But they kept the annoying pig?

‘Full Metal Jacket’ Star: ‘GEICO Fired Me’ for Criticizing Obama

R. Lee Ermey, the actor best known for his role as the drill sergeant in Stanley Kubrick’s “Full Metal Jacket,” claims he was fired by GEICO for criticizing President Obama.


After being asked about his GEICO commercial wherein he played a psychiatrist calling his patient a “jackwagon,” Ermey said, “GEICO fired me because I had, I wasn’t too kind about speaking with the, about the administration, so the present administration. So they fired me.”

“So they fired you because of political reasons?” asked the TMZ representative.

“Yeah,” Ermey answered. “If you’re a conservative in this town, you better watch out.”

They fired Gunny Hartman but they kept the annoying pig?

About Klown Mom

I'm old and I can do what I want.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to But they kept the annoying pig?

  1. myiq2xu says:

    I hate that pig. The only sound I want to hear from him is sizzling.

  2. HELENK says:

    what part of free speech for some not all don’t the anti backtrack bunch get??

    rainbows and lollypops if you sing backtrack’s praises

    coal and cold potato soup if you are not for backtrack

  3. HELENK says:

    new Romney ad

  4. DandyTiger says:

    What’s stupid is these companies don’t have to fire people if they feel that their view isn’t compatible with their product. They can just say that commercial segment ran its course and they’ve moving on to other things. It’s advertising, they can be as fickle as the customers. But doing this is a PR issue. So now their message is if you’re part of the 50+% of the population that isn’t happy with Obama, please don’t buy our products. Clever.

  5. Oswald says:

    When irony and karma work together:

    Yesterday *somebody* posted this:

    The Greater Ethos, Karma, and Mother Nature Collude to Shut Down RNC

    As of today Isaac is forecast to miss Tampa and is headed straight for NOLA

    • myiq2xu says:

      Laissez les bons temps rouler!

    • DandyTiger says:

      Another Katrina, but this time on Obama’s watch. Of course I wouldn’t wish that crap on anyone. But if any Obots/new Dems out there think this most incompetent WH ever would be able to handle such a thing, I got some swampland in FL to sell them.

      • myiq2xu says:

        Disaster relief is like playing offensive line in football. Nobody notices unless you screw up.

      • DM says:

        It will be a good opportunity for the Mitt Romney’s campaign to highlight what Mitt did during the Katrina disaster:

        The Rev. Jeffrey Brown, who heads a faith-based gang intervention group in Roxbury, Mass., and spoke frequently to Romney during his governorship, saw two facets of the man — the executive and the spiritual counselor — come together after Hurricane Katrina when the Massachusetts Legislature provided shelter on Cape Cod for evacuees. Romney wanted members of the black clergy to attend to the arrivals — because he said some would rather talk to pastors than mental health professionals — and asked Brown to lead the effort.

        Romney arrived a few days later, telling Brown he wanted to hear the stories directly from the victims, many of whom were from New Orleans’ hard-hit Lower 9th Ward.

        “He wanted to make sure that their needs were being met,” Brown said. “He brought 50 state agencies down there, and everybody’s needs were attended to. I’m talking about people who left their houses in such a rush that they forgot their teeth. He had dentists down there to get them their dentures.… He was on it.”


      • angienc says:

        Man you can really tell who has never lived on the Gulf Coast in the blogs.
        First of all, the so-called hurricane Isaac (which is still a tropical storm, not a hurricane yet) even if it hits NOLA isn’t going to be a Katrina because the worst it will be is a Cat 1 hurricane, which means it will be back to a tropical storm by the time it actually reaches NOLA (it will basically hit the coast as a Cat 1 and immediately lose strength and be tropical storm). NOLA gets tropical storms all the time — they’re nothing but a lot of rain, which the pumping stations can 100% handle.

        Second, Isaac isn’t coming to NOLA — the news likes to predict that to generate interest, especially after Katrina, but even before, because no offense to MI or AL, most people in the rest of the US don’t really care about cities like Gulf Shores, AL or Biloxi, MS, but they’ve heard of NOLA — after what happened with Katrina, the news can *really* scare the rest of y’all with the possibility that another one might hit here. But it isn’t — there is a cool front moving over LA right now & that is going to push Isaac eastward. I’d bet it lands between Gulf Shores, AL and Pensacola — but the absolute closest it gets to NOLA is Biloxi MS. Again, after it lands it will be a tropical storm anyway and the worst of hurricanes are *always* to the east — so NOLA might not even get much rain. Book it.

        • DandyTiger says:

          We’re very excitable here in the political trenches. You’re right of course. It looks like it won’t amount to much of anything. Yawn.

        • myiq2xu says:

          It’s like people in the northeast are used to snow. They get some every year.

        • angienc says:

          Exactly like the snow thing — it “snowed” in NOLA Christmas 2004 — not even an inch — we actually gathered every bit of snow in my mom’s front yard to make a 2 foot high snow man, that had a good mix of grass & mud in him. 🙂 The entire city & surrounding areas CLOSED DOWN! Everyone was afraid to drive, etc. I’m sure a Bostonian would have laughed at us — but when you’re not used to something, it seems scarier.

          If I still lived in NOLA, I wouldn’t evacuate for a Cat 1 hurricane — and I mean a storm that was still a Cat 1 by the time it reached NOLA, so it would have to be a Cat 2 when it landed. I sure as heck don’t care about one that’s going to be a tropical storm by the time it reaches NOLA.

        • myiq2xu says:

          I have family in Oklahoma. They get tornadoes every year. But they are terrified of earthquakes.

          “How can you stand living in California? One day it’s gonna fall off in the ocean!”

        • myiq2xu says:

          I like surprises.

      • T says:

        Swampland flooded with hurricane water even.

    • angienc says:

      Hmm, if God controls the weather, then why are the progs so concerned with climate change?

      If you’re going to use “God” to make declarations about stuff, you should be consistent.

      • Lulu says:

        Wrong map. This is the forecast model map.

        • DeniseVB says:

          Love following “spaghetti” maps, and as the models get tighter(last week they were up the east coast to the Texas gulf side), you predict them better. Isaac’s a doozy for the weather nerds 😀

  6. tommy says:

    The progs have declared their God, and its O. And if you blaspheme the O, you’re finished. Some say that the progs are atheists. Lol, not to me. Their first God right now is O, followed by Mother Gaia. Global warming, Climate change, whatever the rhetoric is today is due to the progs religion. Ofcourse they’ll never admit that its their religion. There once was a time when we liberals wanted clean air and less abuse of the environment. Lol. Back in the days, I used to be an old-fashioned liberal. Its gone out of style now, untill the progs are doomed. As Arnie says : I’ll be back.

  7. angienc says:

    OT — I haven’t caught up on all the comments yet but remember Harry Reid saying that Romney hasn’t paid taxes in the last 10 years? Yeah, someone at the NYT actually read Romney’s 2010 tax returns that he released & figured out that Harry’s claim isn’t possible:

    But even though he has not released his returns from earlier years, the 2010 return sheds some light on those years.

    That’s because Mr. Romney paid income tax to foreign countries, and as result claimed in 2010 a $129,697 foreign tax credit, which he used to offset taxes he owed in the United States. American taxpayers who claim the foreign tax credit are required to report their total foreign taxes paid and tax credits used for the previous 10 years. So that return contains foreign tax data going back to 2000.

    The good news for Mr. Romney is the forms suggest that he paid at least some federal income tax every year, as he has said he did. He used the foreign tax credit every year to offset his taxes in the United States, and American taxpayers can’t use a tax credit if they owe no federal income tax. This casts even more doubt on the claim by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, attributed to an unnamed Bain Capital source, that Mr. Romney paid no income taxes during that time.

