Pages

Jump to bottom

64 comments

1 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 9:08:15am

This reminds me of that Vanity Fair article about her and how difficult she was to control, how little she was willing to listen to the advice of her own and McCain's campaign staff.
[Link: www.vanityfair.com...]

2 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 9:39:52am

Ya, a woman with a mind of her own....

No one wants that.

3 shutdown  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 9:46:44am

She did follow his advice. Can't think of much lower lies than the ones she tells.

@Buck: I generally resist downdinging you. But if you are going to post just for the sake of posting, and something as patently ridiculous as claiming that complaints about Palin have the least bit to do with her being a woman who expresses an independent opinion... well, I wish I could press that "-" button a few more times. Seriously, man.

4 theheat  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 9:56:35am

re: #2 Buck

She's like a dumb dog chasing its tail to the point they're knocking everything over in their path. After awhile, the simplest thing to do is kick 'em and tell them to knock it the fuck off because you're sick of it. Say it like you mean it. Make them piss themselves.

But everyone coddles her. And I don't think she's as smart as some dogs.

5 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 9:57:30am

re: #4 theheat

If only I had more updings to give....

6 sffilk  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 10:40:07am

re: #5 iceweasel

If only I had more updings to give...

Same here.

7 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 10:51:59am

re: #4 theheat

She's like a dumb dog chasing its tail to the point they're knocking everything over in their path. After awhile, the simplest thing to do is kick 'em and tell them to knock it the fuck off because you're sick of it. Say it like you mean it. Make them piss themselves.

But everyone coddles her. And I don't think she's as smart as some dogs.

Ya, I admit when someone describes a woman as "difficult to control" my radar goes off. I can't imagine anyone describing a male politician as "difficult to control".

But I also think that comparing a woman as "like a dumb dog" AND saying that what she needs is a kick....well...

Well, I thought you, ice, knew better.

8 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 10:53:07am

re: #7 Buck

Nobody said Palin needed a kick.

You cannot go for two posts without lying.

9 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 10:53:56am

re: #7 Buck

I can't imagine anyone describing a male politician as "difficult to control".

Biden is pretty difficult to control.

10 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 10:55:16am

re: #9 Sergey Romanov

Rand Paul is difficult to control, though I doubt anyone's trying. Hell, McCain was difficult to control.

11 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 10:57:39am

re: #8 Obdicut

Nobody said Palin needed a kick.

You cannot go for two posts without lying.

Well, I did include the quote where theheat says (Palin) is like a dumb dog... and then goes on to say "the simplest thing to do is kick 'em" Who? Well the dumb dog that Palin is like obviously. Kick 'em? Yep, so that they piss themselves.

Maybe you didn't read it...

12 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 10:59:52am

re: #11 Buck

Lying again: nobody said Palin was a dumb dog. Palin is 'like' a dumb dog. Specifically, the analogy being made was that some people need to be dealt with very negatively, whereas Palin gets coddled, in the same way that a dog needs to be dealt with very negatively.

I swear, you're one of those pearl-clutchers who, if someone said that someone else needed a kick in the pants, would say that was a threat of assault.

13 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:05:03am

re: #4 theheat

By the way, I don't actually agree that kicking a dog is ever okay, if they ain't attacking you. Prodding them sharply in the ribs is the most I think is effective and necessary.

14 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:10:08am

No lie, I specifically said "like". Each and every time in my post I include the word like. I just don't think it excuses the statement.

Let me be even more clear.... In my opinion, using "like a dog" analogy about a woman, and suggesting that "the simplest thing to do is kick 'em", is problematic for me.

As is the idea that a woman is somehow less because she is difficult to control.

I understand that you clearly have no problem with it, but I do.

No lie.... you have once again libeled me.

15 andres  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:11:56am

re: #12 Obdicut

I swear, you're one of those pearl-clutchers who, if someone said that someone else needed a kick in the pants, would say that was a threat of assault.

This tactic has a name, Chewbacca Defense.

16 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:14:53am

re: #14 Buck

No lie, I specifically said "like". Each and every time in my post I include the word like. I just don't think it excuses the statement.

You can not think it excuses the statement, but it doesn't mean that anyone is saying that Palin actually needs to be kicked.

I mean, if you take the analogy: Politics is like mud-wrestling; even winners get dirty-- do you think that means that politicians literally mud-wrestle, or literally get dirty?

