MSNBC Legal Analyst Says It's Dangerous to Peddle This Theory About the Trump...
Dem Rep Cites Phantom Poll Showing Biden Winning Re-election and Dems Retaking the...
What This Dem Communications Director Tweeted Explains Why Trump Can Stick Around
RFK Jr. Blasts His Exclusion From Debate As a 'Clear Violation of Federal...
Missouri AG Announces He's Suing New York Over 'Unconstitutional Lawfare' Against Trump
Republican Senators Grill Biden's Judicial Nominee
Here's What Stands Out About the Reactions From NJ Politicians to Norcross Indictment
Trump Outraises Biden for May
Thousands of Illegal Aliens From This ISIS ‘Hotbed’ Have Entered the U.S. Illegally
Biden Takes a National Polling Lead for the First Time in 2024...or Does...
Two Illegal Aliens Arrested in Connection With Murder of 12-Year-Old Girl in Texas
Trump Reaches Out to Mother of Rachel Morin. Guess Who She Hasn't Heard...
We Cannot Afford to Further Delay the Next Generation Air Dominance Fighter
Help Me, Bob Iger. You're My Only Hope.
The Narcissistic Left

Obama Giveth, Obama Gets Crushed

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of

Swift Boat Captn wrote: And things were so great before Obama took over. Let's go back to the Chimp's economy that he started by turning surpluses into deficits then finished by losing 800,000 jobs per month and Wall Street on the brink of extinction. - This Won’t End End Well: Obama Giveth X and Taketh Away 7.6 Percent More


Dear Comrade Kerry,

In February 2007, when the terrible, evil George W. Bush was president, there were 2,427,000 more jobs than there are today.

In February 2007, when the terrible, evil George W. Bush was president, there were 5,167,000 fewer unemployed.

There’s more money in the system, going to fewer people than ever before.

The average American can’t afford to buy a new car now. Thanks GM/Obama.

The average American is watching as home prices climb for rich Americans, but stagnate for everyone else.

Top tier homes are selling- and have been selling since Obama became pope- outpacing middle tier and lower tier homes.

The rest of us have to make due with home prices that equal those seen in 1894…That’s 1894…not, 1994.

“Whether real or manufactured by record-low foreclosures, bank supply withdrawals, and fed-subsidized cash REO-to-rent trades,” writes Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge, “the sad truth is that jobs (and the GDP-enhancing multiplier effect that they create) are just not coming. Even Bob Shiller prefers the potential for 4% gains in stocks over housing risk in the medium-term as he points out that - inflation-adjusted - house prices are back at levels first seen in 1894... now that is a long-term investor. “

And just because the Dow’s making new highs, you think everything is wonderful. What happened to Occupy Wall Street?

This is a system that was deliberately crafted by your buddy BHO.

Congrats Comrade Kerry!

You’re right: In America, you in particular, have a right to be stupid.

Doctor Roy wrote: Well I'd say it's just par for the course. I mean just take a look at the shenanigans that took place when Dubya made all his money. I recommend perusing one of Molly Ivins books on the subject. Man, she documented it all. Especially the Texas Rangers deal. - A Vulture Capitalist Cashes in on Failure

Dear Comrade Doctor,

Yes, this is the standard response that you give when anyone points out that your heroes don’t quite live up to the ideals that they supposedly embody: “Everyone does it.”

Spoken like the true union stooge that you are.

Stealing is OK as long as each side gets their cut.

I’m not sure what political point that you are trying to make is, but I’m of the opinion that self-dealing amongst our political class is the worst of all possible crimes. It’s the thing that has done the most to undermine the credibility of our American system in the last two decades.

Take, for example, Obama’s real estate deal with Tony Rezko.

Obama was paid off on a real estate deal by Illinois fundraiser Tony Rezko, even though Rezko was already facing indictment for political corruption.

The deal only happened because Obama was a United States Senator at the time. As Obama told the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board when he threw himself on their mercy saying it was a “bone-head” mistake, he was already having a hard time buying the house without the cash sweetener that Rezko brought to the table.

Obama knew that Rezko was bad news, but he did the deal anyway knowing: 1) the hometown paper would give him a break, slapping him for poor judgment but not veniality; 2) the “party of the people,” the Democrats, instead of holding their own to high standards decided a long time ago that they would hold their leaders to no standards at all, thinking it the same thing.

Morals and ethics and such are just for us little people.

Harry Reid never spent a day working for anyone but the government but yet has an estimated net worth of between $3 million and $6 million.

And that’s not all.

As Senate Majority Leader, Reid dumped his holdings in energy companies in 2008, right before the energy market crashed and bought healthcare stocks with the proceeds. Within 6 months Reid was heavily involved in re-writing healthcare laws.

You want to get the money out of politics? Then get politicians out of the business of regulating everything.

Living under different laws than the rest of us is so ingrained in our national leadership, that it seems they hardly give it a second thought.

“The present era of incredible rottenness is not Democratic,” wrote Mark Twain, “it is not Republican, it is national.”

And that’s the paradox that all of us must grapple with seriously if we wish to preserve both our free markets and our free people.

Donald6189 wrote: Sort of, but not quite on topic, just wondering if anyone has come up with a tshirt with the caption "The government went on Sequestration and all I got was this lousy economy!"? Sort of fits with the topic just not completely. - This Jobs Report Not Actual Size

Dear Comrade Don,

Actually it doesn’t fit with the topic, nor is it correct. It’s not even funny.


The economy was lousy before sequestration. Sequestration is aimed at improving the economy even though the politicians would have you believe otherwise.

The only problem I have with sequestration is that it didn’t start a long time ago and it isn’t big enough.

As Mark Twain once observed of his misshapen theatrical production Ah Sin:

When this play was originally completed it was so long, and so wide and so deep--in places--and so comprehensive that it would have taken two weeks to play it…. [B]ut the manager said no, that wouldn't do; to play two weeks was sure to get us into trouble with the Government, because the Constitution of the United States says you sha'n't inflict cruel and unusual punishments. So he set to work to cut it down….I never saw a play improve as this one did. The more he cut out of it the better it got right along. He cut out, and cut out, and cut out; and I do believe this would be one of the best plays in the world to-day if his strength had held out, and he could have gone on and cut out the rest of it.

If Congress just had just half of the strength of that theater manager, I’d feel less cruel and unusual toward the government.

Half of sequester is aimed at money that is an increase in spending over what we are spending today rather than true cuts.

As Larry Kudlow explains:

For example, the $85 billion so-called spending cut is actually budget authority, not budget outlays. According to the CBO, budget outlays will come down by $44 billion, or one quarter of 1 percent of GDP (GDP is $15.8 trillion). What’s more, that $44 billion outlay reduction is only 1.25 percent of the $3.6 trillion government budget.

So the actual outlay reduction is only half the budget-authority savings. The rest of it will spend out in the years ahead -- that is, if Congress doesn’t tamper with it.

When I was growing up, I was taught by Keynesian economists that government could borrow about three percent of GDP to sustain the economy in bad times- otherwise borrowings would have a crowding-out effect in capital markets, leaving the private economy to compete with the government.

Assuming a $16 trillion in 2013, even 1970s Keynesians would have to admit that we overshot the mark by double.

But even so, let’s say that the crowding out in capital markets out wasn’t happening. The question then becomes should the government account for 40 percent of our GDP?

Heck. And. No.

Government spending doesn’t not deliver the return on capital that private investment does. When it accounts for such a large part of our economy, you’ll get poor GDP growth mostly.

That’s why I was deliberate in using the phrases “government spending” versus “private investment.”

Government does not invest; it spends.

Government does not say, “Let’s take a trillion dollars and make it turn into five trillion dollars worth of value.” If they did, you wouldn’t have guys like Obama making the case that tax rates should go up based on “fairness,” while admitting that higher tax rates will lower government revenue.

