Gay Patriot Header Image

Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:45 pm - May 12, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Strong Women

“Boys,” Anne Moir and David Jessel in Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women, “tend to seek out dares or challenges to flex their adolescent muscles in obedience to the dictates of their adolescent hormones.”  They seem particularly unruly in all male environments without the tempering influence of girls.

So Mitt Romney’s adolescent antics seem par for the course.  He was, after all, a student at an all boys school.  Whether or not it is true that he bullied a classmate, cruelly cutting his hair, he doesn’t seem to have kept up with his antics in the past 47 years, particularly in the past 43, that is, since March 21, 1969, a few days after celebrating his 22nd birthday, when he married his high school sweetheart, Ann Lois Davies.

Maybe it was dating her in 1965 that caused him to clean up his act.  Women do have that effect on men.

The prankster Mitt knew he needed to become a better person in order to merit the fetching Miss Davies.  And given that Ann had broken up with Mitt after they had “informally agreed to marriage after his senior prom in June 1965“, he knew he’d have to be on his best behavior to win her back.

Mitt very much seems devoted to Ann.  Just watch him when they’re on stage together and she’s introducing him; he’s got this goofy affectionate look, as if he can’t believe this woman would, of all the men in the world, choose him — and stick with him for more than four decades:

So perhaps Romney bullied a classmate.  The story, if true, paints a picture of a callous, insensitive young man.  But, things have changed for that young man in the intervening forty-odd years.  The adolescent Mitt Romney, however, is not running for president.  The former Ann Davies’s husband is.

Share

151 Comments

  1. Dan,
    Most males don’t start out as Lord of the Flies. But, hey, every group needs one, right? I guess we can apply that logic to the softening effect Michelle Obama has had on Barack Obama’s “anarchist” youthful past, right?

    And, as to whether or not it was true that he bullied a classmate, let’s keep in mind that someone who wasn’t even there and came to Romney’s defense said it did happen, but it was harmless haircut. If Romney doesn’t remember, I’m sure the peroxide-blond who got the trim did. As would most who either were the agressor or object of aggression. But, then, I don’t recall all of the bugs I’ve stepped on in my past, either, which I’d gather this boy was to him.

    Five people said they witnessed it according to the Washington Post.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 7:06 pm - May 12, 2012

  2. Nope, not five, Cinesnatch. Post had included at least one who said he saw it, but later said he only heard about it when the paper approached him.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 12, 2012 @ 7:09 pm - May 12, 2012

  3. 1) Matthew Friedemann
    2) Phillip Maxwell
    3) Thomas Buford
    4) David Seed
    5) Unidentified

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 7:13 pm - May 12, 2012

  4. Sorry won’t rely on them for the Unidentified. That brings it down to 4. May check my source, believe one of those 4 only heard of it recently, but really who cares. This is when he was in high school. Maybe it’s true. Maybe it’s not. It is, as per the post, irrelevant. He wasn’t married then; he is married now.

    And Maxwell is a Democrat.

    And please tell me when I have held Mr. Obama’s high school years against him?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 12, 2012 @ 7:26 pm - May 12, 2012

  5. And please tell me when I have held Mr. Obama’s high school years against him?

    Never said you did. But, you certainly hold Obama’s college years against him.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 7:41 pm - May 12, 2012

  6. Never said you did. But, you certainly hold Obama’s college years against him.

    Too bad the alleged “mainstream” media didn’t. Maybe Presidunce Corky McShortbus wouldn’t now be bully-in-chief.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — May 12, 2012 @ 8:24 pm - May 12, 2012

  7. I take it you never have worked with the mentally disabled, or if you have, you hold them in contempt.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 8:33 pm - May 12, 2012

  8. Never said you did. But, you certainly hold Obama’s college years against him.

    The ideological influences of the President of the United States are significant, even if those influences influenced the president in college.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 12, 2012 @ 9:24 pm - May 12, 2012

  9. So is the psychological makeup, especially in light of Romney’s recent response.

    Or, maybe if you found out someone who molested a child in his youth, but got softened by the institution of marriage, was fit enough to watch your children.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 9:29 pm - May 12, 2012

  10. The more the Left continues to dig up decades-old anecdotes about Romney, the more they reveal their own hypocrisy, both in their refusal to (1) investigate/report the same type of anecdotal evidence about Obama, and (2) to interpret/judge the stories about Obama by the same standards they apply to Romney (or conservatives generally).

    I noticed that NYTimes imbecile/race-baiter Charles Blow had this to say about the incident: “If the haircutting incident happened as described, it’s not a prank or hijinks or even simple bullying. It’s an assault.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/opinion/blow-mean-boys.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    However, it’s leftists like Blow who consistently dismiss and/or chuckle about GOP candidates being hit by gay ‘activists’ with glitter bombs. Legally, they’re both assaults, but of course the only one liberals think is an outrage is the one that happened almost half a century ago.

    Comment by Sean A — May 12, 2012 @ 10:08 pm - May 12, 2012

  11. Let’s assume it’s true, when Romney was a teenager, he cut some guy’s hair. That was out of line, and an assault at common law.

    How old was Ted Kennedy when he left Mary Jo Kopechne to die at Chappaquiddick? And that was what, involuntary manslaughter? Do Democrats to this day acknowlege that disqualified him from seeking re-election to the Senate, much less seeking the Presidency?

    Comment by Conservative Guy — May 12, 2012 @ 10:53 pm - May 12, 2012

  12. #9: “Or, maybe if you found out someone who molested a child in his youth, but got softened by the institution of marriage, was fit enough to watch your children.”

    Are you actually analogizing the psychological makeup of someone who held down and cut the hair of a classmate with the psychological makeup of a child molester? Really?

    Comment by Sean A — May 12, 2012 @ 11:12 pm - May 12, 2012

  13. Are you actually analogizing a young boy who was publicly overpowered and humiliated because he was different with a grown politician getting glitter thrown in his face because he allows religion to dictate his legislative mindset? Really?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 13, 2012 @ 12:40 am - May 13, 2012

  14. Hi Dan,
    I have to say, I am a bit surprised by your approach to this incident: Focusing on the bullying, but not the way Romney has handled it.

    Your approach (and that of many others defending Gov Romney) is to try a number of avenues:

    a) discredit it as untrue–the witnesses are suspect, etc.

    And Maxwell is a Democrat.

    That is a disappointing argument to make–I guess the witnesses were all Democrats, aiming to sabotage Gov Romney.

    b) Suggest that even if it happened, it was not important.

    So Mitt Romney’s adolescent antics seem par for the course. He was, after all, a student at an all boys school. .

    c) and anyway, he has cleaned up his act, since he married Ann.

    Whether or not it is true that he bullied a classmate, cruelly cutting his hair, he doesn’t seem to have kept up with his antics in the past 47 years, particularly in the past 43, that is since March 21, 1969, a few days after celebrating his 22nd birthday, when he married his high school sweetheart, Ann Lois Davies

    Your conclusion, a la Bill O’Reilly, is to suggest that:

    but really who cares. This is when he was in high school. Maybe it’s true. Maybe it’s not. It is, as per the post, irrelevant. He wasn’t married then; he is married now.

    None of these arguments are even VAGUELY relevant to what is really important. I have chatted with TL in another one of your posts, and the point I made there, I make here:

    I would ask you to think and reflect on what the implications are of what you are saying about Mitt Romney’s approach to handling this current situation. Would you remember something like this–[the planning, the hunting], the holding down, the cutting, jeering, screaming, crying –if you had seen it or actively participated in it or LED it–during your stay at an elite private school? If you perhaps had planned it, carried it out, and then felt OK about it at the time? You would forget about it so well, that when someone (actually “someones” you knew and were perhaps friends with at that earlier time) brought it up even years later, you could legitimately and completely honestly say–”I have no memory of what you are talking about”? Is that what you are saying?

    The issue is Gov Romney’s inability to remember what happened, in an action that occurred when he was NOT a child, but when he was EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD, Dan. The denial of any memory of the incident by Gov Romney does NOT pass the BS test, Dan.

    It is a simple issue: Either deny it happened and confront your accusers OR accept that it did happen, and man up and take responsibility for some pretty foul behaviour when he was younger. It is a question of character, Dan. And Gov Romney is showing some worrying signs that we should all take notice of, for a man who might be our President, come next January. And if he can’t really remember whether he did this or not, we have way bigger problems, if he becomes President, as CS pointed out in post #1 above…

    Comment by Cas — May 13, 2012 @ 4:18 am - May 13, 2012

  15. #13: “Are you actually analogizing a young boy who was publicly overpowered and humiliated because he was different with a grown politician getting glitter thrown in his face because he allows religion to dictate his legislative mindset? Really?”

    Yes. Like I said, legally, they’re both assaults.

    Now please explain how the psychological makeup of a teenage male who holds down a male classmate and cuts his hair is analogous to the psychological makeup of a young male who sexually molests a child.

    Comment by Sean A — May 13, 2012 @ 6:14 am - May 13, 2012

  16. There IS nothing analogous between the professional victims on the left and we on the right.

    That whole, “ends justify the means” thing, ya know.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 13, 2012 @ 8:16 am - May 13, 2012

  17. So the guy who said “I like being able to fire people” assaulted a kid when he was a teenager, not alone, but as a ringleader? Who could have guessed. I’d say Romney seems to have operated from a perspective of “I’m only a winner if you lose” pretty much his entire life. And it’s not exactly hidden – he lets his quarter-billionaire white guy privilege show on pretty much a daily basis.

    And also, this is off-topic, but I can’t help but notice in all the apologias for Romney’s stance on gay marriage over the past several days, our hosts have assiduously left out one pretty major detail: Romney didn’t just reflexively affirm his opposition to same-sex marriage after Obama affirmed his support – he came out in favor of an amendment to the US Constitution to prohibit it. So he’s morphing more and more into Bush II with each passing day. He had already embraced Bush’s disastrous economic snake oil; now he’s down with Bush on amending the constitution to deny rights to a minority group, something that the country has been wise enough to never do in its entire history.

    I really have to question the psychology of anyone who continues to support a candidate who wants to enshrine second-class status for them in the US Constitution. How can anyone hate themselves that much as to not only agree that they should be second-class, but to vocally support and vote for the guy who says he wants to make it happen? Is this what they call “Stockholm Syndrome,” or is it more like that thing your older brother would do to you when you were a kid, grabbing your arm and using it to hit you in the face while saying “stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!” I mean, I’m pretty sure none of you guys are close enough to the top 1% in income or wealth to where the fawning attitude of the Republicans to wealth really does you any good, so I fail to see where your servile promotion of people who not only don’t like you, but actually make opportunities for themselves to TELL you they don’t like you, is ever going to offer any return other than sand kicked in your teeth. But maybe you like that, for whatever screwed up reason that eludes most rational people. With any luck, there are enough of us to save you from yourselves come November.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 10:23 am - May 13, 2012

  18. There goes Mizzzzz OfArk once again…

    Electing to live her life as a card-carrying member of the Perpetually Aggrieved, the adorably clueless young lady decides that we’re all equally as oppressed.

    It’s going to be a very dark time do these people come fall.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 13, 2012 @ 10:27 am - May 13, 2012

  19. Can’t help but notice Sharia, you never address the points anyone makes, opting instead to personally attack people you’ve never met.

    It doesn’t really refute anything or prove your point of view (whatever that may be – from what I’ve seen, your point of view seems to boil down to nothing other than “insult anyone who says something I don’t already agree with”) but I suppose it works with audiences who aren’t all that bright.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 10:34 am - May 13, 2012

  20. This is classic…

    With any luck, there are enough of us to save you from yourselves come November.

    I think we should leave that on the board for the remainder of the day so everyone can enjoy Ms. OfArk’s textbook fascism-with-a-smiley-face

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 13, 2012 @ 10:35 am - May 13, 2012

  21. Can’t help but notice Sharia, you never address the points anyone makes, opting instead to personally attack people you’ve never met.

    You’ve only just arrived, young lady, so I’ll restate my position…

    There is no argument to be had with the left, who are by definition incapable of tolerating dissent. The left has proven itself, time and again, completely adept at holding two contrary points of view simultaneously, and long ago decided that their ultimate goal is so very righteous, attaining it by any means necessary is perfectly acceptable.

    The left is morally bankrupt, ethically bereft, and about as worthy of my time as a pule of dog shit.

    So yes, I’m not going to bother addressing any of your “points,” because to be frank, none of you are intellectually capable of understanding that debate does not mean, shut up and let us save you.”

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 13, 2012 @ 10:41 am - May 13, 2012

  22. Shorter Sharia: “I really can’t defend amending the constitution to make me a second-class citizen, so instead I’ll just call you a poopy-head but take 4 paragraphs to do it.”

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 10:44 am - May 13, 2012

  23. Can’t help but notice Sharia, you never address the points anyone makes, opting instead to personally attack people you’ve never met.

    Oh Lord. She really doesn’t know me at all, does she? 🙂

    Whatever gets you through the election, kiddo.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 13, 2012 @ 10:46 am - May 13, 2012

  24. Thankfully, no, I do not know you – I know just enough to let me know that this is my good fortune, because not only are you an obviously very unhappy person, you’re also not very smart.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 10:48 am - May 13, 2012

  25. Shorter Sharia: “I really can’t defend amending the constitution to make me a second-class citizen, so instead I’ll just call you a poopy-head but take 4 paragraphs to do it.”

    Actually, I took four paragraphs to say I have absolutely no respect for either your worldview, primarily because you’re a dangerously incompetent thug.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 13, 2012 @ 10:49 am - May 13, 2012

  26. Whatever. I’ve always found it a good practice to steer clear of people who proclaim their psychic abilities, so why don’t you just go sit over in the corner there and play with your crystal ball, since you have nothing to add to any conversation.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 10:52 am - May 13, 2012

  27. Whatever. I’ve always found it a good practice to steer clear of people who proclaim their psychic abilities, so why don’t you just go sit over in the corner there and play with your crystal ball, since you have nothing to add to any conversation.

    See what I mean, kids? The impudent young lady shoes up to a blog she read about on some shitstain’s diarrhetic website, then has the temerity to tell me to shut up.

    Ah yes, Today’s Democrat Party: All of the hate, Twice the fascism.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 13, 2012 @ 10:56 am - May 13, 2012

  28. I didn’t tell you to shut up. I said you had nothing of value to add to any conversation, which you had already told everyone yourself. Because you’re psychic and so you already know – oftentimes just from someone’s nym! – everything about every person you see online. So you know in advance who has something worthwhile (that agrees with what you’ve already decided, in every minute detail) to say, and who doesn’t (anyone who might challenge the veracity of your assumptions).

    But hey, it’s ok if that’s your way. It’s not like it’s ever moved the world forward in any way, but that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. But no one is fooled with the insults in place of a real point schtick. It doesn’t work for you any better than it does for ND30.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 11:03 am - May 13, 2012

  29. I see Cas-hole has some leftist company now. It’s funny (in a sick and sad way) to watch you vile bastards try to push this story. Cas-hole calls it ” ..some pretty foul behaviour when he was younger”. Standard schoolboy pranks and Cas-hole is about to shit its pants (or its panties), and all of this over a haircut. How about the legacy media covering the Mocha Messiah getting his dick sucked while smoking crack or eating dog meat or doing blow while when he was in prep school?
    This is simple: if you jerkoffs could hold up ANYTHING from this SOB’s first term as a positive accomplishment, you’d be doing just that. You’re desperate, and it shows.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 11:03 am - May 13, 2012

  30. It doesn’t work for you any better than it does for ND30.

    On the contrary. You continue to engage me.

    You’re not only dangerous and incompetent, you’re also quite obtuse.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 13, 2012 @ 11:05 am - May 13, 2012

  31. Always glad to be able to make some miserable soul feel better about themselves.

    You’re welcome.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 11:09 am - May 13, 2012

  32. Um, Jman? Dan’t the one who brought it up.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 11:10 am - May 13, 2012

  33. “Dan’t (sic) the one who brought it up”

    I’ll be damned! You’re as smart as a whip.
    I suspect that Dan doesn’t assign much probative value to the story, as some desperate and deluded leftist assholes do. But no problem. Its obvious to me that Barry McClosetFag has a clear path to electoral victory come November as long as he continues to campaign on (nearly) 50 year old prep school hazing incidents. And if that’s what he and his assigns want to throw into the arena (and then cry “UNCIVIL DISCOURSE”, like all leftist scum), I say go for it.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 11:20 am - May 13, 2012

  34. Barry McClosetFag

    Chuckle.

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 11:28 am - May 13, 2012

  35. It seems a bit odd to me that, on a gay blog, calling someone a “fag” is such a popular “insult.” Self-hating, much?

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 11:36 am - May 13, 2012

  36. This thread is a neat little example of the warped world Cinesnatch lives in. Here’s the situation.

    1. WaPo ran a story about Willard having done something nasty in high school.
    2. It was a shoddy piece of work (a hit piece). WaPo didn’t get its facts lined up.
    3. For example, one of the sources WaPo cited as “long disturbed by the incident”, Stu White, had in fact only ever heard of the incident from WaPo. WaPo had to walk it its use of him, and did so in underhanded fashion i.e. without issuing a correction.
    4. And according to John Lauber’s surviving family, WaPo’s depiction of the young Lauber is so far off base as to drive them nearly to tears. They don’t want to be in the public spotlight so they aren’t going to get into counter-charges, but to any fair-minded person, the intensity of their sense of John being hurt by WaPo should place the entire piece in suspicion.
    5. Finally, the main point is this: Everyone does something ill-conceived, whether wrong or just very embarassing, in high school at some point. It is a time when people experiment with “ways of being in the world” and run some unusually poor experiments. What each person does (or perhaps fails to do), that they later find shameful if not unbelievable, will of course vary. But, for everyone “it’s something”. Even Cinesnatch. So, even if the WaPo story were true, no one ought to care because otherwise, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. Not even Cinesnatch. Or Obama.
    6. And a corollary of “5” is this: The media has never displayed any curiousity whatever about Obama’s high school years. Or even his college years. About both of which, we still know almost nothing to this day. Why, then, are they investigating Romney’s?

