WE Blog

Why do we even have a thread on this?

Maybe this is why. The coalition conservatives are out to re-energize their coalition together prior to the 2008 election.

Look at the TV News Show rankings, ha.
Fox News has most of them nailed down out of the top 10.
What does than tell ya? That’s what folks prefer.

What does than tell ya? That’s what folks prefer.

gotta get your comic relief somewhere beside WEBlogs.

If Reagan’s the best they’ve got; they’ve got nuthin.

outlander,

Indeed. I believe the Democratic Party has failed its Constitutional duty to punish wrongdoing ever since 1974: Nixon should have been impeached, Reagan should have been, and Bush certainly should be.

Of course, the failure of the Democrats to do this in no way excuses the lawlessness and unconstitutionality of the Republican Party. That’s YOUR legacy, outlander.

What does than tell ya? That’s what folks prefer.
———————-

That the Republicans need their daily talking points and are assured of finding them on faux news. Whereas the rest of the people think for themselves.

Not only that CF2K, Reagan is revered in all but the most leftist of circles and an icon to Republicans. His approval rating was the highest of any president leaving office.

That must be a little hard to take.

From what I observe, politics is not what it should be; about the people. It is rather, the science of using lies and innuendo, half-truths and misstatements to influence a gullible public and to achieve certain societal goals. Of course, there are some honest politicians. They don’t seem to get very far.

It is laughable for any political party to claim the high ground, because, trust me, there is a scandal brewing out there even now that is going to rock that perception. Get ready CF.

“Whereas the rest of the people think for themselves.”

Unless you count all the Lib website you people love to cite. But, we shouldn’t count that, hmmm?

Elk summer sausage

Dang! I read that as ‘Elke Sommer’. Gotta get my mind outta the gutter.

Outlander,

Nonsense. According to the Gallup poll, Bill Clinton had higher approval numbers leaving office. Even the Wall Street Journal says so.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

In addition to actually READING posts to which you respond, outlander, you really need to be more scrupulous about your facts.

And bugs.

Eagle, try this link instead.

http://www.defendingthedream.org/KS/

Wow, I wished I’d heard about this.

I would have loved to see all those pasty-faced, pencil-neck geeks with their thick glasses and “Dragnet” lunch boxes in one place all at the same time.

A helluva freak show . . . for free . . .

Speaking of freak show, check out outlanders’ contention that he was indeed correct in saying that “Reagan had the highest popularity rating of any president leaving office” while at the same time admitting that Clinton’s was higher.

I guess that’s how you have to think to live in CON-world.

Still have your “Dragnet” lunch-box, outlander. Or do you use the “Baywatch” one now?

“Reagan obviously turned this country around and made us proud to be Americans again!”

Your feelings of pride in your country reside in who sits in the oval office?

Well, sheesh! Why not get a KING and be really, really proud.

My feelings about my country are based on its people, its constitution, its laws, and its policies, not on a single man like any other.

“His (Reagan’s) approval rating was the highest of any president leaving office.”

———-
Actually CF, that is a correct statement.

Since that time, Clinton exceeded him by one percentage point. Big whoop.

No, it’s obviously not a correct statement since you yourself just pointed out that Clinton exceeded him by one percentage point. Exceeded, higher, more, all synonyms that mean the same thing, your post about Reagan was wrong.

The liberal dream is NOT possible without free enterprise, economic growth, profit and freedom.

Without profit, there will be no tax revenues, no jobs, nothing to regulate.

Econ, with higher wages paid to the peons there’d be more tax revenue, more jobs because more are buying the product, and you can still regulate to your heart’s content.

“free enterprise, economic growth, profit and freedom.”

Apparently none of these can exist without the fed bailing out the free market every 15 minutes.What ever happen to moral hazard in free market Amerika comrades?

‘

Outlander,

You’re wrong whether you use “was” or “is.” When FDR left office–that is, suffered a stroke and died–his approval rating was at 65%. The following calculator has Reagan at 56%.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=32&sort=time&direct=ASC&Submit=DISPLAY

So even if you want to insist that Reagan had 63%, the facts remain, and you’re still wrong on the facts. I know it must hurt to be factually refuted so often, outlander; just think of it another learning experience.

ghotiphaze,

Sorry, sorry: collateral damage, friendly fire, whatever you want to call it. My bad.

CF: I don’t know much about FDR, but in the event of a president dying in office it would be apples and oranges with one serving out his term.

Sympathy, etc…

Actually, the top 5% in income pay a huge amount of the total tax revenues.
The top 50% in income pay almost all of the tax revenues.

y’know, instead of bitching about it constantly, why not just pay the pleebs a bit more and make THEM pay more.

Or to look at it this way: An oil ceo making 35 mill a year gets taxed 90% and won’t starve with his measly 3.5 mill remaining; a common factory worker making 15k a year taxed at 10% will still starve on his 13.5k remaining. And he can’t afford to buy the products he makes. Nor can he get insurance or doctor’s visits to keep him coming to work.
But I guess you’re right, your way is better, I appologize.

outlander,

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! That’s the best you can do as a response? It already would be laughable, had the President in question, FDR, not been returned to office FOR HIS THIRD TERM. Change goalposts much, outlander? First is was “was” vs. “is,” now it’s “finished out term.” What new qualification will you introduce so that you don’t have to be shown to be wrong?

But, once again, I can say the obvious: Bill Clinton finished higher than Reagan. And if your argument is “one point doesn’t matter,” well, outlander, I can respond that it counts to people who are intellectually honest enough to admit when they’ve been beaten. With you, obviously, what “counts” is something else; quite what, I can’t say.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

Oops, shoulda let ya look for yourself.

I don’t know why you libs don’t recognize Reagan as the true hero he is. He was the great leader of the invasion of Grenada. The invasion was necessary because some people overthrew a dictator that had previously overthrown the nation’s prime minister. Facing an army of militia and construction workers the vastly superior American forces went in to rescue some medical students who were up late last night and didn’t study for a pop quiz that day.

The students, who were completely unaware that there was anything going on, were rescued from their completely safe environment. In the meantime Reagan’s forces managed to kill about 50 civilians and save our nation from the immediate threat Grenada posed. They may have had WMD and we needed to fight them there before they went on vacation in Florida and mistakenly left a gum wrapper on the beach.

This invasion followed on the heels of a terrorist attack which killed hundreds of Marines. Reagan strategically withdrew and issued a stern letter to those who killed so many Americans expressing his determination to respond with force against a small country which posed no threat to America. And that has been Republican foreign policy since.

Household debt as a percentage of personal income rose from 58 percent in 1973 to an estimated 85 percent in 1997.
In 1997, 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy. That works out to roughly 7,000 bankruptcies per hour, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
Though average household income rose 10 percent between 1979 and 1994, 97 percent of that gain was claimed by the most well-to-do 20 percent.
In 1998, weekly wages were 12 percent lower than in 1973 on an inflation-adjusted basis. Productivity rose 33 percent over that perioo. Had pay kept pace with productivity, the average hourly wage would now be $18.10, rather than $12.77. That translates into a difference in annual pay of $11,000 for a full-time, year-round worker.
Between 1970 and 1990, the typical American worked an additional 163 hours per year. That’s equivalent to adding an additional month of work per year - for the same or less pay.

ghot
How is any government official or any politician responsible for personal choices of individual Americans?

People will do stupid things.

It is not the job of government to stop people from doing stupid things, unless that stupidity harms other people.

C’mon, that just don’t fly! You’re not yourself a Getty, Goldberg, or a Gates. By your argument everyone MUST be.

Great job Paul, there were advisors there and Cuban construction workers building projects in Grenada. So what? America has the Peace Corps which sends people overseas. Does that justify people taking action against those countries? Does having Cuban construction workers in Grenada make them a threat to the U.S.?

Try not to be so damn stupid so early in the day.

Paul, you are truly an idiot. America invaded Grenada, how can Grenada be blamed? I know it’s part of your religion to be violent and love bloodshed but I’d hope that you’d take some solace in paying heed to historical fact. But perhaps you embraced ignorance that religion promotes as well.

outlander,

Look up yourself: here is what you said.

“Actually CF, that is a correct statement.

Since that time, Clinton exceeded him by one percentage point. Big whoop.”

“Big whoop”–what is one to make of that, outlander? That Bill Clinton DIDN’T have a higher approval rating? Well, that’s simply false. That outlander doesn’t think much of Bill Clinton? True, but who cares what outlander thinks?

Reagan loses to Clinton. Them’s the facts. You lose, outlander–again.

Just some more bad news for the Bush supporters. Wonder why this didn’t make
the blog topics?

Kansas personal income up in 2007
BY DAN VOORHIS, The Wichita Eagle

Personal income in Kansas rose from $34,799 in 2006 to $36,768 in 2007, according to the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis. That put Kansas as the 22nd among the 50 states and Washington, D.C. The rate of increase was the 16th-fastest in the nation

I want to know what the MODE income did.

