It’s been good for my numbers but it’s not good for mind or the soul to obsess on this or any matter. So here is what I’m going to do:
I’m going to limit myself to one post on the subject a day (not including the round by round), the last post today on the subject will be round 7 (and an exciting round it has been so far) later tonight. I’ll of course still answer comments on these threads. Tomorrow I’ll have a single post in the morning and perhaps round 8 at night or I’ll combine the two of them into one in the evening.
But there is cleaning in the house to do, a $20 bill missing that I’ve got to find, my amazon vine thing coming up, Rush on Leno and Dinner for the family that needs buying and cooking and other assorted errands and phone calls to make.
Those things are known as real lifeand I’ve got to make sure I don’t neglect it.
Any blogger or user is welcome to sign it, as principle 20 states the act of signing it doesn’t represent an enforcement of this blog, it’s author, or any other signatory of the statement, nor does it suggest anyone on the list even likes each other. I would expect for example that Both Robert Stacy McCain and Charles Johnson could sign said statement without issue and I invite them both to do so.
As all comments are moderated here if you sign the statement then your signature will not appear until I get around to approving it, the wait time is solely dependent on if I’m on the PC and signed into the blog.
If you catch any typos etc that I missed on it let me know.
the first time the Tag Robert Stacy McCain is used was during Charles Attack on Stephen Green on September 12th 2009 (11 days ago).
If you search for the string rather than the tag, the first entry is September 12th 2009.
If you search for the string “The Other McCain” the first entry on LGF is September 12 of this year.
If you search for the string “stacy McCain” The first entry is, you guessed it, September 12th 2009.
The Phrase “R. S. McCain” produces no results, if you search for “Robert McCain” it yields no results.
Yesterday Charles attacked Glenn Reynolds for his link to Robert Stacy Yesterday and made it a point to leave that post up as high as possible today.
Also note that even Glenn Reynolds is now linking with approval to McCain. Here’s Instapundit denouncing neo-Confederates in 2005.
Now he’s praising them.
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.
My questions to Charles are these:
Why is that until Robert Stacy McCain wasn’t worthy of exposure until after September 12th of this year?
Why wasn’t he worthy of a tag until he started fighting back against you?
Did you mean to get to exposing him sooner or later but just didn’t get around to it?
Credibility is a precious commodity. Charles; I’m afraid you’re overdrawn.
Update: Moved a block quote to not include my introduction, also 21 chances, sounds like the New York Yankees and Steve Howe.
Update 2: Apparently Mr. McCain’s is so notorious a hater that the Wild Irish Rose blog who approvingly links to Charles latest attack on him didn’t find his extreme hated worth a post of denunciation in the entire history of the blog until today. Maybe they just didn’t get around to it till now, life is a busy thing you know..
However they weren’t too busy to turn on registration on comments after putting up the post. Amazing how speech rules tighten when you start to follow Charles.
Me I use moderation rather than registration, I hate giving my info and only have done so very rarely, but their blog not mine.
Update 3: The man himself puts it better than I have then again he ought to, he writes for money:
Are Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (Diana West, Richard Miniter, et al.) fascist sympathizers, as Charles Johnson has repeatedly alleged? All four of the individuals named are persons known to me, and I am utterly certain that these allegations against them are false. That Robert Spencer may have an unfortunate habit of sending “seething e-mails” (a temptation to which I have at times yielded myself) is known to me, but does not cause me to suspect him of being a crypto-fascist.
If I know that Charles Johnson has lied about people whom I know, and whose bona fides I have no reason to doubt, the question arises as to Johnson’s motive.
ya want motive just scroll up and hit the “beck” choice in the poll
But Clinton not only couldn’t bring herself to criticize it, she also attacked Petraeus’ honesty: “The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,” she huffed to the general Tuesday.
And she slammed him (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker) as “de facto spokesmen for a failed policy,” pointedly refusing to criticize the ad – which called him an outright liar who’d “betray” his nation.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed back against the US military’s blunt warning that the battle against insurgents in Afghanistan would likely be lost within a year without more US troops.
Clinton’s comments in an interview with PBS television late Monday came amid reports that the Pentagon has asked General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, to delay a request for more troops.
Clinton expressed “respect” for McChrystal’s assessment that the United States would likely lose the war in Afghanistan within a year without more US forces.
“But I can only tell you there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite,”
Well at least she said it with a bit less venom.
Let’s hope this president gives Mrs. Clinton opinion the same weight that it was given the last time.
What is this thing with generals? Next thing you know she will be going after General Hospital.
There’s this anonymous quote from one observer: “He can send more troops and it will be a disaster and he will destroy the Democratic party. Or he can send no more troops and it will be a disaster and the Republicans will say he lost the war.” Isn’t this extraordinary? Obama will roil the Democratic party by sending more troops to fight the war that Democrats have said for years is the “necessary war” (in Obama’s words), the central war in the fight against terror, etc., etc. It’s hard to imagine a starker demonstration of bad faith on an important issue of national security.
No sign of the idea of WINNING the “formerly necessary war“! Maybe they didn’t mean it. It was so bad like that on Morning Joe where they were saying the problem was the people stuck on the idea of winning I had to change the channel.
That’s liberals for you. Pass Obamacare and put the cost on our children and grandchildren, Concede defeat and pass the danger and the risks on to our children and grandchildren.
It is for this reason more than any other that Glenn Beck is all wet when it comes to McCain v Obama. He might have been poor on domestic issues but he damn well wouldn’t sell out the country when it comes to the war. We wouldn’t have to worry about defense being ignored period.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 