Dear sweet jesus.
We have come to a very weird place indeed when the larrytards now turn on the gods and goddesses who rule over the Hell called Fox News. It goes to show just how far down the rabbit hole they’ve gone and what a undeserved sense of self they have to watch them DEMAND that a national news organization (and I use the term loosely) pay attention to the 56 odd defectives that post on papatard’s web-lie.
First, Wells DEMANDED that Sen. Joseph Biden come clean about his role in the conspiracy to “silence” papatard. I’m not sure whether this pathetic plea for validity is an upgrade or downgrade from that.
TV news has hit a new low. A news reporter that I once respected, Greta Van Susteren, and a former news show, Fox News, have become major disappointments. Just a few weeks ago my lady and I were watching Greta on Fox and we both remarked at how much she had changed. Greta used to be a hard hitting, no nonsense news seeker. Now she hosts an entertainment show. Well, I have had it!
Greta recently posted the following:
“June 18th, 2008 11:00 AM Eastern
Here is why…
by Greta Van Susteren
Many of you email me asking why I don’t interview Larry Sinclair….here is why (click on the link)
I assume you now know why I have not interviewed him and no one has…his 27 year criminal record and all sorts of other matters mentioned in the above link tell you why..in short, no credibility.
I urge all of you to look to the issues…and not to the smears. While the internet is a great communication and educational tool, it is also viral when it comes to smearing people. There are good reasons to be skeptical of what politicians promise you.. challenge them about those promises…question their policies…but let’s skip unsubstantiated smears.”
The click here points to this site:
So, greta is basing her decision to not interview Sinclair based on rumors, smears and one biased blog?
HA! Uh…yeah. One biased blog? Kinda like the way the larrytards cream over http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com which provides no back up for ANYTHING it says? You mean, that kind of biased blog? It takes a certain specific type of craziness to form those thoughts in your mind and then type them out and publish them. Just to be clear – there are other larrytard blogs but they mostly copy and paste from papatad’s blog and add something like “THIS THING’S GONNA BLOW ANY DAY NOW”. Honestly, I haven’t looked that hard but NOBODY seems to be doing any kind of investigation into whether papatard is telling the truth. Oh, sure, they’ll publish the names and addresses of those who dare to ask for the tiniest morsel of evidence and attempt to shred the reputations of the non-believiers but as to supporting documentation? Nope. Sorry. Judge Judy is on and they can’t miss that.
Rumors and smears? Again – where’s the proof? It doesn’t exist. Both The Mitch and Nan Show and Death By 1000 Paper Cuts have done solid reporting debunking pretty much everything papatard says. The only thing the larrytards have done is repeat, zombie and cult-like, their fervent belief that papatard must be telling the truth because he’s a criminal. papatard certianly hasn’t given any.
Even better, Wells continues
So, what is the reason Greta?
It goes to the heart of the matter that even though Greta gives the reason that she’s not reporting on it, Wells refuses to see it. It’s as if he’s saying, “Until you admit that papatard is telling the truth, I will not trust anything you say.”
Are you drooling over Obama?
Are you more interested in doing an entertainment show?
Are you afraid of being tagged racist?
This is the classic papa/larrytard gambit – ask a bunch of stupid questions. Why are you afraid? What are you hiding? Why won’t you answer these rhetorical questions? In the larrytard world, not supporting papatard means you support Obama. I’m not sure that Greta does, although I couldn’t really tell you. It’s beside the point. Not believing a career criminal means you hate America and you’re secretly afraid of black people.
Are you afraid to get your hands dirty and do some real work? Some real news reporting?
HEE HEE! Sounds like she already did her reporting, you stupid fuck. She dug around and found out that there’s not one shred of evidence to support papatard’s claims and a MOUNTAIN of evidence that shows that taking him at his word is a bad idea. Seriously – how do you hold a press conference promising to bring forth evidence, NOT bring forth evidence and then still have followers left at the end of the day? How? You’re a con artist skilled at keeping the eyes of your marks as far away from the truth as possible. Almost three weeks after the airlines sent his bags to France (um…no…they didn’t) he still has not produced the evidence that luggage theoretically contained. Even more shocking – not one larrytard has asked for it. Do some reporting on THAT, Wells. Find out where the luggage is and what it contained. Then you can start bitching about Greta’s lack of reporting.
Greta, and most of the rest of MSM, I and other bloggers and truth seekers have been doing your job. I actually speak to Larry Sinclair. I ask questions without assuming. I do not drink the “kool aid”. In fact, I have researched and written about Dan Shomon, Obama’s former campaign manager and co schemer in getting state grants for Robert Blackwell companies. You see, Greta, the Sinclair story did not happen in a vacuum. If you had been doing your job, you would have been aware of all the crime, curruption and drug connections that make Sinclair’s story more believeable.
OOH! Wow! You mean papatard tells you what to say, you believe him unconditionally and call that “reporting”? Wells, you may ask questions without assuming but I think they sound something like this
Wells: Larry, did you blow Obama while he smoked crack?
papatard: Yes. I did.
papatard: Yes. Really.
Wells: Well. It doesn’t get more definitive than THAT!
papatard: I’m a truth teller. That’ll be $200 for the interview.
Wells: Best money I ever spent!
What do Blackwell and Rezko have to do with papatard? Nothing. Nothing at all. It’s more smoke and fuel to stoke the fires of Obama-hatred. But if you collect enough untruths and tie them up with a pretty ignorance-colored ribbon then it doesn’t matter what bullshit scandal you’re talking about – it’s all one great big fake scandal and the specifics don’t matter. You’ve judged him guilty of one so he’s guilty of everything. Kinda like the way the Republican primaries work.
And guess what, one of the bloggers that has tried the hardest to discredit Larry Sinclair and anyone else seeking the truth about Obama, has been found out. This person has a recent criminal record. The is the same blogger that lied and took credit for Larry’s arrest. If you had bothered to check, the blogger’s information was incorrect. If you go to my blog, you will find the facts.
HEH! Even if this is true (and as I recall, it was a conflict with a client, not a “criminal” matter) you’ve shot yourself in foot AGAIN proving what a raging hypocrite you are. The whole “I believe papatard” movement rests on a single notion – just because he’s a career criminal doesn’t mean he’s not telling the truth. (Yeah. I know. That’s why they’re called larrytards.) By Wells’ own logic, there is no good reason NOT to believe “one of the bloggers”. (You’ll note that Wells is too chickenshit to even name said blogger). If being a “criminal” does not discount papatard from being truthful then why would Wells insist that “one of the bloggers” must be lying because he’s a “criminal”?
I have studied Barack Obama and Larry Sinclair and I can assure you that Mr. Sinclair has more credibility with me.
Soooo…let’s go over this again. A career criminal with a history of fraud, drug running, human traficking and who has two outstanding warrants, one from late 2007, has more credibility than a US senator that worked his way up from poverty to become a presidential candidate.
HOW does that work again?
So Greta. I challenge you to do some real reporting.
I also challenge you to contact me. I have facts as the result of hard work that I can provide. That is, if you care.
I love these challenges! Especially since they only work one way. On 7/25, I offered my own challenge to Wells. He has never responded to it, which means he is guilty of raping puppies and feeding them to weavils. In my opinion, that’s worse than being a career criminal OR a presidential candidate. Currently, I have a challenge “awaiting moderation” challenging Wells to prove that papatard is telling the truth.
He won’t respond to either, I’m sure. Why? Because the first charge 1) is so spurious and unbelievable that to acknowledge it would do more harm than good and 2) he doesn’t give a fuck who I am. Which is the precise reason that neither Obama, Biden or Greta will acknowledge him or any larrytard. It’s pointless.
As to the second charge, you’d think that he’d want to clear that up. Not so much. He wouldn’t know the truth if it blew him.