Newt!

Bad news for the country. Not entirely enamored with anybody running at this time for any party in the national elections.

On another forum I look at, the right wingers seem convinced that the more extreme right wing their candidate is, the more likely he/she will win against Obama. They uniformly support Palin/Cain/Gingrich as preferable to Romney, who seems to be the GOP candidate with the best chance of beating Obama. This has me thinking they are members of the collective conservatives who routinely vote against their self interests, either because they don't understand their interests, or they really are that dumb.

SG wrote, either because they don't understand their interests, or they really are that dumb.


They really are that dumb!

Fishy

Just because they vote for someone like Newt does not mean they are dumb or voting against ones interests. Everyone has different interests and thinking we know what those interests are makes us the dumb ones.

That said, I agree 100% that Romney is the by far better choice. Newt just sounds good to them when he speaks. They also likely do not remember what that POS has done in the past and no I am not talking about his marital status or cheating on wives. The other stuff is the problem.

He is bought and paid for scum that talks a good game and gives a good speech. Sound a lot like someone else that lives in a big white house in DC. What a fine choice between those two.

The biggest problem that Newt has is that he thinks no one remembers him from the '90's...he'll get demolished with his failures as a legislator, as a Speaker, and as a human being, in a general election.

Fish on...

Todd

Newt's no better or worse then what we have now. Romney would be slightly better than keeping BO.

Newt's far, far worse than most anything we've ever had.

Fish on...

Todd

I would greatly favor sending Newt to the moon.

Fish on...

Todd

I was just a pup at the time, but was Ford so much better than tricky Dick? He seemed like a bit of a goof from what I remembered. (That, and all of the Chevy Chase SNL skits)

Ford was the bland, honest guy needed to transition out of the Nixon regime. Couldn't navigate stairs, though.

Nixon created EPA ? Times have changed.

Newt is a celestial body in his own right. He will have to be tethered if he gets any fatter. (Macy's) Or just release him and he can debate the Man in the Moon face to face.
There's an idea for an SNL sketch.

Ford wasn't elected Pres or chosen at the primary. Yup there was a time when environmentalism wasn't a symbol of evil in the Republican party.

still isn't, you dipstick......but you like to use that hammer. Perhaps you meant "extremeism"......not likely a difference to you, however.

Hey Slab, perhaps you'd care to cite one example of Republican pro-environment action in recent years. Ya' know, just to show us that Stlhead is wrong.

Sg

Saw a poll today that was a compilation of State polls showing Obama vs. Newt. The result was 416 electoral votes for the President and 121 for Newt. I would really like for the GOP to nominate someone else so that we could actually have a race. However, they may not have the smarts.

Now why would they have done such a thing, Hank?

I bet even you can figure it out.

Fish on...

Todd

Neuter Neut......

The preserves are always in places that grow fish...not in places that grow oil.

Fish on...

Todd

No, it doesn't count when the president only grabs the lowest hanging fruit. It reads like a major action, but the effects are minimal, which is why Bush did it. But thanks for trying.

Sg

Sg, there are dozens of links concerning the environment and the Republican Party..... here's one called REP (Republicans for Environmental Protection) HERE

You can do a search if you care to. But it goes further than just what makes the headlines. Many R's live in rural areas and care what happens there.
On a very small scale, I care about what happens on my land. I plant trees, run off poachers, don't kill the wildlife (don't make friends out of them either.....oops, not quite true....I raised and kept a cedar wax wing that was about dead after being knocked from the nest.....had him/her for a little more than two years.....great bird, btw).
I don't consider myself a Republican, but I certainly don't consider myself a liberal.
It's not just folks who live on a postage stamp lot in an environmentally destroyed area who care about the environment.....imagine that.

If you listen to the dems they would have you believe that the people that live in the "fly-over" states don't care about the environment and those that live in the "asphalt jungles" care about the environment.

"On a very small scale"

You do know your GOP's environmental record. Your link is to a minority in the GOP who are blowing smoke. In practice in all three branches of government the majority of the GOP will always always always side with money over the environment. Show me where they haven't.

"REP’s stated mission is: To resurrect the GOP's great conservation tradition and to restore natural resource conservation and sound environmental protection as fundamental elements of the Republican Party's vision for America."

When hell freezes over.

The "poison" that divides is propogated by extremes on both sides.

