A developer, his deals and his ties to McCain

Superfreak said:
There is no limit to your ability to try to pull shit out of your ass in a desperate attempt to say...."see McCain does it too"

I note you didn't provide any substance to your critic of my response. Just the vague implication that I would blindly defend McCain.

I am guessing you have nothing to say on the remainder.... right?
Click to expand...


I've been down this road with you before after it was revealed that McCain wrote to the FCC regarding Dobson communications. I'd really prefer not to go through the exercise again. It's like the Chappelle Show skit where Dave is playing a potential juror in the R. Kelly trial. Except it's not funny. It's embarrassing.

No thanks.
 
Dungheap said:
I've been down this road with you before after it was revealed that McCain wrote to the FCC regarding Dobson communications. I'd really prefer not to go through the exercise again. It's like the Chappelle Show skit where Dave is playing a potential juror in the R. Kelly trial. Except it's not funny. It's embarrassing.

No thanks.
Click to expand...

He wrote a letter and was reprimanded for it. Yes... he tried to get a decision from the FCC that had been in the works for TWO years. He asked for a DECISION... he did not state which way they should decide or try to influence which way they decided. He just wanted to get them off their ass and make a decision.

But again, you try to spin away from the current topic by bringing up the old failed attempt hoping in vain that somehow that idiocy would work the second time around. But alas, tis not to be.
 
Superfreak said:
He wrote a letter and was reprimanded for it. Yes... he tried to get a decision from the FCC that had been in the works for TWO years. He asked for a DECISION... he did not state which way they should decide or try to influence which way they decided. He just wanted to get them off their ass and make a decision.

But again, you try to spin away from the current topic by bringing up the old failed attempt hoping in vain that somehow that idiocy would work the second time around. But alas, tis not to be.
Click to expand...



Again, I refer you the The Chappelle Show, Episode #209.
 
Superfreak said:
yes, quite the source material for defending you position. Go watch the Chappelle Show.

I in turn suggest you watch Abbott and Costello.
Click to expand...


Fine, I'll engage.

First, McCain says things like this, that are laughably false: "I've never done any favors for anybody -- lobbyist or special-interest group. That's a clear, 24-year record."

He's done plenty of favors for plenty of people, lobbyists and special interests alike, unless, of course, lobbyists for Dobson Communications aren't lobbysits and mega-developers like Donald Diamond are not special interests.

Second, it's pretty clear that McCain used his influence to benefit Mr. Diamond. If you think a meeting brokered by the Republican Senator from Arizona who sits on the Armed Services committee between the Army and a land developer who is trying to buy land from the Army in California is the ordinary course of business you're kidding yourself. Same with the ranking member (chairman?) of the commerce committee writing to the FCC.

If that doesn't sway you, what about McCain's legislation requiring the government to purchase Mr. Diamond's land for $23 million? Nothing there either, huh?

He does favors for people that give him money. I don't want to think about what he does to get his allowance from his wife.
 
Dungheap said:
Fine, I'll engage.

First, McCain says things like this, that are laughably false: "I've never done any favors for anybody -- lobbyist or special-interest group. That's a clear, 24-year record."

He's done plenty of favors for plenty of people, lobbyists and special interests alike, unless, of course, lobbyists for Dobson Communications aren't lobbysits and mega-developers like Donald Diamond are not special interests.

Second, it's pretty clear that McCain used his influence to benefit Mr. Diamond. If you think a meeting brokered by the Republican Senator from Arizona who sits on the Armed Services committee between the Army and a land developer who is trying to buy land from the Army in California is the ordinary course of business you're kidding yourself. Same with the ranking member (chairman?) of the commerce committee writing to the FCC.

If that doesn't sway you, what about McCain's legislation requiring the government to purchase Mr. Diamond's land for $23 million? Nothing there either, huh?

He does favors for people that give him money. I don't want to think about what he does to get his allowance from his wife.
Click to expand...