No, because it's a goddamn analogy. As this is.

17 Mickey_being_mickey  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:16:57am

Should I feel honored or offended that I've finally had a post/thread hijacked by Buck?

18 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:21:41am

re: #16 Obdicut

You can not think it excuses the statement, but it doesn't mean that anyone is saying that Palin actually needs to be kicked.

I mean, if you take the analogy: Politics is like mud-wrestling; even winners get dirty-- do you think that means that politicians literally mud-wrestle, or literally get dirty?

No, because it's a goddamn analogy. As this is.

Right, but it wasn't that politicians are like dogs that need to be kicked...It was that Palin was like a dog that needed to be kicked.

Can you really not see the difference?

19 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:24:08am

re: #18 Buck

Can you really not see the difference?

Yes, because there isn't one. It's still an analogy, and no one is saying that Palin needs to be kicked.

Or do you think that person was also saying that Palin was literally running around chasing her tail? Literally in the same way-- or for some reason, do you interpret that part of the analogy as figurative?

20 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:24:52am

re: #7 Buck

Yeah, Clinton, Edwards, McCain...no one every said they were hard to control.

21 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:33:31am

re: #20 Jeff In Ohio

Yeah, Clinton, Edwards, McCain...no one every said they were hard to control.

Maybe people might say it and mean it in a positive way.


The problem with Bill Clinton is that he is difficult to control, and often isn't willing to listen to the advice of his own staff.

Sounds right to you?

Of course not.

22 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:36:31am

re: #19 Obdicut

Yes, because there isn't one. It's still an analogy, and no one is saying that Palin needs to be kicked.

Or do you think that person was also saying that Palin was literally running around chasing her tail? Literally in the same way-- or for some reason, do you interpret that part of the analogy as figurative?

OK, let me repeat, in my opinion, using "like a dog" analogy about a woman, and suggesting that "the simplest thing to do is kick 'em", is problematic for me.

You don't have a problem with it. I wouldn't expect you to.

Now, where is the lie? Where did I actually say someone said "Palin was a dumb dog"?

23 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:36:43am

re: #21 Buck

I love that. You claim that nobody would ever say that about them, now you claim that even if they did, it was in a positive way.

24 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:37:51am

re: #21 Buck

Maybe people might say it and mean it in a positive way.

The problem with Bill Clinton is that he is difficult to control, and often isn't willing to listen to the advice of his own staff.

Sounds right to you?

Of course not.

That sounds about right. His staff told him not to let Monica blow him in the oval office and that worked out peachy for everyone involved.

25 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:37:56am

re: #22 Buck

OK, let me repeat, in my opinion, using "like a dog" analogy about a woman, and suggesting that "the simplest thing to do is kick 'em", is problematic for me.

Again: you're lying when you claim that anyone suggested kicking Palin. Just as you'd be lying if you said someone literally thought she was knocking things over while chasing her tail.


Now, where is the lie? Where did I actually say someone said "Palin was a dumb dog"?

You lie in saying that people want Palin to actually get kicked.

26 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:38:31am

re: #25 Obdicut

Again: you're lying when you claim that anyone suggested kicking Palin. Just as you'd be lying if you said someone literally thought she was knocking things over while chasing her tail.

You lie in saying that people want Palin to actually get kicked.

Where is that? Where do I say that? Or are you paraphrasing again?

27 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:42:35am

re: #26 Buck

Where is that? Where do I say that? Or are you paraphrasing again?

Right here:


But I also think that comparing a woman as "like a dumb dog" AND saying that what she needs is a kick...well...
28 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:46:52am

re: #27 Obdicut

Right here:


But I also think that comparing a woman as "like a dumb dog" AND saying that what she needs is a kick...well...

That is me giving my opinion about that expression. I even make it clear that this is what "I think". Please find where I actually say what you are trying to paint me with. That I said that someone actually wanted to kick Palin. Otherwise you are just a guy that jumps to the "You Lie" accusation without any back up or any real reason other than to shout louder than everyone else. As if that makes you right.

29 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:48:25am

re: #28 Buck

That does say that, Buck. You say "Saying that what she needs is a kick". That means you're saying the poster-- that is, TheHeat-- is saying that what Palin actually needs is a kick.

How is it not?

