Today on Tommy T’s Obsession with the Freeperati – Primary Colorless Edition

Good morning, gentle people – the double iso chamber is still set up, and may remain so until after the election, or until there’s nobody left on FR except Jim Rob and his immediate family.

This edition of Obsession is going to be a bit of a grab bag, as the RINOs and No True Conservatives pile up like cars in a Florida chain-reaction car wreck. Let’s get started!

Before we get to the evisceration of WND, Ann Coulter, John Bolton, Komen, et. al –

I present – Pissed off!

2 U.S. marines in urinating video ID’d by corps
ap ^ | 1/12/12 | staff

Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:35:31 PM byNachum

An official says the U.S. Marine Corps has identified at least two of the four marines in an internet video that purports to depict them urinating on Taliban corpses in Afghanistan. A marine official said Thursday that the four were members of the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines, which returned to its home base in North Carolina last fall after a tour in Afghanistan. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because a criminal investigation is underway. The official said that at least some of the four marines are no longer in that battalion. He provided no other details. (Snip) Panetta

1 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:35:35 PM byNachum
Of course, you’d expect the brunt of the Freeper vitriol to be directed against the Lying Em Ess Em for spreading such scurrilous lying crap against our angels in MARPAT, wouldn’t you?
Sadly, non !

To: ColdOne

Where’s the snitch that videoed it?
Surely the ones who did it weren’t foolish enough to HAVE it recorded?!

17 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:04:49 PM byTucker39
“In a closed society where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting caught.”

To: Nachum

Can no one keep their mouth shut?

22 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:42:31 PM bypacpam (action=consequence and applies in all cases – friend of victory


.To: Tucker39

“Where’s the snitch that videoed it?
Surely the ones who did it weren’t foolish enough to HAVE it recorded?!”

That is where these guys made their mistake. It’s one thing to what they did but they absolutely knew this guy was filming and went through with it. He told them twice that he was filming it.

War is hell and stuff like this happens. But it happens in battle.To do it for fun on camera and to show off, bad move. These guys are going to pay for their stupidity.

32 posted on Friday, January 13, 2012 6:53:10 AM bySnark
For fun.

To: Nachum
An official says the U.S. Marine Corps has identified at least two of the four marines in an internet video that purports to depict them urinating on Taliban corpses in Afghanistan.

So what? My response to the Marine Corp. would be…Nick Berg. Daniel Pearl.

And they’re worried about some pee on a corpse?

3 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:41:46 PM byBloody Sam Roberts
I’m sorry – which branch of the military did Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl serve in, again?
And exactlyhow close to a terrorist cell’s actions do the actions of our armed forces have tobe, anyway?
Should they practice beheading before cameras, or just pissing on corpses?
If pissing on corpses is the new way, the proper procedure’s gonna have to be included in theITS and MCSS somewhere.

To: tet68

piss on them…all of them!

5 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:45:42 PM byldish (Looking forward to Independence Day)
To: Nachum
Let me see if I have this straight.
I doubt that you’ve ever had anything straight in your entire wasted life.

During war it is okay to shot and kill an enemy combatant.

But you can never ever piss on their dead bodies?

Geneva Convention II of 1949

Art 18. After each engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead andprevent their being despoiled.

There is something wrong with that mentality.

There is something wrong with you, mentally.

The dead seem to have more rights then the living.

24 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:49:47 PM byjusta-hairyape
Go fuck yourself.
As if that wasn’t enough, a gruesome grab bag of gooniness awaits below the End Of All Thngs.

What’s next here?

Ah –Herman is a concept by which we measure our Cain!

And now, for my unconventional endorsement [Herman Cain]
Cain Connections ^ | 01/16/2012 | Herman Cain

Posted on Monday, January 16, 2012 2:18:07 PM byHunton Peck

“Hunton Peck!” I get it!!!

I have been hounded in media interviews to give them the scoop on which Republican presidential candidate I ‘m going to endorse. When I respond that it will be “unconventional,” they go nuts because they cannot conceive of what that means. That’s not the way they think.

So they try to guess what it means based on conventional political practice. You will be endorsing yourself getting back into the presidential race, they guess.Nope. You will be endorsing someone that’s not in the race, they suggest.Nope.


You will be endorsing two of the remaining candidates instead of one. No again.

I was an unconventional Republican presidential primary candidate who ran an unconventional political campaign, and achieved unexpected results before I ended my quest for the position of president. Most of the people interviewing me did not get it. Namely, it wasn’t about the position as much as it is about the mission. I am still on a mission to help defeat President Obama, and to make the “9-9-9 Economic Growth and Jobs Plan” the law of the land.

