Lay off McClelland
A comment from Robert McClelland:
Your flying monkeys are now sending me hatemail accusing me of threatening your children. If I get one more you and I are going to be meeting face to face to discuss this matter.
OK, I haven't seen the emails, but I'll assume they exist. I didn't send them. Nor do I condone them. More than that, and more than McClelland is willing to say with regards to Deb Frisch's vile comments, I'll say that anyone who levels that sort of allegation at McClelland is guilty of the same thing Frisch is.
My point has always been the same: McClelland has provided moral support to a person who has admitted to making vile comments about the young son of a conservative blogger, using an infamous child murder as the basis of a cruel taunt. McClelland has never said that the comments were unacceptable, and has gone further to say that Frisch should not have lost her job but remained working as a teacher. One wonders just what one has to do to be ineligible to mold young minds in McClelland's estimation.
To me, McClelland's choice to support Frisch makes him unwelcome in civilized company. And certainly not welcome in my company. As a father with young children, anyone, including McClelland, who takes Frisch's side on this without at least condemning the remarks she made has to be watched carefully. Just what sort of value does he put on children?
I don't care to know.
But to make it clear, McClelland's moral failure is not the same as a threat. I said so in my original post. Anyone who thinks otherwise about McClelland is wrong, and anyone who has made that allegation needs to retract it immediately. Failure to do so makes you no better than Frisch or McClelland.
And a face-to-face is never going to happen, McClelland. I have addressed the issue in this post. Deal with it yourself. You know what you need to do.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
aww poor wittle jew hating neo nazi commie is upset. i feel sooo bad.
maybe if he stopped encouraging hatred and violence against others, he wouldn't get into the problems. but of course f*** the jews isn't anti-semitic, nor is spray painting that on a building.
go back to ze zerbhrer rubert and stop annoying the adults.
Posted by: Hey at July 12, 2006 03:42 PM
of course "discuss this face to face" IS a threat, and is one against someone publicising rubert's comments, rather than those individuals who are sending rubert unpleasant (and possibly illegal) emails.
just shows you rubert's true colours, as if we needed further proof.
Rubert, why aren't you booking a trip to lebanon, so that you can confront the true source of evil in this world head on? It's much easier to join up with those folks than with an effective force in the WOT like the SAS, SEALS, Rangers, etc.
Posted by: hey at July 12, 2006 03:46 PM
McClelland was a weenie, is a weenie and always will be a weenie.
A diseased weenie, but a weenie nonetheless. We should actually feel sorry for a human being with his afflictions, except sorrow won't help him. He is beyond help, or hope or that matter.
He fits in sooooooooooooo well with all the other weenies & mental midgets that make up the NDP Collective of Moonbats, morons & losers.
Socialism & the NDP . . self inflicted wounds.
Posted by: Fred at July 12, 2006 03:51 PM
Ah, the joy of discussing ideas.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 12, 2006 04:00 PM
If someone wants to meet face to face, given the context here , it could easily be taken as confrontational. For what purpose would face to face be necessary? Bottom line, some individuals perhaps would be better ignored if there can be no constructive or reasonable dialogue. Why risk being taken down to their level,it's not worth it.
Posted by: Liz J at July 12, 2006 04:25 PM
Hey Robert, if you are reading this - what are your comments about the New Brunswick gasoline price regulations and the problems they have created? You vociferously defended price regulation in Nova Scotia...
http://taxpayersfederation.blogspot.com/2006/05/this-is-going-to-end-poorly.html
Do you still think government meddling in private markets is a good idea? You usually trot out the tired leftist rhetoric about war mongers and evil corporations - care to comment about the evil hand of big government?
Posted by: at July 12, 2006 04:34 PM
Robert is indeed a weenie....but far worse than his idiotic posts, are his abilities to be boring no matter how hystrionic he becomes. The guy is a tool....and the only people who actually place any credence in Roberts' intellectually vacuous posts.....are his fellow dimwits and haters.
Hey Rob.....you say you have never threatened Steve's kids....but if someone else did, would it disturb you?
What if they were Jewish?
Robert....you are a loser, and no doubt are still angry because of all the kids who used to steal your lunch money at school. Here's a hint Robert....those kids who terrified you in school....are all grown up now. You should follow suit.
Posted by: JamesHalifax at July 12, 2006 05:17 PM
Don't let Robert fool you. He Loooves the attention. He gets so little attention on his own blog that he trolls around on other blogs trying to get a response. This is just giving him a chance to act tough and encourages people to send him more email - which is what his actions demonstrate he wants.
Posted by: ward at July 12, 2006 05:56 PM
To summarize your take on this: McClelland's refusal to fully condemn Frisch's insults and his expressed view that those insults should necessarily have led to her being fired renders him someone that you don't want around your kids. Fine.
But not very meaningful. If I had kids, I wouldn't want most of the people I meet on the street to have any interactions with them whatsoever. That doesn't mean that I would say so to them. And it sure as shit doesn't mean that I'd go on my blog (especially if I got as many hits as you do) and write, "[specific person], stay away from my kids." Surely you realize that the rhetorical punch of that sentence is significantly harder than you make out in your legalistic protestation of innocence here.
Sorry for diverging from the herd (one that I have a great deal of affection for), but this and the other post rubbed me the wrong way.
Posted by: Peter at July 12, 2006 06:16 PM
Sorry, should have been, "those insults should not necessarily have led to her being fired..."
Posted by: Peter at July 12, 2006 06:18 PM
Dibs on the right for the photos and video of the meeting!!
;->
Posted by: Stephen at July 12, 2006 06:36 PM
Actually, Peter, on Frisch's blog Robbo went further than "not fully condemning her views." His message (I'm not going to bother going back to find it - one trip through the swamp is enough, thanks) was along the lines of "you've done nothing wrong, there is no reason to resign, hang tough and the right-whingers will move on to another target." To me, it read more like an endorsement than even a mild or half-hearted condemnation.
Posted by: DCardno at July 12, 2006 06:38 PM
Me thinks this bodes not well for McClelland. Following one threat with another is not going to get him anywhere. An apology and retraction are the only thing thats going to get the monkeys off his back.
He made this bed, he's going to have to sleep in it till he decide's to change the sheets
Posted by: Moneybags4me at July 12, 2006 06:48 PM
Why does anyone still pay any attention to RM?
Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 12, 2006 06:58 PM
Peter:
What Steve has done is essentially the same thing that Robert did with his "F the Jews" post and Christian-symbol-mocking imagery. In essence, it is a rhetorical trap designed to allow the trapper to further heap discredit upon the prey.
The main difference is that while Robert was trying to trap a specific *class* of people, Steve targeted a *specific* person.
Actionable? No, because Steve's post is too carefully worded. But the reason why Robert's making noises about lawyers is that, unlike his own traps, he cannot flip this into an attack on his ideological "enemies" as such. Indeed, dwelling on it would damage his own mainstream credibility further because it gives his "opponents" more opportunity to hammer in the fact that he wrote in support of Deb Frisch.
And the only way out of this, short of legal action, is one his own pride will not let him take. To repudiate his own statements would be, in fact, to capitulate to his "right-whingers," something that really would reduce him both in the eyes of his sycophants and his own.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at July 12, 2006 10:32 PM
Phantom has it right... McLa-La-Land would never repudiate his own statements. How many times has he been caught in completely misrepresenting an issue as a "bad, bad right-whinger" topic when it had nothing to do with the right?
I've caught him two or three times myself, and has he ever admitted he was wrong? No. He simply stops posting in the entry he has been shown in error and makes several new, small entires to get that one off the front page of his blog as quickly as he can.
This is where we see the difference between Steve Janke and Bobbie McLa-La-Land. If Steve is ever shown in error, he is man enough to admit it. McLa-La-Land? He's too full of pride to admit to a mistake.
Posted by: Surecure at July 13, 2006 06:59 AM
its not pride he's full of
Posted by: point of order at July 13, 2006 07:44 AM
Watch out folks, NDPers are not known to be rational. You never know what they are going to do, this includes threats such as McClelland has made to Steve.
Posted by: None at July 13, 2006 09:44 AM
...this includes threats such as McClelland has made to Steve
Since it bears repeating, the only threat made has been a legal one, apparently holding me responsible for the teasing he has had to endure over this.
Posted by: Steve Janke at July 13, 2006 11:39 AM
Hey Steve,
I teach a martial arts class on Saturday in TO. You can always welcome to attend for free.
Posted by: capt joe at July 13, 2006 05:37 PM
 
|
|
