Here are the facts:
The Maryland General Assembly just passed a bill which will only allow privately-owned beer and wine stores to sell liquor. Clever language in the bill specifically excludes grocery stores, drug stores, and convenience stores. Even popular convenience stores that currently sell beer and wine, like Talbert's in Bethesda, will be ineligible to sell liquor.
The new law allows the DLC to decide the criteria for the granting of contracts with private beer and wine stores by itself, with no public input or transparency. DLC, in other words, can decide the terms of competition itself. Profits for whichever few retailers DLC decides to "compete" with will likely be limited by the monopoly control over price, and that means no savings for you, the customer.
It's also unlikely that private beer and wine stores could be competitive with County-owned liquor stores on inventory, because the County stores are physically larger than stores which have been only allowed to sell beer and wine. And they'll still have to deal with the same DLC inventory and delivery problems that have hampered their existing beer and wine sales.
Once again, County politicians have tried to "look busy," even as they bolster and preserve the government liquor monopoly. Real change would be full privatization of beer, wine and spirit sales in Montgomery County, and being able to buy Bud Light or a bottle of wine at Safeway or Rite Aid. That did not happen with this new law.
Fact check score for fake news "liquor to be sold at privately-owned stores" headlines, designed to fool people who don't read the articles for the details?
Four Pinocchios/Pants on Fire
126 comments:
"Despite fake news headlines, you won't be buying liquor at grocery, drug or convenience stores in MoCo"
Actually it's your headline that's fake. No one has reported that liquor will be sold at "grocery, drug or convenience stores in MoCo".
Here's what the article you referenced, published two days ago, actually says:
The General Assembly unanimously approved a bill during the 2017 session that ended Monday that will allow the DLC to contract with privately-owned beer and wine stores to sell liquor. Currently, the DLC is the only retailer of liquor, which it sells at its 26 county-run liquor stores. Private stores can only sell beer and wine.
"...there are some stipulations such as the outlets licensed to sell spirits cannot sell snack food or soft drinks."
Seems crystal-clear to this reader.
5:29/5:46: You obviously didn't read the article above. And there is more than one article that has been published with the headline saying liquor will be sold at "privately-owned stores."
The headlines make NO MENTION OF "BEER AND WINE STORES." Nor that the majority of beer and wine retailers are ineligible to participate.
Fake news.
I had no problem understanding it.
Since when do all the details need to be in a headline?
That's just a silly thing to bitch about.
You're view is tainted by your hatred for the county council
Henny-pennying.
Oops. 5:58 it should be YOUR (not you're) - gotta post this quick before the spelling police get to me.
How long must a headline be?
You have to be a special kind of idiot to assume that the only possible interpretation of "will allow private stores...", is "will allow ALL private stores".
The first comment here captured what I wanted to say. Robert, get a grip. I know you do deal with fair share of bullying and comments about you so maybe it has hardened you and made you the negative, nasty-toned blogger you are.... but you're wrong on this one and I'm seriously worried that you are mentally ill. These blog postings are a bad showing of anyone's antics. You should be more careful in how you craft your words as they can be used against you and I know you don't care yadda yadda.... but whatever....
The county liquor stores aren't bad for the consumer. They have the best prices in the region, secure, hours aren't bad. This whole thing is a distraction from the real issues that we face with restaurants and the DLC distributing monopoly.
5:58: Details matter in journalism.
6:06: Adding 3 words "beer and wine" isn't that hard. Unfortunately, while we both may read articles in their entirety, many people don't. A headline saying "privately-owned stores" would give anyone who didn't know better the impression that the liquor monopoly had ended. Fake news.
6:08: "I'm seriously worried you are mentally ill."
Please.
I will be delighted to bring this attempt by county politicians to fool their constituents up on the debate stage, or anywhere else. You are the one who should be "more careful in how you craft your words," when you call someone "mentally ill" for fact-checking fake news.
6:12: Yes, those problems haven't been solved. However, the number one demand of county residents regarding liquor has been to allow beer and wine sales at grocery, drug and convenience stores.
There's been a lot PR to create false impressions that something is being done on both of these fronts (such as this latest fake news), when in reality, they ain't done squat and they are actively working to strengthen the liquor monopoly instead of ending it.
The monopoly has just been loosened. How is it being "strengthened"?
MoCo just moved ahead of Virginia.
Woo hoo!
"The number one demand of county residents regarding liquor has been to allow beer and wine sales at grocery, drug and convenience stores."
That's not a "county" issue. The existing law applies to the entire state of Maryland.