An unconventional endorsement is part of a bigger message. It can also be two-dimensional, a specific candidate and a specific cause. We already know the specific cause. I’m still looking for the right candidate to “adopt” the 9-9-9 plan. If that does not happen, the cause will still be part of a bigger endorsement message, which is to make sure we defeat President Obama in 2012, and that we transfer power out of Washington and back to the people.

Besides, I’m not convinced that one-dimensional endorsements make that big a difference in the outcome of how people vote.


They probably do to some extent, but in today’s political climate most of them are not game-changers.

I want to change how voters think about candidates, not in terms of their media-focused flyspecked negatives, but to think of them in terms of their positives and their relevant experiences. I also want to change how voters think about solutions to our national crises.

Namely, stop accepting the usual political rhetoric of “what’s wrong,” because most of us already know what’s wrong. We also know that there is more than enough blame to go around for how we got so screwed up as a country. I want voters to focus on how candidates are going to fix stuff I want people to focus on real solutions and real leadership.

I know that’s unconventional political and media thinking, but the conventional thinking, the conventional approach, the conventional compromises, the conventional promises, the conventional rhetoric and the conventional endorsements are not going to save this great country.

We need a Solutions Revolution.

With a convolution ablution!

We can’t just think outside the box, as the saying goes. We must redesign the box and fill the box with what the people want, not what the political class and the media class want.

We want our power back.
I want my one minute and 20 seconds back.

1 posted on Monday, January 16, 2012 2:18:10 PM byHunton Peck
Ok – isanybody at the proclamation station still on the Cain Train?

To: Hunton Peck

So does this conclude Herman’s 15 seconds of fame?

2 posted on Monday, January 16, 2012 2:21:06 PM byUtmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)

To: Hunton Peck

Go Away.

3 posted on Monday, January 16, 2012 2:21:16 PM byReagan69 (I supported Sarah Palin and all I got was a lousy DVD !)

To: Hunton Peck

Just more attention-grabbing while saying very little. Oh,and enough of the rhyming, Herman.

I mean it!

Just go tend to your wife and leave us alone.

4 posted on Monday, January 16, 2012 2:23:12 PM byCatherineofAragon
All righty, then.
Fickle bastiges, ain’t they?
Next up – Romney Hominy:

Devastating Anti-Romney Film Surfaces
The Root ^ | 1/12/12 | Lynette Holloway

Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:07:31 PM byAntoninus

A film depicting GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney as a heartless corporate raider has emerged just as the race is heating up.

When Mitt Romney Came to Town, a film about Romney’s time as CEO of Bain Capital, “is without a doubt the most serious attack on the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign,” the Raw Story reports.

Produced by a former top Romney strategist, the film focuses on people laid off from their jobs at four of the many companies Bain Capital essentially looted, tapping into the popular discontentment with Wall Street to label Romney a “corporate raider.”

The video may be seen here:When Mitt Romney Came to Town

I don’t agree with the presentation of this video which is pure appeal to emotion. However, one can’t deny that it is hyper-effective, makes Romney look positively evil, and will put his campaign on the defensive for a long time.

For the record, I do think some of the things Bain did run the ragged edge of legality, not to mention being grossly unethical.

This video is already getting passed around on Facebook among my liberal friends. It will go viral. At that point, if the GOP is still stupid enough to nominate this bum, we deserve the epic defeat that’s coming.

1 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:07:35 PM byAntoninus
To: Antoninus
Devastating Anti-Romney Film Surfaces… Produced by a former top Romney strategist

What else can we expect when we consort with whores?

3 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:10:32 PM byWorkingClassFilth (I’m for Churchill in 1940!)
To: WorkingClassFilth

Be careful of the names you use.It sure would be awkward at the wedding to be reminded that you called your bride a whore.

6 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:14:03 PM byfhayek

To: Randy Larsen
That film is truly hard to watch without tears running down ones cheeks and an inner rage at what we have come to!

That’s exactly what the film was meant to do. I found it to be emotionally manipulative and I could wish it had more facts than interviews.But the facts it did have were devastating, particularly the ones which show Bain to be a pump-and-dump outfit–the dog-crap on the bottom of capitalism’s shoes.

31 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:11:14 PM byAntoninus (Defeat Romney–Defeat Obama.)
“The dog crap on the bottom of Capitalism’s shoes”
I amso stealing that!
Okay – we’re doing these in reverse order, with brings up –You have to OWN one to sell it!
(from before Mittens started dropping in the Primaries)

Five Ways Conservatives Will Have to Sell Their Souls if Romney ^ | January 17, 2012 | John Hawkins

Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:35:34 AM byKaslin

If you were trying to come up with the atrocious candidate imaginable to go toe-to-toe with Barack Obama in 2012, you couldn’t do much worse than Mitt Romney. He was an unpopular, moderate Governor who has lost 2 out of the 3 major elections he’s run in and whose signature issue, Romneycare, was an enormous failure. Moreover, he’s so uninspiring that he makes Bob Dole look like Ronald Reagan and that’s before you consider that his incessant flip-flopping that makes it impossible to really know where he stands on any issue.

Romney’s candidacy also runs counter to almost every political trend in the book right now. He’s the antithesis of everything the Tea Party stands for. A moderate, establishment endorsed, principle free, Rockefeller Republican. On the other hand, he’s like a bad guy straight out of central casting for the Occupy Wall Street crowd. A conscience free 1 percenter who makes $10,000 bets and lectures the public about how corporations are people while hordes of poor and middle class Americans that he fired trail in his wake telling tales of woe about how Romney made their lives into a living hell.

At one time, I thought both Gingrich and Perry were more electable than Romney. I have, however, reassessed and now believe Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, and even Huntsman, who just left the race, are ALL more electable than Mitt.


However, we cannot forget that to the majority of the American people, a Republican President IS the conservative movement. His successes are its successes, his failures are its failures, and his policies are its policies. So, if the conservative movementpricks its collective finger and signs on with Mitt Romney, it should be aware of what its signing on for.

1) Mitt Romney is the bailout king of American politics: Just about the only thing that the Tea Partiers and Occupy Wall Street agree on is that they really hated the bailouts. Yet, Mitt Romney is the bailout king of American politics. You could fairly argue that he took a bailout when he was at Bain, he supported TARP, he’s now comparing what he did at Bain to what Obama did at GM and Chrysler, and he has noted in a debate that he’s open to future bailouts. This isn’t even the “compassionate conservatism” that the base detested under Bush, it’s “moderate corporatism.” Is that what conservatives will have to defend if Mitt Romney is the nominee? Are we supposed to be rallying behind bailouts now?

2) He’s not a flip-flopper, we swear: John Kerry’s campaign in 2004 was hurt badly by the charge that he was a flip-flopper. Mitt Romney is also a flip-flopper — a far worse one than Kerry ever was. Even amongst conservatives, saying this about Romney is about as controversial as saying that the sun is hot, water is wet, or Barack Obama is a terrible President. Yet, Mitt Romney’s line is thatI’ve been as consistent as human beings can be. Are conservatives going to have to argue that a guy whose positions are so liquid that you really don’t know where he stands on anything is actually consistent? It’s ludicrous, its patently untrue, and conservatives know it.

3) Undermining capitalism to help Mitt Romney: I support capitalism because I believe it creates more prosperity, for more people, than any other system mankind has ever come up with. That doesn’t mean capitalism is flawless. After all, if capitalism had no flaws, socialism wouldn’t exist. What socialists don’t get is that capitalism, even with its flaws, is the best, most efficient, most effective way to help everyone — including the poorest Americans.


Along similar lines, it’s not particularly admirable to buy a company, load it up with debt, strip it of its assets, run it into the ground, and walk away with a tidy profit while the business goes under and thousands of poor and middle class Americans lose their jobs. Listening to conservatives talk about what a glorious thing it is when regular Americans get fired is more than a little bit disconcerting, particularly since when it was Bain’s turn to face that same kind of “creative destruction,” they had millions of dollars in debt forgiven by the FDIC in what could fairly be termed a bailout. The same goes Bain making more than 15 million dollars on GS Technologies when “a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan.” That’s a prime example of the sort of“capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down” that most Americans, including Tea Partiers, hated about TARP. Now, we’re going to be asked to defend that as one of the wonders of the free enterprise system because Mitt Romney may be the nominee?

4) Read Mitt’s lips; He wants a VAT: Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney is open to thesame sort of value added tax that has helped drive the tax rates of Western European nations into the stratosphere.

What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. “Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I’ve not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like—I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions.”

Since Mr. Romney mentioned a consumption tax, would he rule out a value-added tax?

He says he doesn’t “like the idea” of layering a VAT onto the current income tax system. But he adds that, philosophically speaking, a VAT might work as a replacement for some part of the tax code, “particularly at the corporate level,” as Paul Ryan proposed several years ago. What he doesn’t do is rule a VAT out.


You could make a case for a VAT as a REPLACEMENT for the income tax, but as an ADDITION to the current tax code, it would be a disaster that would lead to ever increasing tax rates. If there’s one thing that Republican Party has stood for over the last few years, it has been low taxes. So, what happens when Mitt Romney introduces a VAT tax, just like the one Barack Obama wants to implement? How did that work out for George H. W. Bush? How do you like the idea of seeing Republicans implement a tool that will allow the left to simultaneously drive our taxes into the stratosphere and then turn around and blame businesses because the price of all their products are going up?

5) Why support Romneycare and oppose Obamacare? Obamacare is nothing but Romneycare on a larger scale. “Even Mitt’s consultants on Romneycare, like Jonathan Gruber, have admitted that Obamacare is just Romneycare writ large,”

The truth is that the Affordable Care Act is essentially based on what we accomplished in Massachusetts. It’s the same basic structure applied nationally.

So, if Mitt’s the nominee, we go into the election with a nominee who fundamentally agrees with all the principles behind Obamacare and is opposing it (Ehr…we hope) for the sake of politics. Are we going to have to pretend that Romneycare is a success or worse, that Mitt Romney really has some big ideological problem with a healthcare plan that’s probably almost identical to what he would have come up with if he’d been President?

This is not an academic discussion. Mitt Romney can still be stopped in South Carolina and “(b)etween now and March 3rd, the last event before Super Tuesday, only 15.20% of all delegates to the Republican National Convention will be selected and the vast majority will be proportional.” Mitt Romney is the least conservative candidate remaining in the field and isn’tparticularly electable either. If you don’t want to spend the better part of the next year trying to drag this sad sack of Mitt across the finish line so he can disapoint us for the next four years, then stand up, speak out, and stop letting the mainstream media and a bunch of Beltway conservatives tell you that the race has to be over with just 1.8% of the delegates needed for a victory awarded. The Tea Party didn’t rise up, fight Barack Obama, and help the GOP have its best year in half a century just to see the Republican party ideologically dragged all the way back to the pre-Reagan years as a reward. If the establishment manages to grease the wheels for Mitt to such a degree that it turns out he’s unstoppable, then it’s still better to go down brawling instead of supporting a candidate you know is a mediocrity because you think he’s “probably going to win”. Given the type of man he is, whether Mitt wins or loses the nomination and wins or loses the presidency, you’re unlikely to look back at fighting like hell to get another nominee with anything other than pride.

1 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:35:39 AM byKaslin
A reasoned (if a bit florid) accounting.

To: Kaslin
I will not vote for mitt if he wins… and it will not be my fault… blame preibus, boehner, mcconnell, rove and all of the other blue blood, royal republican elite. PS… they hate us more than they dislike the dims.


2 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:44:11 AM byLibLieSlayer (Recession: You have no job* Depression: I have no job* Recovery: obama has no job!)
To: Kaslin

I will not vote for Mitt.

4 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:48:14 AM byBobalu (Newt is just the a-hole we need at a time like this)
This has been another edition of “Short answers to long questions”
OK – let’s see who’s joined the ranks of the RINOs lately, shall we?
It’sSeeing Red(state) !

The One Simple Reason Newt Gingrich Will Not Win The General Election: Women
RedState ^| December 07, 2011
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 10:40:55 PM bySteelfish
The One Simple Reason Newt Gingrich Will Not Win The General Election: Women
Posted by RealQuiet (Diary) December 7th
Newt Gingrich has conducted a brilliant campaign strategy since he stumbled back in late spring regarding Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity Plan. He has been masterful in debates and shown an eagerness to take on and fight the media elite. He has owned up to his personal and political mistakes and stated candidly what his positions are, though many may disagree with them but still live with them.
He hasn’t shown the brash ego and self-centeredness that reared its ugly head so many times when he was the Speaker of the House. He certainly seems to be a changed man.
Though Gingrich has engaged in his own political cronyism and playing both sides of the fence on political issues like Mitt Romney has in the past (which the Republican voter seems to be willing to overlook), there is one thing that will stop him from winning the general election:
A considerable majority of American women will not vote for him because of his past marital actions of betrayal
Most American women whether they be Democrat, independent, or Republican will not vote for a man who cheated on his previous wife(s). Among women, men like this cannot and will not be trusted. People like to point out that Ronald Reagan had two wives. The key thing is Ronald Reagan never cheated on Jane Wyman, his first wife. She left him because there was nothing left in common between them as she claimed. That is a very big difference.

1 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 10:40:59 PM bySteelfish
To: Steelfish

2 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 10:42:12 PM bygorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
To: Steelfish
They voted for Bill Clinton, in droves.

3 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 10:43:24 PM bySWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
Yeah, but having sex with Bill Clinton is something they could think about without having to shoot themselves afterwards to stop the mental replays. Newt? Not so much.

To: Steelfish
I’ve been startled by the volcanic hatred from Newt from women on the right and middle I meet. I don’t know a single woman who’ll vote for him.
If people think he’ll beat Obama with only the white male vote in his pocket, they’re nuts.

18 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 10:50:53 PM byDarkwolf377 ( It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.–C.S. Lewis)

To: Darkwolf377
I’ve been startled by the volcanic hatred from Newt from women on the right and middle I meet. I don’t know a single woman who’ll vote for him.

You can sure put my wife in that category… she HATES Newt.. I can’t get past that with her, with ANY topic.
Not that I try all that hard… re: Newt.

34 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 10:55:20 PM bySomeCallMeTim ( The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them)


To: Steelfish
Just wondering if this is one of those bitter would-be Perry-fellators who just can’t let go of the dream… (Red State kicked Palin to the curb a while back to become wholesale shills for Perry until even Erick had to admit that Anita’s little dream was over.)

131 posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 12:32:39 AM bygrey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
Red State – RINOs!
Who else is a RINO these days?
Oh no!!Et Tu, ‘stache???

John Bolton: Let’s face it, Romney’s the conservative who can beat Obama
Hot Air ^| January 21, 2012 | ALLAHPUNDIT
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 9:15:24 PM byRobinMasters
Et tu, ‘Stache?
With America’s future at stake in November, I decided to support Mitt Romney for three reasons:his Reaganaut philosophy, executive experience and general-election campaign strengths…
Mr. Obama’s manifold failings underscore the final issue: electability. Competitors and politicos are already endlessly analyzing this question, so I’ll make only three brief points.
First, there is an infinitesimally small chance that Mr. Romney will self-destruct in September or October. “No-drama Obama,” meet your match. Second, Mr. Romney has the overwhelming lead in endorsements from Republican senators and representatives—the most aware, self-interested community, bar none, regarding our nominee’s electability. No propensity there to grandiosity or suicide. Third, Mr. Romney shares one of Reagan’s most important and attractive characteristics: being critical without being angry or scornful.
The late Bill Buckley bequeathed us the right test: Pick the most conservative candidate capable of winning. That is clearly Mitt Romney.

1 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 9:15:33 PM byRobinMasters
Exploding head

To: RobinMasters

And so many people here wanted Bolton to run.

7 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 9:22:21 PM byCynicalBear
To: RobinMasters

Shut up John Bolton. Go back to talking about foreign policy, where you belong.

2 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 9:17:07 PM byUtmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
To: Utmost Certainty
Dear John… (Bolton)


That is an agricultural term for you to consider…

14 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 9:33:37 PM byptsal (E)
And of course, it’salways shoot-the-messenger time on Free Republic:

To: RobinMasters

Are you posting this to promote RINOmney?

15 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 9:33:44 PM byaMorePerfectUnion (Proud RINOmney Denialist since 2007!)
To: RobinMasters

WTF is going on with our conservative warriors? The stupid …it hurts it amuses.


16 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 9:36:09 PM byBuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
To: RobinMasters

We should have known you can’t trust a guy with a mustache like that.

35 posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 9:59:58 PM byJediJones (Newt-er Romney in 2012!)
And there ya have it –John “Nuke-em-all” Bolton – RINO!!
Next up –Ann Coulter’s nuts!

Who Castrated Ann Coulter? ^ | February 6 2012 | DAVID CATRON

Posted on Monday, February 06, 2012 10:37:28 AM byPara-Ord.45

something has happened to Coulter. I don’t have firsthand knowledge that she was kidnapped by RINO Team Six and taken to an offshore medical facility where she was forced to undergo a gruesome surgical procedure, but many of her recent columns suggest that something of the sort must have occurred. What else could explain her endorsement of Mitt Romney? Once immutable where her core convictions were concerned, she has executed a vertigo-inducing volte-face in order to promote a brazen opportunist whose positions on the big issues were the opposite of hers before he began running for President. She relentlessly trashes Republican “moderates” like McCain, yet now supports a candidate who makes the Arizona Senator look like Barry Goldwater by comparison.

It first became apparent that something awful had happened to Coulter last November, when she wrote a column asking “If Not Romney, Who? If Not Now, When?” In this surreal effusion, she claimed that the media were “pushing Newt Gingrich” and other alternatives to Romney “because they are terrified of running against him.” This, as many pointed out at the time, was preposterous. The only thing that terrifies the media about Romney is that he might not get the GOP nomination. This is the man they want to run against. Unlike Coulter, the media and the Obama reelection team know that Romney can be easily portrayed as a Wall Street parasite whose only memorable “accomplishment” as the Governor of Massachusetts was the enactment of a health “reform” law that renders him unable to credibly denounce ObamaCare.

1 posted on Monday, February 06, 2012 10:37:30 AM byPara-Ord.45
Do you remember when the Freeperati used to hoot and holler at the “libs” over said libs’ inferences that Ann Coulter was anything less than feminine, desirable and the perfect “conservative” ideologue?
Me, too.

To: Para-Ord.45

Ann does appear to have an adam’s apple. Now an article wondering about “her castration”.

Hmmmmm… could it be Ann’s given name is something like Arnold?

3 posted on Monday, February 06, 2012 10:41:57 AM bybrownsfan (Aldous Huxley and Mike Judge were right.)
To: Para-Ord.45

She never was a conservative… she was and is a republican… the same for most people who claim to be conservative, they are party first, everything else second ( there are plenty of examples to be found here on FR )…

6 posted on Monday, February 06, 2012 10:43:01 AM byjoe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band…)
To: Para-Ord.45
Who Castrated Ann Coulter?

Whoever it was, they forgot to remove the Adam’s apple as well.

8 posted on Monday, February 06, 2012 10:47:02 AM byOld Sarge (RIP FReeper Skyraider (1930-2011) – You Are Missed)
Apparently those days are gone and long forgotten.

To: Para-Ord.45

Little Annie Coultergeist! She is looking to the most pro gay agenda GOP nominee to validate Matt Drudge and all of her pals at GOProud.

10 posted on Monday, February 06, 2012 10:48:48 AM byAnti-Hillary (No Jesus, No Peace! Know Jesus, Know Peace!)
To: Para-Ord.45

She is becoming the Lady GaGa of the conservative movement.

14 posted on Monday, February 06, 2012 10:51:30 AM byI-ambush (Don’t let it bring you down, it’s only castles burning.)
Radio blah blah.

To: Para-Ord.45

My take on it is psychological:

Conservatism was the ammo that offered the most bang for the young, pugnacious Coulter. She was the rebel against rebels, the outrageous right among the left (in college, law school, etc.) Now she seeks a second adolescence, trying to recapture that feeling, and being she’s firmly in the ranks of the conservatives, she can only rebel by becoming the outrageous left among the right.

It’s nothing to do with principles, really. It’s to do with psychology. The extreme high-strung tension, the manic torrent of words, the pyrotechnic hostility; these things betray a long-running inner conflict — as do the chronic smoking and drinking.

Then too, when the inner 14-year-old finds herself in the body of a 50-year-old…that’s got to detonate the ticking bomb. Nothing gets irrelevant faster than a woman passing 50, and losing attention is not to be borne.

Coulter’s concealed Carrie is coming out blasting.

26 posted on Monday, February 06, 2012 11:01:07 AM byLady Lucky (Public education — government cheese for the brain.)
When pyrokinetics are outlawed, only outlaws will be pyrokinetics.

To: Lazamataz
I often wonder how the blind can choose a candidate what with being unable to see what they look like. It seems to be that appearance is 90% of the qualifications for the job.

I remember a few years ago when everyone hooted and hollered when ever Ann hit the screen and raved about how there had to be the ‘obligatory’ picture.

28 posted on Monday, February 06, 2012 11:04:36 AM bychooseascreennamepat (The response to 1984 is 1776.)
As do I, pardner.
As do I.
Won’tsomeonestand up for the former Free Republic pin-up girl?

To: JudyinCanada

As a parent, I learned that when a teenager is talking nonsense, it usually means they are basing their comments on having skin jn a game they don’t want you to know about. At its simplest, it means they are lying. But they may be lying for a reason unknown to you.

I think the same is going on with Coulter, et-al. I think they know or believe things we are not privy to, and end up taking a position that makes no sense to us.

Frankly, since they are obviously in a position to have information sources we don’t have, it’s a little scary.

5 posted on Monday, February 06, 2012 10:42:23 AM bycuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
Pretty fucking weak tea, that.

To: The Shrew
“I think the same is going on with Coulter, et-al. I think they know or believe things we are not privy to, and end up taking a position that makes no sense to us.”

I believe the explanation for Ann’s position is much simpler. Ann Coulter desperately wants to defeat Barrack Hussein Obama and, through the power of reason that a UM Law graduate and SCOTUS justice law clerk has at her disposal, has concluded that Mitt Romney is the best vessel through which to achieve that goal. She also seems to have come to the conclusion that addressing the economic problems this country faces is the most important piece of business before us; that among the candidates available to us Romney has the strongest bone fides in this regard; and that pragmatism and competency are more valuable attributes to a chief executive charged with accomplishing these objectives than perceived ideological purity.


In service to these position she has presented column after column of coherent and well argued exegesis that no one on this board has so much as made an effort to address on point. Rather, they have responded with standard ad hominum attacks, accusing her of apostasy, selling out for money and fame secretly courting homosexuals for some reason.And of course there are the snide comments about her looks and her being a woman of a certain age. Believe me folks, Ann is winning this dust up, as in a battle of wits she comes fully armed.

61 posted on Monday, February 06, 2012 12:17:09 PM byirish_links
Interesting proposal.

To: Lady Lucky
Then too, when the inner 14-year-old finds herself in the body of a 50-year-old…that’s got to detonate the ticking bomb. Nothing gets irrelevant faster than a woman passing 50, and losing attention is not to be borne.


Then too, when the inner 14-year-oldBOY findsHIMselfin the body of a 50-year-oldtransexual…and there’s no need to worry about the ticking clock, becausehe has no functional womb to begin with. Nothing gets irrelevant faster than atransexual passing 50, and losing attention is not to be borne.

I corrected for grammar and punctuation.

40 posted on Monday, February 06, 2012 11:24:58 AM byLazamataz (Yes, I am THAT Conservative.)
My, my.
Time for just one more – HARLOT !!!

Dobson decried Callista Gingrich as ‘eight-year mistress’ at conservative confab
Politico ^ | 1-17-12 | Haberson

Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:50:57 PM byVinL

At the now-controversial meeting of evangelicals at a Texas ranch, influential evangelical leader James Dobson made a strong pitch for Rick Santorum’s wife — and noted that Callista Gingrich was her husband’s “mistress for eight years,” questioning whether that’s what people want in a first lady, three sources told POLITICO.

The moment left several attendees at the confab at the Pressler ranch stunned, according to the sources.

It came on Saturday, before the group of about 150 conservatives voted on a candidate they wanted to back. On the third round of balloting, the vote went to Santorum, but Gingrich backers and other attendees have argued that the voting was done unfairly, and in a way that seemed to benefit the former Pennsylvania senator.

The meeting was initially described as an event to try to unite behind a single candidate to thwart Mitt Romney, but his representatives also ended up speaking there, and despite the third round of balloting — which took place after some Gingrich backers left, thinking the meeting had ended — broad consensus was never reached, according to multiple attendees.

“Dobson first talked about how great Santorum is,” recalled one source, who had first-hand knowledge of Dobson’s comment. “[He said,] ‘I want to tell you that I’ve gotten to know Karen [Santorum] and she is just lovely. She set aside two professional careers to raise these seven children. She would make a fabulous first lady role model. And Newt Gingrich’s wife, she was a mistress for eight years.”

Another source confirmed the account, and said Dobson concluded the sentiment about Callista Gingrich with, “Who do you want as your first lady?”

“It was like a chill [set into] the room,” said one source. Several people were offended by the comment, said another source, adding that it was noted among some participants that Callista Gingrich had only been married once.

1 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:51:01 PM byVinL
To: VinL

Where are those Marines at? I thing(sic)Dobson needs a golden shower…

2 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:53:46 PM byisthisnickcool (Sharia? No thanks!)

To: VinL
We all sin.

I’ll take an imperfect Christian over an intentional CULT LEADER anyday.

6 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:57:52 PM bySENTINEL (Romney is to Conservatism what Mormonism is to Christianity.)
To: VinL
“Incredible. Let he who is without sin…”

You can bet Dobson would be right there up front lobbing a grapefruit sized rock and then wondering when he is criticized for it. He is just one of those self-righteous haters who assumes he speaks for God. He forgets the Book he claims to be promoting and from which he claims to be preaching.

10 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:00:37 PM bySudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
Of course, thereare divergent views…

To: VinL

Typical knee-jerk responses here.

We have liberal mudslinging and BAM!

Dobson’s a liberal?

Idiot FReepers are swallowing it whole and slamming a good Christian conservative.

Typical. But sad.

13 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:04:11 PM byResponsibility2nd (NO LIBS! This means liberals AND libertarians (same thing) NO LIBS!)
To: Responsibility2nd

Are you saying that he did not say what the article says he said.

16 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:06:17 PM bybeandog (Just because I don’t care doesn’t mean I don’t understand)

To: beandog

I’m saying I know better than to trust Maggie Haberman, Politico, their liberal agenda, and the horse they rode in on.

That’s gonna be one swaybacked horse.

28 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:15:06 PM byResponsibility2nd (NO LIBS! This means liberals AND libertarians (same thing) NO LIBS!)
To: Responsibility2nd

Oh no! You’ve angered the Gingrich-bots! Prepare to be consumed by troll-flames!

31 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:16:47 PM byThe Black Knight (What would John Rambo do?)
To: VinL

This guy Dobson is the classic holier-than-thou idiot.
He might as well be working for Obama.
Santorum (not my choice) does NOT need him in his corner.
I know I heard Santorum say how thrilled he was to get this
group’s ringing endorsement.
I love the way things are falling out.
This makes Newt once again the subject of personal attacks
by people who don’t even deserve to be part of the political
Scratch Santorum off your list.
He’s become party to the get rid of Newt campaign.
He’s trading his silence for reassurance that he’ll get a
big boost from the so-called evangelical vote.
Wish this guy would just go away, and now I can’t even force myself to muster ANY affection for Santorum.

61 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:37:01 PM bysupremedoctrine

To: VinL
No. I’m saying, if what Dobson is saying is true, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not

Oh, I could have sworn you quoted a scripture verse about “having no sin” or something.

In any case, I don’t think Dobson’s point was virginity.

His point was being a mistress. Quite different things.

Do we want a formermistress in the White House? Valid question IMO. One which I would certainly expect a christian leader to be concerned about.

65 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:40:56 PM bySiena Dreaming

To: VinL
Divorce is not the issue here. It is a married public official screwing around on his WIVES. Newt cannot be trusted.
66 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:41:05 PM byColdwater Creek (He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty Psalm 91:)
You know, the Ban Hammer is gonna be plumb worn out before theprimaries are even over.
To: rzman21

Yeah, and let’s knock off the hypocritical judgments about Clinton. Everybody lies about sex and he has asked forgiveness for his dalliances and received absolution from Jesse Jackson. Character doesn’t matter. Go Newt.

79 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:47:52 PM bykabar

To: VinL

We are eating ourselves. And Obama will laugh all the way to his next inauguration.

12 posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:03:32 PM bymontag813
Why wait? Let’s laugh now!
See you good people next week…

Share this:

Like this:

Like Loading...
Tagged , , , , ,

6 thoughts on “Today on Tommy T’s Obsession with the Freeperati – Primary Colorless Edition

  1. left rev., ferret envy says:

    Just go ahead and shoot the duck, Tommy. It would be a mercy killing, saving him from being subjected to anymore of these…people.
    There really are no words for this level of toxicity and denial. I’m sure some of your more caffinated commenters will be up to the task of inventing some, however 😉

  2. Scott says:

    Ahh, wingnut tears… so delish. 🙂

  3. Pope Impious XXIII says:

    Thanks Tommy. I need to go find some brain bleach now, but if it weren’t for you editing the site for us to break it into small doses it would probably be cyanide.

  4. iceblue2 says:

    I particularly liked this guys comment and TAG line.
    To: Nachum
    Can no one keep their mouth shut?
    22 posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:42:31 PM by pacpam
    (action=consequence and applies in all cases – friend of victory
    I don’t know how you do it, even with a suit and breather…toxic

  5. MapleStreet says:

    Yeah, desecrating the dead of our opponents is a famiy value? Not to mention our rage isn’t that they did it, but that they got caught and are apparently gonna stand military trial – anyone ever hear of UCMJ?
    On Romney- Gingrich, Leno a couple of weeks ago said that the repub nomination was narrowing to a contest between a Mormon and a polygamist.

  6. Tommy T says:

    Thanks, all – I read each and every comment – you guys are why I do this.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: