TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote:Someone made a statement to the effect that the news media used to be more honest, etc. I severely disagree. I've said this before, but Walter Cronkite comes to mind INSTANTLY when I hear that sort of thing. He was one of the main reasons why the American populace was convinced that the war in Vietnam was lost after Tet '68 when in reality, the Viet Cong were all but destroyed as a cohesive fighting force. And that is merely one example of the perfidy of the old media. They are and have been, by and large, a bunch of lying snakes, all the way back to William Randolph Hurst and his yellow journalism...and they are, by and large, more tied in with the increasingly nanny-state authoritarian establishment than ever. Just to keep this firearms related, who constantly bangs the drum for gun control, makes firearms owners look evil, vilifies the NRA, and scares the non-firearms owning public with thoughts that they are all in non-stop danger of being gunned down with "assault weapons"? The mass media machine, that's who. I trust any of them as far as I can pick 'em up and toss 'em, as my grandpa used to say.

Archived documents have revealed that Mussolini got his start in politics in 1917 with the help of a £100 weekly wage from MI5.

For the British intelligence agency, it must have seemed like a good investment. Mussolini, then a 34-year-old journalist, was not just willing to ensure Italy continued to fight alongside the allies in the first world war by publishing propaganda in his paper. He was also willing to send in the boys to "persuade'' peace protesters to stay at home.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The Country has changed and it isn't going back. People can either sit out and whine, or they can get involved and make the best of a bad situation.

Chas.

Then I chose to sit out. Let the country rot, and let our descendants mourn the loss of freedom. Maybe in a few centuries another group will rise up, as our forefathers did, and build a country based on freedom. If you ask me to vote for a McCain, McConnell or Boehner, then I chose to sit out.

Swear allegiance to the flag
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For some day sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:As to the discussion of Ted Cruz that started this thread, and with all due respect to Charles, whom I admire, this is nothing but a red herring. I'm shocked that so many people that I respect have fallen for it.

And meaning no disrespect to you, you don't know what I know. I can't say more than this; I've been at NRA all this week in various committee meetings, including Legislative Policy. It doesn't matter what Reid said publicly, the deal was done and Cruz screwed it up. We have 12 Obama federal judges because of Cruz. People who get their information from the Internet and news media, with no insider information, can only guess and surmise. Again, I mean no disrespect but that's the hard cold truth.

First of all, you have me at an unfair advantage, because you're claiming knowledge that I can't possibly verify. However, I have a tremendous amount of difficulty believing that Republicans could have made any sort of deal with Harry Reid that he would have honored. He is a corrupt, dishonest liar. Any deal he makes is suspect at best. Furthermore, I don't trust any of the GOP leadership to be telling the truth. They have lied directly to the voters repeatedly. I look at actions, not words, and their actions have been at cross purposes to their words for far too long.

There's really no point in me responding, so I'll be brief. The deal wasn't with Reid alone, it was between Democrats and Republicans on issues they both wanted in the budget. Believe what you will, but the "proof" you offered was nothing more than Cruz saying "it ain't so."

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You may be willing to destroy the Republican Party and hand control to the Democrats, but I'm not nor is the majority of anti-Democrats. Here's the sad truth, there aren't enough conservatives to win. If you think destroying the Republican Party will see a powerful conservative party rise from the ashes, then you can look into the mirror and see the guy who's drinking the Kool-Aid. The Country has changed because the population has changed, not because of Washington. We will never see the 1950's again.

Chas.

Fine. If we're going to destroy the country, let's get on with it. What's the point of delaying the inevitable while the scoundrels in Washington continue to enrich themselves while they slowly drive us into the ditch? There may not be enough conservatives to win (debatable), but there are darn sure enough to guarantee that a moderate Republican will lose.

BTW, Reagan was elected in the 80's not the 50's. And if the GOP hadn't nominated GHW Bush to a second term, Clinton might not have been President. As it was, 19% of the population lodged a protest vote for Ross Perot, and the rest is history. If that's what the GOP wants, then nominate Jeb Bush. He's guaranteed to lose.

