Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers

Posted: Aug 28, 2011 12:01 AM

Ok, I like to rattle the cage about liberal politicians. I think people need to have their cages rattled. In fact, I think we go easy on most of the people in charge. That includes voters who voted for Obama because they were blinded to the truth about how awful he was.

Horribilus wrote:  I know you have stated that you like to annoy liberals. I'm sure referring to the president as a dog will do that, especially when coupled with your searing logic and satire. I do think, however, in an article this good that leaving that out would have made your article more persuasive to those in the middle and less offensive to those of us who don't want the president of the country we would die for referred to in that manner. -in response to my column Obama is a Bad President: An Answer to Jonathan Alter

Dear Horribilus,

When Alter says “prove Obama’s bad,” he needs to regret asking the question. It’s a really dumb challenge.

I’m not here to write white papers about politics or finance. I’m here to educate in an engaging way. Sometimes that offends people. But I notice that you- and they- come back a lot.

And yeah, I like to rattle the cage about liberal politicians. I think people need to have their cages rattled. In fact, I think we go easy on most of the people in charge. That includes voters who voted for Obama because they were blinded to the truth about how awful he was. It really should have been obvious to everyone. He is who we said he was.

The center was taken in by rhetoric from the left- including Jonathan Alter’s- that said that all the charges from the right that Obama wasn’t experienced enough, that he was a radical, that he favored Islam over Israel, that he was looking to socialize the country were extremist rhetoric.

The truth is that Obama is more horrible than even the right made him out to be during the 2008 campaign.  

He’s proved to be the most radical type of extremist. Voters should wake up to that fact and stop giving Obama a benefit of the doubt that they wouldn’t give others in his position. Because he’s proved to be so awful, he’s lost any support I would give him. He may be your president, but he’s not mine.

I think referring to some of our politicians as dogs is an insult to dogs.

I say that with no disrespect meant to dogs, either. I like dogs a lot.

Ozzy wrote: Ransom: "You can try sophistry to argue why Obama took the measures he did, but it’s only that, sophistry." GWB and Cheney are war criminals, invading a sovereign country which posed no threat to our legitimate interests. In pursuance of this aim, they committed a number of war crimes. You can try sophistry to argue why they took the measures they did, but it's only that, sophistry. -in response to my column Obama is a Bad President: An Answer to Jonathan Alter

Dear Ozzy,

So now you are resorting to the “I know you are, but what am I” line of argument?

Obama, the Messiah of the peacenik crowd, prosecuted a war without any sort of Congressional approval.

Do you really think that’s lost on American voters?

Here’s a statement by Rep. Diana DeGette at the time:

"I am concerned by President Obama's decision to commit U.S. forces in Libya without involving Congress. This action may require substantial U.S. resources. While there is no question that Gaddafi's regime is brutalizing the people of Libya, launching military action against another nation requires Congress be fully informed so we can exercise our Constitutional authority.

"I therefore call on Speaker Boehner to call an emergency session, returning Members to Washington, so the President may address a joint session of Congress and be given the opportunity to make the case for war."

Never happened.

Does the left have any principles left that they won’t sell out for Obama? Or is this all about One man?   

Illinois Roy wrote: Well the US is 36th in the world in life expectancy. How do you account for that? -in response to my column Texas AG Sues EPA over Obama’s War on Energy

Dear Illinois,

So you are trying to draw a correlation between fossil fuel use and the US having the 36th best life expectancy in the world?

My guess is that if you graphed life expectancy against fossil fuel use over the last 100 years in the US, the correlation would strongly suggest that life expectancy went up as the country used more and more fossil fuels, not down.

There is no free energy Roy. Japan relies on coal and oil to provide about 70 percent of its electricity, while the US relies on coal and oil to provide about 50 percent.

Japan is number one in life expectancy.

How do you account for that?

I leave you with this last fact: The US creates fewer Co2 emissions per dollar of economic output than the world average. In fact, the US beats the average in every region of the world except OECD countries. The US is slightly below average compared to the OECD. If the rest of the world could just be as efficient as the US with Co2 emissions then the world would cut down Co2 emissions by around 35-40 percent.    

John wrote: Have you heard the one about space aliens coming to destroy the Earth because of our carbon dioxide gas? Yes it seems that they are afraid that our "greenhouse gasses" will destroy the Universe if they don`t stop us in our madness. You cannot make this stuff up folks. Where is my tin foil hat anyway? -in response to my column Global Warming Causes Civil War at White House

Dear John,

Yes. I wrote to NASA because the media and the study itself gives the impression that NASA participated in the study that came up with this hare-brained theory.

They wrote me back to say that NASA had nothing to do with the study.

When I asked them about the mix up, they said they only hired the author of the study to come work for NASA. They some how think that’s going to reassure us.

When I asked if they would publicly disavow the theory, they rather snippily replied that their email to me was their public disavowal.

And people wonder why the public is skeptical of scientists.  

Lon wrote: The article maps when civil wars increase and decrease with occurrences of el nino and finds a serious correlation. Ransom's response that there have been civil wars over time during the period studied does not even begin to answer the question of whether they get more severe during periods of el Nino. -in response to my column Global Warming Causes Civil War at White House

Dear Lon,

My response doesn’t begin to answer the question, true enough. It only questions the story. But according to the authors of the report, neither does their report prove a causal relationship between El Nino and civil war. It proves correlation. But that’s not the same thing as causing it.

As one scientist that I quoted in the story said: "I don't dismiss that a correlation exists, but it is a correlation we so far don't understand," says Halvard Buhaug, a conflict researcher with the Peace Research Institute Oslo according to Nature. "I remain skeptical about any potential causal connection."

But that didn’t stop the media from taking it one step further and pretending that the story meant there was a definite link between so-called climate change and civil war. Even the authors of the study didn’t go as far as that.  

All you have to do is click the link above and you’ll get a whole bunch of headlines that say “Global Warming Responsible for Civil War; Real Wrath of God Type Stuff; Dogs and Cats Living Together; Mass Hysteria.”

That’s not what the study said.

Until the mass hysteria media goes back to being a fair arbiter for the public, people are going to trust them even less than they trust the scientists.  

Ozzy wrote: Case in point being Townhall "Finance Editor" John Ransom. You would expect that anyone who was qualified to be a FINANCE EDITOR would know the difference between a loan guarantee (no cash goes out) and an actual cash outlay. All that our government has agreed to do is stand as a surety, which isn't an enormous risk when the obligor has 5 bn of cash on its balance sheet. -in response to my column Palin Thumps Harvard

Dear Ozzy,

Congratulations. You may be the first liberal whose idiocy landed you on the page twice in one week.

I would assume that someone who can throw the word “surety” around like they are a CPA would understand that the loan guarantee program is an actual budget item with real dollars attached to it. And that the Obama administration considered cancelling it and using the real money for other projects.

In fact, Congress took $3.5 billion away from the program at one point and used it for “Cash for Clunkers.”

Also, since there is no risk, Ozzy, because the “obligor” is so rich, why does the US government have to guarantee the loan?

I’ll tell you why: The plant will fail. No plant has ever produced commercial quantities of fuel from biomass. The US is guaranteeing the loans because the project is not economically viable. At the end of the day, the government is guaranteeing the equivalent of sub prime “green” loans.

And for the liberal under the handle Anonymous who said “This is sophistry: if we build a bridge, we create jobs AND A BRIDGE,” I say this: Do you know what the resale value of a bridge is?

It’s about the same as the resale value of a biomass fuel plant that can’t produce commercial quantities of fuel.

Now you know that there is a reason for the old joke that went “And if you believe that I have a bridge I want to sell you.”

It was aimed at New Deal liberals who are still buying a lot of bridges.

That’s it for this week.



John Ransom | Create Your Badge

See more top stories from Townhall Finance. New Homepage, more content. Be the best informed fiscal conservative:


John Ransom Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers
Kathy Fettke Living on Obama's Fault Line
Mark Baisley The Obama Tattoo Removal Kit
Mike Shedlock Obama's Newest $700 Billion Bank Bailout
Marita Noon Coal and Oil Provides the Shelter from Irene
John Ransom Obama is a Bad President: An Answer to Jonathan Alter
Crista Huff McDonald's (MCD $89.93) Serving Momentum
Email Ransom