Election 2016

George Pataki Is Dropping Out of the Presidential Race, if Anybody Cares

Another one bites the dust.

|

I could have put a picture of some random character actor here and some folks wouldn't have realized.

Well, former New York Gov. George Pataki is out of the race for president. The Republican candidate failed to ever get out of the undercard debates and make any sort of dent in anybody else's poll numbers. The New York Times diplomatically reports his campaign "failed to catch fire":

Mr. Pataki himself plans to make an announcement Tuesday night on NBC affiliates in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, three states that are holding their contests in February, his campaign said.

His withdrawal from the race leaves 12 Republican candidates still in the field at the battle heads toward its first contest, the Iowa caucuses, which are just a month away.

Earle I. Mack, a prominent real estate developer and Republican donor who was supporting Mr. Pataki, said the former governor had faced a difficult national environment for his "middle of the road" brand of politics. Mr. Mack, who spoke with Mr. Pataki ahead of his announcement, said Republicans faced a dire future if they did not tack toward the center, as Mr. Pataki had urged.

"It's time for a more moderate Republican," Mr. Mack said, adding: "If we don't have a candidate that understands the Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is legal and a woman's right to choose is legal, if they can't get that through their head, they're going to keep losing elections."

And the rest of the Republican Party shrugs and carries on. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Man Files Deed Transfer, Claiming Ownership of Petco Park, Causing Headaches for San Diego

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Earle I. Mack, a prominent real estate developer and Republican donor who was supporting Mr. Pataki, said the former governor had faced a difficult national environment for his “middle of the road” brand of politics. Mr. Mack, who spoke with Mr. Pataki ahead of his announcement, said Republicans faced a dire future if they did not tack toward the center, as Mr. Pataki had urged.

    WHY CAN’T YOU BE EVEN MORE LIKE THE DEMOCRATS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    1. com?pro?mise
      /?k?mpr??m?z/
      verb
      1. The political right shifting positions toward the political left.

    2. I’d prefer they tack toward up.

      1. That quiz is BS…though in fairness it did match me with my 2 preferred candidates.

        Where your Personal score meets your Economic score on the grid below is your political philosophy. Based on the above score, you are a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative .

        I got penalized because I “Strongly Support” that EPA regulations are too restrictive, while apparently Hard-Core Libertarians “Strongly Oppose” that sentiment. Okay then.

        Oh, and I was also pushed less Libertarian for being pro-life.

        1. The quiz, that most are familiar with, is bullshit, but the chart is not. That was not my score, it was Rand’s as rated by On the Issues (scroll to the bottom). My assumption is they use an entirety of positions on the issues for their ratings, but I don’t see a methodology. Try it with various candidates. It appears fairly accurate.

          1. According to that, Amash is less libertarian than Rand. Maybe that’s true? It doesn’t seem like it based on public statements they’ve made, though.

        2. You can’t be much of a libertarian and support a police state to enforce your contraception laws.

          But you’re in the right conservative chat room.

          1. You tell ’em! We’re all very very proud of you.

          2. Yea, misuse words to skew the argument!!

            1. You have to understand the words to be able to misuse them.

          3. This is like the worst conservative chat room ever.

            1. What you wearing while you be reading? Burke, smoking jackets, or GTFO!

              1. I’m a bachelor who lives alone. You probably don’t want to know the answer to that question.

                1. My cat says, “Meowr!”

          4. WHO WANTS TO PLAY PIGEON CHESS?!?!?

            1. That’s the one with shotguns, right?

                1. I knew that. l liked the version with shotguns better.

          5. There are no contraception laws. But you probably think that not having the govt. pay for it is the same as banning it.

        3. The quiz makes the same mistake that most people make, namely that agreeing with this or that political movement must mean you share the same values and motivations. Pro-life does not necessarily equal conservative, even though most conservative are pro-life.

          1. Also, having read over many, many ENB stories and the resulting comment sections, I think it is safe to say this is not a uniform issue within libertarian circles. Though, perhaps there are just many people like me here, who have been moved much more libertarian from a more traditional conservative position, and all the born-and-bred die-hards are in lockstep.

            1. I have moved much more libertarian from a more traditional liberal position – and I am probably more pro-life than most liberals. It really is an issue that cannot or should not be tied to a platform.

          2. It’s a model, not an absolute. And it’s a pretty good one.

            Libertarians in their truest form (anarchists) comply with the NAP…always. You are less libertarian by how much you deviate from it.

            1. Anarchists* arent libertarian, imo. I like them, but libertarianism is an archist philosophy. Minarchist, but still archist.

              *I tend to like those bastards though

              1. If libertarian is defined as how closely one adheres to the NAP (which I believe) anarchists are the only true libertarians. If you have any government, you must fund it, which means initiating force in making people pay taxes (unless you can come up with a workable voluntary method). The are the very top of the Nolan chart.

