The DU "give it up Obama" Hillary supporters are following the script. . .DON'T FALL FOR IT!

[wndycty]

I love Hillary and if she gets the nomination I will WORK MY ASS OFF FOR HER. But at this point she aint won shit and according to a recent NEWSWEEK POLL my candidate Barack Obama is up WITH LIKELY CAUCUS GOERS in IOWA! Which is what really matters, the national polls are meaningless and will no doubt change dramatically if Obama were to win in Iowa.

As I mentioned yesterday, the panelist on MEET THE PRESS talked about how Hillary is running scared in Iowa and how she would rather lose to Edwards than Obama in Iowa because once he gets out of the stable he can run away with it.

Its cute when Hillary's supporters post threads like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3566571

They can try to demoralize Obama's supporters but their actions just motivate us more. I'm not going to diss Hillary because I love her, but I love Obama more. Her supporters who spend all their time trying to make Obama out as a loser need a life.

[wyldwolf]

1. So, is it also cute when Obama supporters post threads like this FIRST?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3566113&mesg_id=3566113

Oh... right. :eyes:

[Windy]

3. Don't you work Wyldwolf? Or is posting about HRC day and night

and bashing all other candidates your day job?

[wyldwolf]

5. does your hypocrisy know any limits?

[Windy]

12. Hypocrisy? NO... not on my part

I check in once in awhile during the day. And when I catch up at night,you have done nothing but bash HRC's rivals on numerous occasions.

And I don't bash other candidates. I just state my opinion with regard to Mrs. Clinton's demonstrated lack of judgment which I am entitled to do in this country under the first amendment. I have no problem with your candidate domestically. Her foreign policy ideas are dangerous and a continuation of the bush doctrine.

[Windy]

21. And FYI... I've not made up my mind who to support yet

Its far too early in the primaries for me to do so. I evaluate each candidate on their individual merits and positions. I like several of our candidates. We have a good field this time. I have, however, decided that I cannot vote for HRC due to her foriegn policy missteps or Dennis Kucinich in the primaries.

[Forkboy]

39. Does yours?

Wanna play this game again?

[wndycty]

41. Please play the game, it should be fun. . .

:kick:

[Forkboy]

59. Hows it going so far?

:)

[wndycty]

70. I had to head to a meeting

:kick:

[wyldwolf]

46. does yours?

Wanna play this game again?

[Forkboy]

49. Well, you already know I can point yours out as I still have the threads bookmarked.

If you can illustrate mine I'd be happy to see it.Unlike you I'll acknowledge it and apologize for being a flaming hypocrite.You should try it sometime.

[wyldwolf]

51. do we? Let's see them,

[Forkboy]

54. Sure thing

Here's you saying you don't like the "but Hillary did it" defense;

And as I pointed out in my OP, resorting to the "but Hillary did it" defense is not a defense at all. Obama is supposed to be above all this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3502615#3502740

Now, here's your defense of Hillary on the fundraiser issue just the day before you posted that;

wyldwolf Thu Sep-06-07 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
31. google: Obama Alexi Giannoulias mob

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3499266&mesg_id=3500380

So, as anyone can see you whined about something one day after doing it yourself.That's about as obvious as it gets, and until you have the decency and class to admit it I'll keep calling you on your bullshit when you accuse others of being hypocrites.

I'm sure you'll get to spinning how this isn't hypocrisy, and I look forward to seeing the attempt, and having others see it as well.And I'll be more than happy to keep it kicked.

Now, any other requests?

[wyldwolf]

55. That isn't hypocrisy. That's pointing out Obama's hypocrisy

It's Obama who says he's above it all. So when he (and his supporters) do it, it is hypocrisy.

Next.

[Forkboy]

56. LMAO

No wonder you want "next" :freak:

[wyldwolf]

57. IS there a next one? Still waiting for an example...

[Forkboy]

58. It's right there for all to see, despite your furious spinning.

I'll be here all night Wolf, and I will keep this going as long as you want.I love knowing that people can see your own words and actions and judge for themselves, and I'm more than happy to post them wherever and whenever, and you keep giving me reason to.Hell, you even requested them this time.Thanks! :rofl:

You could just be a decent bloke and admit you were being a hypocrite.We all do it from time to time.The decent thing to do is admit it was wrong and move on.I would.

[wyldwolf]

60. I guess there isn't one

When you find a real example, not one you've tried to spin into one, let me know.

Hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Describes Obama and some of his supporters perfectly.

[Forkboy]

62. I guess there is and you lack the decency to admit it.

C'mon, be a man.

[wyldwolf]

64. poor Forkboy. You said you had several examples and you can't even produce one!

:rofl:

Hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. See Obama and his supporters.

[Forkboy]

65. keep spinnning.You can't even get my words in this thread right.

Where did I say several?

Poor Wolfie, cannot handle having his own words used against him.

Hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. See Obama and his supporters.

See you.

[wyldwolf]

66. You said you had threads (plural) bookmarked. LOL! Where ARE they??

hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. See Obama and his supporters.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

69. so in your world, threads (plural) DOESN'T mean more than one or several? LOL!

Look at post #54 and tell me how many threads I linked to.

So now you're changing your story again? First you deny you said you had several bookmarked but now you have several. :rofl:

Keep it coming Wolf...I'm not going anywhere, and if they decide they want to lock this thread, which I'm sure you're praying for, they can, but I'll always bring this back up any time I see you calling someone else a hypocrite.

:woohoo:

[Forkboy]

71. Man, you're really out of form lately.You used to be tough to argue with.

First you deny you said you had several bookmarked but now you have several.

I denied I used the word several, and since you're so big on definitions here's one for you;

sev·er·al (sĕv'ər-əl, sĕv'rəl)
adj.

1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many

I'm assuming that that is simple enough that even you can grasp it. :think:

So when you used the word "several" you were wrong.I don't have several bookmarked, never claimed I did, and the definition I provided should clear up your faux confusion.As you can see, two is not considered several, which is why I didn't use it the word.My story hasn't changed a bit, despite your hilarious desperation to portray it that way.


Now, most people here are familiar with your tactics of diversion and distraction, so you can keep trying to shift the focus to me, but we all know why you're doing so.You're incapable of admitting you could ever be wrong.It really shows the type of person you are, though I suspect most here already know it.

[wyldwolf]

72. so, I guess you didn't really have several threads bookmarked. You were "mistaken," I guess

:eyes:

Weren't you on the episode of Brady Bunch when Greg insisted on using "exact" words?

[Forkboy]

74. I wasn't mistaken because I never said "several"...you did.

Where in this sentence is the word "several" wolf?

Well, you already know I can point yours out as I still have the threads bookmarked.

And what I said was correct.I had threads , both of which I linked to.

Are you dizzy from your spinning yet? Seriously, this is almost getting as ugly as those Eagles jerseys a couple weeks back.This latest tangent to distract is downright laughable.

Like I said, you used to make this tough, and even forced me to admit I was wrong to you a few times in the past, but this is like stealing candy from a baby, it really is. :shrug:

So again...where did I say I had "several" threads? Can you at least get one thing right today?

[wyldwolf]

75. Right, because we've already established "several" doesn't mean anything plural to you... oddly.

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

77. Now you're not even making sense. You're thrashing about like a fish out of water.

You haven't established anything other than your own inability to admit you're wrong.

I gave YOU the very definition of the word several, and why your using it was inaccurate.I think the definition of the word is spot on, so saying it doesn't mean anything plural to me is inane and stupid...and par for your course.It's you that seems to be having trouble grasping what the word means.

I also duly note that once again you dodge anything specific.Where did I use the word "several" in my original post wolf? Surely you can answer one simple question in a straightforward manner.


Be sure to add another smilie in your defense.The real laugh is on you.

[wyldwolf]

78. well, even fish know what "plural" and "several" mean.

[Forkboy]

84. So what's your excuse for not getting it?

And why no answer to my question, wolf? You must be able to answer such a simple question. :shrug:

Anyways, let's have some fun (seeing as though you'll never have the guts to answer that question).The word plural would have been correct.The word several wouldn't have been.Can you spot the subtle difference why? You win pie if you get it.

plu·ral (plʊr'əl)
adj.

1. Relating to or composed of more than one member, set, or kind: the plural meanings of a text; a plural society.
2. Grammar. Of or being a grammatical form that designates more than one of the things specified.

sev·er·al (sĕv'ər-əl, sĕv'rəl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many

[wyldwolf]

85. What's your exuse for denying it?

[Forkboy]

87. Distraction wont work Wolf.

I take it the difference was too subtle for your brain.And here I was thinking a Hillary supporter, of ALL people, would get nuance.

Try again;

The word plural would have been correct.The word several wouldn't have been.Can you spot the subtle difference why? You win pie if you get it.

plu·ral (plʊr'əl)
adj.

1. Relating to or composed of more than one member, set, or kind: the plural meanings of a text; a plural society.
2. Grammar. Of or being a grammatical form that designates more than one of the things specified.

sev·er·al (sĕv'ər-əl, sĕv'rəl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many

[wyldwolf]

88. your whole body of work in this thead is distraction, boy.

[Forkboy]

89. No, that's your M.O. wolf.

And this thread is a classic example of your doing so.

Why is it so hard for you to answer any questions, wolf?

Let's try again, since the topic you've latched onto is the words "plural" and "several".You chose this avenue, wolf, not I.Can you stay on your own topic.I realize this thread has to be tough on you, especially when you look back on it later on, but you still have time to salvage a small portion of your integrity and reputation (such as it is).

The word plural would have been correct.The word several wouldn't have been.Can you spot the subtle difference why? You win pie if you get it.

plu·ral (plʊr'əl)
adj.

1. Relating to or composed of more than one member, set, or kind: the plural meanings of a text; a plural society.
2. Grammar. Of or being a grammatical form that designates more than one of the things specified.

sev·er·al (sĕv'ər-əl, sĕv'rəl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many

[wyldwolf]

92. no, that's your M.O,, boy

[wndycty]

93. Keep it up, this thread keeps getting more and more page views!

:kick:

[Forkboy]

94. I don't understand your reluctance to discuss the two words you've deemed are so crucial.

Like I said, wolf, you chose this avenue of discussion, not me.And now you wont discuss it.If you understand what the words "plural" and "several" mean then you should have no problem understanding the subtle differences between the two.Why so afraid to address these, wolf?

One would think you could muster up something...ANYTHING...to try to justify your lame tangent.I'm giving you every chance one could hope for to clarify, yet you seem hesitant to take that chance.Why is that, wolf?

I realize the real reason you're afraid to discuss it is because you don't have a leg to stand on, and for that I can't say as I blame you.I'd be embarrassed as hell to have posts like yours sitting there for the world to see.

[wyldwolf]

95. I don't understand your denial of saying you had several theads bookmarked...

[Forkboy]

96. Because I never said it.Show the quote.

[wyldwolf]

97. sure you did. You said BOOKMARKS. Plural. Meaning several.

[Forkboy]

98. So, no quote?

Plural and several have different meanings.I asked you to spot the subtle difference but you're either incapable of distinguishing them, or are too scared because you know it'll make you look even sillier than you already are.

But, because I love, I'll try again.

See if you can spot the subtle difference;


plu·ral (plʊr'əl)
adj.

1. Relating to or composed of more than one member, set, or kind: the plural meanings of a text; a plural society.
2. Grammar. Of or being a grammatical form that designates more than one of the things specified.

sev·er·al (sĕv'ər-əl, sĕv'rəl)
adj.

1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many


C'mon wolf, engage that tiny mind and think about it.

[wyldwolf]

99. so you didn't say BOOKMARKS. Plural. Meaning several?

[Forkboy]

100. Still no quote with "several"?

Are you even reading what I write?

Go back and read my last post and get back to me.

[wndycty]

101. We broke 100 posts! We broke 100 posts. . .

. . .closing in on 1,000 views!

[Forkboy]

102. LMAO

Glad to help. :)

[wndycty]

103. Well you know this thread would have just died without wyldwolf so. . .

. . .I need to pass along my thanks to wyldwolf for making sure this thread has stayed alive all day and the visitors keep seeing the message I conveyed in the OP.

[wyldwolf]

105. Stil think several doesn't mean "plural?"

[Forkboy]

106. Yes, because they do mean different things.

I'll spell it out for you because you refuse to actually read the definitions, or are to dense to get it;

plu·ral (plʊr'əl)
adj.

1. Relating to or composed of more than one member, set, or kind: the plural meanings of a text; a plural society.
2. Grammar. Of or being a grammatical form that designates more than one of the things specified.

sev·er·al (sĕv'ər-əl, sĕv'rəl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many

Read those bolded parts very carefully."Several" means MORE THAN TWO, which is why I never used the word (even though you said I did and then couldn't actually back that lame ass charge up)."Plural" means MORE THAN ONE.Several ISN'T TWO.

I know you actually get it and are just playing obtuse to try to salvage yourself in this thread, but like Clinton said,"When you find yourself in a hole quit digging."

And besides, this is really about your hypocrisy anyways, despite your amusing attempts to focus on me.But, by all means, do keep going.I'm having a ball.

[wyldwolf]

110. no they don't

[Forkboy]

111. And yet you offer no rebuttal while I gave the actual definitions.

Do I believe the actual definitions, or your simplistic and mind numblingly dense, "no it doesn't"?

Hmmm...tough one.

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

116. You're confirmation is a spin of what you said.

[Forkboy]

117. "Oh, welcome back!"

You've proven nothing and can prove nothing.

On the other hand I've explained and given facts, definitions, and your own words.You have zero, and each weak reply you cough up just illustrates that better and better for all us.

I know you always insist on the last word, so live it up.Each word you've typed has just sunk you further.You've shown DU a lot, but it's not what you're thinking in your head.

Be seeing ya around. :hi:

[wndycty]

4. You crack me up. . .just following the script, the very script that Russert called out

MR. RUSSERT: Inevitability is a big part of the Clinton campaign. “We’re going to win this nomination. We’re going to win this election.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21065954/page/4/

[wyldwolf]

6. hypocrisy thy name is Obama supporter.

[wndycty]

9. Explain to me how much time I have spent bashing Hillary or other candidates. . .

. . .LOL

You know I don't bash other candidates and have reluctantly criticized them a few times. Go ahead a call me a hypocrite, my record on the DU will show your ignorance. LOL

[wyldwolf]

15. Explain to me how your OP isn't hypocritical

[wndycty]

25. To call me a hypocrite you will need to demonstrate how I'm being a hypocrite. . .

. . .the actions of other Obama supporters are not my action. For me to be a hypocrite I would have to routinely bash other candidates, I don't. For me to be a hypocrite I would have to have a record of telling other candidates to supporters to give it up, I don't.

It seems you might need a dictionary to know what a hypocrite is.

[Clintonista2]

27. I'll demonstrate how you're hypocritical:

"Its cute when Hillary's supporters post threads like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3566571"

You fail to mention that the link was to a thread responding to the one that was started by Obama supporters with the title of "any reasonable person can see that Hillary is not going to make it"

[wndycty]

29. For me to be hypocritical I would have to be the one spreading the shit. . .

. . .I'm not. You have to shown where I have been putting down Hillary or any other candidate. . .AND I HAVEN'T.

I have criticized the Edwards campaign for using Elizabeth to attack other candidates. . .that is the only criticism I have used against any other candidate and my criticism of the Edwards strategy of putting Elizabeth on the attack were not meant to dismiss his candidacy.

[wyldwolf]

30. you're an Obama supporter who thought he/she was calling out a Clinton supporter...

