Time magazine is catching some deserved heat over its current cover photo of former President Ronald Reagan with a fake tear added. The small credit to illustrator Tim O’Brien for the tear on an inside page isn’t enough notice to readers that the photograph was altered. Besides, the accompanying article on "How the Right Went Wrong" doesn’t support the photo. Yes, some conservative politicians have lost their bearings. And, sure, some Republican voters aren’t happy with their choices of presidential candidates in 2008. But that’s not something Reagan would have cried about.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
98 Comments
Thanks PhilI do like to agree with you every now and then!Conservatives are individualists by nature.”Conservative firing squads always form a circle” it has been said.The magic of Reagan is that he managed to make us feel like we were a team.He also was able to articulate what we were trying to do, directly to the people.
It will happen again.
Somebody else will come along.
Until then, we will do just fine!
The left has its splits and problems too. As the pendelum swings back and forth, both sides are given ample opportunity to screw up, and both sides always rise to the challenge!
We live in a very dangerous world. Unfortunately, doing nothing is not acceptable, and anything you do will be difficult.
In this environment, power shifts will happen frequently between the parties.
However, those of us who care about policy will keep our eyes on the ball.
Hillary and Obama arent pushing for a full pull out.Tax increases wont happen for several more years.Many of the new Democrats in Congress are ProLife and Pro 2nd Amendment.Congressman Dingle, a Democrat, and the American Labor Unions won’t let Gore get away with much on his silly crusade.
Conservatives care about policy.
The more the Democrats “triagulate” the more our stuff looks pretty safe!
Reagan would smile at that. Reagan changed the debate.
Econ~ Yes, Reagan did change the debate while on the Presidential stage.And, 9/11 changed the debate for this generation. Regardless of whether it has yet been recognized.
Brownlee~ Kudos for pointing out the shallowness (deceptiveness?) of such a major national magazine.Do these folk just write with impunity?Are they reporting, or sculpting?
Econ101 well said.
I doubt President Reagan would have cried about it. Shook the heck out of it! Grabbed a number of us and shouted wake Up!
Reagan would have only cried if the Patisanship lead to the end of the country he Loved. LOl now I can picture him grabbing G.W. and slapping the crap out of him!
Good call, Phillip.
No, Reagan would not have cried. As Econ said – he was the ‘uniter,’ he was not one to sit back and wallow in grief. He took the bull by the horns.
It’s not really fair to compare any of today’s politicians, on either side of the spectrum, to Reagan – he was head and shoulders above the fray.
I agree that the Right has splintered – and putting Humpty back together again will be no easy task. Yet, the alternative is so much bleaker…to allow the Left to hold sway for any length of time.
Somehow we (the Right) need to come together on those issues we agree upon, instead of letting the divisive issues rule our mindset.
Reagan was villified in his day. Remember the ‘He’s just a B-movie actor, buffoon, out-of-touch, too old, etc, etc,,,,
My point is, I wonder how much worse he would be portrayed in our national political feeding frenzy.
Can’t kill the message? Then just destroy the messenger. It’s easier.
Well (inserts Reaganism)
Reagan was very astute on assessing character and he knew his audience. He used the bird dog method:- That dog won’t hunt!- That dog can hunt!
The time Reagan was President was a few years past Vietnam era, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ
(talk about politicians that swear,Nixon/LBJ beat em all)
and Kennedy represented a transition from the old style of Presidency (Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt)
Reagan had a mix of the old style Presidents and a bit of Hollywood. He knew how to control a stage as a director and an actor.
In Kansas, Bob Dole captures quite a bit of the Reagan style, but he’s out of the running due to age.
With the choice of Republicans for the Presidential Race, I feel I’m having to choose which one of the Step-sons of the Republican Party I would pick instead of a direct Reagan type lineage.
In my mind choosing a candidate on the Republican side – it’s not a pretty sight. Turmoil mixed with bleeding indecision best describes my current state.
There something about character that can’t be quantified, but you know it when you see it. This political trait is definitely lacking in the current choice of Republican candidates.
Republican, I agree on Dole and his effect here in KS. He commands an audience here better than he did elsewhere. And too bad he didn’t start his runs for the top office earlier in his career. I agree his age is a factor now.
I was there the last time he launched his Presidential campaign – in Russell. We all had big hopes back then.
Someone new will come along to fill the big shoes vacated by the Gipper. It will happen. I don’t know who, but I don’t think we’ve seen them yet.
To me Reagan was never really into the “social conservative” thing anyway. Reagan was more of a “western conservative” and western conservatives cannot stand social conservatives because social conservatives believe in government control over people’s lives and freedoms. Things like limiting alcohol sales, banning abortion, banning pornography and the war on drugs are what is important to social conservatives. Western conservatives don’t like being told how to live by anybody.
It is over for conservatives. They went too far as they always do. We liberals will soon have our day again. Hopefully we have learned from past mistakes (like “gun control”) and won’t repeat them again so we can enjoy a nice long time in power!
Kev, I wouldn’t count on it. the GOP has refined dirty politics to a science. Negitave campaigning works. And truth be told, the Dems aren’t much better. They’ve made snatching defeat from the jaws of victory an art form.The Republicans would be so much easier to take if they didn’t have a senile old man and a moron as icons of their party.
It’s amusing that people still think someone is going to come and fix our government. It’s corrupt beyond redemption. No matter what party the next president is from there is very little that could be done in just 8 years (if they get re-elected) that will really change anything for the better that will be long-lasting and worthwhile.
I’m amazed at the optimism Republicans have that they will be re-elected after the sad mockery G.W. made of his office. Be grateful for people who care only for trying to ban abortion and being able to wave around guns like trigger-happy rednecks.
The MOST amusing aspect is all the Clinton slamming I still hear and read daily. Even in the face of all that has happened during G.W.’s presidency. I just wish half the Republicans lived in at least a semblence of reality.
All this tells me is Reagan was a cry baby=*( JUST JOKING. But really , if he is crying our forefathers are turning in their graves. Are our politics so far tarnished that is would be useless to try and polish them???
Umm…Writerdog as a 13 year old 7th grader W. a 4.0 I must say YOU SUCK AT GRAMMAR AND YOU MAKE NO VALID POINTS. Plus you try and throw in an “lol” like a little school girl. Well figure this one out LMAO
What is this GOP love of Reagan? He was a grade B actor and a grade B president.
I guess the Democrats have Kennedy to continue to swoon over and the Republicans have Reagan. Both men pulled the wool over the eyes of a lot of fawning idiots.
I loved Ronald Reagan.
Before I hated him.
The man was a sellout. He waxed poetic about a “shining city on a hill” …..that MOST Americans will never get to live in. Nancy the social climber got Ronny to abandon his principles, for money. Then? Well hell because HE made it, ANYONE can! If only that big nasty governemnt will get outta the way.
What an incredible stinking pile of BS.
Oh I agree he would cry. He had SOME remnant of decency. 20 years later there is NOTHING of the GOP but getting the rich richer on the backs of the poor. The American dream is dead.
Irony is? It was Reagan started the snowball rolling.
Meelosh,
Why are you out of school at 0:954? :)
Private school?
“as a 13 year old 7th grader W. a 4.0″
Yeah, right.So where’s your valid point, little man? All I see is bragging and attack. As Republican asks, why aren’t you in school?
Maybe he’s on Spring Break?
VT!
You’re back! Working both sides of the aisle???
Just like a good lawyer!!!
That’s OK – you’re more than welcome both places, my friend.
Ah Vaughn… quite right.
Reagan was president in a much “nicer” time. Americans were united against the Communist threat and by the optimism that Reagan’s personality and leadership generated.
But today, I don’t think we would be united, even in the face of that kind of threat or with that kind of leader. You can thank the rancor and division driven by cable “news” and the internet in it’s various formats.
Why yes i am on spring break. =)
Yep,
It’s so easy getting rich on the backs of the poor! They have so much money it’s hard not to go after it all!
Hank
I’m a 15 yo female, blonde. What are you wearing?
“…the GOP but getting the rich richer on the backs of the poor.”
Just how does one do that? If they are poor, doesn’t that mean they have no money?
I guess maybe you could put a saddle on them and ride them to rob banks.
What’s so wrong with the rich getting richer? I’m working to get in that crowd. It seems the left thinks there is a finite amount of money and if someone gets more (the evil rich), then that means someone else gets less (the deserving poor). Lib-logic.
Hey SOB,
The best way to make money off the poor is to sell lottery tickets but the government has that tied up.
I guess you could smuggle cigarettes make a little off the pre-tax margin. Another thing the government makes the most money on.
No, the best ways to make money off the poor is either illegal or the government is already doing. I guess I’ll have to keep trying to get money from the rich.