                I’m not an anarchist either. I think it has issues that cannot be resolved. But the NAP is still the guide in my philosophy, but I make exceptions.

            2. There’s also an argument to be made that if someone believes that abortion is murder, then outlawing abortion doesn’t violate the NAP. So someone can square being pro-life with the libertarian philosophy.

              1. The libertarian position on abortion is unknowable.

                It all comes down to when the lump of cells becomes a person (IOW, has rights). If it’s a person, then the right to live trumps the mother’s right to do what she wants with her body. If it’s not yet a person, then the host’s rights obviously prevail over something with no rights.

                There is no way of knowing when that happens and if you guess/assume/proclaim incorrectly, you are violating someone’s rights.

                There is no libertarian position on abortion and there is no Libertarian party position on abortion for exactly this reason. A libertarian can have an opinion on when personhood occurs, but that position doesn’t come from libertarianism.

                1. There’s also a practical question, which needs to be asked about anything one would punish as a crime. Practical, in that it has to do with the ethics of actually applying the law rather than the simpler question of whether punishing X as a crime (we may imagine under idealised circumstances) entails violence. So it may be that in the ideal, punishing infanticide as a crime does not entail violence. If true, the next question needs be arsking is it preferable to beat and kill people for breaking this law, often before adjudication, in order to enforce the law or is it ethically preferable to decline to task the police power of the state with punishing people for it? Because the fact is if you actually want to enforce punishment of any act as a crime, it will be necessary to beat and kill people for it, often without formal adjudication. Sometimes, I think there is no real violence involved in punishing certain violent acts as crime, in the abstract, when in fact the amount necessary in practical application is far more than one may prefer.

                2. and there is no Libertarian party position on abortion

                  Incorrect. The LP position opposes any restriction of any kind on abortion (albeit whilst desperately trying to avoid saying so). It’s only “unknowable” if you’re too retarded to comprehend what language means.

                  1. It’s only “unknowable” if you’re too retarded to comprehend what language means.

                    PM, you’ve become a real dickhead lately. Having a civil conversation and you roll in calling people retarded. Fuck off.

                    The morality of abortion cannot be determined using libertarian principle. They take no position.

                    From your own citation:

                    1.5 Abortion

                    Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

                    Given the morality is unknowable, the default position should be to do nothing, and more particularly, keep government out of it. Are you arguing, as an alleged libertarian, that the default for that which isn’t ascertainable be for the government to intervene?

                3. If it’s a person, then the right to live trumps the mother’s right to do what she wants with her body.

                  Why? The question of whether or not it’s a person has never mattered to me in the slightest. It has always been about the fundamental right to control your own body. There is no right to inhabit someone else’s body even if you need to do so to live. Under no circumstances do we force people to give away their organs to save the lives of others, so I see no reason why government thugs should have the power to force someone to remain pregnant.

                  You might have a general “right to live”, but it’s not a right to live at all costs. You have no right to infringe upon others’ fundamental liberties just to keep yourself alive.

                  Personhood is irrelevant.

                  1. That seems like a fairly weak argument. I have no legal obligation to feed, house, or see to the medical treatment of anybody else but me. If I see you sleeping in an alley, I am not legally obligated to house you.

                    But I am not a parent, and you are not my kid.

                    If I was your parent, I would have a large legal obligation to feed you, clothe you, make sure you go to school, etc. There is a rather extensive set of laws on the books that make parents responsible for taking care of their kids. So forcing the kid to gestate in the womb for a few months isn’t great, but it’s not much worse than what is already expected of parents. Family law is all kinds of fucked up. (As a personal note, I’m fairly agnostic on abortion. I just like hammering out the details of different arguments.)

                    1. That seems like a fairly weak argument.

                      There’s a huge difference between a legal obligation to take care of a child who was already born (they’re not in anyone’s body) and you’re the guardian of and forcing someone to remain pregnant. The latter is a far more severe and invasive attack on liberties, in that it is much more direct and personal. You can give away the child, but you can’t somehow force the woman to go through with the pregnancy without any of the drawbacks or invasiveness of doing so. You’re necessarily violating someone’s fundamental right to control their own body.

                      Again, we don’t force people to give others their organs in other scenarios.

                  2. Why? The question of whether or not it’s a person has never mattered to me in the slightest. It has always been about the fundamental right to control your own body.

                    Because everyone has the same rights, and exercising those rights hinge on not initiating force IAW the NAP. You can do anything you want, PROVIDED you do not infringe upon the rights of another in doing so.

                    I have the right to smoke. You have the right to not be affected by my smoke. Me sitting down next to you and lighting up, is an initiation of force against you and I’d be, morally, in the wrong.

