“Lets assume her book is 300 pages. She devotes 10% of her book to launch her presidential bid on Benghazi and then announces she will not further discuss it. Ever see what Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs fiasco? He took full blame and delineated his shortcomings as CIC even though it was planned under the previous administration within days of the operation. We will never know the true reason for the Benghazi attack. I am partial to an attack against a CIA operation to arm the moderates in Syria and the resulting mushroom farm came from a blend of protecting a CIA operation and a presidential campaign. Political posturing aside, Ms Clinton was caught with her pants down with prior warning and subsequently fed us fairy tales diverting attention from the actual cause of the events where silence would have served the country better. Rather she choose to accept responsibility ( with the disclaimer of what difference does it make) without any accountability. There would be no political slugfest without the blatant indefensible fairy tale.”
Telgar on Jun 2, 2014 at 14:50:15
“Let's assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. Seeing as how you used her quote completely out of context. Which is such a cheap ploy.”
“There are only 3 possible verdicts. She is inept. She is delusional. She is deceptive. Arguing any of these points, merely points to the other. Uhh, wait a minute the great right wing conspiracy made her do it...
demand better mushrooms”
Telgar on Jun 2, 2014 at 09:44:51
“There is also the possibility that you are wrong, and that's the one I'm going with.”
“California screwed itself two ways. We passed term limits. We removed political parties from municipal elections. This put our legislature and municipalities firmly in the hands of special interests. Politicians need name recognition and funding to get elected and re elected. Now, who knows who these jokers are? How do they get name recognition? Who are funding their campaigns? How many silly unenforceable laws and declarations have we had to suffer whose only function seems to be free publicity for the sponsor(s)? All politics are local, yet, we eliminated politics from local office. How do grass roots movements get started and sustained? How do we get our respective parties concerned and responsive to local issues? Boiler room politics had its flaws but the fix has resulted in the people being told what to think by the parties rather than the people telling their parties what it is going to have to do to get our vote.”
cepenta on Mar 27, 2014 at 08:57:41
“So having an entrenched dynasty like we have in Massachusetts is a better option?”
“The cited references equally protect both sides of the argument. You can't support one right without denying both. Religion cannot impose their morality and government cannot impose on their dogma. This will be settled in the Supreme Court since they created the mess to begin with by putting corporations on par with the individual. I don't agree with the law. I don't believe in religion. I do believe we can't force our morality on another person whether or not we believe we are right.”
“It is definitely a convoluted problem. People have a right to love who they want to. On the other hand people have the right to practice their religion as they choose. And, the supreme court has ruled corporations are people. Personally, I don't believe companies are people and should not be able to discriminate, but, this conflicts with the supreme court. At the end of the day however, this proposed law is nothing but another feel good measure (left or right) that gives politicians free publicity and prominence among their supporters without regard to the constitution.”
helmcc814 on Feb 26, 2014 at 09:15:00
“It is not a convoluted problem at all. Practicing your religion should not give you carte blanch to discriminate against those who do no adhere to your religious principles. I am sure these so-called pro family values religionists would have no problem providing services to a single mom or a divorcee even though their religion clearly condemns pre-marital sex and divorce. There is absolutely no defense of this bill which was clearly made to promote discrimination against gays, but could also end up having many unintended consequences.
And if you think that companies should be allowed to discriminate I would think that your values may be a little suspect.”
Robert Kurz on Feb 25, 2014 at 21:52:30
“And unbelievers whave their say now but later all the homophobics will be weeping and wailing and knashing of teeth”
kasel1 on Feb 25, 2014 at 17:53:43
“It's very simple, Dan. You are free to practice any kookie religion you want, as long as you don't force your beliefs on the public. Once you start a public business and have to deal with different people, your freedom of religion takes a back seat to society. If you don' wanna live with other people, fine. Practice your religion behind closed doors. But open those doors and you have rules of behavior just like anyone else. There are many religions who believe infidels should be treated like sub humans. We don't allow them to discriminate. Bigots should have the same treatment.”
Steve Mestayer on Feb 25, 2014 at 16:24:54
“People have a right to practice religion as they choose (AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW) and business has the right to take their business elsewhere.”
joemondo on Feb 25, 2014 at 15:16:38
“Selling a gay person aspirin, or renting them a hotel room, or providing care for them in the emergency room does not privet anyone from practicing their own religion.”
DarkZephyr on Feb 25, 2014 at 14:50:10
“What religion exists that doctrinally teaches against doing business with LGBT people? Thanks in advance.”
Comeonman1 on Feb 25, 2014 at 14:17:11
“The 14th Amendment, The Civil Rights Act, and The Establishment Clauce make this a very easy issue. The proposed law is unconstitutional. The right to practice religion has nothing to do with discrimination in the business world. Not one mention of not being allowed to do business with gay people is in any religious text.”
“Lets see, I have an affair with a subordinate 30 years my junior. On what planet am I not prosecuted for sexual harassment and lose my job? Planet Hilary of course.”
lawcenterhawaii on Jan 30, 2014 at 19:46:37
“Not a crime.”
Rob G Stone on Jan 30, 2014 at 19:02:50
“When the both are more than willing players as came out in the evidence no-one cares.”
ShirleyinColorado on Jan 30, 2014 at 17:01:40
“Since when is it illegal to have an affair? Seriously?”
michelle isabell on Jan 30, 2014 at 16:29:25
“Why are you so worried about a consequential affair? Grow up. Even Monica would vote for Hillary.”
Djelem on Jan 30, 2014 at 16:06:19
“Let's see, I'm 70 she would be 40...............poor innocent girl. Don't make over-broad sweeping allegations, like alligators they can bite you back. Got that Dan?”
peedropaula on Jan 30, 2014 at 15:56:00
“I wasn't aware that Hillary, as First Lady, had it in her power to prosecute the President. I'm not sure what rule book you're using, but apparently it isn't the same one the rest of us use.”
Jerald Hall2 on Jan 30, 2014 at 15:50:04
“Always good to read another sane comment on huffpost. not many.”
Janicot on Jan 30, 2014 at 15:47:04
“I guess the "victim" who openly bragged about earning her "Presidential knee pads" wasn't feeling terribly harassed until the GOP and the media decided to hound her incessantly. Sorry, I see indiscretion and infidelity here, but not sexual harassment. Look up "consensual"...”
Mccraigers on Jan 30, 2014 at 15:23:40
“He wasn't her direct supervisor.....so it is completely legal for them to have a fling”
Taisposo on Jan 30, 2014 at 14:48:42
“What planet? In every country on our planet the news was received with a shrug.
Here, the morality police had a fit. Nice uniforms you guys wear.”
“GOP vs DEM? Please, neither can think their way past a 15 second sound bite. Sanctions are about as effective as the prohibition. The only thing they create is an economic opportunity elsewhere. Our sanctions have not worked with Cuba, North Korea, or Iran. Their main effect appears to be giving ammunition to despots as to why they are needed to protect the people from the U.S. On the other hand, peace in the middle east is a pipe dream. There are far too many oppressed and the social pressures must be relieved. Western military force or internal meddling cannot stop this from happening. We can only make the situation worse. Middle east solutions must come from the middle east.”
“Gun suicides are the dirty little secret of gun control statistics. Without including them, you are not more likely to be killed by your own gun or a gun owned in your house. They double the rate of gun deaths in the country. Gun control folk are not going to seriously address the issue since gun suicides help inflate their negative statistics and put distance between their talking points and reality. This is because you must address the issue as a mental health issue and a not a gun issue. Once you are talking about mental health, you are no longer talking about guns. They must stay on message.... they are out to save lives after all”
bracken on May 15, 2013 at 00:48:06
“When Australia instituted stricter gun regulation, suicides were reduced, because there was less access to a gun to make a split-second irreversible wrong decision. People didn't resort to rope, poison, or jumping off a bridge. They just didn't kill themselves as often when there were fewer guns around.
More guns, more gun deaths. It's really as simple as that. John Lott has been completely debunked as a statistical fraudster, although gun cuddlers still worship at his feet.”
Marsha Adamson on May 15, 2013 at 00:12:13
“I think you have to have a gun present to commit these suicides, so guns are the issue. Shooting yourself with a gun is much quicker and accessible, so people who do go through with a suicide will succeed if there is a gun present. If they use other methods they are more likely to have time to think about their actions and not do it. Maybe the person wouldn't have access to these guns if there were better background checks and they were enforced.”
“I am confused. On one hand folk support an increase in the minimum wage. The same folk oppose a formalized guest worker program. The same folk support union rights. Yet, illegal workers are being exploited by unscrupulous employers and holding down pay rates. Illegal workers are supplanting unskilled and skilled unionized labor. Shouldn't all workers have rights? Or is it OK because they are hispanic?”
“Please refresh my memory on Bill Clinton's relationship with a prominent china lobbyist and the Lincoln bedroom. Both sides are playing the game and it is in neither sides interest to change it. Oddly, they whine most about it when they in power and being threatened.”
“The only time the supreme court decided on universal background checks was in 95. In that decision, they struck down background checks on 10th amendment grounds.”
TheMilesHome on Feb 15, 2013 at 15:09:43
“One more thing on the 1997 decision.
Once a law is proved Constitutional (and it will get to the court), the Supremacy clause kicks in and then the Sheriffs of that state don't carry the protection they had previously. Elected or not.”
TheMilesHome on Feb 15, 2013 at 14:58:50
“Never mind, I have the case. (1995 threw me a bit) 1997 and the Brady Bill.
It was based on congressional overreaching and was never intended to remove any any and all restrictions on qualifications to purchase a gun.
You have a point that it must not take away a states rights to do what they want.
The gun trafficking laws should take care of that. They have to both be passed for wither to make sense.”
TheMilesHome on Feb 15, 2013 at 14:51:36
“Could you provide the case for that.
I was referring to the Heller case in which it's stated that the 2nd Amendment (like all others) is not without limitations.
"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"”
“The NRA follows the exact same laws as Soros and Media Matters. The NRA is incorporated. Its expenditures are open to all who care to look. Soros' private expenditures are not subject to public review.”
“2 percent of violent crime is committed with long rifles of any type. Semi automatic rifles are a fraction of that. Your fear of rifles is irrational. You can ban a class of weapon. This will not keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable or prevent mass killings. Doubt me, ask Joe Biden.
If you want to end criminal gun violence follow the money and lets decriminalize drug use and rip the bottom out of the illicit drug trade like we did when we ended prohibition. Your children and their children will be far more safer than passing any gun control legislation.”
BRAINS4USA on Feb 15, 2013 at 21:17:46
“Fine. The entire western civilization has to deal with drugs. Yet nowhere else do nations have the gun related deaths and accidents that we have. Proving you dead wrong on your baseless assumption. Which is not to say that I do agree drugs should be legal like alcohol.
All massacres are with high cap assault rifles - without them chances are very high a lot less would have died in each massacre. Also proving you wrong. And finally, NO CIVILIAN needs to have a semi automatic assault rifle with high cap mags. No One. These things are not toys.”
“In the meantime, liberals have all spontaneously sipped from the same fountain of divine enlightenment and independently arrived at the same conclusion.”
Captain Issimo-Dreyfus on Feb 15, 2013 at 14:04:53
“Red Diver, I'm not sure if you realize that you've made the point: Libs arrive independently. Cons arrive with the same ideas that are old.
See how crazy things are? Cons preach independence, but they all use one mind. Libs preach togetherness, but each person is independent and has the freedom to make decisions based on new information. Cons are trees. Libs are plants that continue to change and adapt. (Yeah, yeah, like weeds.)
No offense if you don't like being called a "tree." I'd like to say that nothing is written in stone, so maybe conservatives have a dormant gene or something that keeps them from seeing the real light.
You should try to take a sip from the "same fountain of divine enlightenment" that we have. Just try. A cup or two. Would a little sip as an experiment be all that bad? If freedom to be YOURSELF doesn't work out, then don't drink anymore. And if you really don't like it, at least you will know that nothing's perfect.”
“What choice do common Mexican citizens have? Rebellion is certainly not one of them. Self defense in a void of government protection is not a choice they have. What is the final refuge in face of absolute corruption? What makes you think it could not happen here when it has happened to our neighbor?”
onionboy on Feb 15, 2013 at 13:33:31
“Your missing the point. No laws are reasonably enforced in Mexico. It doesn't matter which ones you're talking about. The fact that Mexico can't enforce gun restrictions says nothing about gun restriction and says everything about Mexico.
Plenty of countries effectively enforce gun restrictions. I'm not saying we should go the route of them, but they're the examples to look at, not Mexico. ”