Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rand endorses Romney

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by defender View Post
    He sure could. It's the eight years of Romney part that makes me wonder if it's worth it. It's like f*cking tub girl just to have a shot at Jenna Jameson.

    On edit: Late 90's Jenna. Not the modern day freakazoid.
    Sounds good to me.
    Denver or BUST!!

    Hold on man, stop at that Taco Bell..

    Comment


    • #17
      Prediction:

      Romney has Rand's endorsement and Ron will go quietly off into the sunset not publicly endorsing or non-endorsing anyone. Probably was the exit strategy all along, considering the fact that, other than today, Ron hasn't been on TV in about two weeks.

      Talk about going out with a whimper.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by defender View Post
        Go back to counting delegates.

        A lot for Paul.

        A little for the rest.

        Maybe you;ll get it right this time.
        Romney's already over the top in that department.
        "Go suck your rabbi's c0ck, you momser." Aambler, 8/27/2008

        "Now that Obama didnt pick Hil in his only chance to win, Jmac can only blow it by picking Jew Loserman." Aambler 8/28/2008

        "…they could have gone to ,say Tahiti, where they would have a better place to live with nicer neighbors." Aambler, 9/2/2008

        "here is a doll you can buy to jack off to." Aambler, 9/12/2008

        Aambler, revealing his true colors for all but him to see.

        "Aambler is a massive wanker." LTR, 1/22/2011

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Dewitt Clinton View Post
          Romney's already over the top in that department.
          No "Gov" - I'm referring to this statement...

          Originally posted by Dewitt Clinton View Post
          it will be Santorum and Gingrich, who will both have substantially more delegates at the Republican Convention than Ron Paul.
          ...which you still refuse to own up to despite the fact that you continually feel entitled to parachute into threads, drop your hallow condescension on me about how I need to get with the "real world" and then disappear before engaging in any substantive debate.

          Irony.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by defender View Post
            No "Gov" - I'm referring to this statement...



            ...which you still refuse to own up to despite the fact that you continually feel entitled to parachute into threads, drop your hallow condescension on me about how I need to get with the "real world" and then disappear before engaging in any substantive debate.

            Irony.
            At least you're finally conceding that Romney is over the top. We're making progress. You're the one who's calling Rand Paul a douche for making the right move, not me.
            "Go suck your rabbi's c0ck, you momser." Aambler, 8/27/2008

            "Now that Obama didnt pick Hil in his only chance to win, Jmac can only blow it by picking Jew Loserman." Aambler 8/28/2008

            "…they could have gone to ,say Tahiti, where they would have a better place to live with nicer neighbors." Aambler, 9/2/2008

            "here is a doll you can buy to jack off to." Aambler, 9/12/2008

            Aambler, revealing his true colors for all but him to see.

            "Aambler is a massive wanker." LTR, 1/22/2011

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Dewitt Clinton View Post
              At least you're finally conceding that Romney is over the top. We're making progress. You're the one who's calling Rand Paul a douche for making the right move, not me.
              Why is it the "right" move? Party before principle? I must have missed your thorough exposition. I know you would never be one to to parachute in and drop missives without support.

              I'll let it go this time. You must have been too busy looking for those Santorum/Newt delegates.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by defender View Post
                Why is it the "right" move? Party before principle? I must have missed your thorough exposition. I know you would never be one to to parachute in and drop missives without support.

                I'll let it go this time. You must have been too busy looking for those Santorum/Newt delegates.
                It's a bird in the hand, and it builds his support within the party for him and his ideas, provided that he can bring his supporters along, which he apparently may have difficulty doing. Gingrich and Santorum already endorsed Romney.
                "Go suck your rabbi's c0ck, you momser." Aambler, 8/27/2008

                "Now that Obama didnt pick Hil in his only chance to win, Jmac can only blow it by picking Jew Loserman." Aambler 8/28/2008

                "…they could have gone to ,say Tahiti, where they would have a better place to live with nicer neighbors." Aambler, 9/2/2008

                "here is a doll you can buy to jack off to." Aambler, 9/12/2008

                Aambler, revealing his true colors for all but him to see.

                "Aambler is a massive wanker." LTR, 1/22/2011

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Dewitt Clinton View Post
                  It's a bird in the hand, and it builds his support within the party for him and his ideas, provided that he can bring his supporters along, which he apparently may have difficulty doing. Gingrich and Santorum already endorsed Romney.
                  I suspect his supporters won't follow. Rand's facebook page already has thousands - yes, thousands - of comments disavowing him.

