Hard Choices by Hillary Clinton (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

A libertarian by definition doesn't fit neatly into the left-right paradigm. That's why it's odd that you would then modify it by including yourself right back into the "left" box.

I think it's apparent that some libertarians lean more left and others lean more right.

The ones who lean left tend to be pro-choice, and tend to focus on stuff like the Fourth Amendment and the War on Drugs.

The ones who lean right are more likely to be pro-life, and tend to focus on stuff like business regulations and taxes

Which strikes me as odd in a way.

I truly believe that we should all be allowed to do whatever we wish in our private life so long as it does not harm others.

The grey areas then become (1) what constitutes harm and (2) what is public vs private realm, whereby in a public realm we all deserve equality under the law.

There is also the theoretical / ideological vs reality. For example, I believe that, without any greater context, if a racist bigot wants to only serve white Christians, that should be their right. However, to balance that (especially in 1960) with government sanctioned slavery and destruction of a culture and people, systematically requires some though as to "are we ready" to provide that freedom or does the freedom to discriminate do such great public harm that we may need to steer away from our theoretical or ideological perspective.

A great example is affirmative action. When the GOVT does not allow a group by race to not even vote and to live as fifth class citizens, you can argue that there is a need - from a human perspective, an equality under the law perspective and a societal / business and fiscal perspective - to recalibrate for balance. Without context as a libertarian at heart I hate the idea of favoring anyone - but life is full of these situations. And you know what? Perhaps what was needed in 1960 is no longer needed and the need to further a lasting equality for all means that AA needs to go.

 

[Koya]

So they were for lunch counters being forced by government to allow certain kinds of customers, that presumably some of them didn't want, to use their business under force of law but they are against government dictating to private businesses who should be allowed into their business?

I don't understand that sentence.

If it helps answer your question, there's almost nothing more anathema to libertarianism than Jim Crow.

You are saying they are for what you also said they are against. Either they are for government using the law to force private businesses to accommodate people or they aren't. Rand Paul would say you are wrong I think. He says the libertarian position is the market would solve it.

Which is why any ideologue extremist view rarely jives with the many grey areas of reality. There is no black and white in most cases. Just shades of grey.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So they were for lunch counters being forced by government to allow certain kinds of customers, that presumably some of them didn't want, to use their business under force of law but they are against government dictating to private businesses who should be allowed into their business?

I don't understand that sentence.

If it helps answer your question, there's almost nothing more anathema to libertarianism than Jim Crow.

You are saying they are for what you also said they are against. Either they are for government using the law to force private businesses to accommodate people or they aren't. Rand Paul would say you are wrong I think. He says the libertarian position is the market would solve it.

Rand Paul would agree with what I said completely. Rand Paul would most certainly be against Jim Crow.

Many libertarians oppose laws that prohibit private enterprises from discriminating. All libertarians oppose laws that require private enterprises to discriminate -- which is what Jim Crow was.

 

[NCCommish]

So they were for lunch counters being forced by government to allow certain kinds of customers, that presumably some of them didn't want, to use their business under force of law but they are against government dictating to private businesses who should be allowed into their business?

I don't understand that sentence.

If it helps answer your question, there's almost nothing more anathema to libertarianism than Jim Crow.

You are saying they are for what you also said they are against. Either they are for government using the law to force private businesses to accommodate people or they aren't. Rand Paul would say you are wrong I think. He says the libertarian position is the market would solve it.

Which is why any ideologue extremist view rarely jives with the many grey areas of reality. There is no black and white in most cases. Just shades of grey.

Oh I agree.

 

[NCCommish]

So they were for lunch counters being forced by government to allow certain kinds of customers, that presumably some of them didn't want, to use their business under force of law but they are against government dictating to private businesses who should be allowed into their business?

I don't understand that sentence.

If it helps answer your question, there's almost nothing more anathema to libertarianism than Jim Crow.

You are saying they are for what you also said they are against. Either they are for government using the law to force private businesses to accommodate people or they aren't. Rand Paul would say you are wrong I think. He says the libertarian position is the market would solve it.

Rand Paul would agree with what I said completely. Rand Paul would most certainly be against Jim Crow.

Many libertarians oppose laws that prohibit private enterprises from discriminating. All libertarians oppose laws that require private enterprises to discriminate -- which is what Jim Crow was.

Rand Paul has come out against the law that ended Jim Crow.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So they were for lunch counters being forced by government to allow certain kinds of customers, that presumably some of them didn't want, to use their business under force of law but they are against government dictating to private businesses who should be allowed into their business?

I don't understand that sentence.

If it helps answer your question, there's almost nothing more anathema to libertarianism than Jim Crow.

You are saying they are for what you also said they are against. Either they are for government using the law to force private businesses to accommodate people or they aren't. Rand Paul would say you are wrong I think. He says the libertarian position is the market would solve it.

Rand Paul would agree with what I said completely. Rand Paul would most certainly be against Jim Crow.

Many libertarians oppose laws that prohibit private enterprises from discriminating. All libertarians oppose laws that require private enterprises to discriminate -- which is what Jim Crow was.

Rand Paul has come out against the law that ended Jim Crow.

Which doesn't mean that he supported (or would support) Jim Crow. It's possible to refrain from requiring discrimination without prohibiting discrimination.

ETA: The fact that I opposed the port security bill that effectively banned online poker does not mean that I favor doing away with port security. Similarly, Paul did not come out against the part of the Civil Rights Act that ended Jim Crow. He came out against a different part of that Act.

 

[NCCommish]

So they were for lunch counters being forced by government to allow certain kinds of customers, that presumably some of them didn't want, to use their business under force of law but they are against government dictating to private businesses who should be allowed into their business?

I don't understand that sentence.

If it helps answer your question, there's almost nothing more anathema to libertarianism than Jim Crow.

You are saying they are for what you also said they are against. Either they are for government using the law to force private businesses to accommodate people or they aren't. Rand Paul would say you are wrong I think. He says the libertarian position is the market would solve it.

Rand Paul would agree with what I said completely. Rand Paul would most certainly be against Jim Crow.

Many libertarians oppose laws that prohibit private enterprises from discriminating. All libertarians oppose laws that require private enterprises to discriminate -- which is what Jim Crow was.

Rand Paul has come out against the law that ended Jim Crow.

Which doesn't mean that he supported (or would support) Jim Crow. It's possible to refrain from requiring discrimination without prohibiting discrimination.

But it apparently wasn't possible to end it that way. There is no way that absent of a law requiring every part of society to be open to everyone we would even have gotten as far as we have now. Jim Crow wasn't just lunch counters. It was jobs, voting, property ownership, etc.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But it apparently wasn't possible to end it that way. There is no way that absent of a law requiring every part of society to be open to everyone we would even have gotten as far as we have now. Jim Crow wasn't just lunch counters. It was jobs, voting, property ownership, etc.

Great -- so you disagree with Rand Paul. You're probably right.

But disagreeing with the positions that Rand Paul does hold (e.g., that discrimination would have ended as smoothly without legally prohibiting it) doesn't justify attributing views to him that he does not hold (e.g., that the state should legally require racial segregation).

 

[humpback]

Yes, let's get a science denying, women's reproductive rights revoking, civil rights for all hating troglodyte in office.

Again I've never been a big Hillary fan, but those ideologues who spout the usual partisan #### from the right is beyond the pale. Not to mention counterproductive. I can't stand the job that Obamas doing for the most part and because of the idiocy of the right , I see zero chance of voting Republican in this election. Certainly not for any fed level races. Hopefully we have a viable third option like last time.

So every single possible Rep candidate is a monster?

Awful lot of them fit that description by their own words and deeds. When will the republicans run a centrist candidate? Where are the guys I could disagree with but respect? Like HW, Bob Dole, hell Ike for that matter? What happened to those Republicans? Their kind was pushed out for #######s like Ted Cruz.

How about their last two nominees? Certainly more centrist than "extreme far right mouth breathing" yada, yada that you guys like to portray.In any event, he's already made up his mind that they all are freaks apparently, which is odd for someone who claims to be in the middle.

I claimed they are troglodytes and deniers of facts and freedom / equality. Not freaks. Though some may certainly fit the bill.Few is, my views have been pretty consistent in general for a good ten plus years - left leaning libertarian.

McCain was a POW, but I don't think he actually lived in a cave, nor is he a monster. Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep better at night though.

Are you trying to strain what credibility you have by ignoring the fact that you said freaks, not I?And I had a ton of respect for the old McCain. You know, before he coward for political gain that was not meant to be

Hard to take that response as anything more than an admission that you are either fishing or have nothing legitimate to add here. That's your choice and we can only come to the conclusions as to your perspective (or lack thereof), accordingly

WTF are you talking about? I didn't call anyone freaks, I said that you apparently have already decided that they all are, and based on your calling them "science denying, women's reproductive rights revoking, civil rights for all hating troglodytes", I think that's pretty accurate. You sure seem credible as a reasonable, non-partisan person though.

 

[Koya]

Yes, let's get a science denying, women's reproductive rights revoking, civil rights for all hating troglodyte in office.

Again I've never been a big Hillary fan, but those ideologues who spout the usual partisan #### from the right is beyond the pale. Not to mention counterproductive. I can't stand the job that Obamas doing for the most part and because of the idiocy of the right , I see zero chance of voting Republican in this election. Certainly not for any fed level races. Hopefully we have a viable third option like last time.

So every single possible Rep candidate is a monster?

Awful lot of them fit that description by their own words and deeds. When will the republicans run a centrist candidate? Where are the guys I could disagree with but respect? Like HW, Bob Dole, hell Ike for that matter? What happened to those Republicans? Their kind was pushed out for #######s like Ted Cruz.

How about their last two nominees? Certainly more centrist than "extreme far right mouth breathing" yada, yada that you guys like to portray.In any event, he's already made up his mind that they all are freaks apparently, which is odd for someone who claims to be in the middle.

I claimed they are troglodytes and deniers of facts and freedom / equality. Not freaks. Though some may certainly fit the bill.Few is, my views have been pretty consistent in general for a good ten plus years - left leaning libertarian.

McCain was a POW, but I don't think he actually lived in a cave, nor is he a monster. Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep better at night though.

Are you trying to strain what credibility you have by ignoring the fact that you said freaks, not I?And I had a ton of respect for the old McCain. You know, before he coward for political gain that was not meant to be

Hard to take that response as anything more than an admission that you are either fishing or have nothing legitimate to add here. That's your choice and we can only come to the conclusions as to your perspective (or lack thereof), accordingly

WTF are you talking about? I didn't call anyone freaks, I said that you apparently have already decided that they all are, and based on your calling them "science denying, women's reproductive rights revoking, civil rights for all hating troglodytes", I think that's pretty accurate. You sure seem credible as a reasonable, non-partisan person though.

I see this needs a bit of unpacking for you, so let me try.

I never called them freaks. I called them out, in a somewhat but sadly not so hyperbolic manner and then YOU said I called them freaks.

I did not.

When I pointed that out, you smiley faced.

In addition, if the GOP keeps putting forth such dangerous, narrow minded extremists, then it becomes more and more realty and less and less hyperbole.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Rand Paul has come out against the law that ended Jim Crow.

Which doesn't mean that he supported (or would support) Jim Crow. It's possible to refrain from requiring discrimination without prohibiting discrimination.

ETA: The fact that I opposed the port security bill that effectively banned online poker does not mean that I favor doing away with port security. Similarly, Paul did not come out against the part of the Civil Rights Act that ended Jim Crow. He came out against a different part of that Act.

I'm bumping this because of the edit, which you may have missed. After writing the edit, I found that Paul explicitly agrees with the bolded portion of my edit:

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

(Much more at the link.)

 

[timschochet]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

 

[Koya]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

It's funny - Paul is one of the very very few national level people I actually contributed to. In retrospect, I jumped too soon as I didn't realize the utter imbalance and extremist views in his belief. But the promise of a libertarian taking a real shot at the established left as right was too shiny a toy for me to have ignored at the time.

 

[whoknew]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

Is that based on your mistaken belief that he is an isolationist? That seems to be a deal breaker for you.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I see this needs a bit of unpacking for you, so let me try.

I never called them freaks. I called them out, in a somewhat but sadly not so hyperbolic manner and then YOU said I called them freaks.

I did not.

When I pointed that out, you smiley faced.

In addition, if the GOP keeps putting forth such dangerous, narrow minded extremists, then it becomes more and more realty and less and less hyperbole.

Extremists = People who don't agree with me, right?

Because this has pretty much been the calling card of the left for a long time now, painting those remotely in disagreement as extremists.

 

[Boston]

I see this needs a bit of unpacking for you, so let me try.

I never called them freaks. I called them out, in a somewhat but sadly not so hyperbolic manner and then YOU said I called them freaks.

I did not.

When I pointed that out, you smiley faced.

In addition, if the GOP keeps putting forth such dangerous, narrow minded extremists, then it becomes more and more realty and less and less hyperbole.

Extremists = People who don't agree with me, right?

Because this has pretty much been the calling card of the left for a long time now, painting those remotely in disagreement as extremists.

Before he became a threat for the Presidency McCain was called a maverick...willing to buck his party...before he became a threat for the Presidency Romney was seen as moderate who was able to win in the bluest of blue states and work with liberal dems...the playbook is the same...once you become a threat you become an extremist...there will be spin that these guys changed but there isn't a GOPer that doesn't get this label once they become a threat (if they are a minority or woman they get painted even worse)...you would think Scott Brown is a cross between Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater and Mussolini...hopefully someday the GOP will lose the extremists and have middle-of-the-road leaders like Obama, Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Shumer, Boxer and Warren...

 

[Koya]

I see this needs a bit of unpacking for you, so let me try.I never called them freaks. I called them out, in a somewhat but sadly not so hyperbolic manner and then YOU said I called them freaks.

I did not.

When I pointed that out, you smiley faced.

In addition, if the GOP keeps putting forth such dangerous, narrow minded extremists, then it becomes more and more realty and less and less hyperbole.

Extremists = People who don't agree with me, right?

Because this has pretty much been the calling card of the left for a long time now, painting those remotely in disagreement as extremists.

Um, not at all. But calling it out as such appears to be a more common reaction than actually looking at and dissecting the issue at hand.

Most of my friends? Some range of moderate. My sis, a screaming lib, but somewhat reasonable. My dad? Extreme lefty.

So how is this the calling card of the left when the dem base is considerably left of me?

Come on, these knee jerk responses are becoming a joke already.

 

[Koya]

I see this needs a bit of unpacking for you, so let me try.I never called them freaks. I called them out, in a somewhat but sadly not so hyperbolic manner and then YOU said I called them freaks.

I did not.

When I pointed that out, you smiley faced.

In addition, if the GOP keeps putting forth such dangerous, narrow minded extremists, then it becomes more and more realty and less and less hyperbole.

Extremists = People who don't agree with me, right?

Because this has pretty much been the calling card of the left for a long time now, painting those remotely in disagreement as extremists.

Before he became a threat for the Presidency McCain was called a maverick...willing to buck his party...before he became a threat for the Presidency Romney was seen as moderate who was able to win in the bluest of blue states and work with liberal dems...the playbook is the same...once you become a threat you become an extremist...there will be spin that these guys changed but there isn't a GOPer that doesn't get this label once they become a threat (if they are a minority or woman they get painted even worse)...you would think Scott Brown is a cross between Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater and Mussolini...hopefully someday the GOP will lose the extremists and have middle-of-the-road leaders like Obama, Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Shumer, Boxer and Warren...

Serious question - so you actually believe this?

You think it's people like me that pushed McCain to the right? Or Romney? And for that matter Romney has shifted so often with roots in a very Liberal state it's not exactly other people fault.

We didn't move the goal posts - these folks shifted. You can blame the messengers or ignore reality if it makes you feel better but that's probably one reason why the GOP has so alienated itself from many such as myself that would be prime opportunities to get votes.

If only the GOP would get its collective head out its ###

 

[timschochet]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

Is that based on your mistaken belief that he is an isolationist? That seems to be a deal breaker for you.

It is a deal breaker and I don't like his foreign policy beliefs. I also don't like his connection to the Tea Party. I think his comments about drones were, frankly, paranoid, and remind me of certain people here who react strongly in a similar fashion to the NSA.

 

[Trey]

2016 can't come soon enough. Feel bad that she has to clean up after this amateur hour comes to a close but it is what it is.

 

[Boston]

I see this needs a bit of unpacking for you, so let me try.I never called them freaks. I called them out, in a somewhat but sadly not so hyperbolic manner and then YOU said I called them freaks.

I did not.

When I pointed that out, you smiley faced.

In addition, if the GOP keeps putting forth such dangerous, narrow minded extremists, then it becomes more and more realty and less and less hyperbole.

Extremists = People who don't agree with me, right?

Because this has pretty much been the calling card of the left for a long time now, painting those remotely in disagreement as extremists.

Before he became a threat for the Presidency McCain was called a maverick...willing to buck his party...before he became a threat for the Presidency Romney was seen as moderate who was able to win in the bluest of blue states and work with liberal dems...the playbook is the same...once you become a threat you become an extremist...there will be spin that these guys changed but there isn't a GOPer that doesn't get this label once they become a threat (if they are a minority or woman they get painted even worse)...you would think Scott Brown is a cross between Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater and Mussolini...hopefully someday the GOP will lose the extremists and have middle-of-the-road leaders like Obama, Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Shumer, Boxer and Warren...

Serious question - so you actually believe this?

You think it's people like me that pushed McCain to the right? Or Romney? And for that matter Romney has shifted so often with roots in a very Liberal state it's not exactly other people fault.

We didn't move the goal posts - these folks shifted. You can blame the messengers or ignore reality if it makes you feel better but that's probably one reason why the GOP has so alienated itself from many such as myself that would be prime opportunities to get votes.

If only the GOP would get its collective head out its ###

Moving to the right and being an extremist are not the same thing...you may not like it but the GOP is a Conservative party...do some take it too far...absolutely but right now anyone who is a Republican gets painted as a far right extremist and that is bull...the dems have tacked extremely left in recent history...look at the current players in that party (many I mentioned above)...can you honestly say any of them can be viewed as a moderate...they are all basically lockstep libs...that is fine but let's not pretend they are not as extreme as a far right pol...

 

[timschochet]

2016 can't come soon enough. Feel bad that she has to clean up after this amateur hour comes to a close but it is what it is.

Did you ever join PUMA, Trey?

 

[Trey]

2016 can't come soon enough. Feel bad that she has to clean up after this amateur hour comes to a close but it is what it is.

Did you ever join PUMA, Trey?

Nahh.. Solid Obama supporter in 2008. Lukewarm in 2012 but there was no credible alternative.

My biggest issue with Obama is not his policies but rather his political naïveté. He never turns off campaign mode. His administration loses control of messaging right out of the gate on most every story. The healthcare roll out was inexcusable. And for the public to be so misinformed on some of its key points is equally egregious.

Anyways. I don't think I'll be reading the book because it'll be nothing but fluff. As with Obamas books.. The first one was actually pretty good. The Audacity of Hope teed up the White House run. No need to read Hard Choices if you have been following Clinton from Senate to SecState to citizen.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

The thought of that rich, power hungry commie ##### becoming president makes my stomach turn.