Why?

Because it is self serving to do so.

Responsibility is a word neither extreme recognizes.

"However the idea that some urban dwelling scum who lives in an environmentally degraded asphalt jungle that is so disgusting that I won't even go there cares about the environment and some guy who lives on the land in a rural area doesn't, is on it's face so outrageous that it's laughable."

Seems you think all rural residents are Republicans. Yes that is outrageous and laughable. Next.

Good work Hank. GOP gets points for CAFE and adding to the wilderness system (that had more D than R support, but why quibble?) but not so much for the Hawaiian monument as again, there was little risk or opposition; i.e., it wasn't going to cost a Republican anything to support it.

But yeah, on average that's my point. Since Reagan and his Interior Secretary James Watt, the Rs generally, but not always, support development actions that contribute to the degradation and destruction of the natural environment, typically opposing clean air, clean water, natural area preservation, and energy conservation. And thanks for reaching in the grab bag for the exceptions.

Daily I deal with or observe plans that will further degrade the natural environment. I hesitate to say over 90%, so let's just say that the overwhelming majority are sponsored by people who identify with R or political conservatism. It's totally predictable, even without checking for the oversize gold pinky finger ring or tassel loafers most of them wear.

Liberals only think ". . . any GOP environmental plan includes an oil well in every back yard and lead paint chips and mercury smoothies as a part of child nutrition programs." because they usually do. I would think otherwise if only a few prominent Rs would actively oppose major actions that will knowingly degrade the environment.

I don't want to tear down every dam in the country since I choose to design fish passage systems and stream flow management requirements for some of them. And I don't want to convert all energy use to wind or solar - yet at least - because they are not technologically advanced enough in terms of energy storage to provide a 24/7/365 supply, and are therefore insufficient.

Sg

Sg

I think the real definition of a person, or a party, is what they are willing to do that's HARD, not what's easy. So you look at what people, or parties do that takes a huge amount of effort, energy and focus to achieve.

To me, the GOP has done NOTHING hard in the last 15 years to help the environment and that's the issue I have. They haven't expended their political capital, taken fire from business, or really put their necks out at all for the environment. And that makes it hard for me to support them.

To me, protecting the environment -- along with providing for the safety/security of the citizenry -- is one of the few truly vital government roles.

Don't be such a Kenyan Muslim Socialist, Irish Rogue...the "free" market will protect the environment just fine...Ayn Rand said so.

Fish on...

Todd

Well I now understand. If you live in a poor area of a big city you can't posibly be in favor of environmental protection and if you live on a Wyoming cattle ranch you must be a tree hugger. Yep - and up is down, black is white and the conservatives have a deep and abiding respect for the environment.

I thought only I's lived in the country. Go figure. We have D's and R's running around McCleary?

Are you referring to dummies and rejects?

Couldn't help myself.

Green Weenies arise. Go occupy a park and crap in it. Go occupy a building and crap in it. oh well

Boulder Dam er Hoover I mean. Done by two Republicans and Demo-
crat. Grand Coulee Dam was all by FDR alone.
Neither of them did any environmental damage, of course.

I call em Republicans and Democrats cause in those day they were
Americans first and party hacks second. Times change.

I suspect you are intimately familiar with dummies and rejects,
peckerhead.

"I suspect you are intimately familiar with dummies and rejects"

Sure am. I can not only spot em a mile away I can smell them all the way from Spokane and congratulations you qualify as both. I'm sure you are a colassal embarrasment to your region. Send out the keyboard grabbers.

As another looking for a title sez.

Fish on.

With such blindered responses is it any wonder the country is so divided?

Do you unbending (ok you bending ones, too ) Lib's think that all that is good in your life is the result of some Democrat?

*crickets*

Slab,

Not blindered at all. There's problems with far left liberalism in the form of 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, nanny state, and sometimes the belief that there is such a thing as a free lunch. I would have added spending like a drunken sailor, but Bushco co-opted that in the previous administration, so it isn't just liberal territory any more.

I'd identify more with conservatism if only it were conservative. The conservative propensity to interfere in social issues, contrary to their alleged "less gov't." philosophy like gay rights, abortion (if you're against them, don't get one), 1st Amendment, and the "there's no such thing as a bad defense expenditure" mentality turn me off. Then again is the pursuit of policies that favor the "have mores" or 1%ers and working to reduce if not eliminate the American middle class, and as previously mentioned destruction of the natural environment turn me off and make it hard to find a Republican worthy of support.