    Obviously the bullshit slant is there with the “good news for Romney” line — how is it good news? Did he seem worried about baseless accusations that were patently designed to help Obama? Give me a break. But despite slanting the story as anti-Romney as possible, the NYT couldn’t lie completely, at least, and that is the real *good news* for Romney.

    Full story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/business/in-romneys-tax-return-clues-in-foreign-taxes.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

  8. myiq2xu says:

    Cubs and Rockies fans are screwed. It’s pouring rain but they don’t want to postpone the game so they are on an indefinite rain delay.

  9. HELENK says:


    about that war on women, look who is slated to talk at the democratic convention

    • yttik says:

      Romney is out talking to women about the economy. It’s nearly impossible to find any media coverage of it, but I did find this, “Just a word to the women entrepreneurs out there, if we become president and vice president, we want to speak to you, we want to help you,” Romney said with running mate Paul Ryan at his side during an outdoor rally that drew an estimated 5,000 people to the Columbus area. “Women in this country are more likely to start businesses than men. Women need our help.”

      Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/romney_pledges_to_help_women_led_zBOcPDh6Bk1PJTcviDtwLI#ixzz24gM84iGq

      • yttik says:

        Here’s some more:

        “I want to speak to the women of America who have dreams who begin businesses in their homes who begin businesses out in the marketplace who are working in various enterprises and companies, I want you to be successful,” Romney said. “Our campaign is about making it easier for entrepreneurs, women and men, to start businesses, to grow businesses we will champion small business because we know that’s where our jobs come.”

        Ryan also shifted his language to include women in his speech.

        “We want every American to be able to achieve her potential,” Ryan said, using the female pronoun. “That’s what we do in America. That’s the American idea.”

        Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80136.html#ixzz24gNiO6Gw

  10. freespirit says:

    I’m glad that Mitt has begun including women in his addresses, and that Ryan has “shifted his language to include women”, but I’m sorry, if you gotta think about it, or be advised about it, you just ain’t that into it. I don’t want to offend anyone who is really into R/R, but, it’s the effing 21st century, and they’re beginning to “include women” ?!

    That said, I’m voting for them just like a lot of others here, and I do have hope that they can improve the economy, which, at this point, it’s our most critical issue. I wouldn’t vote for Obama even if by some miraculous event, unemployment and the economy turned on a dime and was as good as it was in the 1990s – which was the last time we had a real president, who knew how to govern.

    I believe that R/R can bring something beneficial to the presidency, but even while planning to vote for them, I refuse to lose sight of the fact that their ideology is too far to the right to represent me and my views.

    • DandyTiger says:

      I think that’s a fundamental party philosophy difference. Republican’s are more about focusing to make the fundamentals better (i.e., the economy) with the idea that everything works out for everyone. They’re not about making the government make things fair for everyone.

      I think they’re “just noticing” women for politics only. But that doesn’t change their philosophy that they already cared as much about women and men and minorities and everyone as much as before. It’s just not something they think the federal government is about.

      • freespirit says:

        I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe that the Republicans, in general, and members of conservative churches, specifically, as are R/R, see women as equals. I will support this ticket, out of necessity. But, if they get elected, I hope there is always a balance of Rep. and Dem, in the senate and house, especially if they get policies in place quickly to deal with some of the critical and emergent issues. I’d hate to see what these two would do, with a Republican majority in congress, and time on their hands.

        Now, everyone has a right to his/her opinion, and if it’s out of line to express a more liberal bent, here, I totally get it and will respect it. I wouldn’t want someone constantly spouting more conservative views, on a liberal blog. But, it just can’t be that the Republicans have become that wonderful all of a sudden.

        Are these two preferable to Obama? Without question. Hell, my old aunt with dementia is preferable to Obama, but are they as great as some would say/ Not in my view.

        • DM says:

          What you say is true, but women issues, if talked about with no action, are meaningless. The Republicans seem to have opened the doors to women, much more than Democrats. When I look for new women candidates, the Republican Party stands out. The Democrats have a good candidate with Gillibrand, but I don’t see many who are presidential candidate material.

        • gxm17 says:

          I’m voting Green and am not silent about it. So far, the only blog I’ve been banned from for making pro-Green comments is a self-proclaimed “leftist” blog. OTOH, TCH has been very tolerant of my far(ther) left viewpoint.

        • Oswald says:

          I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe that the Republicans, in general, and members of conservative churches, specifically, as are R/R, see women as equals.

          And you think Democrats do?

      • DeniseVB says:

        I think it was Sarah Palin who said “hey guys, if you can’t stand Obama or Romney, what do you say about giving Romney a chance this time?”

        • freespirit says:

          Denise, that’s my plan. I agree that Romney is, as I said, better than Obama. Maybe my point has no real place, here. But, my sense, from a number of bloggers and regular posters on several different sites, is that their view is that in order to support Romney, you have to excuse or accept all of the conservative ideals he represents. I think that’s a mistake. The Dem party, in its current state is unacceptable, as well, and I get what DM said about Dems being all talk and no action.

          I haven’t seen a great deal of support for women from Obama’s Dem party. My point is that if one has moderate/liberal views – while a vote for R/R may be the only choice, totally embracing the Republican ideals is not. I honestly don’t think Romney is all that off the mark – based on his record as governor. But, Ryan, I’m sorry, he’s right wing to the core. Let’s pray they get elected. Then pray even harder that Romney doesn’t kick the bucket. I don’t want a Ryan presidency.

        • DeniseVB says:

          Freespirt…no, voting for a party doesn’t mean you accept them as the perfect of your ideals. This “year” RomRy definitely comes “closest” to mine. 😀 Then we go from there….

    • myiq2xu says:

      Did he shift his language or did someone just notice?

      • angienc says:

        Someone just noticed.

        Remember him getting slammed about “talking to his wife” about what women were saying to her at the rallies — how dare he talk to her, because she’s never worked a day in her life, blah, blah, blah? Yeah, he was talking to women then, too.

        Which is why freespirit’s anger is misplaced, IMO.

    • HELENK says:


      this panel should be something to watch.

      code pink plans to crash it. you know the ones that think women are only vaginas and have no brains

      • freespirit says:

        Props to the Pub women for having this discussion. Heaven knows it’s needed. And, i’ll give the Republicans credit for standing up for Palin against MSM’s sexism and misogyny. The Dems damn sure didn’t stand up for Hillary. They contributed to the bias.

        I detest Code Pink. But, it diminishes the importance of reproductive rights to suggest that it’s all about vaginas. It’s about basic freedom to control one’s body and future – which is about as basic as it gets.

        I hope pro-choice women won’t buy into the rhetoric that reproductive rights are no longer important. I’m not saying at this point in time, it is the only issue or even the most critical one. But, I’m damn sure not ready to pretend that I don’t give a shit that there are a whole lot of men running things who want to limit these rights. It’s not necessary to reject concerns about women’s rights in order to support R/R.

        Women have interests beyond reproduction. They’re impacted by other issues just as men are – the economy, unemployment, foreign policy, etc. But, that does not mean that reproductive rights shouldn’t be guarded – especially when those you’re planning to vote for have taken a public and in Ryan’s case, a strong position against reproductive freedom. The fact that men can turn their backs on this issue is not a surprise. I’m not sure there are many man who are fully on board with women’s rights anyway. But, pro-choice women don’t need to buy into that theme of – women are nothing but a uterus or a V. Both sides would try to make that argument. It doesn’t hold water.

        • Oswald says:

          in Ryan’s case, a strong position against reproductive freedom.

          What’s Ryan’s position on contraception? What about single parents? Female sexuality?

          “Reproductive freedom” is another attempt to win the argument by re-defining the terms.

        • Totally agree with what you are saying Freespirit.

        • DandyTiger says:

          From what I’ve heard, many are calling for feminists of both pro choice and pro life views to try to work together on all the other issues, instead of being artificially divided by political parties. I don’t think anyone has said those issues aren’t still important for each side.

        • angienc says:

          I understand what your saying FS — but even if the absolute worst case scenario (i.e., Roe v. Wade is overturned) happened all that does it puts abortion back to the states and there is no possibility whatsoever that all states will outlaw abortion — red states may only allow it for the rape, incest & life of the mother exceptions but it is politically impossible for even them to outlaw it outright — and blue states for sure will keep it on demand. Saying that, let me be clear: this worse case scenario is extremely unlikely — despite the hysteria on the left about it — the court would have to find that the fetus is a life prior to viability outside the womb to do it. Otherwise, stares decisis prevents it (and this court has been extremely beholden to the stares decisis rule).
          The whole “Human Life Amendment” in the GOP platform that the fetus is a life at conception that has been there forever that people are wringing their hands about now (and, of course, would trump Roe v. Wade)? Yeah, that is even MORE UNLIKELY to be enacted than overturning Roe — you have to get 2/3 of the states to Amend the Constitution and no way, no how is that ever going to happen.
          In sum, there is no chance politically that Roe v. Wade is being overturned — so while the concern about “protecting reproductive rights” isn’t completely baseless on issues other than Roe v. Wade, it is something we should watch out for much more on the local level rather than the federal, and it isn’t at all as dire as people present it as being on either side of the aisle during election time.

  11. myiq2xu says:

    • angienc says:

      She forgot Alabama — it’s on the Gulf Coast too — between MS & FL.

      Not to mention, 4 people had already died in Haiti due to the storm before she made her “joke” so that ” disaster looming” part is b.s.

      Really, that moron needs to STFU.

  12. Oswald says:

    Hurricane Isaac Set to Deliver Message from Al Gore at Convention

    It’s coming. It’s inevitable. It’s going to hit approximately the same time the Republicans start their convention this week. Not Hurricane Isaac, but rather the environmentalists’ claim that the GOP has it coming.

    Democrats are actually more predicable than storm paths. Whereas cold weather and a seven-year absence of hurricanes mean absolutely nothing, one category-two storm headed in the vicinity of Tampa is concrete proof that carbon should be outlawed.

    It won’t be long before the echo chamber of the Left starts talking about how fitting it is that a convention hall full of “Deniers” are forced to witness Nature’s anger and rage up close. This isn’t actually Anthropogenic Global Warming , it’s Anthropomorphic Global Warming. That’s what happens when the climate takes on human characteristics. In this case, Hurricane Isaac has taken on the character of Clint Eastwood, and is out looking for revenge. Time to settle a score with all the rich white men who refuse to drive hybrids. No this isn’t just an ordinary tropical storm – like others that seem to hit Florida every August – this is Occupy Planet.

    Lets hope they don’t go too far overboard, since there is one computer model that puts the storm directly over Charlotte in time for the Democrat convention next week as well.

    I think that one could be called an “Ironic Breeze.”

    • Yeah, and Poseidon wrecked ships that displeased him, and that pesky Spanish Armada was put down in 1588 because it angered a Protestant God. Shame shit; different century.

  13. Well, to be fair, they fired the voice of Gordon Gekko for speaking in favor of Obama. At least they’re consistent.

    • DM says:

      That makes sense. Companies have customers in both parties and people in commercials sort of represent the companies. Their voices regarding political views will also reflect on the company.

  14. DeniseVB says:

    5pm ET update on Isaac:


    IMO, Dems don’t care where it lands, they just want the RNC convention buried under devasting Katrina-like coverage this week. Especially if Obama flies out to meet the landfall. /my bad 😉

    • DM says:

      The GOP really screwed up when they decided to have the convention at the end of August in FL. Will they learn? Nah, Katrina hit August 30, and that wasn’t enough warning not to do it.

      • DeniseVB says:

        I think they were in Minnesota last time, but delayed that convention a day when Gustav was slamming into the Texas gulf coast? To be respectful of a dire situation. I do remember wanting the Dems to hold their convention in NOLA in 2008 to help that city.

        • DM says:

          It’s not a problem having a convention in NOLA if it’s earlier. I read that some Republicans are blaming Steele for the decision to hold the convention in FL. He’s saying that the Republicans should stop blaming him (took a slap at Obama for also blaming others) because they voted for the time and place. He’s not being gracious. I think his answer would have been much better if he admitted that it was a mistake, while explaining why he took the risk. FL is a state that any Republican candidate must win, and had to be late in August because the voters are paying more attention. He could have said it was worth the risk when everything was weighed.

          After thinking about it, maybe it will work to the benefit of the Republicans because the news about the convention and the storm has highlighted the event. We’ll see.

          • myiq2xu says:

            Since 1968 the GOP has held conventions in Miami (2x), NOLA and Houston. During that same period the Democrats have held them in Miami, Atlanta and Charlotte.

            All those cities are in hurricane zones.

    • angienc says:

      Well, the shift is more west, which may bring it closer to NOLA but people — it isn’t even a hurricane yet! FFS this b.s. panic & talk about how the “GOP screwed up because there is going to be slammed with hurricane coverage” is bullshit.

      First of all, whenever it does hit, it isn’t going to be a strong storm. The only reason the rest of the US (other than the gulf states) are even paying attention to a — STILL — tropical storm is because of the convention. Second of all, hurricane season is from May to October trying to pretend scheduling a convention at the end of August is a mistake because Katrina hit at the end of August 7 years ago if laughable — you’d have to have your convention in April (before the primaries ended and 6 months before the election) or November before the second Tuesday in order to avoid hurricane season.

      Every one now trying to pretend they are experts on hurricanes and when dates should have been picked for the convention are seriously annoying because they obviously don’t know nothing about no hurricanes.

      • DandyTiger says:

        A hurricane is one of those walkers with wheels, right. So you can go in a hurry. I’m sure I have that right.

      • DeniseVB says:

        Exactly. Hurricanes have a mind of their own 😀 Hell, a tornado can flatten Charlotte, NC next week, and it will still be Bush’s fault.

        • angienc says:

          Believe it or not — in 1989 Hurricane Hugo actually hit Charlotte. It made landfall in Charleston, SC as a Cat 5 & was so strong that by the time it got to Charlotte — 150 miles inland — it was still a Cat 1. It really tore Charlotte up because that city has/had a lot of trees — power was knocked out for at least a week and, of course, no one in Charlotte was really prepared for a hurricane. So yes, you really never can tell with hurricanes.

          Oh, and Hugo was at the end of ,b>September — which, btw is historically the most active month for hurricanes — which makes those arguing “the GOP screwed up scheduling a convention at the end of August in FL!!” even more ridiculous. Although, obviously, as I said, a hurricane can happen in any month from May to October — and have.

  15. DM says:

    It’s expected that the hurricane will not be higher than category 1, but it’s not unusual for a storm to stay in the warm Gulf waters and gain speed to a higher category. Just saying.

    • DeniseVB says:

      That’s why it’s important to watch the forward speed too, a slow moving Cat 1 can be more damaging than a fast Cat 3. A fast moving 1 will be even better for those affected.

      Here in Coastal VA / Outer Banks, NC, we get a brush with about one a year. Mostly windy rainmakers that clear the deadwood from our trees 🙂

      • DM says:

        Reuters: Isaac is expected to strengthen to a Category 2 hurricane and hit the Gulf Coast somewhere between Florida and Louisiana at midweek – on or near the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina – the U.S. National Hurricane Center (NHC) said in an advisory.

    • angienc says:

      Aw yes, Mr. Hurricane expert — please enlighten us.

  16. HELENK says:

    a RANT

    backtrack shows his usual no class, low class self.
    His condolence message to the Neil Armstrong family was a stock picture of him self


Comments are closed.