30 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:49:06am

re: #24 Jeff In Ohio

That sounds about right. His staff told him not to let Monica blow him in the oval office and that worked out peachy for everyone involved.

You know that didn't happen. No one told him not to do it. AND you also know that no one would respect a male politician who was easily controlled.

But you can hang on to your claim.... I just don't accept it.

31 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 11:55:58am

re: #29 Obdicut

That does say that, Buck. You say "Saying that what she needs is a kick". That means you're saying the poster-- that is, TheHeat-- is saying that what Palin actually needs is a kick.

How is it not?

I was very clear. and so was theheat. Who needed to be kicked? The dumb dog (who Palin is like).

Now you can pretend that theheat was separating the two.... first comparing Palin to a dumb dog, and then in the next sentence just saying "the simplest thing to do is kick 'em" referring to someone other than the dumb dog. I don't think that claim holds water.

However again I certainly did not lie.

Using "like a dog" analogy about a woman, and suggesting that "the simplest thing to do is kick 'em", is problematic for me.

32 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 12:07:51pm

re: #29 Obdicut

That does say that, Buck. You say "Saying that what she needs is a kick". That means you're saying the poster-- that is, TheHeat-- is saying that what Palin actually needs is a kick.

How is it not?

AND ONE MORE TIME YOU PLACE A PHRASE IN QUOTES THAT IS NOT A QUOTE!!!!

I did not say "Saying that what she needs is a kick".

Funny how you keep doing that.

33 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 12:09:53pm

re: #32 Buck

AND ONE MORE TIME YOU PLACE A PHRASE IN QUOTES THAT IS NOT A QUOTE!!!

I did not say "Saying that what she needs is a kick".

Funny how you keep doing that.

You really can't pull out half a sentence and make it a quote.

34 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 12:17:49pm

re: #31 Buck


So do you think TheHeat was saying Palin was chasing her tail and knocking things over?

35 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 12:18:47pm

By the way, kudos on dropping your pretense that you won't read or respond to my posts. Any estimate on how long it'll be before you huffily declare that yet again?

36 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 12:42:06pm

re: #34 Obdicut

So do you think TheHeat was saying Palin was chasing her tail and knocking things over?

I think that theheat was saying that Palin was doing something LIKE that. get it? LIKE.

You called me a liar because you thought I would not call you on it.

You need to figure out that people who disagree with you are not necessarily lying, At some point they just hold a different opinion. You need to think about it before you libel someone.

And yes, my extention for chrome stopped working when I updated to 10, and I have not put in the time to figure out why.

37 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 12:43:59pm

re: #36 Buck

I think that theheat was saying that Palin was doing something LIKE that. get it? LIKE.

Exactly. So TheHeat was speaking figuratively, and thus there wasn't actually a call for Palin to get kicked.


You called me a liar because you thought I would not call you on it.

Buck, you wouldn't believe how low of you my opinion is.

38 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 12:48:24pm

re: #37 Obdicut

Exactly. So TheHeat was speaking figuratively, and thus there wasn't actually a call for Palin to get kicked.

Right, only the dog that is Palin is like.


Buck, you wouldn't believe how low of you my opinion is.

Ya.... same back atcha. It must be nice for you to be able attack me the way you do and sit behind an anonymous nick. Cowardly, IMO.... but hey if that is what you need.

39 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 12:51:59pm

re: #38 Buck

Right, only the dog that is Palin is like.

Yep. So when you said that TheHeat said what she needs is a kick, you were wrong.

re: #38 Buck

Why would it be courageous not to be 'anonymous', Buck?

40 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 1:07:29pm

re: #39 Obdicut

Yep. So when you said that TheHeat said what she needs is a kick, you were wrong.

You are stubborn. No, I also was referring to the dumb dog that (theheat thinks) Palin is like. I could also say that I think it is disturbing (a nice way for me to say misogynistic) to say that Palin is like a dog that was chasing her tail and knocking things over.


re: #38 Buck

Why would it be courageous not to be 'anonymous', Buck?

I didn't say that exactly. I said that you seem to enjoy attacking me the way you do and sit behind an anonymous nick. I think that is cowardly. I, for example, am not ashamed of what I say and do.

41 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 1:10:21pm

re: #40 Buck


I didn't say that exactly. I said that you seem to enjoy attacking me the way you do and sit behind an anonymous nick. I think that is cowardly. I, for example, am not ashamed of what I say and do.

I'm not in the least ashamed. You think every single person here who is anonymous is ashamed and cowardly?

I don't enjoy attacking your words at all, Buck. I wish you would stop lying, stop giving cover to antisemites, stop trying to explain how the GOP wasn't really trying to deny abortions to rape victims, etc. etc. But you won't stop. You're a true believer, an absolute fanatic.

42 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 1:23:48pm

re: #41 Obdicut

I'm not in the least ashamed. You think every single person here who is anonymous is ashamed and cowardly?

Again, not what I said. I was referring to YOU. You say that you are not ashamed, but you feel you have to wear a mask. To hide your identity. Sad really.

I don't enjoy attacking your words at all, Buck. I wish you would stop lying, stop giving cover to antisemites, stop trying to explain how the GOP wasn't really trying to deny abortions to rape victims, etc. etc. But you won't stop. You're a true believer, an absolute fanatic.

OF COURSE none of that is exactly true. Just like you have done multiple times, you twist and paraphrase.

I didn't lie. I don't think Glen Beck is an antisemite. I don't believe that using the word violent to describe rape changes the meaning (I believe all rape is violent by definition). Just to be even more clear, I believe there is no non-violent rape. Every act of rape is violent, as every rape starts and ends with force.

43 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 1:25:52pm

re: #42 Buck

Again, not what I said. I was referring to YOU. You say that you are not ashamed, but you feel you have to wear a mask. To hide your identity. Sad really.

So why does this apply to me but no one else?

I don't believe that using the word violent to describe rape changes the meaning (I believe all rape is violent by definition).

But that's not what happened. That's what you were attempting to claim the GOP was doing, which was not the case. Because you will apologize for the GOP no matter what they do.

44 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 1:47:28pm

re: #43 Obdicut

So why does this apply to me but no one else?

As I said, because of the way you attack me.


But that's not what happened. That's what you were attempting to claim the GOP was doing, which was not the case. Because you will apologize for the GOP no matter what they do.

Um, Yes what I say is what happened. I was perfectly clear. You say it was "not the case", but that (again) is your opinion. In the end they removed the word. I just don't think that really changed the bill in any meaningful way with regards to denying rape victims abortions, except perhaps to make you feel better about the bill. I do not believe the bill COULD deny abortions to rape victims. With or without that word. I think anyone who tried to deny abortions to rape victims would find themselves on the wrong side of the law of the land as I understand the SCOTUS decided in Roe vs Wade.

However you like to attack me by twisting what I say, and paraphrasing it so that it no longer has the same meaning. You have done it earlier in this thread, and you are doing it again right now.

45 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 1:48:21pm

re: #44 Buck

As I said, because of the way you attack me.

And what exactly would be different if you knew my name and address?

I've posted my name on here before, anyway. I'm really not that anonymous.

46 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 1:49:13pm
However you like to attack me by twisting what I say, and paraphrasing it so that it no longer has the same meaning. You have done it earlier in this thread, and you are doing it again right now.

I love how you say this while attempting to say that the fact that the GOP only wanted to allow victims of violent rape, and not other forms, didn't really change anything.

47 sproingie  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 1:56:48pm

When someone gets X number of downdings in a single thread, shouldn't they get autobanned from the thread, or maybe see their post rate to that thread start getting throttled? Or would that just encourage using sockpuppets?

48 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 1:58:12pm

re: #46 Obdicut

I love how you say this while attempting to say that the fact that the GOP only wanted to allow victims of violent rape, and not other forms, didn't really change anything.

Here you go again. I AM NOT ATTEMPTING any such thing, and for you to say that is (again) twisting and paraphrasing what I did say so that it did not have the same meaning.

I do (AS I WAS VERY CLEAR ABOVE) NOT believe there is any "other kind" of rape. In fact I think the idea of describing any rape as non-violent is sickening. It implies a passive consent. Every act of rape is violent, as every rape starts and ends with force. I repeat for emphasis, Every act of rape is violent. There is NO non-violent Rape. Rape by definition is violent. The act always involves FORCE, which is violent. Latin rapere to seize, carry off by force, plunder. Violence.

49 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 2:07:20pm

re: #48 Buck

You defended the GOP only accepting abortions for violent rape by claiming that all they were trying to do was emphasize how bad rape was by using the word 'violent'.

