Peeing on Afghans is A-OK by Perry.Follow

Um... But didn't you just link a Politico article making some kind of big deal about Romney *not* having as much establishment support as he did in 2008?


You're so twisted up in your own attacks that you just blocked yourself. So let me get this straight. You assume that Romney is the establishment candidate because Politico told you that. But Politico told you that by writing an article about how Romney doesn't have the support of the GOP establishment. So instead of concluding, like any sane person would, that perhaps Politico is exaggerating the degree that Romney is supposed to have the establishment support in order to make hay about him not having it, you conclude that he really *is* the establishment candidate despite not having the support of the establishment? And then you accept the Politico hay about him not having the support and then on top of that make hay about me supporting the "establishment candidate".

That about sum it up? Dude. That's the most incredibly obtuse train of thought ever.


How about we simplify it to the fact that I support the candidate in the race that I think best represents the ideals that I believe in as a conservative and leave it at that. You assume something about me, and then when the facts don't match, you reinterpret them until they do. You might want to seek professional help for that.

Edited, Jan 30th 2012 5:49pm by gbaji

My point is mostly just that this is false, unless "long after" actually means "weeks after".

One of your Romney posts was after McCain had lost the general election, and you go out of your way to note that you voted for Romeny in the primary (lol at you trying to save face after 7 months of die-herd McCain supporting).

One of the Romney posts is just you stating what the polls "show" two weeks after Romney dropped his bid for the presidency (and you curiously hadn't made any posts in favor of him in April).

One was you saying you though Romney would have been a good VP pick because he was "presidential", but Biden gave McCain room for a more "maverick" VP (quotes and everything yours).

Another post is you stating that Romney would have been a bad VP pick because he would have been a "yawn" candidate.



Oh, and you start out your posts in February talking about how Romney is the preferential candidate, because you have a bunch of issues with McCain's stances. By the end of the Super Tuesday thread, you state that the only reason you picked Romney over McCain was because McCain was more likely to compromise. Then you say that he was the best candidate because he was the most likely to win of all the Republican nominees.

Sorry, I just had to, especially after reading him say "But for me, it's about stating facts."
http://http://wow.allakhazam.com/fcluster/gotopost.pl?mid=1327971936300716139

Yeah. That doesn't mean what you think it means. Are you denying that Romney was the establishment candidate in 2008? Because that was your ace in the hole earlier. "I'm not a tool of the GOP faithful! I voted Romney in 2008!" Have you come to understand that Romney WAS the establishment choice in 2008?

Likewise, Romney is the establishment choice today. Are you denying that? If you are, I'm just going to laugh at you and how deluded you are.


No, Romney is the establishment candidate. That was known before I read said article. Just because you only dance on a string doesn't mean no one else actually gets their news from somewhere. Shit, that's the argument for every "Anyone But Romney" candidate so far. "Don't just go along with what the Washington elites want, pick a real conservative!"


I suppose when the party tells you which candidate that is, it takes a lot of stress off of deciding for yourself

Being embarrassed and denying that you just do exactly as the party tells you to do doesn't make it "not true" just because you're uncomfortable with reality.

Sigged for being the dumbest ******* line I've ever seen.

Nice try, but you haven't told me the AR. All you have said was some general comment. Give me the exact AR that states exactly what you said.

Given the fact that you have taken the time to find old quotes of me in the past on several occasions in an attempt to prove me wrong, yet refuses to prove the AR to support your claim, only supports the notion that you're just making stuff up.

So, what AR states what you said?

Says who? Politico? Who is this "establishment" you speak of? Who decides who they are and who they support? Sounds like spin to me. What's funny is that I caught a bit of talk radio on the way home yesterday and what were they talking about? How the GOP establishment is afraid of Gingrich and that's why they're throwing their support behind Romney.

Sounds to me like you're the one parroting what you hear Joph. What a coincidence that right when the talking points shift to the GOP establishment attacking Gingrich, you come in here with your "Romney is the GOP establishment pick!!" bit. Funny that I don't recall you saying that before. Wait? Is that perhaps because the liberal talking points for the last 6 months has been how Romney isn't a good candidate because he's been unable to "seal the deal" and get the support of the GOP establishment? And you were parroting *that* talking point too.


You're funny. Really incredibly funny. You're like the model of projection. And utterly unaware of it too!



Joph. I don't pay attention to, or care who "the establishment" supports. I really don't. You, on the other hand, seem obsessed with it.



Um... Except that the Politico article wasn't talking about voter support Joph. They were talking about the big donors and influential folks who make up the GOP establishment being tepid in their support for Romney. They were the ones holding back on their support of him for the last 6 months (or year, if we go all the way back to when that article was written). How do you now switch that around and insist that he was really the establishment pick all along?

Answer: You're parroting whatever the talking heads on your TV tell you. And then projecting that onto me.



Wow. Just wow.

Edited, Jan 31st 2012 12:36pm by gbaji

Just because you're too dumb to figure out what the reason behind those facts to draw a conclusion doesn't mean everyone ... or anyone else is, sweety. I do apologize for not holding your hand and walking you down the path, though. See, you said you "posted a lot about Romney when he was still running." I kind of figured that the quote would have at least put you on the right hemisphere, but alas ... Anyway, I just pointed out that no, you did not "post a lot about Romney."

Ever. Multitasking too hard, short stack? I didn't refute it. I just disproved your claim you posted a lot about Romney. So simply, even a you should be capable of following. Though, in your defense I guess if you try to obscure arguments you can use your "Argument A" on "Discussion B" and hope everyone else is stupid enough to get confused.

It must hurt you to know that you've picked the wrong place to try such infantile argumentative tactics. You're the only one stupid enough to fall for that.You mean like if someone claims to have done something, but the facts don't back up that claim? Thanks, I'm glad you agree I was right, too.

Edited, Jan 31st 2012 3:55pm by lolgaxe

Great! We're done then, right? You've admitted that I was right. WTF?



A statement made in response to someone insisting that I posted more about Romney before the GOP convention than I did afterwards. Context kinda matters here. A search between Jan 2007 and Jan 2009 shows a total of 20 posts by me mentioning Romney. 15 of those are between Oct 17th 2007 and Feb 14th 2008 (when he was running). The other 5 are after that point (when he dropped out).

So I clearly did post about him most when he was running.


However, my other statement that I posted that I voted for him is also true. Just check the postings after he dropped out:

this:



and this:



and this:




So 3 times as many posts about him when he was running versus after he dropped out. But of those after he dropped out, 60% of them were me talking about how I voted for Romney and thought he was a good candidate.


So... Everything I've stated is true. Right? Are we done now? Has the hammer of truth(tm) beaten you down sufficiently?


Edited, Jan 31st 2012 2:27pm by gbaji

Yeah! Gbaji backed Romney before it was cool. Now it's so mainstream.

But your word choice is rarely ever irrelevant.

Catch him in one of his many, many errors and watch him scream about how his words didn't matter