While you’re glued to the couch.
3 Likes
That’s really clever! Next time you could try the “Mom’s Basement” thing - it’s always reliable when you have nothing intelligent to add.
1 Like
Christ, that’s the most straight, white, liberal male thing I’ve heard in a long time. If you really think HRC is the same as Rand Paul, or any other Republican, you really ought to check your privilege. God, it must be so nice to have so little to worry about.
11 Likes
Any mention of Hillary attracts the usual suspects like moths to a flame, zombies to fresh meat. Methinks that some people on this thread have a buzzer implanted in their azz that gives them a little thrill any time her name gets a mention here.
It"s really a hoot to watch!
These are the same people, if she was old enough to vote in 2000, that gave us Shrub and theDick.
8 Likes
Just do what you’re driven to do and refrain from insulting others OK Sweetie pie?
Can you do that?
5 Likes
“Check my privilege” ? What the fuck does that even mean?
HRC is not “the same” as Paul - that’s a straw man of yours. One you will be dragging out regularly, I suspect.
She’s a hawk - it’s abundantly clear. She’s pushing the TPP - that’s a fact jack.
Don’t like it? Whine to somebody else with your “privilege” nonsense.
2 Likes
Clinton/Castro will win decisively in 2016. Bank on it. All that Rove and company care about is: 1) Padding their own coffers by running against Hillary for 8 years, and 2) Keeping congress gridlocked so no real legislation happens.
5 Likes
It’s your technique that won’t work, according to Michael Tomasky…
Are Republicans really going to try to damage Hillary Clinton by digging up old non-scandals no one even remembers? They’ll do damage, all right, says Michael Tomasky, but not to Clinton.
6 Likes
HRC is John Bolton sans mustache.
Great clip, especially funny when you consider that in 1974 Dick Cheney & Don Rumsfeld wanted to sell nuclear reactors to Iran before the revolution.
3 Likes
Again, we aren’t talking about “old scandals”, we are talking her CURRENT POLICY POSITIONS.
Which are of the NeoCon, NAFTA loving, pro-surveillance state flavor.
Those are facts.
Kinda makes you squirm, doesn’t it?
Modern Democratic candidates are without fail to the right of my personal interests but even on their worst day, they’re better than people who publicly admit they’ll wreck the train.
5 Likes
That’s worth repeating for it’s complete absurdity and hyper-partisan blindness.
In other words, any discussion whatsoever about Hillary Clinton is “Derangement Syndrome” in your mind?
Are yous seriously going to go with that? If so, you’ll be doing a LOT of cutting and pasting in the near future.
Your privilege is clearly showing, and you’re so privileged that you don’t even see it. Pathetic!
8 Likes
I agree with all of that.
But also believe that pointing out the warts on our own candidates is vital. If we don’t, the scum and evil rise to the top.
2 Likes
It means you’ve narrowed national interests to two factors.
We get it. Democratic candidates aren’t liberal enough for your interests.
That said, we’re not a liberal nation and lessor-of-two-evils is still relevant.
3 Likes
Paul, himself a potential 2016 candidate
Yeah…well if that’s the case, we’re all ‘potential 2016 Republican candidate’ too.
4 Likes
I had to stop reading right there.
Laughing fits…Oh man…
The true news on MTP today was the piece on Paul doing humanitarian eye surgery in Guatemala.
The really interesting part was Citizens United was down there to filming, with CU founder Dave Bossie supervising. I’m sure they are producing a piece that is much positive than “Hillary: The Movie”. Two Hillary haters in a symbiotic relationship.
That being said, Paul is correct, she is a war hawk. But Hillary’s view on war really isn’t a problem for Citizens United. They were supporting McCain in 2008. The question should be, what is the reason Citizens United is supporting Paul?
3 Likes
Bullying of other posters for their political opinion will not be tolerated here.
This is not Red State.
10 Likes