Reply #152: Of course.

[beevul]

"Where does it come from? Did you compile it yourself? If not, why did you not link me to your source? If you have no source, why would I trust your claims?"

I DID link to it, but you did not bother, apparently, to follow those links.

"What does it represent? Does it represent democrats endorsed over republicans? Does it represent democrats who recieved campaign cash when they were running against republicans who did not get cash from the NRA? Does it merely represent candidates who recieved good "grades" from the NRA...when their opponent was also given such a grade and given large amounts of cash as well?"

How about following the link and figuring it out.

"The fact that you didn't address any of these issues makes your claims quite dubious."

The fact, is that there is simply no way on earth, that you can claim all those Democrats that were endorsed are right wing, particularly Dean, Richardson, and Schweitzer.

Logically, it follows that a right wing group would not endorse those which are not right wing.

Dean, Richardson, and Schweitzer are not right wing, and yet were endorsed.


"And no, you never ever addressed the CPAC issue."

Every time I show a Democrat endorsed by the nra, I address the central core of your point. I destroy it, in fact.

Richardson, Schweitzer, and Dean, utterly destroy the underlying premise of your "cpac" argument.

I'm sorry I'm addressing it in a way you don't like and refuse to acknowledge, but I AM addressing it.

You've been proven wrong. Your point has been proven wrong. Your premise, utterly dismantled.


By all means though, keep pretending otherwise.

It entertains me.