Saturday, December 24, 2011
Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers
By John Ransom
Would you please add some of the following people to the naughty list, with the exception of RG, H2O, Timeline, Saepe and ZN? The naughty ones want to regulate frankincense under Cap and Tax, mryyh as a drug under the FDA and gold under the Federal Reserve Bank. Oh, and if you give the naughty ones a lump of PBR coal to help fuel their Chevy Volts that would be really hilarious.
Art Vandelay wrote: What's the difference between American military veterans and former military veterans of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in terms of receiving health care?- in response to Obama’s Top Boners of 2011
The main difference is that American military veterans live much longer lives than those in the former Soviet Socialist Republics. The average lifespan of males in Russia is starting to increase, but “average life-expectancy fell steadily between 1965 and 1980, but the statistic has followed a roller-coaster path in the last twenty years. Average life expectancy rose in the mid 1980s, fluctuated through the 1990s, and has remained relatively stable over the last few years,” according to a 2003 article in the St Petersburg Times.
After bottoming out at 56 years, life expectancy for males is back up to 63 years old in Russia, while in the US it’s 77. Not every veteran of the US military gets healthcare. You have to stay in for 20 years and retire to qualify for that benefit, or you have to be awarded the benefit due to wounds or injuries.
I don’t know exactly what your point would be, Sybil, but then I rarely know what your point is- no matter what name you go by.
XJ wrote: The trick is this: If you don't throw a bone every once in a while, then you're the boy who cried wolf -- you have zero cred. as a journalist because you whine about EVERYTHING Obama does so no one will believe you're telling the truth or that you have any objectivity. - in response to Obama’s Top Boners of 2011
Yes. I’m sure you know a lot about journalism. That’s where the problem comes in.
I consider myself a writer, not a journalist. As such, I run a business here. My business is to inform and entertain our readers so that they come back to the site. By that measure we’ve been pretty successful. Every month since the re-launch of Townhall Finance, we’ve added subscribers and readers. December is on track to be the best month we’ve had so far.
You can get your own column and follow whatever rules you want. Maybe you can be like the folks at the New York Times and run a 160 year old business into the ground by putting personal politics above profits. That’s up to you.
But you seem to ALWAYS have a problem with what I write. Isn’t that a little like the Boy Who Cried Wolf?
Robert wrote: The biggest blunder (in the minds of Obama's opposition) is that he succeeded in turning the economy around, getting back most of the 37 Trillion in lost American wealth, turned a double digit negative GDP into positive growth for more than 17 months, turned massive job loss into growth for more than 20 months while producing more jobs in 2 years (during worst economy in our lifetime) than Bush/republicans did in 8 years. - in response to Obama’s Top Boners of 2011
That’s why the GOP clobbered Obama in the mid-terms; that’s why more Americans every month think the country is on the wrong track; that’s why Obama ranks second only behind Herbert Hoover in creating jobs since 1890; that’s why Obama recently suffered the indignity of having a worse job-approval rating than Jimmy Carter.
And BTW, Obama has nothing to do with saving/creating $37 trillion worth of wealth. The hard work of the American people creates wealth. Tell Obama to get the heck out of our way and let us prosper. His “help” is only hindering us, as he likely knows.
Look, I know many consider liberalism some sort of disease, I just never knew that it affected their ability to do high school math. That explains why we can’t have liberals trying to manage our economy: GDP contracted by about 2 percent from 2008 to 2009, hardly double digit losses as you claim. Do the math, or have someone do it for you next time.
H2OSkier wrote: The "Flag as Offensive" is a placebo. It makes the user think they are doing something when in fact it has no affect on any post as you point out. - in response to A Brand New Deal.
Not true. We get rid of spammers constantly. Toughen up a little. No more sniveling about trolls and spammers to me.
RG from THP wrote: When unveiling his budget, Michelle's husband reminded Americans, "Everybody's going to have to give a little bit." The President even suggested: "If you're a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, you might put off a vacation." - in response to A Brand New Deal
Obama put off many vacations. He’s only had four vacations this year.
Don’t you realize that’s been a terrible sacrifice by the president? He wanted 10 or 12 vacations.
So instead he settled for the modern record by presidents for rounds of golf with 1584 holes or 88 rounds.
Drew wrote: The EPA isn't forcing the shutdowns. The owners of the plants who have refused for DECADES to clean up the plants and instead taken huge profits out at the expense of the air we breathe and the water we drink are forcing the shutdowns. They chose to ignore the regulations, and avoided responsibility for decades. - in response to Obama Sides with Whackos over Workers- Kills Another 3000 Jobs
Actually pollutants from coal-fired plants steadily declined in the US under George W. Bush from market forces alone.
From NASA this month:
A team of scientists have used the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA's Aura satellite to confirm major reductions in the levels of a key air pollutant generated by coal power plants in the eastern United States. The pollutant, sulfur dioxide, contributes to the formation of acid rain and can cause serious health problems.
The scientists, led by an Environment Canada researcher, have shown that sulfur dioxide levels in the vicinity of major coal power plants have fallen by nearly half since 2005.
I’ll have more on this below.
You don’t seem to understand that utility rates are set by the government, not by the utilities. Thus, so are profits. How’s that government regulation working out for you?
