I'm done being a troll.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Sorry to all my troll friends, but I can no longer participate in twelve o'clock troll time.

I reject my previous actions.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Talk is cheap.

[Alexander Hamilton]

We'll see.

i keep my promises.

[Lunar]

so what does that mean substantively?

[k-onmmunist]

Well done. I'm glad, because you're a very good poster when you seriously try.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Talk is cheap.

I knew you're going to be first to comment any post by Hamilton

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If true, a very good thing.

[Mint]

Wow this thread is so meta.

[Alexander Hamilton]

so what does that mean substantively?

i don't know, do you?
i don't know, do you?

[HappyWarrior]

Does that mean you won't assosiate with ECR?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Does that mean you won't assosiate with ECR?

It means he should stop trolling and be given another chance.

[HappyWarrior]

Does that mean you won't assosiate with ECR?

It means he should stop trolling and be given another chance.

There was no other reason he was here.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Does that mean you won't assosiate with ECR?

It means he should stop trolling and be given another chance.

There was no other reason he was here.

Actually, he signed up to prove Keystone Phil wrong. And it turns out he did prove Keystone Phil wrong.

[Mechaman]

Does that mean you won't assosiate with ECR?

It means he should stop trolling and be given another chance.

There was no other reason he was here.

Actually, he signed up to prove Keystone Phil wrong. And it turns out he did prove Keystone Phil wrong.

Enough with this "ECR is so sexy man with sexy abs because he proved Keystone Phil wrong and made him his bitch!" sh*t!
Seriously, show me this supposedly epic exchange that made Phil scareder than a bitch seeing her John, show me it!

[Alexander Hamilton]

Oh and KeystonePhil, are you done having a mental spaz out/meltdown over your belief that Lonegan was somehow going to upset Christie? :-)

Just saw this after reviewing all four of your posts (three of which included attacks on me. Hmmm). I never had a mental "spaz out" or meltdown. I never flat out said that Lonegan was going to upset Christie. I said if turnout was horrific enough, it was possible and it looked pretty bad at points during the day.

How you like that Phillip with TWO Ls?

More ten year olds on the forum, I see. And, yes, I'll bump it regardless. I admit when I'm wrong. I'm sure you won't be around to do the same.

Oh but I AM still here.  Looks like you're the one who isn't here.

Well, based on simple arithmetic, he actually doesn't need any more undecided voters.

... And based on basic...oh...common sense...some of us realize Christie doesn't have 50% of voters definitely supporting him. Why the hell can't you understand this?

Okay, then Corzine doesn't have 40% definitely supporting him. Whats your point?

I never said he did. Then again, I'm not really the one holding up the poll as proof of anything.

Phil, you're wrong. Yes, that guy above you was/is dead wrong about Pennsylvania.  People who thought President Bush even had a chance at Jersey in 2004 were smoking a little too much GOP weed.  The numbers just weren't there to result in any plausible victory and Bush only lead in one (I believe) poll and was tied in another in july/august...he never even had a real lead in contrast to Pennsylvania. Now, your prissy 'Waaa Christie has no chance look at the pollssss the polllssss!' Ummm, I am looking at the polls and Christie is holding strong and Corzine is staying in the same place IF NOT getting weaker.  So Corzine climbed into the 40s.  NOOOOO REALLY?!  Sound the freaking fire alarm!  If Christie breaking 50% is due to a primary bounce, did it ever occur to you that the same reasoning could be applied to Corzine's impassioned speech to NJ Democrats?  Ya see, your extremely flawed reasoning could go either way but there certainly is one thing that is true: Christie is in a remarkably strong position to kick this tax czar out of office.   Oh and I expect Corzine to break into the 40s as the election gets closer.  A little information on polls: candidate support increases as elections draw near...duh!  Christie and Corzine's numbers are both going up but guess who's keeping pace with Corzine's gains and increasing on them in other polls?  Yup....Chris Christie.  Jersey is a blue state but those other elections you keep referring to are not the rule for all future elections in Jersey.  We got a governor with support in the 30s, negatives in the 50s.  The only downfall for Christie is that his 'no opinion' stands at 46%.  SO, I do expect this race to get significantly closer but I don't expect it to result in a sudden Democratic swing of 15% between now and election day.  REPEAT: I DO NOT THINK CORZINE WILL WIN BY 10 OR MORE POINTS.  If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong but at least im using educated guesses to predict how the race will turn out.  You speak as if Christie's defeat is bound to happen but as I said, those past situations had completely different poll numbers/negative/approval numbers and you know this.  Your talk of eventual defeat is ridiculous and at the very worst extremely ignorant. On a final note, I'm not pleased to see some of the so-called analyses from experienced members on this site.  People here the other day were calling Bergen and Passaic for Lonegan...and I think whoever said that actually still lived in Jersey.  Anybody who has lived in Jersey a looong time shouldve known that Bergen and Passaic weren't going for Lonegan-there is a different breed of Republicanism in those counties and known Lonegan didn't cater to those kind even though he's in Bergen. This concludes my newbie rant.  I just couldn't stand to see Phil continuously tear down great arguments in favor of Christie with his very weak arguments.  Do your worst with my argument Phillip!

