Obama on Vacation: The $28,429,533.47 Man

John Ransom
Posted: Aug 25, 2013 12:01 AM
Obama on Vacation: The $28,429,533.47 Man

DoctorRoy wrote: Hey I wonder what it would cost to rebuild Lee Majors today. Somebody at Townhall Finance needs to get on that. - This Administration Comes With a Laugh Track

Dear Comrade Doctor,

The Bionic Man did not exist. It was just a TV show. Your comment however confirms a suspicion that I have had for some time.

As I have always suspected, the problem with liberals is that they have difficulty discerning between what’s on TV and what exists in reality.

This explains why Al Sharpton, Roseanne Barr, Phil Donahue and Barack Obama were liberal hits on TV essentially for acting foolish and yet you also allowed them to influence the direction of the Democrat Party-- for the exact same reason.

It’s very likely that you think that Barack Obama is just a TV show, kind of like in the movie the Truman Show.

I find it hilarious that you’ve turned over the future of your party to a guy who is mainly famous, not for what he’s actually accomplished, but rather because he’s on TV a lot.

However, your comment goes much deeper than that.

Because it also shows the slovenliness of liberals in general, and you, Comrade Doctor, in particular.

If you had taken the time to do an internet search you would have found out in the approximately 21 seconds that it took me that $6,000,000 back in 1974- that’s when when the Six Million Dollar Man first aired- would today have the same purchasing power of $28,429,533.47.

The $28,429,533.47 Man? Sounds like Obama spending a night on vacation.

They have a nifty calculator at the BLS site- along with other sites- that adjusts for inflation.

Of course bionic costs would have by this time plunged because of improved technology, higher productivity and offshore labor.

These points essentially would be lost on you. 

Likely you would instead use those numbers to “prove” the validity of income inequality, citing the rumor that the money “invested” to create Bionic Woman didn’t come close to the Six Million Dollar Man. You’d probably also throw in a complaint that she only got three seasons, while the bionic man got five.

And then of course you’d wonder why there wasn’t a black, Hispanic or Asian “person of bionics” or why they deliberately ignored the obvious link to the transgendered.

Is it possible, you’d write in your blog, that the Bionic Woman was really first a man who was diagnosed with Gender Dystopia and they did the other work just to cover up the fact that Old, White-Men Scientists with the Government were uncomfortable with the topic?

Plus, how would they attach the solar panels to her head to ensure that she only ran on “green” energy? I guess we’d have to hope the there were no national emergencies on cloudy days.

Eventually you’d tie the whole scandal back to: 1) Abe Lincoln being gay; 2) Cavemen being gay and 3) George Bush. Not. Being. Gay.

It’s sooooo predictable.

Para Dimz wrote: The connection between Egypt and gas prices is remote unless you would have tied that situation to Syria, which you did not. Let me put it this way. The middle east has been unstable since 1973. Pricing risk factors should have, by now, been a permanent strucural part of the price of oil.- The Civil War Rages in Public in Egypt; and in the United States Behind Closed Doors

Dear Comrade Para,

I wouldn’t say that Middle East has been “unstable,” until recently under Obama’s foreign policy.

Egypt has had the same government since Nasser took over in 1956. When Nasser died, Sadat took over. When Sadat was assassinated, Mubarak took over. They were all part of the same ruling class.

Syria has had the same Ba’athist government since the mid-1960s and the father and son Assads have ruled the country since 1971.

In Iran the ayatollahs have been in charge since 1979; Saddam ruled Iraq from 1979 on as well. In Libya, Gaddafi had been in power since 1969.

The Saudi family has been head of the government since 1932.

As to your point about Egypt, Syria and oil prices, I have tied the general instability in the region to rising oil prices, including Syria, elsewhere in Townhall.

But here you go, just for you: “I hereby declare that I tie the rise in oil prices to Egypt AND SYRIA, plus any unmentioned Middle East countries enjoying the fruits of Obama’s rapid destabilization of the region.”

There is plenty of evidence that demand for oil is slipping because of the worldwide recession. And there is plenty of evidence that at the same time, supply is going up because of innovations in recovery techniques led by the USA.

“Demand for crude produced by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will shrink by 400,000 barrels a day next year to 29.4 million a day,” reports Bloomberg, “as higher output from other nations, such as the U.S. and Canada, exceeds the expansion in global oil consumption, the agency said.”

Supply up, demand down should equal falling prices. Prices aren’t falling inly because of the instability in the Middle East. 

Miss Mellie wrote: Jailing the elected legislators of Maryland was Lincoln's way of "defending the Constitution?" Or imprisoning a head of state WITHOUT CHARGING him with a crime and holding him for 2 years AND THEN letting him go WITHOUT CHARGING him was "defending the Constitution?" Find a better more honorable person to quote, Ransom.- The Civil War Rages in Public in Egypt; and in the United States Behind Closed Doors

Dear Comrade Mellie,

Abraham Lincoln was an honorable person.

He himself acknowledged that at times he exceeded his constitutional authority. 

“I felt that measures otherwise unconstitutional,” wrote Lincoln to Albert Hodges  “might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation.”

In other words, he understood the paradox created by violating the constitution in order to preserve it.

Lincoln was concerned that because of the difficulties presented by a combination of slavery, secession and rebellion that the Civil War would become “a remorseless revolutionary struggle” that would change the character of the nation and the constitution.

In this, I think he has been proven right.

But he also had a hard time reconciling a system of government that allowed one man to own another and did so under the veneer of liberty.

There was no just reason for the South to succeed. Their actions in the first place were unconstitutional in my opinion.

While it is possible that secession may be legal, the election of a president is not a sufficient reason for either secession or revolution. 

That the constitution and our nation was radically changed was the fault of secessionist and racists after the civil war who denied black people equal rights and equal protection under the laws.

If you are looking for someone to blame for our current constitutional crisis, you can start with the people who wanted the “liberty” to own human beings and then fought against protecting in the former “slaves” the same civil rights that we all enjoy by virtue of our Creator.

The entire history of racism in the US is a blemish. And today’s versions racism is part of God’s punishment that he has doled out to stop us from our wickedness.

You thought it stopped at Appomattox?

We could only wish.

"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done."

But we always forget this from God: “Thou shewest loving kindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name.”

Paul wrote: withdraw foreign aid and see what happens to our deficit.- The Civil War Rages in Public in Egypt; and in the United States Behind Closed Doors

Dear Paul,

We spend very little on foreign aid. It would take over 250 years of foreign aid money to get rid of our deficit.

That said, I’d very much favor leaving the United Nations. 

SuperTech86 wrote: Obama isn't the problem, the poorest working class in the US in 60 years is the problem. the fact that 9T in home wealth was lost is the problem. the post 2001 US economy was unsustainable as it was all from mortgage debt and not real income growth. Policy can not undue either one of these events, any moron knows this. - Ezra Klein is an Idiot: Obama is the Jobs Problem

Dear Comrade SuperTech,

Well apparently not ANY moron knows this stuff.

Let’s take you as a specific moron.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the basic idea that Washington can and does a great deal to pick winners and losers in society.

Real income growth comes from job creation. Job creation comes from the private sector.

We had great public sector employment expansion in the 2000s.

What did it buy us? 

VZE wrote: A dealer of cars is a car dealer, not a cars dealer; a collector of stamps is a stamp collector, not a stamps collector. "Obama is the jobs problem" should be "Obama is the job problem". - Ezra Klein is an Idiot: Obama is the Jobs Problem

Dear VZE,

Ok. Great. You’re a grammar Nazi.

“Jobs” is in this case is used a category of the economy.

For example, someone might text me: “Hey, John what do you want to talk about on the radio today?” If I answered: “Jobs,” anyone would know what I meant. If I answered: “Job” most everyone would be confused.

Perhaps you’d think I meant to talk about my job. 

And for a more dramatic example, how would you distinguish between the biblical character Job and what I really meant which was “jobs in the United States”?

You couldn’t.

I win.

And this part is for Miss Mellie:

Poet and Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg relates that once Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward- who was hoping to win the presidential nomination that Lincoln wrangled for himself- offered to put a Lincoln dispatch to the English government “couched in more diplomatic terms.”

Then," said Secretary of War Stanton, "came the demonstration. The President, half wheeling in his seat, threw one leg over the chair-arm, and, holding the letter in his hand, said, 'Seward, do you suppose Palmerston will understand our position from that letter, just as it is?'

"'Certainly, Mr. President.'

"'Do you suppose the London Times will?'


"'Do you suppose the average Englishman of affairs will?'

"'Certainly; it cannot be mistaken in England.'

"'Do you suppose that a hackman out on his box will understand it?'

"'Very readily, Mr. President.'

"'Very well, Seward, I guess we'll let her slide just as she is.' 

Roger627 wrote: Ezra Klein is not an idiot. Liberals are forever reacting to ideas they disagree with by calling the person advocating those ideas by any number of (nasty) names. After being a registered Democrat for more than 40 years, I changed Party affiliation in 2010, I implore Republicans/Libertarians/Conservatives to resist name calling. State the other person's argument, state your argument, make the differences clear. Say goodby. - Ezra Klein is an Idiot: Obama is the Jobs Problem

Dear Comrade Roger,

I haven’t read something this dumb in a long time.

Ezra Klein is an idiot if he thinks that he can defend Obamacare as a deficit reducer-job creator-fluffer and folder of laundry.


Gayle90 wrote: "for kids to young too know the difference" You have your two tos on backwards. - The Liberal Way: Making it Cheaper No Matter What it Costs

Dear Gayle,

Ha! You too too? I’ve been trying new voice recognition software to give my carpal tunneled hands a break. But bad copy editing, anywho. 

Aliveinhim wrote: Not to mention, it's 'anyhoo', not 'anywho'. - The Liberal Way: Making it Cheaper No Matter What it Costs

Dear Comrade Alive,

It’s either spelling actually.

The Geneva Convention on Non-Word Spellings hasn’t made a ruling yet on “anyhoo” versus “anywho.” Until the IPCC rules on possible effects that various spelling might have on 1) Climate Change and 2) Gender Dysphoria they have said that either spelling is equally destructive to human language. 

Louis wrote: You folks don't pay attention, I guess. Because if you did, then you'd know that the Reverend Al Sharpton commented about this event on his show 'Politics Nation' on MSNBC. – “But not like the three black teens that shot the white dude.

Dear Comrade Louis,

I actually did see it, because I spend the whole day watching MSNBC.

My mistake.

I thought the video was an old reel from Walter Cronkite doing the news.

Especially when I heard Sharpton saying it was no big deal:

“I protest when I’m called in and when there’s an injustice. The three were arrested, there was nothing to protest. The system worked there, and racial? Not only did the police not say it was racial, one of the three were white.”

Yeah, the death of a kid is only an “injustice” if the kid is black.

Thanks for straightening us out.

That’s it for this week.