Obama Timeline author wrote: The United States is already crisscrossed with hundreds of thousands of miles of pipeline. Do you heat your home with natural gas? How do you think that gets to your furnace? Magic unicorns? - in response to Obama Sides with Whackos over Workers- Kills Another 3000 Jobs
Let me explain to you the real reason why environmentalists fear the XL Keystone pipeline. If the pipeline is developed the inevitable conclusion will be that the US should start to exploit its own tar-sands.
While it’s estimated that Canada may have as much as 2 trillion barrels of oil in reserves, “the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the [US] has 4.3 trillion barrels of in-place oil shale resources centered in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, said Helen Hankins, Colorado director for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management” according to the Associated Press.
4.3 trillion barrels is 16 times the reserves of Saudi Arabia or enough oil to supply the US for 600 years.
But the newest delay has nothing to do with aquifers in Nebraska; rather it has to do with activists on the left who want no fossil energy development under any circumstances. Obama thinks that if he alienates these activists, that he can forget about reelection. He’s already alienated the right and center. The only place he has to go is to the left.
The left doesn’t care about jobs. They only care about their agenda.
Once the Keystone pipeline is built, it won’t take much to convince Americans to open up the West to oil development.
Saepe Expertus wrote: As a public service notice to a number of John Ransom's 'troll' readers, who have often and stridently complained about a history major writing on finance, or questioned his mental capacity when he did NOT write on finance....please take note. - in response to Obama Sides with Whackos over Workers- Kills Another 3000 Jobs
For some reason Democrats are in love with college degrees as proof that you know about a topic. It seems that having professional experience doesn’t mean anything.
In my time in finance, I worked as an investment executive and a portfolio manager. I also founded a broker/dealer that we sold for a profit. I’ve worked for publicly-traded companies, preparing 10Q and 10K filings. I’ve written a dozen business plans as a contractor for other companies including writing complete financials. I executed a takeover of a troubled bank- no TARP money involved.
But I have also worked professionally in politics running campaigns, doing press work and training activists around the country.
I won’t be a square peg in the socialists’ round hole. I’ll leave that role to Obama.
Lon in PA wrote: Here Ransom claims Obama is obsessed with OWS. It appears that, conservatives who are obsessed with different issues manage to convince themselves that Obama is the one who is obsessed with them. Obama would have to be a man of great brain power to be able to be obsessed with so many different issues at once. But it is more likely that he is simply not the one who is obsessed. After all, how silly is it to require some conspiratorial explanation as to why Obama would declare the Iraq war over when the soldiers come out of Iraq? - in response to Obama Preoccupied with Occupiers
Pull out a dictionary. Obsessed does not share a definition with the word “preoccupied,” a word that I used deliberately. But what’s really funny is that shortly after you wrote that Occupiers demonstrated in front of the DNC too.
It’s not I, but the liberal NY Magazine that ran a cover story that asked: “2012=1968?”
“In 2008, Barack Obama lit a fire among young activists” says the teaser. “Next year, Occupy Wall Street could consume him.”
Don’t you guys have some sort of liberal, online clearinghouse paid for by George Soros that helps you figure out which message you’re supposed to be delivering? Apparently someone hasn’t been online for a while.
ZN wrote: By sheer dumb luck, the American intervention into Libya turned out Ok, (at least so far) so I would not have included it on you list. I would have instead listed his non-intervention of the Iranian election protests. Obama chose to continue with his appeasement strategy which has achieved nothing when he should have spoke out and encouraged them.
Politically Libya has been a disaster for the president. It was the moment his coalition of the silly came apart. Libya, Egypt, Syria and Iraq won’t turn out well and Iran will benefit. But the Iranian problem existed before Obama came to office. I don’t agree with his policies on Iran, but I don’t think they’ll figure much in the upcoming election. The war in Libya already has, by fraying support from the left.
PJ wrote: Mr. Ransom, how much have you actually studied about scientific environmental issues? You seem to be concerned more about your own pocket book than the future welfare of people. You along with other conservatives have no business calling other's "whacko" about things it is obvious you know nothing about.
I’m not a scientist- and unlike Al Gore, I don’t even play one on TV. But I worked for the scientific journal Nature Biotechnology. I would say that I have a better-than-average understanding of issues relating to science and technology. I know enough to call out shabby science, like claiming an epidemic of “polar bear cannibalism” as settled science when in fact it’s merely a hypothesis- and a bare one at that.
I’m assuming from your superior air that you think you know quite a bit about science.
So then why don’t you call out these so-called scientists and journalists who sell these kind of outrageous stories? I would think that as an interested person you’d be appalled with the damage that these sensational stories do to your profession.
The truth is that none of the global-warming hype we’ve been fed has come to pass. And every time you guys applaud Al Gore for presenting phony scares as science, you convince more people that global warming isn’t hype, but rather a hoax.
Instead of insinuating that maybe I’m too dumb to understand science, you might consider that I’m smart enough to know when I’ve been lied to.
And. yes, of course I’m concerned with my pocketbook. If I’m not concerned with it, then who is going to be? You? Obama? Nancy Pelosi?
You all should spend less time worrying about my pocketbook. That’s properly a job for me, not you.
I’m sure this is lost on you, but here goes: “A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!’"- Abraham Lincoln.
That’s it for this week,
To read another article by John Ransom, click here.
Posted by Brett at 11:24 PM