    In short, this non-“story” is rife with shoddy work, political malice – including but not limited to WaPo’s effective bullying of John Lauber’s surviving family – and double standards.

    But Cinesnatch just loves it. He laps it up. What does Cinesnatch manage to make of it, in this thread?

    a. “Lord of the Flies”. Of course there is a theoretical chance that the story might be untrue, but let’s only pay lip service to that; every other word of comment should rain the most vicious imagery down upon Romney, like “aggressor”, “aggression”, an assumption that this “boy” was just a “bug” for Romney to “step on”, and so forth. Hey, let’s throw in a child molester comparison.
    b. WaPo is right. That must not be questioned. Oh wait – Of course we have to pay lip service to the possibility of WaPo being wrong, and we will pay that lip service. But again, every other word of comment must assume, and thus suggest, the opposite: that WaPo’s reporting is unquestionably right.
    c. Don’t anyone dare point out that the media never investigated Obama’s college years. If you do, that means *you* are “trying to hold Obama’s college years against him.” Note the pre-empting, aggressive quality of Cinesnatch’s stance there: the real point is of course that one can’t hold Obama’s college years against him even if one would want to, because nobody knows anything about them. But Cinesnatch manages to elide that and make it sound like you’re wrong for daring to have any curiousity about what Obama did in college.

    Cinesnatch, thanks again for giving us the neat little illustration of the biased, ugly world you apparently live in. Really: You are one of the more ugly-spirited people I’ve met. You have a good act: a way to seem like a nice guy, a pretense that you’re only defending the defenseless, etc. But I see through you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 11:38 am - May 13, 2012

  37. To the author of the previous post: put away your Fred’s University degree in Leftist Pop Psychology. Do it for the following:

    1) You’re wrong (an ideological hazard for you)
    2) It represents a glaring contradiction of what YOU wrote in your post #28, and I quote “..Because you’re psychic and so you already know – oftentimes just from someone’s nym! – everything about every person you see online.”
    So you earlier chided a person for (allegedly) engaging in the same behavior that you (obviously) have just engaged in yourself.
    Hypocrite much?
    You do see how this works, right?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 11:46 am - May 13, 2012

  38. Ooops! Issuing a correction:
    Since ILC got in at @36, I amend my #37 to read “To the author of the #35.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 11:50 am - May 13, 2012

  39. Heh 🙂 No problem. It happens.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 11:52 am - May 13, 2012

  40. ILC:
    Is there any way that I can practice those clickable links and smiley faces, without posting them, until I get the commands down?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 11:55 am - May 13, 2012

  41. Most people are awful as teenager, boys and girls. Some are lucky to grow up, others don’t. Mitt chose wisely in marrying Ann, but a big part of it was he was ready to grow up. Also, the WaPo article is mostly fabrication, come on, all of us did stupid things as teenagers, otherwise we wouldn’t be human.

    Comment by Leah — May 13, 2012 @ 11:56 am - May 13, 2012

  42. Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of punctuation marks, Jman, but I posed a question after noting that I found it odd that “fag” would be used as an insult on a gay blog. It’s like saying, “Obama is bad and wrong about everything – he’s a homosexual!” I don’t get why a gay person would think that calling someone gay is an insult, so I asked if it was self-hating behavoir.

    So, is it? If it isn’t, why is “fag” so popular as an insult here?

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 11:58 am - May 13, 2012

  43. Jman: No one is going to care if you practice in public. Pick an old thread if you want.

    I’d love to explain how to do them, but the comment system would garble my explanation (it would take my attempt to explain how to do it, as doing it, and then my explanation would make no sense). If someone else knows how to explain, please step in.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 12:04 pm - May 13, 2012

  44. @42:

    1. I understand punctuation very well. I can even diagram sentences.
    2. You assume I’m gay. How did you arrive at that?
    3. I don’t think calling someone gay is an insult; I used the word ‘fag’. I use it as a pejorative (clearly) to mean: punk, phony, wimp, pussy, coward, etc. My use of it is independent of the subject’s sexual orientation.
    4. I’m an occasional reader and extremely infrequent poster to this blog. But I don’t see people using ‘fag’ very often. You claim that ” (its)so popular as an insult here”. Again, how did you arrive at that?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 12:08 pm - May 13, 2012

  45. why is “fag” so popular as an insult

    JoA, South Park has an important documentary on the word, that you apparently need to view: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e12-the-f-word

    After viewing the completet 22 minutes of it, JoA, you may find that you have entered the 21st century at last. Heck, you may even find that the word applies to…. your kind of behavior.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 12:19 pm - May 13, 2012

  46. Has it occurred to anyone else here that this entire exercise is completely pointless???

    We’re not going to vote for the SCOAMF, regardless of whatever drivel comes flying out of his pie hole, so for Vince or anyone else to continue demanding “debate” with their little fists all clenched and shit is not only futile, but exceedingly disingenuous (just ask Auntie Dogshit if you don’t believe me).

    I’ve been posting here since before the 04 elections, and my position on engaging these is well known: mockery and bloody constraint (God forbid). I’m not about to change that, but these assclowns from Sadly, We Suck seem to think they have a hand here, when everybody already seems to know the situation.

    Argue with them all you wish, but just remember you’re really just pissing into the wind.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 13, 2012 @ 12:32 pm - May 13, 2012

  47. “My kind of behavoir?” What kind of behavoir would that be, exactly? Disagreeing with you? Asking questions you can’t answer or making points you can’t refute?

    Gee, I guess I’m a fag then. At least I have good company, since by your definition pretty much every scientist, inventor, etc. has been a fag.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 12:33 pm - May 13, 2012

  48. @46:

    You keep mispelling ‘behavior’ as ‘behavoir’. maybe you’re not as smart as you think you are.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 12:44 pm - May 13, 2012

  49. “My kind of behavoir?” What kind of behavoir would that be, exactly?

    You didn’t watch the episode, did you? Try again.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - May 13, 2012

  50. P.S. I agree with Jman: congrats on the fine spelling.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - May 13, 2012

  51. You didn’t capitalize “maybe.” I guess this proves you’re dumb.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 1:01 pm - May 13, 2012

  52. No, I didn’t watch the episode. I’ve probably already seen it anyway. South Park can be amusing, but I wouldn’t take it as a guide to behavIOr. Well, I might if I was 12.

    Still find it odd that “fag” would be a favorite word to use to insult someone on a gay blog, no matter what South Park might have to say about it.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 1:05 pm - May 13, 2012

  53. No, it doesn’t. What it does prove is that you don’t like it when someone plays spell checker with you, as you have already done to a previous poster (on this or another very recent thread).
    So, does this prove you’re a hypocrite and a phony?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 1:06 pm - May 13, 2012

  54. More than anything, I continue to be astounded by the glossing-over here of Romney’s pledge of support for enshrining second-class status for gays in the US Constitution.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 1:06 pm - May 13, 2012

  55. As to this:

    The denial of any memory of the incident by Gov Romney does NOT pass the BS test, Dan.

    No, it makes sense that he can’t remember… IF, in fact, WaPo got the story wrong. As Lauber’s surviving family now implies. But that’s a possibility that Cas, like Cinesnatch, can’t consider in practice (just pay lip service to the possibility, then proceed with Romney Is Guilty! as though you hadn’t).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 1:06 pm - May 13, 2012

  56. I’ve probably already seen it anyway.

    Then I guess you can’t remember it. Try again. Try harder.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 1:08 pm - May 13, 2012

  57. Jman – I didn’t play spell-checker. I pointed out the use of the wrong word. You’re means “you are” not “belonging to you.” It’s not a misspelling, it’s a completely different word. I’m like most people – there are a few words I commonly use that for whatever reason, I can never remember how to spell correctly. Behavior is one of them. Separate is another. If that makes me a retard, then you’re a drooling moron for failing to capitalize the first letter of a sentence. I mean, they teach that in kindergarten.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 1:11 pm - May 13, 2012

  58. But don’t try too hard. All that effort together with your befuddlement re: ‘glossing over’ and you might hemorrhage.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 1:12 pm - May 13, 2012

  59. Trust fund bully Willard Rmoney says he doesn’t recall the incident. The other witnesses say it was an unforgettable experience. Chasing down and tackling then viciously abusing a kid who is crying in terror and screaming for help would, I would think, not be the sort of thing that just slips from one’s mind.

