Fleischman complained about the Register’s coverage of Scott Baugh’s representation of CRC Health’s sober living facilities. That is a fact.

Baugh is the voluntary OC GOP Chair. That is a fact.

Newport Beach residents, who vote Republican and give to GOP causes, are upset with Baugh’s role in promoting/representing these sober living facilities in NPB. That is a fact.

Residents were quoted in the story. That is a fact.

Baugh was given an opportunity to comment and respond and he did. That is a fact.

This is a legitimate news story. The reporter did not get “played” as Jon suggested. And to suggest Marty Wiskol “should know better” is damn patronizing to someone who’s been pretty fair to both of our parties.

What is not confirmed, but perhaps you know, is the question of whether or not Jon represents CRC Health in a professional capacity. He doesn’t list clients on his website, but he does share an office with Baugh, does she not? If Jon does in fact represent CRC Health, than his post on Red County is ethically questionable if he did not disclose it. If he doesn’t represent CRC Health, then its simply a matter of a conservative Republican not liking less than favorable coverage of his party’s county leader. It’s your blog, as you are so fond of saying, but wouldn’t you require disclosure prior to a post such as this?

Which I did by stating the position had nothing to do with the enforcement of the law or public safety.

You countered by asking what made me the arbiter in such matters. So I’ll ask you and Jon the same question. When the two of you make statements that government is bloated or the wasteful, what makes the two of you the arbiters as to what is necessary and what isn’t?

I didn’t open any doors. You did by zeroing in on the PIO position in the OCSD as the basis of Jon’s supposed hypocrisy. Since you made that the standard, I asked you to elaborate.

Regardless, that person is enjoying compensation affording them a very lavish lifestyle courtesy of the taxpayer. Monies I might add that are (according to Jubal and Jon) forcibly taken from me. I don’t get a choice in how those monies are spent. Nor am I allowed input to determine if that project is the best use of my tax dollars for protecting the US.

Wow. I suspect you meant to say “an aerospace engineer”. Regardless, your logic fails here, once again. This engineer you speak of isn’t getting his money for free; he is providing a service for that money.

On the other hand the premise behind income re-distribution is to give someone else’s money to someone simply because the government finds it necessary. NO SERVICE OR PRODUCT has been provided for this. If you can’t tell the difference between the two then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

So when an aerospace flies around on a private jet for his company that derives all of its income from government contracts. That person is more deserving. I get it.

Either you’re playing stupid or you’re in dire need of a reading comprehension class. I said they’re not taking your money to give it to someone else. Yes, those dollars are also taken by force but they’re not distributed to other taxpayers who make less money than you do, which was Jubal’s main point.

Using your tax dollars for military spending vs. using your tax dollars to give money to someone else who the government considers more deserving are two VERY different things.

How are my arguments strawmen? I pointed out that Jon’s position with the OCSD was an unnecessary position and would save the taxpayer dollar. Something Jon claims is his goal in life. Jubal asked what qualified me as the final arbiter to determine the proper number of PIO’s in that organization. If I am being asked to present my credentials on staffing levels of a organization. If I am going to be asked for my credentials on stating why a position is wasteful, why isn’t that same standard being applied to others who make the same claims (i.e. Jon) about any number of governmental bodies?

This is not a strawman.