Prapse your own mother might like you to try it though. Clearly there’s a mother issue with you fellers here.

You might like to post any link to evidence of that being a fact.

Actually i bet you wouldn’t like to.

He is not adverse to name calling in the Australian and Global Politics group.

I am going to take the moral high ground and tell you that you are a cock-smocking fuck-hole. Fuck off, fuck-neck. Dumb. Cunt. Have a sloppy tit wank over bolt back at news.com.au. Your mum. My cock. Her arse. No lube.

For onlookers: this is the part where he’s trying to bait me into abusing him so he can claim the high moral ground I outlined above.

That’s right. And neither is bringing up your past trolling in a thread you are currently trolling. Blogging is fun, you should try it sometime.

http://randombrainwave.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-insane-2.html

Oh dear!
ZEEEEEEEEERRRRRROOOOO Johnny!

Only the deence of the Pig in Lipstick comment which was apparently off topic according to Ant boy.

So he’s off to google in search of ol Jim, but that’s not trolling.
He’s off topic from his first comment, but that’s not trolling either.

Isn’t blogging fun.

Another good routine is to try and grab the moral high ground by accusing everyone of being hypocrites. In TrollLand, “proving” everyone to be a hypocrite is equal to winning an argument.

More trolling found here: http://groups.msn.com/AustralianandGlobalPolitics/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=14778&LastModified=4675662064017940968

HJ seems to be one of those Andrew Bolt readers who see red every time he is criticised, and waste their waking hours trolling forums trying vainly to defend him. Apparently Andrew Bolt needs defending. Apparently he can’t defend himself.

Here’s a tip for you, why don’t you create a blog called, oh I don’t know, how’s GrodsWatch sound? There you can post about all the nasty things that Grods says about lovely conservative columnists who have so much love to give that they are ready to burst.

Nobody sustains a happy existance in such a state without resort to medication.

I could of course be wrong. First time today though.

And that’s it from me, too. I have nothing more to say to you.

The thread’s all yours — knock yourself out.

Fuck off, troll. Seriously.

But I will say this: HJ, you hate profanity, but you don’t hesitate to insult in other ways such as sneering at Ant and telling him his medication is wearing off.

Fucking hypocrite.

Do me a favour, though, Jim: go back to the top of this thread and read all the comments, right through to the bottom.

Now, tell me honestly: how would you score your own performance out of 10?

To finish.

“Its indicative of your mindset that you created and maintain a website dedicated to the smeering of conservative expression and particularly two prominant columnests. We get it Ant, the right give you the shits.”

Probably not keen to remind too many folks of that though.

Funny the encyclopedic knowledge you have to be able to go back over my posts and pick the chrries you like out.
Are you indexing?

Damn, you got me again.

Ok Angry insect.
The fact that I don’t agree with you people is basically going to give you the shits anyway.
[...]

Oh please, let me off!

I was making the point, that if I wished to I could also name call, but that I have chosen not to.

Incidentally, you’re wrong again. Clearly I’m not “condemning” Bolt for his support of Palin — I’m calling him on his failure to see the comment of Palin’s that I quoted as a platitude; and I’m questioning the advisability of the Repulicans making Iraq an election issue.

Fair dinkum, you can’t really be this thick, can you?

Surely he’d much rather see a self made, self educated, middle class woman who identifies with more Americans,and Australians for that matter, than the 5th Avenue/Ivy League candidates we generally get in these elections.

Or does he simply see the elephant and codemn it and see the donkey and praise it?

DB (dumb bastard);-)
He’s acknowledged the error and apologised.
If he was commit subucu over the shame of it, what the hell would you do all day?
The topic is Catherine’s bipolar, or St Peter’s accusation that she’s not suffering it.

And here’s the link.

Hypocrite, liar and fuckwit — the elusive trifecta!

Well played.

Its not good enough to simply say i called you names and then have no instances of me doing it.

You assert – you prove.

You claim others call you names yet you are not immune yourself. Don’t try and take the higher moral ground.

Troll, troll, troll.

Don’t think we don’t know what you’re doing.

Now those name I called you please?

HJ: “In the 70s their science said ice age comming. Many of the same scientists were as equally convinced then that we were in deep danger of calamity from the cold as we are now from the warm.”

Name just 10.

This was Husky_Jim’s response:

Name just 10

One would kill the argument.

But how many did he name? Guess*.

* It rhymes with “hero”.

You know what names. I am not about to trawl through your comments to remind you of what you have done.

Surname – apologies for taking HJ OT. I have been waiting for him to list a name for a few weeks now.

Comprehension not in the top ten things you can do?

“You were supposed to be providing a list of one of those many scientists weren’t you? ”

You see that’s a request to provide something. It is now provided, but it also changes the subject………oh why the hell do I bother to explain?

Why the topic change?

On the evidence Karoly sees, most doubters have not bothered to read the landmark reports by chief Rudd Government climate adviser Ross Garnaut or the UN climate panel, and those who have dismiss them as political documents.

Funny how the alarmist will pick and choose their sources for alarm depending on the content, because this week David told the ABC

“”It appears … that he is taking an approach which is politically and economically palatable or acceptable, rather than taking the opportunity which we have perhaps once in this century to take bold action, for Australia to take a leading role in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions,””

To see the Garnaut report as political is only wrong for skeptics?

List again

Just a few this time.

Prof Yuri Izrael, IPCC vice-chairman: “There is no serious threat to the climate.”

Richard Lindzen, former IPCC lead author and meteorology professor at MIT: “There is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons.”

Dr Vincent Gray, IPCC reviewer: “The continued fairly unchanging warm weather since 1998 shows no signs of increasing, and is probably influenced by changes in the sun.”

Dr Christopher Landsea, former IPCC author and hurricane expert: “It is beyond me why my (IPCC) colleagues would utilise the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming . . . I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

“On past experience you’ll simply refuse that task I suppose”… Again you forget HJ – You were supposed to be providing a list of one of those many scientists weren’t you? Oh yeah you forgot that one too.

I am quite prepared to conceed that I’m wrong here, but you’ll need to show where I a) called him a name and/or b) exibited hatred toward him.

On past experience you’ll simply refuse that task I suppose.

If its a true bolt “watch” then it’d watch him be right surely?

Bolt…right…could it happen?

I’d have to concede it as a possibility, but maybe as likely as the LHC/giant krill invasion scenario.

“You whine like an EH diff about moderation on blogs and then disallow comment all together on your own”

funny.. what is this a ‘non comment’ thread?

That, fucktard.

I think to go on would simply be cruel to you so I’ll stop.
Don’t want to compound that anger any further.

What is you assumption based on Bron?

I see that while it is ok for you to exhibit a double standard, you have no reason to allow Bolt to have one.

And where exactly have I “exhibited a double standard”, bellend?

If you can produce another post of mine in which I’ve praised or defended an inane platitude from any politician of any political hue, you’ll have shown that this post exhibited a double standard.

If not, you’ll only have shown what we already knew — that you’re a fucking idiot.

Maybe Obama should have said “You can put lipstick on a pitbull” instead? Because that is what Pailn called herself.

This was not changing the issue at all and you have still not addressed the issue of where you stand on Obama, except to state that you’ve not supported him. Do you support him?

Bron was the one who changed the issue with the comment ;

“Hey Husky_Jim, I am assuming that by calling Obama “pig makeup artist” you honestly believe he is the first person to say “lipstick on a pig”.”

This point I also addressed by asking her to point out where I made a comment stating that. Her retort, like yours, was to begin the insults. She has a little more grace than to use the profanity, but she may not have the little man anger issuues you have. Isn’t the abuse simply an attempt to change the issue?

Bron my comment re being hurt was sarcasm. Clearly not a form of wit you are up to.

Obama has clearly been rattled (as are you both) by the introduction of Palin into this election.
Where is Biden on this issue anyway?
Why are the Democrats so in the headlights over the Republicam VP nomination?

Troll.

And, quite frankly, I don’t give a rat’s about your hurt feelings. Suck it up.

No, you haven’t. I showed you why my post stood up against your limp-wristed attack, so what did you do? Promptly changed the subject to this “lipstick” thing.

Hence: troll.

As pointed out the pig comment may be a figure of speach. Certainly McCain used it in discussing Clinton’s health plan, and was critisised by Democrats as being a sexist. It appears it only became a figure of speach after Obama used it. However the first part of the speel is lifted, without attribution, form the cartoon in the link.

I’m calling bullshit on that one. I’ve seen plenty of links to McCain’s comment about it – can you show me the claims it was sexist?

Also, there are plenty of earlier examples of its use – Obama used it in reference to General Petraeus; Dick Cheney used it about John Kerry; etc.

As Surname says, it was clearly a reference to the McCain campaign’s attempt to claim they are mavericks when, under the surface, it’s more of the same. Coincidentally, “more of the same” has been a line on multiple Obama campaign ads – including before Palin was even chosen.

The only people getting worked up about this alleged slur on Palin are people who have a vested interest in making it look like Obama meant it as a slur to Palin. The sad thing is that the media goes along with it.

Transcript (partial)

John McCain says he’s about change too. Exce- and and so I guess
his whole angle is – watch out, George Bush – except for economic
policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign
policy, and Karl-Rove-style politics, we’re really gonna shake things
up in Washington.

That’s not change.

That’s that’s just callin’ sumpin’ the same thing somethin’
different.

But you know, you can’t, you know, you you can put, ah, lipstick
on a pig, it’s still a pig.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_09052...

You can see for yourself that the entire segment before his “pig” quip
matches the Toles cartoon exactly.
As pointed out the pig comment may be a figure of speach. Certainly McCain used it in discussing Clinton’s health plan, and was critisised by Democrats as being a sexist. It appears it only became a figure of speach after Obama used it. However the first part of the speel is lifted, without attribution, form the cartoon in the link.

The video is here.

Just to bring the discussion back to reality, it’s clearly Obama talking about the McCain/Pail “maverick” campaign.

Quote: “You can’t call the same thing (referring to campaign) something different. You can’t put lipstick on a pig.”

Can somebody tell me what’s wrong with that comment? It’s in NO way reference to Palin.

I’m not saying that at all.Where did I say that Obama was the first person to say it?

I do note that urban dictionary defines the term as

“slang for when someone tries to dress something up, but is still that something. usually used on ugly broads, when they put on a skirt and some lipstick and well, they still look like the same digusting pig. ”

Now if Jonny Mac was to make the slightest suggestion of say “sending a boy to do a man’s job” in regard to the good democratic candidate I’m quite sure that there would be outrage on the left.
It appears however that the cooment was, as is the want of all such comments by the left, taken out of context.
It was clearly as a result of Palin’s comments regarding a Pit bull in lipstick.

Also, there is an awesome poem at the back of Overland. It kinda creeped me out.

But did you know John McCain actually used it first? Earlier this year when he put down Hillary Clinton’s health care plan. “I don’t like to use this term, but the latest proposal I see is putting lipstick on a pig.”

You can see for yourself right here. Footage evidence.

Wrong again, dickhead. Your research skills are clearly as woeful as your spelling.

I begin discussions with trolls with insults — people who disagree with me get treated with civility when they’re arguing in good faith and not straining for some ridiculous “gotcha”.

Now, fuck off.

Secondly I see that while it is ok for you to exhibit a double standard, you have no reason to allow Bolt to have one. Since you have not been critical of Obama either, exactly where do you stand on the pig makeup artist?

Also don’t be fooled by the polls out there at the moment, while they show an entirely marginal lead for George Mccain, the voter rolls Gallup, Rasmussen etc use dont include new voters that have registered in the last 12 months or so. In the last 4 months dems have registered 2 million new voters for their party to the republicans .36.

*Obama still hasnt released any plans for his words (yes he has).

*Immunisation from Rightards.

I’m sure he just forgot. Yeah, that’s it.

1) There are likewise no posts where I support Obama; and
2) This post was about Andrew Bolt’s double standard when it comes to the platitudes of US politicians, and about the advisability of the Republicans making Iraq an election issue.

Do you have anything to say about either of those points, or are you just being a fuckwitted pissweak-gotcha-merchant troll like you were at Bolt/Blair Watch?*

* Rhetorical question.

Could you help me out please?

I hate the Right!