Hank
When Halliburton goes to Dubai – won’t you make alot more money off the backs of our soldiers?
Reagan crying? Hell, he was the one who started conservatism down it’s current path to destruction! Goldwater is the one who would be insulted by the neo-con/ religious wrong Demonic Coalition to Destroy America!
Right on Hank.
The lottery=the stupid tax on the poor.
Jed..
He didn’t start conservatism..
He just hated socialism and communism..
Uh, oh. Jed just did a 4B.
HA!, right on Fleet! Jed is SO 4B!
But seriously, like on the “imagine Rumsfield” thread, we don’t know what Reagan would cry about, but maybe he would.Repubs spend too much, Bush is wrong on immigration and Bush has not done the best job in the world communicating why the war in Iraq is worth fighting. IMO, when we run and act like true conservatives, we win.
Yes, while I like some things Bush does, he still sucks at communicating and often comes off as dumb. But I don’t think he really is. He’s just not a good public speaker at all. But man, I’m not at all completely pleased by his actions. He’s no way conservative enough for me.
Ah fleettwood, now you’re making sense. I make a little fun of Reagan now and again, but he was a great president till he started going senile right at the end. I voted for him both times. After Carter….SHEESH!!”IMO, when we run and act like true conservatives, we win.”Makes one ask whatever happened to fiscal restraint and smaller government. Give me a candidate that will deliver on that and he or she gets my vote. We’ve seen what the current administration has done to spending and the size of government, so much for the Conservative way. It isn’t a pretty picture.About the only good thing I can say about Bush & Crowd is, they haven’t messed with my guns.
SOB, have you ever seen some of Bush’s earlier stuff? Watch some of his speeches from his Texas governor campaign. He was sharp as a needle. To see how he talked back in the day compared to how he sounds today is like seeing and hearing 2 different people.
“About the only good thing I can say about Bush & Crowd is, they haven’t messed with my guns.”
He made two very good SCOTUS picks(we’ll forget whatshername Myers)
He took it to the bad guys.He cut taxes.He tried to make the goverment skools better.He tried to privatize SS.
Infernal,
Nope, I have not seen that earlier stuff. The best speech I ever heard him make was the one right after 9/11. I don’t get it. Is he just tired and worn down? Lost some drive?
KevReagan AUTHORED a book against abortion!Also, the “western conservative” doesnt think that abortion is a “Constitutional Right” — even most Libertarians dont want Welfare to pay for a 15 year old’s 3rd trimester abortion without parental notification or consent.Frame the issue correctly, and abortion is a hands-down winner for the conservatives who understand the issue.No, the prolife stand alone wont win the election.However, take a look at all the new Democrats just elected last year, MANY are pro-life.Take a look at what leading Democrats are saying lately? Many think that their party should stop alienating the pro-lifers.And, by the way, even Lawrence Tribe and other liberal legal minds think that Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton were poorly reasoned decisions.Smart Democrats are going to “triangulate” the abortion issue, just like they have on the death penalty and gun control and welfare reform and other issues.
If Roe v Wade is overturned, it will go back to the States to decide how it should work.That is only perfect. I think it’s called the 10th amendment.
“He took it to the bad guys.”Well, not really, IMHO. Wouldn’t “taking it to the bad guys” mean getting OBL?”He cut taxes.”Hmmm… and continues to run up huge deficits. That’s one of the things that’s always bothered me about this whole thing. We as a nation have not been asked to sacrifice to support this war. Instead, we just borrow more money.I’m not convinced tax cuts are such a great idea, all things considered.”He tried to make the goverment skools better.”Man, we could spend hours discussing that. The problem in public schools started when they put away the paddle.”He tried to privatize SS.”Thank God he failed. You’d see the issue differently if you were my age. I see the issue for younger people. Please try to understand mine.
SOB, there’s some kind of medical condition indicated. But in the Texas campaign, he didn’t stammer, stutter, or butcher words. The Texas elections with Ann Richards was a blood bath. Bush held his own against a determined and experienced opponent.
JR”You can’t build up the poor by tearing down the Rich.”
Envy is a deadly sin.
Envy justifies the destruction of success with a false promise of “fairness” towards those who have failed.
In the end, when envy is politicized, we all become equally poor.
Except, of course, for the ruling “Politburo” who are more “equal” than others!—-I did not say that first, but I liked it when I first heard it and have remembered it.—-Any SMART businessman wants everyone to be rich.There is absolutely no motivation for any good businessman or woman to want the public to remain poor.Even more to the point: there is no motivation for Republicans to want an increase in poverty.The Democrats are the “poverty pimps”, not the Republicans.Without poverty, the Democrat Party would not exist in its present form.— Which Political Party, therefore, has a vested interest in maintaining a large population of poor people?—–By the way, Reagan was pretty much always Reagan. Nancy Reagan had virtually nothing to do with Reagans policy decisions.Your envy shows through when you attack Nancy.—–Domestically and Internationally, JFK and Reagan were nearly identical.Both cut tax rates. Both were “supply siders” even if JFK had not heard the term.Both hated Communism and loved FREEDOM.One of Reagans favorite JFK quotes:”Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what YOU can do for your country!”
How long did it take to catch the Unibomber, the Zodiac killer, Green River killer, BTK? And they were all right here.Bush did take it to the bad guys. If not getting OBL is all you have, it’s all you have.Cutting taxes raised the revenues. Spending raised the deficits. Please, don’t confuse the two.The “not been asked to sacrifice” is an anti-war, Lib talking point and I don’t know what it means.All I ask is to give me what I have given to SS and we’ll call it even.
“For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed.
But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”
The All Seeing Eye watches.
Reagan sold out Paul econ 101 Rosell. Just like you did to your union.
Republicans want everyone rich? NONSENSE. Rich people do not have to sell themselves to some eploitive employer. Republicans want people to THINK they can live the dream. It keeps them getting up every morning and punching a clock so some other sonofabitch can make a buck.
“The All Seeing Eye watches.”
Is this LibCode?
Infernal:
The BEST way to raise tax revenues is to cut tax rates:
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and that tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to balance the budget is to cut taxes NOW. Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax cuts will pave the way to full employment.”
JFK
Paul – the rates JFK were talking about were about 90%. As you know, the Laffer curve has a peak; it is not monotonic.
“Rich people do not have to sell themselves to some eploitive employer.”
Poor people don’t have to, either. No employer wants an employee who feels exploited. That’s why they say, “I’ll pay you X number of dollars an hour, what do you say?” If you say yes, go to work and STFU, or you could say, “No, but thanks for asking”, and go on down the road.
Or you could throw a Pity Party and hope no one shows up.
JRRich people buy and sell property.Rich people enter into contracts, dispute contracts and also get fired.You are living in la-la land. You think there is a class of people who is holding you down.This is not a grade-school play ground.Nobody gives a rip about your family tree or even your past, as long as your are reasonably honest now, and hard working, you can make it.Reagan sold out??Where JR??That is bull, Reagan did EXACTLY what he said he was going to do, nearly every step of the way.He had misteps, Beirut for one.But Reagan did change the country, for the better.
“How long did it take to catch the Unibomber, the Zodiac killer, Green River killer, BTK? And they were all right here.”I see a difference in the scale of assets. How many people can Sedgwick county assign to BTK for a few murders? How many people can the US commit to a guy who’s responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans?”Cutting taxes raised the revenues. Spending raised the deficits. Please, don’t confuse the two.”Fine. at what point does revenue cover spending?”The “not been asked to sacrifice” is an anti-war, Lib talking point and I don’t know what it means.”No it’s not. It’s a perfectly valid opinion. I don’t support the war, but that’s as much from personal experience as it is from being against attacking countries that didn’t attack us.”All I ask is to give me what I have given to SS and we’ll call it even.”Brother, I don’t disagree with that. Maybe a little interest for using my money for 40 some years. Either way, give me what I’ve put in as one lump sum (if you’re going to wish, wish big).
Go lick the masters hand BDP fleetie. Toady.
HardFederal Revenues are currently at an ALL TIME HIGH!Cutting tax rates always works, it always generates an economic BOOM.How many Democrats in Congress are talking about a tax increase, by the way???Very few!
“In 2006, the US Treasury reported that monthly tax receipts in April reached their second-highest point in the history of the nation, totalling $315.1 billion, second only to April 2001’s mark of $332 billion prior to the burst of the Internet stock bubble. These results contradicted dire predictions in the wake of enactment of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, suggesting that the US was still on the right half of the Laffer Curve.”
The problem is not, and never has been lower taxes, it is, and always has been, too much spending,The damned pols like to spend.
