One more time, Herman. Urinating on Taliban fighters does not help. However, you have adopted the premise that we are somehow cajolling these people into a fight with us. These people do not need an excuse to become terrorists. If you read anything at all about the islamic religion, then you would know that it is their duty to wage holy war. You like equal signs. Islam = Jihad = Terrorists.

I fail to see a point here. What the h@ll does this have to do with the topic of the column?

Hank, the fact you see no role for a discussion of the word "earn" in our conversation proves to me you lack the faculties necessary for an honest debate. You are clearly an angry, uneducated, thug, who is most likely unemployed. You are angry because you are a failure, and you think you are entitled to a share of my earnings. You know nothing of private property, because if you did then you would recognize that earnings equate to property. We cannot have an honest discussion because you have not read Locke, Burke, Smith, or any of the other luminaries that laid the philosophical groundwork for the founding of this country. You, sir, are a fool. I have grown weary attempting to discuss topics such as economics with fools like yourself

Hank, regarding your bad grammar, I also forgot to include your use of incomplete sentences. You also demonstrate a tendency towards run-on sentences with associated poor punctuation.

Hank, you seem to think I got lucky, or that I was the product of some government program or other such government largesse. When in reality I paid my way through college, and I earned good grades. Nothing was given to me except my parents who cared enough to teach me well. We are trying to teach you something; you are the clown who needs to read more. Start with my posts. In the interest of character counts, I will not point out your dangling participles and misplaced modifiers. You need to read a good English handbook, because you write like a third grader. Again, if you want a simple explanation that even you can understand, please read my comments below. Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. Ergo, Hank is incompetent.

Look up the word "earn" in the dictionary. Where in that definition does it write that government "allowed you to do so with opportunity." Now allowing for your bad grammar, I will assume that you meant to write that I had good parents (the system) who inculcated in me the value of hard work. This work ethic led (allowed) to a degree which afforded me employment (opportunity). I do care about future generations, because I do not want to saddle them with debt. Please see my earlier response to you for an explanation on debt. Additionally, I am teaching my own children the value of hard work, so your argument really fails then, doesn't it? Your final threat is beyond hilarious. You mad, bro?

Hank, are you aware that the government has neither resources nor debt? Are you aware that any resource employed by the government must be appropriated from the populace? Are you aware that any debt the federal government racks-up actually is owned by the taxpayer? Are you aware that any money spent by the government must be removed from the private sector through taxation or inflation? Hank, you write with contempt villifying viewpoints different than your own. Yet clearly visible in your contempt is your ignorance of basic economics. Your ad-hominem attacks are, therefore, rather humorous. You mad, bro?

Hank wrote: "...B) makes a lot of money and the tax increases effect them (greedy)..." I am not greedy for wanting to keep what I have earned. You, Hank, demonstrate greed for wanting to take from me what you have not earned.

"What we need is for government to stop genuflecting to enviros and unions while kneeling on the backs of Main Street and industry." There we have it. This one sentence by Mr. Ransom sums it up very nicely.

Are you privy to private conversations between conservatives and Mike Adams?