LMAO... so now McCain brokered the meeting between Diamond and the army? Amazing. Going from having his aide introduce Diamond to McCain brokering the deal.


Again... the letter to the FCC requested that they make a decision. Not asking for them to decide for or against, but to DECIDE.

If this is the best you have, your position is pathetic.

As for the $23 million.... you neglect to mention that it was a bill McCain sponsored and one that was passed by a DEM Congress. It added to a national park. Diamond paid approximately $5 million in 1979 for the property and got $23 million from 1991 to 1996 for it. Again, he made out quite well.

But not one dime would have been given to Diamond for this land exchange/sale had it not been for your precious Dems in Congress that passed the bill. If memory serves... they controlled both houses of Congress, did they not?
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... so now McCain brokered the meeting between Diamond and the army? Amazing. Going from having his aide introduce Diamond to McCain brokering the deal.


Again... the letter to the FCC requested that they make a decision. Not asking for them to decide for or against, but to DECIDE.

If this is the best you have, your position is pathetic.

As for the $23 million.... you neglect to mention that it was a bill McCain sponsored and one that was passed by a DEM Congress. It added to a national park. Diamond paid approximately $5 million in 1979 for the property and got $23 million from 1991 to 1996 for it. Again, he made out quite well.

But not one dime would have been given to Diamond for this land exchange/sale had it not been for your precious Dems in Congress that passed the bill. If memory serves... they controlled both houses of Congress, did they not?
Click to expand...



To "broker" means to act as an intermediary. McCain brokered a meeting between Diamond and the Army as in McCain acted as an intermediary between Diamond and the Army. That's what occurred. McCain set up acted as an intermediary between Diamond and the Army and arranged the meeting. I never said he brokered the deal.

So it's the fault of the democratic congress that John McCain sponsored a bill to line the pockets of a generous donor of his under the guise of environmentalism/conservationism. Neat trick that.
 
Dungheap said:
To "broker" means to act as an intermediary. McCain brokered a meeting between Diamond and the Army as in McCain acted as an intermediary between Diamond and the Army. That's what occurred. McCain set up acted as an intermediary between Diamond and the Army and arranged the meeting. I never said he brokered the deal.

So it's the fault of the democratic congress that John McCain sponsored a bill to line the pockets of a generous donor of his under the guise of environmentalism/conservationism. Neat trick that.
Click to expand...

To broker means a hell of a lot more than just setting up the meeting. To broker a meeting it means you are involved in the negotiations. In means you are involved in the contract. Having an aide introduce Diamond to the army officials is NOT brokering a meeting.

As for your second paragraph of spin....

No, it is not the "fault" of the Dems. But you have to wonder why they passed this if it was so clearly showing favoritism as you imply. Under the guise of conservationism? Give me a friggin break... how many times have land owners sold land to be added to a national park? Again, Diamond got a good deal for the land he had invested in 12 years prior.

So Diamond made about what a simple return of approximately 22% over that 17 year window? A great return to be sure. But obviously the Dem led Congress thought it appropriate.
 
Superfreak said:
To broker means a hell of a lot more than just setting up the meeting. To broker a meeting it means you are involved in the negotiations. In means you are involved in the contract. Having an aide introduce Diamond to the army officials is NOT brokering a meeting.

As for your second paragraph of spin....

No, it is not the "fault" of the Dems. But you have to wonder why they passed this if it was so clearly showing favoritism as you imply. Under the guise of conservationism? Give me a friggin break... how many times have land owners sold land to be added to a national park? Again, Diamond got a good deal for the land he had invested in 12 years prior.

So Diamond made about what a simple return of approximately 22% over that 17 year window? A great return to be sure. But obviously the Dem led Congress thought it appropriate.
Click to expand...

Ha. Diamond doesn't get near the returns we get our investors on land! I need to find his equity contributors and have them invest with us.
 
Superfreak said:
To broker means a hell of a lot more than just setting up the meeting. To broker a meeting it means you are involved in the negotiations. In means you are involved in the contract. Having an aide introduce Diamond to the army officials is NOT brokering a meeting.