 

[BassNBrew]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

Is that based on your mistaken belief that he is an isolationist? That seems to be a deal breaker for you.

It is a deal breaker and I don't like his foreign policy beliefs. I also don't like his connection to the Tea Party. I think his comments about drones were, frankly, paranoid, and remind me of certain people here who react strongly in a similar fashion to the NSA.

You are not a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[timschochet]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

Is that based on your mistaken belief that he is an isolationist? That seems to be a deal breaker for you.

It is a deal breaker and I don't like his foreign policy beliefs. I also don't like his connection to the Tea Party. I think his comments about drones were, frankly, paranoid, and remind me of certain people here who react strongly in a similar fashion to the NSA.

You are not a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

I was once. Not anymore.

 

[BassNBrew]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

Is that based on your mistaken belief that he is an isolationist? That seems to be a deal breaker for you.

It is a deal breaker and I don't like his foreign policy beliefs. I also don't like his connection to the Tea Party. I think his comments about drones were, frankly, paranoid, and remind me of certain people here who react strongly in a similar fashion to the NSA.

You are not a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

I was once. Not anymore.

You thought you were at one time, you never were.

Regarding the original post, I'd rather read Mr. Ishida's Coffer House (our whatever the title was) 100x over a Clinton book.

 

[Slapdash]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

 

[timschochet]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

Is that based on your mistaken belief that he is an isolationist? That seems to be a deal breaker for you.

It is a deal breaker and I don't like his foreign policy beliefs. I also don't like his connection to the Tea Party. I think his comments about drones were, frankly, paranoid, and remind me of certain people here who react strongly in a similar fashion to the NSA.

You are not a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

I was once. Not anymore.

You thought you were at one time, you never were.

Regarding the original post, I'd rather read Mr. Ishida's Coffer House (our whatever the title was) 100x over a Clinton book.

I'm not going to get into a debate yet again about what is and is not a libertarian. Simply put: you're wrong.

I plan on reading the book; I think it will be interesting. I'll report back here once I do.

 

[John Bender]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

Is that based on your mistaken belief that he is an isolationist? That seems to be a deal breaker for you.

It is a deal breaker and I don't like his foreign policy beliefs. I also don't like his connection to the Tea Party. I think his comments about drones were, frankly, paranoid, and remind me of certain people here who react strongly in a similar fashion to the NSA.

You are not a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

I was once. Not anymore.

You never were, HTH - we dont shift that quickly

 

[Fennis]

.The thought of that rich, power hungry commie ##### becoming president makes my stomach turn.

You just described the top 10 candidates. No idea who you are talking about.

 

[timschochet]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

You're the one predicting that Hillary's going to get crushed and then you laugh at my predictions? Chutzpah.

 

[Fennis]

You are not a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

Neither is Rand Paul. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[BassNBrew]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

Is that based on your mistaken belief that he is an isolationist? That seems to be a deal breaker for you.

It is a deal breaker and I don't like his foreign policy beliefs. I also don't like his connection to the Tea Party. I think his comments about drones were, frankly, paranoid, and remind me of certain people here who react strongly in a similar fashion to the NSA.

You are not a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

I was once. Not anymore.

You thought you were at one time, you never were.

Regarding the original post, I'd rather read Mr. Ishida's Coffer House (our whatever the title was) 100x over a Clinton book.

I'm not going to get into a debate yet again about what is and is not a libertarian. Simply put: you're wrong.

I plan on reading the book; I think it will be interesting. I'll report back here once I do.

Track record around here supports that I'm right and your wrong.

On another subject, there's $30 left in the NBA thread if you want to take SA. I think your wrong on that too.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I am a gunowning libertarian progressive non-KooK.

 

[BassNBrew]

You are not a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

Neither is Rand Paul. Nothing wrong with that.

I was discussing Tim, not Rand. Maybe this is a game I'm missing.

Fennis is not a Tiger Woods fanboy. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Fennis]

You are not a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

Neither is Rand Paul. Nothing wrong with that.

I was discussing Tim, not Rand. Maybe this is a game I'm missing.

Fennis is not a Tiger Woods fanboy. Nothing wrong with that.

I guess I misread. I like this game better anyway.

BassNBrew plays neither the bass or makes his own beer. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[humpback]

I see this needs a bit of unpacking for you, so let me try.

I never called them freaks. I called them out, in a somewhat but sadly not so hyperbolic manner and then YOU said I called them freaks.

I did not.

When I pointed that out, you smiley faced.

In addition, if the GOP keeps putting forth such dangerous, narrow minded extremists, then it becomes more and more realty and less and less hyperbole.

The word "freaks" seems to have struck a nerve, so even though you said some may certainly fit the bill, let's move on from that word.

The fact that you have already ruled out voting for any member of one party for POTUS, when we don't even know who the candidates will be in almost two and a half years when it actually occurs, says all anyone needs to know about your "credibility" with regards to being "non-partisan". Calling them "science denying, women's reproductive rights revoking, civil rights for all hating troglodytes" is just icing on your "non-partisan" cake.

 

[Slapdash]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

You're the one predicting that Hillary's going to get crushed and then you laugh at my predictions? Chutzpah.

I'm laughing at you, HTH

 

[timschochet]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

You're the one predicting that Hillary's going to get crushed and then you laugh at my predictions? Chutzpah.

I'm laughing at you, HTH

Oh. Well in that case, OK then.

 

[Jim11]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

Is that based on your mistaken belief that he is an isolationist? That seems to be a deal breaker for you.

It is a deal breaker and I don't like his foreign policy beliefs. I also don't like his connection to the Tea Party. I think his comments about drones were, frankly, paranoid, and remind me of certain people here who react strongly in a similar fashion to the NSA.

You are not a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

I was once. Not anymore.

You thought you were at one time, you never were.

Regarding the original post, I'd rather read Mr. Ishida's Coffer House (our whatever the title was) 100x over a Clinton book.

I'm not going to get into a debate yet again about what is and is not a libertarian. Simply put: you're wrong.

I plan on reading the book; I think it will be interesting. I'll report back here once I do.

I can hardly wait.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Anyways. I don't think I'll be reading the book because it'll be nothing but fluff. As with Obamas books.. The first one was actually pretty good. The Audacity of Hope teed up the White House run. No need to read Hard Choices if you have been following Clinton from Senate to SecState to citizen.

I'm a little more than halfway through The Audacity of Hope and I'm quite enjoying it. It's extremely well written, and it has a maturity and perspective about it that seems rare in politics these days.

But yes, it was obviously written with future campaigns in mind. It takes almost no controversial policy positions, trying to play both sides of most issues. The thing is, it does a really good job of that -- if Obama wrote it himself, I think it signals that he would do a better job of passing an ideological Turing test than the huge majority of other politicians. To me, that makes it an enjoyable read.

 

[whoknew]

We're certain to hear much more about all of this since Rand Paul is likely to run for President in 2016. I would vote for ANY Dem before Paul, but especially Hillary. (not that she would need my help- he'd be crushed).

Is that based on your mistaken belief that he is an isolationist? That seems to be a deal breaker for you.

It is a deal breaker and I don't like his foreign policy beliefs. I also don't like his connection to the Tea Party. I think his comments about drones were, frankly, paranoid, and remind me of certain people here who react strongly in a similar fashion to the NSA.

Ok. Thanks. That's what I thought.

I'm not going to argue with you because I know your position and we just disagree.

 

[otello]

People puff piece out this week.

 

[Koya]

I see this needs a bit of unpacking for you, so let me try.I never called them freaks. I called them out, in a somewhat but sadly not so hyperbolic manner and then YOU said I called them freaks.

