Stopthelies wrote: John the country is sick of your hate of this president..... Wishing for failure is all you have done from day one John..... America is more import than cons dogma. – in response to Country Sick of Obama Job Act Acting Job
Really? The whole country? My advertisers would be interested to know that I have that type of reach. Please send details. My family will thank you.
Actually “wishing” is something that liberals are pretty good at. Conservatives are pretty pragmatic. I never “wished” for the president to fail. Instead, based on his ideas and his plan, I knew he would fail.
Had he come up with different plans, I might have wished him well.
But where are the jobs Obama bragged he would create? Show me some actual empirical data that supports the idea that Obama has been successful at anything other than fundraising.
He had carte blanche from Congress the first two years of presidency. He could have done anything he wanted to rebuild economy in his own way.
And we got zero, zilch, nothing from him.
That’s not dogma or hate. It’s truth.
AVCurmudgeon wrote: Though you are generally correct John, this is not one of your best. A couple of cavils. First, the absence of any actual Jobs Act does not "belie the real trouble with (Obama)", it exemplifies his real problem. And I seriously doubt that Aquinas ever said anything like the quote attributed to him by Manchester (if in fact Manchester did attribute it to him). Not Aquinas' style at all. – in response to Country Sick of Obama Job Act Acting Job
You’re correct on my misuse of the word belie.
After that? Eh, “not one of your best” criticisms.
Look, I’ve provided you with a link to look up the quote in Manchester’s memoir. I’m sorry you’re too lazy to look it up. But your laziness doesn’t entitle you to imply the quote was made up. If you are going to criticize people, you should at least base it on your own labor of a few keystrokes after links have been provided for you.
I’ll provide you again the Manchester quote as it appears in my original article: “Thomas Aquinas once raised the issue of choosing between a proud man and a pusillanimous one,” writes William Manchester in Goodbye Darkness. “Take the proud one every time, he advised, because you will be sure that he will at least do something.”
I’m guessing that Manchester is referring to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Question 133: Pusillanimity. I don’t know this for sure because Manchester doesn’t provide a source in his memoir for the interpretation. But a plain reading of the text seems to indicate that Manchester has at least some grounds for making the case: “According to its proper species pusillanimity is a graver sin than presumption, since thereby a man withdraws from good things, which is a very great evil according to Ethic. iv. Presumption, however, is stated to be ‘wicked’ on account of pride whence it proceeds.”
Having said that, since Manchester wrote a history of the Middle Ages, I’m guessing he was familiar with other sources by Thomas Aquinas on which to make the interpretation.
Wrat Wrangler wrote: Excuse me but doesn't the majority GOP caucus assign committees? For FORTY years the DEMS kept Republicans OFF and important committee!! – in response to This Old Socialist Maxine Waters in Line to Replace Barney Frank on Banking
Kind of, but not really.
The majority party in the House controls each committee because they have the votes. Each party gets to appoint committee members on each committee based on the proportion of seats their caucus has in the House. So for example if it’s a seven person committee, the GOP now would control the committee with 4 members to 3 for the Democrats, because the GOP has the majority in the House.
Waters would only become chair of the committee if Democrats won back a majority in the House. But she will be the ranking Democrat on the committee in any case.
Fantasy Control wrote: They say the GOP pickups in Nevada were even more stunning than NY-9– in response to This Old Socialist Maxine Waters in Line to Replace Barney Frank on Banking
I won’t say that at all.
I spent quite a bit of time in Nevada working on voter education in Las Vegas through the 2010 election.
In 2010, Republican Joe Heck defeated freshman Congresswoman Dina Titus by less than 2,000 votes in a competitive, yet right-leaning 3rd district. The margin, given the trend, should have been much higher. Recently Republican Mark Amodei won the 2nd district in a special election for a seat that was vacated when Republican Dean Heller was appointed to the US Senate. Previously Heller had won the district 63 percent to 32 percent. Amodei lost some ground winning 58 percent to 36 percent.
I think Nevada continues to be problematic- maybe even emblematic of the problems- for the GOP.
Christopher wrote: So many of the posters here seem to think this is a done deal but it's NOT! Only if the house goes back to the Democrats. I urge all of you to support, both financially and with time and work, your conservative candidates. If you don't have one of your own at least consider supporting other's candidates. I live in CA so I have to look outside for help. So I support candidates anywhere if they are true conservatives. Please, no more RINOs. – in response to This Old Socialist Maxine Waters in Line to Replace Barney Frank on Banking
Comment of the week.
Yeah, yeah. Presidency is important. But let’s make sure we pick up seats in both the House and, especially, the Senate. That will be determined by another yeoman’s effort from the grassroots.
Xyzzy wrote: What bugs me most about Sybil (Ray Ancle) and the Chinese ads is that Townhall seems powerless to control the site. Surely an operation the size of Townhall could find a way to block the IP address of Sybil, or do SOMETHING to stop his actions. – in response to Taunting Obama as Barney Fife
We aren’t powerless. Yet we have to balance between site functionality, speed and reliability and security.
A lot of other sites close down registration, block IPs, registration names.
Trust me when I tell you, that it wouldn’t be good for the readers to do that.
We’ve been in operation since 1995. We do have some idea what we are doing.
Since I’m the guy who has to do the work of cleaning up the site, I can tell you that if it inconveniences you, it inconveniences me more. If I can live with it, maybe you can too.
Quiet Reason wrote: Ransom is making up numbers again. He says "...would contribute 20,000 jobs in the US right away, plus add hundreds of thousands of ancillary jobs." Then he says "400,000 US jobs, most of them almost immediately.” So is "right away" the same as "almost immediately?" But as I noted when he made these claims before, where does he even get these numbers? In an earlier column he said "it is made up of 20,000 construction jobs and 350,000 ancillary job" Do the math—that equals 370,000. More to the point, his "research" yields numbers much higher than other estimates. – in response to Taunting Obama as Barney Fife
You’ve seemed to get the memo from the progressives to avoid talking about how Obama won’t approve the pipeline, thereby showing he could care less about creating high-paying American jobs. Instead, it looks like your tactic is to quibble about how many jobs are projected by estimates.
Here are the results of a Google search that give liberals like you your shouting-down points:
1 day ago – From the December 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends...
Lou Dobbs Continues To Push Falsehood That Keystone XL Will Create ...?
CNN Shatters Supporters' Claims That Keystone XL Would Create ...?
Fox Wildly Inflates The Number Of Jobs Keystone XL Pipeline Might ...?
Wall Street Journal Whitewashes Keystone XL | Media Matters for ...?
Let’s pretend that the number of jobs that can be created by the pipeline is only 100,000 in total and it would take 5 years for all of them to be created.
Can you tell us why you, Obama and your liberal friends object to creating these jobs? Or is it just job creation in general that you have a problem with? I mean besides the problem of not knowing how to create jobs in the first place? Or can you tell us why you object to buying another million barrels of oil per day from Canada versus buying that oil from the Middle East?
I’ll make you a deal: I’ll tell you where I got my numbers when you tell me why Obama hates creating jobs.
Lon wrote: True, when you think of the President who got bin Laden and helped remove Ghadaffi from power the first thing you think of is Barney Fife. Such a comparison does not suggest any insanity on the person making the comparison whatsoever. – in response to Taunting Obama as Barney Fife
Yeah, right. Obama “got” bin Laden. That why he used playing golf as an alibi in case of failure as Seal Team Six was flying through Pakistani airspace to carry out the strike.
That’s even worse than Barney Fife.
Listen up: No amount of bragging, or bravado is going to change the fact that your president is a coward of the first order.
Here’s a picture of Obama in the act of getting bin Laden. Look at the courage he musters in front of that big screen TV.
Forget the bin Laden thing.
Obama can’t even say yes or no to building a freakin' oil pipeline.
Home of the brave? Not the White House, right now.
Steve wrote: Once again, Ransom, a very enjoyably written article, though I could have done without the "Paulite" remark. As a Ron Paul supporter, I'm hardly a partying guy, and I'm sure there are many in Ron Paul's camp that go to Tea Party rallies with no intent to party or officially sanction Occupyish behavior. – in response to Taunting Obama as Barney Fife
I have nothing against either you or Ron Paul. My problem is that a sizable percentage of his supporters have made supporting “Dr. Paul” into something of a religion.
It’s extremely annoying to be continually lectured by Paulites about how the rest of us aren’t “real” conservatives because we take different positions than he does on a host of issues, including gold, legalization of drugs, matters of foreign policy.
I’m also tired of the conspiracy theory that says, for example, I’m ignoring Ron Paul because I’m part of some plot to marginalize him, when in fact he marginalizes himself.
Because, here’s my biggest problem with Dr. Paul: Politically he remains an amateur.
Ron Paul had a great opportunity to create a real grassroots network in 2008. He raised a ton of money. And then he squandered it on vanity campaign accoutrement, like TV, rather than building an organization with the money.
From a professional political standpoint, I would not say that his management of campaign money shows him to be a very good fiscal conservative or very professional.
No political leader was better positioned politically to take advantage of the grassroots uprising of the past few years than Ron Paul was. No political leader has squandered that chance worse then Ron Paul.
And that’s a fact.
Shazza wrote: A pile of harmless trash is a small price to pay for being able to exercise our right to free speech. So once again Corporate welfare gets a pass and before you all start whining about my environmental footprint. My house is under 600sq feet, powered by solar (has been since 1986) and I donated 300 acres to a Conservation Trust. – in response to Taunting Obama as Barney Fife
Piles of trash and free speech actually have nothing to do with each other…yet.
I don’t remember “Piles of Trash” being talked about in the Bill of Rights. But perhaps you can please get Elena Kagan and some of her liberal friends to take up the nexus of “Piles of Trash” and free speech in some new interpretation of the Constitution that makes trash an expression of free speech.
That would be very hopeful.
Because the country has millions and millions of tons of carbon trash we’d like to spew into the atmosphere as our contribution to the Occupy Wall Street “Moment” before the moment is lost like the Summer of Love.
XJNYC wrote: Why not just suggest that all Democrats be jailed? Then you can flail your little fisties, Ransom and really get some attention? I'm sure you're told this on a daily basis, Ransom, but you're no more than bizarre, paranoid idiot. Just say "I hate all Democrats and everything they do is wrong" like the Infant that you are, and be done with it already -- every column has the same theme -- "Republicans Good -- Democrats Bad." – in response to Jail Cells for Corzine, Soros, Waters, Paulson, Frank, Pelosi, No One
You might notice- you know, if you actually read the column in question- that I criticized the GOP as well as being complicit in the graft. Ideology never came into play in the column.
But I will confess that I love when liberals like you get so hot under the collar that you name call. Then I know I have hit a nerve. HA!
Writing sometimes can be really rewarding in that way. My favorite part was: I'm sure you're told this on a daily basis, Ransom, but you're no more than bizarre, paranoid idiot.
BTW- Paulson was secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush. Boehner is the Republican Speaker of the House.
There are plenty of Democrats who I respect and even like. As far as hate goes, I don’t even hate Obama.
Speaking of hatred though, please answer this question: Why do liberals hate the United States so much?
That's it for this week.
PS- If you friend me on Facebook you get sneak peeks of columns! Act now, because I'll hit the friend limit soon.
The email function at the top of the page is working. So, let the Hate Mail begin!
Twitter http://twitter.com/#!/bamransom -See more top stories from Townhall Finance.
New Homepage, more content. ---Be the best informed fiscal conservative.