John Solomon is 0-for-1 at his new gig at the Washington Post, having spun an utterly ordinary house sale by John Edwards (trial lawyer!) into a breathless page 1 story. Even by Solomon standards the story was surprisingly weak – Edwards sold the house at less than the market price value, it would have been illegal to refuse any legitimate buyer and every element of disclosure met current standards. So what was Solomon’s point exactly? Apparently John Edwards owns an expensive home (trial lawyer!) and briefly came into contact with somebody unions won’t like.
It was fun to watch bloggers correct Solomon’s vapid reporting, but only up to a point. Solomon’s old bosses at the AP regarded any buzz as good buzz, which makes the act of criticism (constructive or otherwise) kind of pointless. Will the WaPo care that their new muckraker’s very first page 1 assignment turned out to be a vapid, content-free turkey?
Surprisingly, yes. For Debbie Howell to side with the unwashed barbarians of internettia over her own man suggests that Solomon’s colleagues are not happy indeed.
Paddy O'Shea
Given the bizarre clown show that is the GOP Presidential Contenders Club these days, I wonder if Swiftboating hasn’t become something of a quaint concept.
But you certainly can’t get past the problem of media bias. Why John Edwards’s big house and not Rudy Giuliani’s proclivity for transvestism?
scarshapedstar
Well, you see. As the NYT explained to us about the NSA wiretap scandal, if you report a story that’s bad for Republicans, you’re “affecting an election” and that is simply not allowed in a democracy.
jake
“Facts! I want fa-! I mean innuendo! I want innuendo!”
-Milo Bloom.
Tony J
But will the WAPO’s powers-that-be actually do anything about it? Not likely, is it?
Any newspaper that thinks Bob Novak (yeah, that Bob Novak), Charles Krauthammer and Liz Cheney are serious commentators with opinions that people are interested in hearing is a newspaper in name only.
Personally speaking, there are only a handful of commentators at the WaPo with any kind of credibility. Froomkin tops the list, but it’s a damned short one.
Darrell
Where do you come up with that “fact” Tim? From the article:
chopper
i think tim meant to say ‘market value’, rather than market price. the market price is whatever it sells for.
market value is basically the same as the appraised value, which for that house would have likely been pretty close to the asking price of about 5.7 million. it would definitely have been higher than the 3.8 they paid plus 1.4, especially with ‘substantial renovations’. this is the DC housing market, where market values are way high and grow higher every day.
jake
Darrell is shocked to learn housing can increase in value.
‘Nuff said.
Davebo
Darrell apparantly didn’t hear about the 1 million dollars in renovations Edwards put into the house.
Or that it was appraised at over two million more than it sold for.
I wonder if he’d be willing to cover the property taxes Edwards payed as part of his dastardly scheme.
Probably not. To Darrell, rich people live in two story
mobile homespremanufactured housing.Darrell
No it’s not. Not at all. Market value is what something is worth. Tim interjected that lie about market value to bolster his argument, and when asked to substantiate his claim, he’s nowhere to be found. What a surprise.
Darrell
Care to cite where they spent $1 million in rennovations? That wouldn’t refute my argument one shred, but I’m curious as to whether or not you simply made that up, or if there is any factual basis to that claim.
Paddy O'Shea
Nice to see Darrell engaging in some virulent class warfare here.
Remember how the livid the right used to get when anyone questioned the authenticity of Kennebunkport Georgie’s aw shucks po’ boy cowboy routine?
So c’mon, how come the media isn’t taking on the issue of Rudy G’s predilection for cross-dressing? Certainly that must be more shocking than the news that rich people live in big houses.
PeterJ
Why does the Senator oppose capitalism?
Darrell
What did I write here that would possibly suggest I opposed capitalism? Not a damn thing, that’s what.
I catch you freaks in bald faced lies, and then you throw out strawmen in response. Pathetic
chopper
yeah, thanks for pointing out what i already stated.
what, you think the appraised value of the house is less than the selling price of 5.2 million? why? 3.8 million plus ‘substantial renovations’ plus DC housing market equals more than 5.2 million.
yeah, mr drive by calling tim out. jesus, you’re just a big ball of hypocrisy, aren’t you?
Tim F.
Um yeah, Tim made an error. Rumor has it that these things happen sometimes.
And, expecting a blogger to be around at your personal beck and call is beyond ridiculous. I don’t plan my day’s schedule around pleasing commenters.
Paddy O'Shea
Uh oh. Now Darrell thinks he’s a Senator. Though I suppose that’s a step up from the Olsen Twin he imagined himself to be last week.
chopper
really? if they did put in $1 mil in renovations, they would have added at least 1 million more to the value. probably more, as most all renovations increase a home’s value more than the amount spent.
you’d essentially be arguing that a home worth at least 4.8 million dollars (3.8 + at least 1) in that neighborhood accrued less than 400K in value in 5 years?? in DC???
shit, most people i know in DC watched their home’s value go up at least 50% in the past 5 years.
i’ll bet you good money that the appraised value of that house was more than what it sold for.
Darrell
I have no idea what the “appraised” value of the home is, and it has no relevance to the point I was making.
Here is what you “stated”
Wrong. Market value and appraisal value are often very different. I can see you really know what you’re talking about.
chopper
appraisal indicates market value.
Darrell
Any and every real estate agent will tell you different. But feel free to keep digging that hole you’re in.
Tim F.
