How Republicans Lost The Election

[Diogenes]

Digot

First:

The one making the assertions, ALWAYS has to provide evidence to back up the assertions. You have often disagreed with some of the available evidence that can be found because it does not suit your needs. So lets cut to the chase, have you present your evidence.

You are not following the context. The Context was what would a "Conservative" network look like. I said it would cover news which was damaging to the Democrats. I gave examples of such news. I was not attempting to prove those stories true, I was attempting to prove that those stories exist, and are NOT COVERED by the Democrat Media complex.

We have ranged somewhat far from where the original point was discussed, but I don't mind following along and citing links to the stories I used as examples. After all, it's too much to ask that someone should google something themselves.

Second:

I didn't address Benghazi because I have not reviewed all the evidence pro or con.. I do read that thread but it on ongoing.

You read the thread, and you haven't formed a tentative opinion? If you have evidence which contradicts the links provided, why not post them and give everyone the benefit of your additional information?


Benghazi looks really ugly, and every time I see something new on the topic it is also ugly. The point stands, the Media won't cover this because it *IS* very ugly for their guy.

Did you have a Menendez thread I missed? Are there threads for the others?

No, but it sounds like you would do the "I haven't reviewed all the evidence" thing, so it is probably pointless. Again, google is your friend.

But for kicks and grins, here's the Menendez thing.


Emails show FBI investigating Sen. Bob Menendez for sleeping with underage Dominican prostitutes





http://floppingaces.net/2013/02/02/mene ... -tightens/



Now if this was about a Senator patting his foot in a Bathroom Stall, the Media would be all over it. (Unless he was a Democrat)

The MailOnline article provides no citations for its story. It does provide a link to the Daily Caller (founder=Tucker Carlson). In the Daily Caller, they cite Robert Keith Gray as the source for the information but do not include any references or citations the Mr. Gray may have included in his book. So we are no further along in determining the validity of the statement or if it is even unique to this president versus any other in the last 20 years.

See link provided subsequently to the post to which you are responding.

It is like GiT's illegal appointments thread. While it might be true that the appointments are illegal, many of the previous presidents have done the same thing, BUT NOW it is all about Obama. Witch hunt come to mind.

Tu quoque is a child's argument. If others have gotten away with it, it does not change the fact that this one has been caught. Have others been adjudicated in a Federal court as well?

EDIT you added another link. Too bad it leads to the same source: the book by Mr. Gray.

Why should this source be dismissed? Presumably he has the references to back up the claim. Apparently they were good enough for the Daily Mail.

[Stubby]

And the Daily Mail is some sort of defining authority?
If they print it them it must be true, I guess.

EDIT
No, the source should not be dismissed out of hand or even because you provided it. It should be judged on its merits. Unfortunately, you haven't provided the sources used by Mr. Grey in order to make his claims. Without those sources, we cannot evaluate his claims or by extensions yours.

[GIThruster]

I would like to see some evidence that other Presidents have made a habit of making recess appointments. I doubt that is true. This President has avoided congressional oversight to a fatastical degree by appointing more "Czars" than allo those whoi went before him, and the main point of using Czars is they avoid the congressional approval process.

Pretending that OBama has been wronged by congress who wonb't vote on his appointments is all nonsense. He has for 4 years been deliberately avoiding the constitutional process and his appointments have been spectacularly obscene. Guys who belong in prison for tax evasion, guys who belongh in prison fopr domestic terrorism, all manner of unqualified and whacko-extremist losers. . .it's abig deal. Now he's caught with his hand in the cookie jar and stubby is saying this is what everyonbe else has done.

Lets see the evidence.

[Stubby]

I would like to see some evidence that other Presidents have made a habit of making recess appointments. I doubt that is true. This President has avoided congressional oversight to a fatastical degree by appointing more "Czars" than allo those whoi went before him, and the main point of using Czars is they avoid the congressional approval process.

Pretending that OBama has been wronged by congress who wonb't vote on his appointments is all nonsense. He has for 4 years been deliberately avoiding the constitutional process and his appointments have been spectacularly obscene. Guys who belong in prison for tax evasion, guys who belongh in prison fopr domestic terrorism, all manner of unqualified and whacko-extremist losers. . .it's abig deal. Now he's caught with his hand in the cookie jar and stubby is saying this is what everyonbe else has done.

Lets see the evidence.

Check the original thread.

[Diogenes]

And the Daily Mail is some sort of defining authority?
If they print it them it must be true, I guess.

The corollary is that if it doesn't make it on the National Networks (Run by Liberal Democrat Union Members from New York) then it didn't happen.


I figure the Daily Mail is probably a more reliable source of truth than are the New York Liberal Democrat Union member ran networks. Actually the National Enquirer is probably a more truthful source. They were tagging John Edwards when all the rest were absolutely refusing to cover the story because he's a member of their party.


We don't have journalists anymore, we have Goebbels like Propaganda officers now.

EDIT
No, the source should not be dismissed out of hand or even because you provided it. It should be judged on its merits. Unfortunately, you haven't provided the sources used by Mr. Grey in order to make his claims. Without those sources, we cannot evaluate his claims or by extensions yours.

So your argument is that someone has to buy the book, find his references and then check them out to see if they are true or not? This sounds suspiciously like "journalism" so naturally it isn't going to be done by any of the Democrat media complex.

Of course, THEY can get by with one unnamed source who refuses to identify themselves, but anyone saying anything bad about the media boyfriend? They have to be held to the absolute strictest standards of proof and accountability.


