Grizbacker1 wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:BAC - ask Big-O - who's been by my house, and knows what i do for a living, I can buy you twice.




but thanks... for continuing to prove my point about being an arrogant liberal asswipe

Wow, you are quite wealthy then, huh? Excellent. Then how much do you care to bet on your claim that Hillary will win the nomination?

Now that you have claimed to have a huge bankroll, the only possible reason you have to bail out of this bet is a complete and total lack of balls ... or a complete lack of faith that your claim will come true. Which is it?

Ya kinda painted yourself in a corner on this one, didn't you?

So, how much do you want to wager? I trust GB1 to hold the cash. Are you agreeable to that arrangement as well? Or do you have another suggestion?

If you are going to wager some real cash, might I suggest the loser has to make a donation to the other school's athletic department. I would love to see a Brad Bergum check hit the UM Griz coffers.

I would be agreeable to that kind of arrangment. Cash in the bank for MSU means almost as much to me as cash in my own bank account.

What do you say, foe? Name a value, and let's go with it!

Let' review! What exactly is the bet about?? I suspect the subject of the bet is buried deep towards the beginning of the thread but it probably needs to be restated anyway.

GrizWhiz wrote:Let' review! What exactly is the bet about?? I suspect the subject of the bet is buried deep towards the beginning of the thread but it probably needs to be restated anyway.

It is a good time for a review.

Foe wants to accept wagers. He wants to bet that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee ("take it to the bank," he said).

I attempted to finalize a wager with him (literally wagering that anybody but Hillary Clinton, but practically speaking most likely Obama, would be the Democratic nominee).

He then refused to accept any kind on monetary bet with me and started throwing hissy fits with each successive post.

Oh yeah ... and somewhere in there he actually mocked me for not responding to his offer to bet e-griz dollars fast enough ... because, you know, I hadn't been online between 6 pm and 5 am the next morning ... and apparently he viewed that as a sign of weakness ... in a way that would turn out to be quite ironic later on.

It's really quite entertaining.

DWTF lashes out, and waiting for BAC's response is like the scene in the western movies when the gunslinger gets called out by the drunkard in the bar and everyone dives for cover to dodge the impending bullets.

Entertaining indeed.

Sorry DWTF, but your refusal to make a really real bet with BAC ain't lookin' so good for you right now. He's throwing real money (as well as his real name) into the equation. Time to ante up.

Commit to real risk or stay back.

All betting aside, if Clinton loses both NC and Indiana, she is done and may very well call it a day whether she wants to or not. If she loses both, her contributions will dry up and game over.

Let's reveiw for the drunkards and the liberals (idiots) in the house.

I don't care what you think or say- feel free to read this or not.

I came in here, making a somewhate bold over the top statement some time back about Billary coming back and beating Rev. Wrights good friend of 20 years.

It now appears more and more, that the arguments I have made presented again and again,as to why this was indeed possible despite the odds, could indeed come true.

So I enter this thread and I decide to throw a little fuel on the fire.

Am I or did I really intend to wager my (hard earned I might add) money on Billary winning?...

No, I did not, nor did I really intend for that to ever even become a possibility...read my post again, and talk amongst yourself. I am calling the Gay Area Cat liberal out on having to place my signature of choice for the remainder of the year as well as all of his egriz bucks, and vice versa if Hillary loses.

He comes in and throws around the whole money thing..which I will not do, especially on a obvious still tough task ahead for the Senator from New Yorkansaw.

So go ahead- say or think anything you want about me- step up to the plate on my wager, or not..no sweat off my brow.

You want to meet face to face..lemme know, if that's where you want to go with this, I leave the options open...

or choose to shut the hell up and go back to whatever it was you were doing when you stumbled your liberal f**k ass back in here.

And plese- quit talking about my balls you liberal puke

The post in question -

He is losing this because:

-His elitist attitude towards middle america (the bitter comments)
-he has no experience at almost anything
-His Smug attitude toward the USA (no flag pin, no respect for the pledge, no hand across his heart, etc etc)
-Way way too liberal for the avg. American
-His association for 20 years with a pro-black anti-white church/rev.
-His wife

Do we need to go on- he is done. Ironic his own words at a fundraiser will do him... in when the Clintons, his huge money lead, the rev. Wright / Slum lord associations, could not briong him down.

Yet he self destructs at the last minute. It will go down in history as a huge political blunder.They said tonight if the race plays out as expected, she would only need 58% of the Super Delegates vote to win the nomination

That's it?????!!!!


She will be the Democratic Nominee.

Take it to the bank! PM me your wagers

P.S. for the record, I have still never seen anyone PM me with a wager, the mods will verify this....but again, I'm not wagering money on a woman that I absolutely cannot stand (she reminds me of BAC but WITH balls)

SO save your breath= you want to wager egriz bucks, or something that embarrasses me for being to cocky and talking smack about you liberal pussies or you Democraps...go for it.

Money?- No, If I can suggest ot all of you..your gonna need it with no matter who becomes Prez in Novermber thanks to all of the friggin crooks in DC

Here endeth the story shy of anyone sending me a PM of sorts.

P.S> can we have the ignore buttons back Mr. Moderator?

God help me, I'm again going to add my two cents to this....

DWTF, you made a pretty bold prediction (any wagers?) about Hillary's chances at winning the nomination. BAC responded with a fun and harmless challenge to that assertion. I don't think he was serious at the time about a real wager......just harmlessly engaging the topic. Then the shit hit the fan and it got real personal real fast. At one point you invited the possibility of a physical challenge (word of advice.....don't do that on a message board while at the same time calling someone gay). He probably didn't appreciate the ridiculousness of all of that and called your bluff. Good for him.

The only reason I even speak to this little psychodrama is that I enjoy this board and your crap in this thread really f*cks things up. You'll rarely see GrizWiz, kalm, BAC, and myself ever sitting on the same side of the fence on an issue. But every once in a while, they speak to something that makes me think differently about a particular topic and I appreciate the fact that I can maybe learn something. Your little shit-fit gets in the way of that.

Please stop. Thanks.

I couldn't care less whether Obama or Clinton wins the Dem nomination but I did hear an analysis yesterday from some talking head (I don't remember her name) that did make more sense to me than any other talking head analysis I've heard yet. It went like this:

Obama will be the nominee because, unless Clinton gets some miraculous results in the remaining primary contests, Obama will have the lead in pledged delegates, overall popular vote and number of states won. By then, this talking head expected that the superdelegate count would be virtually even, or with Clinton ahead by only a few. Also, Michigan delegates will not be seated at the convention and the Michigan results will be completely ignored by the Dems. One-half of the Florida delegates will be seated at the convention as a compromise (not sure why Florida would get partially seated and Michigan not seated at all but I think it was because both Obama and Clinton had their names on the Florida ballot but only Clinton had her name on the Michigan ballot).

The result of all of this is that the nomination would still have to be decided by the superdelegates. The Dem leadership will insure that Obama is the nominee because he has the perception among the public of having come closest to winning it out right and to give it to Clinton would be perceived as stealing it from Obama. If it were given to Clinton, massive amounts of Obama followers would boycott the general election in November. This would result in not only McCain winning the presidency, but it would also result in a lot of "down ticket" Dem candidates also losing. Most importantly to the DNC, that would mean losing control of the US Senate and significant loses in the US House. Finally, the Dems would likely alienate black voters and young voters for an entire generation, thus jeopardizing their ability to win any presidential election for many years to come.

As a result, even though many in the Dem party may think Clinton has the best chance of beating McCain, they are willing to sacrifice the presidential race this year in order to avoid losing the down ticket races and the resulting loss of control of one and possibly both houses of Congress as well as alienating the black and youth voters for a generation, or more.

Foe: It would have taken a lot fewer words, and you would have looked a lot more mature, had you simply said that you weren't serious about wagering on your assertion.

It appears that you aren't quite as confident in your predictions as you first led us to believe. That's cool. Just say that next time.

Good job of proving that you can call people pointless names ... better luck next time around proving something a bit more admirable.

tampa_griz wrote:God help me, I'm again going to add my two cents to this....

DWTF, you made a pretty bold prediction (any wagers?) about Hillary's chances at winning the nomination. BAC responded with a fun and harmless challenge to that assertion. I don't think he was serious at the time about a real wager......just harmlessly engaging the topic. Then the shit hit the fan and it got real personal real fast. At one point you invited the possibility of a physical challenge (word of advice.....don't do that on a message board while at the same time calling someone gay). He probably didn't appreciate the ridiculousness of all of that and called your bluff. Good for him.

The only reason I even speak to this little psychodrama is that I enjoy this board and your crap in this thread really f*cks things up. You'll rarely see GrizWiz, kalm, BAC, and myself ever sitting on the same side of the fence on an issue. But every once in a while, they speak to something that makes me think differently about a particular topic and I appreciate the fact that I can maybe learn something. Your little shit-fit gets in the way of that.

Please stop. Thanks.

Thanks, tampa.

If I ever get that bad, please tell me to stop it too.

Or just wait for me to sober up.

Sportin' Life wrote:

tampa_griz wrote:God help me, I'm again going to add my two cents to this....

DWTF, you made a pretty bold prediction (any wagers?) about Hillary's chances at winning the nomination. BAC responded with a fun and harmless challenge to that assertion. I don't think he was serious at the time about a real wager......just harmlessly engaging the topic. Then the shit hit the fan and it got real personal real fast. At one point you invited the possibility of a physical challenge (word of advice.....don't do that on a message board while at the same time calling someone gay). He probably didn't appreciate the ridiculousness of all of that and called your bluff. Good for him.

The only reason I even speak to this little psychodrama is that I enjoy this board and your crap in this thread really f*cks things up. You'll rarely see GrizWiz, kalm, BAC, and myself ever sitting on the same side of the fence on an issue. But every once in a while, they speak to something that makes me think differently about a particular topic and I appreciate the fact that I can maybe learn something. Your little shit-fit gets in the way of that.

Please stop. Thanks.

Thanks, tampa.

If I ever get that bad, please tell me to stop it too.

Or just wait for me to sober up.

There's a reason you didn't make the list.

Just kidding; I should've included you and Re/Max. I don't think I've seen anyone here or "over there" get as nasty as it got in this thread.

And I hear ya on the "sober up". More times than I care to count.....

I wish to apologize in public for my behavior and comments.


I've sent Chris a letter and asked him to remove my account from egriz = somehow I have become someone, I don't know or like in this forum(s), and after 5 years, it's time to move on.

I do apologize to everyone in here...especially BAC.

see ya all around the stadium in the fall's.


DWTF

Go Griz

You guys are going to need a good candidate when this is all said and done....B.H.O is being exposed and 50% of the country hate Hill....I suggest John McCain... the best Dem left in the race.

Downwiththefoe wrote:I wish to apologize in public for my behavior and comments.


I've sent Chris a letter and asked him to remove my account from egriz = somehow I have become someone, I don't know or like in this forum(s), and after 5 years, it's time to move on.

I do apologize to everyone in here...especially BAC.

see ya all around the stadium in the fall's.


DWTF

Go Griz

That takes guts DWTF and I can easily salute that. Maybe it's premature to sign off. Think it over first; I can't think of anyone here that's going to hold this against ya. Like I said, just think it over. Don't let this be the last we ever hear from ya.

You aren't the first one to make a few posts you wound up wishing you hadn't. Don't sweat it too hard.

Aw, c'mon now, DWTF.... anyone can get a bit carried away. And despite what tampa said... we have seen wayyy worse in here.

Anyways I commend you on the apology. Good on ya.

Bronco wrote:You guys are going to need a good candidate when this is all said and done....B.H.O is being exposed and 50% of the country hate Hill....I suggest John McCain... the best Dem left in the race.

No offense Bronco, but where are these memos regarding McCain coming from? I mean really......if a tax-cutting, program-slashing, aggresive foreign policy advocate, war hero isn't someone Republicans should be voting for, then please introduce me to the tax-cutting, program-slashing, aggresive foreign policy advocate, war hero I should be voting for. Because those are the qualities I look for in Republicans. Maybe I'm in the wrong party?

DWTF,

There are not many of us (self included) that have not posted something we later regretted, and the damage was done. You did the right thing, it's all good, and don't think you are going to leave the rest of us miserable bastards here to fend for ourselves.

Downwiththefoe wrote:I wish to apologize in public for my behavior and comments.


I've sent Chris a letter and asked him to remove my account from egriz = somehow I have become someone, I don't know or like in this forum(s), and after 5 years, it's time to move on.

I do apologize to everyone in here...especially BAC.

see ya all around the stadium in the fall's.


DWTF

Go Griz

Your apology on here and in pm is much appreciated, and vastly exceeded my expectations (of anyone).

Apology completely accepted and admired ... and don't go away. We all have our bad days ... trust me, I've had a few as well.

It's unanimous DWTF. Stay. You're in good company here.

tampa_griz wrote:

Bronco wrote:You guys are going to need a good candidate when this is all said and done....B.H.O is being exposed and 50% of the country hate Hill....I suggest John McCain... the best Dem left in the race.

No offense Bronco, but where are these memos regarding McCain coming from? I mean really......if a tax-cutting, program-slashing, aggresive foreign policy advocate, war hero isn't someone Republicans should be voting for, then please introduce me to the tax-cutting, program-slashing, aggresive foreign policy advocate, war hero I should be voting for. Because those are the qualities I look for in Republicans. Maybe I'm in the wrong party?

I agree that McCain is a Republican. However, the Republican party has largely abandoned conservatism. Bush has set the standard with "borrow and spend" along with undermining the Constitution. Also, "aggressive" foreign policies are not a traditional conservative trademark. Additionally, McCain is now advocating deficit spending as a way to deal with the recession. None of this has much to do with conservatism, but it does represent the new Republican Party.

GrizWhiz wrote:

tampa_griz wrote:

Bronco wrote:You guys are going to need a good candidate when this is all said and done....B.H.O is being exposed and 50% of the country hate Hill....I suggest John McCain... the best Dem left in the race.

No offense Bronco, but where are these memos regarding McCain coming from? I mean really......if a tax-cutting, program-slashing, aggresive foreign policy advocate, war hero isn't someone Republicans should be voting for, then please introduce me to the tax-cutting, program-slashing, aggresive foreign policy advocate, war hero I should be voting for. Because those are the qualities I look for in Republicans. Maybe I'm in the wrong party?

I agree that McCain is a Republican. However, the Republican party has largely abandoned conservatism. Bush has set the standard with "borrow and spend" along with undermining the Constitution. Also, "aggressive" foreign policies are not a traditional conservative trademark. Additionally, McCain is now advocating deficit spending as a way to deal with the recession. None of this has much to do with conservatism, but it does represent the new Republican Party.

McCain is the real Republican. You'll get no argument that Bush has lost his way on the fiscal side. McCain can help the Republicans remind us of who we really are.

tampa_griz wrote:God help me, I'm again going to add my two cents to this....

DWTF, you made a pretty bold prediction (any wagers?) about Hillary's chances at winning the nomination. BAC responded with a fun and harmless challenge to that assertion. I don't think he was serious at the time about a real wager......just harmlessly engaging the topic. Then the shit hit the fan and it got real personal real fast. At one point you invited the possibility of a physical challenge (word of advice.....don't do that on a message board while at the same time calling someone gay). He probably didn't appreciate the ridiculousness of all of that and called your bluff. Good for him.

The only reason I even speak to this little psychodrama is that I enjoy this board and your crap in this thread really f*cks things up. You'll rarely see GrizWiz, kalm, BAC, and myself ever sitting on the same side of the fence on an issue. But every once in a while, they speak to something that makes me think differently about a particular topic and I appreciate the fact that I can maybe learn something. Your little shit-fit gets in the way of that.

Please stop. Thanks.

I totally disagree.

I'll wager all my egriz bucks that you and I agree on more than we disagree with. I'll also wager the same concerning DWTF. I could sit down and tip a few with all you guys.

Try to never take things said on a message board too seriously - except during football season. Than all you guys are real bastards.

Can you feel the lovin'? I can.

kalm wrote:I totally disagree.

I'll wager all my egriz bucks that you and I agree on more than we disagree with. I'll also wager the same concerning DWTF. I could sit down and tip a few with all you guys.

Try to never take things said on a message board too seriously - except during football season. Than all you guys are real bastards.

Can you feel the lovin'? I can.

Ahhh, come 'ere you......

As far as football season goes, I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll have a lot shit to talk.