The upcoming governor's election may be tough. From what I know of Insley, he's pretty classic bleeding heart liberal. McKenna would likely be a significant improvement in financial management, and might be OK on environment, unless there's money to be made destroying it, in which case I expect he'll choose money. I'm not sure how he comes down on social issues, but I've heard him say a couple things that make me think he'll come down on the wrong side. I think a Republican candidate who stays out of people's bedrooms, doesn't try to re-write RvW, and values a natural environment would be a shoo-in. But then that candidate would probably be a Democrat.

Sg

Pot................kettle..................black.

Just like national politics back and forth, back and forth.

What we need is someone with fiscal responsibility and enough backbone to fund SS and medicare. Someone that is not beholden to DC lobbyists and can fight equally for us all, not just those with lobbyists, lawyers and politico's in their pockets.
Someone that can maintain the tax rates so that everyone prospers while avoiding making the US another caste society.
Someone with enough foresight to be proactive and not re-actively to the vagaries that will try and impede our progress.

These are but some of the things that this country needs, I pray to god I live long enough to see it happen!

Fishy

Aw crap.....common ground. Now doesn't that just suck?! (kidding.....I like)

Yup. When your views are 100% whack job then meeting you half way still leaves a 50% whack job view.

Do your dance, Kotex.
Noise, nothing but noise.

How are those "no compromise" relationships working for you?
Old ugly dog.....no tricks....pathetic you are.

That is a fact. But the GOP began to cast aside it's conservation legacy back in the 80's with Reagan and his appointment of James Watt as Interior secretary. Just as Nixon decided to embrace the segregationist Dixiecrats that had left the Democratic party, Reagan embraced the so-called "sagebrush rebellion" that opposed many of the conservation policies that had previously been supported by the GOP. The result is that today's GOP has repudiated and jettisoned the conservation legacy of Theodore Roosevelt.

Relk,

Don't confuse those Sleazbaggers and Repunants with facts, it goes completely against all the rhetoric coming out of their masters mouths!

Fishy

Yeah, don't pay any attention to conservatives or whatever they call themselves. We want the USSA and it's taking too long.
Vote for Barack Hussein Lenin Obama.

Well this certainly should make the teabaggers head explode!


http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/soaking-poor-state-state


Enjoy,

Fishy

Teabagger, another dumb label for those that cannot remember the
various segments of the politcal parties.
Got me a cup of Earl Gray. pretty good.

Sleazebagger= someone we would like to forget.

Another look into reality!

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph


Fishy

I sure dont. But when I think of the major governmenal initiatives the Ds sure win. Want a partial list?

Womens Right to Vote
Social Security
Civil Rights
Medicare
Peace Corps
National Health Insurance

The list is a lot longer. Show me some R accomplishments of equal weight.
Then ask if any of them would be acceptable to todays Rs. Hint EPA.

Dave,

You have forced me to investigate some. I'm not an addict on this kind of stuff, so I'll leave that to those who are.

That being said, I could find little evidence that the Republican Party, per se, has done much of anything in recent times which advocates the overall promotion of well-being of the general populace. Some of your list is also claimed by the Republican Party, however, but all of that was some time ago.
I'm on the fence as to whether that is a good thing, or a bad thing, or something of little or no importance. I know that that is a "set-up" statement, so before the opportunists jump (as many are eager to do, I'm sure......and some are probably peeing their pants in glee ), let me say this: I don't trust either Party. There are as many rich Democrats as there are rich Republicans in power positions, and that alone skews the truth to the point of un-recognizability. Knowing that either or both will willingly use misleading statements to promote themselves in politics, makes them all unbelievable. Just because something sounds good at first blush, does not necessarily make it a good thing. Even at the very ground level of consideration, doesn't one need to ask, "Can we afford it?" Considering our present mode of spending without regard to afford-ability, it seems to me to be a legitimate question. The answer is not nearly as simple as many would purport it to be, either, especially when part of the cost/benefit analysis involves questionable claims, and the effects of proposed changes.

