Romney/Kyl '08

[Diogenes]

You heard it here first.


And for the record, neither Hitlery or whoever is the frontrunner going into the Iowa caucuses is going to be the Dem nominee.

[Gunslinger]

To go on record:

Diogenes would never go for a candidate that represented America even if his nuts were threatened by a nail gun.

Diogenes was the fucker who paid for the last 2 Mike Tyson fights, cuz he is a dumbass.

[Diego in Seattle]

You heard it here first.


And for the record, neither Hitlery or whoever is the frontrunner going into the Iowa caucuses is going to be the Dem nominee.

And we heard it here last.

America isn't going to go along with the republican's march toward a theocracy.

And the dems will beat the republicans because they can't see past any democratic candidate beyond unelectable Hillary (as evidenced by your post).

[BSmack]

You heard it here first.

And for the record, neither Hitlery or whoever is the frontrunner going into the Iowa caucuses is going to be the Dem nominee.

Nice to see you agree with me about Hillary not being the nominee. Only two years behind the curve are ya?

[Gunslinger]

I would also like to state that I don't believe Hillary will be the nominee. She might, because the Democrats are inept. But the general consensus in America is that in order for the Democrats to win, they have to separate themselves from the Limbaugh fuckfest and every generalization that Diogenes and his cult are draggin America into the shitter, with.

Not until Dio's hero Limbaugh faces execution for treason, will this country ever recover.

[Bizzarofelice]

Can the right win without the religious zealots? The right needs voters who can overlook issues like the war and the economy and focus on important things like gay marriage and abortion.

How can the right pick a candidate other than another southern Baptist born-again yokel? Romney, a Mormon, don't fit that bill.

Also not fitting the bill is Rudy. 2008 will be 7 years from the rise he got from 9/11.

[Gunslinger]

Can the right win without the religious zealots? The right needs voters who can overlook issues like the war and the economy and focus on important things like gay marriage and abortion.

How can the right pick a candidate other than another southern Baptist born-again yokel? Romney, a Mormon, don't fit that bill.

Also not fitting the bill is Rudy. 2008 will be 7 years from the rise he got from 9/11.

No, they truly need their cult. But in order for Democrats to win, they need to remind those that hear the propaganda on the AM radio, while driving like ants to work, that Clinton isn't back. If they resemble the last 12 years, those soulless carbon copies will think: "Oh, here we go again with the Clinton nonsense."

[mothster]

You heard it here first.


And for the record, neither Hitlery or whoever is the frontrunner going into the Iowa caucuses is going to be the Dem nominee.

you heard it here first........that your a dumbass? check

[BSmack]

Can the right win without the religious zealots? The right needs voters who can overlook issues like the war and the economy and focus on important things like gay marriage and abortion.

How can the right pick a candidate other than another southern Baptist born-again yokel? Romney, a Mormon, don't fit that bill.

The problem Romney is going to have is reconciling his Momon faith with his support for domestic partnerships. It will take some pretty fancy triangualtion to get the lunatics on board for Romney.

[Cicero]

Jeb Bush is the best candidate, but he wont run.

[Mister Bushice]

Romney won't play out west or down south. A mormon in the white house? No way.

[Bizzarofelice]

How can the right pick a candidate other than another southern Baptist born-again yokel? Romney, a Mormon, don't fit that bill.

Dubya is a Methodist, dumbshit.

He is a born-again yokel dumbshit.

[BSmack]

How can the right pick a candidate other than another southern Baptist born-again yokel? Romney, a Mormon, don't fit that bill.

Dubya is a Methodist, dumbshit.

He is a born-again yokel dumbshit.

Nah, he's just playing to the chumps. In reality he's a Methodist.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethi ... /news.html

[Diogenes]

And for the record, neither Hitlery or whoever is the frontrunner going into the Iowa caucuses is going to be the Dem nominee.

Nice to see you agree with me about Hillary not being the nominee. Only two years behind the curve are ya?

Actually none of those supposed to have been the dems 'silver bullet' in the last couple decades have gotten anywhere.

Mario springs to mind.And the only frontrunners who actually managed to get the nomination were incumbents or former veeps. The GOP on the other hand does have a habit of nominatting those with a lead going into the primaries.

Can the right win without the religious zealots? The right needs voters who can overlook issues like the war and the economy and focus on important things like gay marriage and abortion.