I did not.

When I pointed that out, you smiley faced.

In addition, if the GOP keeps putting forth such dangerous, narrow minded extremists, then it becomes more and more realty and less and less hyperbole.

Extremists = People who don't agree with me, right?

Because this has pretty much been the calling card of the left for a long time now, painting those remotely in disagreement as extremists.

Before he became a threat for the Presidency McCain was called a maverick...willing to buck his party...before he became a threat for the Presidency Romney was seen as moderate who was able to win in the bluest of blue states and work with liberal dems...the playbook is the same...once you become a threat you become an extremist...there will be spin that these guys changed but there isn't a GOPer that doesn't get this label once they become a threat (if they are a minority or woman they get painted even worse)...you would think Scott Brown is a cross between Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater and Mussolini...hopefully someday the GOP will lose the extremists and have middle-of-the-road leaders like Obama, Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Shumer, Boxer and Warren...

Serious question - so you actually believe this?You think it's people like me that pushed McCain to the right? Or Romney? And for that matter Romney has shifted so often with roots in a very Liberal state it's not exactly other people fault.

We didn't move the goal posts - these folks shifted. You can blame the messengers or ignore reality if it makes you feel better but that's probably one reason why the GOP has so alienated itself from many such as myself that would be prime opportunities to get votes.

If only the GOP would get its collective head out its ###

Moving to the right and being an extremist are not the same thing...you may not like it but the GOP is a Conservative party...do some take it too far...absolutely but right now anyone who is a Republican gets painted as a far right extremist and that is bull...the dems have tacked extremely left in recent history...look at the current players in that party (many I mentioned above)...can you honestly say any of them can be viewed as a moderate...they are all basically lockstep libs...that is fine but let's not pretend they are not as extreme as a far right pol...

I have said that both parties have alienated the middle, not just the GOP. But the mainstream GOP has really kowtowed to the Tea Partiers and, if anything, has abandoned a lot of what the Reagan era Reps would embrace or at least work to compromise on. The Libs are still Libs, but the right seems to have become more rigidly ideological.

 

[Arizona Ron]

So far they're calling this book and book tour a flop. She's selling no where near the advance money she received.

I honestly think people are just tired of her. I'm actually surprised she's being considered for 2016. She couldn't beat Obama with then entire Clinton machine at her disposal.

 

[NCCommish]

So far they're calling this book and book tour a flop. She's selling no where near the advance money she received.

I honestly think people are just tired of her. I'm actually surprised she's being considered for 2016. She couldn't beat Obama with then entire Clinton machine at her disposal.

Clinton fatigue doesn't exist just within the ranks of those of us who remember when our party was center left.

 

[MikeIke]

So far they're calling this book and book tour a flop. She's selling no where near the advance money she received.

I honestly think people are just tired of her. I'm actually surprised she's being considered for 2016. She couldn't beat Obama with then entire Clinton machine at her disposal.

No one could have beaten Obama in 2008. Once it started, it was going to happen.

 

[Fennis]

So far they're calling this book and book tour a flop. She's selling no where near the advance money she received.

I honestly think people are just tired of her. I'm actually surprised she's being considered for 2016. She couldn't beat Obama with then entire Clinton machine at her disposal.

I think she is very vulnerable in the primaries and if she scares away other Dems, so she get the nomination, the Republicans can beat her in the general.

 

[NCCommish]

So far they're calling this book and book tour a flop. She's selling no where near the advance money she received.

I honestly think people are just tired of her. I'm actually surprised she's being considered for 2016. She couldn't beat Obama with then entire Clinton machine at her disposal.

I think she is very vulnerable in the primaries and if she scares away other Dems, so she get the nomination, the Republicans can beat her in the general.

By the time we get to actually running Democrats are going to be taking shots at her. Heck Joe Biden is certainly on the radar. She isn't steamrolling this. And if she does I won't vote the top of the ticket. We need another Clinton like we need another Bush. Which is to say not at all.