    Had Willard said something like “Yes, and I am ashamed of myself. I did many things I shouldn’t have in my youth – though that is no excuse – but that was the most shameful thing I ever did. As I grew older I hid my shame. I I set the worst possible example and I have regretted it all these years. I am truly sorry.” instead of absurdly claiming he didn’t remember it then I would have respected him. But no, he cravenly lied and demonstrated a complete failure of leadership. He’s still nothing but a trust fund bully who feels entitled to anything and everything. Pah.

    Comment by PeeJ — May 13, 2012 @ 1:15 pm - May 13, 2012

  60. I take that to mean that you’re fully supportive of being called out as a second-class citizen in our nation’s most important guide to legal principles.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - May 13, 2012

  61. So misspelling a word (which in some cases results in an entirely different word with an entirely different meaning) is less of a grammatical offense (retard vs drooling moron) than not capitalizing the first word of a sentence, which doesn’t change the meaning of the word?
    And f**king up ‘behavior’ after ILC spelled it correctly in the post that you were responding to?
    You’re a real Rhodes scholar.
    And an asshole, but that’s been obvious since you showed up.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 1:18 pm - May 13, 2012

  62. Please elaborate for us the different meaning of the misspelled “behavoir”.

    “You’re” used in place of “your” is not a misspelling. You have to add an apostrophe and an extra letter to come up with that, and yes, it has a different meaning than “your.” It’s not a spelling error, it’s a wrong word error.

    There are hundreds of thousands of words in the English language, so, yeah, misspelling one of them is not as huge an error as failing to capitalize the beginning of a sentence, because that’s a single, unchanging rule, which means you should be able to remember to do it.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 1:24 pm - May 13, 2012

  63. More than anything, I continue to be astounded by the glossing-over here of Romney’s pledge of support for enshrining second-class status for gays in the US Constitution.

    And what impresses me, JoA, is your ability to gloss over Obama’s incompetence – for example, his dangerous performance on the economy – to focus on an extremely narrow set of issues, the so-called “gay” issues.

    Just curious: How do you feel about the fact that Obama has adopted virtually every aspect of the Bush security policy? Like re-upping the Patriot Act and Guantanamo. Even the Iraq War, Obama ended only slowly – following a timetable previously laid out by the Bush administration. He did what Bush planned, and only that. As a liberal you probably objected to all those things, right? Certainly under Bush, maybe still under Obama too. But they’re all forgotten now because Obama blew you a kiss (with no substantive change to DOMA or anything) on gay marriage, right?

    I feel about Romney’s opposition to gay marriage the same way I felt about Bush’s: It’s sad, but no constitutional amendment is going to be passed – no serious person can possibly think it has a snowball’s chance in hell – and I am not a single-issue voter. Gays should be worry about the security issues and the economic-financial issues, and I am.

    Not that I am definitely going to vote for Romney. I don’t especially like or admire Romney. (And I didn’t Bush, either.) But the alternative is even worse. I may not vote at all.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 1:27 pm - May 13, 2012

  64. You’re getting a mental hernia with all of that straining.
    Any sentient reader knew what the poster (MSM?) meant in context, so in fact it IS a mispelling, or are you unaware of what a homonym is?
    You ARE a fag (phony).
    See my #44 and ILC’s #45 for edification (hey, that’s a pretty big word for a ‘drooling moron’, eh?).
    And you still haven’t answered either myself no ILC, which agian makes you a fag (coward).
    Your (spelled correctly again, and capitalized too!!) turn, d-bag.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 1:31 pm - May 13, 2012

  65. Whoops! It’s a-g-a-i-n.
    I found and corrected my own mistake. Now JennofArkhole doesn’t have to labor over it.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 1:33 pm - May 13, 2012

  66. Found another one….should be “…myself noR ILC..”
    Beat you to it, Perry White.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 1:35 pm - May 13, 2012

  67. Well, ILC and Eric, you guys really love to get personal and overemotional about other commenters. Not sure why.

    Happy mother’s day to everyone.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 13, 2012 @ 1:51 pm - May 13, 2012

  68. You’re the one who wanted to play schoolmarm, Jman. If you now find it tiresome, you have only yourself to blame for choosing that as a topic you’d rather discuss than your support for your party’s nominee who favors changing the constitution to make you a second-class citizen. I can understand why you don’t want to talk about that, because it’s really impossible to rationally explain it.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 1:53 pm - May 13, 2012

  69. (yawn)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 2:06 pm - May 13, 2012

  70. Nice switch. You can’t answer my charge/assertion, so you switch gears.
    You started the ‘schoolmarm’ shit, and enthusiastically continued to up the ante until you saw that I’m far better at ‘posting poker’ than you are. It’s not me that’s tired of it; your offer to change the subject is your version of “No mas!” (do I have to translate that for you, professor?).
    Further, how do you know who I support? What makes you think I’m gay? Who, other than you, says anything about ‘changing the Constitition’?
    Not expecting an answer to these because you’re (Look! I got it right! Yay!) a FAG (punk, phony, pussy, coward, hypocrite).
    And there are many rational reasons why a person would be in favor maintaining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, but you’re (bingo!) too f**king IRRATIONAL and petulant to understand any of them.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 13, 2012 @ 2:10 pm - May 13, 2012

  71. (yawn)

    I second that, ILC. This is just the latest bright, shiny object tossed up to distract the American people from Presidunce Corky McShortbus and his abysmal record. Let’s move on, shall we? I suspect that doing so will have the added benefit of causing the resident trolls to self-immolate, but I’ll try not to get my hopes up.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — May 13, 2012 @ 2:12 pm - May 13, 2012

  72. And what impresses me, JoA, is your ability to gloss over Obama’s incompetence

    Move those goalposts! When you got nothing, change the topic! The only surprise is that it took so long. The lame-ass tactic of demonizing and vilifying, the standard conservative ad hominem was of course featured earlier.

    Comment by PeeJ — May 13, 2012 @ 2:26 pm - May 13, 2012

  73. I’m sure there were Jews in Germany who favored Hitler’s economic policies. I’m sure they thought to themselves, “he doesn’t REALLY mean it when he says we’re roaches…he’s just saying that to win the base.”

    Am I saying Romney is Hitler? Nope. I’m saying that Romney is clearly demonstrating that the votes of people who hate you mean more to him than your votes. Yet you’re rewarding him with unwavering fealty.

    Here’s Dan saying, “that was a long time ago that he held that kid down and cut his hair.” I agree, but then again it’s not really surprising that at age 65, Romney’s not still assaulting people to curry favor with the in-crowd. No, now he’s currying favor with the in-crowd by promising to do everything in his power to make you second-class citizens.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 2:28 pm - May 13, 2012

  74. More than anything, I continue to be astounded by the glossing-over here of Romney’s pledge of support for enshrining second-class status for gays in the US Constitution.

    How does the Federal Marriage Amendment enshrine “second-class status”? Just because you say it does, doesn’t mean it does.

    Furthermore, what does gay marriage have to do with anything? As others have said, it is nothing but a distraction from the important issues (and Obama hasn’t even done anything substantial with regards to the matter).

    PeeJ @ #59, you’re making the assumption that the article in the Washington Post was factual, when its factuality is questionable.

    PeeJ @ #71, this whole discussion about gay marriage and what Romney did in high school is completely irrelevant and only distracts from the important issues. It is not moving the goalpoasts to stop talking about distractions and re-focus on the important issues.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 13, 2012 @ 2:49 pm - May 13, 2012

  75. Comment by PeeJ

    (zzzzzzz….. thunk)

    [the standard] Jews in Germany [nonsense, yadda yadda]

    Seriously, JoA, it’s called “the twenty-first century”. Look into joining it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 2:50 pm - May 13, 2012

  76. I’m sure there were Jews in Germany who favored Hitler’s economic policies. I’m sure they thought to themselves, “he doesn’t REALLY mean it when he says we’re roaches…he’s just saying that to win the base.”

    Am I saying Romney is Hitler? Nope.

    In order for the comparison made in your first paragraph to be valid, you would have to compare Romney to Hitler. If Romney actually wanted to set up concentration camps for gay people, you might have a point. But you don’t.

    I’m saying that Romney is clearly demonstrating that the votes of people who hate you mean more to him than your votes.

    There isn’t as much hatred on the right as you see to think there is.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 13, 2012 @ 2:53 pm - May 13, 2012

  77. That should be “as you seem to think there is.”

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 13, 2012 @ 2:54 pm - May 13, 2012

  78. There isn’t as much hatred on the right as you see to think there is.

    Yeah, how anyone would get the idea there was just from watching the news, listening to the candidates, reading this blog, I have no idea!

    Comment by PeeJ — May 13, 2012 @ 2:58 pm - May 13, 2012

  79. #68: “I can understand why you don’t want to talk about that, because it’s really impossible to rationally explain it.”

    You’re wrong, JennOfArk. There are many rational explanations and legitimate reasons for why conservative gays support politicians who oppose redefining marriage to mean something other than a union between a man and a woman. Intellectual discussions concerning precisely that issue have been taking place on this blog for years. But like hundreds of boring, intellectually-incurious liberals that have come before you, you’re not interested in those discussions or understanding why gay conservatives have beliefs that are different from your own. You said it yourself: ‘it’s really impossible to rationally explain it.’ Thus, you admit that you’re not here to learn anything or understand gay conservatives and what they truly believe.

    You’re only interested in this blog because it provides you with a forum to post patronizing comments containing stale strawmen arguments that even you have the smarts to shoot down. Do you really think you’re the first narcissistic liberal to come on this blog and diagnose all of us as ‘self-hating gays’ or victims of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’? Do you really have no idea how insipid and ignorant you sound? You’ve concluded all on your own that all gay conservatives believe what they believe because they HATE THEMSELVES. Well, congrats–good job–why would ANYONE try to have a rational discussion with you? What are we supposed to argue? “No, no, no, REALLY, JennOfArk, I don’t hate myself! I promise! Please believe me! Your opinion means the WORLD to me!”

    The fact is, a silly, whimsical conclusion like that is all you’re capable of. If you actually came to this blog trying to understand WHAT gay conservatives actually believe and WHY, you would fold like a lawn chair. You don’t have the smarts to debate points of view you disagree with in good faith–based on FACTS, free of the strawmen and talking points you’ve been spoon-fed by the Democratic Party. All you have are strawmen and insults, and we’ve heard all of this inane blathering before. Not a syllable of what you’ve typed is unique or insightful in any way.

    Comment by Sean A — May 13, 2012 @ 2:58 pm - May 13, 2012

  80. Yeah, how anyone would get the idea there was just from watching the news, listening to the candidates, reading this blog, I have no idea!

    Of course, the left’s definition of hatred is “anything short of full celebration of everything the LGBT community demands, unless you are a Democrat/liberal.”

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 13, 2012 @ 3:07 pm - May 13, 2012

  81. Well said, Sean A. I’ve been reading this blog for a little over a year, and the “self-hating” slur and its variations got stale for me long ago. It isn’t at all difficult to understand how a gay person could be conservative, so that people continue to use said slur tells me that they are not interested in understanding how a gay person could be conservative or in debating gay conservatives honestly.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 13, 2012 @ 3:14 pm - May 13, 2012

  82. I don’t find it hard to understand how a gay person could be conservative; however I DO find it hard to understand why a gay person would support someone who says “I value the votes of people who hate you more than I value yours.” And not only support them, but blindly support them, by wishing away all the unpleasant reminders that while your support will be grudgingly accepted, it’s really not sought nor wanted.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 3:18 pm - May 13, 2012

  83. Hi all,
    It amazes and saddens me just how difficult it is to watch so many people tip toe around the deep issues of this incident’s aftermath. The issues in #14 are difficult ones, but they are worth raising and exploring. Gov Romney could be our next President.The only comment, by JM61 at #29 couldn’t be bothered to get my argument right, and pitched it at the level of an ad hominem attack. Really sad. This is an important issue, ladies and gentlemen. Gov Romney’s behaviour when faced with these “revelations” or “allegations” is to retreat into “memory loss.”

    Hi JM61,
    I believe this is the first time you have addressed me in a thread. FYI, I am happy to engage you, but my interest in doing so approaches zero when you act and write the way you do. I am happy to engage you rationally, but I have the same expectation, in return. I would appreciate it if you could act with civility, especially if you expect me to reply to you, in the future.

    Hi JoA,
    I have no idea how you feel about your engagement with JM61, but I ask only if you felt it was productive. If you thought so, OK then. If you didn’t think it was, I offer this observation: you might be better off ignoring the baiting and ad hominem attacks, and the tit for tat, and look for those conservative commentators–of which there are many–who are interested in rational and productive conversation; engaging them in a polite and rational manner.

    Comment by Cas — May 13, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - May 13, 2012

  84. JennOfArk, it is as simple as recognizing that many gay conservatives evidently have a different understanding of what constitutes “hatred” as you do. From what I can tell, people like Bryan Fischer, who I would describe as hateful, represent only a tiny minority of social conservatives.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 13, 2012 @ 3:28 pm - May 13, 2012

  85. Jenn, welcome to the exclusive club of “Nobody on Gaypatriot cares what you think.” Cinesnatch will bring you your commemorative keychain while Cas and Insipidity explain the by-laws. Dues are payable to Levi, in cash, and no matter how much you give him, he’ll still demand moar.

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 3:34 pm - May 13, 2012

  86. this incident’s aftermath

    Again you uncritically accept WaPo’s reporting, Cas, which Lauber’s own surviving family questions.

    I think the one who’s not dealing with things here, is you. It should be clear to you from reading this thread that we simply don’t share your starting premise, of accepting WaPo’s reporting uncritically. But, as usual, it isn’t clear to you.

    moar

    Heh, nice touch V 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 3:41 pm - May 13, 2012

  87. JennofArk @82:

    Project much?

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — May 13, 2012 @ 3:44 pm - May 13, 2012

  88. Whew. Very glad that Anne got a hold of him. It’s great she was able to get him through their lean years, when they only had the interest from his trust fund to support them. I’m sure living lean made them better people for it.

    Still, I do have to wonder why everyone else involved in that incident remembered it clearly, but Mr. Romney doesn’t. hmmmm

    Comment by Kevin — May 13, 2012 @ 3:47 pm - May 13, 2012

  89. Just like it’s a coincidence that all the people with flawless memories of the incident happen to be Obama supporters; what are the odds?

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 3:51 pm - May 13, 2012

  90. BTW, Kev… congrats to you, Jenn, Snatchy, and all the others casting stones at Mitt Romney for having made it through high school without doing a single thing you regretted or wish’d you hadn’t done. You all are extraordinary moral exemplars to be lecturing Mitt Romney for the way he behaved fifty years ago.

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 3:58 pm - May 13, 2012

  91. Hi ILC,

    “The incident’s aftermath” = Romney’s “lack of memory”

    Feel free to engage the argument in #14 concerning that “lack of memory.”

    I’ll wait… 🙂

    Comment by Cas — May 13, 2012 @ 4:01 pm - May 13, 2012

  92. If the incident did not happen in the manner described by the Obama supporters claim it happened, it is understandable that Romney has no memory of it. Notably, the victim’s family also refutes the Obama supporters’ version of events.

    If it didn’t happen, then Romney can’t be expected to have a memory of it.

    I don’t know if Cas or the other idiots actually went to high school, or have any practical knowledge of how rumors get started, get blown out of proportion, then spread. And then, fifty years later, when it’s politically convenient, the incident that spawned the rumor is remembered in vivid detail by the political adversaries of the person who is the subject of the rumor

    Shoot, remember how most of what were told about the Trayvon Martin case turned out to be hogwash? And that was just a few weeks ago.

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 4:16 pm - May 13, 2012

  93. Obama-supporting WaPo reporters hunt for dirt on Romney – but never Obama, oh a thousand times no! – and dig up 4 Obama supporters with politically convenient, but undocumented “memories” of Romney that date from when all of them were underage, and that revolve around a conveniently dead (as in silent) man whose surviving family actually objects to WaPo’s shenanigans.

    What could go wrong? How could WaPo’s work possibly be false or misleading, there?

    C’mon lefties. At least the Swift Vets (1) were several dozen people, who (2) had served alongside Kerry as young *adults*, then (3) stepped forward on their own from deep conviction, and (4) had at least some supporting documentation. Oh wait, I forgot – your media never did tell you the truth about the Swift Vets. So I can’t argue them with you. My advantage, sometimes known as “information” or “knowledge”, would be too great. I have to think of my reputation… my win would be too easy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 4:18 pm - May 13, 2012

  94. Feel free to engage the argument in #14 concerning that “lack of memory.”

    Scroll up then to comment #55, Cas. Note the first sentence, which says all that needs to be said. “I’ll wait.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 4:21 pm - May 13, 2012

  95. Actually, I won’t wait. I’ve said it more than once now and will quote in succession. From #55:

    No, it makes sense that [Romney] can’t remember… IF, in fact, WaPo got the story wrong. As Lauber’s surviving family now implies.

    From #86:

    Again you uncritically accept WaPo’s reporting, Cas, which Lauber’s own surviving family questions… It should be clear to you from reading this thread that we simply don’t share your starting premise, of accepting WaPo’s reporting uncritically.

    From #93:

    Obama-supporting WaPo reporters hunt for dirt on Romney – but never Obama, oh a thousand times no! – and dig up 4 Obama supporters with politically convenient, but undocumented “memories” of Romney that date from when all of them were underage, and that revolve around a conveniently dead (as in silent) man whose surviving family actually objects to WaPo’s shenanigans. What could go wrong?

    They all make the same basic point: If WaPo got the story wrong, and they may well have, it would make sense that Romney’s memory doesn’t agree. But Cas can’t answer it and so, as usual, chooses to pretend with the crudeness of a 12-year old that I simply haven’t said it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 4:31 pm - May 13, 2012

  96. ILC, you fail to take into account the Occam’s Razor of the left, which is that the story that helps Obama the most must be the true one.

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 4:38 pm - May 13, 2012

  97. Oh yeah! Thanks V.

    As to whether Romney ought to deny the story more aggressively, as Cas seems to want, like “No way this absolutely could never have happened in a jillion quillion years, because Lauber and I were LUHH-vers!!!1!”

    No, why should Romney say more about the matter? He *was* a heel, as a kid in prep school. He’s admitted it. He’s expressed his regret. Maybe WaPo got the Lauber incident wrong, but there were doubtless other incidents. Anything more that Romney says will only be used against him Left Wing Court of Kangaroos, and only distract America from what it needs to talk about far more desperately: like, say, Obama’s performance on the economy. Why should Romney help people who hate him, and who want to take the Presidential campaign down into a mudpit, so that Obama’s record – and Obama’s lack of solutions – won’t be talked about?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 4:53 pm - May 13, 2012

  98. They want Mitt to make a more detailed denial or apology so they can find someone who will dispute some detail or other; then they can accuse him of lying.

    If Mitt knows the story not to be true, he’s wise to just let it blow up in Obama’s face or die out.

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 5:05 pm - May 13, 2012

  99. Just a couple of points that I’m sure the conservatives here (gay and straight) already noted:

    First,

    #82: “I don’t find it hard to understand how a gay person could be conservative; however I DO find it hard to understand why a gay person would support someone who says ‘I value the votes of people who hate you more than I value yours.’”

    Yet another habit of the liberal imbeciles like JennOfArk who flock here to beclown themselves→ somewhere in the mess of insipid, unoriginal paragraphs they post informing us gay conservatives how crazy, stupid, pathetic, and ‘self-hating’ we are, they always presume to KNOW exactly who it is that ‘HATES US’ more than they do.

    Second,

    #60: “I take that to mean that you’re fully supportive of being called out as a second-class citizen in our nation’s most important guide to legal principles.”

    Yeah. Read that again. ‘Our nation’s most important guide to legal principles.’ JennOfArk has been here all afternoon insulting us and warbling endlessly about us ‘glossing over’ Romney’s imminent plot to change the SACRED U.S. Constitution and bludgeon us with it. Clearly, she expects us to be OUTRAGED because…well…what’s more important to a liberal than ‘our nation’s most important guide to legal principles?’ BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    Try not to pi*s yourselves laughing at this idiotic woman and her feigned concern for the ‘nation’s like totally super-duper important guide to legal principles ‘n’ stuff for real.’

    Comment by Sean A — May 13, 2012 @ 5:44 pm - May 13, 2012

  100. This is just a bunch of nonsense. Perhaps the media should be asking questions about how Obama and his cohorts bullied the Democrat superdelegates who had supported Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention, but were threatened to get behind Barack Obama. Or how he signaled out the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address. These are just two examples. Some may call this political hardball. I call it bullying. In the case of the Democrat superdelegates, some were threatened with death to themselves and/or harm to family members. That’s how the Obama thug operates. Contrast those adult actions to a regretable youthful indiscretion

    Comment by nomobama — May 13, 2012 @ 6:10 pm - May 13, 2012

  101. Don’t forget, nomobama, Obama’s entire political career is based on bullying. He bullied courts to release confidential sealed records on his opponents during his Illinois senate campaigns, and he’s currently bullying donors to the Romney campaign.

    Present behavior is far more relevant than high school behavior.

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 6:29 pm - May 13, 2012

  102. Sean A, like you are too funny! LMGAO!

    Comment by nomobama — May 13, 2012 @ 6:29 pm - May 13, 2012

  103. Oh, yeah. Do not forget Larry Sinclair’s story about Barack, and his subsequent continued harrassment that he believes (as I do) has been directed from the White House, including a connection to Joe Biden in his son being used in Delaware to imprison Mr. Sinclair. The vicious murders, if I remember correctly, of two different gay men who were members of Obama’s church, and who purportedly had some type of sexual relationship with BO, should also be remembered. A third gay member of his church died within two months of the first person who was murdered. The third man may have been involved with Obama, too. His death was reportedly due to an Aids related issue.

    Comment by nomobama — May 13, 2012 @ 7:00 pm - May 13, 2012

  104. @JennOfArk: Was a Nazi reference really called for here? I got into a spat with heliotrope about similar references myself, and I consider Nazi references followed by “But I’m not calling him a Nazi!” a subset of “I’m not racist, but…”. I really do think this a political trope that needs to die for good. We called Bush a Nazi, they call Obama a Nazi, can we please not call Romney a Nazi? I don’t even consider it a surrender, it’s not a productive tactic in the first place, we can do better.

    @nomoobama & V the K: Nasty case of Tourette’s going around here. Everything’s bullying all of sudden. Feels like someone’s lashing out over some political wounds they acquired at some point…

    Jenn, welcome to the exclusive club of “Nobody on Gaypatriot cares what you think.” Cinesnatch will bring you your commemorative keychain while Cas and Insipidity explain the by-laws. Dues are payable to Levi, in cash, and no matter how much you give him, he’ll still demand moar.

    As opposed to the club of “Nobody outside GayPatriot cares what you think”?

    Also, contradiction in terms much? Nobody here cares about what you think! Except Cinesnatch… and Cas… and Serenity… and Levi, I guess… but aside from those four people, NOBODY!

    Comment by Serenity — May 13, 2012 @ 7:21 pm - May 13, 2012

  105. Looks like I landed a good punch.

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 7:32 pm - May 13, 2012

  106. Big YAWN @ Serenity. Like I even care what you think. Save your ke strokes, porkchop.

    Comment by nomobama — May 13, 2012 @ 7:37 pm - May 13, 2012

  107. Hi ILC,
    Your argument: My goodness me–if he didn’t do it, he wouldn’t have a memory of it. Well, that is true, ILC!
    However, there is another option for Gov Romney: Simply state that it never happened. But Gov Romney cannot bring himself to say that, ILC. So, I look forward to your understanding of why that is the case.

    An, yes, I’ll also wait. 🙂

    Comment by Cas — May 13, 2012 @ 7:50 pm - May 13, 2012

  108. Hi VK and ILC,
    I saw what you had to say about why he should not deny the story: Maybe they will find something that catches him in a lie, or just makes life difficult for him…. What lie is that going to be, VK? And ILC, he has not said anything about the matter–just a general statement that he wasn’t particularly nice, and no memory of a specific event. The whole point of #14 is to suggest that this is not something that you “do not remember.” That as humans, we would remember something like that, given the circumstances. Sorry, it still doesn’t pass the BS test.

    Comment by Cas — May 13, 2012 @ 8:01 pm - May 13, 2012

  109. Unless, of course, it didn’t happen, and the story was fabricated out of old rumors by a group of Obama supporters and printed in a newspaper (that in 2006 ran 112 stories and editorials on a Republican candidate’s use of the word ‘Macaca’) coincidentally the day after the President gave a big endorsement to gay marriage.

    Face it, there’s at least as much evidence that Obama frequented Chicago bath houses as there is that Mitt Romney actually did this.

    Of course, Obama has an excuse for any lapses of memory from high school; after all, cocaine is a hell of a drug.

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 8:13 pm - May 13, 2012

  110. Yet again, I’ve anticipated Cas and written a comment… that she chooses not to see. #97.

    Really Cas, disagreeing with me or finding me unpersuasive is one thing. But pretending outright that I haven’t said what I’ve said? Another.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2012 @ 8:30 pm - May 13, 2012

  111. This thread is so chock-a-block full of silliness that it is hard to know where to begin.

    1.) Let every one of us look back to when we were 17 or 18 and convince ourselves, let alone others, that we were on the fast track to be Mother Teresa.

    2.) Then, let every one of us be comfortable with a dragnet media (not the one that vetted Obama) going into every spider hole to grasp at a straw that might turn a molehill into a mighty mountain.

    3.) Now, be a candidate who had a certain “rascal” streak and who acted like an adolescent rather than a novitiate for sainthood.

    4.) Now, be a threat to Obama whose garbage is sifted and resifted more times than by the wolf pack that set out to destroy Sarah Palin.

    5.) Now, be the person who has to defend himself against the seriousness of the charge, rather than the actual fact.

    So, this thread is full of the outrageous slings and arrows from leftists who pile on with no convincing evidence and no thought whatsoever to their own Teddy Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, William Jefferson Clinton, Albert Gore, John F’n Kerry, Barack Hussein Obama, Joe “Home Depot” Biden, Robert Sheets Byrd, Hillary “I don’t recall” Clinton, Timothy “tax cheat” Geithner, any myriad others.

    Clearly, if Romney was of worse character in high school than Clinton, Obama, etc. then let us set the record straight.

    But, following that, let us determine when the statute of limitations runs out on adolescence. For instance, Al Gore was adamantly opposed to abortion when he was running for election to the House in Tennessee. Shouldn’t he have to pay for that “mistake” forever with the liberals?

    Bottom line: When it is any port in a storm, Democrats and liberals head for Hypocrisy.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 13, 2012 @ 9:27 pm - May 13, 2012

  112. Hi ILC & HT,
    No, I did read what you had said ILC, that is why I appended an additional comment at #108. With that in mind, you are most welcome to go back and look at the point I made. I will say this–and to others as well: We argue about this in different ways. I think that this is an issue of character, ILC and other conservatives think it is a matter of strategy as far as I can tell, since this is happening in the midst of a general Presidential campaign. “Don’t give anything away, because, well, one might make a mistake, catch one in a lie,” or some other uneasy juxtaposition of “It doesn’t matter,” “Everybody does it,” “You liberals are just as bad,” and “Even if he did it happen, which we won’t agree to in any case, you can’t prove it.” Great. But that is not the point I make. It is a question of simply asking how someone could FORGET such a situation had occurred, given the premeditation, etc. Perhaps you have been in a similar situation, and been accused of something pretty egregious and had no memory of it, only to be shown video/ or a collection of witnesses of the event, and had that out-of-body experience of thinking–“That cannot be me, even if it looks like me…”

    Additionally,
    Nothing that HT says @111 actually addresses the argument I made in #14, so, as nice as it is, I shrug my shoulders. And as for those HT mention–dead straight, they have/had character issues (and many of them never made it to be President in part because of these very character flaws)…

    Bottom Line (to paraphrase HT)Gov Romney is facing this situation now, not those that HT mentioned.

    Comment by Cas — May 14, 2012 @ 1:07 am - May 14, 2012

  113. I take it you never have worked with the mentally disabled, or if you have, you hold them in contempt.

    Hmm. President Dipshit and his former Chief of Staff like to call their opponents retarded. Maureen Dowd has used “extra chromosome conservatives” ditto Nobel Peace Prize winner Algore. Even the allegedly beloved ObamaCareless law uses the word “mentally retarded”.

    You’ve voted for that, have you not?

    Comment by TGC — May 14, 2012 @ 1:15 am - May 14, 2012

  114. Cass:You are relying on the characterization of four people fifty years later, one of which didn’t even see the event but was told about it by someone else? Heck, eyewitnesses to something ten MINUTES ago are often considered unreliable, and you are going to call fifty year old memories reliable? Really?

    Comment by Ryan Aaron — May 14, 2012 @ 7:39 am - May 14, 2012

  115. Cas: WOudl the same standards apply to the old “Release the birth certificate!” Biit that went on so long, or “Release the college transcripts?” I mean, if there is nothing there surely he woudl just come out and release them and show nothing is there … right?

    Comment by Ryan Aaron — May 14, 2012 @ 7:41 am - May 14, 2012

  116. Cas,

    I will talk slowly, so you can read my lips. Democrats and liberals in general are experts at playing the hypocrisy innuendo card, the race card, the misogynist card, the class warfare card, the killing grandma card, the hate the minority card, the starve the children card, the deny education card, the let orphans eat bark card, the disabled should just fall down card, the single mothers should have thousands of children card, the sick should die card, the environment should be polluted card, the homeless should be enslaved card, the blacks are dumb and shiftless card, the gays are icky card, and 5,283 other cards in the Alinsky deck of shift and personalize.

    By comparison, the Democrats field and defend the likes of “Sheets” Byrd, Teddy “driver-dicker-and-drowner” Kennedy, William “cigar-in-the-vagina” Clinton, Hillary “I-don’t-recall” Clinton, Barney “Whats-in-it-for-my-and-my-sex-partner” Frank, Joe “plugs-Katie’s-Home Depot” Biden, etc.

    This spotlights and underscores that the liberals are masters of hypocrisy both as a weapon and as a form of reverse virtue when it applies to them.

    Romney knows full well what he is up against: Godless, power hungry liars and hypocrites who will pile on any innuendo that seems to gain momentary traction.

    In short, Cas, you are a boring, mind-numbed robot who stomps zombie footed to this site to do what you are irredeemably programed to do. You have no guilt, no shame, no sense of justice or fair play and really no particular redeeming characteristics of actual character. You are predictable, not very deep and one-sided. Which altogether makes you two dimensional: Ideologically a mile wide and philosophically, an inch high. You have no depth, whatsoever.

    Your job is to destroy Romney and the look the other way when the elite of your cause commit actual despicable acts. You are an ideal useful idiot. And now you have a gay president, to boot.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 14, 2012 @ 10:24 am - May 14, 2012

  117. HT, that’s why I’d rather rhetorically carpet bomb these baseless, unprincipled SOBs.

    This Cas-hole POS wrote this at #83:
    “…by JM61 at #29 couldn’t be bothered to get my argument right” immediately after writing this:
    “.. It amazes and saddens me just how difficult it is to watch so many people tip toe around the deep issues of this incident’s aftermath
    You’re (look Jenn, I got it right AGAIN!) an f—ing liar, Cas.
    I characterized your argument EXACTLY as you stated it.
    What an a–hole you are to make this some transcendant issue; a prep school hazing haircut.
    There aren’t enough expletives in the lnaguage to characterize you properly.
    But no doubt you’re satisfied with your warped sense of your moral superiority.
    You’re a lying, character-deficient blowhard.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 14, 2012 @ 11:00 am - May 14, 2012

  118. Again: Why should Romney take any action to help certain people keep a story going, which people hate him no matter what he does, and have a malevolent purpose of dragging the campaign away from the issues?

    Romney isn’t the only one who doesn’t remember the Lauber story: Lauber’s family doesn’t remember it, either. But Cinesnatch and Cas don’t seem to care what the family thinks.

    If the Lauber incident did happen, Romney might not remember it because of in part due to a potentially memory-damaging coma he suffered at 19.

    at 19, Romney was a missionary in France. He was involved in a searing car crash that by his own admission deepened his faith and changed his outlook on life. A near-death experience and a coma will do that to you.

    More on what people say Romney is like in real life:

    In 1995, a Mormon family, the Nixons, had recently moved to the Boston area and got devastating news when two of their sons were rendered quadriplegics by a terrible car accident — a tragedy that was compounded by the financial strain. Having heard their story, Romney called the parents to see if they’d be around on Christmas Eve. Romney, even though he didn’t know the Nixons very well, showed up with Ann and his sons. They brought the injured sons a new stereo system and other gifts. According to the book, the Nixons “were floored” that Romney had not only taken an interest in them, but that he and Ann had taken time out of their busy schedule to deliver the gifts themselves and turn it into a family event to set an example. Romney also offered to pay for their sons’ college educations and participated in multiple fundraisers for them over the years. “It wasn’t a one time thing,” the father told the authors.

    One time, Romney found out that a church member had broken his foot by falling off a ladder trying to remover a hornet’s nest. Romney showed up and devised a way of removing it from the inside of the house. “Everyone who has known Romney in the church community seems to have a story like this, about him and his family pitching in ways big and small,” Kranish and Helman write. “They took chicken and asparagus soup to sick parishioners. They invited unsettled Mormon transplants to their home for lasagna.” Another time, a fire broke out near where Romney lived and he “organized the gathered neighbors, and they began dashing into the house to rescue what they could: a desk, couches, books” until the fire fighters made them stop. He also helped build a playground to honor a neighbor’s child who had died of cystic fibrosis. “There he was, with a hammer in his belt, the Mitt nobody sees,” the neighbor, Joseph O’Donnell recounted. “Romney didn’t stop there,” the book reads. “About a year later, it became apparent that the park would need regular maintenance and repairs. ‘The next thing I know, my wife calls me up and says, “You’re not going to believe this, but Mitt Romney is down with a bunch of Boy Scouts and they’re working on the park.”’…

    Do I believe all that? Not necessarily. I am not a Romney defender.

    My point is this: I don’t usually rush to believe what I read, in either direction. Much can be said of Romney or anyone. Anyone who can’t see that the Lauber matter is a manufactured political ‘narrative’ – and a poorly manufactured one at that, just like Seamus the Dog from a couple weeks ago – is either a fool, or worse: someone invested in pushing it over the objections of the dead man’s family.

    In other words: A bully. And that, as some have said, is “a matter of character.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2012 @ 11:10 am - May 14, 2012

  119. From Google, a slightly better link on the car crash: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread839790/pg1

    Now Cas et. al. can say that Romney is too brain-damaged to be President. Because they’re always going to say something like that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2012 @ 11:20 am - May 14, 2012

  120. In conclusion – the Left, in 2012, is the place for bullies to hide out, behind their shield of supposed anti-bullying. As a friend put it recently: “We have to bully people into not bullying to show that bullying is always wrong – The Left.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2012 @ 11:38 am - May 14, 2012

  121. Barry Obama, Puddin’ and Pie,
    Pushed the girls and made them cry,
    When the boys came out to play
    Barry Obama ran away.

    Comment by nomobama — May 14, 2012 @ 11:41 am - May 14, 2012

  122. Hi RA,
    My point is about the inability to remember–as a question of character. As for Obama, I couldn’t provide more evidence than he did as to where I was born (and I know where I was born!). If people do not want to believe the Hawaiian State Government’s determination, that is their choice. I am also happy to believe that Mitt Romney was also born in this country, though some of his ancestors used to live in Mexico.

    Hi ILC,
    You raise a good point about Romney’s past, re his car accident at 19–and you have the grace to not think this is as definitive one way or the other. I have been trying to work out a way of how to make sense of Romney’s lack of memory; how he could have legitimately have forgotten this incident. This may be a way forward, as the Salon article you cited suggests. So that adds some needed complexity to the issue.

    Comment by Cas — May 14, 2012 @ 12:12 pm - May 14, 2012

  123. Cas-hole has the leash out; its time to start walking it’s bulls**t argument back.

    “I have been trying to work out a way of how to make sense..”
    This one confounds you? You’re some deep thinker.

    “….adds some needed complexity to the issue.”
    A sure sign of wisdom is to take a complex situation/topic and SIMPLIFY it, not to complicate it.
    This is what passes for ‘high’ intellect on the left.
    Over a haircut….
    From 47 years ago…..
    The moral and philsophical question of our time.
    You’re shallower than a sidewalk puddle after a summer shower (to continue with HT’s analogy).

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 14, 2012 @ 12:28 pm - May 14, 2012

  124. I have been trying to work out a way of how to make sense of Romney’s lack of memory; how he could have legitimately have forgotten this incident.

    The same way he couldn’t “remember” having dated Imeda Marcos and fathering 16 love children with her over a period of 4 months?

    As for me, “I have been trying to work out a way of how to make sense of” anyone getting his/her panties in a bunch over a spurious telling of dorm gossip that supposedly occurred several generations ago. The “victim” is conveniently dead and the family is crying foul. But the innuendo persists and poor old Cas is bewildered as to how Romney does not remember what Cas “knows” from the reports in the Washington Post which the WaPo has had to walk back and walk back and walk back.

    Man! North Carolina amends their constitution and WaPo pops this story out to shift the topic. Those WaPo boys and girls are just awesome. How do they do it? They must have put their crack Wasilla psychic hit team on the job.

    Of course, the other possibility is that Romney was such an abusive, serial gay bashing hair snipper that he can’t remember all of the poor victims he destroyed. Yeah, that’s it! (Cleverly insert reference to magic underwear here.)

    None of this matters, because Cas has her innuendo and Cas is sticking to it.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 14, 2012 @ 1:11 pm - May 14, 2012

  125. @Comment by Jman1961 — May 14, 2012 @ 12:28 pm – May 14, 2012

    LOL! I noted her comment about complexity and chuckled. Bassackwards.

    Comment by nomobama — May 14, 2012 @ 1:29 pm - May 14, 2012

  126. It seems that the Obama campaign has sent their “E” team to annoy/disrupt/bewilder/entertain/sully this blog. They’re abilities are on par with their faux messiah.

    Comment by nomobama — May 14, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - May 14, 2012

  127. Lol! “Their”… good grief!

    Comment by nomobama — May 14, 2012 @ 1:37 pm - May 14, 2012

  128. Cas-hole said:
    “My point is about the inability to remember–as a question of character.”

    With all the problems, both economic, political, cultural that face this country at this time in history, Cas-hole tells us that its deep in turgid intellectual turmoil over THIS.
    More proof of vapidity of the left, with all of its self-professed moral and intellectual superiority. Oh, and let’s not forget…….NUANCE.

    I rest easier knowing that Cas-hole and it’s ideological ilk are working tirelessly to solve these prodigious conundrums.

    File under: PRIORITIES

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 14, 2012 @ 1:56 pm - May 14, 2012

  129. Just call delusional Cas a bigot and be done with it.

    Like Evan Hurst, like PeeJ, like Cinesnatch, like JennofArk, and like Pomposity, there’s no reason or rationality here; they hate Romney because he threatens their god-king Obama on whom they have bet every last ounce of their agenda and credibility.

    Obama’s defeat means the end of their war on religion, of their preferential treatment based on minority status, and his paying their bills for them. Can you imagine any of them holding a job, or actually interacting with people in a diverse workplace rather than a lib echo chamber? Hilarious to us — and terrifying, utterly terrifying, to them.

    This is why we haven’t even seen the beginning. As November gets closer and closer, these parasites are going to struggle, kick, scream, swear, and do everything possible, no matter how destructive, to destroy us — and they will rationalize anything, no matter how vile, in the process.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 14, 2012 @ 2:06 pm - May 14, 2012

  130. What was Cassive-Aggressive saying about ‘character?’

    http://weaselzippers.us/2012/05/14/obama-caught-on-hot-mic-saying-ive-got-to-get-my-shit/

    Comment by V the K — May 14, 2012 @ 5:51 pm - May 14, 2012

  131. V the K,

    Aw, c’mon, he was saying “I gotta get my sh…”ip of state back on calm waters. Or, “i gotta get my sh…”oes shined before I get back home. Or, “I gotta get my sh…”fty ass in gear. Or, “I gotta get my sh…”iny new medal so I can wear it to the SEIU cow chip tossing contest. Or, “I gotta get my sh….iv and pry this honky box open and see whats in it.

    On the other hand, what president doesn’t turn around to college dignitaries and refer to their highest award as sh…? You must remember that Darth Vader Cheney looked Senator Leahy straight into his beady, shifty eyes and said F…. you. Not that was uncalled for. He should have been impeached and then shot and then hung and then run over by a beer truck and then dumped at sea with no cleansing of the body or prayers or respect accorded to him whatsoever and followed up by dumping hungry sharks to eat away at him as he sank. Now THAT is civilized liberal thinking. At least they would hold a rally and give away T-shirts.

    Instead, you make up crap about Obama.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 14, 2012 @ 7:20 pm - May 14, 2012

  132. Very much in character for a classless, talentless POS.
    This is the President of the United States of America.
    This is the leader of the free world; someone we can all look up to and admire.
    My heartfelt thanks to the (approx.) 69.4 million a–holes that voted to put him in office.
    Can we sink any lower than this?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 14, 2012 @ 9:01 pm - May 14, 2012

  133. […] Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Had Obama given high school classmate a haircut, would narrative have been about how you can “make mistakes and still recover”? — May 14, 2012 @ 9:18 pm - May 14, 2012

  134. […] that many who act out as he did in high school do so out of insecurity.  It does seem that his marriage to Ann helped center him and feel less of an outsider — and more anchored in his world. Comments […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » A somewhat sympathetic insight into Romney’s adolescent antics — May 15, 2012 @ 2:43 pm - May 15, 2012

  135. […] and a Dessert Topping The Mellow Jihadi – Breastfeeding, By Any Weans Necessary Gay Patriot – Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness The Independent Sentinel – Obama’s Bad “Investments” Keep Piling On the Taxpayers – the Auto […]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – The Election Cometh Edition — May 16, 2012 @ 4:04 am - May 16, 2012

  136. […] Gay Patriot – Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – The Election Cometh Edition | Virginia Right! — May 16, 2012 @ 5:40 am - May 16, 2012

  137. […] Gay Patriot – Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt?s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com — May 16, 2012 @ 6:17 am - May 16, 2012

  138. […] Gay Patriot – Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt?s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council « Crime Victims Media Report — May 16, 2012 @ 12:30 pm - May 16, 2012

  139. […] Gay Patriot – Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog — May 16, 2012 @ 12:43 pm - May 16, 2012

  140. […] Gay Patriot – Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels Nominations — mid-May Edition — May 16, 2012 @ 12:51 pm - May 16, 2012

  141. […] Gay Patriot – Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by Save Money on Food | — May 16, 2012 @ 11:37 pm - May 16, 2012

  142. […] Gay Patriot – Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » The Watcher’s Council turns its collective eye to the upcoming election — May 17, 2012 @ 4:56 pm - May 17, 2012

  143. […] 1/3 votes – The Razor-The Myth of an Unbiased Media Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot- Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – The Right Planet- Syria Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – New […]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results — May 18, 2012 @ 5:34 am - May 18, 2012

  144. […] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot- Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com — May 18, 2012 @ 8:15 am - May 18, 2012

  145. […] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot- Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results | Independent Sentinel — May 18, 2012 @ 9:00 am - May 18, 2012

  146. […] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot- Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by And the Winner Is. . . | — May 18, 2012 @ 10:32 am - May 18, 2012

  147. […] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot- Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels — Weekly Winners (mid-May edition) — May 18, 2012 @ 4:15 pm - May 18, 2012

  148. […] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot – Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog — May 18, 2012 @ 6:15 pm - May 18, 2012

  149. […] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results | askmarion — May 19, 2012 @ 3:04 am - May 19, 2012

  150. […] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot- Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | Sago — May 20, 2012 @ 10:28 pm - May 20, 2012

  151. […] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot- Marriage to Ann seems to have ended Mitt’s adolescent unruliness […]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results for 3-18-2012 | Virginia Right! — May 21, 2012 @ 10:31 am - May 21, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.