Here is a story of actual corruption, actual breaking the law.
This is not a story where someone might look like they hid something, or possibly did something. Here is another democrat caught red handed, and I am positive this is another democrat who will stay in office, because that is what they do.
They have sex with underage boys, they steal money and hide it in their freezer, they get over a million on sweet land deals, and they lie under oath...
And they all stay in office, and no one questions them on it...
The difference between the Right and the Left...
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
AP Exclusive: Reid Got $1M in Land Sale
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
There is less to this story than the AP may be trying to make of it. You can read more here.
"On two earlier occasions, Solomon has over-inflated his stories on Reid."
"There's an old saying in journalism that three examples make a trend. I think we have a trend here. Solomon’s apparent weakness for detail is one issue."
looks bad so far...we will see what happens...
Reid cares about the common good, so it doesn't matter what the evidence is, he's innocent.
Jim,
The thread was all the way back on 10/4, so I decided to post for you on this one, since it is at this time the most recent.
stoptheaclu.com (or stoptheACLU.com)
scroll down to it's greatest hits section and you'll find a link to the info regarding the ACLU's stance on sale and possession of child porn. Oh, they don't support production, those saintly souls.
Game, what law did Reid break? He bought land, some by himself and some with a partner. He and the partner formed an LLC. The LLC sold the land, and he and the partner got profit.
I mean, it's not like he used his leadership position to enrich himself; he did what many people (people richer than you and me, obviously) do all the time--invest, with a friend, and form a corporation to protect himself from liability. That's why they call it a limited liability corporation!
And all the while he kept giving updates to the Senate Ethics Committee--what could he have been trying to hide? It's like that asinine story about Reid's taking boxing credentials, where this same AP reporter implied wrongdoing where there was none. There's no fire here--and barely any smoke.
Marshall, I don't support production or possession of child pornography. However, there is a case to be made for legal possession. A case to be made and legitimate legal debate.
It never occurs to ACLU-haters that the cases that ACLU takes on are cases relevant to you and your freedoms.
An example is the often-cited NAMBLA case. ACLU-haters accuse ACLU of supporting NAMBLA which is not true.
In this case a young boy was murdered by a man who claimed that he learned his seduction techniques from a NAMBLA website. The boys parents sued NAMBLA over the contents of their website claiming their son's murder was incited by the website. As vile as NAMBLA is, there is no legal basis for the parents' lawsuit. The ACLU defended NAMBLA in an attack on free speech.
If you cannot see how this might relate to you or your organization's website, then you have no imagination. Should victims of an accident caused by a speeding driver be allowed to collect damages from a website that provided techniques for beating radar guns or one that sold radar detectors?
Post a Comment