The Cartoon President

John Ransom
|
Posted: Mar 01, 2015 12:01 AM

MaxUrderer wrote: You know what would be even BETTER? If we hadn't invaded a Iraq and destabilized the entire regime in the first place. If we had treated 9/11 as what it WAS, a crime, had caught the perpetrators and brought them to justice, and had left the evil but stabilizing dictator in place as we've done in Saudi Arabia. So no, John, Iraq was neither a "victory" nor a "war". It was a mistake. And it will NEVER be Obama's fault. It'll ALWAYS be Bush's fault. To summarize Conservative sentiment regarding Iraq: "That idiot Obama didn't fix our incredible screw-up the right way". - The Jerk(s) are Pouting

Dear Comrade Udder,

Of course that’s how you look at it.

You’re a liberal. That alone should disqualify you from even having a place at the grown up table.

There is only one field at which liberals suck at as much as they do the economy: That’s everything else.

Saudi Arabia, the last time I looked, has not invaded any of its neighbor states, as Iraq had. The Saudi regime-- as opposed to individual princes-- are allies of the United States. Saddam Hussein was still at war with the United States and, more importantly, the United Nations. It was the United Nation’s failure to act that caused the Bush administration the necessity of invading Iraq in the first place.

United Nations Resolution 1441 authorized us to do whatever we needed to do to get Saddam to comply with the cease-fire terms. The UN is the sole arbiter of the interpretation of 1441, and thus far NOT ONE COUNTRY has challenged the US interpretation of our authority to invade Iraq.

Not Russia, not Iran, not Cuba, not North Korea… none. Not even Obama’s administration.

Oh, some have grandstanded, just like US progressives and liberals, but no one has asked the UN to legally judge the issue.

Why is that? Duh.

And if your theory were right—that stabilization is our goal-- the US would not have toppled Gadhafi in Libya-- under Obama-- nor encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt—under Obama-- or talked tough about taking Assad out in Syria— under Obama--which by the way is the prime reason why Putin is on the rampage in Ukraine. Syria, under Assad, is a key Russian ally that gives Russia bases on the Mediterranean. Nor would Obama be so helpful in getting Iran to become a nuclear power.

Obama has been the most destabilizing influence in the world since the Soviets took power in Russia over 100 years ago.

Face the facts: Obama inherited a stable Iraq and it would still be stable if you jerks hadn’t insisted in taking American troops out by scuttling the Status of Forces agreement.

Bush told us that Bin Laden was largely irrelevant. Obama takes credit for killing him. Glad he’s dead, but: 1) History shows Bush was right about Bin Laden; 2) Obama didn’t fix anything the right way, especially not Iraq or Afghanistan.

Iraq wasn’t broken. It was healing. It is now the seventh year of Obama’s presidency.

At what year do you hold him responsible for anything?

Oh, that’s right. You’re a liberal. You never hold him responsible.

Here’s a good motto for him: “Barack Obama: Not responsible for anything since getting bad grades at Occidental College.”

You’re just pissed because events proved Bush 100% right and you 100% wrong.

Why were Iraqi audiences applauding the American sniper and condemning the terrorists during the film American Sniper that opened in Iraq last week?

Because America was their hope until Obama, Hillary and Kerry screwed them.

This wasn’t Vietnam. The Iraqis wanted us there. Still do.

Now, I’ll admit that too often the Bush administration fought the war poorly.

But eventually they got it right.

And that’s what’s different about Bush and Obama psychologically.

Bush allowed the presidency to transform him into a man who is presidential.

Obama has allowed the presidency to transform him into a cartoon.

Taft wrote: The consensus of this thread seems to be, yes, of course Ransom is retarded, but we don't like liberals. Wouldn't it be easier to just say we hate liberals more than the terrorists like AQ, and we'd rather have our cartoonists murdered than put up with progressives? - Liberals, Islamists Take Same Stand on Free Speech

Dear Comrade Taft,

And you call me retarded?

BuzzLOL wrote: That 1/3 of 1% interest yearly on my savings account really adds up fast... NOT! Doesn't even begin to keep up with yearly inflation... - Obama Wants to Tax Your Savings...Really

Dear Buzz,

Think about it like this: It’s a better deal than Social Security right now. But Social Security is sacred. There has to be a better deal for Americans.

jdmeth123b wrote: Most people, myself included, do not have any savings. It's hard for us to sympathize. Sometimes working nights and weekends only makes you a stranger to your family. - Obama Wants to Tax Your Savings...Really

Dear Comrade Meth,

You expect others to have sympathy for you because you have no life savings? Sympathy goes both ways. If you think that it’s right to punish people because they have been successful savers, then you have other problems.

People who save that kind of money make sacrifices. I work holidays and weekends because it is my job. I got up on a Sunday morning at 5am and I write this at the airport so I can take a flight home after working on Saturday. And I don’t have the kind of retirement money that Obama wants to tax into oblivion.

But it’s not just retirement money that Obama wants to tax. It’s also money from college education plans. And corporate profits. And medical devices. And people’s death. And…and... and.

It never ends with him.

Here’s why it matters to you personally: Where do you think the money comes from to employ you? It comes from savings and from profits.

Were it not for the excess return going to investors you wouldn’t have a job.

That’s not rhetoric, but reality.

Jim4440 wrote: OMG, John….from the frying pan into the fire. You really mean Castle Rock to the PRK (People's Republic of Kalifornia) is a good thing…and you've gone and done it? - Progressives Want to Track (and Tax) Your Cars Too...Really

Dear Jim,

Yep. You march to the sound of the guns.

But hey I got a three-bedroom schooner on the ocean. Don’t cry for me Castle Rock. In large part I am stateless.

You still have to deal with the People’s Republic of Denver… and GOP chair Ryan Call and his body double, Dick Wadamth.

apzzyk12 wrote: One of the reasons that the Highway Trust funds fall short of meeting the requirements for these duties to keep the public safe is, in part, because electric, hybrid, and natural gas fueled vehicles do not pay their share of the money necessary to do this construction which creates jobs. Since CO has so many miles of mountain highways, which cost more than highways in TX to build and maintain, it needs more money per mile to do this. The last stage of the Interstate Highway system was the part through Glenwood Canyon and it cost more per mile than any other portion of the system. CO does not have a highway spending problem - on mountain roads a pothole can be very deadly, to repair it may cost a couple of hundred, but that is cheaper than a funeral.. - Progressives Want to Track (and Tax) Your Cars Too...Really

Dear Comrade Putz,

Why does the US fund these programs to begin with?

Remember is was highway trust fund money that they used to control speed limits for a decade until Reagan put an end to it.

We heard about what a great Holocaust it would create when the speed limit was raised. In fact it has driven innovation.

Cars are safer today, and technology allows companies to control costs better.

If you complain that Glenwood Canyon is very expensive to highway and Colorado doesn’t have money for it, then it’s largely a matter of priorities. For example the feds are spending $92 million to extend light rail farther into Lone Tree. Lone Tree is a community of 12,000 contained in five square miles, which already generates $36 million in taxes as of 2012. That’s almost as much as the state collects per capita.

The city uses Hummers as police cruisers and PT Cruisers as city cars.

Colorado, and every government, has priority problems not revenue problems.

It they can’t figure out how to pay for highways while offering free education to people who don’t live there legally, blame them not the mountains.Elucidated2 wrote: Remember when this website said that Obama was the worst President in US history? That's going to be a tough sell now. And it's also going to be tough sell during the Presidential debates when GOP candidates are desperate to show how bad things are and then share their original ideas for change. Unless the GOP can get 34% of latinos and 50% of single women, they are not going to like the results. - Obama Beyond the Pale

Dear Comrade Delusional,

We still say that Obama is the worst president ever. And we are right about it.

No one, not anyone, who can think, actually believes that unemployment and the economy is better. The employment picture has brightened thanks to lower oil prices, but the data seems to indicate that the trend has run its course. October came in at 221,000 jobs, November at 423,000, December at 329,000 and January at 257,000. News flash, unemployment went up in January, not down.

One in six males is STILL unemployed in the United States.

Any positives in the economy are largely despite Obama, not because of him.

Plus if things are so great, why are people so unhappy-- with Democrats unhappiest of all?

You guys are always bitching about how bad things are for everyone.

I thought the poor were poorer and the rich were richer? You can’t have it both ways.

Face it: He’s had six years to fix it if he was really interested.

But here’s a question: Would you support legislation that would limit the amount of money that Obama or any other president can make after he leaves office?

I mean really? How much is enough for Obama?

dosborne wrote: YAWN.... Another Ransom diatribe.
You know... The war on terror would be over if.....
Ransom and others like him would put just HALF as much
effort into condemning terrorists as they do in trying to spin
things like this into attacks on Obama and members of his
administration. But that will never happen.
- The Policy Equivalent of Ebola: It's Stupid Foreign Policy, Stupid

Dear DipStick,

Oh, now here’s something I have never heard before: “The War on Terror would be over if Republicans, like Ransom, would condemn terrorists more often.”

How about you get your president to condemn the terrorists even once?How about you get Obama to stop saying that today’s Jihadi is yesterday’s Christian.

Because you know what? It’s not true.

For every terror Christians committed during the Crusades, there was an equal or worse one committed in the name of Islam.

Christianity is the MOST civilizing influence in the history of the world. The history of Islam is one of unbridled murder and slavery.

I don’t know what books that you or Obama read, but I know they have a lot of pictures of the kind you color yourself.

That's it for this week,

V/r,

JR