Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers

Posted: Aug 14, 2011 12:01 AM

We have a whole new crop of liberals to taunt.

Seems as if the old group dropped off and new ones turned up to pick at us this week.

Oh, I so love wasting George Soros' troll money on a Sunday after church.

I hope you do too.  

Bob A. wrote: Yeah! I don't think the states should force me to buy auto insurance either. I should have the right to drive without any, hit whom ever I please, kill whomever I want with my car any time I want and those I hurt, injure, or whose property I destroy because of it should have NO recourse.  -in response to my column Obamacare Gets Thumbs Down by Death Panel

Dear Bob-

I can’t believe they let you vote. You think that being human has the same value as owning a car? This is why liberals suck at governing, philosophy, religion, morality. You guys are such materialists that you think owning a car and making decisions about your life as a created person are moral equivalents.   

I can choose to buy a car or not. If I want to have the convenience of owning a car, the state governments say that I have to have insurance of some type in order to cover liability on public roads. If not, I can walk or take public transportation or make other arrangements. There are a lot of people, especially in cities, who choose not to own cars.

On the other hand, the federal government is making the case that they have the right to govern you under the interstate commerce clause simply because you are a human.

I thought the very idea of our government rested on the idea that we were free, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. If you say that your idea of liberty includes making me buy health insurance, then I say you shouldn't be allowed to vote.  

Carl wrote: Hey John, face facts, after George W destroyed the country, he was so hated a chimp could have run against the Republicans and won.  -in response to my column Hey Libs, Face Facts: Obama's a Bad President

Dear Carl-

Obama won’t be quite so lucky the next time. He’ll have to be more than just “not George Bush.” He may even have to be “not Barack Obama” to survive the challenge he faces, just as Bill Clinton had to prove to voters that he wasn’t Hillary Clinton after the first two years of his first term.    

Still and all, 4 million votes change in 2008 and the GOP would have won the last election.

So good luck to you all.

David wrote: Where were you, John? I remember quite clearly the many times that various people from the administration, including Bush, Cheney, Powell and others, AS WELL AS numerous Congressman and woman from BOTH sides of the aisle pointing out the MANY REASONS that taking Saddam Hussein out was a good idea. -in response to my column Hey Libs, Face Facts: Obama's a Bad President

Dear David,

I was in boot camp for the U.S. Navy, that’s where I was.

I celebrated my 38th birthday at boot camp. I had a pedestrian career as a Navy Reservist tackling paperwork on weekends.     

I supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein as well. I just thought that Bush did a bad job enunciating the reason we were there. And I think the actual reasons we ended up being there were not effectively enunciated by the administration because they knew the American people wouldn’t have supported a war under those conditions.

Having U.S. troops in Iraq changed the strategic balance in the Middle East to our advantage. That’s why we were there. It’s why we are there still and will remain regardless of who is temporarily in the White House.   

Arab Springs?

Iraq’s Arab Spring started when we invaded.   

I’m sure the democratic elements in Egypt wish they could do as well as have Americans guarantee their governments.     

Dick_Cheney's_heart wrote: JR: "I’m speaking from the perspective of a political professional with a background in message and mechanics." Thank you for that concession, Mr. Ransom. So much for your having any expertise in finance. -in response to my column Hey Libs, Face Facts: Obama's a Bad President

Dear Dick,

Wrong again.

Um, some people might have expertise in more than one area of life.

I understand that confuses you, because as a liberal you tend to know nothing about anything. So tackling one subject seems pretty big to you. But I will note that Obama’s chief of staff Bill Daley also has a background in politics and finance, as does Mitt Romney, not that I would compare myself to either.

It goes without saying that both have accomplished much more than I have.   

While it’s true that I have spent a great deal of time working as a campaign professional, it’s also true that I spent a great deal of time as a finance professional, including work as a Series 7 broker.

In fact, until 2001 I worked full-time in investments and finance.

I guarantee that I have more practical experience in finance than most of the editorial staff at the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal or any newspaper you know. No offense meant to them, but the majority of them were trained as journalists not as experts in finance and investments.   

Townhall Finance, because its audience is derived from its parent site, needed an editor, like me, who can speak with authority on both politics and finance.

After that, I’ll let my boss be the judge.       

Kermudjin wrote: I love Jay Carney yesterday. Of the vacation, he said he didn't think people would begrudge Obama for spending time with his family. But doesn't his family live in the White House with him? He doesn't have to go to Martha's Vineyard to spend time with them. He might, however, want to look at how his fundraising schedule impacts quality family time. Then Carney said Obama wouldn't rest until unemployment is lowered. But isn't he going on vacation?­-in response to my column Just in Time, Another Obama Nine-Day Vacation

Dear Kermudjin,

Can you imagine how this would have played had another president been in the White House?

I don’t begrudge Obama a vacation. But I also wasn’t the one whining about Congress not being in session, not “eating their peas,” doing their homework, or working hard enough.

The way I saw it, the work on the debt deal- and everything else- has been done by Congress not the president.    

Add to that Obama being one of the biggest elitist I’ve witnessed. You know how many Americans get one 9-day vacation a year? Not many. I’m just happy that I have a job in this economy. Most of us aren’t thinking about vacations. We are worried about keeping our jobs.

Maybe Obama should think more about keeping his own job, rather than whining about taking a vacation. People who think the way he does typically don’t keep their jobs in the real world.

Quiet Reason wrote: And, again, how does this kind of incremental spending over the next 14 years lead to job losses today? What is the mechanism that allows you to cut through the complexities of the auto industry over this time and make this kind of prediction. ­-in response to my column Union Sells Out Members to Job-Killing Enviros and Obama Reelection Bid

Dear Quiet,

The administration has already confessed that raising the fuel efficiency standards to 34 miles per gallon by 2016 will cost $50 billion. You know how to divide $50 billion into the average American wage. You can do the math too.   

It used to be that $50 billion was a lot of money. Imagine how much it will cost to raise the standard to 50 miles per gallon.

But you are missing the bigger point.

That money is coming out of a pot that could go to higher wages and benefits or could go into selling more cars, creating more jobs. Sorry but the Obama administration hasn’t been very good about top-down job creation, even if it was the government’s job, which it’s not.

But it is the job of the union to fight for union members. They should be objecting to raising the fuel efficiency standards because it’s not good for their members. That money is coming out of workers wages and benefits. You can’t convince me that demanding that the auto industry invest $50 billion dollars between now and 2016 isn’t going to keep wages and benefits for workers down.

The union has abrogated its responsibility to workers in order to sell out to Obama.     

But unions and management, at least at GM and Chrysler, all live on Obama’s plantation now.              

Bear Trax wrote: Once again I must disclaim that in no way is the Tea Party paying Axelrod or any one else to run a recruiting drive for the Tea Party, They are doing it out of the goodness of their heart. -in response to my column Shocker: Axelrod Blames the Tea Party

Dear Bear,

The Democrats so consistently misplay the Tea Party phenomena that I think we can count on them continuing to do it.

Weapons like the internet, which they have deployed against conservatives so successfully, have been deployed in turn by ordinary people with devastating effect against progressives. They just can’t understand that normal, average Americans, like Palin and Bachmann might know more about good government than they do.    

And the liberals are enraged by this idea.

How dare lowly average Americans ask the DC elite to read bills before they vote on them?

Whom the Gods would destroy, said Euripides, they first make mad.

That's it for this week,



See more top stories from Townhall Finance, new home page, more columns, more news:

Chris Poindexter How to Sell Gold
Mike Shedlock The NYT's Growing Gloom about Liberal Mistakes
Mark Baisley Yeah, When Monkeys Fly Out of Your Tailpipe
John Ransom SEIU Puts Hood Back in Planned Parenthood
Marita Noon Scientists Expose Inside Job Behind Endangered Species Scam
Jeff Carter Obama's Policies are Invincible!
John Ransom Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers
Email Ransom

Click right here to be the best informed fiscal conservative you know!