How can the right pick a candidate other than another southern Baptist born-again yokel? Romney, a Mormon, don't fit that bill.

Also not fitting the bill is Rudy. 2008 will be 7 years from the rise he got from 9/11.

The mainstream Christians (religious zealots in leftyspeak) certainly aren't voting for the dems.

Romney is more mainstream than most think, Rudy isn't running and if he did for some reason, Mitt will get most of those who lean towards him after the first couple primaries. Jeb isn't running, McCain isn't a serious possibility to get nominated, and Frist is an idiot.

It will be a two man race, Romney and Allen, Mitt will win in the end.

Romney won't play out west or down south. A mormon in the white house? No way.

He will play well enough in the primaries, and the Dems don't have a prayer in those regions. Especially with Kyl on the ticket.

[upstart]

Can the right win without the religious zealots? The right needs voters who can overlook issues like the war and the economy and focus on important things like gay marriage and abortion.

How can the right pick a candidate other than another southern Baptist born-again yokel? Romney, a Mormon, don't fit that bill.

The problem Romney is going to have is reconciling his Momon faith with his support for domestic partnerships. It will take some pretty fancy triangualtion to get the lunatics on board for Romney.

Romney told me, "I thinks gays should be allowed to live openly in
the military"....I shit you not.I worked on one of his campaigns ,and
quit on the spot when he told me that.

[Gunslinger]

Romney told me, "I thinks gays should be allowed to live openly in
the military"....I shit you not.I worked on one of his campaigns ,and
quit on the spot when he told me that.

Cuz, you are a sad little man.

If a gay is in your face telling you how gay he is and you should be open minded and go to a gay club with him, you are permitted to tell him to fuck off.

If someone is gay and they aren't bothering anyone. Then you get in their face and tell them how straight you are and they should go to a straight club, they are permitted to tell you to fuck off.

If you are straight and you have a fat wife and you brag and boast about how much you fuck her every night and how she likes a dildo in her ass while you are fucking her pussy, then you should be told to go fuck off.

[Diogenes]

Romney told me, "I thinks gays should be allowed to live openly in
the military"....I shit you not.I worked on one of his campaigns ,and
quit on the spot when he told me that.

Cuz, you are a sad little man.

If a gay is in your face telling you how gay he is and you should be open minded and go to a gay club with him, you are permitted to tell him to fuck off.

If someone is gay and they aren't bothering anyone. Then you get in their face and tell them how straight you are and they should go to a straight club, they are permitted to tell you to fuck off.

If you are straight and you have a fat wife and you brag and boast about how much you fuck her every night and how she likes a dildo in her ass while you are fucking her pussy, then you should be told to go fuck off.

Go fuck off.

[BSmack]

Can the right win without the religious zealots? The right needs voters who can overlook issues like the war and the economy and focus on important things like gay marriage and abortion.

How can the right pick a candidate other than another southern Baptist born-again yokel? Romney, a Mormon, don't fit that bill.

The problem Romney is going to have is reconciling his Momon faith with his support for domestic partnerships. It will take some pretty fancy triangualtion to get the lunatics on board for Romney.

Romney told me, "I thinks gays should be allowed to live openly in
the military"....I shit you not.I worked on one of his campaigns ,and
quit on the spot when he told me that.

I rest my case.

[Diogenes]

Your 'case' is based on the anecdote of an anonymous poster on an internet board?

Epic.

[Bizzarofelice]

Your 'case' is based on the anecdote of an anonymous poster on an internet board?

Epic.

I'm guessing you don't quite understand the turn of a phrase, humorless twat. Must suck to be stuck in such a feeble mind.

[upstart]

Romney told me, "I thinks gays should be allowed to live openly in
the military"....I shit you not.I worked on one of his campaigns ,and
quit on the spot when he told me that.

Cuz, you are a sad little man.

If a gay is in your face telling you how gay he is and you should be open minded and go to a gay club with him, you are permitted to tell him to fuck off.

If someone is gay and they aren't bothering anyone. Then you get in their face and tell them how straight you are and they should go to a straight club, they are permitted to tell you to fuck off.

If you are straight and you have a fat wife and you brag and boast about how much you fuck her every night and how she likes a dildo in her ass while you are fucking her pussy, then you should be told to go fuck off.

The Military does not permit people to tell each other to "fuck off"
particularity if the pervert out ranks you.

