Sunday, June 26, 2011
Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers
Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers
By John Ransom
Lots of energy on the message boards this week. We talk Libyan energy, domestic energy, we make windmills out of molehills and I prove that liberals ought to stick to reading history, not writing about it.
So let's get to it:
Osama binLeaded wrote: It might be providential, buying us some time. The acidification of our oceans from CO2 and the stress it has put on the food chain cannot reasonably be disputed. But then again, in the fact-free zone otherwise known as ClownHall, facts are, at best, a minor annoyance. -in response to my column The Whack-Jobs Whack More Energy Jobs
You were like a ninja on the message boards this week: old fashoned and armed incorrectly.
Especially on energy.
You told us all about newest danger to the environment: “acidification” of the oceans.
Is this the newest “great danger” that is meant to replace global warming, er, climate change, er the new ice age?
You also taught us how to build a community solar garden, because I guess you thought readers at Townhall would find that interesting?
You pitched a top-secret biomass-to-gas plant in Colorado, where you have to pull strings to get a tour.
You even exposed the worldwide conspiracy that is stopping wind power from taking over like wildfire.
Let me ask you a question: Wind power has been around for at least a thousand years, maybe more. So how come it took the development of the steam engine and the internal-combustion engine to make electricity ubiquitous if wind power is so great?
Thanks for stopping by Clownhall.
Really. Our sponsors thank you.
Clash wrote: Golly, John Ransom, why did you remove my previous postings? Are you that thin-skinned that you can't take any criticism?-in response to my column Government Needs a Low-Obama Diet
You’re cutting and pasting the same thing over and over: “Russian Literature Major turned Finance Editor who won’t write about pending free trade agreements.” Yawn.
It’s getting boring. It’s spam. It’s an eyesore.
Get a new shtick.
Der_Adler09 wrote: That's exactly right! We don't need that many troops there to prevent it from being a terrorist launching point. I think that's spot on. Our mission in Afghanistan is to prevent it from being used as a terrorist strong hold to attack the US and our allies. We can do that without a large troop presence and we should. USAFA Class of 2009.-in response to my column O's Surge a Giant Sucking Sound
Dear Der Adler,
I wrote about how Obama’s “surge” strategy was going to fail back when Obama first announced the surge in 2009. And no, I don’t think we should be abandoning the original reason why we went there.
We just shouldn’t be in the nation building business in Afghanistan, as opposed to Iraq, where even now it looks like we were ahead of the curve. There was a very mild Arab Spring in Iraq.
I would add that the one thing providing us with real legitimacy in the region in the wake of protests is the nation building we have done in Iraq. To that extent Iraq has been a strategic success.
There’s no nation to build in Afghanistan. The only reason to be there is to stop it from being an operational base for terror attacks against U.S. interests.
We should continue to work that mission.
Macroman wrote: We would have had another Great Depression if Bernanke had done nothing. Do you know what the monetary base and the money multiplier are, Mr. Ransom? If not (and I suspect not), why not shut up until you learn the basics of monetary economics?-in response to my column Ben Speaks, Markets Crumble, Again
Bernanke did what any central banker would have done in his place. No more or less.
But the rescue of the banks and Wall Street came through U.S. taxpayers, not Ben Bernanke. But yes, I’m familiar with the monetary Ms, although thankfully I’m not an economist.
Were I an economist, I might be over-thinking the problem like the rest of you seem to be.
My primary issue with Bernanke has to do with keeping interest rates so low as to prevent investment incentives to loan money. Rates are low to accommodate government financing not business financing. If rates were at a level commensurate with the risk involved we wouldn’t be recklessly spending money.
Who has been buying our debt? The government has been. Who has been selling our debt? Everyone else.
That’s why we have no jobs, no recovery.
GeorgiaGal wrote: Except when Clinton raised taxes in 1993, the result was a budget surplus within 5 years ... and the economy grew every year afterwards. -in response to my column Global Bankruptcy Months Away?
The reasons the economy grew under the late part of the Clinton administration was because of cuts in capital gains taxes, not because of tax increases.
This from my friends at American Thinker:
The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn't accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.
In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.
Really. Liberals ought to stick to reading history, not writing about it.
Lon wrote: Wow is there any subject Ransom understands? Is he really unaware that our involving in Libya was in response to the unrest there, and not the cause of it? Maybe he is confusing Libya and Iraq.-in response to my column Our Blood, Our Sweat, Our Tears, Their Oil
I understood the subject enough to correctly guess that Obama was going use force in Libya way before my colleagues did.
On March 1st I wrote about a new Time Magazine piece that was a float from the administration to see if they could get away with waging a war in Libya:
Amongst the rationalizations for intervention mentioned in the article:
1) Gaddafi’s crazy.
2) Libyan civilian deaths are unacceptable
3) Europe owns oil interests there
4) Growing signs of Al Qaeda in Libya
Does any of this sound familiar? You really can’t over-estimate the incredible gall and nerve of the Obama administration. He’s drawing down troops from Iraq, screwing up Afghanistan, while administration leaders prepare for an invasion of Libya?
My favorite line from the piece: “Outside pressures exist too. European energy companies are deeply invested in Libyan oil and gas fields, which yield significant percentages of their production.”
So good job Lon. You’re letting them get away with waging a war in Libya under the same pretext you all objected to in Iraq.
There is only one thing worse than a coward, Lon.
That’s a hypocrite.
I guess some liberals now know what it’s like to be both.
Andrew wrote: Logically speaking, the WildEarth Guardians need then to eliminate themselves.-in response to my column The Whack-Jobs Whack More Energy Jobs
Do you suppose they would defend someone’s right to a retroactive abortion?
That’s it for me.
Have a great weekend gang.
To read another article by John Ransom, click here.
Posted by Brett at 8:46 PM