Nomad1776 - you rocked DU like I've never seen!!!!

[BeachBaby]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5642736

Definitely grounds for a DUzy!!!!! I've never seen a response like that on this board.

Congrats to you!!!!!! Holy shit.

At press time, you were up to 1040 Recs. Nice job, Jersey boy!!!!

[BeachBaby]

1. Kicking for nomad! :)

And now up to 1143 recs!!!!

:bounce:

[Freedom Knight]

2. That is an interesting way to take a poll.n/t

[NJmaverick]

3. Thanks, I am shocked and proud of the response from DU

I never imaged that thread would take off like that

[madinmaryland]

4. Ugh! You linked me to GD:Pffth!!1!!

:puke:

[TZ]

5. heh

I think you are just jealous cause nomad got a bigger Pffth response than your two threads yesterday did...;) :hi:

[madinmaryland]

8. It doesn't show up on my Greatest Page.

As I selected Skinners option to block that stuff!

[BeachBaby]

12. Bwhahahahahaha......

mission accomplished!

I had to find a way to get you back for busting my chops about my Eagles!

Revenge is sweet! :rofl:

[madinmaryland]

13. The eaglets??2?? ...

Hillary is giving Obama his daily briefing. She concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" Obama exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as Obama sits, head in hands.

Finally, Obama looks up and asks, "Why didn't Rev. Wright tell me how many is a brazillion?"

:hide:

[BeachBaby]

14. *cough*

Alright - you made me do this, I have no choice:

T.O. is giving Tony his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian NFL players were killed."

"OH NO!" Tony exclaims. "That's terrible!"

Jessica sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as Tony sits, head in hands.

Finally, Tony looks up and asks, "Why didn't I go to Brazil instead of Los Cabos?"

[TZ]

15. BWAHAHA!

You rock, JGD...:applause: :yourock:

[BeachBaby]

16. Thank you, thank you very much......

And there you have it. :rofl:

[madinmaryland]

17. How many times have the eaglets been to the Super Bowl and how many have

they won??

Eight times and Five Victories!!1!!



And..


:hi:

[BeachBaby]

19. Water under the bridge. That was then.....

but this is NOW.



Remember much?????????????????

:rofl: :hi:

[madinmaryland]

22. I remember 38-17!!

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news.cfm?id=0F5E7C5D-AEB9-BA3D-7F84E8B382A39A75

PHILADELPHIA - The Eagles, led by their quarterback, said all week long any team that wanted to win the NFC East would still have to go through Philadelphia.

Well, the Cowboys did just that Sunday night, running right through and then right over the Eagles here at Lincoln Financial Field.

The Cowboys left no doubt they are now the team to beat in the NFC East, whipping the Eagles from start to finish, 38-17, in front of a nationally-televised audience.

Easily, it was the Cowboys' most dominating win over the Eagles since a 34-0 blowout on Monday Night Football back in 1998. In fact, it was just their second win in Philadelphia since that game - and they scored the most points here since putting up 42 in 1971.

But the number that seems to matter the most is 7-1, the Cowboys' record at the halfway point, tying them for the best record in the NFC and keeping them a game ahead of the Giants (6-2), next week's opponent, for first place in the NFC East.

..snip



:hi:

[BeachBaby]

23. Bygones.

"But the number that seems to matter the most is 7-1, the Cowboys' record at the halfway point, tying them for the best record in the NFC and keeping them a game ahead of the Giants (6-2), next week's opponent, for first place in the NFC East."

And then something went horribly wrong.

Oh wait! No it didn't! The Cowboys just suck is all. :rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

6. Yeah, that's awesome.

Just the other day I thought to myself "The only problem with GDP is that there's not enough pointless divisiveness."

[NJmaverick]

7. Do you really think that was pointless?

Seems to me it was very cathartic and gave a large number of DUers a chance to express their opinion

[MonkeyFunk]

9. Yes, I think it's pointless

it won't force Clinton to do what you want. All it does is confirm that Hillary-supporters are vastly outnumbered here. But we already knew that.

[BeachBaby]

10. Catharsis is a wonderful thing.

And you opened the door for it so simply. Kudos!

I agree with you 100%. I am an Obama supporter (have held him in high regard since his speech at the DNC in 2004), and my boyfriend (DUer BleedingCubbieBlue) is from Illinois and holds him in high regard as well.

Having said that.....if things were reversed, and Obama was on the losing end, I would ask him to do the same thing. The Republicans are getting a boner over the obvious division of the Democratic Party right now - and if we have any chance of winning the GE, we need solidarity - and the sooner, the better.

I think you're definitely the frontrunner for the DUzy this week. I imagine you broke a couple DU records as well.

Sometimes it's the short, simple, poignant posts that say the most. Ya did good, Jersey boy.

:hug:

[Zuiderelle]

21. Catharsis? You need catharsis with the all-consuming Obama-love around here?

[BeachBaby]

24. "All-consuming Obama-love"?

You're kidding, right? Or haven't you yet visited GD: P?

If your statement was accurate, GD: P wouldn't be the warzone that it is. And my post pointed that problem out.

Something has to give, and soon. Or we can most certainly count on another Republican administration in January.

[Zuiderelle]

25. I see there are far more (and more vocal) Obama supporters around GDP.

"Polls" like the one you are praising only serve to make the arrogance of many of them more profound.

[BeachBaby]

27. Yes, it's all my fault. n/t.

[Zuiderelle]

28. Are you the entire subset of Obama supporters being divisive?

No idea why you are personalizing my post that way.

[BeachBaby]

29. No idea why you're coming after me.

I don't post in GD: P anymore because it's a waste of time.

Furthermore, I have gotten to know nomad1776 here in the Lounge, so I congratulated him here as well. You seemed to not like that very much (as mentioned in your post to me below).

This is a political site, is it not? And last I learned, people are allowed to voice their support, no matter which candidate the person picks.

I disagree with you that the Obama supporters are "more vocal". But even if they were, so what? It's obvious to me that our site is only indicative of how the nation's population is swaying right now.

To be completely honest with you, I have never once gone into a thread and trashed Hillary; however, I have jumped into threads on other forums voicing my support, and my reasons why, for Obama.

I volunteered for the Bill Clinton campaign. The Clinton years were some of the best years of my life. I *thought* that Hillary was going to give us 8 years very similar to Bill's.

It didn't take long for me to find out that she is most definitely NOT Bill.

PelosiFan, I don't think I need to tell you that this election is arguably the most important election in the history of this country. People are passionate about it - more than I've ever seen. I don't see Hillary in the position of "damage control and repair". She's tied in with way too many corporations, and her position on the so-called "War on Terror" is disenchanting, to say the least. She has proven herself to be a repeat offender in the lying category.

People are going to voice their support, or the lack thereof, here - I don't know why you're so obviously disturbed by that.

[Zuiderelle]

30. Sweetheart, I'm not "coming after you," I was just responding to your "catharsis" comment.

And thank God that this site is a far cry from "indicative of how the nation's population is swaying right now." Otherwise, Hillary would not have just won Pennsylvania.

Yes, JerseyGirlDem, this election is very important. Important enough that I get weary of so many here who think it's a good idea to short-circuit it by saying that Hillary should bow out.

To me, these two candidates are nearly identical. The main issue that separates them for me is Obama's adamant refusal to address civil rights for gay Americans. He has stated unequivocally (which is amazing to me since he equivocates on so many other things), that he is against gay marriage. And he has never offered any other solution in which he directly supports equality. Even though Hillary has stated that she is also against gay marriage (though not with the same religious, scary, reasons Obama has), she has directly supported civil equality for gay Americans in the form of equitable civil unions, something that Obama does NOT directly support.

[BeachBaby]

31. I don't see them as identical.....

and from the way people are duking it out, I would have to say that not too many other people see them the way you do, either.

I don't want to get this thread locked because it's GDP-related stuff, but I wanted to respond to your concern about Obama's views on gay marriage/civil unions.

At the risk of being absolutely obliterated for saying this.....his views on the subject of gay marriage/civil unions don't matter. I live in New Jersey. While under the watchful eyes of the Bush Administration, our Governor, John Corzine, signed legislation that permits civil unions which hold all the benefits and liabilities that marriage does. Just as it is with other "party line politics" such as abortion, capital punishment and alcoholic beverage consumption, all the President/Supreme Court can do is accept/reject on a FEDERAL level. After they make that decision, the states can react accordingly. This is why laws vary from state to state.

We have much bigger fish to fry, PelosiFan. Issues that most certainly affect an entire nation, not just state to state....such as an unjust war with the promise of new wars, a recession bordering on a depression, stifling oil prices, global warming, unemployment, NAFTA, healthcare, the list is endless. IMO, a military draft is also inevitable at this point. This country is at the end of its proverbial rope.

I cannot vote for someone who not only supported the Iraq war, but has recently stated that she would "obliterate Iran" if she felt the need. We need a complete overhaul of the last 8 years - we need someone who will strive to mend fences and gain a trust with our former allies; we need someone who is going to address the environmental issues with a passion; we need someone who is looking at the big picture of the nation's economy and striving to alleviate the financial pressure of the middle and low class citizens; we need someone whose goal is to bring peace worldwide; we need someone who has the ability to unite - not divide - a nation.

Obama's concern for this country is written all over his face. I like the fact that he makes a point of saying "we" and "us", instead of saying "me" or "I". I admire that he admits his weaknesses, and take comfort that he will search high and low to produce a cabinet that will be comprised of the best in each category, in order to help him achieve his goals. I like that he appears to see people as PEOPLE, instead of classifying by color, or creed, or financial status.

I am a white woman, strongly supporting a man who is just as much white as he is black. And if the only thing people can hold against him is his black minister - who in my opinion, says out loud what most of us are afraid to say out loud - then Hillary has alot of work to do in improving her credibility. Her attacks on Obama, her corporate interests in the health industry, her views on war, not to mention her hugely fabricated stories of coming under sniper fire, have only weakened it.

[Zuiderelle]

32. "We have much bigger fish to fry" 'nuff said. Civil rights are not important.

And that's exactly why I do NOT support Obama. Other than his lack of interest in equality for all Americans, he is identical in every other way to Hillary.

[BeachBaby]

33. That's not what I said, and you'd know that if you read my post

in its entirety.

Civil rights ARE important; but if you want to do anything about them, then go to your governor, senator or congressman. IT IS A STATE DECISION.

[Zuiderelle]

34. Wait, that is exactly what you said, which is why I quoted it.

Why should civil rights in the form of gay marriage be a STATE DECISION, when it represents FEDERAL BENEFITS AND RIGHTS? Get it? I doubt it.

[BeachBaby]

40. I was referring to your knee-jerk reaction

that I have insinuated that civil rights aren't important. I call bullshit - IN SPADES.

I would like to know where you find your information - because after doing a little digging myself, I find that your reasoning is, well, unreasonable. And you're very much misinformed, from what I'm seeing.

Just a few quotes from Barack Obama himself:

"My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word "marriage," which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not." ~~August 9, 2007

"Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it's something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it's less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state. Now, it's not for me to suggest that you shouldn't be troubled by these issues. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country." ~~August 9, 2007

"My attitude is if people are being treated unfairly and unequally, then it needs to be fixed. So I'm always very cautious about getting into comparisons of victimology. You know, the issues that gays and lesbians face today are different from the issues that were faced by African-Americans under Jim Crow. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't parallels in the sense that legal status is not equal. And that has to be fixed. I'm going to be more sympathetic not because I'm black. I'm going to be more sympathetic because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the cause of my life, making sure that everybody's treated fairly and that we've got an expansive view of America, where everybody's invited in and we are all working together to create the kind of America that we want for the next generation." ~~ August 9, 2007

"We've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples. Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal." ~~August 9, 2007

"For many practicing Christians, the inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christian men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex--nor am I willing to accept a readingof the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount." ~~"Audacity of Hope" by Barack Obama pp.222-223

All of the above quotes are from Barack Obama. So, why don't you tell me why you feel he doesn't lend his position on that issue?

I do find it more than curious that your screen name is PelosiFan. Are you aware of her feelings about gays in the military?

[Zuiderelle]

49. Oh come on. You said we have "bigger fish to fry." It's odd that you deny it now.

[BeachBaby]

53. Do you not read? Or are you one of those people

who read and twist things to start trouble?

If you actually READ what I said, you'd see that I did NOT deny saying that we have bigger fish to fry; what I DID deny was your claim that I said civil rights aren't important. It's a blatant lie - and I called you on it.

Meanwhile, you absolutely ignore the numerous quotes I found for you regarding Obama's stance on civil rights.

You obviously have some sort of issue with Senator Obama - but I really don't care anymore to know what it is. You have made it quite clear that you have a closed mind to everything he has to say.

So go on ahead.....root for Hillary. That's your right as an American. But if you think I'm going to continue dialogue with someone who regularly uses the strawman diversion, think again. I'm done.

It's been real.

[Zuiderelle]

56. To me, saying that we have bigger fish to fry, is saying that civil rights are not important enough.

I didn't mean to twist what you said and I'm not ignoring your posts. I don't have any issue with Obama, and have said repeatedly that I will vote for him if he is the nominee. My preference for Hillary has only to do with their stances on civil rights for gay Americans. I have not once used any sort of strawman in this conversation, and I have a VERY open mind towards Obama, who I think is an inspiring and hopeful leader. I only hope that he will become stronger and more opinionated about civil rights for gay Americans, as he is about issues that mean more to him, if/when he becomes our president.

What did you mean when you said that we have bigger fish to fry then? (And my apologies for misinterpreting you to mean that you thought gay marriage is not important.)

[Zuiderelle]

20. And now it's in here. :(

[RainDog]

36. Obama was elected in ultra liberal Chicago

I doubt very seriously that he is a threat to homosexual rights. he has chosen not to rile the feathers of the af-am church community that is, generally, less in favor of homosexual civil rights. This is politics. HRC pulls the same shite all the time in her own ways. She kowtows to Murdoch and Scaife, who would not only like to deny those civil rights, but in the case of Scaife, would like to deny homosexuality in general, along with the Christian Recon. buddies.

So how can you support Hillary when she cozied up to Scaife? She didn't ream him when she was with him and tell him everything wrong about his beliefs... which include a hatred, an outright hatred, for homosexuals.

As far as this board not representing... no, of course not. But it does well represent the reality that Hillary cannot win the democratic candidacy by vote count. 9.2% does not a candidate make. She will not win unless she tries to pull some sort of dirty trick via superdelegates. Okay, or if she wins 98% of everything before the convention. This board represents that reality by noting that, by any calculation based upon reality, she is now simply a spoiler and divider.

You are the one who chose to take JGD's comment and make it an issue here. There are plenty of threads on this entire board that I ignore. Since you chose to post on this one, I choose to reply.

The condescending "honey" to JGD really wasn't necessary, either. She tried to explain why, as an Obama supporter, she liked that post and made that claim. There are lots of us who support equal rights for homosexuals who also support Obama, just as there are many who do not support nuking Iran who support Hillary.

If you don't want these arguments in the lounge, don't start them.

[Zuiderelle]

38. For the understanding-impaired, once again, I responded to her use of "catharsis" as if

such a strong majority of Obama supporters need some sort of catharsis when they are the ones trampling on Clinton supporters.

I'll give you that we cannot judge people by the people they associate with, and I never made claim that we should here. I am simply referring to Obama's own words and actions versus hers. He has stated outright that he is against gay marriage and he does not support equality in any other guise. She at least has laid it out that she IS in support of civil equality in the form of civil unions. With that choice on the table and no other, I'll take her version of equality.

[RainDog]

39. I am not understanding-impaired.

Your remarks, however, are yet another reason I find so many Hillary supporters a waste of my time. Because it is exceedingly odd that you and so many other fail to acknowledge that she is now simply a spoiler and divider.

That is where the catharsis comes from... people who don't want to argue with brick walls, but do want to say, yes, will Hillary, for the good of the party, conceed that she has lost?

take one for the team, like I did when I voted for Bill, you know?

Because the issue is, in fact, that you will have a choice of a vote between Obama and McCain.

Please refrain from further insults. It doesn't behoove a sockpuppet to show herself in such a way.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. And that's where the arrogance

comes in. He doesn't have the nomination yet. He has a greater likelihood of getting it than Clinton, but he doesn't have it YET, and these non-stop demands that she drop out are just silly.