That said: fuck off

[Diogenes]

Your 'case' is based on the anecdote of an anonymous poster on an internet board?

Epic.

Must suck to be stuck in such a feeble mind.

Which one? I'm in so many of you nitwits' domes I've lost count.

[BSmack]

The Military does not permit people to tell each other to "fuck off" particularity if the pervert out ranks you.

Ever hear of the Air Force Academy?

The Tailhook Club?

Heteros can be perverts too.

That being said, get your head out of your ass.

[upstart]

The Military does not permit people to tell each other to "fuck off" particularity if the pervert out ranks you.

Ever hear of the Air Force Academy?

The Tailhook Club?

Heteros can be perverts too.

That being said, get your head out of your ass.

I just pulled my head out of my ass and realized a man trying to have
sex with a woman is not the same as a man trying to have sex with a man

And Don't forget...it was you liberals that pushed having woman in the
Academys and in combat ready units.So take tailhook and stick it up
your ass.We told you what would happen.

BTW did I say "Fuck off"

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...it was you liberals that pushed having woman in the
Academys and in combat ready units.

I'm sorry you find women "icky" in your sweaty, all-male, locker room fantasy.

Conservative knuckle-crunchers. Sheeesh, come out of the closet already.

[BSmack]

I just pulled my head out of my ass and realized a man trying to have sex with a woman is not the same as a man trying to have sex with a man

And Don't forget...it was you liberals that pushed having woman in the
Academys and in combat ready units.So take tailhook and stick it up
your ass.We told you what would happen.

BTW did I say "Fuck off"

Thank you for reinforcing every negative Republican stereotype possible. From now on, when people complain that I am being too harsh towards those on the other side of the aisle, I will simply point to one of your posts in my defense.

BTW: I suppose it would be asking too much to blame the perpetrators of these incidents and not the victims? I thought you Republicans were all about “law and order”?

[upstart]

I just pulled my head out of my ass and realized a man trying to have sex with a woman is not the same as a man trying to have sex with a man

And Don't forget...it was you liberals that pushed having woman in the
Academys and in combat ready units.So take tailhook and stick it up
your ass.We told you what would happen.

BTW did I say "Fuck off"

Thank you for reinforcing every negative Republican stereotype possible. From now on, when people complain that I am being too harsh towards those on the other side of the aisle, I will simply point to one of your posts in my defense.

BTW: I suppose it would be asking too much to blame the perpetrators of these incidents and not the victims? I thought you Republicans were all about “law and order”?

It hurts my eyes to read your post sometimes ,you are so fucking slow.
Their would be no prerpetrators if you liberals did not force "woman" in
places thay should not be in.The militarys job is to kill, not to look after
fags and girls.

[Cicero]

...it was you liberals that pushed having woman in the
Academys and in combat ready units.

I'm sorry you find women "icky" in your sweaty, all-male, locker room fantasy.

Conservative knuckle-crunchers. Sheeesh, come out of the closet already.

Actually we want to win wars. We're pretty good at it. Women dont do as good a job in battle.

[Diego in Seattle]

...it was you liberals that pushed having woman in the
Academys and in combat ready units.

I'm sorry you find women "icky" in your sweaty, all-male, locker room fantasy.

Conservative knuckle-crunchers. Sheeesh, come out of the closet already.

Actually we want to win wars. We're pretty good at it. Women dont do as good a job in battle.

Sure they do. Just ask the Pentagon about how Jessica Lynch was captured.

[Degenerate]

And for the record, neither Hitlery or whoever is the frontrunner going into the Iowa caucuses is going to be the Dem nominee.

In a new book out yesterday from Regnery Publishing, "Strategery" by veteran reporter Bill Sammon, Rove is quoted as saying: "She is the dominant player on their side of the slate. Anybody who thinks that she's not going to be the candidate is kidding themselves."

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf ... xml&coll=1

Not that he knows about a candidate's electability, or anything.

[Terry in Crapchester]

And for the record, neither Hitlery or whoever is the frontrunner going into the Iowa caucuses is going to be the Dem nominee.

In a new book out yesterday from Regnery Publishing, "Strategery" by veteran reporter Bill Sammon, Rove is quoted as saying: "She is the dominant player on their side of the slate. Anybody who thinks that she's not going to be the candidate is kidding themselves."

