Posted 22 March 2013 - 06:56 PM

don't know I would have to go back and look at it. Kirk Dillard HB 5832 - 96th Gen Assembly, Chief Sponsors Zalewski-Acevedo. Munoz was the chief Senate sponsor, later adding as alternate sponsors Collins and Dillard.



The point is the news story states that Dillard was a sponsor and he was a sponsor. I said three years ago that it was a bad bill and that we would have at least one case like the one we are discussing in this thread. Do you defend this bill, still? Can you even defend anyone who voted for it much less be a sponsor? I don't know anything about this guy except that he is willing to make friends with those who work against us. Maybe there is something strategic with that, but since I am not privy to all the inside stuff, all I have to go on is what I read in the papers.Why do I think I ticked you off. Because as soon as I mentioned Dillard you came out of the woodwork just like you did three years ago to defend this guy and criticize anyone who dared support the guy he was running against in the primary. Why is my dander up? Because we all are supposed to be on the same team and being dismissed because I don't agree with a particular strategical point of view or methodolgy. I saw this one coming and we could have been on top of it -- not that it matters that much now with the Seventh's ruling -- but abolt you did not want to see that the good senator had no clothes. At least in this one case. If he is a good guy and worthy of support, fine. Be convincing but don't try to demand my support.At the time, I only had about a couple dozen posts and I was immediately surrounded by "old hats" and moderator types throwing hissy fits. May happen again. But it is what it is.Sorry Valinda. Sometimes I can't help myself I guess. Do what you gotta do.