View Full Version : ALL ABOUT HARRY.

08-08-2012, 03:11 PM
Using earmarks for his own personal benefit?

OH MY! (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-earmarks13nov13,0,6626376,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

08-08-2012, 03:37 PM
Yes, if only Harry Reid had to face the public to keep his office.

Something like an election or something.

He must have a life appointment or something, because surely the people of Nevada would have tossed him in a split second once they learned of his perfidy, as you have described it in your little series on him.

Oh, wait! He DID have an election, I just remembered. It was in 2010, years after these deeds came to light.

If only the GOP had fielded a competent candidate, rather than go with Ms. Sharon Angle, perhaps then these alleged transgressions would have angered the people enough to through him out of that office!

In the meantime, the people of Nevada have spoken, and returned Sen. Reid to office in a 6-year term (4 years remaining).

Well, better luck next time.

08-08-2012, 03:47 PM
Even the moonbat crazy left TRUTHOUT (http://archive.truthout.org/hacking-harry-reid-or-sharrons-angle64548) acknowledges that Dingy Harry stole the 2010 election.

08-09-2012, 07:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even the moonbat crazy left TRUTHOUT (http://archive.truthout.org/hacking-harry-reid-or-sharrons-angle64548) acknowledges that Dingy Harry stole the 2010 election. </div></div>


Clearly enough, and from the top, this piece, written BEFORE the election, suggested that BOTH sides should have no confidence in the system of electronic voting. That BOTH sides ought to be suing in court by that time, or have their lawsuits at the ready.

So, no. As I said, fail. It's hard to imagine, but you are a dishonest READER, along with other dishonesties. (Which explains a lot, actually.)

08-10-2012, 02:14 AM
The regime appreciates your continual slavish defense.

08-10-2012, 07:52 AM
Correcting your claims by referencing the truth is not carrying water for those you attack with falsehoods.

I know you think it is. But then, you may believe what you linked to says what you say it did. When it doesn't. Isn't that entirely obvious?