Friday, October 5, 2012

Huffington Post Comments, Review Part II

I would like to continue my review of the comment exchanges that I have had at the Huffington Post.

Part I focused on the insults and name calling that has been used.  Part II will look at the responses that I think that I did particularly well.


(In response to Obamacare)

Keep your laws off my body.



Federal law currently prohibits any taxpayer money from funding abortions (Hyde Amendment). No public funds for abortion. Planned Parenthood services funded by taxpayers provide treatment and screening to women and men who otherwise couldn't afford them. You didn't have any idea about that did you? Or you wouldn't have made the claim.


Do you disagree with this:
1. the federal government gives money to Planned Parenthood
2. Planned Parenthood performs abortions

Insulting me is hardly a good way to win an argument. I thought that those of you on the left were "good guys." Do the "good guys" always call their opponents names in lieu of arguments?


Do you think that raising taxes on more than half the citizens of this country will?

A.) improve the economy
B.) cause people (and employers) to spend less and hire less


Let me summarize the issue:

1. government interferes with healthcare
2. prices go up
3. government interferes more, and adds to the deficit, and interferes with personal liberty and freedom
4. (this is my prediction, but it is based on what has happened everywhere else that the government has interfered with healthcare) prices go up more, quality and quantity decline.


Why are those of you on the left so insistent on raising taxes?

If we want to balance the budget more than just the top 1% will need to be taxed more.

Why is it not "responsible" to spend less than you take in?

If you were spending more than you were making, do you

A.) spend less
B.) demand that your employer pay you more
C.) demand that the government give you "free" stuff at someone else's expense


"Under George W. Bush, America experienced the slowest rate of job creation in the postwar period."

...until Obama came along.


Boy, those republicans sound terrible. They must hate everybody.
Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama was elected? 
Is it your suggestion that because I've said a minimum wage is a bad idea that I am in favor of slavery?
If only all of the poor counties of the world knew that the way to increase prosperity was to create a minimum wage!

Think of how wealthy we'd be if the minimum wage was $100 an hour!
Where is it then that I may find those facts and stats? I came here to the Huffington Post in order to better understand the opinions of my political opponents. I am interested in where, specifically, it is those of you on the left get you facts and stats. Any direction would be much appreciated.
Its called a fetus in order to make abortion sound less bad.

At what point does it become a baby? Couldn't reasonable minds disagree?
Do you support partial birth abortion? Aren't they babies then?
The two things that the republicans asked to include were: tort reform and the ability to by insurance across state lines. Neither of those made it into the bill.

And not a single republican voted to turn ACA into law.

If you are going to blame republicans for things that they had no input in or votes for, then you are setting quite a precedent.
The left often accuses the right of using "talking points." Someone on the left saying that someone on the right only heard something because of el Rushbo, sounds an awful lot like a democratic "talking point."  


How could having the government pay for the healthcare of several millions of people reduce the federal budget?

How could adding lots of new bureaucrats to work with the new 2,000 pages of rules reduce the federal budget?
So the republicans, whose party was founded to oppose slavery and who voted in a higher percentage for the civil rights act of 1964, is worse than slaveholders because they want lower tax rates?  


Freedom always fits. How much would you like being told what to do? what job you should have? what you are allowed to eat? etc.

The goal of businesses is not full employment, but rather to make money by providing goods and services that people want to buy. In places where this is not allowed to happen, the people live much more poorly than the places where this is true. 
My logical conclusion is a world where no one, not even the government, controls the lives, or businesses of others. People are free to make their own decisions without interference.

If you can create "a mountain of cash" without an employer, then why are you not doing it for yourself?

It is very difficult to found a successful company. Adding more rules and regulations, and raising taxes does not make it easier for a business owner to grow his business, and hire more people.

We don't need to placate anyone, just leave them alone. and me too. 

If the wealthy do not invest in America, do you think it is because they don't want to make money on their investments? Or is it because we have so many rules, regulations, and taxes that it is difficult for them to make money here than elsewhere?

We can encourage people to invest, and create jobs, here, but taxing them more and drowning them in endless rules is the opposite of encouragement.

Have you seen the comments on this article? Its one after another of name calling and insults.