Darrell, what exactly is your complaint? That the home buyers paid too much for John Edwards’s house? Even John Solomon has backed away from that claim. If something about this story makes you think a scandal might have happened, please state it clearly. Otherwise you’re just behaving like a world-class pedant.
Barrasso
Is Darrell’s whole personality and reason for existance just disagreeing with anything liberal? Is there anything he can agree with that liberals also agree with? I think that if liberals changed positions on anything he would instantly change to oppose them and would never even question the logic of it all. There is no way he can be stupid enough to not know this Edwards story is a bullshit lame attempt at a hit piece. Yet he still must disagree with reality because the liberals MUST be wrong.
ThymeZone
And the Darrell Lectures on Washinton,DC Real Estate have been surprisingly, uh, sparsely attended.
Unfucking believable that this shitty assclown who lives in a cardboard box would (a) sit here and presume to have something today about Washington real estate, and (b) would be allowed to do so by the proprietors of this blog.
Excuse me, I have better things to do today than watch this. I think there’s a catbox that needs cleaning ….
Darrell
My complaint is with this statement of yours, which is and was completely unsubstantiated
The market value is what the house is worth. The house sat on the market for 18 months, which in most cases indicates they were asking too much relative to the actual market value.
There is not a shred of evidence to support the claim that Edwards sold the house for less than market value. You simply made it up to try and bolster your argument.
Paddy O'Shea
Somebody hand Darrell a Kleenex. All that whining is causing his nose to run and he’s nauseating the adults.
Darrell
How about the alternative explanation.. that I’m often right, my points are valid, and my detractors can’t bring themselves to admit it when they’re wrong. And like davebo, they’ll even throw out bald faced lies to try and “win” the argument.
chopper
the *blog* you cite is wrong. it uses the wrong term.
no, that’s market price. market value is determined by real estate professionals using most all the same factors as an appraisor uses to determine an appraised price for the house. which is why “market value is basically the same as the appraised value”. houses sell for more or less than appraised/market value all the time.
see:
Market Value:
looks to me like you did a google search on the phrase “appraised value does not equal market value” and picked the first thing on the list. dishonest, but par for the course.
Paddy O'Shea
Aww, now he’s bawling.
Shorter Darrell: Everybody hates me because I’m always right.
BadTux
I know Darrel is confused on this, since to buy a trailer house and move it into a trailer park you don’t need appraisals and all that stuff, but an appraisal basically consists of taking “comparables” (similar homes in the surrounding neighborhood) and seeing what they sold for, then adding in various “fudge factors” such as size of home, size of lot, etc. So basically the appraised value *should* reflect the market value of the home, though there have been rumblings in the mortgage industry about over-inflated appraisals.
Over the past four years, housing prices in the Washington D.C. area have gone up by over 10% per year. So basically if Edwards paid 3.8 million dollars for the house, you can figure that the current market value is at least 5.6 million dollars, *before* any renovations or improvements. (And for the record, renovations usually do NOT raise the market value of the home significantly since that’s generally detirmined by “comparables”, renovations that would change a home’s comparables are fairly scarce unless the home was a total dump before).
That’s the D.C. housing market. I realize the notion of a house that appreciates in price rather than depreciates is puzzling to someone who lives in a trailer park, but so it goes…
– BT
Darrell
Proof positive of the point I just made:
Tim F.
So it’s pedantry. That’s cool, for a moment I thought you might believe that Solomon was on to something.
Let’s see, the Edwardses got 20% less than their asking price for the house. Does that mean they overcharged at first? Does an 8% annualized return on their purchase price strike you as somehow excessive in the DC market? Honestly, there must be more interesting uses of your time than pushing points this banal.
Darrell
Stupid is as stupid does. Wiki
Also, there are 2 main types of “appraised” value. One appraised value used for collection of property taxes, the other appraised value used for lending purposes for home mortgage. Often times these two values are significantly different, and neither necessarily reflect the actual market value.
Darrell
No Tim, your assertion that the Edward’s sold their house for under market value was at the crux of your argument.
“See, nothing was shady about Edward’s home sale. He even sold for under market value! Nothing to see here”
ThymeZone
The mind simply boggles.
chopper
you link to a blog which gets the terminology way wrong as evidence that you’re right, and that proves your point? you’re daffy.
i didn’t say appraisal and market value were exactly the same. i said they were pretty much the same. and they are. appraisers and real estate professionals determining appraised value and market value use most the same factors in determining value.
BTW, according to the listing, from what i can tell they put $1,599,980 into the house. that gives the house a value of at least 5,399,980 *before you even consider* the house gaining value over the last 5 years which it definitely did.
so yeah, they sold it for less than the market value. the market value would have been at the very least 5.4 million, and definitely more.
Tim F.
Here we go again. I asked you whether you thought Edwards did something wrong and you said no, it was just an error on my part. Now we’re back to the scandalmongering. Which is it Darrell? Is there a scandal here? I asked you to explain and you declined, so I’ll ask you again. Describe where the scandal is. Thanks.
chopper
market value of a home is a guess as to what it *will fetch* in the future (hence why it’s determined before sale by a professional), which is often but not always close to the market price, which is what it actually fetches when the deal is closed.
in the edwards’ case, the market value of the home was determined previously. the market price is what it ended up selling for. which is doubtless less than the market value, given the appreciation of the home over the last 5 years and the money put into it.
drop the shovel, darrell.
Darrell
Clearly you have never bought a house. “Improvements” is a term used by tax collecting authorities which often has little correlation with how much was actually spent in making the improvements to the real estate.
What’s ironic is that virtually every lefist poster on this thread is guilty of being pedentic to the extreme, yet Tim accuses me of it when I address the crux of his arguments. Whatever.. Another day in the ‘reality based’ community.
ThymeZone
How many houses have you bought and sold, Darrell?
“Market value” means nothing at sale time. Nothing at all.
The price of a house is the house it last sold for. Period. Has nothing to do with its value.
If price isn’t more important than value, then we’ve just eliminated all classified advertising. Bing! Entire forests, saved.
Darrell
Where did I say that Tim? I never said that.
ThymeZone
“the price it last sold for”
Sorry, it’s hard to be articulate when you are talking to a slug.
Darrell
Market value is not a “guess”, it is what something is worth. That hole is getting deep chopper.
ThymeZone
Jesus, I never thought you actually get stupider right before our eyes.
Value is an opinion. Price is a fact. Oil and water.
Idiot.
Darrell
Value is directly related to price. I should know better than to argue with you idiots.
Tim F.
When you said this:
You neglected to mention that you thought Edwards did anything wrong. What would a reasonable person conclude from that? I asked you to clearly explain what exactly the scandal is here. You refused, twice now by my count. Does that mean you think that there is a scandal? It is surprisingly hard to get you to respond to that.
So here’s a third question. You might recognize it because I have asked it before. Where is the scandal? Give me an answer or stop wasting my time.
ThymeZone
.
Nope. That is not supportable.
Price is the amount agreed upon by buyer and seller. The nature and extent of things related to that amount are entirely at the discretion of those two parties. No other factor matters, ever, in any sale. Period.
If I decide to sell you my house for a dollar, you pay a dollar. At that moment, and within the confines of the deal, the “value” you think or I think the house has, has no bearing on the matter whatever.
BadTux
Thyme, be gentle. You can’t expect someone whose richest relative once asked him to come help take the wheels off the house to understand these concepts about how things work in big cities.
– Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Darrell
So then you feel justified in taking my silence to attribute a statement to me which I never made or even inferred? How honest of you Tim.
ThymeZone
I actually used to teach a version of this question in a seminar (having nothing to do with real estate). The exercise focussed on identifying the opinion, versus the fact, in any business transaction. It’s quite an interesting subject.
Here, it’s like trying to teach it to a cat.
Tim F.
What is this, the fourth time that I have to ask you to explain where is the scandal? Your silence speaks volumes, Darrell.
I have also asked you whether closing for 20% less than their asking price means that they were originally asking way, way too much. And I recall asking whether an 8% annualized return is unreasonable in a market where 10% is more common.
But really I care about that first question. Tell me where the scandal is. Until you do I think that any reasonable person will fully understand my decision to ignore your blather.
Darrell
I don’t know. It looks shady that he sold to some guy under SEC investigation who bought the house out of ill-gotten funds. What I do know is that your “market value” argument in no way supports whether this deal was sleazy or on the up-and-up.
I can say with absolute certainty that you would be singing a different tune if, say, Karl Rove had sold his house in 2002 to an Enron executive who was under investigation by the Feds.
jg
This is like watching a Monty Python skit.
LOL
ThymeZone
Okay,clearly Darrell has no grasp of even the most basic realities of real estate or law here. I mean, not even the remotest clue.
To Darrell, the sale of a house must be an event that registers in the mind the way a solar eclipse must look to a bird.
It got dark, so the sun went out.
It got light, the sun is born again.
Simple.
Darrell
From the Washington Post article itself
And averages don’t directly correlate to price and value of individual properties. But of course you knew that already.
chopper
yes it is a guess. it’s an appraisal by a real estate professional. see my earlier cite explaining it if you want to read it again.
i dunno, you’re the guy holding onto these incorrect definitions. yet with proof before you, you still refuse to believe it. the denial is strong with this one.
Tim F.
As a real estate whiz you no doubt know that the Edwardses would pay a penalty if they discriminated against credible buyers. Show some good faith and acknowledge that the question of who bought and with what funds is meaningless.
That is you point? That the Edwardses got 20% less than their asking price and 2% lower than the market’s average annualized return somehow indicates that they did something wrong?
The numbers indicate no malfeasance whatsoever. The identity of the buyers is meaningless. Let’s see, that leaves…precisely no evidence of wrongdoing. Either you are saying that the Edwardses are guilty until proven innocent or you are saying nothing at all. Take your pick.
Darrell
What are you talking about? From my 1:40pm post:
ThymeZone
This thread has to get the Biggest F**king Waste of Time award for blogs for this decade.
Thanks, Darrell. Really, just thanks. Nice job.
Andrew
1) I think Darrell’s understanding of some real estate concepts are less wrong than many seem to think that they are.
2) Like Solomon, Darrell seems to think that there was something wrong with this transaction. This is stupid.
3) Edwards wanted to sell his DC house so he could buy his large property here near Chapel Hill. I assume he could afford to own both simultaneously, but there are probably tax implications for selling before the end of the year and he wanted to maximize available assets for campaign purposes.
Vladi G
Darrell really is one stupid piece of shit, isn’t he?
Actually, it wasn’t, but you’re a fucking moron, so it’s not surprising that you can’t understand that. What was paid for the house is entirely irrelevant absent some unreported less than ethical connection between the buyer and the seller, which hasn’t even been alleged. Whether the house had sold for $5MM over the asking price, or $5MM below, it’s irrelevant absent some allegation of wrongdoing. To date, there has been no such allegation.
Good god, you really are the dumbest load of excrement on the planet. Do you even know how houses are bought and sold? Have you ever heard of these people called “Real Estate Agents”?
Another typical thread for Darrell, the serial liar.
srv
I think Darrell is trying to Parrot the Parrot sketch.
Tim F.
Darrell, I have taken more interesting dumps. By a wide margin. Let’s see, if the Edwardses got 20% less than their asking price then it seems likely that the Edwardses and the buyers realized that as well.
But what is the point of all this? You are trying to indict with innuendo. This story has no hook. None. Not a single concrete reason to think that malfeasance occurred. You may not realize it but scandals usually need that. Find it and we’ll talk.
Darrell
I said I didn’t know. But feel free to attribute thoughts and words to me which I never wrote or inferred.. just like others here are doing.
I do think the deal was newsworthy.
Question: If Dick Cheney, or Karl Rove, or Don Rumsfeld had sold their house to an Enron or Worldcom executive under federal investigation, can you honestly say that wouldn’t be big news?
An honest answer to that question says it all really.
Mike
Ahhh, Tim. If we would really do this he might go away. Everytime you engage him it just prolongs the blather. He is just a contrarian who seems to get off on his own perceived self-importance. That is why he posts here after all. If he was on RS, LGF, etc… he would be lost in the crowd of me-too’ers.
TenguPhule
Darrell manages to shoot himself in the foot in his own cite, Sweet!
Value Appreciates over time, Darrell Solomon.
Pb
Hey, my cats are pretty smart…
Paddy O'Shea
It seems to me that what Darrell is looking for is validation.
Anybody here willing to give Darrell the pat on the fanny his daddy so obviously neglected to give him?
Pb
No one would dare talk about Dick Cheney’s or Donald Rumsfeld’s home-buying habits, lest they be accused of supporting al-Qaeda or plotting assassinations. But it’s just as well, really–because Cheney is a real Dick even in his own neighborhood.
TenguPhule
And Darrell Contradicts himself in the same post YET AGAIN.
The only reason Darrell would think this is newsworthy is because he thinks there is a scandal. But he has to lie about it and demonstrate he is a complete fucking moron who knows nothing about yet another subject in addition to all the other subjects he knows nothing about…like statistics or FISA.
Tim F.
It would show good faith if you offered a relevant analogy. Solomon’s “hook” was precisely that the Edwardses sold to someone opposed to their ideological interests. Let’s say that Dick Cheney sold a house to Michael Moore for a million bucks more than his neighbor got for a comparable house. I’m even padding the story since there is no evidence whatsoever that the Edwards buyers overpaid. Would I care? Would I assume that the Moore family bought influence with the Cheneys? Um, no.
Let’s be serious for a minute. It is perfectly normal for people to assume that others see the world in the same way that they do. Do you think that I am retarded? Blinded by some sort of partisan mental illness? Jeebus.
ThymeZone
“The price was too high because it was too low! And besides, the buyer was gay!”
Actually, that would have made more sense than what Darrell actually said.
ThymeZone
You are the master of gentlemanly understatement, Tim.
I would have said “Jesus H. Christ!”
Darrell has basically taken Solomon’s gaffe and turned it into a Super Gaffe, a gaffe which sucks in minor gaffes and combines their effects until they have super powers.
In the shadow of this, Charles Manson could sell a house to Satan and nobody would pay any attention.
Darrell
Whoa there, you’re trying to steal a base. Where in the article did it say that Klaassan was an ideological opponent to Edwards? Since you’re claiming that was the ‘hook’, show us where Klaassan is so ideologically opposed to Edwards. Or did you make that up too?
For all we know, judging by Solomon’s article, Klaassan could be a massive Democrat party contributor. He doesn’t say one way or another.
Mike
That reminds me of a funny article I read a while back describing what the author termed “super-positioning” whereby Rethuglican hacks could all be the “wrongest” simultaneously.
Darrell
Don’t take this the wrong way, because you seem to be easy going and cordial, but you are one of the most partisan hacks I have ever encountered, spouting leftwing talking points virtually all the time. Unlike most other hacks though, interestingly, you lack venom.
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: Look, a shiny pony! And this one won’t make my ass hurt when I ride it!
Pb
So what’s the lesson here–is it that it takes a hack to know a hack, or is it that to an extreme rightwing partisan hack, a rational person on the center-left seems like “one of the most partisan hacks I have ever encountered, spouting leftwing talking points virtually all the time”?
PeterJ
PeterJ Said:
Then Darrell said:
Sweet.
Darrell should really get a treat since he’s learned to answer to ‘The Senator’.
I’m wondering if with enough training he might be able to do the same with ‘Troll’, ‘Balloon Juice’s house troll’, ‘The Serial liar’ or maybe ‘The Thread Disruptor’.
I’m leaning towards ‘The Real Estate Guru’ though, in honor of this thread.
Pooh
I vote for “Matthew Lesco”
Andrew
It’s a big fucking house.
Richard 23
This was from an earlier exchange:
Rome Again
Well, TZ, that may be true in most places. Where I live, you average out the sale price for all the houses that have sold in the neighborhood, then you look to the next highest prices neighborhood nearby, then you average out those prices, and double it.
Ok, perhaps that’s not exactly true, but it sure seems that way. My brother bought a new house about three years ago for 400k, it was up to 880k the last time he bragged to me about it. Yes, he’s an ass, but damn, 120% rise in value in three years?
chopper
what the hell is the ‘democrat party’?
Richard 23
Or maybe a Republic party contributor. Who knows?
ThymeZone
You are quite right, Rome, and we’re making different points. Darrell, of course, couldn’t fathom either of them if we gave him a month’s head start.
I was just trying to impress on the inestimable bonehead that price and value are two different things.
To Darrell, anything that has a dollar sign on it is the same thing as anything else that has a dollar sign on it.
My advice to Darrell would be, if he thinks price is linked to value, he should try buying diamonds and then reselling them.
Rome Again
Good point, I’m very versed in gemstone pricing. I’ve bought many quite cheaply on eBay. I’m a collector, ya know.
I got an idea TZ, how ’bout you buy a me a house, I’ll put my gemstones in it, and we’ll stand around thinking we’ve got the world in our hands. LMAO
[ and in case anyone didn’t get the irony of the gemstone thing, you always buy them for about half of what they’re supposed to be truly worth on appraisals. If you think you can resell them for full price, you’ll be holding them a LONG time.]
Rome Again
I said always, okay, not always, but that’s the normal formula. Sometimes the jewelers will give you a discount, not much, but a discount.
Jonathan
My dad made a quite good living doing just that. Of course, he had nearly fifty years experience in the jewelry business.
“You make your money when you buy”, was one of the prime rules of doing business that he taught me.
Rome Again
Must be a damned good appraiser with great negotiation skills.
ThymeZone
Oh, you are definitely on!
And the other day when I said “Da Bearssss?” I meant, “De Beers.” Yes, we can be gem magnates.
Yeah, Darrell would lose his ass in that market. Of course, he needs the ass to pull his cart to town every month for flour and lard.
TenguPhule
Fixed. And sadly far too true.
tBone
[Lefty Commenter]: The sky is blue.
[Lefty Commenter]: Water is wet.
[Lefty Commenter]: The North Pole is up north.
Rome Again
Well, Gosh TZ, I didn’t know you felt that way. Hmmm, maybe I need to take you up on this offer. LOL
::winks::
ThymeZone
It’s a gem of an idea. { crowd groans }
{ ducks hurled fruit }
Hey, I can’t be the soul of wit all the time!
What do I look like, George Burns?
Krista
Man, am I glad I missed this thread. Does anybody actually give a sweet damn about John Edwards’ house? (Besides John Edwards, of course…)
Krista
Seeing as he’s been dead over 10 years, hopefully not.
ThymeZone
Thank you. I think.
Krista
You look MUCH better than George Burns, sweetie.
(Feel better now?)
ThymeZone
Sure. I look better than a mummy. I get it.
You lefties are so cruel!
ThymeZone
Well, Darrell believes it’s “newsworthy.”
As in front page, WaPo.
Are you familiar with the phrase “Dynamite in the distance?” I’ll see if I can find reference over at Kevin Drum’s place. This is a classic example.
ThymeZone
Here’s that link, Krista.
I think the Edwards story is a perfect example of the dynamite in the distance strategy.
Pooh
To be fair, it was widely rumored that George Burns was…gifted, physically. Or maybe that was Milton Berle…
ThymeZone
Thanks, Poop.
Rome Again
Yes, it is, let’s do it, okay?
Rome Again
I think that was Milton Berle.
Moreover, Lilliputians think (and I am one) there is such a thing as being “too gifted”.
ThymeZone
Yes, let’s.
ThymeZone
Yes, let’s.
Rome Again
Ok, just say the word.
ThymeZone
The word.
Rome Again
Ooooh, my my TZ, really? I’ll be right over. LOL
::turns around in a circle:: “Phoenix is…. that way!”
(I think this thread got hijacked, and I didn’t realize how far it would go, sorry!)
ThymeZone
Suddenly, we are without a Darrell to kick around.
Where’d he go?
Rome Again
Just mention his name, he’ll be along in a few, most likely. It seems he pops up whenever his name is mentioned. Seriously, I think the only thing he ever does is sit around waiting for his name to be called day after day.
Perhaps we should just not think about him and he’ll go away?
Now, where were we TZ?
ThymeZone
Well, we were headed west on I-10 …..
Rome Again
:)
jake
Lilliputian? I’ve never heard it called that before.
Rome Again
Short people, Jake. I’m what some people would call a midget (or almost).
PeterJ
The correct procedure is to look in a mirror and say his name three times.
I dare you to do it.
Rome Again
::screams like a child:: “But I don’t WANT to Daddy, please, don’t make me, don’t make me do it, please.”
Tim F.
Darrell, you need to read all the way to the third paragraph. That would be where most gotcha reporters place their “hook.”
Think hard about why Solomon felt it was important to give that factoid such prominent placement in the story. How might it bear on John Edwards’s political career? Go ahead and take your time, I’ll wait.
Of course you think that, my partisan friend. People always see the world from inside their own head.
lard lad
Darrell’s Screaming Irony of The Millenium.
carpeicthus
People, please just read this every time you feel the need to talk to Darrell. It sums up the outcome, and is a lot funnier: http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
Punchy
Fuck…THATS how that works! I always just thought the sun..ya know…went to sleep when I did.
Jimmy Mack
Exactly. I’m not convinced there’s any there there to the Solomon-Edwards story but if it were Murray Waas writing about Dick Cheney sell his house to an Enron exec, many of you here would be all over like white and rice. What’s the difference? None.
Punchy
Dumbass.
Tim F.
Jimmy, do you use your head to pound nails? Keep reading the thread.
Rome Again
Jimmy Mack is a Darrell wannabe. I think Darrell must have brought him over as a support buddy from another thread.
Pb
One tidbit Solomon didn’t mention was that one of the Directors at Sunrise under investigation just happens to be the chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. No, really:
Now that guy sounds like a real story to me–but it has nothing to do with the real estate transactions of Democrat
Harry ReidJohn Edwards, so it’s not Solomon Approved(TM).TenguPhule
Shorter Jimmy Mack: I can’t help that I’m my own grandpa!
Jimmy Mack
Read past comments and you’ll see that I rarely agree with Darrell. And by your reckoning you’re all ThymeZone or Tim F wannabes. You all say pretty much what they say, irregardless of how logically flawed it is.
TenguPhule
Liar.
We are all DougJ.
Rome Again
You say that like it’s a BAD thing.
TZ, can I be you, and you can be me, and we can be one together? Ooooh, that sounds fun!
ThymeZone
Why are you righties so whiny? And who says what I say? My material is copyrighted. Who cheated? I need to know.
Rome Again
Not me, I promise. I couldn’t even hope to have the ability to use the material you do.
ThymeZone
Best offer I ever had.
Beej
Uh, Jimmy Mack? The word irregardless is a non-standard usage. That is, it’s not really a word. The correct word is regardless. Look it up.
ConservativelyLiberal
Darrell Says:
Jimmy Mack Says:
Geez, Edwards sold his house… Big farkin deal. Maybe it is if you live in van down by the river like these two.
I say get a bottle of invisibility cream for these two jerkoffs. What, invisibility cream?! Yup…
Preparation H, but you would need a truckload of it for these two.
Rome Again
Two truckloads, because one would have to apply it generously.
Decided FenceSitter
Late to the party, but as a DC-area homeowner near a military base I feel that I might as well toss in that in 2003, my wife and I bought a home for 140K, which I lovingly call “just on the right side of the tracks, but just”, i.e., there’s only been one shooting in the neighboring development in the last 3 years, and only gunfire a couple of more times.
This past summer, even during the dip the houses are going for 300+K. That’s 100% appreciation in 3 years.
Mike
Belly-button polish might be helpful since they can’t see out.
Jonathan
Care to point out the logical flaws in my posts, Jimmy Mack?
You can find a list of logical fallacies here.
I haven’t noticed *anyone* making the arguments I do. Perhaps you are more discerning than I though.
Jimmy Mack
I stand corrected: Jonathan is not a ThymeZone or Tim F wannabe. And “irregardless” is not a real word: I used have said “regardless”. Happy now?
Krista
Exactly.
Tim F.
You’re not done yet. While you’re busy backtracking, how about you point out my logical flaws. Use Jonathan’s link if the idea of a logical fallacy is unfamiliar to you.
Jimmy Mack
How about the ones in your original post about creationists and the Grand Canyon? You admitted that one yourself.
Tim F.
Describe for me in what way that was a logical flaw. I reported what the group alleged, and then when the group turned out to be full of shit I reported that. Kindly show me which of those constitutes a flaw in logic. And when you can’t do that, apologize.
Jimmy Mack
Okay, it was factually incorrect. And I admit that you corrected it. My point is that all of the yahoos here followed right along when you made your mistake (which you later corrected, to your credit). None bothered to check for themselves.
Tim F.
Jimmy, try to understand why it can be frustrating dealing with somebody who doesn’t understand the difference between a logical flaw and a factual inaccuracy.
Rome Again
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be like those who are smart, articulate, and funny. It IS a problem when the person someone wishes to emulate is factually wrong on a consistent basis.
Pb
Jimmy Mack,
I’m going to enjoy your reports from Iraq.
demimondian
Actually, Jimmy, several commenters did check; Tim just didn’t notice the postings in which they pointed out that the story was false.
So, no only are you wrong about the nature of Tim’s error, you’re wrong about the response to it. But don’t let that get in your way.
Pb
Oh, demi, don’t bring the facts into it–Jimmy Mack doesn’t care that Steve talked to his national park ranger buddy, or that Zerthimon checked the park website. I’d lay even odds that he never read their comments in the first place.
Now, for my part, I never commented in that thread in the first place, and of course I didn’t assume that it was the gospel truth, but when it comes to the Bush administration there’s really no need to make up outrageous idiocies–unfortunately, there are more than enough real ones to go around.
Darrell
Tim, that is quite a stretch to take that aside (and if it was more than an “aside”, it would have been reinforced and mentioned again in the article which it wasn’t) in order to make the case that Klaassan was some ideological opponent to Edwards as you asserted.. It was an extreme stretch on your part, and a lame one.
Not one bit different than reading a snippet in an article which said something like this “Ken Lay angered the business community with his financial shenanigans, a business community which George Bush actively courts for votes” and then trying to spin that into Ken Lay being some big ideological opponent to Bush
It would of course have been ridiculous. I honestly think that you are such a partisan extremist, that you cannot even grasp that obvious point because you really and truly are blinded, and to prove it, I suggest a little experiment – ask John Cole if he agrees with the following blockquoted statement of mine, including agreement that this is a reasonable analogy to the Edwards deal:
I think most people on both sides of the political spectrum, those who are not blinded by partisan extremism, would agree that the above statement is a good point, and a valid analogy to the Edwards situation.
then ask John if you think it was a big stretch on your part to take that one mention of Klaassan having pissed off some unions, and then trying to use that statement to claim Klaassan was some ideological opponent of Edwards as you did.
I’m convinced that you’re out in left field on this one Tim, and by a large margin. Although John doesn’t agree with me on much these days, I’d be shocked if he didn’t agree with me on this. Ask him, and let us know what he says. If he answers like I think he will, perhaps you should take a good look in the mirror to how blinded by leftist partisanship you have become that you cannot acknowledge the obvious if it conflicts with the narrative that you’re pushing.
Krista
What if he doesn’t answer as you think he will? How much weight will his opinion then carry with you?
Darrell
Right now, I really believe Tim is guilty of being blinded to VERY OBVIOUS observations (that conflict with his narrative) that I think most everyone not blinded by partisan extremism would agree with. If John thinks I’m wrong, I’ll probably still think I’m correct, but I’ll question the “VERY OBVIOUS” part.
Tim F.
Darrell, I think that you are absolutely correct that there is a perception problem here. You wrote an analogy using figures who have an obvious and preexisting connection to the Bush administration. Tell me, wise one, how exactly that relates to the Klaasens. Not only do they have no discernible connection to the Edwardses but in fact the entire point of the article, insofar as there was a point, was that Edwards disguised the Klaasens’s identity in order to keep the connection hidden due to his strong reliance on union support.
In other words, your construction of the analogy was dishonest. Which, surprise, is exactly the charge that you constantly level at your opponents. We all see the world from inside our own head.
Darrell
The article did not say that Klaassan was opposed to unions in general, or that he disagreed with Edwards politically.. it only made one mention that Klaassan pissed off some unions. That was it.
For you to take that one snippet (which not mentioned again or reinforced anywhere else in the article) and then try and spin it into Klaasan being some ideological opponent to Edwards is crazy. That you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this, is in my opinion, proof positive that you are blinded by partisan extremism.
chopper
yeah, coming from a guy who either doesn’t know the difference between price and value or won’t admit it due to (surprise surprise) partisan extremism.
you’re the gimp of this site, darrell.
Rome Again
Tim, how many times do you have to explain something to someone before you just toss it up to idiocy when they can’t understand it? I’m curious. You’re far too patient.
ThymeZone
What Darrell doesn’t get, about himself and about the inept and corrupt government he has pimped for all these years, is this …. Darrell, listen up …
When you are wrong, over and over, when you lie, when you cheat, when you treat people like crap, when you are arrogant, when you exhibit rank partisanship …. then …
…even when you are right, as anybody will be occasionally, nobody wants to hear it, nobody gives a shit. You wore out your welcome a long time ago, and so did your crummy government.
Why do you want to keep fighting the same stupid battles over and over again? What’s wrong with you?
If you want respect, you have to earn it. You haven’t.
Jimmy Mack
I wouldn’t put it quite as harshly as “blinded” but the problem with these comments is too much partisanship. No, I can’t point to many logical inconsitencies in Tim’s posts (his errors are factual, and he does correct them), though I sure see a lot in the comments here, but the whole conversation is shaped by partisan assumptions: that “Bush is bad”, that the press is out to get the Democrats, and so on. None of which, objectively is true.
Pb
Darrell, if you wanted to do something useful, you could have tried to dig up a connection–for or against–between the Klaassans and the Edwardses, or found out what their ideological opinions actually are, etc., etc. Maybe you’d find something that would contradict Solomon’s reporting, or Tim F.’s comments. Or maybe you’d actually end up contributing something of value around here–who knows? Anyhow, I won’t hold my breath, but I wouldn’t mind a pleasant surprise nonetheless.
Darrell
So even though I’m right, and Tim really is blinded by his extreme partisanship, nobody wants to see the boat rocked. Groupthink central.
Jimmy Mack
Nice double standard you’ve got there. When I suggested you guys do your own fact checking, you joked about sending me to Iraq to check my facts. Yet that’s exactly what you’re asking the other side to do.
Darrell
No I don’t. Tim is the one who asserted that Klaasan was ideologically opposed to Edwards. What’s more, he openly states that he made that assertion based on one statement in the article which mentioned that Klaassan once pissed off some unions. That you defend his “logic” puts you smack in the middle of the partisan extremism I’m talking about.
Pb
Yeah, that’s it, Darrell–by mentioning that you might think about doing something productive for a change, I’m really defending Tim F.’s point. I tried to offer you some advice, some help, but all you know how to do is bite the hand that feeds you. Anyhow, thanks for verifying that you’re a useless, feckless venom-slinging leech who contributes–and indeed can contribute–absolutely nothing to this site, you pathetic lunatic hack.
Darrell
It’s worse than that. I asked Tim where he came up with his claim that Klaasan is some big ideological opponent to Edwards, and he explicitly stated that his assertion was based on the one snippet in the article that Klaasan once angered some unions. That was it. That was the entire basis of his assertion.
Doesn’t matter if he is able to dig up something later, as he has already told us that his claim rests/rested with the one statement in the article that Klaassan once pissed off some unions.
Pb
Jimmy Mack,
The difference is, I do my fact checking. Of course, you wouldn’t know that, because you apparently don’t.
Pb
Solomon was trying to imply something in that piece, to muddy the waters, but it was so nonsensical and incoherent that I couldn’t figure it out–and neither could Salon. There’s just no there there–so how did it get on the front page?
chopper
more like ‘nobody looks to a stopped clock for the time even if it’s right twice a day’
Krista
Whoa, hold yourself back, big boy! Don’t get carried away with self-doubt — you might sprain something.
ThymeZone
Oh great, Darrell has a new friend.
Christ on toast points.
ThymeZone
snap!
This line is suitable for the Democrat(ic) response to any presidential message for the next two years.
Krista
Toast points — well, aren’t you la-di-da?
ThymeZone
{ Mike Myers voice }
Oh, yeaaahhh, baby!
ThymeZone
My typical lunch.
Excuse me … do you have any grey poop on?
Tim F.
Darrell, it is true that I have had the patience of Job with you. Let’s review the thread – first you came at me for a technical inaccuracy, giving the clear impression that you believed that in fact there was a scandal in the Edwards’s home sale. Strangely you refused to say whether you actually believed that there was a scandal until I had asked – what, four times? Pulling my own teeth would have been easier.
Then you failed to name one thing wrong with the Edwards’s home sale. Not the home price, not any alleged connections with the buyers, not his disclosure. Nothing. So where exactly are we now? You decided that even though a partisan as determined as yourself cannot find one thing wrong with the transaction I still am obligated to flip my lid about it because of its similarity to an analogy that you dishonestly constructed.
By now even the slower readers can figure out the basic Darrell strategy. First you fight to prove that some sort of impropriety occurred, or might have occurred, or looks like it might have occurred. You lost, too bad. These things happen. But you never acknowledge it. No, that would be out of character. Instead you decide to attack me personally, as a partisan who only dismisses the story because I’m crazy in the head. Despite the fact that you can’t put your finger on one. blessed. impropriety. Offense is more fun than defense, n’est-ce pas? Don’t give me too much credit, it’s what you always do.
Here’s a fun exercise – let’s see whether you will ever acknowledge that your own analogy was dishonestly constructed. Ken Lay has administration connections which are too obvious to mention. What were the Klaasens’s connections to the Edwardses? Tell me what exactly makes the one similar to the other. Last time it took four tries to get you to answer a question straight. We’re now on the second go round for this particular Q. Setting four as the over/under, my money says over. Prove me wrong, bro.
Tim F.
Comments left a significant time after the thread goes up often pass under my radar. If you want me to know about something and the thread isn’t near the top, email me.
ThymeZone
Four? It takes most of us fifty, if ever. You have him on a short leash.
If I ask him a question, he just changes the subject.
Is it me? Is it my deodorant?
{ silence }
It is my deodorant. Oh god, this is so humiliating.
Tim F.
Does the subject usually change to you acting like a git? Just asking.
ThymeZone
So, how’s your way of dealing with Darrell working out?
Just saying. When somebody shows me a better way, they can criticize mine. If that attitude is good enough for the Most Powerful Man In The World, it is damned well good enough for me.
Seriously. You guys leave us out here to wrassle with this idiot 24x7x365. Are you now going to teach us how to do it?
Tim F.
Well, I’d say that we’re making progress. Unlike you guys he accused me of mental illness in an entirely pleasant manner.
Tim F.
ok, enough horsing around. I’m supposed to be working. I’ll check back later.
Pb
Tim F.,
You’re so vain, you probably thought that post was about you. But no, I was talking about Jimmy Mack, who was (incorrectly, as usual) shooting his mouth off about that thread.
ThymeZone
You guys OWN the blog.
Of course he is going to be deferential to you.
Try a little experiment: Try posting under a nym, and get testy with him, and see what happens.
TenguPhule
I’m sure you have a perfectly good explanation for major networks confusing Obama with Osama on several occasions.
And for how Bush keeps doing what’s in his own best short term interests, rather then the country’s long term interests.
And for why you can’t be honest.
John Cole
I don’t know why Darrell wants my opinion, as the WaPo already said the story was BS.
As to whether or not if Cheney and Bush sold their house to an Enron guy, sure, I am betting the press would make a big deal of it. As they should. Fortunately, Red State and Hugh Hewitt would be here to explain why Bush selling his house to Kenny Boy is no big deal.
I really have not followed this issue, but I find arguing about it pointless. Edwards sold his house, some hack tried to make a big deal out of it, and 5 more soldiers died yesterday in Iraq.
TenguPhule
Darrell’s Irony of the Day(tm).
ThymeZone
I think this sentence says more than the entire stack of comments that precede it.
Mike
The irony is that Darrell could be honest about ANYTHING.
Richard 23
Selling a house to a dead guy would seem a little strange. As long as they don’t sell the White House, I guess. Or have they done that already?
Jonathan
I’ve tried to be nice to Darrell and he got quite nasty at me, even though he won’t answer any questions I ask him no matter how many times they are repeated.
Darrell accused me of “stalking” him “from thread to thread” and being “obsessive”.
I am a little obsessive sometimes, but in a good way. :-)
ThymeZone
I’m an obnoxious in your face righty basher, most times, but only in the most caring and nurturing way.
Steve
That’s his loss. My park ranger friend is cute and single.
Someone please call me when Darrell figures out that labor and management are generally considered to be opposing sides. Only on this blog could such a debate rage on for hundreds of posts.
TenguPhule
That’s nothing. I’m still waiting for Darrell to pass basic reading comprehension.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
I just thought I’d weigh in here for a second. You guys pay Darrell way, way too much attention. Why not ignore him? At least it would keep the comments below 50, so those of us on the go might have a chance at trudging through them without getting reprimanded by unforgiving supervisors.
My 2 cents. Okay, back to lurking.