The way that smug cracker Bill Mahr responded to Cornel West's valid points on Hillary Clinton's neoliberalism with emotional bullshyt like abortion is 
worthy
worthy
Bill Maher and Cornel West arguing about voting for Hillary Clinton
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Embrace your Frankenstein creation, fukkboy
embrace yours
"pinko" LMAOO....
bringing back the 60s mccartheyism
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Guy's been talking about revolution and doom and gloom since Bush's first term.
He's a talker not a doer. I'd blame ivory towers but I doubt he has a GED. Be anti establishment well into your thirties brehs and brehettes.
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
alex wagner looks so good
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
Dr. Boyce Watkins response.
She need to stop playing and let me fukk
brick james
John piffington
I love how liberals say "she has so much EXPERIENCE" but when you bring up the ugly details of said experience...you hear stupid things like how can we judge her by what she has done??
WTF should we use then?? Her Facebook profile??
who ISNT judged by their actions?? Imagine a murderer telling a judge" yo i killed that bytch but dont judge me by my actions"
What youre doing there is called "special pleading" ....Yes Obama has been a terrible president overall... Despite Obamacare and the economic "recovery" ..he had the choice to leave Assad and Ghadaffi alone to deal with their protests...Like they did with Bahrain and the Saudis
The difference between obama and FDR is FDR went to war in Americas interests...the country was safer after the war
Barry and Hillarys wars are for corporations and they are AGAINST Americas interests....we are in a more dangerous position now than 8 years ago
Barry and Hillarys wars are for corporations, what does that even mean? Corporations will always get rich off wars, just like many of FDRs friends and political allies did off of world war 2. Do you have any links or anything I could look at? I assumed the primary reason was geopolitical stability, and a byproduct of that stability is money and security, same as any war ever fought outside of personal beefs. If you disagree with their methods, than that is subjective.
Please dont link me some off brand blog please, I dont have time to read counter punch
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
As it becomes increasingly obvious that Hillary Clinton and the rest of the neocons foreign policy outlook is formed primarily to preserve the existing geopolitical and global economic order, the average american, who is not experiencing the gains they previously were afforded by stability, is going to start questioning why they should be supporting such a worldview. Even if FDRs friends and political allies got rich off of WW2, so did the whole of America, across the spectrum. That, along with a legitimate moral imperative, was enough to justify that war. But in terms of morality, what Hillary and the neocons are proposing is more Vietnam than WW2. In terms of material gains, Raytheon and Lockheed may be salivating, but the average American's standard of living is declining under this order.
Last edited:
