How Republicans Lost The Election

[Diogenes]

The problem is that nothing gets on the television airwaves without going through the filter of Liberal Democrat Union members from New York or Los Angeles.

Pain will fix stupid.

FOX noise is still the most watched "News" TV station in the US and it is ultra conservative.

You are outta your mind. Not even close. Compared to the utter wackadoodle Liberal networks it LOOKS conservative, but it is far from being conservative.

The republicans lost, because their candidates were even bigger dimwitts than their opponents. They appealed to the base,

No they didn't. The base HATED Romney. They hated him with a blue purple passion from h*ll. Romney was just the last guy standing after they tried to get anyone else but him. He mostly won the nomination when the Virginia GOP pulled a last minute rule change that kicked most of his opposition off of the ballot. The base really really really did not like Romney. He was too North Eastern, Too Liberal, and too wishy washy.


That you thought otherwise indicates you haven't got a freakin clue what you are talking about.

not recognizing that not even the majority of republicans want a bunch of morons who run arround disregarding modern science for religious believes, who disrespect women and tout nonsense like "a woman cant get pregnant from rape". Accordingly, they lost big among the female population.

Akins and Murdock did indeed put their foot in it, and may very well have cost not only their own chance at a Senate seat, but dragged the top candidate down with them. The Party jumped on them with both feet, but the damage was already done.


The Media(New York Liberal Democrat Union Members) made sure this was the face of their political enemy. They put this nonsense on a 24-7 news cycle spin, and turned the volume up to "11." They do not pull such tactics on their political allies.

Did you ever hear the media point out how utterly stupid is Representative Hank Johnson for thinking that Guam would "tip over" ? Let me see, which is more objectionable? Someone who thinks that Rape Trauma will prevent implantation (Actually argued by Dr. Mecklenburg in his 1972 article entitled “The Indications for Induced Abortion: A Physician’s Perspective,”) or that an Island will tip over?

Here's another link to a group of supposed "experts" saying the same thing.Where is the link to experts claiming that Islands will tip over?


Akin should have realized that what he'd been told was disputed science, and should not be relied upon. He was misled. Who misled Hank Johnson about Islands?

Fact is that they did not loose because the other side was better in any way, or was better promoted in any way. They lost because they were even worse than the others (which is pretty hard to do).

Again, you haven't a clue. The other side OWNS the broadcast airways. They cover up stories they don't want the public to hear, and they push stories that damage their political enemies. If you want to see Damaging stories about Barack Obama, you have to read the British and other foreign press.


The other side also owns the entertainment industry. They weave propaganda into virtually everything they produce nowadays. They've got people like you on a stringer.

[Diogenes]

[Netmaker]

Some alternative perspective to Diogene's pictures:














And catch this cut from "Jesus Camp" where children are being instructed to bless a cardboard cutout of George W.
http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002206/

[Netmaker]

The repocrats lost because they were not honest enough with themselves to realize that a lot of their bedrock wouldn't vote for a Morman.

Personally I wouldn't vote for any POG candidate. Thus I voted Communist Obama over Theocon Keyes in 2004.

Communist Obama... If he were a communist then

He would have nationalized the banks and auto companies instead of propping them up and in the case of the banks, leaving their management in place

The healthcare debacle would have resulted in a national health service instead of unworkable insurance schemes designed to funnel large amounts of money into private insurance companies.

Obama and much of the Democratic Party are corporatists paying lip service to their base, a legacy of Clinton's Third Way and the DLC.

Pay attention to their actions/results and not the propaganda (from either side)/Washington kabuki theatre.

[Skipjack]

You are outta your mind. Not even close. Compared to the utter wackadoodle Liberal networks it LOOKS conservative, but it is far from being conservative.

I shiver at the thought of what you would consider a conservative station then... The vatican channel?

Again, you haven't a clue. The other side OWNS the broadcast airways. They cover up stories they don't want the public to hear, and they push stories that damage their political enemies. If you want to see Damaging stories about Barack Obama, you have to read the British and other foreign press.

Come on, all you have to do is turn on the boob tube and watch Fox noise. Plenty of stuff on there. Besides, even the democrats were unhappy with Obama and a lot of them were ready to vote someone else. But Romney just was too lame.

[Stubby]

Love your pics Netmaker.

