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.