Skip to main content

If you claim to be a Libertarian, and you support Mitt Romney, here's even more evidence that one of you is an idiot

First, a nonsensical piece by yet another conservative GOPer hack (Brady Cremeens, rhymes with "cretin," I think) out to make all us Libertarians feel guilty that because they nominated an idiot, if we don't vote for him, it's our fault Barack Obama gets re-elected.

And the paragraph by paragraph refutation at United Liberty.

And now the reality:

Today Mitt Romney announced that he supports the Patriot Act, but he doesn't know enough about the NDAA to say whether or not he would support indefinite detention.  He also implied that he supports torture for information gathering.

Yeah, that's right.

I could tolerate a man who understood the issue and didn't agree with my position.  I could even respect him.

But what do you do with a guy who wants to be President who hasn't even (apparently) bothered to examine critical legislation?

I-d-i-o-t.

And if you support him?

Comments

delacrat said…
Steve, Romney's no idiot. It's not that Romney does not understand the NDAA. It's that he does not care what it says, for the simple reason that it does not impact him or his caste.
October 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM
paulie said…
Will the real Willard please stand up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bxch-yi14BE
October 11, 2012 at 12:03 AM
tom said…
I love it.

Where do these Jackasses come from?

This Election cycle, the GOP had not one, but two excellent chances to appeal to both libertarians and constitutional conservatives. Both were arguably exactly what the GOP needed to split Obama's support by reaching out to the anti-war, pro-freedom, anti-drug-war, LGBT and fiscally responsible factions of the Democratic party. But no, they couldn't heap enough scorn and derision on these candidates and their supporters.

they laughed Gary Johnson, who won two terms as Governor in an overwhelmingly liberal state right out of the Republican party (and straight to the Libertarians, who were happy to say "Welcome, you're one of us!"). Then they filed frivolous suits in state after state to waste our money by trying to kick us off the ballots.

with Ron Paul, they resorted to oughtright fraud, election tampering and other crimes prevent him and his supporters from having any say in the nomination process.

and now that they've nominated a candidate that few Republicans actually wanted, but most could accept as a tolerable 4th or 5th choice, they send these fools crying to us, begging, "please Libertarians, you have to vote for the pathetic loser we've nominated so he doesn't embarrass us. You have to vote for Mitt because he's not Obama (never mind that his voting record is the same, or that he supports the same failed policies)"

Well, this Libertarian isn't stupid. You didn't want our opinion when you were casting your lot for the loser you now want us to back, and you won't care about us the day after the election.

Go to Hell and take your lesser of evils, Mitt Romney, with you. I'm voting for Gary Johnson because he's by far the best person running for President this year.
October 11, 2012 at 1:51 AM
Anonymous said…
What Tom said.+1
October 11, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Anonymous said…
What Tom said +2


John Galt
October 11, 2012 at 2:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...
70 comments
Read more

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...
31 comments
Read more