Another week and another round of comments and answers from my friends, both conservative and progressive.
I see Lilly and Goshawk and Odin and James. And the week wouldn't be complete if bin Leaded didn't resort to name-calling.
I suppose if you are going to write 30,000 words per week on a message board, you are bound to call someone a name sooner or later.
Lilly wrote: Now we have a discussion of fiscal policy cast in terms that are racially loaded---addiction and pusher. If there were any basis for expecting decency on Townhall I would be appalled at Ransom's tone. – in response to my column The Pusher-in-Chief.
Nothing I write has anything to do with race. It doesn’t even verge on race. There are no hidden code words. Progressives are addicted to taxes and spending and Obama’s the dealer because he’s the leader.
Today there is only one group of organized bigots left in America, and they reside in the Democrat Party.
Everything you guys talk about has to do with identities like race and gender.
I grew up in a progressive Democrat household. And I can tell you that one of the things that pushed me away from the Democrats as I got to be an adult was the Balkanization of political identity that Democrats imposed on the party.
Where I was raised- Chicago, Illinois- they have all these neighborhoods called Andersonville, Wrigleyville, Logan Square, etc. They were neighborhoods that were, for the most part, defined by race or nationality. At the time Chicago was considered one of the most segregated cities in the country. That’s the way the Daley machine wanted it.
And that’s what you guys have done to the Democrats. You’ve segregated everyone. You demand equal- some more equal than others- but separate treatment for groups according to their skin color, their sexual identity, their religious beliefs, etc.
That’s why Obama has had such a difficult time governing. It’s virtually impossible for the Democrats to keep their constituents happy. The Democrats can only really thrive as a minority (as opposed to majority) party.
Goshawk wrote: You stated; "They either weren’t serious then or they aren’t serious now." Kind of open question's that many of us knew the answers to from the beginning. Even before Obama was elected. – in response to my column The Pusher-in-Chief.
I think that the Republicans have missed a big opportunity by not reminding voters at every opportunity that Obama presented a budget with huge deficit spending for 2012 not so long ago. They are allowing him to pretend like he’s a deficit hawk, when in fact, he’s the reason why were at an impasse right now.
Had we elected anyone other than Obama, we wouldn’t be in the budget mess were in now.
The most effective way of getting out of the mess we’re in is to balance the budget right now. If we did that we wouldn’t have to raise the debt ceiling at all.
You want to do something BIG. Try that. If I were president or senator or congressman, that’s what I’d be pushing for. A balanced budget is BIG.
James wrote: The main solution is to increase domestic oil production, halt petroleum exports, and to deregulate EPA and OSHA regulations that make refining costs prohibitive. The U.S. has not built a refinery for nearly 50 years. Our present refineries do not comply with Federal regulations because they were grandfathered in.– in response to my column The Man-Caused Disaster of Hurricane O.
One of the problems with the debate is that people don’t look at energy as the end product: a BTU. Instead they look at the feed stock in creating BTUs.
You can get BTUs from coal, nuclear, solar, natural gas, wood fire, rubbing two sticks together. The universe is full of energy.
But until “alternative” and “renewable” sources of energy start to produce BTUs at the same price that fossil fuels do, you just aren’t going to have a big market for it without legislating demand for it.
Legislating demand is just another way to ration something.
Odin wrote: You zombies probably believe it's just an amazing coincidence that Obama happens to fit the stereotype that white racists like Ransom have denigrated for centuries.– in response to my column The One Becomes The Jerk.
We’re just a bunch of racists, perpetuating stereotypes. That’s why I compared Obama to Ward Cleaver from Leave it to Beaver, a stereotypical white male from the late 1950s.
Guys in the KKK really hate that Ward Cleaver guy.
That’s also why I compared Obama to that other white guy, Eddie Haskell, also from Leave it to Beaver. Eddie Haskell has long been associated by white supremacist groups as a front for the Jewish plot to dominate the world.
Or how about when I pulled out the Rove quote that compared Obama to the jerky guy one would find at a country club with a beautiful date on his arm, sneering at everyone.
Just another stereotypical depiction of African Americans by a couple of white racists.
Charles Martel wrote: All Barry needs is an ashtray, the remote control, a paddle game, a magazine (People, Us, or Newsweek), and a chair. Oh, and his dog. ("Grrrrr!") OK, not the dog. -in response to my column The One Becomes The Jerk.
Steve Martin is another white guy I compared Obama to that proves that I’m a racist according to Odin. The fact that I breathe tends to confirm that I’m a racist as well. I’m a racist mostly because I don’t think I’m a racist. The lack of racism is proof-positive today that one is a racist.
Kind of like the absence of evidence that the world is getting hotter is proof that global warming is real.
This is how liberals think. Any questions on why they can’t handle the economy?
Renny wrote: But his "no drama Obama" persona is sure hiking down the road, and it will make him much less attractive to young people this time around. Those that are left because the ones who worked and voted for him in 2008 are unemployed. – in response to my column O'Bummer: The Tax Scam Faileth.
In that regard he reminds me of Jimmy Carter. People who worked with Carter thought he was a jerk too.
More important than the young voters though, I think Obama’s losing the press. I don’t think they’ll be too hostile to him because he does support policies that the press favors. But there won’t be the romance that helped him get elected in 2008.
He won by 8 million votes.
Do you think 4 million people plus 1 have changed their mind?
Osama bin Leaded wrote: Comrade Ransom, you're an idiot and a complete arse, according to mutual acquaintances within the Party machinery. – in response to my column Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers.
I was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party.
I hate it when the party campaigns as fiscal conservatives and then tries to raise taxes. You seem to be OK with it. I hate when they say they are in favor of school choice and then cuddle up to the union. You seem to be OK with that too. I hate when they sponsor Obamacare-like legislation after talking about Obamacare being unconstitutional. I hate it when they say fees are just backdoor tax increases and then refuse to vote the fees down as they promised they would.
I hate when they screw up a gubernatorial and senate race as badly as they did the last election cycle. Republicans were winning everywhere else except Colorado.
They hate it when I point out these things out, just like you hate it when I point out the fact that you are a progressive.
I’m not the one calling names. My positions are political, not personal.
Quiet Reason wrote: I don't know where Ransom lives, I don't know how many of the people that read this are or or were school board members. All I know is that I volunteered to spend many hours of my life for those six years trying to be part of the solution. To hear jerks like Ransom and others call me names is beyond the pale. Ransom is a coward who doesn't know how a union work in schools.
I know exactly how unions and school boards work together to the detriment of kids.
If I were a coward, I wouldn't be a political activist or a political writer.
My money says you were supported/endorsed or otherwise favored by the union when you were a school board member.
Is it really OK for someone to enjoy support from an organization that later they will have to negotiate with on behalf of citizens?
Tell me please how a school board member can remain on the side of the public when negotiating union contracts after receiving favors from the union, either in cash or in kind to get elected.
Volunteer or not, unions have no business getting involved in elections of the very people elected to supervise and negotiate with the union employees.
That's all for this week.