Anonymous Source said:

---

WestTexasAg said:

---

Thread save....



Well I tried anyway. Can't believe how rapidly she is falling now.

---

Yama Hama…
She was far more attractive until she Guilfoyle'd herself

---

Agreed

Space-Tech said:

---

This is the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

If she were Democrat, it'd be universal condemnation, none of these weird half-assed excuses of straight-up murdering a dog.

---

Murdering a dog. Oooh boy. Somebody is mad.

YouBet said:

---

Space-Tech said:

---

This is the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

If she were Democrat, it'd be universal condemnation, none of these weird half-assed excuses of straight-up murdering a dog.

---

Are you f'ing kidding me? Delusional post of the day.

There may not be another group of people on the planet who are held less accountable than US Democrats.

JFC!

---

No kidding! Comical post. Yeah, the Dems were all over condemning Rashida Talib for all of her hateful rhetoric and lies after October 7. Hell, the dip**** in the White House took forever to call out the anti-semitism, and even when he did he had to mention "Islamaphobia". What a joke.

We need people who are capable and don't need to tell lies to sound more important. She owns it, her staff let her go with it…..during these times we need a VP to be strong because H E L L is coming.

Space-Tech said:

---

This is the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

If she were Democrat, it'd be universal condemnation, none of these weird half-assed excuses of straight-up murdering a dog.

---

Found the city dweller

Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

A good litmus test for "principled conservatives" vs "people who just chose the conservative team to root for" is whether you think she's an idiot or it makes you say "what about Obama's book?".

---

At least conservatives have a group that has principles. I no longer know any Democrats that have principles, ethics, or morals.

Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

A good litmus test for "principled conservatives" vs "people who just chose the conservative team to root for" is whether you think she's an idiot or it makes you say "what about Obama's book?".

---

Nah…… a good litmus test is if you support people lying about experiences or you don't. You either are OK with lying or you aren't. Holy hell….

When will politicians realize that these media trained responses make them look worse than actually owning up to their mistakes.

In order to have a constructive debate, both side must be grounded in a common reality. But when one side is devoted to its own conspiracy theories perpetuated in its own echo chambers then any commonality is gone. It's impossible to talk to most in good faith because you've let your feelings become fact, regardless of what the universal truth may be.

It's actually pretty sad that you so vehemently hate your fellow countymen because they are not ideologically in lockstep with you.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

When will politicians realize that these media trained responses make them look worse than actually owning up to their mistakes.

---

Or we could do the Brandon response of ignoring it or just denying it...

Except that only works for your side.

Space-Tech said:

---

In order to have a constructive debate, both side must be grounded in a common reality. But when one side is devoted to its own conspiracy theories perpetuated in its own echo chambers then any commonality is gone. It's impossible to talk to most in good faith because you've let your feelings become fact, regardless of what the universal truth may be.

It's actually pretty sad that you so vehemently hate your fellow countymen because they are not ideologically in lockstep with you.

---

Do you believe what you write? Are you suggesting that Democrats as opposed to conservatives are the ones grounded in reality????

Surely, you jest. Surely.

Space-Tech said:

---

In order to have a constructive debate, both side must be grounded in a common reality. But when one side is devoted to its own conspiracy theories perpetuated in its own echo chambers then any commonality is gone. It's impossible to talk to most in good faith because you've let your feelings become fact, regardless of what the universal truth may be.

It's actually pretty sad that you so vehemently hate your fellow countymen because they are not ideologically in lockstep with you.

---

What "conspiracy theory" are you referring to?

And how does your response have anything at all to do with his post below?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This is the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

If she were Democrat, it'd be universal condemnation, none of these weird half-assed excuses of straight-up murdering a dog.

---

Are you f'ing kidding me? Delusional post of the day.

There may not be another group of people on the planet who are held less accountable than US Democrats.

JFC!

---

Space-Tech said:

---

In order to have a constructive debate, both side must be grounded in a common reality. But when one side is devoted to its own conspiracy theories perpetuated in its own echo chambers then any commonality is gone. It's impossible to talk to most in good faith because you've let your feelings become fact, regardless of what the universal truth may be.

It's actually pretty sad that you so vehemently hate your fellow countymen because they are not ideologically in lockstep with you.

---

Did you wake up in Philly after a bender? This post is way out of left field.

Space-Tech said:

---

This is the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

If she were Democrat, it'd be universal condemnation, none of these weird half-assed excuses of straight-up murdering a dog.

---

You ought to see what I do to coyotes

Space-Tech said:

---

This is the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

If she were Democrat, it'd be universal condemnation, none of these weird half-assed excuses of straight-up murdering a dog.

---

Ted Kennedy left a woman to drown and still served for 40 more years after that as a leading Democrat Senator.

Your argument has no merit or logic to it.

bobbranco said:

---

It was a dog. Anybody criticizing her are beyond stupid.

---

Setting aside the morality of the act of killing the dog, she used it as an example of how she can make difficult decisions.

If one's "go to" about difficult decisions is "I shot a dog", I think everyone should be wondering if she's got the chops for VP for an aging President

In fact, if you think shooting the dog wasn't a big deal, then you especially should be wondering why that's apparently one of her best examples of a making difficult decisions.

But who knows, maybe she never even had a dog and the story was a misunderstanding

TXAggie2011 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

It was a dog. Anybody criticizing her are beyond stupid.

---

Setting aside the morality of the act of killing the dog, she used it as an example of how she can make difficult decisions.

If one's "go to" about difficult decisions is "I shot a dog", I think everyone should be wondering if she's got the chops for VP for an aging President

In fact, if you think shooting the dog wasn't a big deal, then you especially should be wondering why that's apparently one of her best examples of a making difficult decisions

---

It's her dog. That dog is a possession. It bit people. Sad that people can't understand the basics.

I'd rather have a VP that shot a dog rather than one who spends their life funding and extolling the virtues of abortion.

Thank God it was not her baby in the womb. I will NOT lose any sleep over her dog.

LBJ and the Parr machine, the Kennedy's, the Clinton's, John Kerry, Biden etc have all had some serious ethical, moral and truth issues and all were happily elected multiple times by dems, Noem embellishes/lies and shoots a farm dog and her political career and life are basically over. Talk about double standards. Anyone who has grown up on a farm has either had to or known someone that has had to put down a pet, but somehow a vet performing euthanasia is humane and a farmer quickly and painlessly putting a pet out of it's misery is cruel?

bobbranco said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

It was a dog. Anybody criticizing her are beyond stupid.

---

Setting aside the morality of the act of killing the dog, she used it as an example of how she can make difficult decisions.

If one's "go to" about difficult decisions is "I shot a dog", I think everyone should be wondering if she's got the chops for VP for an aging President

In fact, if you think shooting the dog wasn't a big deal, then you especially should be wondering why that's apparently one of her best examples of a making difficult decisions

---

It's her dog. That dog is a possession. It bit people. Sad that people can't understand the basics.

I'd rather have a VP that shot a dog rather than one who spends their life funding and extolling the virtues of abortion.

Thank God it was not her baby in the womb. I will NOT lose any sleep over her dog.

---

I believe you might have missed my point

I did not miss your point.

Your point was worthless and dismissed by me as absolutely emotional and simple minded.

Grapesoda2525 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

It was a dog. Anybody criticizing her are beyond stupid.

She would be hoisted on the tallest pedestal if she revealed she aborted 4 babies to go into politics.

---

If she was a democrat, you would be the first one making fun of her and piling on.

---

Nah. If she was a democrat we'd be making fun of her for being a stupid liberal

I don't think you understood his point, bud, as your response to his post doesn't make any sense. You're countering an argument he never raised (and didn't come close to raising honestly).

Also, rudely calling his post worthless and simple minded when you're in the middle of a reading comprehension face plant just makes you look worse.

Ok

she was so smoking hot and now looks just stupid with her plastic face. So completely stupid thing to do.

That interview was just terrible. Terrible. If you meet with foreign leaders you better be able to name them, discuss what was talked about, and never "I'm not going to talk about that".

She's the f'ing governor of SD. Come one.

Sara Palin is laughing at her.

She has completely sh** the bed.

And that's not me crapping on a fellow conservative, it's me saying Noem is a complete dumbass.

Prediction - her husband files for divorce within 12 months.

I don't think these sociopaths understand how bad they look to average people. You know, ones who don't regularly communicate through a soulless DC PR form run by people as disconnected as their DC clients.

"Did you ever meet with Kim Jong Un?"
(30 seconds of bull**** during which she refuses to answer a yes/no question)

That stuff is nails on a chalkboard to me. *******s like her believe to their cores that we're so stupid that if they just dance around the question, we won't know they lied. I hate all of them.

She was like a deer staring right into the headlights, if that deer had it's lips plumped.

Rocky Rider said:

---

If she were unattractive we wouldn't even know her name. She didn't rise to prominence based on merit.

---

I've got news for you. She's not attractive.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

I don't think you understood his point, bud, as your response to his post doesn't make any sense. You're countering an argument he never raised (and didn't come close to raising honestly).

Also, rudely calling his post worthless and simple minded when you're in the middle of a reading comprehension face plant just makes you look worse.

---

It was a dog. Anybody criticizing her are beyond stupid.

I hope if Reveille ever gets excited and frolics around the classroom, barking every 10 minutes, and is generally difficult to train, that nobody contacts Kristi Noem for a solution.

Conservatives, who tend to be much more conscientious, will hold their politicians more accountable for being truthful non principle, at least with objective fact. There are exceptions to this but they tend to be problematic even when they retain acceptance. This type of thing doesn't affect Dems nearly as much because truth is relative and ends justify the means so if it is useful for a politician to be deceptive in seeking power, they will ignore or even endorse the deception.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

I don't think these sociopaths understand how bad they look to average people. You know, ones who don't regularly communicate through a soulless DC PR form run by people as disconnected as their DC clients.

"Did you ever meet with Kim Jong Un?"
(30 seconds of bull**** during which she refuses to answer a yes/no question)

That stuff is nails on a chalkboard to me. *******s like her believe to their cores that we're so stupid that if they just dance around the question, we won't know they lied. I hate all of them.

---

This can't be repeated enough. This is why these people are disgusted pieces of human trash. In no other profession or industry have I seen people allowed to get away with this. That's why we know this is all theater. It truly is like watching the capitol city from those hunger games movies.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Conservatives, who tend to be much more conscientious, will hold their politicians more accountable for being truthful non principle, at least with objective fact. There are exceptions to this but they tend to be problematic even when they retain acceptance. This type of thing doesn't affect Dems nearly as much because truth is relative and ends justify the means so if it is useful for a politician to be deceptive in seeking power, they will ignore or even endorse the deception.

---

If that was ever true, it certainly isn't in the trump era

Trump's a salesman, an embellisher, and yes, he is loose with the facts, but he doesn't tend to tell bold deliberate outright lies so much. With Trump the debate gets dragged into how hyperbolic something is or the degree to which something could be considered exaggerated. It isn't typically a statement of fact that is completely wrong in a material and consequential way to the issue at hand. The difference is more along the lines of getting someone convinced how important a thing is versus where it exists or not. But yes, Trump is one of those exceptions where conservatives have been put in a conundrum of do they take the good with the bad, which is why there has been such a substantial ambivalence over Trump with conservatives, in that he's not the first choice of many but they will take the bad with the good if he is the only option.

I think we're seeing the emergence of technology that can catch psychopathic or narcissistic BS'ers in self promoting of self advancing lies much faster than in the past. In the past to research and fact check took a lot of manual time and effort but with modern resources, not so much. This means the manipulation that was used so freely in the past is not going to be a low risk as it was in the past.

Notice there is very much a "dog pile" effect. Once someone offends a group, that group (or activists manipulating them) then goes and searches for any possible similar past offense and brings it to light to take part in the moment, and amplify it.

I still for the life of me can't understand how people that support the killing of babies are all up in arms about a bad dog being put down and how those who pulled the lever for Biden have the nerve to come here and lecture anyone on lying.