As Nasty as they Want To Be

[wyldwolf]

When I was in college, I set out to own a months old album by rap group 2 Live Crew because I started seeing news reports of how offensive it was. But others had the same idea. The record stores were sold out. Suddenly, the bootlegs appeared. The collection was passed from person to person. Soon, nearly everyone had a copy of what would have been a flop had a few conservatives not discovered their teenage daughters were listening to it. They made 2 Live Crew a household name!

There's another piece of media causing a similar uproar. Funny thing is, its been available for over two months -sitting all pretty on the DCCC website. Of course, I'm talking about the controversial commercial. Now, everyone has seen it. It's had over 28,000 downloads from Youtube alone.

So you're pissed that two Democrats in HEAVY Republican districts asked to have it removed and the DCCC obliged? How do you know that wasn't the plan from the get-go?

Sounds like a brilliant piece of strategy to me.

So while DUers whine that it MUST have been the evil DLC that killed the ad (only one of the House members was DLC. But the head of the DCCC that created it was DLC, too), just remember: The ad has been seen. Where it was once languishing in obscurity, it is now being shown on TV news shows, emailed, posted on websites, etc., ALL FOR FUCKING FREE.

I had not even heard about it until last week. Had you?

[pooja]

1. Great publicity... true... but what is the outcome.. how will people feel?

[wyldwolf]

2. I think the GOP Whine Machine has lost a lot of traction lately

...the effectiveness of the commercial will overshadow their blubbering.

[LincolnMcGrath]

4. Tell that to Dick Durbin.

[wyldwolf]

164. I have

[LincolnMcGrath]

3. 28,000 views is really something.

Too bad 280,000,000 Americans saw Dems fold once again under pressure.

I knew it wouldn't take long for new talking points to spin this episode, what I didn't know was how devoid of reason they would be.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. You have a point. The GOP's whining did get attention for the ad.

On the other hand, the fact that the DCCC pulled it in apparent response to the whining arguably makes them look weak. That, I think is what is bothering people.

[AtomicKitten]

6. I remain nonplussed with regard to whining

... here or on the other side of the aisle. That's progress from being annoyed by it and then tired of it.

The only thing I care about is making the bad Republicans go away. If this stupid dance ends up as a plus for our side, I'm down with it.

[LincolnMcGrath]

7. Tell us about your knowledge of Texas and the 17th District

Without a google

[wyldwolf]

8. sure

Bush defeated Sen. John Kerry 70 percent to 30 percent in the 2004. Chet Edwards won re-election in '04 by a 51 percent to 47 percent margin.

In two minutes and without Google. HOT DAMN!

[LincolnMcGrath]

9. And how old is the district?

[wyldwolf]

10. 5 or 6 years old, huh? No, 3 years old. how many gas stations are there?

Created in 2003 by TX Legislature

[LincolnMcGrath]

11. 3 actually

Just wondering how much faith DUers were putting in your claim of HEAVY Rep. Districts.
As an 8 term congressman re-elected to a newly drawn district map, the district can not be HEAVY Rep. or he wouldn't be there.

Also I find it curious that your OP completely left out all the GOPers who are involved in this.

[wyldwolf]

14. why wouldn't DUers "put faith" in the FACT that is is heavy Republican?

It was redrawn to favor Republicans. Bush whipped Kerry there in '04, and Edwards only won his seat by 8,000 votes.

[LincolnMcGrath]

18. Democrats don't win in HEAVY GOP areas. Least of all, not 8 times.

They win in moderate or true center areas.

Get real.

[wyldwolf]

20. LOL! Didn't we just establish this district is 3 years old? Do the math

NO ONE can be elected 8 times to House seat in a three year old district. LOL! Get real.

[LincolnMcGrath]

23. LOL NO ONE can declare a district HEAVY REP after one election.

Nice try though. (not really)

[wyldwolf]

25. they can when it is purposely redistricted as such. But according to you.

Edwards has won 8 times in a 3 year old district. He has served 16 in TX17 and it's only 3 years old. :rofl:

[LincolnMcGrath]

28. I referred to Chet in post 11 as follows

As an 8 term congressman re-elected to a newly drawn district map.

In post 18 I wrote the following Democrats don't win in HEAVY GOP areas. Least of all, not 8 times. They win in moderate or true center areas


Seriously, is this the best you have to offer this fine evening?


Who is spinning now?

[wyldwolf]

29. In post 18, you referred to Chet as follows:

Democrats don't win in HEAVY GOP areas. Least of all, not 8 times.

Hint: The district was drawn in 2003 to favor the GOP. Chet hasn't won their 8 times.

[LincolnMcGrath]

31. AREAS

DISTRICTS


2 differnet words. look em up.

Chet most certainly has won their (lol) many times in a row.

[wyldwolf]

36. AREAS were redistricted. They're no longer the same AREAS in it

[LincolnMcGrath]

43. You are just being ridiculous.

Are you claiming CHET has ZERO constituents now, that he had before?

Of course you won't go on record stating that, because it is false.

[wyldwolf]

46. no I'm not

I'm claiming he has LESS than he did. That is what redistricting does.

[wyldwolf]

12. Are we through playing Jeopardy with Texas and the 17th District?

I'm going to bed now. LOL!

[LincolnMcGrath]

13. Saved by google again?

Nice edit....

[wyldwolf]

15. no, the edit was to ask you how many gas stations were there...

...since we're playing 20 questions. LOL!

Of course, facts are facts anyway, no matter when they are learned.

[wyldwolf]

16. C'mon, Lincoln, bring it!

You really want to challenge me on how Republican Chet Edward's district is, bring it on. It will be fun to see you squirm and spin and parse once more time.

Eh, nevermind. You'll just divert, change the subject, whine about the DLC, hurl a few personal insults.

I'll check your (ahem) well reasoned responses from la la land tommorrow.

[LincolnMcGrath]

22. True to form you accuse then attack

YOU : Eh, nevermind. You'll just divert, change the subject, whine about the DLC, hurl a few personal insults.

YOU, very next sentence : I'll check your (ahem) well reasoned responses from la la land tommorrow.

You were saying?



The only one squirming here is as you as usual.

The subjects at hand are:

Your attempted spin on how HEAVY Republican the voters in TX17 are.

Your oops in failing to mention any Rep.s had a hand in this.

[wyldwolf]

24. True to form you spin, dodge and parse

Your attempted spin on how HEAVY Republican the voters in TX17

You mean the one created to favor Republicans? The one Bush won by 70%? The one Chet Edwards only won by 8000 votes? THAT district? yeah, heavy Republican?

Your oops in failing to mention any Rep.s had a hand in this.

I didn't mention what I had for breakfast either. Another irrelevant point from you.

So tell me again how Edwards won 8 times in a 3 year old district?

[LincolnMcGrath]

26. It's like shooting fish in a rain barrel anymore

HEAVY Republican Districts have Republican Congress critters.


And you left out the platoon of GOPers because it didn't fit in to well with your theory of a long ago planned strategy. :rofl: The more you run from it, the louder it beckons the readers.

[wyldwolf]

27. How can someone serve 8 times in a 3 year old district?

LOL! Didn't we just establish this district is 3 years old? Do the math

NO ONE can be elected 8 times to House seat in a three year old district. LOL! Get real.

wink wink nudge nudge


The more you run from it, the louder it beckons the readers. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[LincolnMcGrath]

30. Since I never stated that, I cannot answer your question.

This is really about the weakest argument you have ever brought to the table, and we've had some good discussions before.

Screen capture the post where I supposedly said whatever, or post a link if you want to draw more attention to you line of attack here, it's your choice.

[wyldwolf]

35. How can someone serve 8 times in the same district?

[LincolnMcGrath]

40. Since nobody said that, why keep bleeting on about it?

[wyldwolf]

45. but you said it

[LincolnMcGrath]

49. Judging by the mail I am getting here, lets lets DU decide.

:hi:

[wyldwolf]

55. one of your famous screen shots?

Or e-mail from unknowns entities? LOL!

[LincolnMcGrath]

56. DUers mail

Screen shots are more infamous if you are the one caught lying in one, wouldn't you say?

[wyldwolf]

59. ok

let's see the fake e-mails. Pull the (lol) trigger.

[LincolnMcGrath]

61. I don't think so Tim.

[wyldwolf]

64. second time, PeeWee

Remember? Pull the trigger!

[LincolnMcGrath]

67. Of course, were you involved? No

[wyldwolf]

70. Sure I was. Who else were you talking to both times?

[LincolnMcGrath]

74. The DUer who challenged (inre; a post of hers ) me in a thread

asked me not to post the screen shot.

You only involvement in that affair was one of unwanted affection. Like the dog next door who barks all day for attention, in hopes someone will throw him a bone.

[wyldwolf]

77. LOL! Post 49: "Judging by the mail I am getting here..."

So now there is one piece of mail, the writer doesn't want you to post a screenshot, but it had nothing to do with this discussion anyway. LOL!

[LincolnMcGrath]

81. Where is there a threat there.

Could you be anymore confused?

There is no screen shot involved in this thread.

Every thing in this reply of yours concerns an episode from last fall?

[wyldwolf]

85. but you just said the DUer asked you not to post the screenshot...

now you're saying there isn't one?

[LincolnMcGrath]

87. Last Fall, try to keep up.

[wyldwolf]

89. we weren't having this discussion last fall. Try to keep up.

Post #49, you said you were getting e-mail concerning whether you said Edwards could serve 8 terms in a three year old district.

Let's see them. PULL THE TRIGGER!

[LincolnMcGrath]

94. I can't keep up?

lol

Post the numbers for the District

Where in post #49 above are any of the words you ascribe to it here? Did I type them in invisible font only you can see?

[wyldwolf]

98. apparently not

1. You claim Texas 17 isn't a strong or heavy GOP district despite sources to the contrary.
2. You claim Edwards served 8 times in a 3 year old district.
3. You claim to have an e-mail that agrees with you.
4. Then you claim "she" has asked you not to show it.
5. Then you claim the e-mail was from last fall before this conversation took place.

[LincolnMcGrath]

102. See you couldn't be more lost.

1. You claim Texas 17 isn't a strong or heavy GOP district despite sources to the contrary.
You refuse to post the numbers because they are not friendly to your theory here.
2. You claim Edwards served 8 times in a 3 year old district.
You are the only person to claim that
3. You claim to have an e-mail that agrees with you.
Actually the email is more about you than me.
4. Then you claim "she" has asked you not to show it.
Again for the 6th time, this was last fall, the trigger incident.
5. Then you claim the e-mail was from last fall before this conversation took place.
For the 7th time, no screen shots here. The email has to do with this OP and a related thread about the the ad in question.

I'm trying to work with you here.

[wyldwolf]

107. See you couldn't be more lost.

1. you refuse to accept the facts about the 17th district.
2. You make a odd and mathmatically impossible claim, then say you didn't
3. You say you have e-mail from DUers to back you up, then say you don't.
4. You refuse to PULL THE TRIGGER! Like you did before.

[LincolnMcGrath]

110. ?

1. you refuse to accept the facts about the 17th district.
Please post them, or I will
2. You make a odd and mathmatically impossible claim, then say you didn't
Please post a link to that claim
3. You say you have e-mail from DUers to back you up, then say you don't.
I have never said I didn't have the emails
4. You refuse to PULL THE TRIGGER! Like you did before.
I have posted dozens of screen shots (for the 9th time, none are involvewd here, yet)

[wyldwolf]

116. ?

Please post them, or I will

Please do.

Please post a link to that claim

Look at the posts above.

I have never said I didn't have the emails

Yes you did. You said they weren't applicable to this conversation after you said they were.

I have posted dozens of screen shots (for the 9th time, none are involvewd here, yet)

Well get them involved!

[LincolnMcGrath]

125. Why do you refuse to discuss the content of the OP?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

127. why do you insist on changing the subject?

[LincolnMcGrath]

132. I've been on point all thread. You said "HEAVY"

I say

Show us the TX 17 #s

[wyldwolf]

134. no you haven't.

I say show us the TX 17 #s, the made-up emails, and the logic behind your fuzzy math.

[LincolnMcGrath]

139. The HEAVY Claim is yours. I say show us the TX 17 #s that back it.

[wyldwolf]

145. The e-mail and "8 terms in a 3 year old district" is yours. I say back it

[LincolnMcGrath]

150. Keep running

[wyldwolf]

157. keep running

[LincolnMcGrath]

19. Of course it was...

wink wink nudge nudge

[wyldwolf]

21. LOL! Didn't we just establish this district is 3 years old? Do the math

LOL! Didn't we just establish this district is 3 years old? Do the math

NO ONE can be elected 8 times to House seat in a three year old district. LOL! Get real.

wink wink nudge nudge

C'mon. Think REAL hard for a brilliant comeback.

[LincolnMcGrath]

32. weak

but not totally unexpected

[wyldwolf]

37. dodge, spin, parse, but completely expected and predicted.

[LincolnMcGrath]

41. Are you looking in a mirror?

[wyldwolf]

44. nope, holding it up to you

[LincolnMcGrath]

50. It's called failure. You tried to bluff your fellow DUers, and lost.

Deal with it.

[wyldwolf]

53. It's called failure. You tried to bluff your fellow DUers, and lost.

Deal with it.

[LincolnMcGrath]

57. lol

Far out and HEAVY! :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

58. LOL!

Far out and parsed, but in the same area that isn't really the same because of redistricting.

[LincolnMcGrath]

63. Put the numbers on the table

Scared?

[wyldwolf]

66. put the e-mails and screenshots on the table... scared?

[LincolnMcGrath]

68. They have nothing to do with you. Stop running from YOUR words.

[wyldwolf]

72. LOL! If they have nothing to do with me, why did you threaten to ...

...pull them out.

Stop running from YOUR words.

C'mon. Pull the trigger!

[LincolnMcGrath]

75. I never threatened to do anything with them. sorry

Have you voted yet?

[LincolnMcGrath]

69. BTW screenshots of what?

[wyldwolf]

73. Don't you remember? Pull the trigger!

[LincolnMcGrath]

76. I've posted screen shots at least 20 times in the last 5 years.

Ask your hero what happens when caught in a lie.

[wyldwolf]

78. well, pull the trigger! Let's see them

I remember the incident you're referring to. Several people asked for the screenshot, but you disappeared...

[LincolnMcGrath]

79. Find a new stall tactic. Post the HEAVY numbers.

[wyldwolf]

86. Find a new stall tactic. Post the e-mail, the screenshots and the math

Pull the trigger! LOL!

[LincolnMcGrath]

88. Can't find numbers for the district yet?

For at least the third time, there is no screen shot involved here. Stop clogging the drain with fluff,

post the district numbers.

[wyldwolf]

90. lost the e-mail?

[LincolnMcGrath]

95. No, Still no luck with the numbers?

Must not back your argument, or you would have posted them repeatedly. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

96. still no luck with that fuzzy math and the e-mail! Ya just had it, right?

[LincolnMcGrath]

99. No Numbers for District TX 17 yet?

You ain't HEAVY, your my DU brother baby! :hug:

[wyldwolf]

101. no luck with that fuzzy math and the e-mail yet?

[LincolnMcGrath]

128. Why do you refuse to discuss the content of the OP?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

133. why do you insist on changing the subject?

[LincolnMcGrath]

140. The HEAVY Claim is yours. I say show us the TX 17 #s that back it.

[wyldwolf]

146. The e-mail and "8 terms in a 3 year old district" is yours. I say back it

[LincolnMcGrath]

151. Keep running

[wyldwolf]

158. keep running

[LincolnMcGrath]

33. This is not a HEAVY GOP District.

"Maybe it's civic pride, but they want their congressman to have Waco after his name, Republican or Democrat," Myers said.

Thomas Myers, a political science professor at Baylor University, said most voters in the Waco area, which is the largest population center in the district, have grown accustomed to siding with Edwards even though they'll pick the Republican in races for governor, U.S. senator and president.


more;


But Edwards, who spent nine years in the Texas Senate before going to Congress after the 1990 elections, is considered the Democrat most likely to survive last year's congressional redistricting effort designed to bring as many as seven new Texas Republicans to Washington.


Even though almost two-thirds of the district contains areas that were not part of Edwards' old domain, the Democrat did manage to hold on to his power base in McLennan County.

[wyldwolf]

38. yes it is

Privately, Democrats acknowledge that Spratt and Edwards must condemn the video because they represent Republican districts.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/14/mg.fri/index.html

But, McGrath, if you know more than the DNC and CNN, I guess we can expect you on the national scene real soon. LOL!

DeLay's map has left some of the Lone Star State's most senior Democratic members fighting difficult odds... Rep. Chet Edwards, a Democrat from Waco, may have the best chance to survive among the threatened Texas Democrats. The Legislature redrew his district to favor Republican challenger Arlene Wohlgemuth.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/texas/2004-10-17-texas-dems_x.htm

In Edwards Waco-based district, Bush soundly defeated Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) 70 percent to 30 percent in the 2004 presidential contest

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/14/mg.fri/index.html

This district is strongly Republican, but Edwards managed to eke out a win in 2004 even as President Bush was carrying the district with 70 percent of the vote.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/47/

[LincolnMcGrath]

42. No it is not. Your post here proves your original claim of HEAVY is wrong

[wyldwolf]

47. ah, parsing again

You're going to pretend there is a difference between HEAVY Republican and STRONGLY Republican.

[LincolnMcGrath]

48. No parsing, that is what you do when you are getting behind.

It's not even a Strongly republican district, period, regardless of what someone fro the lib'rull media says.

[wyldwolf]

52. Yeah, but the Democrats say it, too.

I'm sure the 17th is the one district Delay goofed in when he was redistricting. LOL!

[LincolnMcGrath]

65. It was considered the safest of all of those that were re-drawn.

Among the media punditry you are so fond of quoting when it suits your needs.

[wyldwolf]

80. which means it had less republicans than the rest of them

..but still enough to give Bush a 70% -30% win.

[LincolnMcGrath]

82. Still need more time to look up the numbers?

We're waiting.

[wyldwolf]

83. ready to post that e-mail and explain how someone can serve 8 terms

in a three year old district? We're waiting!

[LincolnMcGrath]

91. Reverting back to failed argument from yesterday? How sad.

The only DUer who said someone can serve 8 terms in a three year old district? has been you.

Post the numbers to the District

[wyldwolf]

93. Reverting back to failed argument from yesterday? How sad.

The only DUer who said someone can serve 8 terms in a three year old district? has been you.

Now about that fuzzy math and mythical e-mails...

[LincolnMcGrath]

106. Can I get a refresher on this fuzzy math you speak of?

What math am I supposed to support? You flat out refuse to post facts about the party registration numbers of the districts for either of the Dems involved in your theory here.

[wyldwolf]

109. sure. Your claim that Edwards has served 8 terms in a three year old

district.

[LincolnMcGrath]

112. I never said that. You did

[wyldwolf]

117. yes you did.

[LincolnMcGrath]

120. Prove it

Show us the TX 17 #s

[wyldwolf]

122. Look in the posts above... and show us the TX 17 #s... and the e-mails

[LincolnMcGrath]

129. Why do you refuse to discuss the content of the OP?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

135. why do you insist on changing the subject?

[LincolnMcGrath]

141. The HEAVY Claim is yours. I say show us the TX 17 #s that back it.

[wyldwolf]

147. The e-mail and "8 terms in a 3 year old district" is yours. I say back it

[LincolnMcGrath]

152. Keep running

[wyldwolf]

159. keep running!

[Crunchy Frog]

17. It makes Democrats look weak

and it makes it look like they're acknowledging the correctness of the Republican criticisms. Those messages are far more powerful than any impact of more people seeing the video, unfortunately.

[Cosmocat]

92. Agreed ...

Jesus, H, Christmas ...

How spineless can they be ...

[LincolnMcGrath]

104. Oh NO! This was a super secret long range plan to fool the masses.

:rofl:

[JNelson6563]

34. Agreed

You just can't buy this kind of publicity.

[wyldwolf]

39. Thanks, Julie,

[LincolnMcGrath]

51. It's the words, silly.

So you're pissed that two Democrats in HEAVY Republican districts asked to have it removed and the DCCC obliged? How do you know that wasn't the plan from the get-go?

1. Everyone saw through the fact that you conveniently forgot to mention any GOP members.

2. Everyone can see by your overreaction at the thought of a challenge to your spin (HEAVY) that you clearly coughed it up to fluff up a puff piece.

[wyldwolf]

54. It's the words, silly. So, got that fuzzy math for us yet?

1. Everyone saw through the fact that you conveniently forgot to mention any GOP members.

I conveniently forgot to mention what I had for breakfast that morning, too. But since one of the controversies on DU is the two Democrats, any GOP involvement is irrelevant.

2. Everyone can see by your overreaction at the thought of a challenge to your spin (HEAVY) that you clearly coughed it up to fluff up a puff piece.

Ahh. But there is no spin. I'm sure most (with the exception of you) would agree that a "strong republican district" and a "heavy republican district" are one in the same. But to make some odd point you're trying to make, you have to discredit the sources (and you do a crappy job of that, too.)

[LincolnMcGrath]

60. An MSNBC quote is a source? Lets ask HRC about MSM quotes. lol

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Myself, and I am sure many other activists have worked in counties and districts where the registration numbers are split by double digits. Some as high as 3-1 Rep- Dem.

Thats HEAVY

Show us the numbers for both districts, or keep spinning, its up to you.



You didn't mention the GOPers involved because they didn't fit your story line, anyone can see that. I would say nice try, but I would be lying.

[wyldwolf]

62. where?

Parsing again. LOL!

Got that fuzzy math for us?

[LincolnMcGrath]

71. sorry cnn Got the numbers for the district yet?

Didn't think so.

[wyldwolf]

84. got the e-mail, screenshots, and solution to you fuzzy math problem?

Didn't think so.

[LincolnMcGrath]

97. For at least the 4th time

There are no screen shots involved here

Yet!


No luck with the District numbers?

Perhaps a new thread about what constitutes a HEAVY registration advantage?

[wyldwolf]

100. For at least the 4th time

in post 74, you said you were asked not to post the screenshot. Now it doesn't exist?

[LincolnMcGrath]

103. For the 8th time The screen shot in question was from the Trigger

episode last fall. (So, logic dictates that the request not to display it would be from last fall, also) Were would a screen shot even come into play in this thread? What would a screen shot reveal?

Stop Stalling, post the numbers from the District

[wyldwolf]

113. then why did you say it was from now?

Stop Stalling, post the fuzzy math and e-mail.

[LincolnMcGrath]

115. I didn't. Post the numbers to back your claim in the OP

Show us the TX 17 party registration numbers.


There has been no math to debate as yet. Give us some.

[wyldwolf]

118. yes you did. Post the DUer email

[LincolnMcGrath]

121. Prove it

Show us the TX 17 #s

[wyldwolf]

123. Look in the posts above... and show us the TX 17 #s... and the e-mails

[LincolnMcGrath]

130. Why do you refuse to discuss the content of the OP?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

136. why do you insist on changing the subject?

[LincolnMcGrath]

142. The HEAVY Claim is yours. I say show us the TX 17 #s that back it.

[wyldwolf]

148. The e-mail and "8 terms in a 3 year old district" is yours. I say back it

[LincolnMcGrath]

153. Keep running

[wyldwolf]

160. keep running

[wyldwolf]

105. but you SAID there was. Can we not trust you? LOL!

No luck with that fuzzy math, email, screenshot?

[LincolnMcGrath]

108. No, I did not not. sorry! No luck with the numbers yet?

I think you may have found them, and refuse to post them. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

111. yes you did. No luck with the e-mail and fuzzy math?

I think you might have been mistaken about having the e-mail and won't admit it.

[LincolnMcGrath]

114. Post a link

Still running scared from the TX17 registration numbers?

[wyldwolf]

119. Look in the posts above.

Now, when are you going to:

1. Post those phantom DUer emails and associated screenshots?
2. Explain how someone can serve 8 terms in a 3 year old district
3. Post the TX 17 numbers you threatened to post above?

[LincolnMcGrath]

124. I have looked above.

Show us the TX 17 #s

1. Post those phantom DUer emails and associated screen shots?
For the 10th time, there are no screen shots(see above where you said "Get them involved")
Pick an outrage and stick with it. lol

2. Explain how someone can serve 8 terms in a 3 year old district
You said it, you explain it

[wyldwolf]

126. then why do you want me to tell you to do it again? Show us the TX #s

..and the e-mails and the logic behind your fuzzy math.

[LincolnMcGrath]

131. Why do you refuse to discuss the content of the OP?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

137. why do you insist on changing the subject?

[LincolnMcGrath]

143. The HEAVY Claim is yours. I say show us the TX 17 #s that back it.

[wyldwolf]

149. The e-mail and "8 terms in a 3 year old district" is yours. I say back it

[LincolnMcGrath]

154. Keep running

[wyldwolf]

161. keep running

[LincolnMcGrath]

138. OMG I found some fuzzy math! Check it out!

Why does 50 - 5 = 9% - 91%

[wyldwolf]

144. doesn't explain how one person can serve 8 terms in a 3 year old district

[LincolnMcGrath]

155. Keep running

[wyldwolf]

162. keep running

[LincolnMcGrath]

156. LOL Why drop the term HEAVY in your new thread?

Why cut and run at all?

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

163. we were speaking of districts in general and not any specifically

Why cut and run at all?