Paul – not in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars. And definitely not keeping up with the money-suqndering that this administration has done for the past 6 years (with complicity of the GOP-led Congress)
YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM YOU WILL FACE TODAY — YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE MOST STUBBORN OBSTACLE TO YOUR OWN SUCCESS — HOW YOU DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM YOU ARE NOW FACING WILL DETERMINE YOUR FUTURE — TODAY AND EVERY DAY THEREAFTER!!!
JRA little helpful advice: cut and paste the above words into Microsoft Word. Then blow up the font size to about 30pts. Then print it out in bright red and tape it to your mirror!You have an attitude problem.I am sure even the other liberals on this Blog agree that you are a very bitter man.I have very liberal clients and friends.My girlfriend has three well known Democrat officials on speed-dial.I know a Democrat prof at WSU that called ME to jump start his car awhile back.I have no problem eating meals, dancing and socializing with Democrats.My ego does not demand that everyone agrees with me.My ego does not demand that I find scapegoats for my own very real shortcommings.I am responsible for my own happiness.YOU are responsible for YOURS!
We had to pass the 16th amendment in early 1913 to collect taxes on income. However did we get along until then. The problem is the Libs “redistribution” philosophy that has taken hold.It’s time for another Tea Party.
“I am responsible for my own happiness.YOU are responsible for YOURS!”
I think we have a BINGO!
Hard:http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html
The US Deficit is now roughly half the size of the average deficit since 1970!
Wow Paulie in full rant mode.
I musta hit a nerve.
I HOPE you avoid mirrors yourself Paul. If there is any semblance of decency left in you at all, mirrors must show you a person you can not like very much. What price bought your dignity and integrity?
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“Domestically and Internationally, JFK and Reagan were nearly identical.Both cut tax rates. Both were “supply siders” even if JFK had not heard the term.”
So Kennedy was a “supply sider”, because he cut the marginal tax rate from 91% down to 70%?
Paul F. Rosell is kinda like those talking dolls with a string — pull the string, and out comes some Rush Limbaugh BS.
‘JUST LIKE AL SAID! Russert pushed them RNC points. Somebody go wake Fred Barnes!’http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120202.shtml
I see the usual suspects add at least 1 insult per post they make. :)
cosmos, that top rate under Kennedy did not apply to very many people, and you are making distinctions without any difference.Cutting tax rates ALWAYS increases revenue!
Not according to Laffer Paul. Gee, do you think if we took the rates to zero revenues would be infinite?
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“that top rate under Kennedy did not apply to very many people,”
Then JFK’s tax cut didn’t have much impact.
PAUL F. ROSELL: “Cutting tax rates ALWAYS increases revenue!”
You ACTUALLY think that’s what the Laffer curve represents? Then you’re graphically, and logically “challenged”.You think cutting taxes from 40% down to 1% “increases revenue”? NOPE!!!
The Laffer curve can be analyzed mathematically or with Economic variables plugged in.
Since taxation inputs vary in the US, the results can be somewhat elastic but there is a point limit.
Flat tax inputs results are even less elastic.
WHEN YOU PAY PEOPLE TO BE POOR, THEY REMAIN POOR!
Argue all you want.However, results speak louder than words.Federal tax revenue is at an all-time high.If W had raised tax rates, the economy would have tanked and the deficit would be much worse!
“…pull the string, and out comes some Rush Limbaugh BS.”or
“…if we took the rates to zero revenues would be infinite?”or
“You think cutting taxes from 40% down to 1% “increases revenue”?”
Ridiculous.
No wonder the Libs left. They got nothing.
BDP fleettwood,
PAUL F. ROSELL: “Cutting tax rates ALWAYS increases revenue!”
Draw a GRAPH of what Paul F. Rosell said. That’s a line where revenues increase to a MAXIMUM, as the tax rate goes to ZERO.
Tax rates = 1% ? Cut rates to 0.001%, and revenues “ALWAYS” increase, according to Paul F. Rosell, financial planner.
That is NOT the Laffer curve, which Paul, and BDP fleet, seem UNABLE to understand.
cosmos for heavens sake, dont take the arguement to the absurd.I think there is still some more effeciency to be gained by examining the tax code.I am not sure what the “perfect” rate is, or that rate which produces the best rate of growth in the economy and provides the highest level of revenue.—- With all your graphs and charts, maybe you can give us the optimum rate?
Well? What period is it that the right is ALWAYS hearkening back to as America’s best days?
That’s the 1950’s right?
