Hey. No net. No fault.

Game. Set. Match.

As for principles, I prefer to operate on universal principles, not an “okay for me, not okay for you” thing.

Gonna have to wait awhile.

Anyone have any more of that grapefruit juice handy? FLA please. Especially Duncans. Yum.

You’ve been asked several times about your real purpose. I must say that I’m beginning to think that your real purpose is to solidify people behind Barack Obama. Keep up the good work.

Altogethernow:

P. E. A. C. E.

Far from me to tell people what to do.

AB magna c.l. Zoology. BS Ethology. -ogy’s trump -phy’s awldeedamthyme

thas why they’re so annoying

I observe. I don’t twist & reform, tho i might try to inform. Seem to have caught ya right on the nose, donchathink? But youse spoiled the game by presupposing I was ordering when I wasn’t doing any such thing.

You can argue circles around me all day and all night. Philosophy’s a wonderous thing. Meet yerself comin’ & goin’ if ya really wind it up tight. M’betcha.

p.s., i have a bad habit of reacting to annoyance by teasing.

please forgive

P E A C E

As I’ve noted, Obama is welcome to drop out and give Hillary the nomination and save the party. She has more superdelegates. Good enough reason.

As for your Nader argument, I’d first note the Bill Clinton won in ‘92 because of Perot. I’m assuming that, in that case, you were lovin’ the third party candidate thing, but you have an inconsistent argument then. Double standard.

I would also say that it seems that Obama has a pattern of wanting to win by attrition, ie: no challengers.

I wonder if McCain will just drop out in the general if asked. Hmmm…

In the present instance, if McCain beats Obama and a divided Democratic Party, you can blame who you want, but I’ll blame Hillary Clinton and her supporters.

I don’t have a background in political science or sociology so I will not speak to the positive or negative of Hillary Clinton remaining in political race that she has very little chance of winning.

Philosophically, Nietzsche stated that which does not kill you makes you stronger and if that is so with Clinton’s use of typical right wing attacks on Obama now, as opposed to later, then perhaps some purpose is being served. Who knows.

I will propose this tautology though; and I appologize in advance for a blatant oversimplification: if the Hillary Clinton and a faction of the Democratic party were not currently employed in the enterprise of making Obama stronger, then the entire Democratic party could focus that equal or even synergistically greater amount of energy in making McCain weaker.

As it stands I will solute you with your favorite weak analogy and end in perfect agreement; Hillary Clinton has every right to continue to behave as a dog in the manger.