[Stubby]

You are outta your mind. Not even close. Compared to the utter wackadoodle Liberal networks it LOOKS conservative, but it is far from being conservative.

I shiver at the thought of what you would consider a conservative station then... The vatican channel?

Again, you haven't a clue. The other side OWNS the broadcast airways. They cover up stories they don't want the public to hear, and they push stories that damage their political enemies. If you want to see Damaging stories about Barack Obama, you have to read the British and other foreign press.

Come on, all you have to do is turn on the boob tube and watch Fox noise. Plenty of stuff on there. Besides, even the democrats were unhappy with Obama and a lot of them were ready to vote someone else. But Romney just was too lame.

ALEX JONES would be a candidate for favorite channel. Same politics and same strident tone.

[Diogenes]

Some alternative perspective to Diogene's pictures:

Not at all. Your Bush Halo pictures all come from the same source: Some nutburger Kook conspiracy theory website. Here's the link once you shave off the bits. "http://www.thebereanchronicles.com/"

You have nothing showing Bush on the cover of a magazine sporting a Halo. Or this:



Or this:




Or this:



Or This:




Or This:





It's even become a popular belief among his enemies. They are starting to think he is a sort of god.


This sort.








Your last picture just shows the Spirit of Washington and Lincoln Praying with Bush. Presumably this was an after 911 photo. It doesn't show Bush as a "god", it shows him as someone praying. (To a God.)

And catch this cut from "Jesus Camp" where children are being instructed to bless a cardboard cutout of George W.

http://www.dailykos-idiot-lunatics.com/tv/w/002206/

Not going to dailykos, but this link disputes your account. The Children were told to pray FOR Bush, not to him.

Just took a look at the video I presume your link refers to. Good grief man, have you never seen Pentecostals before? First time I ever saw them they scared the sh*t out of me. Thought they were insane loons. Eventually I figured out that was just the way they were taught to behave in their religion.


Yes, Netmaker, get "some alternative perspective".

[Diogenes]

You are outta your mind. Not even close. Compared to the utter wackadoodle Liberal networks it LOOKS conservative, but it is far from being conservative.

I shiver at the thought of what you would consider a conservative station then... The vatican channel?

No. One that reports news which is damaging to Democrats. You know, like Benghazi, like Fast and Furious, like the Inspector General Scandal, like the Dealergate Scandal, the Green Energy Boondoggle wastes, The Obama Illegal immigrant relatives, the 1.5 billion dollars of family travel expenses, The Menendez underage hooker scandal, the Rezko / Blaygoyavitch scandal, the law license scandal, and other stuff you only find out about by reading the foreign press.

Again, you haven't a clue. The other side OWNS the broadcast airways. They cover up stories they don't want the public to hear, and they push stories that damage their political enemies. If you want to see Damaging stories about Barack Obama, you have to read the British and other foreign press.

Come on, all you have to do is turn on the boob tube and watch Fox noise. Plenty of stuff on there. Besides, even the democrats were unhappy with Obama and a lot of them were ready to vote someone else. But Romney just was too lame.

Fox covers only a teeny bit of the scandals surrounding this guy. Admittedly they do better than anyone else, but that's because all the other networks can't talk with his d*** in their mouths.



And yes, Romney was too lame. He might have been able to solve our economic problems, but he just wasn't hip enough.

[Diogenes]

Love your pics Netmaker.

Didn't know you were such a Bush fan. I thought he sucked, and i've met him in person. Thought he sucked when I first met him too. (1992)


He seemed perfumed and pampered; An out of touch country club poor little rich boy. He wore Penny loafers with tassels. Something I always marked as preppy and effeminate. Would have had more respect for him if he'd been wearing his Cowboy boots.


Again, wasn't impressed.

[Stubby]

Bush was/is great for comedy. For that I like him a lot.

[Diogenes]

Bush was/is great for comedy. For that I like him a lot.

I don't see it. I found him to be distinctly un-funny. Especially his spending binge.

[Stubby]

You are outta your mind. Not even close. Compared to the utter wackadoodle Liberal networks it LOOKS conservative, but it is far from being conservative.

I shiver at the thought of what you would consider a conservative station then... The vatican channel?