As for your second paragraph of spin....

No, it is not the "fault" of the Dems. But you have to wonder why they passed this if it was so clearly showing favoritism as you imply. Under the guise of conservationism? Give me a friggin break... how many times have land owners sold land to be added to a national park? Again, Diamond got a good deal for the land he had invested in 12 years prior.

So Diamond made about what a simple return of approximately 22% over that 17 year window? A great return to be sure. But obviously the Dem led Congress thought it appropriate.
Click to expand...


1) You're talking about brokering a deal. I am talking about brokering a meeting. There is a difference. You should try to focus on what I said instead of what you think I mean. As I have said three times now, McCain brokered a meeting between his high-dollar contributor and the Army.

2) OK, so you acknowledge that McCain has repeatedly pulled some strings for his developer friend that donated generously to his campaign. Thanks. That wasn't so hard.
 
cawacko said:
Ha. Diamond doesn't get near the returns we get our investors on land! I need to find his equity contributors and have them invest with us.
Click to expand...

Cawacko, you don’t care if McCain eats babies. You are going to vote for him no matter what. That goes twice for Stupor freak.
 
McCain sponsored the bill that got Diamond his money. Did he TELL anyone that he and Diamond were in the throws of a "love fest"? I use those words only to show that as far as Diamond is concerned he and McCain were closer than the typical Senator/Constituent are. Fuck Binghaman and Domenici don't know my name but I AM a constituent. If McCain came clean and said to everyone, "I am sponsoring this legislation because I have a really close relationship with him and I would LOVE to see him really profit from it" then I might find your "it's the dems fault that it passed" more credible, but I am pretty sure he didn't do that soooo, sounds like influence peddling to me.
 
Dungheap said:
1) You're talking about brokering a deal. I am talking about brokering a meeting. There is a difference. You should try to focus on what I said instead of what you think I mean. As I have said three times now, McCain brokered a meeting between his high-dollar contributor and the Army.

2) OK, so you acknowledge that McCain has repeatedly pulled some strings for his developer friend that donated generously to his campaign. Thanks. That wasn't so hard.
Click to expand...

Again twit.... I am talking about brokering a meeting.... to broker a meeting IS NOT simply setting up the meeting. You should try to understand the terminology you are using. It will help you avoid using the terms incorrectly.

Pulled strings? As in making introductions? Siding with Diamond some times and against him at others? That is pulling strings? Or is it McCain is going with the projects he thinks are beneficial and going against the ones he thinks are not beneficial?
 
Darla said:
Not if he were dirty I wouldn’t. And the point is that why should either of you even pretend you care whether McCain is dirty or not. You don’t.
Click to expand...

He's dirty? This shows he dirty? If that's your definition of dirty then I would never vote again because there isn't a clean politician alive.
 
Socrtease said:
McCain sponsored the bill that got Diamond his money. Did he TELL anyone that he and Diamond were in the throws of a "love fest"? I use those words only to show that as far as Diamond is concerned he and McCain were closer than the typical Senator/Constituent are. Fuck Binghaman and Domenici don't know my name but I AM a constituent. If McCain came clean and said to everyone, "I am sponsoring this legislation because I have a really close relationship with him and I would LOVE to see him really profit from it" then I might find your "it's the dems fault that it passed" more credible, but I am pretty sure he didn't do that soooo, sounds like influence peddling to me.
Click to expand...

Right... their relationship was so close that they didn't talk for a year when McCain told Diamond to back the hell off and refused to put up bills he didn't think were appropriate. (also from your article)

As for the bill... again, yes, Diamond made money. The national park got expanded. The environmentalist favored the bill (though they did note that Diamond made good money off of the deal). It was a win win.

If the Dems are simply passing legislation that is not beneficial, then whose fault is it? They were under no obligation to pass it. Let me guess.... McCain tricked them?????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top