[RainDog]

47. tell me the scenario that makes it possible for Clinton to win

honestly. I have not heard one realistic scenario that would make it possible for her to win now. why is it arrogance to acknowledge the fact that she cannot win enough delegates to win the nomination?

was it arrogance when Kucinich recognized he couldn't win and dropped out... and when this fact was reported to the public? what makes HRC's situation any different. I'm not asking this in anger. I'm asking because I don't understand how HRC supporters are able to convince themselves that her candidacy is still viable.

[MonkeyFunk]

61. She does well in the upcoming states and wins

with superdelegates.

Coincidentally, that's the same path to the nomination Obama will have to take.

[RainDog]

64. Monkeyfunk, that's not an answer

what percentage of votes does she need to win? Last I saw, it was 98%. that's impossible.

if you can come up with real numbers based upon real life, honestly, I'd like to see them because I have only seen numbers now that show it is statistically impossible for her to win. this is the issue. it's not whether or not people vote for her or not. it's how many delegates she needs to win and how she might be able to obtain those delegates.

if you cannot reasonable supply a scenario that is possible, then you are not talking about reality.

[Redbear]

65. Her path to victory is very possible

There are 2 basic ways.

1. Super deluge

A. Win 50% of the remaining primary/caucus delegates
B. Win 70% of the group consisting of the currently uncommitted supers plus the 18 Edwards delegates


2. Let my people vote

A. Win 50% of the remaining primary/caucus delegates
B. Win the fight to get the Florida and Michigan delegates seated
C. Win 52% of the group consisting of the uncommitted supers (including those from FL and MI)the 31 Edwards delegates (increased by adding Florida)and the Michigan uncommitted delegates

My money is still on Obama, but if Clinton can survive until June 3rd it will get very interesting.

[MonkeyFunk]

66. It is a real answer

neither candidate is likely to achieve the nomination without superdelegates.

She will need more of them than he does, but it doens't make it impossible or unrealistic.

[Zuiderelle]

48. I plan to vote for Obama, or Hillary, whichever one wins the nomination.

And I don't believe that Hillary should pull out of the race. Sorry that you find my positions insulting.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

41. Maybe the question is

where does McSame stand on these issues? I'm sure the powers that *really* be are just giddy watching the rival party divide themselves down the middle. It'll make things all that much easier to steal election #3. But we'll just ignore all that in favor of semantics.:eyes:

[BeachBaby]

42. Read post #40 and explain his lack of position on civil rights. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. lol. love ya

[LostinVA]

60. You know what I think would be awesome?

An IP address comparison on everyone who rec'd that thread. I bet it would bring the true number of recommendations down.

[Pierre.Suave]

76. OH OH OH

can we do that for potential sockpuppets too?

Damn I know we would get less responses in this thread alone...

[Elidor]

77. Ain't that the truth!

It irks me to see the same old troll still here, still stirring up shit.

[Pierre.Suave]

78. I wonder what we got to do to get her exposed and pizza'd again...

How does that work around here? Do the mods just not care?

[Elidor]

79. They would need proof

I'm sure that the admins are aware of the claims that were made, but without proof, they'll just take a good hard look and keep an eye on things.

But I have faith in our little troll to get the ban-stick again.

[Pierre.Suave]

80. Isnt this the 3rd sockpuppet?

there has to be a trend here... and with that trend in mind, I am sure it will happen again.

[racaulk]

81. Wasn't there a Nimrod_2205 here at one time?

:evilgrin:

[madinmaryland]

82. interesting. that might explain why they got so upset at me asking

about the repubbie angle.

[Pierre.Suave]

83. I have no idea

and think I am missing a joke somewhere...

[Mad_Dem_X]

11. Holy cow!

:wow: :applause:

[meegbear]

18. You gonna rec my thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7680880

[Fox Mulder]

26. It's too bad I couldn't recommend that thread twice.

Or three times.

[otherlander]

35. Meh.

I like divisive competition to the end... It's a good sign of democracy. Unity is for dictatorships.

[Leo 9]

37. Section 8 - Powers of Congress

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

snip

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

[Redbear]

43. That thread certainly represents GDP accurately

Substantive question - "Boooooorrrrrring."

Hillary sucks and should just leave - "Yes. Thats what I'm talking about. Woot!"

[NJmaverick]

50. Now that isn't fair. There were no insults or the word "sucks"

It was a short straight forward question

[BeachBaby]

51. Ack. I was kinda hoping you weren't gonna look at this thread

again.

It's turned into quite the trainwreck. :hi:

[NJmaverick]

52. Thanks, but I have been following this thread

Honestly it didn't surprise me. I suspected that the whole "Rec if you think Hillary should quit" phenomena would not be as popular with Hillary supporters as it was with the Obama supporters. With how this primary race has polarized our party, it's pretty much a given anything you say about either candidate will have strong but opposite responses.


Still as an Obama supporter I know that all of us were disappointed that the PA results did not put an end to this very difficult time. So I thought that simple thread and statement was a great way to express that feeling. I think it made the thousand plus Obama supporters feel better. I am sure the Hillary supporters may not have appreciated seeing just how much the forum wants to see their candidate drop out of the race, but they already had something they were celebrating.

This whole primary has been extremely depressing. It created deep divides. Divides that the republicans have taken advantage of. Divides that are going to take a long time to heal. It's very possible that those divides have cost the Democrats an election that should have been an easy win.

Beyond that there has been the large number of tomb stoned members. Sure some are the usually freepers trying to infiltrate the forum to cause problems, but others were solid members who's passions got the better of them. To lose passionate solid Democrats, from the forum, is nothing but a loss, in my opinion.

[Redbear]

54. Sorry. The intent was to insult the general tenor of GDP not you

You personally have made some very intelligent and often pretty amusing posts, none of which were lauded with anywhere close to 1000+ recs.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. seconded

[SPKrazy]

44. I think the question is rank

but the response is interesting

[DarkTirade]

45. Holy cripes on toast.

That's a lotta recs.

[BeachBaby]

55. "Holy cripes on toast" ?

Never heard that one - thanks for making me smile. :hi:

[DarkTirade]

62. It's from an old adventure game, Sam and Max Hit the Road.

A game that had a rather bizarre sense of humor. :)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. yeah popularity always makes one right.

[NJmaverick]

63. It doesn't make one right, but it does make one feel better

[racaulk]

67. Kick

Why do people have to bring GDP in the Lounge? WHY?!?!?!!11!?

[TZ]

68. Well Your Majesty..I think you may have hit the nail on the head

:)

[racaulk]

70. Why thank you, my good peasant.

When I bring death to the Kingdom, I promise yours will be quick and painless.

:hi:

[madinmaryland]

72. I was going to comment, but this is JDG's thread.

[racaulk]

73. You're right.

I meant no disprespect to JDG. I just wanted to make sure others saw for themselves nomad1776's utter hypocrisy.

[madinmaryland]

74. I know you didn't. I just felt

that for me to post, would not be appropriate.

What I find ironic, is that I have NEVER stated what candidate(s) I am or have supported in the past. I would still like a list of pro-hillary posts i've made in teh lounge.

What's even funnier is if "X" would go over to GD:Pthhh, he/she might discover that my OP had been worded correctly.

:shrug:

[racaulk]

75. I guess it's easier to just get pissed off to make a point.

I guess it's also easier to assume that someone who disagrees with you is a supporter of the other candidate, because attacking another person is often times easier than stopping and actually hearing what they may have to say.

Don't worry about him, he's a tool. I remember seeing some of his posts in GDP a while back, and he can be a real ass. I actually almost put him on Ignore myself once! When he first came to the Lounge with his "Do you mind if I hang out here?" thread, I just rolled my eyes. What's hilarious is that he's complaining about the toxic nature of GDP, but he fails to recognize that he's partly to blame for it.

But don't worry, he's made a total ass of himself today in the Lounge, and I doubt many here will take him seriously again. He dug his own grave today, and I was all to happy to lend him a shovel.

:)

[Dr. Strange]

69. Bump this thread

[Deep13]

71. This isn't GDP. Wipe off your feet before coming into the Lounge.