08-24-2008, 04:28 AM
To Damon:
Your attempt to make light of your obvious bias won't get you very far... brah; in fact, it's pathetic. You're obviously in the bag for Billy and my suggestion is both you and Hunter go outside and wave to your credibility as it goes bye bye.
To freddie:
I don't get your drift. I've sifted through the campaign spending reports and found only one major problem on the part of three of the four candidates. Mr. Pilago is one of the three (yes, Billy was another, in fact the worst) who made the omission so I don't think he's all that heroic. Just to let you know, I called the Campaign Spending Commission and spoke to one of their attorney's a day or two before the last commission meeting but there wasn't enough time to get it on the agenda. My assumption is, at least in the case of Angel, that it's probably a relatively minor oversight. But, in the case of Billy, it could mean contributions and expenses have been significantly understated. Possibly in the range of $30,000 to $40,000, almost all of which would be in violation of the contribution limits. Regardless, so far it's in the hands of the spending commission so we'll see what they do.
Aside from that the only thing I see in Mr. Pilago's reports in comparison the other three is he hasn't reported receiving many contributions. That means A) maybe he doesn't have much support or B) maybe he hasn't reported all the money he's received. My guess it's A but it's difficult to tell.
Your attempt to make light of your obvious bias won't get you very far... brah; in fact, it's pathetic. You're obviously in the bag for Billy and my suggestion is both you and Hunter go outside and wave to your credibility as it goes bye bye.
To freddie:
I don't get your drift. I've sifted through the campaign spending reports and found only one major problem on the part of three of the four candidates. Mr. Pilago is one of the three (yes, Billy was another, in fact the worst) who made the omission so I don't think he's all that heroic. Just to let you know, I called the Campaign Spending Commission and spoke to one of their attorney's a day or two before the last commission meeting but there wasn't enough time to get it on the agenda. My assumption is, at least in the case of Angel, that it's probably a relatively minor oversight. But, in the case of Billy, it could mean contributions and expenses have been significantly understated. Possibly in the range of $30,000 to $40,000, almost all of which would be in violation of the contribution limits. Regardless, so far it's in the hands of the spending commission so we'll see what they do.
Aside from that the only thing I see in Mr. Pilago's reports in comparison the other three is he hasn't reported receiving many contributions. That means A) maybe he doesn't have much support or B) maybe he hasn't reported all the money he's received. My guess it's A but it's difficult to tell.