Long story short, I guess I'm not as easily enamored as some, and am un-trusting of most forces in government when it/they reach beyond what I consider "helping". IMO, government is supposed to be there to assist, not control. I think that is consistent with my distaste for "law enforcement officers" over "peace officers".

edit: forgot to add this interesting recent article concerning recent EPA "strong-arming"....... contractors beware

sshhhh libtards always get their panties in a crack when presented
with facts they don't like.

Nice obfuscation. But the fact remains liberals pushed for and passed all of the above . The Rs came on board reluctantly when they saw they had too. It is now much the same with gay marrige and gays in the military.

As Lyndon Johnson said when signing the civil rights act We have lost the south for a generation. He was right of course which is why the south remains so solidly republican to this day.

Make up your mind Hank is SS a good thing or not? You Rs attack it whenever given the chance, now you want to claim you were behind its passage?

Can you even imagine Rs pushing for womens rights?

The right has tried hard to rewrite history but facts are stubbon things. This clearly disproves one of the above contentions. The others are equally specious.


http://www.alternet.org/story/21004

Fdr did a good thing when he created SS even if it was a bit socialistic.
Managing the bureacracy is an entire different bag of worms. Dipping into
the fund for coins for the moment is destroying its' viability.

I can imaging Rs pushing for sufferage. I think you have them confused
with Islamists and Sharia Law.

Imagine all you want but here are facts!

Nineteenth Amendment





Many groups were opposed to women's suffrage at the time.
On January 12, 1915, a suffrage bill was brought before the House of Representatives but was defeated by a vote of 204 to 174. Another bill was brought before the House on January 10, 1918. On the evening before, President Wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the bill. It was passed by two-thirds of the House, with only one vote to spare. The vote was then carried into the Senate. Again President Wilson made an appeal, but on September 30, 1918, the amendment fell two votes short of passage. On February 10, 1919, it was again voted upon, and then it was lost by only one vote.

There was considerable anxiety among politicians of both parties to have the amendment passed and made effective before the general elections of 1920, so the President called a special session of Congress, and a bill, introducing the amendment, was brought before the House again. On May 21, 1919, it was passed, 42 votes more than necessary being obtained. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate, and after a long discussion it was passed, with 56 ayes and 25 nays. Within a few days, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan ratified the amendment, their legislatures being then in session. Other states followed suit at a regular pace, until the amendment had been ratified by 35 of the necessary 36 state legislatures. After Washington on March 22, 1920, ratification languished for months. Finally, on August 18, 1920, Tennessee narrowly ratified the Nineteenth Amendment, making it the law throughout the United States.[59]

The final states to ratify the 19th Amendment were Georgia, North Carolina, and Louisiana, in 1970 and 1971. South Carolina finally ratified it in 1973, but Mississippi not until 1984.


Note the foot draggers. Are those liberal states?


Now please list the accomplishmient of the conservatives Oh yeah, they blocked a lot of things.

Liberal and Conservative Accomplishments


Liberal and Cooperative Accomplishments

• Extending the vote and civil protections to all adult Americans.
• Unemployment Insurance and Social Insurance.
• Safe and inexpensive Food and Water through enforceable regulation.
• Hoover Dam, the Tennessee Valley Authority, REA – the Rural Electrification Authority, Electric Cooperatives, without which large parts of the country would have no electricity.
• The GI Bill and State sponsored Universities providing affordable education.
• The Soil Bank.

Conservative accomplishments








































































































































Still looking

Interesting to see your approach to polarizing the partys.
Kinda like the USSR when giving kudos to their inventors. They got the airplane, the plow and any other 19th and 20th century innovation.
We are busy doing the Brit dance. In England since the 1800s allegience to the party was and is much more important that being a Brit first and
a party hack second. Carry on.

I believe the GOP deserves credit for creating the National Park system. Of course that was when they were actually "conservative" and interested in protecting the natural environment, vs. the corporate one.

The Bush tax cuts simply kicked the can down the road so that our children will be paying that bill, and their children. Enjoy the benefits, but with a guilty conscience. Oh, I forgot, conservatives don't have consciences.

There is a shred of truth in what you say. Certainly not about what liberals have accomplished vs. conservatives. Those facts remain.

But as far as dividing the parties. Wow, I didn’t know I was so powerful, but there is the kernel of truth in what you say.