With all due respect, Charles, the arguments aren't working any more. Conservatives are extremely angry, and they will abandon the GOP in droves if a conservative isn't nominated this time. Call it childish if you like. It is what it is. If people don't wake up, and soon, the country is going in the toilet anyway.

baldeagle wrote:

G26ster wrote:TAM

Substitute the words "republican voter" for the words "politicians and zealots", and you have the reason we have the current POTUS. They stayed home because Romney wasn't conservative enough for them. The Republican House and Senate do not elect the President. The voters do (actually, Independents do). As long as they (to use your words) "are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences" we will have a Democrat in the White House. How many times, on this forum and other places have I read, "If the Republicans don't get a presidential candidate I can get behind, and agrees with my principals, I will not..." If you want the republican politicians to wake up, so too need the Republican "voters." Just MHO.

Frankly, that argument will no longer fly with me and a lot of other people. We're sick and tired of being lied to by Republicans. If we have to destroy the party, then so be it, but it needs to change. Right now the Republicans seem thrilled to have Jeb Bush running for President. He will not win. Conservatives will not vote for him. It's time for the Republicans to learn that they need conservatives to win and start paying attention to what they are asking for.

There are two sides to the coin you're looking at. From your side, the GOP should nominate someone, and then the voters should support that nominee. The other side of that coin is the GOP should let the voters decide who the nominee should be and then support that nominee. So far, the GOP has proven they could care less what voters want. They have attacked (with money and support) EVERY conservative nominee in the country despite the fact that the voters nominated them. McConnell actually said he would "crush" the Tea Party. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... going-cru/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; In Mississippi Cochran appealed to Democrats and accused his Tea Party opponent of being a racist to win his runoff. The GOP liked that tactic so well they tried it (unsuccessfully) in the Georgia Senate race as well.

When did it become extreme to demand that Congress obey the Constitution? To ask that Congress balance the budget? (Our debt is now over $18 TRILLION. How much higher can it go before the country collapses?) To ask that the Government live with its means?

As to the discussion of Ted Cruz that started this thread, and with all due respect to Charles, whom I admire, this is nothing but a red herring. I'm shocked that so many people that I respect have fallen for it.

Congress wasn't going home until Reid got his nominations. He said so himself, a week before Cruz' actions supposedly made it possible. http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/12/17/te ... ange-rules" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; http://dailysignal.com/2014/12/16/ted-c ... -nominees/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.govexec.com/management/2014/ ... en/100659/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Senate also kicks off the week with a few additional confirmation votes on some of the president's nominees, as the upper chamber awaits instruction from the House on some of those other big-ticket items they'll need to pass before leaving Washington for the holidays.

More than 100 nominees are still awaiting Senate approval before Republicans take control of the Senate next year. Among them is the nominee to head Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Sarah Saldaña, whose apparently easy nomination has been complicated by Obama's executive action on immigration. Given the new Republican opposition to her nomination, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could put Saldaña on the calendar this week to approve her nomination under a Democratic majority.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/14/q ... -day-1940/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Senate source outside the Cruz and Lee offices with direct knowledge of the behind the scenes conversations tells me, “GOP leadership knew Reid was going to file cloture on up to 20 controversial nominations yesterday afternoon before they tried to move CROmnibus votes to monday. They told us the process to clear non-controversial nominations had broken down because Reid was going to file cloture on these nominations. So they knew this was going to happen regardless.”…

The Republican leadership is arguing that they might have been able to convince Reid to hold off on these controversial nominations if we played ball on the CROmnibus, but that’s just speculation. The tradeoff last night was for Lee et al to give up their right to offer amendments on the CROmnibus in exchange for the possibility that Reid wouldn’t go through with his nominations, if he was feeling generous.

Anyone who believes Reid would have passed up this opportunity had Cruz and Lee not objected is drinking the Washington koolaid. Some Democrats have claimed (to the press) that they were concerned that some members might have left for the holidays destroying their chances to get the nominees through. Sure they would have. And I've got a piece of land I'll sell ya at a really good price. You just can't look at it before you sign the papers. Care to make that deal?

Dems will never miss a chance to stir up trouble in the GOP, and the RINOs in the GOP will never miss the chance to publicly and openly castigate Cruz. (Notice they never mention Mike Lee.) If you can't figure out why, maybe you need to do some more serious thinking.

The truth is many Senators were mad because their weekend plans were ruined. They saw an opportunity to blame Cruz for the nominations (which left them off the hook for them) and they jumped on it. Does ANYONE complaining about Cruz know how many voted for the nominations? How much debate took place before the nominations were approved?

I'll wait for your answer.