                    Likewise, if the fetus/zygote is a person (the only entity on the planet with rights) then it has the right to live. The mother has the right to do what she wills with her body. However in exercising her right to not carry the child, she must initiate force against the child. Just like the smoking scenario, that makes her morally in the wrong.

                    Furthermore, the child didn’t ask to come into existence. That, in the vast majority in instances, was a conscious, voluntary decision on the part of the mother, making her liable. Just as if I accidentally slam my car into yours. I may not have intended to do it, but I’m still liable for your damages. Likewise, the mother is liable for her actions.

                    If the zygote isn’t yet a person, it has no rights and the point is moot.

                    1. Because everyone has the same rights

                      But you don’t have the right to force me to lend out my organs to keep you or another person alive.

                      The mother has the right to do what she wills with her body. However in exercising her right to not carry the child, she must initiate force against the child. Just like the smoking scenario, that makes her morally in the wrong.

                      Obviously she doesn’t have the right to do what she wills with her body, then. If she really had the right to control her own body, she could evict anyone or anything from her body at any point and for any reason.

                      She must initiate force against something that she doesn’t want residing in her own body? It seems to me that the child is the invader here (one which causes all sorts of health problems during the course of the pregnancy), even if it was wanted at an earlier point.

                    2. But you don’t have the right to force me to lend out my organs to keep you or another person alive.

                      One can certainly argue that I can when she was the one responsible for bringing that person into existence to begin with.

                      Obviously she doesn’t have the right to do what she wills with her body

                      Did you read my analogy about the smoking above? Your rights STOP at the point they infringe upon someone else’s. That’s simply the non aggression principle. You may not initiate force.

                      It seems to me that the child is the invader here

                      No, the child was invited. Doing so amounts to a contract. You rent me your house and have second thoughts later, you don’t get to kick me out unless I violate the terms of the contract.

                      The NAP allows for acting in self defense, so if the child posed a threat above that of a normal pregnancy, I’d say scrape it off. If it wasn’t invited (rape), the mother would be able to claim no responsibility for it, however now you’re into whose rights take precedence. A matter for the courts.

                      I’d like to, again, point out that this discussion is only relevant IF the fetus is a person. Whereby I go back to my original point…that from a libertarian perspective, the ONLY relevant question is whether it’s a person or not. Which any and all of us can argue about all day.

                    3. One can certainly argue that I can when she was the one responsible for bringing that person into existence to begin with.

                      One can, but they’d be wrong. We don’t force parents to lend out their organs to save their children, and nor should we.

                      Did you read my analogy about the smoking above? Your rights STOP at the point they infringe upon someone else’s.

                      I did, which is why I said what I did. That just means one thinks the right doesn’t apply in certain situations.

                      No, the child was invited. Doing so amounts to a contract.

                      Nonexistent beings can’t be “invited”. At the point of the so-called “invite”, the being did not exist. It was also by no means certain that the being would exist even if sexual intercourse took place. At any rate, you can’t form contracts with nonexistent beings or even unborn children. That would be silly.

                      You rent me your house and have second thoughts later, you don’t get to kick me out unless I violate the terms of the contract.

                      Renting out a house is far different from being pregnant. The rented house doesn’t follow you around 24/7, doesn’t cause you numerous health issues and burdens, and no one resides in your body. Pregnancy is far more personal and invasive. Forcing someone to remain pregnant is a far larger violation of their rights.

                    4. We don’t force parents to lend out their organs to save their children

                      But we insist they provide the care they need so they don’t die.

                      That just means one thinks the right doesn’t apply in certain situations.

                      No, that is the natural limitation placed on all rights. Your right to swing your fist stops where it touches my nose. It IS the very basis of the NAP. I have the right to shoot a gun…that right ends when it causes harm (or imminent danger) to another. Woman has the right to her body…but NOT when it harms someone else. That’s a NAP violation.

                      Nonexistent beings can’t be “invited”…

                      She is responsible for her actions. Her intentions (or their certainty) have nothing to do with it. She knows the potential outcome of her actions and must take responsibility for such. If I drive and cause an accident, I am responsible for damages. Same same. Create a person, you’re responsible for that person.

                      The rented house doesn’t follow you around 24/7, doesn’t cause you numerous health issues and burdens

                      If you don’t like the potential consequences of your actions, don’t take them. How invasive it is has no bearing on the principle.
                      _____

                      You’re making arguments, but not libertarian arguments, which was the point from the beginning.

                      Tell ya what Jick…start at the NAP (or your version) and tell me how your position complies with it.

                    5. But we don’t force them to lend out their organs. Why are you so set on making analogies about trivial legal responsibilities to something that is far more personal and invasive?

                      No, that is the natural limitation placed on all rights.