6:34: The law puts all control and financial benefit in the hands of the DLC, as the sole monopoly seller for product. They set the price. They decide who competes. And there are no savings for the consumer.
6:41: In corruption, yes, Maryland continues to move ahead of Virginia. Not anything to be proud of, unless you're a crook.
6:51: Duh, no kidding. And it is solved in the same way that this joke of a bill was passed. The state is invoked as a cop-out on every liquor issue they don't want to change, but is quickly manhandled on useless bills like the one they just passed.
The County Council and MoCo delegation control whether or not grocery stores can sell beer. Period. The Council has made clear they don't want those sales allowed.
I don't think Dyer understands what fake news means.
I don't think anyone's stupid enough to read "liquor to be sold at privately-owned stores" and think that means any store in the county can suddenly sell liquor. Of course we're only talking about a change that affects beer/wine stores.
Latest example of Dyer crying wolf for no reason. "Sad!"
@6:56
Nope, Dyer is a typical Trumpbot that classifies anything he doesn't like as "fake news."
Just like his heroes Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway, he screams #fakenews!, to distract from the fact that he is the one reporting lies, faleshoods, misrepresentations, gross exaggerations, and half-truths.
The good thing is that they're hardly clever, and so ridiculous and nonsensical that they're very easy to spot.
Saith Dyer @ 6:56 AM: "The County Council and MoCo delegation control whether or not grocery stores can sell beer. Period. The Council has made clear they don't want those sales allowed."
Nope. Only the State can change the law. Montgomery County's delegation comprises far less than half of the General Assembly. They cannot pass or block legislation all by themselves.
One day, the Council may trust us to buy a bottle of wine or a six pack at the grocery store.
8:25: You're just going around in circles with the old "state" copout. We already know - liquor changes are made at the state level. So, why doesn't the County Council and MoCo delegation get behind a bill to change the law and allow sales in grocery stores?
You can't "Pass or block" legislation that is never introduced. They don't want it, as I said above, or else they'd be pressing for it, as they did with other more modest liquor law changes in recent years.
7:42: How would you get "beer and wine stores" out of the phrase "privately-owned stores?" Think about it. Fake news.
You'd get "beer and wine stores" by reading the article which provides the rest of the information.
9:05: You need to go to Journalism 101. You can't have a fake headline that gives a totally different impression from the facts. This was a very narrow change being advertised as the end of the monopoly! Fake news.
You need to stop blogging and go back to full-time fast food reviews on YouTube.
Dyer is a #birdbrain, he can't read anything past the headline. Dyer just wanted an excuse to accuse his "competition" of being "fake news". I guess he's not just a birdbrain, but liar too!
Dyer, are privately owned beer and wine stores privately owned?
If yes, then the headline is accurate.
This is one of the more audacious public misinformation campaigns I've ever witnessed from Robert Dyer.
Four Pinocchios/Pants on Fire
This is a falsehood in the same vein as "Robert Dyer won the election for county council"
Just like his idol, The Donald, Dyer is a fan of alternative facts
Dyer @ 9:15 AM - So why aren't any Senators or Delegates from outside Montgomery County pushing for repeal of these restrictions?
And how on Earth is our County Council responsible for failing to change a state law?
8:57 - One day you may try improving your reading comprehension. That restriction is due to state law and is in effect in all of Maryland's counties and Baltimore City.
The problem is it confused Dyer, so he had to claim "fake news" and needlessly create a big brouhaha.
8:02 - crying wolf Agreed. +1000
5:59 - henny pennying Agreed. +1000
11:53 - tl to repeat Agreed +1000
Dyer, did you read any of the comments on the article over at the other place? The readers there don't seem to have any trouble understanding the provisions of the bill.
10:33: Don't flatter yourself, there were several news outlets who used the "privately owned stores" headline.
10:48: Wrong! The headlines that said "privately owned stores" falsely include all privately owned stores with that wording.
The bill only allows beer and wine stores to sell, and only a fraction of those even qualify, because many such retailers sell products forbidden under the new law like soft drinks.
11:53: Okay, so which facts in the article above are false? (Hint: none)
1:59: Uh, because like the County Council, they personally profit from these archaic liquor laws that were designed to fatten the pockets of corrupt Maryland politicians. And second, t liquor laws are - relatively speaking - looser in other Maryland counties.
The Council is responsible because they can press for a bill in Annapolis - just as the term-limits-busting-attempt bill was put forward for them this year - that would allow beer and wine to be sold at grocery and convenience stores.