That would be like a computer company arguing that, yes, profits will go down on computer sales, but prices must be lowered based on “fairness.” Government instead says, “Let’s spend a trillion dollars on highways, because construction contractors need the work and that money will come back from construction contractors to fund political campaigns.”

The return on capital to the overall economy is both incidental and accidental when government spends money.

Private investment, in contrast does spending money- even political donations- with a return in mind. That’s why we call it investment.

Here’s an idea even liberals will probably misunderstand: Intention has a direct effect on outcome, by and large. If a society invests with the idea of profit, a society- or economy- will enjoy larger profits than a society that spends money with the intention of taking care of political friends and allies- which is what government is all about.

But it’s not just the deleterious effect that large government spending has on the economy to which I object.

A government that controls your mortgage, your student loan, your car loan, your retirement savings, your healthcare, your right to own property and to defend your liberties- with a gun if necessary- is a government that owns your liberty and just rents it back to you for a while at election time.

adendulk wrote: Well John ; as you write so brlliantly about all the negative points then with your self proclaimed genias status it would be easy for you to come up with a solution that all of us would and could be happy with Or are you like all the other nay sayers just possed of because the economy is slowly recovering, which is by the way the best way. - This Won’t End End Well: Obama Giveth X and Taketh Away 7.6 Percent More


Dear Comrade Ulk,

Thanks so much for the creative spelling, punctuation and sentence construction.

Obama’s problem- if we take him at his word, which is always dangerous- is that he’s president, not emperor.

Personally, I’m confident that if I were president for just one year, we’d have one of the most robust economies, not just in the world, but also in our history.

The economic problems that we face aren’t unsolvable and neither are the political problems that we face.

Smarter regulation of the financial services sector is paramount, combined with developing our domestic energy resources. New technologies in old energy sources that allow us to “sequester” carbon, develop domestic stocks and innovate will quickly turn us into an energy powerhouse worldwide.

“The use of new drilling techniques to tap oil and gas in shale rocks far underground helped add 158,000 new oil and gas jobs over the past five years,” writes the Wall Street Journal “and economists think that it has created even more jobs in companies supplying the energy industry and in the broader services industry.”

“This is probably the biggest stimulus we have going,” Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research told the WSJ.

According to the Journal “$145 billion will be spent drilling and completing wells this year, up from $13 billion in 2000.”

While it’s estimated that Canada may have as much as 2 trillion barrels of oil in reserves, “the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the [US] has 4.3 trillion barrels of in-place oil shale resources centered in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, said Helen Hankins, Colorado director for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management” according to the Associated Press.

4.3 trillion barrels is 16 times the reserves of Saudi Arabia, or enough oil to supply the US for 600 years.

As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the green economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse. It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.

The only thing left then for those bitter climate clingers would be the shoddy science of Global Something-or-Another.

Oil from tar sands, reports the BBC on the Keystone decision, “is so plentiful that full-scale development would seriously delay the transition to low-carbon alternative fuels,” which is the holy grail of the left. And along the way, the U.S. would create at least 10 million new U.S. jobs, keeping around $500 billion per year here at home. Over twenty years that would be an additional $12.5 trillion in GDP even at a modest 2 percent growth rate. At 4 percent the numbers are closer to $15.5 trillion.

And that’s just what I would do for our energy economy.

Think: Best. President. Ever.

M.Hillinger__aka__QR wrote: "So 3.6 percent wage decrease plus 4 percent less savings…carry the two, divide the whole number…is… 7.6 percent less for you!" No it's not. Just because I didn't save it doesn't mean I didn't receive it. If I get I 10 dollars but see a 3.6 % (36 cent) decrease, I now get $9.64. Whether I choose to save 4% less of it (about 39 cents) or not has nothing to do with how much I originally received--it is still 3.6% less--not 7.6%. - This Won’t End End Well: Obama Giveth X and Taketh Away 7.6 Percent More

Dear Comrade Mikey,

Actually your math is waaaaay off.