                      All limitations on rights are arbitrary. Regardless, my statement holds true even if you think the limitations are natural.

                      She is responsible for her actions.

                      Indeed. Whether she gets an abortion or not, she has to take responsibility for her own actions.

                      But she has no obligation to remain pregnant against her will, even if she knows that her actions have the possibility of causing her to get pregnant. You can’t form contracts with beings that don’t exist or only exist in your womb.

                      How invasive it is has no bearing on the principle.

                      It has bearing, or at least to me. Renting a house and carrying a child are two entirely different situations.

                      You’re making arguments, but not libertarian arguments

                      You can’t make contracts with nonexistent beings or beings which exist only in a womb, you aren’t obligated to lend out your organs to keep other people alive, and if there is a being which resides in your body against your will, then even if you initially wanted it there, you have the right to evict it at any point. I cannot see how that is an initiation of force, as the being itself was unwanted and yet remained in your body.

                    6. Your arguments ALL violate the NAP. Start at first principles and explain your position, as I did.

                      All limitations on rights are arbitrary.

                      No, they are not. From libertarian philosophy, you can do as you please as long as you do not violate the rights of others (first principles, i.e. the NAP). You many not initiate aggression.

                      But she has no obligation to remain pregnant against her will

                      She does, because she may not initiate aggression against another. Killing a person is initiating aggression.

                      It has bearing, or at least to me.

                      Then your guiding principles aren’t libertarian. They are something else. What are they?

                      I cannot see how that is an initiation of force

                      If it’s a person…you are killing an existing person, who is completely innocent of all wrongdoing.

                      How can it NOT be an initiation of force?

                      State your first principles and then tell me how your view on abortion complies with them. Here, I’ll give you an example, so you get what I mean:

                    7. First Principle:

                      One may not initiate aggression. (That’s the NAP)

                      My first principles are a little more complex, but allow for a government (as I’m not an anarchist):

                      1. A person may do as they choose, PROVIDED they don’t infringe upon the rights of another. (essentially the NAP)

                      2. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

                      However, for this discussion, the NAP alone will suffice.

                      Only people have rights. If you are a person, you automatically have rights. Perhaps the most sacred is the right to not be killed. Since one may not initiate aggression upon another, a woman may not get an abortion if the fetus is a person, as killing a person is certainly an initiation of aggression.

                      If the fetus is NOT a person, getting an abortion is not a violation of the NAP as you cannot violate the rights of an object that doesn’t have rights.

                      I guess, what I’m trying to get across to you is that libertarianism means something. It’s the NAP, or some approximation thereof, and it’s consistent based on those principles. It’s not just some stuff that sounds freedomy, so it must be libertarian. It’s a philosophy.

                      What are your first principles?

                    8. She does, because she may not initiate aggression against another.

                      She’s simply removing something that formed inside her own body and that she doesn’t want inside her body (either she never did, or she changed her mind). That’s not an initiation of force. I hesitate to say that anyone initiated force here, but if anyone can be said to have done so, it would be the unborn human for remaining in the woman’s body against her will.

                      From libertarian philosophy, you can do as you please as long as you do not violate the rights of others (first principles, i.e. the NAP).

                      I agree, but that’s arbitrary.

                      Killing a person is initiating aggression.

                      You have no right to force others to lend out their organs to keep you alive. You keep bringing up the whole “Your right to swing your fists end where my nose begins.” principle, and that applies quite well here. You may have a right to live, but not at my expense, and certainly not by residing in my body.

                      Then your guiding principles aren’t libertarian.

                      And yet you say below that the right to not be killed is perhaps the most sacred right, indicating that you also have priorities and that you believe not all rights or situations are equal. Are you not a libertarian, then?

                      who is completely innocent of all wrongdoing.

                      Not innocent of residing in your body against your will, however.

                    9. She’s simply removing something that formed inside her own body and that she doesn’t want inside her body

                      She put it there. She made it, and now it’s a person with rights. Do you agree with that? If you do, then killing it is a violation of the NAP.

                      I agree, but that’s arbitrary.

                      And this is the most important part of this discussion…

                      No, it isn’t arbitrary. When forming a philosophy you first need to identify that which you value above all else. Based upon my life experiences, and the benefits it brings to all concerned, I value being able to do as I choose above all else. In a word liberty. Does that mean I can do whatever I want? No, because the people I live with also value their liberty. So, how can we all live together and maximize everyone’s liberty. That’s what my two tenets above do. Living within that framework, liberty is maximized for all. It isn’t arbitrary. It’s a well thought out moral framework to achieve that objective.

                      If you value something else, what is it and present the framework that achieves it, but it needs to be consistent or it isn’t a philosophy.

