Is J. J. a Hillary hack?

[WalterMitty]

it would be hilarious if obama were to make some slightly critical remark about alcohol and/or strip clubs....or violent video games <gasp>

brtd would drop his support in an instant

[J. J.]

didnt jj write a letter to his grandmother telling her she should vote obama in the primary?

i

It was my aunt, where I said, in the first line that (at the time) I thought Obama was a stronger candidate.  I said, between the two, I though Clinton would be a better president.

Only in Zach the Hack's little world would call Obama "sincere" be considered being "hackish" toward Clinton. 

[Torie]

What is the definition of being a "hack" around here?  The term is used a LOT. Am I a McCain "hack" because I support him?  If not, what is the plus factor to move one into the hack zone?

[Joe Republic]

What is the definition of being a "hack" around here?  The term is used a LOT. Am I a McCain "hack" because I support him?  If not, what is the plus factor to move one into the hack zone?

Generally it's when you apply double standards in favor of a particular candidate.  This can come in downplaying the impact of a negative story or electoral defeat with all kinds of excuses, while doing the very opposite to the candidate's opponent.

Most people on this forum are guilty of it.

[Torie]

What is the definition of being a "hack" around here?  The term is used a LOT. Am I a McCain "hack" because I support him?  If not, what is the plus factor to move one into the hack zone?

Generally it's when you apply double standards in favor of a particular candidate.  This can come in downplaying the impact of a negative story or electoral defeat with all kinds of excuses, while doing the very opposite to the candidate's opponent.

Most people on this forum are guilty of it.

IC. It is tough to be totally objective, no matter how hard we try. Maybe we need to separate out de facto hackdom from de jure hackdom, with the latter having a mens rea component, and the former, will just a negligent one.

Actually, what I think would be better, is to give posters the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. JMO.

[Joe Republic]

It is tough to be totally objective, no matter how hard we try.

I like to think that I succeed in it, if only because I'm not in any of the candidates' camps. 

Maybe we need to separate out de facto hackdom from de jure hackdom, with the latter having a mens rea component, and the former, will just a negligent one.

Uh... yeah.  What you said.    *swoosh*

Actually, what I think would be better, is to give posters the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. JMO.

Perhaps, but many of them have been around long enough for other people to read between the lines.

[MODU]

BRTD ... shut the hell up and get a life.  Happy Easter.

[Torie]

The words of the law are beautiful things, gleaming toys really, impossible to resist their allure, no matter how hard "we" try.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nice to see that a majority of the forum can view obvious facts.

[Aizen]

Nah, I don't think he's a Hillary hack. It's not like he's a huge supporter of her (at least that I'm aware of). I think he's a bit too generous to her on delegate predictions and her chances of actually winning the nomination at times but he does post good arguments that have merit. What's with the attack here?

[Gustaf]

No, he isn't. You have to actually support a candidate in order to be a hack for that person. Differeing on a candidate's chances does not necessarily constitute hackishness. Many people, myself included, think Cinton still has a chance at the nomination.

[Keystone Phil]

Nice to see that a majority of the forum can view obvious facts.

LOL "obvious facts"

I love when little Zach digs up his obsessions only to see him fall flat on his face again.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nah, I don't think he's a Hillary hack. It's not like he's a huge supporter of her (at least that I'm aware of). I think he's a bit too generous to her on delegate predictions and her chances of actually winning the nomination at times but he does post good arguments that have merit. What's with the attack here?

How is referencing polls that don't exist a good argument with merit?

[Person Man]

A majority now think Jimmy John is a hack.

[J. J.]

A majority now think Jimmy John is a hack.

Which might show the hackishness of this forum, Will Rhinestone.

[Person Man]

It could, but my last census has illustrated that this forum is QUITE balanced.


Will Rhinestone sounds like a nice name actually, but then I can't parody Sam Spade in being a closeted hack. Anyways, what does J.J. mean?