Again, this reinforces my point. Also I noticed you have singled out this particular issue, and left a wall of silence regarding the Menendez story. (Which is also not getting covered by the Democrat Media complex.)

[Diogenes]

And an update on the Menendez story.




http://theothermccain.com/2013/02/02/bi ... ate-donor/

[MSimon]

Why cant we get presidents like this anymore instead of this. :D

Reagan was way too libertarian for today's conservatives. And he was very friendly with a very libertarian/libertine Hollywood crowd.

Check out his friend Alfred Bloomingdale - who died in the arms of his mistress. Would Romney have such a close friend? Only if you consider some of the more fringe members of the Mormon church.

And of course there was Iran/Contra with the CIA facilitating the importation of cocaine to the US to support the Contras. While Nancy was "Just Saying No". And of course the missile deal with Iran.

I think Reagan was one of our better Presidents. But he was not near as good or as consistent as people "remember".

[MSimon]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/25/email ... ostitutes/

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/03/edito ... n-scandal/

[Diogenes]

Reagan was way too libertarian for today's conservatives. And he was very friendly with a very libertarian/libertine Hollywood crowd.

1982: A defense directive from President Ronald Reagan states that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service’’ and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual are discharged.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/02/05/us/re ... dency.html


I dunno, sounds pretty much like current conservatives to me.


On what issue does Reagan deviate significantly from current conservatives?

[Diogenes]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/25/email ... ostitutes/

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/03/edito ... n-scandal/

Till it gets on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX news, it doesn't exist. Also it needs to have the entire litany of Night time comedians make jokes about it for several weeks.


THEN the story will exist. (in the minds of the really dull witted American voters who actually swing elections one way or the other.)

[MSimon]

Reagan and abortion - apologists speak: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1957926/posts

Reagan never cared about abortion until he had to please the Conservative base to get elected. He was not about to make the Goldwater mistake of calling them nuts.

So Ron had a political conversion.

And I still fault him for promoting the war on drugs on one hand and importing them on the other.

But that sort of thing goes back a long ways. Chiang Kai-shek was just another in a long line. Our Federal government has always double dealt on the issue. Esp since the Progressive Era. The Progressives were very big on Prohibitions. Republicans have taken up that mantle re: pot and the Progressives are working tobacco, food, and guns. Neither Party is convincing on the Prohibitions they want because there are others they don't want. What does each party say about the other? "Prohibition can't work." I agree.

Look at our protection of opium farmers in Afghanistan. Or the Hmong during the Vietnam War.

[williatw]

Reagan and abortion - apologists speak: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1957926/posts

Reagan never cared about abortion until he had to please the Conservative base to get elected. He was not about to make the Goldwater mistake of calling them nuts.

So Ron had a political conversion.

And I still fault him for promoting the war on drugs on one hand and importing them on the other.

But that sort of thing goes back a long ways. Chiang Kai-shek was just another in a long line. Our Federal government has always double dealt on the issue. Esp since the Progressive Era. The Progressives were very big on Prohibitions. Republicans have taken up that mantle re: pot and the Progressives are working tobacco, food, and guns. Neither Party is convincing on the Prohibitions they want because there are others they don't want. What does each party say about the other? "Prohibition can't work." I agree.

Look at our protection of opium farmers in Afghanistan. Or the Hmong during the Vietnam War.

Reagan supported gun control too; the thought of those armed "black panthers" scared the hell out of a lot of people back then. As for abortion, seemed like no one much cared about it until Row v Wade, probably IMHO because before the Supreme Court waded into that issue, it was decided at the state or local level. Abortion laws ran the gamut around the country from as liberal as they are now, to very restrictive. If you liked/didn't like abortion you tried to change your state or local law. The court wading into and deciding that a woman had a "right" to abortion, overriding laws in 50 states ignited that whole issue. Never ceases to amaze me that the same kind of people who doubt the 2nd amendment protects the individual right to bear arms have no trouble convincing themselves that the constitution grants women the right to an abortion under just about any circumstances, and further the right to force others to pay for it against their will. In other words what it explicitly says (right to bear arms) it doesn't mean, but what it makes no mention of however obliquely (right to abortion) it "clearly" grants. Retired justice Stevens saying recently that he "concedes" you have the right to bear arms in your home (only), even though the 2nd neither makes nor implies any such limitation about where you are allowed to bear.

[Diogenes]

Obama's Nixon moment?

[hanelyp]

Obama's Nixon moment?

We can hope. Bob Woodward is on the job, if reluctantly this time.

[MSimon]

D,

You are forgetting Reagan's signing of an abortion law in California. Which he later said was a "mistake" (what he said in his head after saying that is unrecorded).

And the obsession of the right with abortion is a recent thing. It didn't used to be that way.

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/02/when ... important/

The abortion thing used to be a strictly Catholic obsession.

The Jewish view.

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/forg ... tradition/

In any case the "eternal Conservatism" of the last 50 years is dying out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magaz ... permid=393

and

From Glenn Beck the same:
With Young Voters, Republicans Must Give Up on Social Issues or Give Up Altogether, Poll Data Suggests

What is the objective of politics and religion:
http://classicalvalues.com/2011/01/hate_is_the_obj/
Orwell nailed it.

Generally what conservatives like to conserve is the radical policies introduced 50 or 100 years ago. i.e. what ever they are used to. As soon as they get used to something else it becomes the new "old conservatism".

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution. — G.K. Chesterton