If you can point to a similar series of name calling coming from a website on the right, then I'd like to see it.

btw, some of the most viewed post on my blog come from the friendly folks on the left calling me names, insulting me, and suggesting that I kill myself. All for making comments like this one and the one you replied to. Last time I talked to someone on the left about politics in person I was called all sorts of names too.

Lots of people say that both sides engage in lots of name calling, but I don't think that is even comparable between the sides.


Those of you on the left sure are happy to use personal attacks rather than actually debate the issues.


Both Bush and Hoover spent and spent and spent just like Keynes said they should, and using the same logic of today's democrats.

"This formula for economic success—cut the national debt, produce a sound currency, and cut taxes—has been drastically violated during the economic stagnation of the last five years. From 2007-2012, the U.S. has sharply increased its national debt, has undermined its currency in part through quantitative easing, and is raising taxes (or trying to raise taxes) and putting stringent regulations on American businesses. Why not do what worked during the Gilded Age? Increase liberty and decrease the size of government." -


I have personally spent thousands of dollars and thousands of hours improving land and growing food and planting trees in order to give the deer on my property more food more cover and a generally better place to live.

May I ask how many trees you have planted? Or the amount of time you have spent trying to improve the habitat of any wild animal?

In exchange for my effort to improve the lives of deer I harvest 2 a year. These deer end life painlessly and provide food for my family and food for the poor when I donate the meat.

May I ask how much food you donated to the poor?

If you think that shooting a deer is easy, then I would suggest that you have never tried it. (Corn doesn't last for weeks in deer country. More like hours. Have you feed the animals near you?)

Harvesting animals is a necessary aspect of life. Animals are born and animals die. They have been for all of humans' existence. They provide food and clothing for us.

Would you ask wolves to not hunt anymore? Would you ask alligators to go vegan?

Hunting is an important part of life. Any day, any time I would be happy to compare my knowledge and compassion for these animals to yours.


I think I understand liberal logic better now:

teachers not teaching = fighting for students

teachers demanding more pay = improving students' lives

poor student performance = not teachers' fault


I would love to see you tell an "average American" that you work harder than that person does.


You would have a point if the education system in America was great. Do we not hear stories every month about how poorly American kids do in reading and math compared to the rest of the world, which spends less and gets better results.

Its not the job of you or I to decide what people in the private sector make. A public employee, however, is getting paid with the tax dollars of the private employees and businesses.

Most states, and the federal government, have not balanced their budgets and have huge amounts of debt. We spend a tremendous amount on education already, and teachers want more, more, more.

If we got more bang for our buck with the dollars we have already spend on education and if the governments would stop their deficit spending and pay off their debt, then you would have a case for spending more on education.

"Over the last four decades, the per-student cost of running our K-12 schools has more than doubled, while our student achievement has remained flat, and other countries have raced ahead. The same pattern holds for higher education. Spending has climbed, but our percentage of college graduates has dropped compared to other countries."


So you [teachers] get summers off, better pay than the average American, better benefits than nearly anyone, and you want more money while most governments have serious budget problems?


This is merely one example, of many, where we have a problem, such as poor education, where the democrats solution is always to spend, spend, spend, and never mind the consequences.

I am not suggesting that this problem does not matter, but this article points out that the teachers in question want more pay without pointing out that the average Chicago teacher makes around $76,000 before benefits.

A sensible idea would be to question why these teachers want more without showing good results from their students. Illinois has budget problems, and rather than help, these teachers want more from the taxpayers.


All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

-Franklin Delano Roosevelt


If all teachers decided not to teach, our nation would crumble.  Argue that...


Since you want to pick which arguments that I can use in defense of my opinion, I will give you two points that argues we would be better off without public education.

Point 1:

"Overall, there were many similarities in the results for the two grades. In both reading and mathematics, analyses employing unadjusted NAEP scores indicated that the average private school mean score was higher than the average public school mean score, and the difference was statistically significant."

Point 2:

Can you name one private school that has had a tragedy such as this (following link) occur in it? This one was last month can you find one that has occurred in a private school, in America, during the last year?

 If I may now move on to the points that I would like to make about public education...

1. the Chicago teachers in particular make around $76,000 per year before benefits more generous than most of us will ever see

2. their salaries come from the taxpayers (that's us)

3. these teachers want even more money and even more benefits while many of the rest of us just want a job (so we can help pay for the teachers)

4. The governments of Chicago, Illinois, and the United States all have huge budget deficits, and unimaginable amounts of debt, from spending too much already

5. Those of us on the right are not trying to demonize teachers, but that does not mean that we should not out when the teachers are wrong.

6. Every time the government tries to "help" it costs more than we were told it would, the "help" does not achieve its stated goals, and there are unforeseen (by the government) side effects.

7. The solution of a problem caused by government always seems to be more government. This has not worked yet. For example, we've had a war on poverty since the '60s. And there are still poor people. We've had a "war on drugs" for decades, and people still use illegal drugs.

8. When countries move from more government to less government the lives of their citizens improve.


Let me try again, and you can tell me if I have put any thought into this one, deal?

The republican's stated positions of lower taxes, less government spending, and fewer laws and regulations affecting our lives is race and gender neutral.

A law saying that the same number of women must be involved in a colleges' sports programs, for example is sexist.

A law saying that not hiring a minority or women because of their race or gender is racist.

A law that keeps the taxes the same for wealthy people is not, in any way, racist or sexist.


Thank you for that helpful and considerate comment.

Would you care to enlighten this dullard, as to why my comment is incorrect?


The republicans will not accomplish their campaign promises, this is true.

However, how did, for example, the president do on his campaign promises?

Is Guantanamo bay closed?

Are the rich taxed more?

Are we out of Afghanistan and Iraq?

Is his a "transparent" presidency?


How is less government spending and a balanced budget freedom only for "white, straight Christian males"?

I will concede that the republicans are anti freedom on the issue of gay marriage.

However, republicans find killing the unborn to be wrong. As for contraception, etc. the republicans merely do not public funding of it. Many don't like the fact that they are forced to pay for things that are morally wrong. Don't you dislike paying taxes towards things that you find morally wrong?

Many, many, many of you who I exchange comments with accuse me of using "talking points". (While using arguments that are exactly the same, from commenter to commenter.) Where is it that you think that I get my talking points from? Could I not have gotten my thoughts from all sorts of places, and not just wherever it is you think that all of us on the right get our "talking points"?

I read more than almost anyone I have ever known on all sorts of subjects. What is it specifically that you would like me to read that would convince me that your positions are the correct ones?

I'll promise to read any book or website that you point me to.

I'll give you a book that makes my side's case in a fun and interesting way: Bourbon for Breakfast by Jeffery A. Tucker.

Read it for free here:

Both parties have added to the debt for more than the last 30 years. By "who added to the debt" do you mean which presidents or which congresses?

Our "handouts," subsidies, bailouts are very similar to what the government did during the great depression. And we have the same results, which are worse than they would have been had the government not interfered.

For evidence of my point I'll direct you to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury. And his quote on the subject of the government spending money in order to "help" the economy:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

-Henry Morganthau, Jr.,_Jr.


Those of us on the right are often accused of not caring about people. But we merely have a different idea for what raises the most people out of poverty and what helps them the most.

Throughout the history of the world the countries that are wealthier because they are more free. When there is a lot of government control people's lives are miserable and millions are killed (see: USSR, Communist China, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, etc.)

When countries move towards more freedom and less government it is amazing to see all of the good things happening to the people.

For example, have a look at an example I just happened across:

By "war on women" do you mean: republicans are opposed to killing unborn people?

Or do you mean: republicans are against government funding for college students' birth control?


I marvel at the fact that you think the republicans are evil and stupid and yet ignore the fact that the democrats are no better.

Why must it be, since I disagree with your opinions, that I have been mislead by the republicans?

Isn't it possible that we have different political viewpoints because you prefer more government and less freedom and I prefer less government and more freedom?

If I am to "ever wake up to their grift", then I doubt that your name calling and insults are the way to convince me. If your goal is to convince me that I am wrong, then I suggest putting forth facts that support your case, rather than calling me names and insulting my intelligence.

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for sharing the post.. parents are worlds best person in each lives of individual..they need or must succeed to sustain needs of the family.