Posts Tagged ‘charles johnson’

…as King Charles the Pious (peace be upon him)declares concerning the Rush stuff:

The quote is disputed, but it has not been proven false.

Tough words concerning an honorary lizardoid.

So now we have to prove that someone never said anything rather than provide a link or a quote. After all we can’t prove that he didn’t sing this in his shower one day. Noted Cherry Picker Tim Blair quotes from Mark Stein but I think this quote from the same link is more significant:

when I began guest-hosting for Rush, I was amazed to discover that George Soros pays a team of stenographers, many of them called Zachary, to work their tippy-tappy fingers to the bone for three hours transcribing everything Rush or his fill-ins say in the hope that their efforts will one day be rewarded and he will deliver the big career-detonating soundbite. Among the afficionados of this service are, as I discovered recently, America’s “newspaper of record,” which faithfully follows the George Soros typing pool and dutifully plasters any potentially damaging bon mot on page one.

And, aside from all that, 20 million people are out there listening.

If this had any truth about it do you think it would only be coming up in the context of buying a NFL franchise? This would have been trumped from the MSM everywhere years ago. This as you might recall is the same argument I made weeks ago concerning his slander of Robert Stacy McCain:

Apparently the importance to expose that racist, neo confederate and White supremacist Evil that is Robert Stacy McCain was so great that Charles waited until Robert Stacy McCain posted 5,071 entries on his blog on his blog before exposing him.

He was so outraged by Glenn Reynolds linking to him that he waited until his 21st instalance (yes that’s 20 instalances more than me, feel free to suggest to Glenn that I deserve another) to denounce him for it. Apparently he wanted to give Glenn every chance to change his mind.

and Robert Stacy asked a similar question at his own blog.

Wasn’t it just yesterday that I was saying this:

Q: What are the three most harmful developments for the liberal agenda in history?

A: The Personal Computer , The Affordable Digital Camera, and the Internet because it makes it impossible to hide stuff

Apparently according to King Charles the Pious (peace be upon him) that same standard is not true when it comes to Rush. It IS possible to hide stuff, the same guy who was able to find the pictures and signs of Fauxphotography declares it unnecessary to even try to verify this stuff. That’s because there is no there there, he can’t even come up with dubious links this time.

Speaking of Cynthia Yockey back in September she said this:

Then I had another thought: isn’t it a remarkable coincidence that CJ began his vendetta against Stacy just after Stacy and Dan Riehl succeeded in shutting down the foremost lying liar Leftie bloggers who were the origins of so many lies about Gov. Sarah Palin? Just as Gov. Palin put herself in a position to fight their libels by stepping down — the grounds for libel are different for private citizens — and just as Dan Riehl and Stacy McCain proved that unflattering amounts of sunshine were going to flood down upon the blogs and lives of the lying liar anti-Palin bloggers — suddenly Stacy McCain is under relentless and groundless attack.

Hmmmmm, I thought to myself. Hmmmmmmm.

So I called Stacy to tell him I was planning to write a post asking whether Charles Johnson is being paid to conduct this campaign by Obama’s post-election minions, Organizing for America, and he told me he didn’t think so.

I said before he reminded me of an aunt of mine who was running of of people to talk to as she dropped people in the six degree style.

However the Global warming stuff is science, stuff that can actually be measured and King Charles the Pious (peace be upon him) claims to a patron of the sciences:

So as the evidence has changed to a degree that the Climate Change correspondent for the BBC actually questioned Global Warming Charles Johnson has managed to be convinced in the other direction.

What is one to think?

I think the fight is over and Robert Stacy has won, Charles has jumped the shark so far that the round by round stuff isn’t worth my time or the prospective hits one might get from it. Johnson’s positions are not supportable and can’t stand scrutiny. They are no longer worthy of serious consideration…

…but they are still worthy or ridicule so in that spirit…

Last month I had a poll concerning Charles motivations with Robert Stacy. So lets start a new poll.

Update: Added link and quote

Update 2: You know was it not even two months ago that King Charles the Pious derided the conservative blogosphere for the standard they used to condemn Van Jones?

When this “news” came out, I spent hours searching the web for any corroboration at all in Jones’ own words that he believes the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy by the US government.

Apparently the “hours on the web standard” doesn’t apply to Rush Limbaugh honorary lizardoid.

But Charles insists he is a Racist ,
And Charles is a reputable blogger…

Update 3: Looks like the left is dancing like the White Witch in front of the stone alter but be careful what you celebrate.

This is going to be a big mess for a lot of people, and none of them are Rush.

A: Both shut down those who question them.

Tim Blair Oct 1st:

UPDATE II. And now I’m blocked:

Forbidden

You don’t have permission to access this server.

Oh well.

Al Gore the same month:

At a conference of environmental journalists, however, he briefly deigned to answer questions. The journalist who directed Not Evil, Just Wrong, a documentary that criticizes Gore’s alarmism, took advantage of the opportunity to ask Gore about the British judge who found that there were at least nine scientific errors in Gore’s film. The exchange is pretty entertaining; it ends with the journalist’s microphone being cut off:

When your opinions can stand up on their own, you aren’t obsessed with criticism. That would also explain this.

On Oct Post Tim Blair dared to tweak King Charles the Pious with the following post:

Then.

Now.

UPDATE:

Then. Then. Then.

Now. Now. Now.

Charles answer included the following:

Tim Blair seems to believe I was supposed to toe the right wing line on climate change forever. Now that I’ve invested the time and effort to educate myself on the issues and have changed my mind, I’m an unfaithful monkey who must be stoned.

But the Gods of Irony do not like to be mocked:

The climate change correspondent of BBC News has admitted that global warming stopped in 1998 – and he reports that leading scientists believe that the earth’s cooling-off may last for decades.

“Whatever happened to global warming?” is the title of an article by Paul Hudson that represents a clear departure from the BBC’s fanatical espousal of climate change orthodoxy. The climate change campaigners will go nuts, particularly in the run-up to Copenhagen. So, I suspect, will devout believers inside the BBC. Hudson’s story was not placed very prominently by his colleagues – but a link right at the top of Drudge will have delivered at least a million page views, possibly many more.

The actual BBC story is here:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Damion Thompson asks the question:

The BBC now has serious questions to answer. It has used millions of pounds of licence-payers’ money to advance a simplistic point of view that is beginning to fall apart under scrutiny. Did it not foresee that this might happen? And, now that statistics are beginning to point in the other direction, is it prepared to give equal prominence to a debate about climate change that is both respectable and urgent?

So as the evidence has changed to a degree that the Climate Change correspondent for the BBC actually questioned Global Warming Charles Johnson has managed to be convinced in the other direction.

There has been speculation that LGF is on the gravy train. Robert Stacy disagrees:

Some commenters have speculated that Johnson is now on the Soros gravy train, a conspiratorial suspicion that violates Occam’s Razor. Johnson surely isn’t a sellout, for this would mean that he had been bribed to betray some important principle or to dishonor some obligation of loyalty.

Yet no one has ever offered evidence that Charles Foster Johnson ever had any principle or honor, and or that he was ever loyal to anyone but himself. He has been consistently vicious and selfish, and this only escaped notice so long as it served Johnson’s interests to deceive those whose assistance he sought in advancing his own self-aggrandizing agenda.

I was in that camp for quite a while but the Global warming issue isn’t something that was a part of any kind of vendetta or a key issue for any of the people that Charles was feuding with. Combine this with the fact that the evidence is actually going the other way and this story:

Billionaire George Soros said on Saturday that he would invest $1 billion in clean energy technology as part of an effort to combat climate change.

and I must confess I just don’t know what to think anymore.

Update: Given my not knowing a new poll is in order.

…then you are really doing well.

Congratulations Charles you’ve managed to get your slanderous attack on Robert Stacy McCain actually repeated in a Newspaper in Charleston West Va.

Now Don Surber writes for a paper in the same city (Charleston daily mail) so far be it from me to deride the state but I suspect that this was based on the clip from Rachel Maddow via LGF now that’s sourcing for you!

So to try to score a cheap shot against Sarah Palin they have committed an actionable offense. Once they repeated that claim in print and online it became so. And since the paper is on the net so if it’s picked up by a paper or a blogger in the UK. Robert Stacy and co might even choose to sue under British Libel laws.

Robert Stacy has already taken the first step demanding a retraction:

Over the years, this malicious campaign against my reputation has metastasized spectacularly on the Internet, as individuals and organizations with various political or personal motives have elaborated and repeated them. Some of the original sources for these accusations (e.g., a column by Michelangelo Signorile) contained factual errors, which have been incorporated into the urban-legend mythology, producing a Gordian Knot of non-fact that is not worth the effort it would take to unravel it. Like ancient Alexander, however, I am prepared to swing the sword. Retract, please.

These charges have, as I say, taken on an Internet life of their own. However, never before have they been published in a print newspaper. Whatever malice against the former governor of Alaska inspired your publisher, editors and writers to undertake this false and dishonorable guilt-by-association smear, it was a most foolish blunder. Retract, please.

Congratulations Charles you now have a chance to make Robert Stacy a fair amount of change and to have your charges refuted in a court of law and it will likely not cost you a cent. Then again if he is already going to court one more person in the doc won’t make a difference will it? You will make a real great witness at the trial. I suggest deleting those Archives asap.