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf ... xml&coll=1

Not that he knows about a candidate's electability, or anything.

Look up the word Machiavellian in the dictionary, and you'll find Rove's picture there.

If Rove were a Democrat, I'd take him at face value. Given that he's a Republican, though, he's rather obviously trying to convince Democrats to nominate the person he'd believe would be the easiest mark.

After 8 years of W, there's no reason a Democrat shouldn't win in '08. But Hillary is the one who could possibly gum up the works. Yes, she can raise funds like no other Democrat, but there's a serious downside. Her nomination would mobilize the Republican base like nothing else. There's a very good chance that most of the Republican base sits out the '08 election otherwise.

Hillary is a disaster waiting to happen if the Democrats nominate her.

[Diogenes]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01937.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... gislation/

We'll see how effective this is.

[bbqjones]

jon kyl is a faggot

even though, id vote for him over anybody/biden or hillary ticket or anybody democrap. i fucking hate liberals, theyre worse then faggots is what im saying.

[Diogenes]

You still heard it here first....

Romney for President



Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.

Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.

Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.

Two other major candidates would be able to keep the coalition together, but have drawbacks of their own. John McCain is not as conservative as Romney. He sponsored and still champions a campaign-finance law that impinged on fundamental rights of political speech; he voted against the Bush tax cuts; he supported this year’s amnesty bill, although he now says he understands the need to control the border before doing anything else.

Despite all that and more, he is a hero with a record that is far more good than bad. He has been a strong and farsighted supporter of the Iraq War, and, in a trying political season for him, he has preserved and even enhanced his reputation for dignity and seriousness. There would be worse nominees for the GOP (see above). But McCain ran an ineffectual campaign for most of the year and is still paying for it.

Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.

Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.

It is true that he has less foreign-policy experience than Thompson and (especially) McCain, but he has more executive experience than both. Since almost all of the candidates have the same foreign-policy principles, what matters most is which candidate has the skills to execute that vision.

Like any Republican, he would have an uphill climb next fall. But he would be able to offer a persuasive outsider’s critique of Washington. His conservative accomplishments as governor showed that he can work with, and resist, a Demo­crat­ic legislature. He knows that not every feature of the health-care plan he enacted in Massachusetts should be replicated nationally, but he can also speak with more authority than any of the other Republican candidates about this pressing issue. He would also have credibility on the economy, given his success as a businessman and a manager of the Olympics.

Some conservatives question his sincerity. It is true that he has reversed some of his positions. But we should be careful not to overstate how much he has changed. In 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and “tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.” He was no Rockefeller Republican even then.

We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.

He still has some convincing to do with other conservatives. Romney has been plagued by the sense that his is a passionless, paint-by-the-numbers conservatism. If he is to win the nomination, he will have to show more of the kind of emotion and resolve he demonstrated in his College Station “Faith in America” speech.

For some people, Romney’s Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish. He deserves to be judged on his considerable merits as a potential president. As he argued in his College Station speech, his faith informs his values, which he has demonstrated in both the private and public sectors. In none of these cases have any specific doctrines of his church affected the quality of his leadership. Romney is an exemplary family man and a patriot whose character matches the high office to which he aspires.

More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.

[Mikey]

I wonder what his views are on downloading pron.

[Diogenes]

I wonder what his views are on downloading pron.

He is against chilren being exposed to it.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

For some people, Romney’s Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish.

Hear that sound? That's the sound of half your party staying home on election day.

Could the last thumper out please hit the lights? TIA.

[Terry in Crapchester]

For some people, Romney’s Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish.

Hear that sound? That's the sound of half your party staying home on election day.

More like 2/3 than 1/2. And they'll be doing that no matter which candidate their party nominates. As long as the Democrats don't nominate Hillary, that is.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

If the Democrats nominate Hillary, everyone should stay home.

[Diogenes]

For some people, Romney’s Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish.

Hear that sound? That's the sound of half your party staying home on election day.

More like 2/3 than 1/2. And they'll be doing that no matter which candidate their party nominates. As long as the Democrats don't nominate Hillary, that is.

Dream on, losers. Just because the Dems are a bunch of anti-religious bigots, doesn't mean squat. Romney's Mormonism will matter to less than 1% of the GOP once he's nominated and they find out what he's about instead of the leftist spin on him. The fact that he actually is religious and his life reflects it will carry much more weight.


Be afraid, lefties.