...for "spreading shit." But it was actually an Obama supporter who first flung the shit. :rofl:

[wndycty]

31. So the Obama supporters started it?

LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3565609

But hey I like Hillary, I'm ready to support her, IF she wins the nomination.

[wyldwolf]

32. yes, now you're getting it.

[wndycty]

33. You obviously didn't click the link. . .BTW. . .

. . .thanks for keeping this thread kicked.

[wyldwolf]

36. yes I did. You pulled a random thread

:shrug:

Shall I pull an even older thread by Obama supporters bashing Clinton??

[wndycty]

38. Please do and keep this kicked

:kick:

[wyldwolf]

40. I'll keep them both kicked.

[Clintonista2]

43. THX FOR THE KICK! LOLZ!!!!!

:eyes:

[emilyg]

7. Or call her names, make fun of her laugh. Dredge up old articles to post.

Why is it ok for Obama supporters?

[Dawgs]

11. Why do you claim that it's only Obama supporters that do this?

I see it from everyone, now quit lying and saying that it's only Obama supporters that do this kind of stuff.

[Clintonista2]

14. Obama supporters are responsible for about 95% of it

My apologies to the other 5% who don't support Obama.

[rinsd]

24. Correction: its about 3 or 4 Obama supporters not the whole lot.

[emilyg]

26. Agree - 3-4 every damn night.

[ellacott]

35. Not true n/t

[Riktor]

53. We're all hypocrites, now knock it off

You people are bickering like nine-year-olds defending their deadbeat parents. Hillary and Obama aren't our fucking saviors, they're politicians. Half the time DUers are complaining about the inability of the average conservative to think critically and rationally. When that's over and done with, they start threads like this, fawning over cults of personality like a bunch of fucking mewling cabbages. How can anyone expect a Bushie to start criticizing their man when half the people here are likewise incapable of demonstrating objectivity?

For Christ's sake, these politicians are trying to become the chief executive of this country. Don't you think they deserve a little criticism???? It shouldn't matter that we share the same political party. If anything, we should be tougher on them for that very reason. We don't want to endorse anyone who won't win. This is all part of the primary game. Candidates will be criticized, there's no avoiding it. Try not to get your panties in a twist when it happens... you'll live longer.

[Forkboy]

63. "We're all hypocrites"

Yes we are.

Some can't admit that though.

[Dawgs]

47. Proof?

[Clintonista2]

48. Prove I'm lying. nt.

[sniffa]

18. no, it's onLy obama supporters

they're so nasty.

[emilyg]

20. 98% of the time it's Obama supporters. I don't lie.

[jefferson_dem]

23. You don't lie 98% of the time, perhaps.

We're in that 2% territory.

But, hey, how 'bout those Falcons?! Joey sure is starting to surprise us all!

[ellacott]

52. Yeah right n/t

[Dawgs]

8. One thread(not the first) doesn't come close to the number we see claiming Obama is done.

[wyldwolf]

34. do you really want to do a comparison the number of bash threads from Obamanites...

..vs. those from Clinton supporters?

[wndycty]

37. Thanks for keeping this kicked

:kick:

[Clintonista2]

42. Why do you keep saying that?

That seems to be your only defense: "THX FOR THE KICK!! LOLZ~!!!!!"

[wndycty]

44. Well the more Clinton supporters come in here and comment. . .

. . .the longer this thread stays near the top, thus capturing everyone's attention. The reality is more people usually only read and potentially recommend the OP which helps get the message out about the Clinton camp trying to pronounce the Obama campaign dead on arrival. That is why I often don't comment on threads I don't agree with.

[Clintonista2]

13. Or threads like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3563951

[eleny]

2. I'm a Kucinich voter but this almost makes me want to vote for Obama

:evilgrin:

[gateley]

80. No no no! Don't vote AGAINST someone -- at least at this point -- vote for

the person who inspires your trust. Follow your gut!

You're welcome for my unsolicited and most likely unwanted advice. :7

[eleny]

108. Don't worry!

I'm caucusing and voting for DK. But the kind of coercion going on gets my back up. }(

[gateley]

112. Don't let it suck you in. You're better than that. Carry on! nt

[TwilightZone]

10. Considering that the post you linked was a copycat thread...

it would seem that your displeasure is misplaced.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

19. agreed ...

Me thinks the OP failed to follow the link.

[MethuenProgressive]

16. What, this gets posted once an hour?

:boring:

[sniffa]

17. i'm ignoring the author of that thread

[emilyg]

22. You're just adding to the sh*t pile.

[Capn Sunshine]

28. My only quibble with you is that they aren't following "The" script

"The" script states Hillary is inevitable.

This seems like a variant offshoot.

[Cameron27]

45. These threads don't help anyone,

not the originals or the copycats.

[Exultant Democracy]

50. this is nothing new, and they do it with Edwards too.

I just can't figure out how they support her vote on Kyl/ Lieberman.

[The River]

67. Check Their Kool-Aid

nt

[here_is_to_hope]

61. This thread makes absolutely no sense...

because all I can see are "ignored" and a few responses...lol, oh my goodness!
I will vote for HRC if she is in the GE but I will pray till then...
that I can get saved from her supporters!

[surfermaw]

73. Edwards and Biden are the winning pair

Edwards is the o nly one of the three that can win the election pair him with Biden, they will be a run away ticket, Again ask yourselves which candidate is getting republican money, the republicans are trying to split the democrat money, they are getting money to mess Hillary uup... however when the years end comes and we are in Iowa it will be an Edwards win,

[illinoisprogressive]

76. Obama has supporters who are passionate and have Obama's back.

The bots cannot discourage Obama's supporters. We truly believe in our candidate and support him 100%. We know he is the best. We know he is authentic and not some opportunistic and greedy, selfish corporate shill like their candidate.
He believes in the people and the people believe in him.

[wyldwolf]

79. From the "Progressive" lexicon:

drone / bot: Someone who disagrees with "progressives."

[wndycty]

81. You are still keeping this kicked which is awesome. . .

. . .more and more people are seeing the OP. Thanks for your contribution.

[wyldwolf]

82. everyone likes your freakshow.

[wndycty]

83. You mean the one that you are staring in?

I'm just the producer. LOL

[wyldwolf]

86. no, the one you wrote, produced and are starring

[AtomicKitten]

90. Wolfie just told me Newt said Obama has more single donors

... than all GOP candidates combined.

That's gotta hurt.

[wndycty]

91. Yup, yup!

:kick:

[Ethelk2044]

104. Some are registering to vote for him as well.

[calteacherguy]

107. That poll has a margin of error of 7%, and it's not "likely caucus goers." nt

[wndycty]

109. Thanks for the kick

:kick:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

113. All triumphal threads for any candidate are rude and stupid

There is no reason whatsoever to try to sadden, undermine or dispirit fellow Dems. This isn't a student council election.

[calteacherguy]

114. And this panelist's opinion on MTP is worth more than your opinion or mine because???

Don't believe the media spin.

[BenDavid]

115. Please do not forget that Newsweek is tied

into msnbc. google newsweek and this is what you get http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/site/newsweek/.....Seemed rather odd those same folks did not mention anything about the American Research Group, Inc...HRC 30 Obama 24 Edwards 19%
I suppose we'll have to put up with Obama, McCain and other unlikely prez wannabees for a few months longer, but it really is a waste of time. Obama no longer presents a real alternative to the more experienced and articulate HRC. He says he doesn't know if and when he would withdraw troops from Iraq; indeed, his foreign policy statements are either eccentric or downright George Bush-like. Meeting with dictators is one thing but saving the world for democracy is scary and saving the world for democracy is exactly what Obama has been proposing if you read his fp statements carefully.

Ben David

[flpoljunkie]

118. CNN's Bill Schneider reports that Obama has raised $75 million in primary funds to Hillary's $63 mil

Remember Hillary's transferred $10 million dollars from her Senate campaign account into her primary account. That's the reason why they are close in total money raised for their presidential campaigns.