I'll be sure to bump this rambling nonsense after the election. Thanks. Oh, and it's "Philip," by the way.

Where are you Phillip?  Why didn't you bump the post?  Apologize for being rude to me Phillip.  Admit that this rambling nonsense wasn't nonsense at all.

[Eraserhead]

Does that mean you won't assosiate with ECR?

It means he should stop trolling and be given another chance.

There was no other reason he was here.

Actually, he signed up to prove Keystone Phil wrong. And it turns out he did prove Keystone Phil wrong.

That kid was proven wrong any number of times (see 2006). Why the hell would anyone sign up just to do that?

[Mechaman]

Does that mean you won't assosiate with ECR?

It means he should stop trolling and be given another chance.

There was no other reason he was here.

Actually, he signed up to prove Keystone Phil wrong. And it turns out he did prove Keystone Phil wrong.

That kid was proven wrong any number of times (see 2006). Why the hell would anyone sign up just to do that?

^^^^^^^^^^
This.

Even wasting sperm is a better use of time than proving Phil wrong.

Also,

So far the guy has fifteen posts and most of them are attacking Keystone Phil. What gives?

[Alexander Hamilton]

I remember my first 100 or so posts. Most of them were attacking/responding go Phil. Let's be honest, the guy was awful.

[Mechaman]

I remember my first 100 or so posts. Most of them were attacking/responding go Phil. Let's be honest, the guy was awful.

I didn't give a sh*t.
I remember when the Mark Sanford controversy happened he got all uber defensive on him and said something like "if it were a liberal you wouldn't complain". Then I asked him to list "liberal Democrats" who were married and believed in a moral system where one shouldn't cheat on their spouse and lie about it. He stupidly listed Bill Clinton and John Edwards to which I said: "Bill Clinton, hypocrite. John Edwards, hypocrite."
And you know the worst part about it? He still argued against me saying I held a strict standard on what is hypocritical and what is not despite me being tough on all sides. Ridiculous.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I remember my first 100 or so posts. Most of them were attacking/responding go Phil. Let's be honest, the guy was awful.

I didn't give a sh*t.
I remember when the Mark Sanford controversy happened he got all uber defensive on him and said something like "if it were a liberal you wouldn't complain". Then I asked him to list "liberal Democrats" who were married and believed in a moral system where one shouldn't cheat on their spouse and lie about it. He stupidly listed Bill Clinton and John Edwards to which I said: "Bill Clinton, hypocrite. John Edwards, hypocrite."
And you know the worst part about it? He still argued against me saying I held a strict standard on what is hypocritical and what is not despite me being tough on all sides. Ridiculous.

LOL! Yeah, Phil kinda sucked. I don't get why so many worship him.

[Eraserhead]

I remember my first 100 or so posts. Most of them were attacking/responding go Phil. Let's be honest, the guy was awful.

He absolutely was. I'm not disputing that but still...