“These questions have not and will not go away. At its very best, Iraq, it is now more than apparent, is a decades-long, bankrupting, utopian liberal attempt to build a democratic culture where no such culture has ever existed; and at worst, it is a corrupting, demoralizing cancer on America’s reputation and power in the world. At home, the long term fiscal situation is at a crisis-level, with Republicans adding $32 trillion to future unfunded liabilities by the federal government in seven years, and with a commitment not to raise any more revenue for the indefinite future. Neither Obama nor Clinton has any plan to tackle this debt or to restrain entitlement spending in any serious way. Millions of private individuals have taken out idiotic mortgage loans on houses they cannot afford and should never have been reckless enough to buy. The dollar is headed into the toilet as much of the US economy is leveraged on the bona fides of a still-authoritarian regime that is currently brutally suppressing human rights in Tibet and across its territory.

For all his quirks, and for all his unseemly past associations, Ron Paul had some serious view about the gravity of the situation and a philosophy that was once called conservative and is now smeared as nuts. History will be far kinder to him that today’s chattering classes.”

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/why-ron-paul-st.html

KS, my $2 Billion raise skewed the data. Everyone else stayed the same.

Most likely we can thank our Democratic governor for the increases.

I see max posted, was he blaming Clinton’s knobber again?

It would also be interesting to know how much the increase in personal income represents COLAs, increases in teachers’ pay due to increases in funding of schools, the increase in minimum wage (federal), etc. Yep, Fish, let’s have the mean, median and mode; the figure by itself doesn’t mean anything without the context.

Back to the topic, what is/was Rhonda’s point.

Do the Unions have Newt Gingrich on their agenda?

Most “rich” people give a large amount to charity.

Not those singy Obama’s:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Obama_Tax_Returns_charity/2008/03/26/83185.html?s=al&promo_code=4808-1

They have usually given less than 1% to charity.

There largest contribution in 1996, was $22,500.00 to Pastor Wrights Church.

Reagan was the FIRST President to ever preside over a Communist Country becomming a free, non Communist country.
Grenada, El Salvadore and Nicaragua would all be Communists, allied with Cuba and Venezuela, if not for Reagan.

Venezuela is not a communist country - they are largely socialist.

You do know that there is a difference between a communist and a socialist, right?

Sorry, Outlander, but to quote some of the Republicans, speeches are just speeches.

The Soviet Union did not die until 1991 - Reagan was living in California at the time.

If we are going to go by speeches, then we can go back to 1961 (?) when John F Kennedy said that “I, too, am a Berliner.”

JFK was not responsible for the fall of the USSR, either.

Chavez is a Communist.
Chavez wants to make Venezuela a Communist country.

“Chavez is a Communist.”

No he isn’t. I suppose now you’re going to tell me that he is a communist because he met with a communist, Fidel Castro.

Chavez is a socialist.

We would do well to nationalize our oil industry.

WOW this event sounds like it was almost as exciting as an insurance seminar. Cons are duds for social functions.

And Reagan? Ha Reagan is reduced to a joke.

HIS legacy is being lampooned on “Family Guy”.

Chavez is a thug.
He tried to gain power, at first, through a failed coup attempt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez

And, there is great disagreement about “Democratic Socialism” and what the definition of Chavez’ system really means.

“Over the course of his college years, Chávez and fellow students developed a left-nationalist doctrine that they termed “Bolivarianism,” inspired by the Pan-American philosophy of 19th century Venezuelan revolutionary Simón Bolívar, the influence of former Peruvian President Juan Velasco and the thought of various socialist and communist leaders including Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky.[10][11] “

“If we “nationalized” the United States oil industry, we would then ALL live in poverty.”

And you went on NOT to back that up.

“The national government does a poor job at distribution of resources.”

Hardly. Social Security runs like a clock.

“We would have shortages and long lines and economic collapse.”

Because paulie says so!

Agreed, JR.

We have huge oil reserves off our coasts that no one person owns.

This oil should be pumped by the gov’t for our benefit, not some oil company’s.

I mean we ARE fighting wars so our oil companies can make huge money over in the mideast.

Why not spread the wealth around?

I think, J R, that’s essentially what BushCo. is doing with their “economic stimulus rebate” package of 600 dollars per taxpayer.

It would more accurately be called “the incumbents’ lame effort to buy your vote despite the fact that we suck” package.

Social security also has its funds raided.

This would not be necessary if we changed the tax rates. The general fund would get the money it needs without raiding Social Security.

Well, who else would get the royalty money for offshore awl but the gubment? Just like a landowner who has awl on his propty. Am I wrong about that?

As far as nationalizing the oil industry, I would venture to say a majority of Americans are owners of oil companies directly and/or in retirement accounts. With our retirements tied to oil company success, it ain’t gonna happen.

Besides, it would be a communistic thing to do.

JR
If you live another 100 years, the herse that hauls your body to the grave will use oil, in some form.

JR
Ya right!
Nobody in the entire country agrees with you, JR, yet you think you can predict the future better than anyone else?

Your hatred of successful people will not make those successful people go away.

And, your hatred will not really solve any of this nations problems.

Remember awhile back when I posted that liberals wanted to “outlaw oil and gasoline” and I had all the liberals but YOU telling me I was making stuff up?

Of course, I was using hyperbole in that comment.

Amazing, though, you are the ONLY person on this Blog that WANTS to make oil and gasoline illegal, and you really believe it will happen.

Not in your lifetime JR!

In fact, it will never happen.

Name ONE THING that can compete with gasoline, for transportation needs?

I just caught this…

“In fact, it will never happen.”

REALLY??

Wow I guess I have more faith in humanity than you do there paulie.

We went from horse driven wagons to the Moon in one human lifetime.

Paulie in 30 years? Society will think you are something that fell out of a tree. And I’m bored throwing the stick for you. Chase your tail or something.

Chas
Again you prove that there is little “Christian” about you, let alone “pastoral” — you have some of the dumbest, most hateful, and crudest posts on this Blog.

JR
As long as gasoline is legal, it will be used.

There IS no alternative JR.

And, those things that might compete, in the future? They SUPPLEMENT oil and gas, they do not substitute.

“Faith in Humanity” — huh? Why is it some kind of moral crusade to attack the oil industry?

Why not the dairy industry?

Why not the accounting industry?

Why not the timber industry?

Why not the travel industry?

Well, you probably will attack every other industry, when you get the chance. You are just picking on the industry that you feel is the most vulnerable, at this time, to your Communist take over dreams.

(After you destroy the health care industry, of course!)

Chas
I never said that.
You can post all the opinions that you want to post, as may everyone else.
However, your posts do not help your case, when you try to say that you are such a religious person.
It is rather juvenile to want to put someone’s likeness on a dollar bill so that those bills can be place in an outhouse.
Also, it is not very pastoral or “Christlike” which, in my opinion, a pastor is called to represent.

“Communists are also Socialists.”

But not the other way around.

Communism is a economic/political system. Socialism is purely economic.

Learn the diff if you want to discuss the subject.

I dont know what trickle down economics has to do with religion, UNLESS you consider Reagan some kind of Deified creature… Nawww, you wouldnt even go there!!

Clark — Communism Should work… And, if human greed didnt get in the way, it Would work… (Cf Acts 2:42-47, NT)

“Communism is a economic/political system. Socialism is purely economic.”

I would like to see how one could invoke socialism without use of a political system.

“As long as gasoline is legal, it will be used.
There IS no alternative JR.”

Alternatives to gasoline:
Electricity
Ammonia
hydrogen
natural gas
ethanol
biodiesel

A hundred years ago Paul would be claiming there is no alternative to the horse and buggy. Sadly the first model T got 25mpg and ran on ethanol, our technology hasn’t advanced much.

Scientists predict that within 10 years celluar ethanol will be able to be produced for less than 1 dollar a gallon.

Heard just now on “Modern Marvels” on the History channel.

Maybe they will do a feature on you paulie?

Fossil fuels fossil thinkers.

AmWay IF you would have read my post, instead of reacting to it… You would note that I did not say the initial Communism, or rather Communal life style of the early believers WORKED… I stated clearly that it WOULD have worked, if not for human greed… Now, go read what I posted again, and I will await an apology for your mindless, and thoughtless attack!!

Capn
Generally, a royalty interest is 1/8 of the revenues.
This can be negotiated, in high production cost situations, with any land owner.
The standard is NO different for the government, as landowner, to the best of my knowledge.

Also, the government does make a huge amount of tax revenue off of every producing well.

Econ — THAT’S what I already said TWICE now!! Do I need to spell it out pe syllable?? or what??

It’s funny how Paul claims to be a Christian and opposed to Communism. Apparently he’s never read the Book of Acts, then again, I never accused Paul of being well read.

Amway — Actually, what was done in the Book of Acts was neither religious or political… It was socio-economic… It was their way of “living together” in community… I was not advocating for their position… because, as I pointed out, it did not work… They were victims of human GREED… Which is why communism doesnt work NOW, and will never work!

Doug and Chas

The individual responsibility to care for those less fortunate is an INDIVIDUAL responsibility that can not, morally, be transfered to the national government.

Subsidiarity is a Christian principal that states, clearly, that it is tyrany to give authority to a higher organizition that what is necessary.

Great

WBR,
Alex
http://www.world-viagra.com - best cheap drug-store
cheap drug-store