shibumiglass on April 22, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Shipley is a troll that Ed has always tolerated.

Not surprisingly, some have read that passage to mean that Diamond turned $250,000 into $30 million, while others have read it to mean $250,000 into $20 million. But if you sell something for $30 million and you profited by $20 million, then what was y…

Tom_Shipley on April 22, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Hey now……..has anyone seen Kos and Tom in the same room?????

JK TOM!

I still think KOS and Huffington are jokes though. Just go get a read on the bitter folks posting over there!

Carry on, everyone!

But yes, I am a Marxist. There was no better comedy team.

I probably go too far in calling this site a joke…
Tom_Shipley on April 22, 2008 at 12:22 PM

Please, then, just apologize to HA for that, then we can all continue debating and educating each other like adults.
Cool?
:)

The NYT is up to it again, with yet another hit piece that lacks crucial evidence that would, of course, essentially relegate the story to a mere blip on the radar screen (via Memeo):
Donald R. Diamond, a wealthy Arizona real estate developer, was raci…

…a tame, well-researched and politically relevant article…

Tom_Shipley on April 22, 2008 at 12:22 PM

Thanks for the giggles. :)
Sir, you should be embarassed.

2 questions:

1. are the links below associated with you?
2. If so, are you a marxist? (noting your admiration of che & Das Kapital

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=70302176

http://www.facebook.com/people/Tom_Shipley/121203048

http://www.spock.com/Tom-Shipley?highlight=true

The outrage has gotten off to a slow start…

http://www.dailykos.com/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Just like they still hammer the Halliburton crapola. Never once acknowledging that Bill Clinton gave Halliburton no bid contracts when he was POTUS. It’s because Halliburton was the only company that could do the job required.

Yes, I will also be screaming “Rezko”, “William Ayers” and “Rev. Wright” for weeks and months too, because the NYT, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN would rather forget about these relevant items because it damages “the Savior” BO.

Lets do a quick compare of ‘negative’ stories about Obama and McCain.

Obama:
Attended a church that practices Black Liberation Theology, a openly anti-white doctrine, and run by a Pastor who routinely makes, what most would consider, racist comments.

Has met and worked with and even sought political help from a well known terrorist (Ayers) who has never denounced his violent past.

Had dealings with Tony Rezko, a land developer currently indicted for money laundering, extortion, bribery and who has been investigated for influence peddling. Obama and Rezko then bought adjacent lots after both toured the Obama lot, together; Obama for below market, Rezko for market value.

So all three stories go toward character issues as to who Obama chooses to interact with. The Rezko story has the added punch of creating a very clear appearance of impropriety (even Obama has said that) even if no laws were broken.

McCain:
Some staffers thought his connections with a female lobbyist could look suspect and that some people might think the could be having an affair. No pattern of voting in her favor could be determined even after a several month investigation.

He sponsored 2 bills which involved land swaps between the federal government and his friend, Mr. Diamond. Both deals were done in the open and had the support of various government agencies involved as well as several prominent environmental groups. And once again no pattern of favorable voting could be found between McCain and Diamond.

He has a temper. This one has been backed up by several people who have worked with or around the senator.

The first story could be something of interest if they could find anyone who could support the affair idea (which they could not), the voting in her favor part, even though put forward in the story, is proven false by the article itself (though not exactly present as such).

The second story has absolutely no appearance of impropriety since McCain followed every rule in sponsoring the two bills in question and there is not even the appearance of personal gain. Even his written recommendations come with the caveat that Diamond should receive no preferential treatment if anything about the deals in question are suspect.

The third is a legitimate story because it does speak to character and it can be backed up with eye witness accounts (though even there the media has saw fit to publish accounts with very little or only anonymous sources). The only issue is, to the best of my knowledge, there is no indication of his temper actually preventing him from doing his job nor does a temper really indicate a particular theology.

So really, there is not much to compare on the negative story front. Obama’s are all well documented while McCains are mostly hearsay. Now they could do a negative story on McCains association with Juan Hernandez (who holds some pretty radical views on borders) but since is a position the vast majority of the MSM supports, you’re not likely to see too many of those.

I don’t leave because I think this stuff needs to be challenged. And yes, I am caustic at times. I freely admit it. And I probably go too far in calling this site a joke, but the sheer hypocrisy of watching Ed and Allah hammer Obama with wildly distorted accounts of minute/irrelevant details, then turn around and slam the Times for a tame, well-researched and politically relevant article is quite stunning.

Gee, someone sneezes and there’s a post on here about how Obama didn’t say God bless you, but Gesundheit, thus is a liberal facist and not a god-fearing American, but whenever the NYTimes writes a factual and even-handed story on McCains political career, it’s accussed on “making a mountain out of a mole hill.”

Dude. You’re trolling, right?

this site is really turning into a joke.

Tom_Shipley on April 22, 2008 at 9:29 AM

So you just keep coming for the laughs? Really, why don’t you leave, instead of insulting? Do you realize how this makes you look? As a person? You know, character and stuff?

Again, it’s funny/sad.

Did you read the article in the New York Times today implying that John McCain sold political favors to an Arizona real estate developer that is also big campaign donor? I’m no McCain fan, but after reading all four pages,……

Despite Obama receiving tons of negative coverage while McCain has all but received a free pass, you guys STILL play the media bias card.

It’s all just terrible funny/sad.

Tom_Shipley on April 22, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Go back to updating your Obamassiah shrine.

Comparing the Rezko deal to one in which McCain didn’t personally benefit from, enjoyed wide support, and was backed by such noted members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy as the Sierra Club is ridiculous.

You see this story as “even handed”? Though it conspicuously leaves out very pertinent info and leaves false impressions, such as the one suggesting that environmental groups were opposed to such land swaps that added acreage to parks?

Seriously- if you have nothing substantive to say other than childish whining over negative stories about Hopey McChangerton, perhaps another blog such as Kos or DU would suit you better. Pointless whining is quite welcome there.

I guess the Sierra Club is spending too much time lobbying Congress and busily ignoring the very real damage to habitat that illegal immigration causes.
The NY Times tries to smack John McCain around yet again (I’m starting to wonder if this is s…

Now, this is funny. After months of constant attacks and stories on Obama, one slightly negative story on McCain is published and the whines from Hot Air begin like clock work!

Despite Obama receiving tons of negative coverage while McCain has all but received a free pass, you guys STILL play the media bias card.

It’s all just terrible funny/sad.