Yeah they had red baiting and McCarthy. Life for America’s working people was IMPROVING instead of getting worse as it is now. Good times. Happy days even!
Hmmm what ELSE can we learn from that time?
Hey how about the tax rates before Kennedy monkeyed with them? Why they were right around 90% for the richest of the rich. And life was getting better for everybody instead of just for the few as we have now.
Maybe it’s time to think about the worker progress of that time and the social progress that followed and halt the march to a feudal state.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“Cutting tax rates ALWAYS increases revenue!”
You posted that. Either defend it, or admit it’s wrong.
I was NOT being absurd, YOU were.You earlier ignored that there’s a “optimum” rate, and you have NOT proven that Bush’s tax cuts moved us closer to that “perfect” point.
Infernal,
Do you really think Bush has a medical condition that could help explain his poor speaking performance? I’ve never heard such but that would be interesting, yet sad.
CosmosEvery tax rate cut we have ever enacted HAS increased tax revenues.You are being ridiculous.Obviously, if rates were 100% revenues would be zero, since only an idiot would produce anything under those conditions.Obviously, if rates were 0% revenues would be zero.
100% of nothing is nothing.nothing x 100% is also nothing.
Big deal, you remember your elementary school math!
My point stands, every tax rate cut that we have enacted has increased revenues.This IS NOT SIMPLE MATH — it is Psychology Combined with Math. Economics. People must have a positive REASON to produce or they won’t produce.—-I was not talking hypothetically.In the real world, using actual changes in tax law, I am correct.
Nobody has proposed the extreme, obviously, nobody has enacted the extreme.Until we enact 100% taxes or 0% taxes you will remain wrong.”Every tax rate cut has incresed tax revenues.”My statement stands!—-JRDemographics has as much or more to do with economics as do tax rates and interest rates.The Baby Boom had much to do with our economy in the 1950’s. (As it still does today.)That rapid increase in population also increased our GDP several times over.Even so, we had large pockets of poverty during the 50’s.I do not consider the 50’s as “perfect.” For one thing, your beloved, Democrat controlled labor unions pretty much excluded Blacks, JR!I would also debunk your “McCarthyism” myths by reminding you that there WERE lots of Communists in America who did want to destroy our country.Many of them were convicted, and those convictions stand.That does not excuse false accusations, but there was a Communist threat.—-Back to tax policy.
You expose yourself as motivated by envy and “retribution” if you insist on high tax rates regardless of the result.
If it is proven to you that the greatest good can be acheived by allowing everyone to keep more of their own money, that does not matter to you.You are not interested in the common good or the greater good.You are motivated by a desire to punish those who have done better than you. (My guess is that is a very large group of people.)Greed is the selfishness of those who want more.Envy is the selfishness of those who want others to have less.
Envy is far more destructive than greed.Envy never does anything positive.Greed accomplishes many things.
Greed might even, eventually, give us a new fuel that is more to your liking. What kind of fuel will Envy produce?
What a coward you are Rosell. Why even those on the right must see it.
Absent all this time. And you choose now to return. Where were YOU after the election that YOUR party lost so badly? You skulked outta here. Others on your side stayed and fought on while YOU bailed.
Hey maybe they should be grateful! The Safeway union you helped bust, Bonnie Huy who LOST, you might actually do the right a favor by your absence. Seeing as how everything you touch turns to shi*.
I destroyed you once on this forum Rosell. I’ll do it again and I will enjoy it.
KEEP posting PLEASE! You are my best case to get the good posters back here to bust lying cowards like you.
SOB, it could very well indicate a medical condition from what I was reading. I wish I’d kept a link. As I said, the contrast between then and now was startling.
“Umm…Writerdog as a 13 year old 7th grader W. a 4.0 I must say YOU SUCK AT GRAMMAR AND YOU MAKE NO VALID POINTS. Plus you try and throw in an “lol” like a little school girl. Well figure this one out LMAO”
Meelosh, perhaps you are right and both of us should be in English class at 9:54 A,M.But of course I am writing to a certain audience, I am glad to see that 13 years old are paying attention.I might add Meelosh once your total worth is more then once a year you are a tax deduction for your parents than we should talk.
“Umm…Writerdog as a 13 year old 7th grader W. a 4.0 I must say YOU SUCK AT GRAMMAR AND YOU MAKE NO VALID POINTS. Plus you try and throw in an “lol” like a little school girl. Well figure this one out LMAO”
Meelosh, perhaps you are right and both of us should be in English class at 9:54 A,M.But of course I am writing to a certain audience, I am glad to see that 13 years old are paying attention.I might add Meelosh once your total worth is more then once a year you are a tax deduction for your parents than we should talk.
“Maybe it’s time to think about the worker progress…” by jr
Does this sound familiar? I think it came from Pravda or Marx. Make no mistake, these people are much more than “progressive”.
You didn’t have to be so rough on a KID writerdog!
“once your total worth is more then once a year you are a tax deduction for your parents than we should talk.”
THAT is disappointing from you writerdog.
I really do not understand ANY employed person that votes GOP. It is like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. The GOP LIES to you. All they want is to see you keep showing up and punching that clock.
“All they want is to see you keep showing up and punching that clock.”
Yeah, earning a living is a bad thing…(tosses wadded paper into basket)
Greed is good? Now we know Paul Rossell’s real identity. Gordon Gekko.
GSheridan and her husband (ahem) would likely agree.
I would think a worker would also want to keep showing up and punching the clock. Unless you want a hand out.Libs = using the safety net as a hammock
“”How long did it take to catch the Unibomber, the Zodiac killer, Green River killer, BTK? And they were all right here.”"
They were all Republicans too!
BTK was no Republican.
I had a conversation with Rader in which he promised to issue a littering citation against Sam Brownback, Todd Tiahrt, Eric Yost and several other candidates.I ran a very large, county wide literature drop.The volunteer in Park City had his kids “do” his work for him.Those kids went to Chisolm Trail Elementary, on a windy weekend, and tossed the brochures in the air while spinning on the merry-go-round.It is a car dealership now, but at the time, the field between Chisolm Trail and the 35 was plastered with brochures.Yes, the problem needed to be fixed. My daughters and I fixed it on a Sunday afternoon.My point is, Rader enjoyed yaking my chain.
(Hey, there is an idea, “JR, comliance officer!)
Rader took personal pleasure in tracking down who was responsible for that literature drop, ME!I don’t know Raders party affiliation at the time of his arrest, but at the time he threatened me, and all of my friends, he certainly sounded like he was pulling for the other side!He made the threat of issuing citations against the candidates after I clearly took responsiblity for the problem and promised to fix it.
yankingcompliance
sorry, long day
Creepy stuff Econ…Rader = mass icky
By the way, I typed in serial killer in my browser.Unless most all gays are Republicans I dont think all serial killers are Republicans:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet4.html
No this is not hate. Please refer to the “gay gene” thread to find out how I found this post.
Of course you are right Jr, it was small of me to say such a thing, I do applauded that at 13 someone would take the time to be interested in real world affairs. Spring break or not, when most other 13 years olds would have been playing video games or with unfettered access to a computer. Would have been engaging in less then fruitful activities, Meelosh was wanting to get involved in discussing the world.
I am sorry Meelosh for my condemnation of you observations and I do applaud your choosing to pay attention to the world instead of a cartoon. You have shown more awareness then most adults in this country.
That’s a big good for you writerdog.
If Meelosh is still out there I hope he sees that and moderates HIS earlier attack against a poster he knew from only one or so posts.
Rosell? Rader was a Republican. You may not like it but it is true.
He was also very anal and a stickler for regulation. This is a characteristic of SOME control freaks in the Republican party.
The fact that he wanted to bust someone for what you describe (willful littering) is consistent with that mentality. Party affilliation of the litterer not withstanding the letter of the law.
Of course, this is assuming anyone believes your story. I’m thinking that is problematic for ya Paul, known liar that you are and all.
J R,
Insane people like Rader don’t belong to any organization. They only join organizations to benefit themselves and their maniacal insanities.
If you are stating that Rader in anyway is representative of people in the Republican Party, then you are sicker in the mind that I thought you were.
You methods of being confrontational just to spew just because you can, is getting old.
Oopps……. venom is trickling back in:
“Of course, this is assuming anyone believes your story. I’m thinking that is problematic for ya Paul, known liar that you are and all.
Posted by: J R | March 21, 2007 at 10:19 PM”
SanfordThanks,I am not perfect but I have NEVER posted un untruth on purpose, here or anywhere else.Some say that I look like Jack Nicholson in “The Shinning” — speaking of killers,me? I like him better when he says to JR”YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!”
I am guessing that most Bureucrats are Democrats, not Republicans.Government workers tend to be Democrats.