No. One that reports news which is damaging to Democrats. You know, like Benghazi, like Fast and Furious, like the Inspector General Scandal, like the Dealergate Scandal, the Green Energy Boondoggle wastes, The Obama Illegal immigrant relatives, the 1.5 billion dollars of family travel expenses, The Menendez underage hooker scandal, the Rezko / Blaygoyavitch scandal, the law license scandal, and other stuff you only find out about by reading the foreign press.

Wow the shotgun assertion approach without evidence or citations. One of your trademarks. The places you get your information are often sketchy or worse just plain loony. Do you hope people will blindly accept these comments of yours?

Please provide links to the stories that have you shorts in a knot.

It might be that some of what you say is somewhat possible but the 1.5 billion line is crap. Just like the crap of it costing 200 million per day and using 34 warships for him to go to India (FAUX NEWS/Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity) reported that story as fact).

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/the-tr ... president/

[KitemanSA]

No. One that reports news which is damaging to Democrats. You know, like Benghazi, like Fast and Furious, like the Inspector General Scandal, like the Dealergate Scandal, the Green Energy Boondoggle wastes, The Obama Illegal immigrant relatives, the 1.5 billion dollars of family travel expenses, The Menendez underage hooker scandal, the Rezko / Blaygoyavitch scandal, the law license scandal, and other stuff you only find out about by reading the foreign press.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/the-tr ... president/

What does this link have to do with anything D said?

[Netmaker]

No, Diogenes,

"Your Bush Halo pictures all come from the same source"

Not at all. I've linked to the first four from the same site because they happened to have been aggregated there. That doesn't mean that they originated there. Googling my images for an exact match results in:

6 1/2 pages of links for the first pic,
4 pages for the second
5 pages for the third
2 pages for the fourth
and 3 pages for the fifth.

But wait, there's more! Searching for images using they keywords "George W. Bush" Savior, results in 26 pages of hits using various resized images of the fifth pic with George, George and Abe.

I think this modification of my first pic as shown by a Free Republic poster is probably one that everybody will enjoy:




posted by kaslin at http://www.freerepublic.com/~kaslin/


Regarding your first pick from Newsweek "The Second Coming"
The picture of Obama has no religious overtones. The cover title would have been chosen by the magazine to generate sales. A nice dog whistle for the evangelical right to get their blood pumping but meaningless as such to the left.


Your 2nd pic - Obama "halo'ed" by the presidential seal. Identical in nature to the second pic I posted of Bush being "halo'ed" by the presidential seal.

Your 3rd pic - the Obama campaign icon lit from behind and highlighting Obama, giving him an aura. Again a common technique used in the 4th and 5th pictures of Bush in my posting.

Notice Bush standing in front of The Cross in the 5th picture of my posting. Significantly everything in this is created deliberately as it's a painting and not a picture that happens where the setting or lighting happens to provide an affect.



"You have nothing showing Bush on the cover of a magazine sporting a Halo. Or this:"

Well, what do you have there. Your second set of pictures. Let's see.....

Your first pic from that post is a photoshopped banner from a nutjob site www.obama-christ.com.

Somebody trying to make a buck at best.


In your second pic, Jamie Foxx, a comedian, gets on stage at the Soul Train awards and goes into his shtick saying "It's like church in here. It's like church in here. First of all, give an honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama,". Barack Obama, Lord and Savior of Jamie Foxx and the "S o u l T r a i n!". Everybody dance now.


In your third pic, from the Rolling Stone, Obama is portrayed as either having an aura or giving off electricity and it's entitled "Barack Obama: A New Hope". I'm sure all Jedi everywhere will recognize the play on "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope". The force is strong with this one.


Your fourth pic, Rolling Stone again having Obama Halo'ed by a modified presidential seal with the motto "Will he take BOLD ACTION or COMPROMISE too easily?". Again a common technique but somehow that "BOLD ACTION or COMPROMISE" statement will hardly fill anybody with religious fervor even in a political sense as it's alluding to Obama's penchant for negotiating away his position with himself before even engaging with the opposition.

And the roundtable discussion - Gergen, Krugman and Moore? Gergen's a Republican and if you know anything about Krugman's and Moore's positions you'll know that they're not happy with Obama. Kind of a hold your nose thing. Your Liberal Media at work!


Your fifth pic, from Newsweek, shows Obama being portrayed in the form of the Hindu goddess Kali:



Somehow I don't see the Hindu demographic as buying him much and certainly the Christian demographic won't look fondly on him based on this.