It’s not your fault. You screwed up; you’re a liberal. You’re probably a product of public education, Catholic guilt, or protestant gilt.

I played a trick on you and you fell for it.

Of course 4 percent less savings plus 3.6 percent lower wages doesn’t equal 7.6 percent less. It equals a lot less than that, actually.

Someone who is 35 years old with an average salary of $50,000 per year would be saving about $2,000 per year with that extra four percent. Assuming a 6 percent rate of return, that four percent would turn into about $160,000 by age 65, which is a net of $100,000. If you stretch out the investment time horizon to 75 years of age, the amount doubles to $320,000.

Like most liberals you have a problem with both math and common sense. You really think that the government needs the money more than people who need to save for retirement.


Only a cow-pated idiot liberal would do math as you do, then think to lecture someone who is merely being funny.

I’ll tell you what‘s not funny, though. Your BFF, Obama, just stole $220,000 from people who will want to retire in 30 years. He stole it to support his government spending “habit.”

Get help before you force us all to rock bottom.

Catball wrote: Can anybody out there tell me the difference between the tea party and the taliban. No this is not a joke. Seriously, the tea party wants to destroy the american government. The t-party crew walked into a church and killed a doctor because they like what he was doing. That was in Wichita,KS. The t-party does want to dismantle our government. They don't want women to have any rights. M. Bachmann said you should be submissive and do whatever they want you to do. They want rich white men & women to take over the country. They don't care if our kids have good schools and they hate unions because they give the money to people that need it. They believe blacks and mexicans should all be locked up. They think standing around holding their machine guns is cool while babbling about the bible. -Sequester-Sized Government Waste Can Go First

Dear Comrade Catball,

The difference between the Taliban and the Tea Party is that the Tea Party believes in constitutional government as expressed in the United States Constitution. The Taliban believes in Sharia law as expressed in the Quran and Shunna, or the life of the prophet Muhammad.

The Tea Party supports your right to be let alone, the Taliban wants to make it a capital crime for you to fly a kite.

As to George Tiller’s death in Wichita, KS, I can’t find any material that supports your notion that Scott Roeder, the man who killed Tiller, was a Tea Party member. Instead, he is an avowed prolife activist who thinks that abortion is a crime. He got life in prison with no parole.

You seem to be arguing that Michele Bachmann, arguably one of the more influential women in the US- by virtue of her role in congress- is saying that women should be subordinate to men. I think her actions say otherwise. She did run for president after all...against a bunch of men.

I'm sorry. I had trouble typing that last line because I had to reload my semi-automatic weapon that I use to change the channels on cable TV.

The rest of your rant is too stupid to be addressed seriously.

Proverbs 26:28 “A lying tongue hates the truth

DuaneUrban wrote: Hi John, how do we fix this mess we are in? - Sequester-Sized Government Waste Can Go First

Dear Comrade Urban,

If were running for office, I would propose:

1) Impose term limits on Congress.

2) Enact a single-subject rule in Congress to prevent pork barrel spending from being inserted into bills, say, on disaster relief.

3) Limit all legislation to 100 pages.

4) Enact a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

5) Scrap the current tax code in favor of a flat tax or fair tax.

6) Allow no bills be introduced unless they qualified under the 10th Amendment as powers specifically reserved for the federal government.

Carl469 wrote: Lumping in Al Sharpton and John Boehner together as "liberals?" Maybe John Ransom qualifies as the idiot here. - Another Reason Ezra Klein is an Idiot

Dear Comrade 469,

John Boehner helped Obama get his tax increases through congress. If that doesn’t qualify as a liberal, Boehner sure did a pretty good imitation of it.

Here’s the thing: After campaigning for two years as dead-set against tax increases, it’s a little much for Boehner to change his mind within hours of the general election tally to decide that tax increases are OK.

The problem with party politics is that both parties really stand for the same things right now. Until the GOP offers more than just cosmetic differences, the conservative base won’t take them seriously.

twfox wrote: Jan. 24,2013 - Bobby Jindal urges the GOP to "stop being the stupid party"---hmmmm. And now you knuckle draggers want to call the Presidents supporters stupid? Good luck with that! - The Big, Big Government Push

Dear Comrade Fox,

You apparently don’t know the context in which Jindal was talking about “stop being the stupid party.”

What Jindal is referring to are the candidates who made bizarre comments during the election, like Todd Akin the Missouri Republican, who said this about the odds of getting pregnant from rape: “From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Ok, whatever Todd.

But it’s not like the GOP has monopoly on: 1) Supporters saying stupid things about the other side on message boards; or 2) Elected officials or candidates who make dumb comments.


Witness for example Colorado State Rep Joe Salazar who said that women shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns on college campuses because they might shoot someone in the confusion about whether they were being raped or not: "And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped,” said Salazarin a debate in the House on restricting a woman’s right to choose to be armed, “or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop ... pop a round at somebody."

Or let’s take Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. who just admitted that he lived for years off of his campaign money despite the fact that he and his wife make over $250,000 a year.

“For years I lived off my campaign,” Jackson said at his sentencing for fraud, according to a report by the New York Times. “I used money I shouldn’t have used for personal purposes.”

I’d rather be Todd Akin than Jesse Jackson Jr.

bitoubush wrote: So why aren't Repubs all over the sequester wanting to take credit for it. It is a big part of their wet dreams. They should be all over it like fleas on a dog. - Unemployment Claims Up, but it’s Sunshine for Maddow Blogger-Producer

Dear Comrade It’s-All-Bush’s-Fault,

Most Republicans are OK with sequester. Just because John Boehner choose to shed tears about it in the Wall Street Journal, doesn’t mean the rest of us are all broken up over it. Boehner cries about everything.

The point is that it’s not the smartest way to cut spending, but at least it’s a cut in spending.

Better to be a crier than a liar.

Because it still was Obama’s idea to use sequester.

Obama can’t even take responsibility for stuff even he acknowledges that he proposed. He spent most of the last two years saying we had to cut spending, but now…um…oops…never mind.

Like most things in his life, Obama wants to be able to make up the rules as he goes along. And now that he’s done campaigning, he can go back to being the bumbling, arrogant, Barney Fife president that he was before GOP Speaker John Boehner gave Obama the winning lotto ticket to tax the heck out of us in November.

Truth001 wrote: Mr. Ransom, Since you were so quick to discredit Steve Benen I thought I would do a little background check on your resume. I’m not sure the relevance of once being a sports writer to become the Town Hall guru on finance. I could not find any degrees you hold in business or finance. I looked for something in your background that would lead me to believe you came up through the school of hard knocks. I found nothing. I realize you’re a conservative opinions guy and not an expert on the subject of Business and Finance. So if you’re going to sound credible stick to the facts. The U6 trend line has never been a line used by any administration. The real U6 numbers average 14% in 2012 not 23% By the way 2003 it was 10%. - Unemployment Claims Up, but it’s Sunshine for Maddow Blogger-Producer

Dear Comrade Pravada,

Like any true liberal I see that your idea of “research” consisted mostly of- only?- consulting Wikipedia.

True, I was a sportswriter- that’s how I broke into writing- and I’m still proud to be a member of the Football Writers Association- I’m also a member of the Naval Intelligence Professionals. But had you consulted a host of biographical data available-like this website- you would know a few other things about me.

As I told another reader, genetically speaking, I’m an exact copy of both Koch Brothers. We wouldn’t want that to get around. So I’m keeping those records in the same fireproof box that the Obama administration keeps his original birth certificate and his college transcripts.

Before joining Townhall, I was both a political consultant and a writer. I wrote mostly about the stock market. My father was a banker. His father was a banker.

Starting in 1994, I followed in my family’s tradition and I worked as an investment executive to several NYSE-member investment firms. I was also a recruiter for one of the largest independent contractor broker-dealers in the country. I co-founded a small boutique investment firm, which was sold eventually for a nice profit- and I worked for a merchant banker.

I’ve filed 10Ks and 10Qs for public companies, and conducted a hostile takeover of a bank; I rescued a federally-insured financial institution- using NO taxpayer money- by helping to raise private money.

For years, I’ve worked as a consultant to a number of businesses in Colorado on business plans, marketing, and acquisitions.

I don’t have an advanced degree in anything. I studied Russian Language and Literature at the University of Maryland and am, somewhat, working on a Master’s degree in Writing- when I have time, which I have had rarely in a few years.


I also like camping in the mountains, horses, cognac and fishing. I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.

Your point about U6 not being used by any other administration would be salient if Obama didn’t own the record for the worst jobs record of ANY “recovery,” since World War II. But as I mentioned in the article, Obama has dragged out his non-job creation plan so long that the normal methods by which one would measure economic recovery don’t apply anymore.

You either didn’t read what I wrote or you didn’t understand it.

U6, as I said, has been stuck around 14.5ish this year. When you add in the people who have dropped out of the workforce to U6 you get unemployment of about 23 percent.

Nice try though.

bitoubush wrote: About this growth model that Ransom relies on. Seems to me, an economy that has to rely on growth year after year (compounding no less) may have some fatal flaws. In fifty, sixty, seventy years what does GDP need to be to support our economy. GDP today stands at roughly 16 trillion, with an annual growth rate of just 3%, in fifty years we would need to have GDP of somewhere in the vicinity of 70,000 trillion in today's dollars, adding inflation at 2% per year would add another 110 trillion, rounding it out to a whopping 180,000 trillion. - Obama’s "Really Stupid, Stupid, Stupid Sequester"

Dear Comrade What-About-Bush,

Ha! That’s really one of the funniest things I ever read.

Is that YOU Mr. Obama?

EVERY economy relies on a “growth model.” Duh.

Come on.

That’s why the Bureau of Economic Analysis releases quarterly reports on GDP growth rates and why economic recession, depression and expansion are expressed in GDP growth.

Geez. You’re so dumb you could work for Obama.

“About this growth model that Ransom relies on. Seems to me, an economy that has to rely on growth year after year (compounding no less) may have some fatal flaws.”

Ha, ha, ha.

Actually, you might be Obama.

Here’s the math for you: At a 1.5 percent GDP growth rate, our GDP will grow from an estimated $15.2 trillion (in 2000 dollars) in 2012 to $42.5 trillion in 70 years. At 3.5 percent growth the GDP would grow to $163.2 trillion.

In nominal dollars our GDP in 1950 was $293.7 billion versus an estimated $15.2 trillion today.

OK, so what did you want to know about economic growth?

KParwrote: I'll admit, back in the 70's, when the LameStream Press began to hyperventilate about Global Cooling, and the Impending Ice Age, I bit. A decade later, when THE SAME PEOPLE started screeching about Global Warming and The Rise Of The Oceans, it was more a case of "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me"- Asteroids, Polar Bear Cannibalism Lead to Global Warming, or, uh, Something Bad

Dear KPar,

Oh, you didn’t hear the latest settled science.

Seriously, I’m not making this up: The Obama administration appointed a panel of experts to look at global warming. And guess what they found?

They found that were it not for man-caused global warming, the next ice age, which every liberal was predicting, would be starting sometime in the next 1,500 years.

Reports CNSNews:

“Scientists continue to study this issue today; the latest information suggests that, if the Earth’s climate were being controlled primarily by natural factors, the next glaciation would begin sometime in the next 1,500 years,” says the report. “However, humans have so altered the composition of the atmosphere that the next glaciation has now been delayed indefinitely.”

The report even mentioned the theories in the 1970s about the next ice age.