                    10. You have no right to force others to lend out their organs to keep you alive.

                      The fetus (person) inside her has not initiated aggression. If she wasn’t 100% responsible for it being there, you’d have a better claim to self defense in terminating that life, albeit only slightly better as the child is not responsponsible for her condition.

                      Furthermore, by the same logic, does society have the right to force the mother of a newborn to care for a child? Can she kill it then? If not, why not? Is there something magical about a trip down the birth canal that gives the child rights?

                      you say below that the right to not be killed is perhaps the most sacred right, indicating that you also have priorities and that you believe not all rights or situations are equal.

                      There are those libertarians that contend that both the rights of the mother and the child are inalienable and that’s the reason the Libertarian party has no position on abortion. I’m not of this mind. I believe that some rights are “more” inalienable than others. But that’s not un-libertarian. The question here is who INITIATES the aggression. INITIATE being the key word.

                    11. against your will

                      It’s obviously not there against her will if she voluntarily took action to put it there. If it’s a rock, she gets to change her mind and have it removed. If it’s a person, she doesn’t. She’s responsible for her action. She could have easily avoided the situation altogether.

                      Now, all that said, we’re still running around in circles. You’ve yet to provide the first principles from which your argument stems and made the connection to them.

                      I’m not going to continue to make the same points over again unless you are willing to present an argument from principle.

                    12. First libertarian (or otherwise) principle, that is.

                    13. No, it isn’t arbitrary.

                      Under some definitions of “arbitrary”, maybe. Being well thought out does not preclude it from being arbitrary, depending on the definition.

                      You’ve yet to provide the first principles from which your argument stems and made the connection to them.

                      I do agree with the NAP, but clearly we disagree with who is initiating the force here if anyone can be said to have done so at all, and on whether or not anyone even is initiating something that can reasonably be described as “force”.

                    14. If you are claiming that killing an innocent person isn’t an initiation of force, then we are at an impasse.

                      Does it have the right to live or not?

                    15. If you are claiming that killing an innocent person isn’t an initiation of force, then we are at an impasse.

                      I’m claiming that removing someone from your own body might not even qualify as an initiation of force; it’s quite unlike other situations. Trespassers need to be removed somehow, and the woman has no contract and cannot have a contract with the unborn.

                      Does it have the right to live or not?

                      I think everyone has a right to live, but the fact that you have a right to live doesn’t mean you can violate my rights just so you can live. I have a fundamental right to control my own body, so if I decide that I don’t want someone using my organs, then too bad for them. That’s not an initiation of force; someone else can’t own my body or organs, so I am simply evicting them.

                      What doesn’t exist is the right to use other people’s organs when they do not want you to to keep yourself alive.

                    16. Then one of two things is occurring here.

                      1. You don’t understand the meaning of initiation of force.

                      2. You are willfully making an exception to the NAP because, in this instance, it doesn’t match up with your preconceived notions.

                      I get that a woman has the right to do as she wills with her body. BUT, just as I have the right to swing my arm, I have no right to punch you in the nose. She has the right to have nothing in her uterus, but she doesn’t have the right to kill to exercise her right. There is no difference. The baby didn’t choose to exist, but it does. She chose to create it. If it’s a person, she cannot morally kill it, IAW libertarian principle.

                      Question:

                      Based upon the logic you’ve presented, my assumption is you are okay with an abortion anytime throughout the pregnancy. Is that correct?

                    17. 1. You don’t understand the meaning of initiation of force.

                      I just don’t see evicting something from your own body as an initiation of force, and nor could I ever.

                      BUT, just as I have the right to swing my arm, I have no right to punch you in the nose.

                      You’re applying this in the wrong way. You have a right to life, but you don’t have a right to live in my body to keep yourself alive.

                      The baby didn’t choose to exist, but it does. She chose to create it.

                      So what? She has no contract with the unborn to keep it in her body, and cannot have one. The terms are essentially that she can evict it arbitrarily. It’s her body.

                      I don’t care who created it or why. That’s irrelevant.

                      my assumption is you are okay with an abortion anytime throughout the pregnancy. Is that correct?

                      Yes.

                    18. So, then by the EXACT same logic, if the woman chooses not to care for the baby after it’s born, she can kill it?

                      After all, she has the right to not use her organs to care for a child…right?

                    19. So, then by the EXACT same logic, if the woman chooses not to care for the baby after it’s born, she can kill it?

                      No, because killing it is unnecessary at that point. You can give it away. An abortion, however, is necessary if you want to terminate the pregnancy.

                      After all, she has the right to not use her organs to care for a child…right?

                      Right.

                    20. You are inconsistent and your logic is faulty. You are allowing someone to initiate force against another.

                      We’ll agree to disagree, as no amount arguing is going to change your mind at this point.