They did not do so.
Some councilmembers like Hans Riemer proclaimed government had no business selling liquor, then turned around and endorsed continuing the monopoly.
They own it.
"How is this on us?" - Roger Berliner
3:05: No confusion here. Mark Zuckerberg and I know fake news when we see it. You got served.
4:54: I did, but there were so few comments, it was obvious few people had read the actual article. So it was a triple emergency alert on my part to inform the public of the facts.
Dyer @ 5:20 PM -
"10:48: Wrong! The headlines that said "privately owned stores" falsely include all privately owned stores with that wording."
Have you noticed that you are the ONLY ONE who is interpreting that headline the way that you did?
If the state of Maryland changed the law to allow grocery, drug and convenience stores to sell beer and wine, and the Giant, Whole Foods, Rite Aid, 7-11 and all those gas stations in Westbard started selling beer and wine...
...causing Talbert's to go out of business, Robert Dyer would promptly blame the County Council for that.
Love it when Dyer sets the record straight!
Dyer, stop being so self righteous, you clearly miss-interpreted the the article and falsely accused other sites (aka your competition) as "fake news". It's not fake news, they reported facts which you tried to cherry pick and sensationalize. Stop crying wolf. You're full of crap.
oh, and before you call me out, i'm more than happy to "cash you outside" just let me know when and where, dumass (just like A&W)
Dyer @ 5:33 PM - Why didn't you post a comment on that article over there? Folks reading that site aren't going to see your "triple emergency alert" if it's posted only over here.
8:46: As I've said repeatedly, more than one news outlet falsely reported the "privately owned stores" talking point. Trust me, my triple emergency alert is reaching the masses, even on a major holiday like this.
6:23: Talbert's will never go out of business - it's an institution!
8:37: Argle Bargle.
How did I "misinterpret?" I've quoted the headlines from the other news outlets, which had the false statement "privately owned stores."
How many times in one day can you post the same comment about "crying wolf?" That's not even an applicable phrase to a fact-checking article.
Dyer, only a fool would think that "privately owned stores" refers to all stores. The Apple Store isn't suddenly going to have a liquor license. So the headline is obviously referring to some subset of stores. Now, as you've stated, not every beer and wine store gets a liquor license. So there is a subset there as well, which would require a needlessly long headline to explain, because if someone is interested they can read the article. Someone who gets their news solely from headlines deserves the shame they'll earn when they go into CVS demeaning to know where the new liquor section is.
10:48: Common sense would assume it applied to all stores that could (and should) potentially sell liquor - Grocery, drug and convenience stores. That's what "privately-owned stores" would refer to in common understanding.
All it took was 3 words: Beer and Wine stores...to make an accurate headline.
The beauty of the deception is that no one would expect it to start right away. It's just supposed to give people the impression that things they wanted are getting done, when in fact they are doing the opposite, strengthening and solidifying the much-despised monopoly system.
Fortunately, I was able to inform the public of this scandalous ruse.
It said privately-owned stores.
Not ALL privately-owned stores.
Headline was correct. That is a true statement.
Just like "7-11's can sell beer in MoCo." It too is correct and a true statement. The fact that not EVERY 7-11 can sell beer, is additional detail that you'd find in the body of an article.
End of story.
Sheesh. Henny-pennying.
Guess who's trying to prevent Bethesdians from buying beer at 7-11?
Talbert's, that's who.
http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Bethesda-7-Eleven-Wins-Back-Right-To-Sell-Beer-Wine/
"Mom-and-pop liquor stores in the state have fiercely protected the law to prevent competition from gas stations, convenience stores and other corporate-owned competitors that could impact their businesses. And on Thursday that was no exception. Peter Frank, the owner of Talbert’s, was represented during the board hearing by Steve Wise, a well-known Annapolis attorney and liquor lobbyist who also represents the Maryland State Licensed Beverage Association."
Doesn't fit Dyer's narrative.
@10:41 AM -- Exactly right. It is a frequent and shocking occurrence in Dyer's blog that the basic politics of many issues in the County are with complete ignorance on his part ignored so as to further one of his many "cartel" or other conspiracies.
He seems completely blinded by his hatred of Hans Reimer and the other members of the County Council, as well as his tendency to find a grand conspiracy underlying every issue.
So if Talbert's doesn't want 7-11 to be allowed to sell beer and wine, then why should Talbert's be able to sell liquor?
(Actually Talbert's could sell liquor per this bill, they would just need to stop selling food, soft drinks and other non-booze-related items.)