And then there's the cover title "GOD OF ALL THINGS: Why the modern presidency may be too much for one person to handle". Yes, again I see the invisible hand of the Liberal Media first raising Obama as being presumptious enough to think of himself as the "GOD OF ALL THINGS" and then oops, he can't handle the job. So sorry. The actual narrative here doesn't match your imagined one.

Your sixth pic, another photoshopped job. Go to Google, switch to image search and drop your pic on the search field. Lots of un-shopped pictures without the subtext "BELIEVE".

As for the rapturous visage on the woman there, I'm sure you could find a similar picture from either of the parties' national conventions.

And the slogan "CHANGE We can believe in", I didn't even believe it the first time around and most Democrats even on that whack job site Daily Kos are very cynical about it. Not something they want to be reminded of given his job performance.


Your seventh pic, hmmm. What deluded state of mind do you have to be in to see somebody with a fly on their head as being any sort of god?


"Your last picture just shows the Spirit of Washington and Lincoln Praying with Bush. Presumably this was an after 911 photo. It doesn't show Bush as a "god", it shows him as someone praying. (To a God.) "

You presume wrong on a couple of counts. I've never said that any of the pictures portray either Bush or Obama as a god. Is religious iconography being used. Obviously. But neither Bush or Obama are gods or are being portrayed as gods.

This pic is not actually a photo of anything. It's the painting "Praying for Peace" produced by Ron DiCianni in 2003. Well after 9/11.

http://www.tapestryproductions.com/prod ... rpeace.php

This is what Tapestry Productions, founded in part by Ron DiCianni, has to say about the painting:

“Now give me wisdom and knowledge so I can lead these people in the right way, because no one can rule them without your help.” 1 Kings 3:9

One of Ron DiCianni’s greatest honors came in the form of a chance to paint the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. Not just the chance to paint him, but the chance to paint him in a manner that reflected his personal commitment to God. More than just with this president, America was founded with God at its core and is a nation founded on prayer. Praying for Peace is a strong visual reminder for all to pray for the nation’s leaders. At the center of any struggle is good verses evil. If good is to win, leaders and citizens alike must pray for the wisdom to move in the steps that God has ordained. Prayer will ensure that.

This painting is in the private collection of President George W. Bush.


Regarding the "Jesus Camp" video cut. How mature of you Diogenes to quote me and change the url of my posting from dailykos.com to dailykos-idiot-lunatics.com.

Here is what I said about the link "where children are being instructed to bless a cardboard cutout of George W.". Notice I said "TO BLESS". Nothing about praying to him. Is it your reading that's impaired or your maturity level kicking in again?

Good Grief man, I've never seen Pentecostals before. And it really has no bearing on the matter since I stated that they're being instructed TO BLESS President Bush. I'll include a transcript of what is said in the video for your benefit:

An assistant brings up a cardboard cutout of President Bush onto the stage. The audience is filled with children. The MC starts with:

ok, we're going to welcome Mr. President now
Talk to him, say "Welcome President Bush"
[children] "Welcome President Bush"

[MC] "We're glad you're here"
[children] repeats back

[MC] "I want you to bless him"
[MC] "speak a blessing to him"
[MC] "would you do that, raise your hand, speak a blessing to him"
[children] raise their hands to the cardboard cutout and presumably speak a blessing although it's to low to be heard

[MC] speaks something in another language. Hebrew? Speaking in tongues?
[MC] "He has surrounded himself with spiritual people"
[MC] "so pray in the spirit over him" (not sure if I got that right)
[MC] "here he is, he's come to visit us"
[MC] raises the Bush cutout

[MC] "yes Lord, thank you Jesus"
[children] have their right hand raised out to Bush's cutout with their eyes shut and heads down

[MC] "Tell him, Mr President"
[children] "Mr President"

[MC] "One Nation under God"
[children] shout back "Mr. President, One Nation under God"

Shouting, cheering, clapping, whistling
The US flag is held up behind the cutout

Feel free to correct any transcription errors. I'd be especially interested if anybody knows what the MC said in the other language presuming it's not a case of speaking in tongues.

Note that as I said, the children were asked to speak a blessing to the cutout.


"Yes, Netmaker, get "some alternative perspective"."

Lol, Well there's certainly no benefit to using your perspective Diogenes.