What's Mallard raving about today?
Hey look, another "Mallard footnote". I, for one, am shocked that the footnote leads to "Fox News" with no date, time, or program information.Ok, not really.
There's enough evidence to go to trial, so OBVIOUSLY they're guilty!Hey, isn't this the guy a coupla weeks ago whining about a murderer "being tried by the media"?
Mallard has a standing arrangement with Fox. If he can't pull a cite out of his feathery cloaca, he just footnotes it to Fox, notifies them a day in advance, and they'll start ginning up some outrage. If they have two days, they can have it featured in at least three shows.
Has anyone heard a thing about the case the Duck is referring to? I mean, is it possible it's a matter of someone who wasn't hired and who's right-wing but also old, or disabled, for example?I'm just thinking of an occasion some 10 or 12 years ago where one of the LA Times columnists decided to have a go at the political correctness piñata and claimed Arizona State U. had fired someone "for teaching Shakespeare". Of course, when I e-mailed him asking how such a thing was possible, he replied by making a snarky comment about ASU from a Pac-10 standpoint. Not a thing to back up the initial claim.So I'm wondering what it is here: A claim twisted from a quarter-truth, or an outright fabrication?
Mallard Fillmore forgot to mention that the professor was an evolution denier, and the other candidate, a Holocaust denier, had a more logical and well-supported belief system.Word Verification: Invoc erfery, Tinsley casts the world-destroying invocations of Erfery, God of Genocide and Hate.
Through Google, I found information about it in a NYTimes article, which likely was more informative than Fox (and more likely more original).Someone was mad because she didn't make the final selection for a law school faculty position, so sued, of course. There are any number of other reasons why the selected candidate could have been better, but she thought she was not liked because of being a Republican.
@Kip, Haha! It's funny because the basis of your post is that Mallard has some sort of influence with...well, anyone.
Ooh, that's good, Mallard. Now tell us the one about the George Mason University instructor who was fired and blacklisted after having the temerity to simply mention Intelligent Design in her class.* I think it's every bit as credible and deserving of outrage as the case you mention here.*http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker
The appellate court decision doesn't imply that she's right or that she'll win.All it does is state that the lower court acted inappropriately in accepting the respondent's defense of qualified immunity as sufficient reason to dismiss the case.It's also worth mentioning that this appellate decision was issued in December 2011.
You can find the appellate decision at http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/11/12/102588P.pdf .If Tinshley weren't so stupid, he could have provided the casename (Wagner v. Jones) so people can look it up for themselves and make their own decision. But of course making your own decision is not what being conservative is about.
@rewinn, when you're so lazy that "research" is cribbing from Fox News details like the actual case number can't be expected. This kind of ignorance is actually applauded on the right. Anyone pointing it out is an elitist snob.
@CW I'm -in- Iowa, and this is the first I've heard of this case.Quick skim of the case (thanks for knowing how citations work, Rewinn) the key crux is that Wagner is assuming that she was not hired due to her political views. There's evidence of nepotism towards previous students, but hardly anything that proves Wagner's claim.Of course, one cherry picked example proves that there's a wide-spread, systematic hatred of conservatives in the education system! Especially in the hot-bed of liberalism: IOWA!Also, only stupid liberals comment on cases before knowing all the facts.
Also, the fact that Bruce was brought up on traffic charges proves he was guilty of them. That's the game we're playing here, right, Duckwad?
Here's where we see WHY Batshit has an addiction to word salad. It's the only way he can twist and spin reality (and its damn liberal bias) to suit his dogma.And then, of course, in the next panel he pulls his beloved Liberal Hypocrisy meme back out of his ass.However, timing again betrays its liberal bias against Batshit: Daily Caller wrongwingers are reportedly howling in "excited" triumph that Scumbag Dick Cheney is "ten times" more popular than Scumbag John Edwards.Booman Tribune's Steve M. points out the flaw in their celebration:Yes, Dick Cheney is far more popular than John Edwards, for an obvious reason -- or, rather, a two-part obvious reason:(1) When Democrats and liberals notice that one of our own is unambiguously a scumbag, we reject that person.(2) When one of our own is unambiguously a scumbag, we actually notice the obvious scumbaggery, which is what leads to rejection.Republicans do neither of these things, which is why they still love Dick Cheney.
Also, "refused to hire" is a lot different from not making the final cut in a highly competitive selection.
Unless it's become 2004 again, I'm not sure why we're supposed to give a poop that Dick Cheney is more popular than John Edwards.Haven't both their careers been over for several years now?
I'm pretty sure Cheney's career is still festering where we don't see much of it, like some disease.
Post a Comment