                      It has been nice having a civil discussion on H&R for a change. It used to be this way all the time prior to the yokpocalypse. I miss it.

                      May I ask…are you new or a handle change?

                    21. You are inconsistent and your logic is faulty.

                      I don’t think so. I never argued that any measures to take care of a problem are necessarily reasonable. Abortion is reasonable because that’s how you terminate the pregnancy when the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant. Killing an unwanted baby who has already been born is not reasonable because there are other, better methods of getting rid of it that do not involve its death. Some methods of solving a particular problem are better than others.

                      You are allowing someone to initiate force against another.

                      There were no contracts or terms to allow the unborn human to stay in the woman’s body, so I do not see abortion that way.

                      May I ask…are you new or a handle change?

                      I have been a reader, but only recently made an account.

                    22. She put it there. She made it, and now it’s a person with rights.

                      But not the right to reside in her body against her will. Just because you agreed to sex and got pregnant doesn’t mean you want to remain pregnant, so the mere fact that her actions led to it being there is irrelevant to whether or not it’s residing in her body against her will.

                      The fetus (person) inside her has not initiated aggression

                      How has it not? It formed inside her body and refuses to leave when she wants it to leave.

                      Furthermore, by the same logic, does society have the right to force the mother of a newborn to care for a child?

                      I don’t think it does, but even that is a less invasive violation of someone’s rights than forcing someone to remain pregnant.

                      Can she kill it then? If not, why not?

                      Because you can get rid of the child without killing it, unlike when you’re pregnant.

                      But that’s not un-libertarian.

                      Agreed.

                      She could have easily avoided the situation altogether.

                      That doesn’t matter. What matters is what she wants currently, and the fact that you can’t form contracts with nonexistent or unborn beings. Even if you agreed to sex, that doesn’t mean you want to remain pregnant. It’s her body and her choice. Evicting the invading human at any time is her right.

                    23. Argument from first principles please.

        4. This, was me.

          Your Score

          You scored the following on the VoteMatch questions:

          Personal Score 81%
          Economic Score 100%

          Where You Fit In

          Where your Personal score meets your Economic score on the grid below is your political philosophy. Based on the above score, you are a Hard-Core Libertarian.

            1. I pray for the day where the majority of the commentariat can call me a yokel. đŸ˜‰

        5. Isidewith is better

    3. Isn’t he, like, the Star Trek guy or something?

    1. -Everyone

  2. I miss Pataki. Yeah, I said it.

    1. You can visit him in Patakistan.

    2. Back when he was still governor of NY, my wife once escorted Pataki and his wife on a wine-tasting tour of the Napa Valley. She said they were nice people.

      So much for the only presidential candidate ever that I had some sort of personal connection to. Oh well.

      1. My dad went to school with him. Said he was absolutely forgettable.

        1. After graduating fom Peekskill High School, he entered Yale University with George W. Bush in 1964 on an academic scholarship and graduated in three years.

          So are you Jenna or Barbara?

          1. He also knew Bush. Fun guy, really cared about people. Younger than them, though.

      2. I met Ralph Nader once. My first impression was that he’s not a very personable fellow..

      3. I met Santorum when I was in high school and he was still a Senator. He was a fucking toolbag then and he’s a fucking toolbag now.

        1. I screamed obscenities at Hubert Humphrey once. From 50 yds away.

  3. The only thing that surprises me about this is that he outlasted Lindsey Graham, albeit by only a few days.

  4. Rand Paul picks up another .000001% woohoo

    1. Trump probably picks up more.

  5. Hey, a cop charged for something. Don’t bite the hand that feeds ya

    http://nbc4i.com/2015/12/29/sh…..e-charges/

  6. …if Anybody Cares

    No. I want to see Hillary and Trump drop out. Then I’ll almost be happy.

    1. I don’t care if Hillary drops out, as long as she loses in the general.

      1. Yes, I would love to see 100B dollars pissed away on her campaign only to have her lose by a landslide.

        1. It would be a fitting allegory of her never-was presidency as well.

        2. Why don’t you want a candidate that has proven she can ‘get away with it’? She’s the one who can break gridlock by simply ignoring it. America is way to important to be blocked by pesky ole democracy. Her vision is too good for us. Let us not pass by this once in a lifetime chance.
          Hillary@thispointwhatdifferencedoesitmake.cun

        3. Just like Jeb pissing away all that money to get nowhere.

  7. “It’s time for a more moderate Republican,” Mr. Mack said, adding: “If we don’t have a candidate that understands the Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is legal and a woman’s right to choose is legal, if they can’t get that through their head, they’re going to keep losing elections.”

    Hm. Huh.

    Always liked the song ‘Jimmy Mack.’

    1. Sure, moderates have worked wonders for the republican electorate the last two election cycles.

      1. We clearly need a more more extreme moderate.

  8. As someone who wanted to vote for a president because xe had a last name ending in a vowel, I am disappoint.

    1. Welp, you still have Rubio, Christie, Fiorina, and Huckabee to throw your support behind, so never fear.

      1. They’re icky.

        1. As a libertarian, can’t you just declare ‘h’ to be a vowel and write in Amash?

          Plus there’s always McAfee. Ha ha ha.

          1. Or ‘y’, and go with Suicidy.

    2. How about Cthulu?

      1. He is on the Almanian ticket, ne?

  9. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    1. Life just isn’t worth living anymore.

    1. Bojack Horseman.

  10. Who? I’m being serious this time, who is that?

    1. I believe his resume is: “Governor of NY on 9/11”.

      1. Wait, I thought that was Rudy!?

        1. Yeah, that’s what I thought too.

        2. He was Mayor of NYC on 9/11, hence his hero status.

      2. It is quite a feat to be governor of a large state for 12 years and nobody knows who you are. I kind of appreciate that.

        1. It just means that they haven’t been indicted yet. I tend to read of political stuff, but I can only name maybe five current governors. I couldn’t tell you jack about the governors of states like Utah or Rhode Island. They might be the best governors ever, but their unlikely to get any national level press.

          1. He left office 9 years ago. There seems to be nothin’ on him.

    2. Governor of New Brunswick or something, lemme check.

    1. He just dropped in to see what condition is condition was in.

        1. what condition is condition was his?

          1. *** takes deep breath ***

            He just dropped in to see his condition is condition was in.

  11. More evidence that only megalomaniacs run for the office.

    A guy no one would vote for nationally, that people in 49 states have never heard of, indistinguishable from oodles of other windsocks convinces himself that he is adorned with a halo and is God’s gift to mankind puts himself on the ballot.

    It is good to see people like this get their nuts cut.

    1. Stop talking shit about O’Malley!

    2. But, enough about O’Malley.

      1. Trump card == lives in MD. Wait… did someone mention Trump?

  12. There can only be one.

    Contest: what kind of quickening blast is released when a GOP candidate drops out?

    I have a vision of Trump being ghost-raped by lightning demons of William F Buckley.

    1. I have a vision of Trump being ghost-raped by lightning demons of William F Buckley.

      Ghost writing for Agile Cyborg these days?

      1. Agile Cyborg once had a coloring book. It is now known as the Necronomicon.

        1. Agile Cyborg once had a coloring book. It is now known as the Necronomicon Cryptonimicon.

          You get the hatching right, you now know every password at the CIA.

          1. fun fact: the CIA has a monument with 4 of coded messages on it. The 4th message remains unsolved.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptos

            1. It’s the location of Jimmy Hoffa.

            2. The fourth message is keep the population under five hundred million.

              1. I see you’re familiar with the Georgia Guidestones. I spent about an hour driving around trying to find that place.

                http://platedlizard.blogspot.c…..orgia.html

                1. I’m horrified that there are people who think that making/letting 13/14 of the human race die off pat themselves on the back for how much they love the poor. I’ve met these people, they aren’t monsters, but they want me 13/14 dead.

                  1. And now you know why the creators chose to remain anonymous.

                    1. Next time I erect a megalith, inscribed upon it is “Quincy says, fuck yourselves silly.”

                    2. I think it’s generally assumed to be more of Ted Turner’s bull shit.

    2. When Pataki dropped out, I imagine this was what it looked like.

      When everyone else drops out and Trump wins the nomination, I pray for something more like this.

      1. Not ‘The Entity’? No twerking?

        I am going to bed.

    3. You think it’s of equal quality, or quantity, for all of them? There are probably some who, when you lop off their heads, the remaining stump actually sucks something out of you?a negative quickening. Maybe you could call it a slowening.

  13. Hate to link to HuffPo but talking about PoPo.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry…..8701dc7a54

    1. Jeremy Mardis, an autistic boy, was shot by Louisiana police in November.

      Christ, I hadn’t even heard about that. At least the guys who did are facing 1st degree murder chargers. But fuck.

      1. Those two POS’s are toast. Count on that.

    2. This chart is also interesting. In 25% of the 60 biggest cities, all the people killed by police were black. That could be used to support whichever narrative you want.

      1. The numbers seem too small to me to be statistically meaningful.

          1. R or GTFO

            1. Some of us got a free college course in like 10th grade – we could choose between Statistics or Astronomy.

              I chose Astronomy.

            2. Ug, eff R or GTFO.

      2. Eh. Here in St. Louis, the only people actually living in downtown are hipsters (who aren’t criminals) who think urban living is the greatest thing ever, Italians (no street crime because of the Mafia) and blacks – everyone else moved out.

