(09-25-2018 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 06:39 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Beto's been consistent on this, Tanq.

I don't know why you're so dead-set on spinning this as him taking a position and walking it back. His answer that kicked off this kerfuffle was the 4/9/2018 radio interview, and in it he gave both aspects of his position on the House vote -- yes I would vote to impeach now if it came to a vote, no I don't think it's the right time for impeachment proceedings. He went on to say that the right time is after the Mueller investigation is completed and after the point is reached when the facts are so compelling that (some) Republicans are also willing to impeach.

Go listen to it. It's linked in the DMN article I linked earlier.

His responses to the relevant questions are as follows:
- A. Would you vote to impeach if the vote were held today? Yes
- B. Should impeachment proceedings start now? No
- C. If you are elected to the Senate and Trump is impeached, would you vote to convict? I don't yet know.

It seems that all of your upset stems from him actually giving an answer to question A. What, do you want him to weasel out and say "I don't know?". Would you be similarly offended if Blackburn were to answer these questions the same way, except subbing in a "No" on question A?

Personally, I would be upset with any answer to A other than, ”I don’t know.” Because to date there is not enough information to support an informed, reasonable answer to that question.

Of course in our system of justice, when that is the case, the answer defaults to “No.”

Beto has said he would vote Yes to impeach on the grounds of obstruction of justice, not collusion. Just making sure we're all on the same page there, in case we weren't.

(09-25-2018 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 06:39 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Beto's been consistent on this, Tanq.

I don't know why you're so dead-set on spinning this as him taking a position and walking it back. His answer that kicked off this kerfuffle was the 4/9/2018 radio interview, and in it he gave both aspects of his position on the House vote -- yes I would vote to impeach now if it came to a vote, no I don't think it's the right time for impeachment proceedings. He went on to say that the right time is after the Mueller investigation is completed and after the point is reached when the facts are so compelling that (some) Republicans are also willing to impeach.

Go listen to it. It's linked in the DMN article I linked earlier.

His responses to the relevant questions are as follows:
- A. Would you vote to impeach if the vote were held today? Yes
- B. Should impeachment proceedings start now? No
- C. If you are elected to the Senate and Trump is impeached, would you vote to convict? I don't yet know.

It seems that all of your upset stems from him actually giving an answer to question A. What, do you want him to weasel out and say "I don't know?". Would you be similarly offended if Blackburn were to answer these questions the same way, except subbing in a "No" on question A?

Personally, I would be upset with any answer to A other than, ”I don’t know.” Because to date there is not enough information to support an informed, reasonable answer to that question.

Of course in our system of justice, when that is the case, the answer defaults to “No.”

Beto has said he would vote Yes to impeach on the grounds of obstruction of justice, not collusion. Just making sure we're all on the same page there, in case we weren't.

Machts nicht. There is not sufficient evidence to support a decision on either one.

(09-25-2018 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 06:39 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Beto's been consistent on this, Tanq.

I don't know why you're so dead-set on spinning this as him taking a position and walking it back. His answer that kicked off this kerfuffle was the 4/9/2018 radio interview, and in it he gave both aspects of his position on the House vote -- yes I would vote to impeach now if it came to a vote, no I don't think it's the right time for impeachment proceedings. He went on to say that the right time is after the Mueller investigation is completed and after the point is reached when the facts are so compelling that (some) Republicans are also willing to impeach.

Go listen to it. It's linked in the DMN article I linked earlier.

His responses to the relevant questions are as follows:
- A. Would you vote to impeach if the vote were held today? Yes
- B. Should impeachment proceedings start now? No
- C. If you are elected to the Senate and Trump is impeached, would you vote to convict? I don't yet know.

It seems that all of your upset stems from him actually giving an answer to question A. What, do you want him to weasel out and say "I don't know?". Would you be similarly offended if Blackburn were to answer these questions the same way, except subbing in a "No" on question A?

Personally, I would be upset with any answer to A other than, ”I don’t know.” Because to date there is not enough information to support an informed, reasonable answer to that question.

Of course in our system of justice, when that is the case, the answer defaults to “No.”

Beto has said he would vote Yes to impeach on the grounds of obstruction of justice, not collusion. Just making sure we're all on the same page there, in case we weren't.

I think we all are. I dont think #s or myself would deviate from the answer that #s so eloquently stated above even with obstruction. And yes, there could be some acts that a sitting President could do with official powers that would constitute that act --- just look to Slick Willie and Nixon for that.....

Firing an FBI director doesnt even come close to the line on that imo in this instance. I surmise the progressive movement and Comey's mentor Three Sticks view that much differently.

Lad -- hat tip to you for being as candid as you were with Robert's Pinocchio thingy.

I had an early breakfast with a Republican (as in does work for them) media consultant. He made a point that made me think. He thinks that Robert's comment, while not killing him, makes it impossible for him to win.

His reasoning is this, and he outlined a simple commercial the Edward camp could air if it gets close. Truth be told, the outline was both brilliant, simple, and the potential to be devastating.

Assume that we have a close-ish race -- one that polls at the 2-3% level. In the last two weeks, a short development (no more than two days) can make this that he scripted out for me:

-------------------------

Beginning scene of a car wreck on a highway at night, police car lights flashing.

Announcer: "Back when Democrat Beto O'Rourke committed, as he puts it, a 'terrible mistake' {quoted words 'terrible mistake' plastered over the flashing lights and wreck}, he caused a wreck on freeway while having almost double the amount of alcohol on what is considered the legal limit."

"An eyewitness to the accident reported that Beto tried to leave the scene {flash "O'Rourke 'tried to leave the scene'"}, and the police reported that O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, (pause) but was stopped by the reporter. {Flash change to to 'O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, but was stopped'}

"Now O'Rourke is trying to be *your* Senator. {change to stock footage of O'Rourke, rolled up shirt sleeves, talking to a group} "

"When asked specifically about whether he tried to leave the scene of his 'terrible mistake'"

{Fast cut to O'Rourke with audio: "I did not try to leave the scene of the accident"}

The choice is simple, Texas. It might be a terrible mistake."

------------------------------

If it looks like Robert is within striking distance, I think Robert made a mistake last Friday that might prove fatal. A week and a half of that commercial is brutal. That explicit denial is an absolute back breaker PR wise if used in that manner.

I think I understand why Edward didnt comment during the debate to the denial when he responded to Robert's answer. Summed up in two words --- 'dry powder'

(09-25-2018 12:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  On a similar note, Cruz was seen eating at a high-end DC restaurant with a $100+ three course dinner. I imagine you're also wondering who paid for that meal?

Unfortunately, he was seen there because some stupid-ass hecklers felt the need to shout him out of the restaurant. I'm sure I fall in line with you and many others on the board I often disagree with that heckling these public officials out of restaurants is a trend I wish we would see less and less of.

I think engaging public officials in public is fine if it's done in an honest and well-behaved manner. But this is an entirely different level and a line that is being crossed on a too frequent basis.

Lighten up. It was more of a dig at Whataburger than O'Rourke. His opinions on spending are better indicated by his party of choice than by his fast food restaurant of choice. May not have even been his choice. He may have just been bowing to the wishes of his constituents in the car.

The campaign contribution dig was a nod to the ticky tacky stuff your side calls the Russia collusion investigation.

All of our politicians are all too happy to eat at the public trough and to use OPM. The few who decline usually don't fare too well. Usually wealthy people who decline contributions. Didn't Trump start out that way? I know Hillary didn't.

We do agree on the heckling. Are there any examples of Democrats being heckled out of restaurants by Republicans? It seems to be a purely Democratic thing so far, just like rioting and burning dumpsters does.
There seems to be an attitude on the left that anything goes if the target is on the right. But I would respect the right of even Adam Schiff to eat in peace.

Heckling of Cruz

Interesting the chant is "We believe survivors". Kind of circular reasoning - they are only survivors if one believes them. Maybe they should have chanted "We believe accusers".

Ah, it was not very clear that you were making the comment in jest.

And no, the heckling does seem to be isolated to the left. Like I said, not a fan of it.

The right has its own tactics, they employ. You see a lot of conservative protests/counter-protests where people are open carrying long rifles and wearing body armor - almost always in an attempt to try and intimidate others. Then there was the whole Unite the Right protest with tiki torches and vehicular homicide.

Violent protests are not solely a Dem issue, but I'd agree that the whole heckling out of restaurant things is a purely Dem issue right now.

In a world where we read nuances into every little thing, I did so. But I would caution against making political choices on things like that. I am not for the people and issues that I am for because they eat at Denny's or Cracker Barrel. I am against the people I am against partially because their supporters think it proper to heckle people at Cracker Barrel.

I presume you are referring to the Tea Party rallies where long guns and body armor were displayed. Those were not in-your-face confrontations like the left favors - more private get-togethers. And, I remember a black man carrying a long gun at the BLM march in Dallas where the police officers were murdered. He was cleared, and I support his right to keep and bear arms.

The Unite the Right protest would have passed quietly and without notice except for the antiright protestors. No jeering crowd, no problem. Just a bunch of wackos walking from here to there with torches. It was the confrontation that led to violence. Takes two to make a confrontation.

And the vehicular homicide was the act of one individual, not a planned part of the rally. You guys always want to paint it as a planned and integral part of the right's agenda, but it is not, any more than than that Dallas shooter was a planned part of the BLM march.

I think your BLM comparison is spot on, and actually helps solidify my point. BLM and leaders that support their cause need to make sure they are not promoting an environment that would lead to someone thinking that taking out their frustrations through violence is appropriate. You can support causes with stoking flames and emboldening people who are too willing to use violence.

As I just responded to Tanq, I'm not saying that the Unite the Right was indicative of the right as a whole, but it is the right's problem, in the same way that the BLM shooter is the left's problem.

And I was referring to way more than just Tea Party protests. I don't think this is a Tea Party protest: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/201...mic-center

Quote: Hundreds gathered around the Islamic Association of North Texas in Richardson on Saturday to protest Islamic law, which they fear is a growing threat to American values and the U.S. Constitution.

The rally was peaceful, although several protesters were armed with rifles — even as children filed into the mosque.

Ironically, I'm guessing this will lead to more militant groups on the left (like Black Panthers, Antifa), starting to open carry as well, which will make things rather, uh, tense.

I note your own link says the Dallas Sharia protest was a peaceful protest. I think the only way the long guns would have come into play would have been if the protesters were attacked by counter protesters, as was the case in Charlottesville.

I cannot think of a case where right wingers attacked a left wing demonstration. I cannot think of a case where right wingers rioted and set dumpster fires or vandalized property to keep a left winger from freely speaking their mind. I can think of many examples of the reverse. How many right wingers have crapped on a police car? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...E-CAR.html

When Tea Partiers carried rifles at their own rallies, nobody was shot, because the left wingers did not attack them.

If Antifa, the NBP, and other leftist groups start carrying, I predict there will still still be no violence unless they start it. Rightists seem to have guns for self-defense, not offense.

BTW, the man in Dallas with the gun was peaceful, not threatening. I have no problem with peaceful people carrying guns. I have a problem with those who want to impose their will on others (Antifa) by any means.

I cant think of a situation where right wingers converged to try and shut down a peaceful left wing gathering. Think of what happens on regular basis whenever the prayer rally is called for in Portland.

(09-25-2018 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I assume that if we are now ascribi
ng the warped acts of sick individuals as part and parcel of the examination of stupid and unbecoming protests I will assume you were just about to include Steve Scalise and the shooting of the Republican house baseball team, right?

Well, in all of the cases we're talking about, politics were fairly front and center and part of the motivation. I mean, Charlottesville was called "Unite the Right" after all...

I take you think the baseball shooting was *not* an act of political violence? His goal was fairly front and center to make a very singular political statement.

Scalise was just as, if not more so, a specifically politically oriented act of violence than any of those mentioned But please try to rub that away somewhat magically.....

Look, I am not going to beat your side over the head with it, but if you are going to present the death at Charlottesville as a paradigm of political violence you better as fk accept Scalise's act as the exact mirror image, and precisely as you should accept the Dallas BLM shootings as exactly the same.

I dont view Scalise's act as the result of a philosophy, no more than I view the BLM parade specific targeting and gunning down of police officers. And horrors, I dont view the car rammer in Charlottesville in that manner.

Once you trot out James Field as in any way, shape, or form an example of 'conservative violence and intimidation', well, you better be very prepared to accept responsibility for Scalise and Micah Xavier Johnson for that same level and scope of action, and with the same (but opposite) motivation.

Scalise even more so since the motivation was not a 'fringe politics' motivation (i.e. racial hatred or cop hatred). As far as it seems, Scalise specifically targeted the team because there were simply the horrid Republicans.

(09-25-2018 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- hat tip to you for being as candid as you were with Robert's Pinocchio thingy.

I had an early breakfast with a Republican (as in does work for them) media consultant. He made a point that made me think. He thinks that Robert's comment, while not killing him, makes it impossible for him to win.

His reasoning is this, and he outlined a simple commercial the Edward camp could air if it gets close. Truth be told, the outline was both brilliant, simple, and the potential to be devastating.

Assume that we have a close-ish race -- one that polls at the 2-3% level. In the last two weeks, a short development (no more than two days) can make this that he scripted out for me:

-------------------------

Beginning scene of a car wreck on a highway at night, police car lights flashing.

Announcer: "Back when Democrat Beto O'Rourke committed, as he puts it, a 'terrible mistake' {quoted words 'terrible mistake' plastered over the flashing lights and wreck}, he caused a wreck on freeway while having almost double the amount of alcohol on what is considered the legal limit."

"An eyewitness to the accident reported that Beto tried to leave the scene {flash "O'Rourke 'tried to leave the scene'"}, and the police reported that O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, (pause) but was stopped by the reporter. {Flash change to to 'O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, but was stopped'}

"Now O'Rourke is trying to be *your* Senator. {change to stock footage of O'Rourke, rolled up shirt sleeves, talking to a group} "

"When asked specifically about whether he tried to leave the scene of his 'terrible mistake'"

{Fast cut to O'Rourke with audio: "I did not try to leave the scene of the accident"}

The choice is simple, Texas. It might be a terrible mistake."

------------------------------

If it looks like Robert is within striking distance, I think Robert made a mistake last Friday that might prove fatal. A week and a half of that commercial is brutal. That explicit denial is an absolute back breaker PR wise if used in that manner.

I think I understand why Edward didnt comment during the debate to the denial when he responded to Robert's answer. Summed up in two words --- 'dry powder'

Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

(09-25-2018 10:58 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- hat tip to you for being as candid as you were with Robert's Pinocchio thingy.

I had an early breakfast with a Republican (as in does work for them) media consultant. He made a point that made me think. He thinks that Robert's comment, while not killing him, makes it impossible for him to win.

His reasoning is this, and he outlined a simple commercial the Edward camp could air if it gets close. Truth be told, the outline was both brilliant, simple, and the potential to be devastating.

Assume that we have a close-ish race -- one that polls at the 2-3% level. In the last two weeks, a short development (no more than two days) can make this that he scripted out for me:

-------------------------

Beginning scene of a car wreck on a highway at night, police car lights flashing.

Announcer: "Back when Democrat Beto O'Rourke committed, as he puts it, a 'terrible mistake' {quoted words 'terrible mistake' plastered over the flashing lights and wreck}, he caused a wreck on freeway while having almost double the amount of alcohol on what is considered the legal limit."

"An eyewitness to the accident reported that Beto tried to leave the scene {flash "O'Rourke 'tried to leave the scene'"}, and the police reported that O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, (pause) but was stopped by the reporter. {Flash change to to 'O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, but was stopped'}

"Now O'Rourke is trying to be *your* Senator. {change to stock footage of O'Rourke, rolled up shirt sleeves, talking to a group} "

"When asked specifically about whether he tried to leave the scene of his 'terrible mistake'"

{Fast cut to O'Rourke with audio: "I did not try to leave the scene of the accident"}

The choice is simple, Texas. It might be a terrible mistake."

------------------------------

If it looks like Robert is within striking distance, I think Robert made a mistake last Friday that might prove fatal. A week and a half of that commercial is brutal. That explicit denial is an absolute back breaker PR wise if used in that manner.

I think I understand why Edward didnt comment during the debate to the denial when he responded to Robert's answer. Summed up in two words --- 'dry powder'

Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:58 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- hat tip to you for being as candid as you were with Robert's Pinocchio thingy.

I had an early breakfast with a Republican (as in does work for them) media consultant. He made a point that made me think. He thinks that Robert's comment, while not killing him, makes it impossible for him to win.

His reasoning is this, and he outlined a simple commercial the Edward camp could air if it gets close. Truth be told, the outline was both brilliant, simple, and the potential to be devastating.

Assume that we have a close-ish race -- one that polls at the 2-3% level. In the last two weeks, a short development (no more than two days) can make this that he scripted out for me:

-------------------------

Beginning scene of a car wreck on a highway at night, police car lights flashing.

Announcer: "Back when Democrat Beto O'Rourke committed, as he puts it, a 'terrible mistake' {quoted words 'terrible mistake' plastered over the flashing lights and wreck}, he caused a wreck on freeway while having almost double the amount of alcohol on what is considered the legal limit."

"An eyewitness to the accident reported that Beto tried to leave the scene {flash "O'Rourke 'tried to leave the scene'"}, and the police reported that O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, (pause) but was stopped by the reporter. {Flash change to to 'O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, but was stopped'}

"Now O'Rourke is trying to be *your* Senator. {change to stock footage of O'Rourke, rolled up shirt sleeves, talking to a group} "

"When asked specifically about whether he tried to leave the scene of his 'terrible mistake'"

{Fast cut to O'Rourke with audio: "I did not try to leave the scene of the accident"}

The choice is simple, Texas. It might be a terrible mistake."

------------------------------

If it looks like Robert is within striking distance, I think Robert made a mistake last Friday that might prove fatal. A week and a half of that commercial is brutal. That explicit denial is an absolute back breaker PR wise if used in that manner.

I think I understand why Edward didnt comment during the debate to the denial when he responded to Robert's answer. Summed up in two words --- 'dry powder'

Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Uttering what might be a blatant falsehood about trying to leave the scene in response to a direct question in a debate might not help either.

I guess OONH isnt in the galaxy of people who wouldnt be turned off by what could very well be a complete, in your face, blatant, public lie. Free country and all that jazz, I surmise....

But, he is right that there are probably about 30 per cent of Robert's followers that would not be swayed in the slightest and might follow OONH's line of reasoning, just as there would be probably the same proportion of Edward voters who would react similarly to direct evidence of an equally blatant Edward falsehood. Kind of sad that there would be that many, but that is what it is.

I dont think such an ad would be so trivial to that middle 40 per cent. Which is the important point.

(09-26-2018 08:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:58 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- hat tip to you for being as candid as you were with Robert's Pinocchio thingy.

I had an early breakfast with a Republican (as in does work for them) media consultant. He made a point that made me think. He thinks that Robert's comment, while not killing him, makes it impossible for him to win.

His reasoning is this, and he outlined a simple commercial the Edward camp could air if it gets close. Truth be told, the outline was both brilliant, simple, and the potential to be devastating.

Assume that we have a close-ish race -- one that polls at the 2-3% level. In the last two weeks, a short development (no more than two days) can make this that he scripted out for me:

-------------------------

Beginning scene of a car wreck on a highway at night, police car lights flashing.

Announcer: "Back when Democrat Beto O'Rourke committed, as he puts it, a 'terrible mistake' {quoted words 'terrible mistake' plastered over the flashing lights and wreck}, he caused a wreck on freeway while having almost double the amount of alcohol on what is considered the legal limit."

"An eyewitness to the accident reported that Beto tried to leave the scene {flash "O'Rourke 'tried to leave the scene'"}, and the police reported that O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, (pause) but was stopped by the reporter. {Flash change to to 'O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, but was stopped'}

"Now O'Rourke is trying to be *your* Senator. {change to stock footage of O'Rourke, rolled up shirt sleeves, talking to a group} "

"When asked specifically about whether he tried to leave the scene of his 'terrible mistake'"

{Fast cut to O'Rourke with audio: "I did not try to leave the scene of the accident"}

The choice is simple, Texas. It might be a terrible mistake."

------------------------------

If it looks like Robert is within striking distance, I think Robert made a mistake last Friday that might prove fatal. A week and a half of that commercial is brutal. That explicit denial is an absolute back breaker PR wise if used in that manner.

I think I understand why Edward didnt comment during the debate to the denial when he responded to Robert's answer. Summed up in two words --- 'dry powder'

Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Uttering what might be a blatant falsehood about trying to leave the scene in response to a direct question in a debate might not help either.

I guess OONH isnt in the galaxy of people who wouldnt be turned off by what could very well be a complete, in your face, blatant, public lie. Free country and all that jazz, I surmise....

But, he is right that there are probably about 30 per cent of Robert's followers that would not be swayed in the slightest and might follow OONH's line of reasoning, just as there would be probably the same proportion of Edward voters who would react similarly to direct evidence of an equally blatant Edward falsehood. Kind of sad that there would be that many, but that is what it is.

I dont think such an ad would be so trivial to that middle 40 per cent. Which is the important point.

I could quibble with the percentages you quote - I think more like 40-25-35. left to right - but the exact percentages do not matter.

I think the lesson is that any voter that may be discouraged from voting for one of the two major party candidates by this type of behavior, is not necessarily going to vote for the other. They may instead choose to vote third party or not at all, choices I have made before when the Republican was unpalatable to me. I don't think I can ever vote Democrat again at the higher levels - the party has moved too far to the left. Some goals are not what i can endorse, other goals I can endorse but not the methods.

So prove to me that Cruz is a monster (to use JAAO's term), and I may not vote for him, but I damn sure will not vote for O'Rourke instead. O'rourke is not the next best choice.

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:58 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- hat tip to you for being as candid as you were with Robert's Pinocchio thingy.

I had an early breakfast with a Republican (as in does work for them) media consultant. He made a point that made me think. He thinks that Robert's comment, while not killing him, makes it impossible for him to win.

His reasoning is this, and he outlined a simple commercial the Edward camp could air if it gets close. Truth be told, the outline was both brilliant, simple, and the potential to be devastating.

Assume that we have a close-ish race -- one that polls at the 2-3% level. In the last two weeks, a short development (no more than two days) can make this that he scripted out for me:

-------------------------

Beginning scene of a car wreck on a highway at night, police car lights flashing.

Announcer: "Back when Democrat Beto O'Rourke committed, as he puts it, a 'terrible mistake' {quoted words 'terrible mistake' plastered over the flashing lights and wreck}, he caused a wreck on freeway while having almost double the amount of alcohol on what is considered the legal limit."

"An eyewitness to the accident reported that Beto tried to leave the scene {flash "O'Rourke 'tried to leave the scene'"}, and the police reported that O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, (pause) but was stopped by the reporter. {Flash change to to 'O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, but was stopped'}

"Now O'Rourke is trying to be *your* Senator. {change to stock footage of O'Rourke, rolled up shirt sleeves, talking to a group} "

"When asked specifically about whether he tried to leave the scene of his 'terrible mistake'"

{Fast cut to O'Rourke with audio: "I did not try to leave the scene of the accident"}

The choice is simple, Texas. It might be a terrible mistake."

------------------------------

If it looks like Robert is within striking distance, I think Robert made a mistake last Friday that might prove fatal. A week and a half of that commercial is brutal. That explicit denial is an absolute back breaker PR wise if used in that manner.

I think I understand why Edward didnt comment during the debate to the denial when he responded to Robert's answer. Summed up in two words --- 'dry powder'

Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Are you guys really not familiar with the Zodiac Killer thing?! There's a Rice connection! (https://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/20...n-advocacy)

(09-26-2018 08:55 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:58 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- hat tip to you for being as candid as you were with Robert's Pinocchio thingy.

I had an early breakfast with a Republican (as in does work for them) media consultant. He made a point that made me think. He thinks that Robert's comment, while not killing him, makes it impossible for him to win.

His reasoning is this, and he outlined a simple commercial the Edward camp could air if it gets close. Truth be told, the outline was both brilliant, simple, and the potential to be devastating.

Assume that we have a close-ish race -- one that polls at the 2-3% level. In the last two weeks, a short development (no more than two days) can make this that he scripted out for me:

-------------------------

Beginning scene of a car wreck on a highway at night, police car lights flashing.

Announcer: "Back when Democrat Beto O'Rourke committed, as he puts it, a 'terrible mistake' {quoted words 'terrible mistake' plastered over the flashing lights and wreck}, he caused a wreck on freeway while having almost double the amount of alcohol on what is considered the legal limit."

"An eyewitness to the accident reported that Beto tried to leave the scene {flash "O'Rourke 'tried to leave the scene'"}, and the police reported that O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, (pause) but was stopped by the reporter. {Flash change to to 'O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, but was stopped'}

"Now O'Rourke is trying to be *your* Senator. {change to stock footage of O'Rourke, rolled up shirt sleeves, talking to a group} "

"When asked specifically about whether he tried to leave the scene of his 'terrible mistake'"

{Fast cut to O'Rourke with audio: "I did not try to leave the scene of the accident"}

The choice is simple, Texas. It might be a terrible mistake."

------------------------------

If it looks like Robert is within striking distance, I think Robert made a mistake last Friday that might prove fatal. A week and a half of that commercial is brutal. That explicit denial is an absolute back breaker PR wise if used in that manner.

I think I understand why Edward didnt comment during the debate to the denial when he responded to Robert's answer. Summed up in two words --- 'dry powder'

Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Are you guys really not familiar with the Zodiac Killer thing?! There's a Rice connection! (Lhttps://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/20...n-advocacyink)

This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response! I am surprised that no one's made a similar shirt about Ted's dad being the second gunman on the grassy knoll...

Side tangent to this, Tim Faust, the Rice grad and printer of those shirts, wrote one of my favorite articles of all time, titled: I Played 'The Boys Are Back in Town' on a Bar Jukebox Until I Got Kicked Out The boys were back in town, but I was out of the bar, because they asked me to leave. (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/dpwa7...ed-out-832)

Stand out quote, IMO:

Quote:When Thin Lizzy reappeared, the people of the bar united in groansong. Cocktail napkins flew like weekend litter in a gust of two dozen exasperated sighs. I betrayed myself with a giggle, and the table sitting nearest to me caught on. Some dude asked me why I'd done this. "The boys are back in town," I stammered. "The boys are back!"

(09-26-2018 08:55 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:58 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- hat tip to you for being as candid as you were with Robert's Pinocchio thingy.

I had an early breakfast with a Republican (as in does work for them) media consultant. He made a point that made me think. He thinks that Robert's comment, while not killing him, makes it impossible for him to win.

His reasoning is this, and he outlined a simple commercial the Edward camp could air if it gets close. Truth be told, the outline was both brilliant, simple, and the potential to be devastating.

Assume that we have a close-ish race -- one that polls at the 2-3% level. In the last two weeks, a short development (no more than two days) can make this that he scripted out for me:

-------------------------

Beginning scene of a car wreck on a highway at night, police car lights flashing.

Announcer: "Back when Democrat Beto O'Rourke committed, as he puts it, a 'terrible mistake' {quoted words 'terrible mistake' plastered over the flashing lights and wreck}, he caused a wreck on freeway while having almost double the amount of alcohol on what is considered the legal limit."

"An eyewitness to the accident reported that Beto tried to leave the scene {flash "O'Rourke 'tried to leave the scene'"}, and the police reported that O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, (pause) but was stopped by the reporter. {Flash change to to 'O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, but was stopped'}

"Now O'Rourke is trying to be *your* Senator. {change to stock footage of O'Rourke, rolled up shirt sleeves, talking to a group} "

"When asked specifically about whether he tried to leave the scene of his 'terrible mistake'"

{Fast cut to O'Rourke with audio: "I did not try to leave the scene of the accident"}

The choice is simple, Texas. It might be a terrible mistake."

------------------------------

If it looks like Robert is within striking distance, I think Robert made a mistake last Friday that might prove fatal. A week and a half of that commercial is brutal. That explicit denial is an absolute back breaker PR wise if used in that manner.

I think I understand why Edward didnt comment during the debate to the denial when he responded to Robert's answer. Summed up in two words --- 'dry powder'

Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Are you guys really not familiar with the Zodiac Killer thing?! There's a Rice connection! (Lhttps://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/20...n-advocacyink)

I guess some of us arent so in touch with the weightier things in life. I have heard he has another deeply important article entitled "I Watched All Six Fast and Furious Movies Simultaneously and Now I Am Dead"; I guess this meme should rank up there with Hunter Thompson I guess.

I guess to those that dont keep up with those highly important things, the first post may not appear to be a joke post. But shame on anyone who doesnt recognize it being so 'obvious'.

Even after reading the article on the vast importance of this Tim Faust, the only Tim Faust I am immediately familiar with is the lead singer for Whitesnake. Another deeply pressing and deep thought spring source of insight and knowledge.

(09-26-2018 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 08:55 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:58 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- hat tip to you for being as candid as you were with Robert's Pinocchio thingy.

I had an early breakfast with a Republican (as in does work for them) media consultant. He made a point that made me think. He thinks that Robert's comment, while not killing him, makes it impossible for him to win.

His reasoning is this, and he outlined a simple commercial the Edward camp could air if it gets close. Truth be told, the outline was both brilliant, simple, and the potential to be devastating.

Assume that we have a close-ish race -- one that polls at the 2-3% level. In the last two weeks, a short development (no more than two days) can make this that he scripted out for me:

-------------------------

Beginning scene of a car wreck on a highway at night, police car lights flashing.

Announcer: "Back when Democrat Beto O'Rourke committed, as he puts it, a 'terrible mistake' {quoted words 'terrible mistake' plastered over the flashing lights and wreck}, he caused a wreck on freeway while having almost double the amount of alcohol on what is considered the legal limit."

"An eyewitness to the accident reported that Beto tried to leave the scene {flash "O'Rourke 'tried to leave the scene'"}, and the police reported that O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, (pause) but was stopped by the reporter. {Flash change to to 'O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, but was stopped'}

"Now O'Rourke is trying to be *your* Senator. {change to stock footage of O'Rourke, rolled up shirt sleeves, talking to a group} "

"When asked specifically about whether he tried to leave the scene of his 'terrible mistake'"

{Fast cut to O'Rourke with audio: "I did not try to leave the scene of the accident"}

The choice is simple, Texas. It might be a terrible mistake."

------------------------------

If it looks like Robert is within striking distance, I think Robert made a mistake last Friday that might prove fatal. A week and a half of that commercial is brutal. That explicit denial is an absolute back breaker PR wise if used in that manner.

I think I understand why Edward didnt comment during the debate to the denial when he responded to Robert's answer. Summed up in two words --- 'dry powder'

Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Are you guys really not familiar with the Zodiac Killer thing?! There's a Rice connection! (Lhttps://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/20...n-advocacyink)

I guess some of us arent so in touch with the weightier things in life. I have heard he has another deeply important article entitled "I Watched All Six Fast and Furious Movies Simultaneously and Now I Am Dead"; I guess this meme should rank up there with Hunter Thompson I guess.

I guess to those that dont keep up with those highly important things, the first post may not appear to be a joke post. But shame on anyone who doesnt recognize it being so 'obvious'.

Even after reading the article on the vast importance of this Tim Faust, the only Tim Faust I am immediately familiar with is the lead singer for Whitesnake. Another deeply pressing and deep thought spring source of insight and knowledge.

To his credit, even Cruz got in on the joke: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/1649...itter-joke

(09-27-2018 06:56 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 08:55 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:58 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Are you guys really not familiar with the Zodiac Killer thing?! There's a Rice connection! (Lhttps://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/20...n-advocacyink)

I guess some of us arent so in touch with the weightier things in life. I have heard he has another deeply important article entitled "I Watched All Six Fast and Furious Movies Simultaneously and Now I Am Dead"; I guess this meme should rank up there with Hunter Thompson I guess.

I guess to those that dont keep up with those highly important things, the first post may not appear to be a joke post. But shame on anyone who doesnt recognize it being so 'obvious'.

Even after reading the article on the vast importance of this Tim Faust, the only Tim Faust I am immediately familiar with is the lead singer for Whitesnake. Another deeply pressing and deep thought spring source of insight and knowledge.

To his credit, even Cruz got in on the joke: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/18/1649...itter-joke

I guess he read "I Watched All Six Fast and Furious Movies Simultaneously and Now I Am Dead" before I did.

(09-26-2018 08:55 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:58 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- hat tip to you for being as candid as you were with Robert's Pinocchio thingy.

I had an early breakfast with a Republican (as in does work for them) media consultant. He made a point that made me think. He thinks that Robert's comment, while not killing him, makes it impossible for him to win.

His reasoning is this, and he outlined a simple commercial the Edward camp could air if it gets close. Truth be told, the outline was both brilliant, simple, and the potential to be devastating.

Assume that we have a close-ish race -- one that polls at the 2-3% level. In the last two weeks, a short development (no more than two days) can make this that he scripted out for me:

-------------------------

Beginning scene of a car wreck on a highway at night, police car lights flashing.

Announcer: "Back when Democrat Beto O'Rourke committed, as he puts it, a 'terrible mistake' {quoted words 'terrible mistake' plastered over the flashing lights and wreck}, he caused a wreck on freeway while having almost double the amount of alcohol on what is considered the legal limit."

"An eyewitness to the accident reported that Beto tried to leave the scene {flash "O'Rourke 'tried to leave the scene'"}, and the police reported that O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, (pause) but was stopped by the reporter. {Flash change to to 'O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, but was stopped'}

"Now O'Rourke is trying to be *your* Senator. {change to stock footage of O'Rourke, rolled up shirt sleeves, talking to a group} "

"When asked specifically about whether he tried to leave the scene of his 'terrible mistake'"

{Fast cut to O'Rourke with audio: "I did not try to leave the scene of the accident"}

The choice is simple, Texas. It might be a terrible mistake."

------------------------------

If it looks like Robert is within striking distance, I think Robert made a mistake last Friday that might prove fatal. A week and a half of that commercial is brutal. That explicit denial is an absolute back breaker PR wise if used in that manner.

I think I understand why Edward didnt comment during the debate to the denial when he responded to Robert's answer. Summed up in two words --- 'dry powder'

Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Are you guys really not familiar with the Zodiac Killer thing?! There's a Rice connection! (https://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/20...n-advocacy)

I am not a Houstonian, nor have I ever heard of this guy. There are a lot of people in Houston I have never heard of of, even Rice guys.

I knew it must be some sort of weird thing since the Zodiac Killer was so long ago. I know much more of the Zodiac Killer than I do of kooks in Houston.

(09-27-2018 08:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 08:55 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:58 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad -- hat tip to you for being as candid as you were with Robert's Pinocchio thingy.

I had an early breakfast with a Republican (as in does work for them) media consultant. He made a point that made me think. He thinks that Robert's comment, while not killing him, makes it impossible for him to win.

His reasoning is this, and he outlined a simple commercial the Edward camp could air if it gets close. Truth be told, the outline was both brilliant, simple, and the potential to be devastating.

Assume that we have a close-ish race -- one that polls at the 2-3% level. In the last two weeks, a short development (no more than two days) can make this that he scripted out for me:

-------------------------

Beginning scene of a car wreck on a highway at night, police car lights flashing.

Announcer: "Back when Democrat Beto O'Rourke committed, as he puts it, a 'terrible mistake' {quoted words 'terrible mistake' plastered over the flashing lights and wreck}, he caused a wreck on freeway while having almost double the amount of alcohol on what is considered the legal limit."

"An eyewitness to the accident reported that Beto tried to leave the scene {flash "O'Rourke 'tried to leave the scene'"}, and the police reported that O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, (pause) but was stopped by the reporter. {Flash change to to 'O'Rourke attempted to leave the accident, but was stopped'}

"Now O'Rourke is trying to be *your* Senator. {change to stock footage of O'Rourke, rolled up shirt sleeves, talking to a group} "

"When asked specifically about whether he tried to leave the scene of his 'terrible mistake'"

{Fast cut to O'Rourke with audio: "I did not try to leave the scene of the accident"}

The choice is simple, Texas. It might be a terrible mistake."

------------------------------

If it looks like Robert is within striking distance, I think Robert made a mistake last Friday that might prove fatal. A week and a half of that commercial is brutal. That explicit denial is an absolute back breaker PR wise if used in that manner.

I think I understand why Edward didnt comment during the debate to the denial when he responded to Robert's answer. Summed up in two words --- 'dry powder'

Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Are you guys really not familiar with the Zodiac Killer thing?! There's a Rice connection! (https://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/20...n-advocacy)

I am not a Houstonian, nor have I ever heard of this guy. There are a lot of people in Houston I have never heard of of, even Rice guys.

I knew it must be some sort of weird thing since the Zodiac Killer was so long ago. I know much more of the Zodiac Killer than I do of kooks in Houston.

There's no reason someone would know Tim Faust unless they were at Rice while he was there (he was rather memorable) or if you live in the Austin area and are a fan of backyard wrastlin'.

The Zodiac Killer joke became a meme that transcended Faust and being a Houstonian, but not every joke reaches all audiences. Not the end of the world that y'all hadn't heard it.

(09-27-2018 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 08:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 08:55 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:58 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Are you guys really not familiar with the Zodiac Killer thing?! There's a Rice connection! (https://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/20...n-advocacy)

I am not a Houstonian, nor have I ever heard of this guy. There are a lot of people in Houston I have never heard of of, even Rice guys.

I knew it must be some sort of weird thing since the Zodiac Killer was so long ago. I know much more of the Zodiac Killer than I do of kooks in Houston.

There's no reason someone would know Tim Faust unless they were at Rice while he was there (he was rather memorable) or if you live in the Austin area and are a fan of backyard wrastlin'.

The Zodiac Killer joke became a meme that transcended Faust and being a Houstonian, but not every joke reaches all audiences. Not the end of the world that y'all hadn't heard it.

Sure hasn't made my world now that I have.

(09-27-2018 09:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 08:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 08:55 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Are you guys really not familiar with the Zodiac Killer thing?! There's a Rice connection! (https://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/20...n-advocacy)

I am not a Houstonian, nor have I ever heard of this guy. There are a lot of people in Houston I have never heard of of, even Rice guys.

I knew it must be some sort of weird thing since the Zodiac Killer was so long ago. I know much more of the Zodiac Killer than I do of kooks in Houston.

There's no reason someone would know Tim Faust unless they were at Rice while he was there (he was rather memorable) or if you live in the Austin area and are a fan of backyard wrastlin'.

The Zodiac Killer joke became a meme that transcended Faust and being a Houstonian, but not every joke reaches all audiences. Not the end of the world that y'all hadn't heard it.

Sure hasn't made my world now that I have.

You apparently didn't read the boys are back article... haha