Looking for the Bounce? Here's it is!

[HAL 9000 96]

We are so screwed.

The Koolaid will wear off, don't worry.

Dev - its not just me who has noticed that you ally yourself with any and everyone who posts anything remotely critical about Obama, no matter how cheap, baseless and mean-spirited it is. If you really want a good debate - you need to up your game a bit.

:crying:

I'm crushed, truly. Don't know HOW I will go on.

But I *CAN* & will vote in November.....!

Definitely bitter

Yes, you can vote and I (and all the other LPRs here) *CAN'T* as you've said - and its really all you've got.

Though it seems a safe bet that you won't be voting for Obama - "undecided" as you may be...

Undecided yet definitely anti-Obama. That would be a really weird vote for Obama if she went that way.

[zqt3344 21]

McCain in 2008, and he will get the independent vote and the disaffected Democrats that are moderate or conservative.

We are so screwed.

The Koolaid will wear off, don't worry.

Dev - its not just me who has noticed that you ally yourself with any and everyone who posts anything remotely critical about Obama, no matter how cheap, baseless and mean-spirited it is. If you really want a good debate - you need to up your game a bit.

:crying:

I'm crushed, truly. Don't know HOW I will go on.

But I *CAN* & will vote in November.....!

Definitely bitter

Yes, you can vote and I (and all the other LPRs here) *CAN'T* as you've said - and its really all you've got.

Though it seems a safe bet that you won't be voting for Obama - "undecided" as you may be...

Undecided yet definitely anti-Obama. That would be a really weird vote for Obama if she went that way.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I do get annoyed when I see Gary or metta or whoever accused of "spamming" by people who don't agree with them, while the multiple and equally smear-tastic postings by others gets ignored

Time for a post/thread ratio count, by equivalent smear/spam content.

Claim it, prove it.

i've got to be in a meeting this morning but when the "metta is trolling" imbroglio flared up a few weeks back metta had 5 posts in one day to steve's 10 and troll's 8. of course, you probably didn't see the steve and troll posts as smears but "information"

and lots of you obama supporters claimed you would not support HRC before the primaries if she was the nominee, so let's not get too excited if someone else wants to exercise the same right, eh?

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

I do get annoyed when I see Gary or metta or whoever accused of "spamming" by people who don't agree with them, while the multiple and equally smear-tastic postings by others gets ignored

Time for a post/thread ratio count, by equivalent smear/spam content.

Claim it, prove it.

i've got to be in a meeting this morning but when the "metta is trolling" imbroglio flared up a few weeks back metta had 5 posts in one day to steve's 10 and troll's 8. of course, you probably didn't see the steve and troll posts as smears but "information"

and lots of you obama supporters claimed you would not support HRC before the primaries if she was the nominee, so let's not get too excited if someone else wants to exercise the same right, eh?

:thumbs:

[GaryC 7]

I do get annoyed when I see Gary or metta or whoever accused of "spamming" by people who don't agree with them, while the multiple and equally smear-tastic postings by others gets ignored

Time for a post/thread ratio count, by equivalent smear/spam content.

Claim it, prove it.

i've got to be in a meeting this morning but when the "metta is trolling" imbroglio flared up a few weeks back metta had 5 posts in one day to steve's 10 and troll's 8. of course, you probably didn't see the steve and troll posts as smears but "information"

and lots of you obama supporters claimed you would not support HRC before the primaries if she was the nominee, so let's not get too excited if someone else wants to exercise the same right, eh?

They only see the stories that the don't like as spamming. Steven and troll can post as many as they want as long as it fits with their views. Then they can go in and mutually masturbate each other and go rah, rah rah. But when someone posts more than one post a day with something they don't like it's spamming. Thats when they call out the Obamabot ants to put down the heretic.

[no name 1]

We are so screwed.

The Koolaid will wear off, don't worry.

Dev - its not just me who has noticed that you ally yourself with any and everyone who posts anything remotely critical about Obama, no matter how cheap, baseless and mean-spirited it is. If you really want a good debate - you need to up your game a bit.

:crying:

I'm crushed, truly. Don't know HOW I will go on.

But I *CAN* & will vote in November.....!

Definitely bitter

Yes, you can vote and I (and all the other LPRs here) *CAN'T* as you've said - and its really all you've got.

Though it seems a safe bet that you won't be voting for Obama - "undecided" as you may be...

Again with the names. Sure does make your point seem that much *more* desperate.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We are so screwed.

The Koolaid will wear off, don't worry.

Dev - its not just me who has noticed that you ally yourself with any and everyone who posts anything remotely critical about Obama, no matter how cheap, baseless and mean-spirited it is. If you really want a good debate - you need to up your game a bit.

:crying:

I'm crushed, truly. Don't know HOW I will go on.

But I *CAN* & will vote in November.....!

Definitely bitter

Yes, you can vote and I (and all the other LPRs here) *CAN'T* as you've said - and its really all you've got.

Though it seems a safe bet that you won't be voting for Obama - "undecided" as you may be...

Again with the names. Sure does make your point seem that much *more* desperate.

Bitter is a name? I thought it was a description.

"Namecalling" requires a noun of some kind... surely...

Unless you seriously thought I was calling you a type of beer

[HAL 9000 96]

Robin... I want names.

and lots of you obama supporters claimed you would not support HRC before the primaries if she was the nominee, so let's not get too excited if someone else wants to exercise the same right, eh?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would hope most people could see beyond partisan politics to weigh up some of these articles on their own merits or lack thereof.

Posting by headline, as seems to happen, is a bit annoying.

There is some good op-ed stuff out there - but most of this stuff about "character" and "flip-flopping" is total #######.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I do get annoyed when I see Gary or metta or whoever accused of "spamming" by people who don't agree with them, while the multiple and equally smear-tastic postings by others gets ignored

Time for a post/thread ratio count, by equivalent smear/spam content.

Claim it, prove it.

i've got to be in a meeting this morning but when the "metta is trolling" imbroglio flared up a few weeks back metta had 5 posts in one day to steve's 10 and troll's 8. of course, you probably didn't see the steve and troll posts as smears but "information"

and lots of you obama supporters claimed you would not support HRC before the primaries if she was the nominee, so let's not get too excited if someone else wants to exercise the same right, eh?

They only see the stories that the don't like as spamming. Steven and troll can post as many as they want as long as it fits with their views. Then they can go in and mutually masturbate each other and go rah, rah rah. But when someone posts more than one post a day with something they don't like it's spamming. Thats when they call out the Obamabot ants to put down the heretic.

[HAL 9000 96]

Funny I thought spamming was a little closer to posting 2-3 op-eds that say pretty darn much the same darn thing 2-3 times...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not hard - all you do is go to a few different member pages and count the numbers of op-ed threads they started about the election.

There are a good half-dozen or so people who are posting all of this stuff.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yet actual substance gets ignored...

(which is what voters should be paying attention to)

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Robin... I want names.

and lots of you obama supporters claimed you would not support HRC before the primaries if she was the nominee, so let's not get too excited if someone else wants to exercise the same right, eh?

I don't really feel it's my job to point them out but since you ask:

Steve said he would vote for Guiliani - Gary even had it in his signature for a time

Big Dog said he would probably not vote for HRC

and some others who are not active participants in this kind of back and forth so I don't want to call them out

the bottom line is that people should be able to say they will vote for whoever they believe in, whether it be a third party or Republican without that choice being portrayed as something it's not. Dev has said she doesn't "believe in Obama" so I don't she needs to be "bitter" to find a reason to vote for someone else or out of some sense of party fealty. Just like, if the shoe was on the other foot, Big Dog and Steve should be allowed to vote for whoever they believe in. No one has taken an oath to be faithful to the Democrats on either side.

Edited June 19, 2008 by rkl57

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The thing is people are free to say what they want.

But...

You have to be "bitter" or "angry" to some degree or other to side with people you otherwise have little or nothing in common with - certainly if the sole purpose of such "alliances" is to make or cheerlead petty, insulting and personal remarks about a candidate that you don't like.

I mean count the number of people who have derogatory political messages and cartoons in their profiles and signatures - and then look at the posting style in some of these threads. If that's not bitterness at work - what is...?