        The same is mostly true about KC and from what i know of Atlanta. Most white people move out to the suburbs.

  14. Anyone else playing FO4?

    1. ish…been sidetracked by Rust lately.

      1. RUST? Please say it isn’t so…

        1. ’tis, ’tis so.

    2. Pataki, perhaps.

      1. Nice. I don’t think anyone would’ve noticed if he had been playing it during the debates.

  15. Apparently 80 billion USD has gone missing in Egypt since 2011. Corruption is suspected.

    1. That, or someone was really drunk.

  16. Iran dispatched a shipment of more than 25,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia on Monday, clearing an important hurdle in the implementation of a historic nuclear deal with the U.S. and five other world powers, Secretary of State John Kerry said.

    The shipment was one of the most significant milestones yet for Iran as it works to fulfill its commitments under the July deal, Mr. Kerry said in a statement. It included Iran’s uranium enriched to 20%, except for fabricated fuel plates at a research reactor in Tehran.

    The lower the purity of the nuclear fuel, the less dangerous it is. Nuclear fuel enriched to around 90% is necessary to make weapons.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ir…..1451338421

    I love it when conservatives are wrong.

    Of course I get to gloat a lot.

    BUY YER GOLD BOYS!

    1. “I love it when conservatives are wrong.”

      Yeah, well they return the favor and they’re regularly happy.

    2. “…Secretary of State John Kerry said.”

      Is this the guy who heads up the same department that claims that peace and security in Syria are the biggest accomplishment of his department in 2015? This is being posted by a guy who says that truth is irrelevant?

      I, for one, am filled with confidence.

      1. …and buttplug is filled with, well… his name kinda says it all.

  17. Pataki dropping out. Buttplug talking about gold. Both are very relevant and we should all care.

    1. This sums up my feelings concerning this thread.

        1. So are Buttplug and Pataki.

          1. Fair enough. And one of them is also abjectly retarded.

    1. Police quickly realized the gun was actually a BB gun that Rothenberg had purchased earlier in the day.

      How is that possible?

      1. The store probably tipped off the cops that the police chief’s crazy cat lady aunt just bought a BB gun.

    2. Did she have an Austrian accent? “I’m heeya! Whattar you waiting foah?”

      1. At least the Predator won’t hurt you in you’re unarmed. Although I don’t know if they can see little plastic orange tips with their heat vision.

        I know have a vision of a Predator attacking Civil War reenactors.

  18. Really belongs in the other (dead) thread, but:

    “Oakland says it won’t meet NFL deadline on Raiders stadium plan”
    […]
    “Oakland faces a Wednesday deadline to give the NFL a financing plan for a new Raiders football stadium, but city officials, who have repeatedly said they won’t stick taxpayers with the bill, indicated Monday that no plan is forthcoming.
    Instead, Oakland will send a letter to league officials simply updating them on the city’s efforts to persuade the Raiders to stay in town, said Claudia Cappio, Oakland’s assistant city administrator.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..724842.php

    Oaktown’s taxpayers are already on the hook for a $100m debt to upgrade the stadium when the Raiders returned from LA; the ‘projected income streams (ha, ha, ha, snort…)’ didn’t work as bullshitted.
    They got a new mayor recently, and she has sworn not to risk taxpayer money for a new stadium, while the ownership says it’ll go where someone pays for a new sandbox.
    Good on her, and outside of the ‘Raider Nation’, she seems to have support. But she’s mayor of an obviously broke city; I’ll bet the other cities stick the taxpayers.

    1. And of course, there’s no reason for the city of Oakland to be broke — its housing market is skyrocketing, major tech companies like Uber are making their headquarters in its downtown, it has a ton of space for new housing (unlike just about anywhere else in the Bay Area), it has a thriving and hip uptown scene and hot new restaurants seemingly on every corner. And despite what the average person in the rest of the country might think, the majority of Oakland is affluent, beautiful and set on hillsides, with spectacular Bay views from elegant houses, some of which seem like you are looking down from an airplane, and you can even see five bridges at once.

      All of that should mean an enormous and growing tax base, which should more than make up for the small and circumscribed parts of town known for poverty, violence and gang activity.

      But all the usual whiners are around with their paws out for more city largesse, complaining that ‘gentrification’ is moving all the ‘artists and working poor’ out of the dwindling crime-ridden parts of town, so give us money. And the long-standing corruption and insider union bosses means plenty of folks can make that tax base mysteriously and quickly disappear.

    2. It is funny to see that the upper deck of “Mt. Davis” (the addition put on the Oakland Coliseum for the Raiders) is now tarped over for football games.

    3. I thought one of the “charms” of team sports was rooting for your home team. The way they move around all the time here would be unthinkable in (say) English soccer.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.