I used a poor choice of words when talking about republicans and democrats. I should have stuck with liberals vs. conservatives. Because there were conservative democrats who were not in favor of civil rights, women’s, rights, gay right etc. Many of those were southern democrats who later found that the republicans more closely matched their views than did the democrats. Hnece the solidly republican south of today.

And there have been liberal republicans such as Nelson Rockefeller and even in many ways Nixon and Roosevelt, who bucked the conservative wing of their party to support parks, environmental protections and battled against overpowerful corporations.

Today the ultra conservatives have damn nearly purged their party of moderates and I doubt there are any liberal republicans left in national offices. But I should have acknowledged that democrats can be conservative and at one time republicans could have been liberals. Today I am sure Ronald Reagan would be branded a RINO by the current crop of tea party conservatives.

Thank there are no ulta-liberals!

JG

Hard to understand the questions as worded, but if you are asking are there any ultra liberals - of course there are. There always are radical fringes. It's just that right now the radical right is driving the republican buss - off a cliff it appears. They hate Romney and have tried desperatly to love any one of the many really bad alternatives. In the end they will have Romnye but they will have to hld their noses to vote for him.

Imagine the Rs get to vote for the father of Obamacare. A man who has been pro abortion, pro unions and said global warming is real and man caused.

Oh, he changed his mind on all those. Heavens hes not a a flip flopper is he?

That's obviously because the conservatives dont believe in evolution!!!

Right wing teabagger pandering that causes opinion changes from ones supported by facts and logic to retarded opinions intended to garner votes from idiots and morons is hard to call "evoloving"...it's called "dumbing down", which is doublespeak for "right wing speeches" coming from the ClownFest.

Fish on...

Todd

An ABC poll released today shows that 52% of respondents like Romney less the more they know about him.

Thats pretty much what the tea party thinks.

Dave, an ABC poll? Always Bash Conservatives?

Here's one......polls are cool.....


HERE

Polls are always important when they support your view. Otherwise not so much. Hank would post a poll done by Forrest Gump if it suited his view.

In this case the ABC poll is supported by several other well respected pollsters. If I want the most accurate polling possible I check out Real Clear Politics.

RCP summary of polls shows that the ABC poll was in agreement with five other pollsters.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Rasmussen polls tend to be the pollster equivalent of watching FauxNews for "fair and balanced" reporting...they're laughable on their face most the time.

Fish on...

Todd

Remember Hank there is no such thing as evolution.

Yep. Sure is. I can't imagine why he would do that. Can you?

Needs to do it to win?

Because he is just another POS pol that will say/do/take $'s from anyone to get elected. So much for hope and change. Not that the other side is any better. 17mil in Florida alone by one guy. A lot of corksoaking to pay that back.

All the name tags at the BO fundraising dinners likely say "Welcome Ambassador ......". Romneys state "Welcome Future Secretary .....".

It's always about the money and that money must be served.

The right leaning Rasmussen pollsters also found that a majority of voters think the Rs in congress are too far right. So, what do the geniuses do? Move toward the most extreme far right candidate out there. Obama has to think his God is smiling on him.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...ongress_extreme

The only chance the GOP has for survival is banning birth control. Do the math....for every birth defect only a miniscule percentage would end up thinking like these RWWJ's.
Secondly, this batch is so low on the IQ meter that they are catering to the wrong 1 percent.

It's estimated that 25% of the population are authoritarian personalities. Add in that collapsing middle classes have a historical tendency to lean toward fascism and the likelihood of the Republican Party not surviving is very low. They will probably gain momentum. Oh ya,I forgot to mention right wing media financed by ultra rich fascists as a contributing factor.

Sometimes it looks like Hank can't understand that even Obama supporters disapprove of his job performance. Nonetheless, we ain't about to vote for the R candidate. The electoral process is all about voting against right wing nut jobbery. Admittedly it would be nice to have a D prez who is worth the pay. And the support.

Sg

The Catholics are split, and they're split along the lines they were split along before...the extra-whack right wing of the Church still won't vote for a black liberal, and the progressive end will vote for a Democrat.

Still a non-issue.

Fish on...

Todd

Not to mention that American Catholics at least, use the pill or other unauthorized contraception. When's the last time ya' saw a Catholic family with 6 to 10 kids? Ain't happening.

Like I said, non-issue unless you are Hannity or Hank.

Fish on...

Todd

All major polls show Santorum surging. Proof the cons don't want Mitt. One more thing the liberals have in common with the conservatives.

Mustaine spent a few too many years with a straw up his nose and a needle in his arm to have any credibility in the arena of political punditry.

I AM a Megadeth fan though...

Wow!! So some drugged out Hollywood type likes Santorum because he stopped campaigning for a couple of days to be with his sick daughter. Well, I guess that does put him a notch above Gingrich.

Damn Hank you are really looking hard for any good news you can find.

How about the Rasmussen poll that shows Obama is gaining in popularity and would beat any R candidate easily. Did you miss that one?


I don’t blame you. It’s getting more and more apparent the Rs have screwed themselves. They don’t like their only half sane candidate and the whack job darling of the loony right most certainly could not get elected. Looks like another four years of a mediocre president.

Like Aunty says it’s America that gets screwed.

needles or not......those two terms are as mutually exclusive as KK and original thought

Afraid DV has it right, we are in for another four years of a middling President that will waffle and wane without truly having the backbone to get the things done that we need and the Repubs have done themselves in by signing onto a contract with a DC lobbyist that is too extreme, not to mention the Sleaze party wackjobs!


Fishy

I'm sure we'll see it copied and pasted somewhere down the line.


Fishy

Oh hanky, so many fights, so little time........

I meant again, Dimbulb

Hows the weather in Hankland?


Fishy

It appears with all of your flippin and foppin that you couldn't think your way out of anything. If you hadn't already screwed it up so bad you might have had a job as a GOP politician.

Oh wait! Just join the clown-show now and you'll be right at home.


Fishy

You and Hanky are the clown-show here, if everybody's laughing and you don't get the joke then YOU are the joke.

Sorry had to clarify that for you.


Fishy

And the Clown-Show continues......



Fishy

How many mice do you have in your pocket? Not everyone understands the nonsense some people spew. In that case, who is the joke?

Really? The clownshow continues with all of the copying and pasting of all the obscure polls denouncing this or that and his little cheerleader dancing along to his tune.

Most people can see there are many sides to an equation but these two seem to only drink the kool aid provided by the GOP, meanwhile we get screwed by them all.

I have to laugh about it cause if I didn't it would drive me insane knowing that the people they are talking about are leading this country or want to!!


The joke really is on us all.

Fishy

Fixed something and fully agree!

Are any of you paying attention to this fraud being perp'd around the country?

"How to get fired from FOX Business in under 5 minutes"

Whole heartedly agree.

Media Matters' main focus is on exposing the distortions, manufactured stories and out-and-out lies foisted upon the country by the right-wing media machine.

What proof do you have that it is BS Hank?

I suppose if you googled hard enough... there probably IS some obscure op/ed out there from some even more obscure 'news source' that you could c&p to try and prove your point?

Ya got a couple of hours 'til the next postin' round... so don'tcha go lettin' us down.

Whether or not Ron Paul was ripped off is an important topic, and it should be fully investigated and the investigation should be made public.

That, however, doesn't change the fact that there's no way in hell Ron Paul is qualified to run this country, or that he's somehow become "not a fruitcake" since getting allegedly ripped off.

He's still nuttier than a fruitcake, and is worthy of no more than a protest vote.

Fish on...

Todd

Put Holder to work on the matter. He couldn't find a conspiracy if
he was pistol whipped.

If I thought arguing with you the finer points of why a strict constitutionalist is not only qualified but desparately needed at this point in time was worth even a minute of my time,.....I might consider it.

But it's not,........so I won't.

On the matter of the Maine caucus, it is indeed important and should be investigated. As well as the Iowa and Nevada caucuses. Both states who's GOP chairs resigned shortly after the "tallying" of the votes.

Paul likely won Maine says the Chicago Tribune;

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-201202211045usnewsusnwr201202170217recountfeb21,0,4219570.story

"Lost in the spam folder" - I outta try that one out someday

Is one MSM network somehow sacred over another?

They're all used as tools. Fact.

If one has a message they want to convey why not use the vessel best built for the task?

If I want to solicit donations for the orphan's fund but I use Satan's Network News to broacast the message, should I be shamed for doing so?

The tool used to convey the message means jack.

Hank,

We are waiting for you to back up your claim the story is false.

Hmmm... the Christian Science Monitor, CBS News and the Boston Herald are also reporting that Ron Paul may well have won in Maine Hank.

So... it looks like the only one who is full of BS is you.


A blurb on Media Matters from the Daily Caller Hank, that's your counterpoint?

Really?

Here's a quote from your article: "Founded by Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “conservative misinformation” in the press."

is right!

The cynical SW agrees with everything you just said.

That aside, should I start construction of my underground bunker post haste? Start squirelling away my rapidly depreciating Federal Reserve fiat notes for my small retirement share of Central American hookers and blow? Tell my kids [Bleeeeep!] it I'm done?

I'm anything but a quitter. In fact, pretty gawd damned stubborn. I'll keep my head down and continue to contribute in ways that I can to what I see is right. I don't expect to change the world but I'll make sure I at least played my hand.

So Hank please do not wait for me to prove your claim. If you have something let's see it.

Any fucktard can tell a Coke from a Pepsi in a blind taste test.

So then Media Matters didn't feed the story to Rachel Maddow... is that what you're sayin' Hank?

It's easy to count 'em in Washington State, specially when they're all dead people voting for the Queen;)

Which just goes to show that even dead people won't vote for clowns.


Fishy

It's clearly a conspiracy by a cabal of the Federal Reserve and the Mormon Church to assure that Ron Paul does not become the first president institutionalized as certifiably crazy. But watching the debates last night he seemed the only sane one to me.

GOP candidates plans would increase deficits:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...r-federal-debt/

Three cheers to that!

It's all relative...Lyndon LaRouche would look sane standing on a stage with Sanitorium, Gingrich, Romney, and Paul.

Fish on...

Todd

Most Republican Candidates Would Increase the Deficit - Only Ron Paul Would Actually Cut the Deficit.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012...se-the-deficit/

Is there any surprise there Dave. Paul, for all his issues, is the only guy that tells the truth. The only non-B.S.er in the bunch. The only one not bought and paid for before even getting started.

That includes BO by the way.

Where does Obama's deficit "reduction"plan compare to the 4 repubs mentioned in the article?

I don't know jerry why don't you do your homework and report back to us?

that's an easy one he doesn't have one...

Sad but I think true...a politician telling the truth instead of what his or her audience wants to hear will not get elected...in most cases.

We've got one President saying "I know this won't reduce the budget deficit, but at this point it is more important to stimulate the economy"...and on the other hand, a handful of GOP hopefuls screaming about the deficit, and then sending out their economic plans which also include increasing the deficit.

Whether you agree with the respective policies or not, you at least have one President who is being straightforward, and three Republican nominees who are being hypocrites.

Fish on...

Todd

Which is exactly the same as BO did when he was running and Bush before him and Clinton before him. Part of the sad game of politics.

And BO still blames Bush for anything and everything.....much of which he had little or no control over. Just more B.S. piled high on more B.S. None of the three nominees will change one thing just like BO didn't. Paul would at least try to improve things. To bad he is just so out there and not electable. At least with him we might have a chance at something changing.

DS
I agree. I would vote for Paul as a protest vote if for no reason other than he trying to tell it like he sees it, not just changing his position every time a poll changes.

I do think he is waaaaay out there on a few things, but if he were elected, which we all know will not happen, he would be controlled by congress.

I am frankly scared to death of the silly saber rattling of some on the right. If they had their way and got us into a hot war with Iran out country would be in economic turmoil for a very long time. At least Paul understands that. I note George Will, a serious right-winger is praising Obama’s restraint.

The only reason the RWWJ's are howling to bomb Iran is because Obama has not...that's the only reason.

If he had, they'd be calling him hasty and radical.

Fish on...

Todd

Why did you discriminate against po obama? He is just as big,
if not bigger hypocrite as any of the rest of the politicians.

Virtue among whores.

We are all guilty, to one degree or another, of glossing over the warts on "our" man and seeing every pimple on the other guys. Some more than others but it's a universal "vision" problem.

This board wouldn't be as interesting any other way.

Damn, Davey........you're good!

It is pretty funny that Ronald Reagan would get run out of the current rendition of the Republican Party right now, yet every one of the clowns can't wait to say "Ronald Reagan" as often as possible...they, like the rest of the Republicans, have either very faulty or no memories, or hope that voters don't.

Fish on...

Todd