11:00 AM That's like saying the Post is "completely blinded by their hatred of President Trump and other members of his administration".
You do understand that it's the mission of journalism to scrutinize and be skeptical of those in power, right? Same thing with the PR wing of the government-- need to hold those accountable too.
Disruptors in journalism like Dyer will always get hate from the entrenched, established old guard in local media and politics.
And here come the non-sequiturs from #UnsignedDyer.
11:33 AM non-sequitur?
I just responded to all the comments from folks so sensitive to see anything that could be construed as criticism or analysis of local elected officials. In this thread and every other here.
Also posted a response to the unhinged man at the Magazine :)
9:37: Headline was incorrect and extremely misleading. End of story.
10:05: Talbert's doesn't control or decide whether beer and wine should be sold at 7-Eleven. The County Council and General Assembly do. Their inaction is entirely to blame, not Talbert's pursuing their right to protest a specific license. Get real.
"The PR wing of the government"
"Lügenpresse!" saith #UnsignedDyer.
Headline was correct and not misleading. End of story.
We're going for truth here, not conspiracy theory opinion.
The commenters ^^^^ had no problem understanding.
The problem is it confused Dyer, so he had to claim "fake news" and needlessly create a big brouhaha. Whether he admits it or not, the rest of us know.
Now, Go watch the baby giraffe and smile a little.
Slow news month for restaurant openings in Dyerville. All he has is True Food Kitchen, and that's starting to seem like April the Giraffe's pregnancy.
From these comments, it seems not a single other person other than the author of this post was confused.
2:23: BS. I've not only reported more than anyone else in Bethesda, but Rockville and Silver Spring, too. Your guys are still crawling around looking for their heads about Lina's Diner and Silver Strings, A Bite of China and Michael's Noodles, just to name a few, you dumpster-diving hobo.
6:35: "From the multiple comments by one schizophrenic paid troll under different fake names, it seems our fiendish plot to trick the good people of Montgomery County into believing we had rid them of the extremely unpopular DLC liquor monopoly was completely derailed by the People's Champion, Robert Dyer. Curses, foiled again!"
-"Wrol"
1:46: You're "going for truth," but endorsing a #FakeNews headline that falsely claims all "privately owned stores" in Montgomery County will soon sell liquor? Please. The headline was atrociously misleading. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to trick the good people of Montgomery County.
Dyer @ 7:32 PM:
What's "atrociously misleading" is your repeated insertion of the word "all" which was never in the actual headline, let alone in the body of the article.
Why don't you just admit you were wrong, and stop lying?
name one other person that was confused by that article other than you.
Robert, Wrol makes a very good point. It seems you're the only person confused by that headline from your "competition." Just because you can't comprehend a headline doesn't make it fake news. I think you'd do better if you grew up and responded to the comments on your blog like an adult.
7:54: Nobody said "all" was in the headline, but when you simply say, "privately-owned stores," you by default are saying liquor will be sold in all privately-owned stores. Quoting actual headlines and exposing a misguided PR campaign of deception is the exact opposite of "lying."
8:24: I wasn't confused, but almost everyone who saw the headline and didn't read through the actual article definitely was confused.
8:24: Wrol, er, Riff, I was never "confused." No clue what you're talking about. I saw a fake news headline, and fact-checked it. I can't "comprehend" why news outlets would say "privately owned stores" instead of "can be sold at beer and wine stores," other than an intentional deception.
As I said, the goal was to make local politicians "look busy," and create a fake, feel-good impression that they are knocking out the liquor monopoly. In fact, they are in bed with it, and trying to ensure its survival. Fake news.
"almost everyone who saw the headline and didn't read through the actual article definitely was confused."
To whom are you referring? Certainly not anyone who has commented here, other than yourself. Why can't you just admit that you were wrong? Even once?
Dyer, who will it take to make you understand you are wrong?
I'll take this discussion to anyone who's opinion you value in journalism, provided they don't work for Breitbart, Infowars, Lifezette or their ilk.
Ball's in your court.
5:37: How would they have commented on the fake news articles if they hadn't read them? I'm referring to people skimming over headlines, tweets and Facebook posts who saw the misleading headline, absorbed it, but didn't read the actual article to learn that the headline was fake.
Ken Hartman then spread the fake news using taxpayer dollars through his taxpayer-funded newsletter, in his overeagerness to promote the small-and-slightly-failing magazine with which he has some kind of unknown agreement that should be looked at by the county's Inspector General.
How was I "wrong?" I've quoted the headline phrases exactly.