                  And I don't blame them. When you build a huge following by opposing the Patriot Act, NDAA, bailouts and all the like, you can't expect supporters to follow you blindly when you endorse the guy who supports all that nonsense. What's worse was his promise to "actively campaign" for Romney.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    There are two ways to win, overpower them or join them. The libertarians were never going to overpower the GOP. So you join in and get as many of your ideas to join you as possible. It's called baby steps. Rand now has infinitely more support from me than his father does because he's willing to join in to win first then worry about getting his ideas through. Romney winning is not a travesty for the libertarians, Obama getting a second term would go so far down the socialist path that there would be no return from the stupid. Got to think of the big picture. Romney reminds me of Bill Clinton. On,y interested in winning, not necessarily doing anything specific once he gets there. If Rand can be the birdie in his ear the whole time you could see lots of libertarian policies come to be, mostly the ones that are easiest for the GOP to swallow such as auditing the Fed. You gotta pay to play, if you just stew on the sidelines you get nothing.
                    I guess if liberals didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The biggest problem with true Libertarians, like defender, is not only their willingness, but actual happiness to play the martyr.

                      On one hand, the principled argument that you're staying true to values is honorable. It's also horrible that a complete unwillingness to compromise could lead to destruction. And while they look at it as that's the rebirth, in actuality, the rebirth may never come.
                      Originally posted by Luscious Johnny D.
                      I'll save you the effort since I know where you're going with this, but I'll make a few observations on your comment that was not thought out too well. (1) It's rather difficult to call the phony king of England the government. (2) I would think someone like you would have no objection to someone trying to undo the over-taxation of the people. (3) In this case, no, I have no problem with them taking from the government since they were not ruling for the people.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Fonzy13 View Post
                        The biggest problem with true Libertarians, like defender, is not only their willingness, but actual happiness to play the martyr.

                        On one hand, the principled argument that you're staying true to values is honorable. It's also horrible that a complete unwillingness to compromise could lead to destruction. And while they look at it as that's the rebirth, in actuality, the rebirth may never come.
                        I'm not going to entirely disagree about the martyrdom, but I will say there's plenty of non-libertarian Republicans I wouldn't have minded seeing Rand endorse (if they were in Romney's position). Jim DeMint, for example. He's far from liberty-minded when it comes to his foreign policy and social issues but his record is serious enough about cutting the spending that I could see that as a even compromise. Same with Paul Ryan. At least there's common ground there. Romney, on the other hand, hasn't shown he's serious about limiting government in any regard. He just likes slightly less gigantic government than Obama, and Rand subordinating himself to a guy like that could kill a lot a momentum the liberty movement had going.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by defender View Post
                          I'm not going to entirely disagree about the martyrdom, but I will say there's plenty of non-libertarian Republicans I wouldn't have minded seeing Rand endorse (if they were in Romney's position). Jim DeMint, for example. He's far from liberty-minded when it comes to his foreign policy and social issues but his record is serious enough about cutting the spending that I could see that as a even compromise. Same with Paul Ryan. At least there's common ground there. Romney, on the other hand, hasn't shown he's serious about limiting government in any regard. He just likes slightly less gigantic government than Obama, and Rand subordinating himself to a guy like that could kill a lot a momentum the liberty movement had going.
                          Could is the key word. It could also go the other way. But the vast majority of Libertarians won't even bother to look at that.
                          Originally posted by Luscious Johnny D.
                          I'll save you the effort since I know where you're going with this, but I'll make a few observations on your comment that was not thought out too well. (1) It's rather difficult to call the phony king of England the government. (2) I would think someone like you would have no objection to someone trying to undo the over-taxation of the people. (3) In this case, no, I have no problem with them taking from the government since they were not ruling for the people.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Fonzy13 View Post
                            Could is the key word. It could also go the other way. But the vast majority of Libertarians won't even bother to look at that.
                            I'm inclined to believe it will hurt more than it help. I certainly recognize I could be wrong and I hope I am.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              What the f*ck is Libertarian? All I ever see when a Libertarian is on telly, is a pedo-in-waiting. They don't want rules, they want to be able to live and let live (except when they wanna shoot someone, in which case, that's okay too so long as they're doing the shooting), and they always want to expose their seriously lacking wobbly bits in public.

                              Libertarians my arse. Pedotarians. That's more like it.

                              Or am I getting mixed up with Liberals? Who the f*ck are those bearded guys who walk around Vermont stark naked because it's legal there? They ride bicycles too. That's the strangest thing I've ever seen, that is. A set of squished bollocks astride an old rusty bike seat, pedalling through a picturesque white-spired Vermont town.
                              ~holly

                              Guys are just naughty boys who need a slap every now and then. Ain't that the truth, girls!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Holly Johnson View Post
                                What the f*ck is Libertarian? All I ever see when a Libertarian is on telly, is a pedo-in-waiting. They don't want rules, they want to be able to live and let live (except when they wanna shoot someone, in which case, that's okay too so long as they're doing the shooting), and they always want to expose their seriously lacking wobbly bits in public.

                                Libertarians my arse. Pedotarians. That's more like it.

                                Or am I getting mixed up with Liberals? Who the f*ck are those bearded guys who walk around Vermont stark naked because it's legal there? They ride bicycles too. That's the strangest thing I've ever seen, that is. A set of squished bollocks astride an old rusty bike seat, pedalling through a picturesque white-spired Vermont town.
                                Holy cr*p. Someone just came in here to check if I was okay. That hasn't happened because of anything here since the days of MOFO-opoly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X