“Confirmation of what are called Milankovich cycles (cyclical changes in the Earth’s orbit that explain the onset and ending of ice ages) led a few scientists in the 1970s to suggest that the current warm interglacial period might be ending soon, plunging the Earth into a new ice age over the next few centuries,” the advisory committee said in a draft report released last month.

Even when liberals are wrong, they are right.

This report will be used to “de-bunk” conservatives who point out that previous global climate predictions have been wrong.

Ken5061 wrote: I still do not know whether you think they are talking about the shale oil deposits in the Rockies or about some other shale oil deposits I have heard mentioned. They could be combining the size of the deposits in the Rockies with the technology to reclaim shale oil some place else. They could not do it the last I heard. No way to recover shale oil in the Rockies had been found. Has that changed?

What exactly are you right about Ransom? You have said nothing about the environmental impact of fracking. You've put forth economic arguments. You clearly do not have the slightest comprehension of environmentalism- Report: Frickin’ Fracking Could Ruin Everything for Leftist Activists


Dear Comrade Number 5061,

Yes, the estimates include shale production in the Green River formation. And no, you’re wrong. The only reason why shale oil in the Rockies isn’t extracted in industrial quantities is because the Obama administration and the enviro-whackos are preventing it.

Economic arguments are the ONLY arguments that matter. Real environmental arguments areeconomic arguments.

You clearly have not the slightest idea of environmentalism either.

You think that environmentalism is about hugging polar bears and living in harmony with nature.

I live in the Rockies. I care about the environment. One of the great things about living in the west is the beauty of it. That’s what supports property values here. Who wants to destroy that?

No one actually.

But who wants to continue to give money to religious and secular dictatorships?

Only intolerant, myopic, arrogant liberals.

DoctorRoy wrote: John I'm curious as to why you or one of your minions took down the link that I posted this morning to Taibbi's article in Rolling Stone about the sleazy practices in the banking racket er I mean industry. I would think you'd want to spread the word that Obama's Justice Dept. is refusing to prosecute these charlatans. Did you consider it off topic, untrue, or too close to the truth?- Report: Frickin’ Fracking Could Ruin Everything for Leftist Activists

Dear Comrade Doctor,

You’re on to me now.

I was worried that the latest issue of a Rolling Stone article posted by a union stooge that bashed the banking industry would somehow ignite a firestorm of controversy. Next we’d have a kind of Arab Spring of people fill up Wall Street demanding that loans not have to re-paid. You’d call it something completely “stoopid” like Occupy Wall Street. Your protestors would largely be made up of left wing jerk-offs who would defecate on cop cars, in parks and on each other. When finally removed from polite society, they’d leave behind tons of garbage, rampant diseases and a history of idiocy, violence and rape.

You of all people should be glad it was deleted.

By the way, my dad was a banker and so was my grandfather.

Both were Democrats, and both would disavow Barack Obama.

Repnextdoor wrote:


Obamacare is being phased in.

It is not completely operational, yet.

A rather light-weighted attack on the president.

Try harder.

It is just that easy.

-Riddle Me This Obama: If Healthcare Costs are Our Problem, What Was Obamacare About?

Dear Comrade NextDoor,

It will be obvious, but I really know nothing about poetry. Was that a haiku?


“I find no meaning

In what you say on this page


Repnextdoor also wrote:

Now, John,

In all honesty, the President never said that healthcare was the only problem confronting our economy or our country.

Do you remember what started the recession?

Republican'ts have such selective memories.

It is just that easy.

-Riddle Me This Obama: If Healthcare Costs are Our Problem, What Was Obamacare About?

Dear Comrade Refrigerator,

Rebulican’ts! Ha!

Man that’s almost as funny as your lame haiku.

Just for future reference haikus have 5 syllables, 7 syllables, then 5 again.

What started the recession was the government’s creation of a large housing bubble through artificially low interest rates and government guarantees on home mortgages.

I remember.

You never knew. Still don’t.

That’s it for this week,



Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos