Motive for Chuck's judicial rulings???

Not according to him Frank. He said he made a contribution to retain membership. His words, not mine.

Why can't you admit you're wrong when you're clearly wrong?

I don't care who said it. That's not the way it was.

Somehow I suspect ziggie has already checked the membership and financial records Aaron.

I'm just sayin.....

It's just like when everybody was arguing with me about the unemployment situation in Underwood's first term.

I knew I was right but I dont save everything but old zig just punched a button on his computer and shazam there it was and they all had to eat crow.....

(and those records went back to 1956, even before there were computers in common use.)

You seem to forget Jimmy proved you wrong about the unemployment Sherman. Frank's as wrong now as you were then and here we have the good judges word as proof.

"I believe that for some period during my legislative tenure I may have made the minimum financial contribution necessary to be a member and continue to receive the newsletter.

Perhaps if you guys put some tabasco sauce on that crow and soaked it in some marinade, it might not be so tough.

I'm just saying...

Aren't you the one that's always preaching fairness and doing what's right? So what's up.

Maynard is still sitting, isn't he?

Where is your outrage, Aaron?

On the other forum when Maynard was discussed.

So because he's still setting, you think Chambers should get a free pass?

So because he's still setting, you think Chambers should get a free pass?

I think that both of them should be disbarred. Which statement of mine led you to think otherwise?

Aaron wrote:You seem to forget Jimmy proved you wrong about the unemployment Sherman. Frank's as wrong now as you were then and here we have the good judges word as proof.

"I believe that for some period during my legislative tenure I may have made the minimum financial contribution necessary to be a member and continue to receive the newsletter.

The minimum financial contribution necessary for a legislator to be a member and receive the newsletter is zero.

Then why didn't he say he gave no money and that the mininum contribution was ZERO?

Ask him.

You're the one disputing what he says, you ask him. Perhaps at your next meeting.