Posts Tagged ‘dishonorable’

When Lisa Murkowski lost her primary and decided to go write in the GOP decided to play it with kid gloves, after all they all knew her, it’s not like she was going to go and caucus with democrats…oh wait:

Dana Bash of CNN reports on Twitter that Murkowski said republicans should not count on her to be with them

Bottom line is this. If Murkowski won’t declare she will caucus with republicans we must assume a vote for Murkowski is a vote for Obama. If she is elected she will become the media darling, the “reasonable” republican that will be on every show talking “compromise”, in other words, she will be Dede.

Alaska it’s your state not mine, but this tells you the compromise candidates the GOP establishment backs are not worth a damn. Their only principle is the retention of their own power. If you choose to empower the administration by voting for Murkowski then you deserve all you get from her.

Your vote, your call and as always whatever your call on Tuesday, you will get the government you deserve.

…you come for all of us faculty at the University of Illinois:

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?”

…you know I’ve always assumed that some traumatic personal effect had a lot to do with Charles Johnson’s volte fache over the last couple of years. That along with an ability to hold a grudge is bad news indeed.

However now apparently Charles is crossing a line in blogger etiquette that I wouldn’t have thought was beneath him:

it turns out, every link in that post to one of charles’ posts regarding the flight 93 memorial is dead now. so here’s a screenshot to show that google’s spiders, with their indifferent eyes, have recorded charles’ deceit.

and Wrist action using a bit of irony in his follow up post. I won’t rob him of the link go and check it out.

Now when I’ve spotted grammar errors on old posts I’ve fixed them but this type of stuff is just plain dishonorable. Considering the season and the excitement going on it’s a great time to do it in hopes that it is ignored. As one of the oldest blogs and one I at one time defended I’m very disappointed. Tim Blair has the perfect line:

Little Green Footballs is becoming littler by the day.

Ironically his dishonorable attacks on Robert Stacy McCain and my banning led to our friendship, the Scott Brown stuff, CPAC the Tea Party express coverage and my recent trip to Blogcon. This only goes to show that God takes even bad things and can use it for good.

I’ll keep praying for Charles, and you should too, not in the hopes that he changes political sides again but I’d like him to get over whatever is troubling him.

Life is too short to spend it angry.

…that doesn’t mean it’s either smart or honorable.

This strikes me as troubling. Not because Petraeus is wrong; on the contrary, I think he is probably right. Already, mobs in Pakistan have demonstrated against the planned Koran burning by, among other things, burning American flags. History, e.g. the homicidal response to the Danish cartoons and the false report, circulated by the American press, that U.S. soldiers had flushed a Koran down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay, suggest that Petraeus’ fears are well founded.

Moreover, I personally am not in favor of burning Korans. My advice to the Florida church would be, don’t do it.

Still, is it not highly problematic when a senior military officer warns American citizens against exercising their undoubted First Amendment rights? This situation is different from the Koran-down-the-toilet story. We criticized news outlets at the time for endangering American troops, but that was mostly because the story was false. Presumably we can all agree that newspapers and magazines should not circulate false reports that endanger our troops. But what about accurate stories of Americans exercising their constitutional right to criticize Islam by burning Korans?

In one respect this is similar to the ground zero mega mosque. In both cases the people in question have a legal right to do what they intend. It both cases it is not only insensitive but provocative.

In the end we are going to have to fight to defend these people’s right to be glory seeking idiots. The provocation of course doesn’t make any violence by those offended justified, in fact it will simply prove their barbarity and insecurity

Update: Saw the preacher on the air declare this as a statement against Sharia law and for the 1st amendment, that’s a pretty good and strong argument but this still doesn’t sit right with me.