It was pretty goddamn pathetic.

50 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 2:15:06pm

re: #49 Obdicut

You defended the GOP only accepting abortions for violent rape by claiming that all they were trying to do was emphasize how bad rape was by using the word 'violent'.

It was pretty goddamn pathetic.

Again, not what I said, but you will keep repeating it anyway. I was asked why the lawmakers would add the word, and I gave a guess. I never "defended the GOP only accepting abortions for violent rape". I did not think then, and I do not think that now. There is no way anyone could only accept abortions for violent rapes. For all of the reasons I have expressed above. The law of the land, and that there is no other kind of rape.

51 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 2:16:43pm

re: #30 Buck

You know that didn't happen. No one told him not to do it. AND you also know that no one would respect a male politician who was easily controlled.

But you can hang on to your claim... I just don't accept it.

Your just a tool of the man.

52 dragonfire1981  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 2:17:09pm

Is it sad when I saw the number of comments this page had I instantly thought "let me guess, someone has gotten into it with Buck again" ?

53 Varek Raith  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 2:25:38pm

re: #49 Obdicut

You defended the GOP only accepting abortions for violent rape by claiming that all they were trying to do was emphasize how bad rape was by using the word 'violent'.

It was pretty goddamn pathetic.

You have the patience of a freaking saint.

54 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 2:28:28pm

re: #50 Buck

Yes. Exactly. You came up with a nonsensical 'guess' of why the GOP would have put such a word in, ignoring that, whenever it can, the GOP works to limit abortion rights, and so the simpler explanation was that they were attempting to reduce the circumstances in which a woman could get an abortion. Other, even more restrictive bills, were submitted elsewhere by the GOP.

By the way, you completely dodged the question of what would be different if I weren't anonymous-- which I'm not, anyway. Can you explain what would be different if you knew my name?

55 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 2:36:31pm

and this control thing - politicians no matter how junior these days (of both genders) have what are called "handlers". It's a very common term and they are put there by senior party people to stop people fucking up on a regular basis and, for example, ruining presidential campaigns.

56 Four More Beers  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 2:38:17pm

re: #50 Buck

Again, not what I said, but you will keep repeating it anyway. I was asked why the lawmakers would add the word, and I gave a guess. I never "defended the GOP only accepting abortions for violent rape". I did not think then, and I do not think that now. There is no way anyone could only accept abortions for violent rapes. For all of the reasons I have expressed above. The law of the land, and that there is no other kind of rape.

Is there any other kind??!!

57 Boyo  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 2:41:21pm

how can some one be so partisan that they manage to find or make up silver linings to clouds made of shit?

58 ಠ_ಠ  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 2:52:02pm

Palin needs a good swift non-metaphorical kick.

There, I said it.

59 wrenchwench  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 4:44:39pm

Palin might deserve a break here, it could have been a misunderstanding. She was told to "lie low". The "blood libel" thing was the lowest lie she could think of.

60 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 7:23:25pm

re: #56 Kid A

Is there any other kind??!!

No. I have been saying there is not other kind. See: #42 .

However I think Obdicut thinks there is.

61 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 7:28:55pm

re: #54 Obdicut

Yes. Exactly. You came up with a nonsensical 'guess' of why the GOP would have put such a word in, ignoring that, whenever it can, the GOP works to limit abortion rights, and so the simpler explanation was that they were attempting to reduce the circumstances in which a woman could get an abortion. Other, even more restrictive bills, were submitted elsewhere by the GOP.

You say nonsense, and it is your opinion that that yours is the simpler explanation. I say that was just another "nontraversy".


By the way, you completely dodged the question of what would be different if I weren't anonymous-- which I'm not, anyway. Can you explain what would be different if you knew my name?

I do not think you would feel so free to make shit up and attack with libel if everyone knew who you were.

62 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 7:29:54pm

re: #61 Buck

No, nor would you.

63 Buck  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 7:35:19pm

re: #62 Floral Giraffe

No, nor would you.

Everyone can certainly know who I am. I hide nothing.

64 Interesting Times  Mon, Mar 14, 2011 7:56:23pm

re: #62 Floral Giraffe

The troll in this thread reminds me more and more of a certain character I describe here. Notice how similar the modus operandi is? The same amateurish, creepy, manipulative crap, coupled with the utterly insulting conclusion we're going to fall for it 9_9


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh