ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

KN was really, really stupid . . .

to put that story in her book. Which also means she's got even more ignorant advisers and editors who allowed her to put such a story in her book. Why you ask? Just look at the reaction above. Regardless of the merit of her decision, a significant portion will react accordingly. There are people who wanted worse for Michael Vick than a convicted murderer. Knowing that, dumb, dumb decision to include the story in her book. That being said, people who have never lived or worked on a farm or a ranch would be shocked about the reality of life not being all flowers and lollipops. It's never that simple.

I wonder if she simply did this to get the story out there and let it be "old" news rather than surfacing in the heart of a critical moment of some future campaign. Imagine the great hyena bringing this up for the first time in the middle of a VP debate.
I grew up on a farm. It's one of the reasons I know what she did was unnecessary. But again, I posted the article because she was dumb enough to put it in the book. I knew people would defend her actions for political reasons. I thought everyone would agree she was stupid for telling the story, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
I grew up on a farm. It's one of the reasons I know what she did was unnecessary. But again, I posted the article because she was dumb enough to put it in the book. I knew people would defend her actions for political reasons. I thought everyone would agree she was stupid for telling the story, though.
Well, I'm not gonna be drawn into the debate on whether it was unnecessary. You've made your opinion clear, but that's all it is, particularly without knowing more than some excerpts from her book. And I think it is pretty universal about the intelligence of including the story in her book. But that's just it. Books don't get published like Noir typing something stupid and just hitting the Post Reply button on a message board. This had to be vetted, by multiple people, multiple times. Which makes me believe it was intentional to get it out there now, suffer the blow back, and recover. Would this "revelation" be what stops her when she gets appointed to Trump's cabinet, runs in 2028, or something else? Not if it's yesterday's transgression.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant
Well, I'm not gonna be drawn into the debate on whether it was unnecessary. You've made your opinion clear, but that's all it is, particularly without knowing more than some excerpts from her book. And I think it is pretty universal about the intelligence of including the story in her book. But that's just it. Books don't get published like Noir typing something stupid and just hitting the Post Reply button on a message board. This had to be vetted, by multiple people, multiple times. Which makes me believe it was intentional to get it out there now, suffer the blow back, and recover. Would this "revelation" be what stops her when she gets appointed to Trump's cabinet, runs in 2028, or something else? Not if it's yesterday's transgression.
Apparently it's not universal, because people have said it wasn't a big deal to include it. I don't really care about her political future. I didn't know she was tied to Trump as a serious VP candidate before I read the article. But you make a good point about all those people around her saying it was fine to run the story. Definitely makes you wonder about her judgement if she was ever in a position of power on a bigger stage. If she can't find someone who's smart enough to edit her book, can she find someone smart enough to help run the country?
 
Apparently it's not universal, because people have said it wasn't a big deal to include it. I don't really care about her political future. I didn't know she was tied to Trump as a serious VP candidate before I read the article. But you make a good point about all those people around her saying it was fine to run the story. Definitely makes you wonder about her judgement if she was ever in a position of power on a bigger stage. If she can't find someone who's smart enough to edit her book, can she find someone smart enough to help run the country?
Your question, however, only focuses on this being a horrible error in editing versus my allowing for the possibility that this was on purpose and by design. That is, SD is nowhere near Vegas, and what happens on the ranch doesn't always stay on the ranch. You are presupposing that if KN simply kept her trap shut, the dog murderer story never sees the light of day. What if the story had already surfaced, but was not widely known and was just lying in the weeds waiting to be sprung against her when most politically opportune? By revealing it in this fashion, she's taken the wind out of those sails. Sometimes, one has to fall on their sword and there are better times to do that than others. She picked the time and place. This controversy will pass just like they always do. Just a theory.
 
Your question, however, only focuses on this being a horrible error in editing versus my allowing for the possibility that this was on purpose and by design. That is, SD is nowhere near Vegas, and what happens on the ranch doesn't always stay on the ranch. You are presupposing that if KN simply kept her trap shut, the dog murderer story never sees the light of day. What if the story had already surfaced, but was not widely known and was just lying in the weeds waiting to be sprung against her when most politically opportune? By revealing it in this fashion, she's taken the wind out of those sails. Sometimes, one has to fall on their sword and there are better times to do that than others. She picked the time and place. This controversy will pass just like they always do. Just a theory.
I guess that's possible, but I don't think it's a story that would destroy her political career. It could have at least been worded differently. Just say the dog was put down. That would still be unnecessary, but technically still true and sounds a lot better than taking the dog out back and shooting him.
 
Books don't get published like Noir typing something stupid and just hitting the Post Reply button on a message board.
That's some analogy. :rolleyes:

I doubt you know much about the publishing industry no matter how hard you're trying to sound like an expert. Hell, I don't think you understand too much about posting on a message board, either, beyond the simple act of "hitting the Post Reply button" to share with everyone your insipid and witless thoughts.
 
That's some analogy. :rolleyes:

I doubt you know much about the publishing industry no matter how hard you're trying to sound like an expert. Hell, I don't think you understand too much about posting on a message board, either, outside of "hitting the Post Reply button" to share your insipid and witless opinions.
"You mad bro"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Archer2
KN was really, really stupid . . .

to put that story in her book. Which also means she's got even more ignorant advisers and editors who allowed her to put such a story in her book. Why you ask? Just look at the reaction above. Regardless of the merit of her decision, a significant portion will react accordingly. There are people who wanted worse for Michael Vick than a convicted murderer. Knowing that, dumb, dumb decision to include the story in her book. That being said, people who have never lived or worked on a farm or a ranch would be shocked about the reality of life not being all flowers and lollipops. It's never that simple.

I wonder if she simply did this to get the story out there and let it be "old" news rather than surfacing in the heart of a critical moment of some future campaign. Imagine the great hyena bringing this up for the first time in the middle of a VP debate.
you know what's funny but sad? I mean other than @Heels Noir trying to get in some weak-ass jab at me that involves the death of something loved. Please Lord never let me be so desperate and butthurt as to sink that low. But I digress.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that maybe she's just basically honest. It seems to be the assumption all around that if she had thought clearly, she would have obscured and manipulated and omitted and maybe just plain lied. That's sad.

As @heelmanwilm and .pooponduke point out, it ain't all peaches and cream in real life. There have been and still are hunters who treat their dogs the same as their truck or their rifle. If it works for you you cherish it, if it doesn't you get rid of it with little regret. Sometimes the poor dog is just thrown out the back of a truck as it moves down the road.. But there is nothing indicated here to put this woman in that category. It was merely insinuated that she belonged there by what wasn't said to begin with.

On the other hand, I have no trouble seeing that she might have considered the dog useless as a hunting dog and therefor something of little value to her. But clearly, as the story goes she didn't dispatch the dog until it became a necessity. And in contrast to the notion that she hated the dog (a silly assumption), the gist of the anecdote was how putting it away was a hard thing to do. Additionally, you can argue about the necessity being a necessity, and everyone will have a different opinion; but if you argue that putting the dog down by bullet is less humane than having it injected with some drug, you just have no notion of reality. And while you consider that, how are you squaring your objections to the act of putting a bullet in whatever is being hunted?

We all die, every living thing does. Death doesn't bother me so much because it has to be accepted as inevitable, but suffering to me is an intolerable evil. I'm honest. I've never killed a dog and I'm no hunter, but I have dispatched kittens that were seriously sick. I hated it but I hated not doing it even more.
 
I guess that's possible, but I don't think it's a story that would destroy her political career. It could have at least been worded differently. Just say the dog was put down. That would still be unnecessary, but technically still true and sounds a lot better than taking the dog out back and shooting him.
That's my thing. There have to be better ways to make the point that she can make tough decisions and do hard things.
 
“Trump hates dogs”. Thats a new one. Congratulations on at least coming up with something new and not going with the same, tired bullshit that you hear from most TDS infected losers.
Ivanka put it in her book. He's the first pres in eons to not have a First dog. And he called Pence "low-class" for having a pet at the VP residence. And he's said it would be phony for him to have a "first dog", cuz he simply doesn't like dogs.
 
I grew up on a farm. It's one of the reasons I know what she did was unnecessary. But again, I posted the article because she was dumb enough to put it in the book. I knew people would defend her actions for political reasons. I thought everyone would agree she was stupid for telling the story, though.
if you'll be honest and actually examine what has been posted here, you'll have to admit that YOU are the one who has made this political by assuming that someone would do so, and then assigning that mindset unjustifiably. So you're right, someone did make it political....you.
 
“I hated that dog,” Noem writes
“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, adding that Cricket had proved herself “untrainable”, “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog”.

“At that moment,” Noem says, “I realised I had to put her down.”

'Had to'. Not arbitrarily or out of hate, but of necessity in her estimation..
 
“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, adding that Cricket had proved herself “untrainable”, “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog”.

“At that moment,” Noem says, “I realised I had to put her down.”

'Had to'. Not arbitrarily or out of hate, but of necessity in her estimation..
She should have gotten Cornpop to kill the dog. Then she could have fed it to the cannibals of New Guinea thereby saving Joe's uncle.
 
“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, adding that Cricket had proved herself “untrainable”, “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog”.

“At that moment,” Noem says, “I realised I had to put her down.”

'Had to'. Not arbitrarily or out of hate, but of necessity in her estimation..

Face it, Boy Blunder, you opened your pie hole one too many times on the subject and burned yourself by trying to rewrite what the woman actually wrote.

BUSTED!

200w.gif
 
take heed at 5:45. The pubs need to be hammering this home. There is no way, if Biden is elected, that Harris won't end up being the president. That's virtually guaranteed.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
Face it, Boy Blunder, you opened your pie hole one too many times on the subject and burned yourself by trying to rewrite what the woman actually wrote.

BUSTED!

200w.gif
fail, as usual. You lie even with with the words staring you right in the face. In other words, no surprise.
 
First they poison our blood, now they're stealing the powerball. I bet they donate the winnings to AOC or Bill Gates.

 
First they poison our blood, now they're stealing the powerball. I bet they donate the winnings to AOC or Bill Gates.

if he was here legally, and he donated to the cause by buying a lottery ticket, I have no quarrel with him or anyone else winning. The purchase of tickets is the objective, and those proceeds help us internally. Who buys them and who wins is of no concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
Ivanka put it in her book. He's the first pres in eons to not have a First dog. And he called Pence "low-class" for having a pet at the VP residence. And he's said it would be phony for him to have a "first dog", cuz he simply doesn't like dogs.

How's that dog of Biden's? Have they euthanized that dangerous animal yet? Maybe take a look at doing the same for the dog.
 
This is all hilarious to me. Noem is crucified for putting a dog down but Obama eats one and not a peep.
I don't know the circumstances of Obama eating dog. But, it never ceases to amaze me how quickly the teams play the "What about when you do it?" card.

Is it right or wrong? Is it wrong if both of them callously shoot and kill (or eat) innocent living things and no one cares? Or, is it only wrong if one side condemns the other side's example?

It's kind of rhetorical for you. Anyone who shoots and kills cats (or any living thing that can't shoot back) for kicks, is too much of a psychopath in my book.
 
House cats prey on quail and pheasants. Nothing more useless than a house cat other than liberals. I shoot coyotes, raccoons, skunks and bobcats as well.
Dang man all those animals play a crucial role in the whole “circle of life” thing. (Well except cats) Don’t you worry about disrupting the balance? I mean yea you’re just one person so I guess you can only do so much damage. But there’s only like one bobcat for every 5sq miles or so and removing predators creates havoc in an ecosystem
 
This is all hilarious to me. Noem is crucified for putting a dog down but Obama eats one and not a peep.
Oh there was plenty of peeps…15 yrs years ago when the romney campaign “broke the story” which was basically them reading a memoir published by Obama 20yrs prior to that. (And which iirc was in response to criticism of romney traveling with his dog on the roof of the car) I imagine 15 yrs from now there will be few peeps about noem as well. But I’m sure some liberal in a chat will remind us of it should a dem catch heat for blowing their dogs head off with a shotgun for being a pest.
 
Last edited:
I don't know the circumstances of Obama eating dog. But, it never ceases to amaze me how quickly the teams play the "What about when you do it?" card.

Is it right or wrong? Is it wrong if both of them callously shoot and kill (or eat) innocent living things and no one cares? Or, is it only wrong if one side condemns the other side's example?

It's kind of rhetorical for you. Anyone who shoots and kills cats (or any living thing that can't shoot back) for kicks, is too much of a psychopath in my book.
Yeah hunters suck. Do you eat meat?
 
Dang man all those animals play a crucial role in the whole “circle of life” thing. (Well except cats) Don’t you worry about disrupting the balance? I mean yea you’re just one person so I guess you can only do so much damage. But there’s only like one bobcat for every 5sq miles or so and removing predators creates havoc in an ecosystem
I'll ask you the same thing, do you eat meat?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT