Flaming Multiculturalist wrote: Mr Ransom, Who is Sabu? I creatively infer that he may be a govt informant who got Hammond arrested, and who later got arrested himself. But surly you can spend a few sentences on the relevant background facts, can't you?- Hacktivist's Mom Has a Few Questions for Anonymous- Part 2
Dear Comrade Flaming,
You can creatively infer whatever you want, and you can do it with creative spelling too, but apparently, like most liberals, you’re too darn lazy to conduct a simple Google search of “Sabu, Anonymous.”
Had you done a search, Google would have returned 1,390,000 results in 0.24 seconds. You then would have had 1.4 million news articles and web sites and Twitter accounts, all at your disposal to explain exactly who and what Sabu is.
You chose the liberal method of getting things done- asking me to do the work that you could have more easily done for yourself. You spent more time typing out your comment than it would have taken you to execute a Google search. And then there is the time and research that I have to put into writing a reply.
This is a typical example of the inefficient wealth distribution model that liberals like you advocate. You want the benefits of being curious, but none of the work that it takes to actually be curious.
Instead you want me to give you a portion of the curiosity that I work at.
It’s always liberals who ask for commonly available citations, quotes and research in order to act like they don’t understand. You know, if you did the research work yourself you’d probably end up being conservative.
And don’t call me surly- or Shirley.
William Gensert wrote: Mr. Ransom, I like your articles -- which is why I read them daily -- and often find myself in wholehearted agreement with your point of view. I do not understand why you published an excerpt from the anonymous response and then your entire previous article, which I had already read. I would think it would be the other way around -- the entire response, and a link to the previous article. - Hacktivist's Mom Has a Few Questions for Anonymous- Part 2
Ok, now you’ve asked for it. You are going to get an undercover look at the operations of the Ransom publishing empire.
You are correct that normally I would link to a recent article and put the entire new piece in the new article.
But here’s what happened: I was contacted by another Anonymous source, who wanted a crack at a reply to Mrs. Collins. I said sure, what the heck? And then I waited, and waited, and waited.
The source said the delay was a result of security precautions he- or she- used in order to prevent tracing of the email, and that it would eventually arrive.
It didn’t arrive. So eventually I scrapped the idea of even doing another column because I had to prepare the site for the next day.
I got up at 2 AM to check the site, which I do because 1) I’m old and generally have to pee by then; and 2) It’s my job- checking the site, not peeing.
I noticed as I stumbled back from the bathroom that we were getting traffic from an Anonymous news site. When I checked the site, they had a reply to Mrs. Collins. So I put together a quick story that included only an excerpt of their reply with a link to the rest. I included the previous story because 1) I wanted the story to be a bit longer and copying and pasting is about all the writing effort I’m going to put in at 2:17 AM on behalf of Jeremy Hammond and Anonymous; and 2) people like Comrade Flaming are too lazy to click a link. They want the information right there.
Oden wrote: A Goldman Sachs guy quits the firm and blasts its greedy practices and disregard for its clients, millions of people have seen his parting letter and its reportedly the talk of Wall Street. And here's a Towncrier "finance editor" and the other "finance editors" just shoveling more anti-Obama garbage. Where's the story on Towncrier? Where's the idiot analysis y'awl are known for? Wotta bunch of hacks.- Obama's Phony Numbers Adding Up
Dear Comrade Oden,
A Goldman Sachs guys quits Wall Street in bitter disgust every day. Half the brokers I know are thinking about quitting at any given moment.
It’s not really news unless you subscribe to the New York Times.
But if you have read me for the last year, you’ll know that I’m not exactly a cheerleader for Wall Street types like Bernanke or Paulson or Geithner or Goldman Sachs.
Just for you, however, I’ll include some analysis of the Goldman news:
Who was the second largest contributor to Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008? Goldman Sachs, via your Democrat friend John Corzine, who used to be the CEO at Goldman. Of course Corzine himself is responsible for one of the largest bankruptcies in US history at MF Global. MF Global clients are still out $1.7 billion in supposedly segregated customer accounts. And where are Eric Holder and the Justice Department on that one? I’ll tell you where: They’re still covering up Fast and Furious. Way too busy to enforce the law of the land and arrest someone for stealing $1.7 billion, especially big Obama campaign contributors.
I want reform on Wall Street. The sooner Washington and Wall Street separate, the better it will be for Main Street.
But don’t come at me with your faux OWS outrage about greedy bankers.
Your guys- the Soroses, the Buffetts, the Franks, the Corzines, the UAW’s Kings- are the problem with Wall Street not the solution.
Lastline wrote: If you knew anything about Ron Paul, you would know he not only voted against Obamacare, but he has opposed it entirely. Somehow I do think you know that, and just took the opportunity to fit in another little meaningless tidbit jab of propaganda. Do you really think if you villanize Ron Paul enough times we will all believe 2+2=5? - Obama's Phony Numbers Adding Up
Dear Brother Lastline,
Of course Dr. Paul voted against Obamacare. I never said he did vote for it.
Here’s what I wrote:
With a number like this, I could run for president and beat Obama in November. And so could you.
I say that because I’m assuming that neither Mitt Romney nor Ron Paul is actually reading this article.
What I’m saying is that neither Mitt Romney nor Ron Paul can beat Obama in November. But you might be able to.
If I had to bet however, I’d bet that Romney would stand a better chance than Paul.
That’s not to say that I don’t appreciate some of Paul’s positions- love his pro-life stance, think the Fed is out of control, like his views on the Constitution- but I can appreciate his views without ending every sentence with “and therefore, Ron Paul is the only candidate for president who can beat Barack Obama,” like many of the Paulites do.
Forgetting the general election for a moment, Paul has done even worse delegate-wise than Gingrich has. Given the amount of money he’s raised there were some caucus states that he should have been more competitive in. It was over when he came in 3rd in Iowa.
Macroman wrote: No one detests President Obama more than I, but I must point out two overstatements in this column. 1. "...employment in 2012 is roughly the same as it was back in 2001...Obama has compressed a lost decade into just three years." Labor force participation has been declining since 2000, not just 2008. That seems a partial reversal of the increase that occurred since about 1965. Obama had little to do with any of it.- Polls, Pump, No Friend to Obama
Dear Comrade Macroman,
Yes, labor force participation rates have been going down since 2000. But to pretend that Obama has no blame for the precipitous drop in those rates since he became president is willful malpractice by economists.
By official count we’ve been out of the recession for a while. But still we’ve seen not just a decline in labor participation rates, but a plunge in those rates since Obama became president.
Compare the rates between Bush after 2000 where rates eventually leveled off and started increasing and Obama where they have continued to plunge. The real difference between the two presidents was that one instilled confidence and the other does not.
There is no economic reason for the economy to be as sluggish as it’s been- there is plenty of money and liquidity out there to make the thing go. But there are also plenty of political decisions that are holding the economy back.
Steve of CA wrote: This is not really a liberal-progressive conspiracy against Palin. It depends how much credibility you give to these Republican staffers who seemed to be the main sources for both the film and the above report.- Thank You for Your Generous Contribution to Attacking Sarah Palin
Dear Comrade Steve,
No “conspiracy” if you are willing to overlook the fact that journalists maintained an online chat room to coordinate attacks on Palin after McCain picked her as VP choice. We’re talking paid members of the press from publications like Bloomberg and the New Yorker, who were acting like they were paid members of Media Matters for America.
Not “liberal” if you include anyone who is a Republican as not liberal.
But I would call the McCain “staffers” who supplied the information liberal. In fact, so would all of the conservatives on this site.
And this brings us to the nub of the argument: These were the same staffers who were leaking information about Palin while they were getting paid to help the McCain campaign. What do you call a person who takes money from one side to help a campaign and then betrays the campaign from the inside?
Well you can call them a lot of things- and I do- but credible isn’t one of the words I use.
That's it for this week.
"Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak peaks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me email and I just might mention you on Sunday.