By John Ransom
7/15/2012
Wendal wrote: Stop dissin' the bro honkey. You are just a typical right wing racist, sexist, homophobe bigot. You should thank God that Obama is the President. We should make him President for life. - Obama’s Big, Bad Story Isn’t Right
Dear Comrade Wendal,
You’re kidding right?
Because there really isn’t much about me that’s typical; weight for my age maybe.
As to the other stuff, if you’re serious, it makes me happy.
There’s a rule in life that says that the first person to call another person a name in argument looses. Judging by that, liberals have been on the loosing end of the argument for 30 years.
Just because Barack Obama won the last “I’m-not-a-George-Bush” contest, doesn’t mean that he’s not going to lose the next one.
Because in 2012 the presidential contest will go to the guy who least reminds voters- not of the George Bushes- but rather Barack H. Obama.
In that race, your guy is at a big disadvantage.
Jim1056 wrote: Hey, John Ransom, what makes you think Obama doesn't know what he is doing and what makes you think he isn't doing what he is doing to destroy the nation as we know it. - Obama’s Big, Bad Story Isn’t Right
Dear Jim,
The objective evidence points to Obama being a guy in way over his head, regardless of his ideological goals.
If he were really trying to take the country down, he wouldn’t appear so hapless.
He might have held off committing political suicide by not insisting on passing Obamacare and thereby losing Congress; he might have used a trillion dollars to create, um jobs.
You can’t just shove a trillion dollars of pork barrel spending down the throats of the American people, free of any nutritional value, and expect them to burp and ask for more.
To paraphrase, very roughly, Abraham Lincoln: In any country there is a considerable portion of morons, but we all can’t be liberal Obama supporters.
Plus, let him try his weird plans: This country is a lot more resilient than people give it credit for.
As they say in the Big Lebowoski: “The Dude abides.”
That dude is you.
None1257 wrote: Why only complain about democrats and not your fellow republicans?- We Need to Change the Politicians
Dear Comrade 1257,
Come on, comrade.
Unlike readers at HuffPo who follow the party line, readers at Townhall are proudly conservative, and sometimes happen to be Republican too. They criticize the party pretty forcefully.
But yeah, I’m a Republican.
And I’ve never been shy about criticizing members of my own party.
That said, clearly, in today’s climate, the contest comes down to those who believe in limited government and less government spending- often but not always, represented by the Republicans; and those who want to nationalize everything, represented by Democrats.
When Labor took over the government in between Churchill’s prime ministerships, they nationalized healthcare and practically everything else in Great Britain. Once during this Leftists ascendancy, Labor leader Attlee met Churchill in the bathroom. Churchill recoiled from Atlee.
"A bit standoffish today are we, Winston?" said Atlee. Churchill grumbled, "Every time you see something big you want to nationalize it."
Churchill was being witty.
Unfortunately, however, he was also being prescient.
Government has gotten so bad under liberals that you all are even nationalizing sexual organs under women’s health programs, gay marriage and Obamacare.
Psargent wrote: John...you nailed it! We're looking at the endgame of Keynesian economics and rule by intellectuals. Keynes was wrong from the get go, and intellectuals should remain locked up in academia's cloistered cells on college campuses.- As Hope Shrieks Away
Dear PS,
I hope you’re right.
My fear is that our leaders are so inbred worldwide that they are going to jointly walk us right off the cliff economically by doing the same things they have always done. Because it's clear that they are out of ideas.
Look at some examples: Mari Monti, the technocrat prime minister of Italy is a member of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, Senior Advisor to Moody’s and a graduate of Yale. Greece’s former technocrat prime minister was Lucas Papademos, of Harvard, the the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank (Boston) and of the European Central Bank. Then comes our own Treasury technocrat, Tim Geithner, Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank (New York) and Darmouth.
These guys- and most guys in charge of money and markets- all have similar backgrounds in central banking and Ivy League pedigrees.
Can we please find someone from Ole Miss, or Metro State, or the University of Idaho to run things for a little while?
The Gosh Darn Liberal wrote: Attacking Obama gives John something to do. John creates a straw man, blames Obama, the mob applauds, and all conservatives are happy. One problem: conservative solution for our economy is do everything that got us here again. NO, thank you. Obama has not delivered? Get your "our mission is to make sure he is a one term president" political hacks out of the way. - As Hope Shrieks Away
Dear Comrade Gosh,
You created the straw man; you even made him president.
I’m not the one who brought up the Hoover Dam as the model accomplishment in the State of the Union speech. Your own straw man, who hereafter I will only call the “Scarecrow,” did that himself.
If he only had a brain.
Mmmm, let’s hum that together.
Fantasy Control wrote: When I first read this I thought it was titled "Hope SHREKS Away." Obama and Shrek have a lot in common: Both live in a fantasy world, both are simpletons, both have funny ears and both have a j@ck @ss following them around. - As Hope Shrieks Away
Dear Fantasy,
Ok, that was very funny.
But I don’t think you are being very generous to Shrek.
GaryPatriot wrote: Think of our future as an economic choice between supply-side economics and demand-side economics. Demand-side economics is what made America great! Demand for product and services comes from a large, economically healthy, and growing middle class, and THAT DEMAND IS WHAT CREATES JOBS AND ECONOMIC WELL-BEING! Jobs do NOT come from mythical so-called job creators! Our country is already awash in capital to create jobs, only the increased DEMAND for products and services is missing. With the worst job creation record of any President in the last 70 years, Bush43 prove that! He added only 3.7 million net new jobs over 8 years. In contrast, Clinton added 22.7 million jobs over 8 years. - As Hope Shrieks Away
Dear Comrade Gary,
Demand-side economics? You mean the economic theory formerly known as Keynesian economics? Where have you been the last dozen years?
We’ve out-New Dealed the New Dealers. Spending by the government as a percentage of GDP is double what the government spent as a percentage of GDP from 1931 to 1940.
In the 10 year period between 1941 and 1950 we averaged 32.4 percent of GDP on government. In the last ten years, we’ve averaged 36.4 percent of GDP on government.
If government spending was an answer, there never would have been a question to begin with.
The billionaires and millionaires don’t have our money, the government unions do.
As to jobs, it’s kind of hard to create jobs when unemployment starts at 4.2 percent.
When Bush took office in January of 2001 unemployment was 4.2 percent. The 40 year low for unemployment was 3.4 percent recorded in 1968. In 1999 unemployment was a 3.9 percent. While Bush’s number was not an all-time low, it certainly was considered full employment for all practical purposes.
When you get to full employment, how many jobs will be created? Correct answer? Zero.
When, like the Scarecrow, you have double digit unemployment numbers, you better be creating jobs by the fist full, or you’ll go right back into a recession. Which, by the way, is exactly what is happening.
OL1 wrote: In 20 years you Mr. Ransom will run out of breath to rail against our current greatly needed national health reform that will be proudly known by the nick name "OBAMACARE". I only hope that we will improve on the great start that was 60 years in the making. Have a good day and try to enjoy it as I will.- Dodd and Frank May be History, But History Won't be Kind
Dear Comrade OL1,
Yes. My family has a rare familial strain of inherited ALS. Got a 50-50 chance that I inherited the gene from my father’s side of the family. That doesn’t mean that I will get the disease if I inherited the gene, but still….
ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a degenerative nerve disease that slowly paralyzes a person until they are completely immobile and can only breathe with mechanical assistance.
But I won’t run out of breathe from ALS. Rather it’ll be the big pillow stamped “Scarecrowcare” on one side that they will hold against my nose and mouth until my last breath that will kill me.
ALS is one of those diseases that is just too costly to keep a person alive under Scarecrowcare, especially if you’ve been railing against it for years.
It’s a rare treat to tell a liberal like you exactly how I’m gonna die.
Have a good day and try to enjoy it.
I know I will.
Shubi wrote: http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2012/07/11/blame_barclays_not_capitalism/page/full/
The above is the most important article on TH today, yet no one is commenting. The idiot leftists don't understand Libor and normal people seem to busy to care. .- Dodd and Frank May be History, But History Won't be Kind
Dear Shubi,
Correction: It was the second most important article.
Tsk. Tsk.
Zen wrote: When it comes to public and private sector unions the Right-Wingers have an entirely different standard on how unions should conduct electoral politics. These are standards that purposely put workers’ union at a disadvantage in fund raising and electoral politics. According to the Knox vs. SEIU ruling, nonunion public sector workers have to be given a choice on whether they would "opt in" and pay into special political action funding not related to collective bargaining. Of course, many nonunion members objected to these special fees being used for political and ideological purposes they disagree with. The Right-Wing hypocrisy here is that no such rule applies to the fund raising of corporate ‘persons’ when they use shareholders funds and company profits to buy and bribe political candidates and campaigns.- Hey Unions: Welcome to Politics
Dear Zen,
What part of the word “private” do you not understand?
Why the heck wouldn’t the people hired by the shareholders to run a private company not get to make decisions that presumably are in the best interest of the corporation?
That’s what they were hired for.
Plus, there is no moral equivalency between unions and corporations.
Shareholders become shareholders of corporations voluntarily. They certainly remain shareholders voluntarily.
If shareholders object to the policies of a company they have recourse to: 1) to replace the management; and/or 2) sell their shares in the market.
The ruling in Knox just allows nonunion members to not have their money stolen to “buy and bribe political candidates and campaigns.”
There is an old saying in the market: The Bulls and Bears make money but the hogs get slaughtered.
The unions have been hogs long enough.
When you’re that fat you get slaughtered.
Gary 56 wrote: Today has been a sad day for me. To observe the anti union obsessive-compulsion that is present in the writings from this conservative hoard who care more about dividing than uniting their fellow Americans,... even when viewed through the lens of what 4 more years of Barhama will look like, has been beyond sad for myself. - Hey Unions: Welcome to Politics
Dear Comrade 56,
Yes, the conservative horde is really dividing America.
That’s why when we have protests we just ask to be let alone by government.
It’s why we leave the public property on which we protest cleaner than we found it.
It’s why we don’t drive our fellow Americans against the rich, the middle class or the poor with slogans like “We’re the 99 Percent,” or “War on Women.”
It’s why when it comes to an “all above strategy,” we apply the same rules to everyone regardless of skin color.
I can see how you’d think that’s been very divisive of us.
That’s it for this week,
V/r,
JR
___________________________________________
To read another article by John Ransom, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment