Obama Strategy Relies on Voter Suppression of Common Sense

John Ransom
Posted: Oct 28, 2012 12:01 AM

Cartoon wrote: Republican=Corporatist=Eviloution, period. The savings and loan 80's meltdown was the direct result of their deregulation. [Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum]. - Liberals Find out Women Aren’t Amused

Dear Comrade Cartoon,

Flagged as spam and removed. Thanks though for all your work going to naught.

Hey, wait. You must be a cabinet secretary in the Obama administration.

Off Topic? Check.

Don’t have any facts? Check.

Arguing about issues that don’t exist? Check.

Re-writing Reagan? Check.

Definitely an Obamatron.   

Nancy57 wrote: I think I love you John Ransom! As one of those women, who formed a very small corporation some years ago that has steadily employed 4 people for the last 20 years on behalf of women everywhere I thank you!­ - Liberals Find out Women Aren’t Amused

Dear Nancy,

On behalf of everyone, everywhere, we thank you for taking the risk of starting your own business.

You must be one of those evil rich people I keep hearing about who diabolically plotted to give people jobs in an insane attempt to make you and your family’s life better.

Don’t you know that rewards are only supposed to go to insiders like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

So how does a guy like Harry Reid, who has been in government positions since the 1970’s, become a multimillionaire?

True story: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dumped his holdings in energy companies in the fall of 2008, right before the energy market crashed, and he bought healthcare stocks with the proceeds, right before Obama was elected president. Within 6 months Reid was heavily involved in re-writing healthcare laws.

How does a Senator call the top of the market in energy? 

It’s true that Reid and company  now have to report their trades, but if you engaged in investment practices like that they’d put you in jail.

So bravo to you, Nancy, for making it DESPITE the best attempts by Reid, Obama and Elizabeth Warren to free-load on your success.

Robert824 wrote: The GOP may not be hostile to women, but they certainly are appallingly hostile to WOMEN'S RIGHTS! - Liberals Find out Women Aren’t Amused

Dear Comrade 824,

The last time I checked the women in the Obama administration made less then the men.

Before you all propose laws to the address inequality that you liberals perpetuate privately, maybe you should take some time to remove the plank from your own eye.

There is no law telling Obama that he has to pay women less than men. So why does he do it?   

And in what way does the GOP deny women’s rights?

Bring an actual fact to the discussion.

Name an example, besides killing babies, where the GOP is somehow violating the rights of women. Because yes, I agree that the GOP does a better job sticking up for a baby’s constitutional right to life.

But come take a look at the women who make up the GOP. These women won’t be denied anything constitutional.

Inequality? Yeah. We got Sarah and you got Nancy. We got Condoleezza Rice and you got Wasserman-Schultz.

That’s the only way that the GOP is unequal when it comes to women. 

On that I’ll rest my case.         

Yachtsman388 wrote: I've got news for you Rancid, Obama didn't create the Republican War on Women. The conservatards did that all by themselves. The conservatard long term strategy is to suppress the vote. Fooling stupid people and stealing elections is the only chance they have. - Liberals Find out Women Aren’t Amused

Dear Comrade Admiral 388,

No. Obama didn’t create the War on Women. He fantasized about it. Because in all actuality it doesn’t exist. That’s why the gender gap is disappearing. And the more Obama talks the War on Women the more women will catch on to the fraud.

The liberal strategy has been to suppress common sense. But that can only work for so long in what is a still a free society.

On November 6th I expect that the fullest expression of freedom will be set loose as Obama is voted out of office by much larger margins than he came in.

Chris in Kalifornia wrote: Latest liberal ad for Obama degrades women by comparing a girl's first time voting for Barack Obama with her first time she has sex. She says she goes into the voting booth a girl and comes out a woman. I find that disgusting, don't you? - The Obama Story: A Time-Limited, Scope-Limited, Kinetic Political Activity


At least they are now showing the full contempt that they have for the rest of us.

But they are right in this way: Whether in losing your virginity or voting for Obama, either way afterward you know you’ve been screwed.

JustMC wrote: All due respect, the wars (and our interventionist foreign policy) drive up the price of oil. Oil is fungible and sold on a completely global market. (We buy very little directly from the Middle East btw.) Even when the middle east has tried to keep oil from us it has failed miserably. They sell us oil even when we're fighting with them. And their hatred of us stems from our intervention over there. Ever been in a board of directors meeting when someone said "last quarter was terrible, we have to get this war going again?" I have. - The Obama Story: A Time-Limited, Scope-Limited, Kinetic Political Activity

Dear Comrade MC,

OK. I’ll bite. What’s the name of the company and the name of the director who said that? Come on big man, if you are a man, you can’t throw that out there without giving us specifics.

We’re you a member of this board? Was this a public company or a private company? If it’s a private company you must have been on the board. If it’s a public company those comments should be made available to shareholders.

Personally, I think it possible that you just made up the anecdote.

With all due disrespect, Islamic intervention in the West predates our interest in the Middle East. But even if it didn’t, so what?

The Islamic states in the Middle East, for the most part, do not wish peace on us here in the West.

I don’t know any responsible policy makers in the West who don’t wish for peace in the Middle East. 

Jerome49 wrote: I'm not sure of the point of this article. Is it that Obama gets to decide what is and isn't a war? Is it that Obama's failed attempts to pacify Middle East countries equate to his disasterous foreign policy? Is it that Obama and HIllary Clinton are responsible for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi for refusing to provide, even reducing, the security begged for by our ambassador? Is it that Obama is a compulsive and unrepentent liar? If any or all of these questions are the point(s) of the article, I understand and agree. - The Obama Story: A Time-Limited, Scope-Limited, Kinetic Political Activity

Dear Jerome,

I don’t understand the point of your comment. Is that you understand and agree or not?  

Lwatkins wrote: Your argument is irrelavent. I believe you thinks its a good defense. The argument against Romney hhas more to do with his flip flops and him being out of touch. Your arguments to support a billionnaire who simply wants to be president should be much stronger than explaining the origins of priviledge. - Four Reasons to Vote Romney, if You are a Liberal

Dear Comrade Watkins,

Your spelling is irrelevant.

You argument about a non-existent “billionaire” candidate running for president make about as much sense as this little gem you wrote:  “I believe you thinks its a good defense. The argument against Romney hhas more to do with his flip flops and him being out of touch.”


Out of touch? Speaking of out of touch, let’s get past you for a minute and just concentrate on the NOBEL PRIZE WINNING GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER!

We gave the guy a trillion dollars and he produced less return on investment than John DeLorean on a cocaine binge.

Romney has had more success in any one of multiple vocations than Obama has had any single vocation.

Playoffs? Playoffs?

Expect Obama to go all Jim Mora on us any moment.

Jack2894 wrote: Romney understands risks of banking system? Seriously? Romney has advanced a plan for dealing with that? News to me...or anyone else. DO you seriously think a REPUBLICAN is going to take on the financial community? Deficits and tax rates? Just today over 80 major CEO's came out and advocated what everyone knows is necessary, i.e a balanced plan that includes both spending cuts and tax increases. Romney's plan is mathematically impossible. - Four Reasons to Vote Romney, if You are a Liberal

Dear Comrade 2894,

Yes, I’m guessing that Romney’s background in finance makes him much smarter on banking and finance than say, the community organizer Barack Obama, or, say, the gay activist Barney Frank, or say the VIP of Countrywide Mortgage, former Senator Chris Dodd, all of whom combined to make systemic risk even worse than it was previously.

Did you know that the federal government is now legally obligated to bailout financial companies if they are big enough?

Remember too big to fail? Now it’s law of the land.

You know how liberals are saying Romney let companies go bankrupt? Who do you think would better manage bankrupt financial companies? Mitt Romney, who has successfully brought companies out of bankruptcy? Or the community organizer whose biggest job before this was printing t-shirts before the rally?   

And 80 CEO’s would only make 15 percent of the S&P 500.

So now it’s Romney 85 percent, Obama 15 percent.

Who said corporate America’s dead?         

Mgoode880 wrote: You don't have proof of [Obama being a socialist], only hearsay and him being Black, your excuse. - Four Reasons to Vote Romney, if You are a Liberal

Dear Comrade 880,

No, there some good documentation and at the very least some strong circumstantial evidence that Obama is a socialist.

Stanley Kurtz in National Review, hardly a flaming right-wing rag, but a thoughtful conservative outlet, outlines evidence that Obama joined the socialist New Party in the 1990s.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.     

I won’t dignify the “It’s because he’s black, isn’t it?” argument.

Grow up. 

Anonymous908 wrote: Bibi is the boy who cried wolf. Some of us remember him proclaiming to the world that Iran is about to aquire nuclear weapons and the United States/NATO must act. The problem is Bibi has been doing this for years, everytime claiming Iran is genocidal and dangerous and very close to aquiring nuclear fire power. Well Bibi, when you are wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again, don't be suprised when people don't believe you. And further don't be suprised when people accuse you of provoking conflict and war. -If it’s October, Surprise! Obama Wants to Nuke Arm Iran to Get Elected

Dear Comrade 908,

Here’s Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s latest statements about Israel:

 “The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumour," he said.

"The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land.”

Or how about this one from the Wall Street Journal?

Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, chief of staff of the armed forces, added in May that "the Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel."

This pledge of erasing an entire state goes back to the earliest days of the Iranian revolution. "One of our major points is that Israel must be destroyed," Ayatollah Khomeini said in the 1980s.

Former Iranian President Akbar Rafsanjani—often described as a moderate in Western media accounts—had this to say in 2001: "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."

Democrats ought to be ashamed. This is how Hitler got away with the Holocaust. And you guys call conservatives deniers because we quibble with climate change science.


HermanBB wrote: What is wrong with you Iran? Don't you know that Israel and Israel alone gets to have WMDs' in that region. And that is decided by a country 6,500 miles away (USA). -If it’s October, Surprise! Obama Wants to Nuke Arm Iran to Get Elected

Dear Comrade BB,

Yes, let’s let Iran decide if it should have nuclear weapons, shall we?

That’s probably in the national interest of the United States.

Even Obama’s not so foolish to argue that…openly.

That’s it for this week.