Reply #61: Wrong, buddy

[ruggerson]

You state in this post that it was me and NickShepDem that brought Clark into this conversaton:

I gotta point out, Nick, that it was YOU (and ruggerson) who seem to have felt the need to turn a Warner thread into an attack on Clark. And I gotta ask, why should Clark even come into this conversation? Why did YOU bring him up?

But, the fact of the matter is that in this thread, two days ago, you posted the following:


Dec. 23 at 11:42 AM


Funny, but I prefer to have the candidate at the top of the ticket be the one who "brings passion on individual issues, (and is) thoughtful and insightful, an original thinker..." Those are characteristics you must not associate with Warner, or you wouldn't use them to show how Feingold contrasts. Those are pretty important to me, and precisely some of the major reasons I support Clark.

I never mentioned Clark until YOU BROUGHT HIM INTO THE THREAD, Jai4WKC08. My posts were about Warner and Feingold and why I liked them. I didn't even mention Clark until after YOU did. And the reason I then got irked was because EVERY FRIGGING THREAD about Warner gets invaded by Clarkies like you with nothing but negative shit to throw around, and frankly, it gets really old, dude. I don't see folks who are supportive of Warner going on Clark threads and bashing him. Yet you guys seem to feel incredibly threatened by Warner, to the point of utter childishness. Why don't you try contributing something positive for a change. Maybe then, when people like you stop behaving this way, we will have a shot at taking back the WH. You have every right to support Clark, I applaud your involvement. But repeatedly hijacking Warner threads is not winning you any allies.