in to socialism. When they’re making the case for their research, Douthat and Salam acknowledge that reality. But they argue that Republicans have been using their key insights anyway and that the hot rhetoric of the GOP obscures what actually happened.
Yup all those tea party people had nothing to do with it.
Read the whole thing, but don’t be drinking while you do.
In a proposed resolution, highly-regarded professor Elliott Kaufman suggested that the Faculty Senate ask the board to reconsider its decision, one he said was a conflict-of-interest and “inappropriately influenced by personal and political comments.”
He urged board members to “adhere to the ethical constraints that normally govern their meetings.”
“Isn’t this the new, squeaky-clean, highly-ethical board of trustees? What happened? It is worth airing the laundry here,” said Kaufman, who retired last year after serving in numerous faculty leadership positions, in an interview with the Tribune.
“The chair had a conflict of interest and he put the other trustees in an impossible position,” Kaufman said. “He drew a dotted line between the assassination of the Kennedy brothers and giving Bill Ayers emeritus status. The result is what we got and I just don’t think it was a fair way to do it.”
Jim Hoff cuts to the chase:
So, let’s see. A guy that has a history of despising the United States and committing armed insurrection against her, a guy that advocated for the violent deaths of any number of her citizens, a guy who, with his wife, actually participated in at least one bombing where a police officer was killed, a guy that has never expressed any remorse for his actions, and a guy that has never paid a price for his treasonous and murderous actions is just the sort of guy that the faculty of a prestigious university would go to the mat for? Is that what we have here?
Yep, it appears that terrorist William Ayers is just the kind of creep that university professors love.
Because nothing says “Emeritus status” more to University of Illinois professors than dedicating your book to the murderer of Robert Kennedy.
All I can think of is the Lion King: “You like him, he likes you, but he likes the Murderer of RFK…and everyone is OK with this?”
Q: What is the difference between a candidate the National Republican shuns and the National Republican party embraces:
Before anyone becomes carried away by the beauty of it all, it should be said that the developments are not really a Kumbaya moment. GOP officials have been astounded by the amount of money — $1 million — that O’Donnell has raised in the hours since her surprise primary victory over Republican Rep. Mike Castle. As much as anything, it is O’Donnell’s fundraising bonanza that is warming hearts at the NRSC. “We have 45 days until the election,” the source said. “We need to be united.”
How many thousands of $10 & $20 & $100 dollar donations did that include. How many voters does that add up to that you don’t want to get angry and hope to hit up for contributions later.
When you have one million in the bank it isn’t hard to get a date is it?
Update: Make sure you aren’t drinking when you read this quote from Karl “I was with her all the time” Rove:
Zakaria tries to dispose of this point in a subordinate clause conceding the efficacy of “serious countermeasures.” Zakaria decries a number of countermeasures that are supposedly excessive, but he nowhere bothers to make the case that they have not contributed to the prevention of another successful attack. He simply assumes the conclusion.