dagblog - Comments for "A Neocon/Neolib Apologizes to Hillary Clinton"

And again. . .

Ramona — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 22:09:00 +0000

In reply to I think I'll close with the

And again. . .

That old bugaboo, arrogance.

I think I'll close with the

Peter — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 22:01:03 +0000

I think I'll close with the wisdom that one Wise Guy left us, You're entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Oops! I thought he wrote,

barefooted — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:37:10 +0000

In reply to I dunno, barefooted. It was

Oops! I thought he wrote, "HRC is fair and her supporters are only showing their defense is deserved." My bad.

I think most of your and

Ramona — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 18:20:54 +0000

In reply to I thought you had dismissed

I think most of your and other's reasons for supporting HRC and denying her public record have been addressed and shown to be lacking.

They may have been addressed but "shown to be lacking" is in the eye of the beholder. You want a good discussion? Leave your arrogance outside.

I thought you had dismissed

Peter — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 17:49:45 +0000

In reply to Sadly, this time your need to

I thought you had dismissed us nonbelievers with your raspberries and I'm sorry my comments are not as entertaining as you once wrote. Your comment appeared to me to be whining about all of Hal's posts on this subject. I think most of your and other's reasons for supporting HRC and denying her public record have been addressed and shown to be lacking. You may think it is unfair that he keeps asking for answers to tough questions about your support but that only seems to be because you and others are unable to face the reality of what you are supporting.

I'm sad too, BF because we live in very dangerous times and too many people seem to be basing their choices on fear, Identity Politics and blind Party allegiance. HRC is the most dangerous candidate because of her proven, public performance and her clearly stated aggressive militaristic goals and disregard for human life. I don't base my views on her gender but on her character, or lack of character, as a person.

I dunno, barefooted. It was

Ramona — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:08:00 +0000

In reply to Sadly, this time your need to

I dunno, barefooted. It was nice of you to be polite to Peter after this:

HRC is fair game and her supporters are only showing their bankrupt defense of a known corrupt politician. Doc's phony Road To Damascus conversion deserved a pointed response and Hal nailed this one.

I was thinking more in the line of raspberries. .

Sadly, this time your need to

barefooted — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 07:05:42 +0000

In reply to Your high dudgeon response to

Sadly, this time your need to attract attention through your use of nonsensical wordplay (though not your best) didn't particularly work. Odd, really.

Then again, here I am. You know what's weird, Peter? I expected more from you, and, strange as it is, I need to say that. Read my comment to Hal one more time ... I didn't critique the blog at all - what's in it to inspire more than laughing at him as you suggest?

Well hello, Mr. White Rabbit

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 05:47:57 +0000

In reply to Michael is correct, HRC is a

Curiouser and curioser... the blog did it to me too.

Anyway subtle difference between making up weapons of mass destruction vs. trying to figure out how to support the Arab spring & do the right thing with a popular revolt.

Hillary's experience is also shaped by Rwanda and Bosnia meltdowns under Bill's watch. Was Kosovo ideal? Hardly. So what's the Goldilocks "just right" for the liberal set - do nothing? do something? do everything?

Similar with ISIS but the situation's a bit different because we've been there for 12 years on the Iraq side, and we know they'd love to have us put boots on the ground. Yes, it's pottery barn - Democrats largely broke it, now how do we fix it? Or just leave and let ISIS & Assad and Putin and Saudi Arabia and Iran work things out?

Nope!

Michael Maiello — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 03:38:14 +0000

In reply to Both are acceptable uses.

Nope!

Both are acceptable uses.

HSG — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 01:51:09 +0000

In reply to Go back and read the first

Both are acceptable uses. But as you implied the first definition is somewhat anachronistic. The way I used the term is preferred today.