5:53: Any credible copy editor or editor would back me up on this. Headlines can't deceive. Period.
Dyer, no one thinks that "privately owned stores" means "all privately owned stores." Find one person who thinks that headline referred to Toys R Us, REI, or Lululemon. Then have that person institutionalized, because they are insane.
Your whole premise is flawed. Stop digging.
I concur
"Ken Hartman's...overeagerness to promote the small-and-slightly-failing magazine with which he has some kind of unknown agreement that should be looked at by the county's Inspector General."
{eyeroll}
That's world class reporting from Bobby Dyer for you.
"I'm referring to people skimming over headlines, tweets and Facebook posts who saw the misleading headline, absorbed it, but didn't read the actual article to learn that the headline was fake."
And who exactly are these "people"?
6:33: I'm talking about all private stores where common sense would dictate you would expect beer and wine to be sold - Giant, CVS, 7-Eleven, etc.
Nobody thinks it would include Toys R Us.
7:09: It's clear there's some kind of agreement. He's the only regional director in the county who links to outside websites, and always to the magazine. That's an illegal use of taxpayer funds.
7:27: Is English your first language?
Dyer @ 8:45 AM -
So you're saying that "private stores" means "all private stores"...
...but that "all private stores" doesn't actually mean "all private stores"?
I don't expect beer and wine to be sold at Giant, CVS, or 7-Eleven. That's because I grew up in and live in Montgomery County. Again, your premise is flawed.
I've lived in places where you could buy beer at a corner bodega at basically any time you wanted. I've lived in places where you had to cross into the next county to buy any hard liquor at all. As a result, I don't think "common sense" dictates that local liquor laws follow any particular pattern.
As far as all "these people" go, it's pretty clear they are made of straw and were set up to scare the birds that inhabit Dyer's brain. Unfortunately, they are not working.
I just reviewed Ken Hartman's Tweets going back an entire year. In that period, I found many links to local government and non-profit sites, several to local news media such as The Washington Post, WTOP and NBC4. I found exactly one to Bethesda Magazine, an article dated April 19, 2016, about the Westin Hotel project.
9:22: We're talking about his taxpayer-funded email newsletter, not his personal Twitter account. The newsletter is all Bethesda magazine all the time.
Pennsylvania: "Unopened six- and twelve-packs of beer, and single units of certain larger sizes (i.e., 22- and 40-ounce bottles) can be sold "to-go" by bars, taverns, and certain restaurants. Though convenience and grocery stores broadly cannot sell beer or malt liquor, some have created attached "cafe" areas which though enclosed by the store are legally separate, allowing them to sell beer."
In Virginia, 10 counties prohibit the sale of distilled liquor.
8:53: Read the first sentence of my 8:45 comment 10 times until it sinks in.
Saith Dyer @ 8:45 AM:
"...where common sense would dictate you would expect..."
LOL
By the way Dyer, what is your rating scale for fact-checking? You've never rated anything other than "Four Pinocchios." I guess if the headline said "privately owned beer and wine stores" you would have rated it Three Pinocchios, and if it had said "privately owned beer and wine stores that don't also sell food items" then it might have gotten Two Pinocchios, and if it was just the verbatim text of the whole article you maybe would give it One Pinocchio?
Also, I notice you've never cited Glenn Kessler, despite the fact that you're clearly ripping off his rating scale. I thought you didn't like plagiarism.
Dyer @ 10:10 am:
I don't subscribe to the newsletter. Can you document what fraction of the total number of external links go to news sites in general, and tonBethesda Magazine specifically?
Also, can you document how much taxpayer funds go to it?
11:01: Kessler's "four legs good, two legs bad" brand of fact-checking gives the whole fact-checking industry a bad name.
It just happens that the Montgomery County cartel is so corrupt and so dishonest that every analysis has so far earned four Pinocchios and Pants on Fire (the latter is a Politifact scale, not Kessler's).
We have to be careful to not normalize the County Council in any way. The stance of the press must be skepticism, doubt, and relentless fact-checking.
"We have to be careful to not normalize the County Council in any way."
Dyer hates democracy.
As I listen to Sec Kelly talking about cartels, I'm more appalled than ever that Dyer uses that word to describe in any way our MoCo council.
It must be awful to wake up every day thinking everyone and everything is trying to take advantage of you.
The level of paranoia in this is off the charts. Wow. Really wow.
"We have to be careful to not normalize the County Council in any way."
Dyer @5:53 commented: "Any credible copy editor or editor would back me up on this. Headlines can't deceive. Period."
Great! So you have no preference who I send this discussion to. Got it! (that surprised me, BTW) Now, who do you consider "credible?"
"Kessler's "four legs good, two legs bad" brand of fact-checking gives the whole fact-checking industry a bad name."
"Pants on Fire (the latter is a Politifact scale, not Kessler's)."
So you offer a lame excuse for plagiarizing Kessler. And acknowledge that you are also plagiarizing Polifact, but with no excuse offered.
4:18: An experienced copy editor or editor of a newspaper (Washington Post/Des Moines Register/LA Times level, not community newspapers, whose gaffes, bias, and grammatical and spelling errors continue to appall.
5:36: I haven't plagiarized anybody. I'm simply delighting in applying the arbitrary and capricious Pinocchio and Pants ratings to their own people. Acerbic commentary is not plagiarism.
4:03: The cartel is what powers the Council, puts them into office, and keeps them there. Everyone and everything isn't trying to take advantage of the good people of Montgomery County, just their government and the fake news websites that disseminate their messaging.
4:09: Why would you normalize criminal elected officials? You can't be complicit - we must #resist.
Citizens having to shout at the Planning Board, march in the streets, and sue their own government for disobeying the will of the People - and you ask if there's actually a criminal cartel running our County government? What more proof do you need?
Says Dyer from under his tinfoil hat
8:19: You missed the numerous protests by residents against the County Council and Planning Board over the last year? Where have you been?
Living in reality, not your paranoid world of delusions!
"[G]rammatical and spelling errors continue to appall" says Dyer, while failing to close his parenthesis.
Citizens disagreeing with some of the decisions of their elected government?
If that isn't proof of a criminal cartel, then nothing is.
9:43: It is indeed. These were major issues on which their constituents spoke loud and clear, yet were completely ignored by their corrupt representatives. Thus, it is clear that the Council is controlled by another entity, a.k.a. the MoCo cartel.
What a leap. From not listening to a handful of constituents to controlled by the cartel. Wow. What brilliant deductive reasoning. Dyer is a regular Sherlock Holmes.
Ken needs a nudge sometimes to stop him from promoting his favorite site in official county newsletters :)
Dyer @ 8:33 AM:
What percentage of the adult population of Montgomery County do all those yelling people comprise?
1:30: According to the term limits vote last November, they comprise nearly 70% of the adult population of Montgomery County.
10:57: No leap necessary. Most rational people can see that when a group provides more than 80% of campaign contributions to the County Council, when the Council then votes in favor of that group over the wishes of their constituents consistently, and when anonymous dark money is funding fake news websites that - surprise - parrot and promote the same group's talking points, that you indeed have a political cartel running the County, my dear Watson.
"a group provides more than 80% of campaign contributions to the County Council"
#FakeStatistics
Mr. Dyer, being myself a Bethesdian, your scoop and inside reporting is fantastic. As a Republican, I find huge flaws in your logic and leaps of faith made to connect conspiracies without proof.
5:32: Developers alone account for 70-80% of campaign contributions. Look at the reports yourself. Facts.
12:59: So you figure that all the land records of disadvantaged black landowners that have mysteriously disappeared, or have been manually altered, at the Planning Department are just a wild coincidence - and that the black cemetery cover-up at Westbard is just another wild coincidence in the same department?
The majority of campaign donations to the current Council is 80% the same cartel of contributors, and the Council just happens to vote the way those contributors want in every case - over the will of the People - by coincidence?
There's plenty of proof here. Where there's fire, there's also plenty of smoke. It's time for an FBI investigation.
Gee. With all this proof, it's puzzling that the FBI hasn't gotten involved.
Do you think they're paying off the FBI? How far up does this go?
Did you ever contact the FBI?
4:11: We won't know until the FBI gets involved.
And if the FBI won't investigate due to lack of evidence? Will you still believe in your crazy theories?
Why isn't the FBI involved? Haven't you given them all your evidence to get them started?
Do you think this goes beyond the county council? What about former employees? They should have some dirt.
8:40: It definitely goes beyond the County Council - the Planning Board and Planning Department should be included in any FBI investigation.
Did you ever contact the FBI? They can't investigate what they don't know about. They don't have psychic superpowers.
It seems even the FBI doesn't believe your theories else by your logic they would have done something about it.
You know, if true, this would be a career-making story.
Just saying.
And yet his career hasn't been made. Hmmmmm.
That logic is irrefutable. Facts.
Based on the comments, it seems robert is the only one that has trouble understanding that headine.
Post a Comment