Yes. The dreaded day that you all knew would come has arrived, my friends. This is the week I unveil… the Best of the Comrade posts…from the last few months.
Because of the Fourth of July holiday, I put in a limited week this week and that included Sunday.
But be of good cheer, because tomorrow I will publish an all new, original mail bag with old, unimproved comrades. And then next Sunday we’ll be back to our regularly scheduled programming.
So for now just enjoy some golden oldies.
Oldschool7 wrote: And the only car company involved in NASCAR . . . where their profits go to a Foreign Country is . . . . . you guessed it Toyota. The company that has had almost 30 MILLION recalls in the last 7 years . . . . sources more parts in China than any other, in fact the Yaris is totally Chinese content. Much of the Domestic content is manufactured in the US even if many of the cars are assembled in Canada or Mexico.- When All Else Fails, UAW Tries Racism
Dear Comrade 7,
Thanks for rebutting my point about the uses of racism by liberals by providing another example of a different type of racism used by liberals.
I don’t care about the color of the skin, or the nationality, the gender or being pen pals with the persons who build my automobile or the parts that go into my car, quite frankly. What I care about is buying the product that makes the most financial sense for me and for my family.
What do you have against Japanese car markers that provide jobs here in the U.S.? What do you have against Chinese people who are just trying to make a living? Or Mexicans? Or Canadians?
You defend a Mexican’s right to come across our border illegally to have a job, but you take away the right to have a job in Mexico.
Typical liberal thinking.
You guys are quite sick.
Really. Get help.
Hoovervilles Follies wrote: Because adherence to a ridiculous ideology prompts extreme conservatives to deny or downplay the environmental issues that normal, well-informed people recognize, they have nothing constructive to offer in that arena. Instead, they are reduced to doing the sort of thing Ransom does in this column -- attempt to portray environmental activism as the province of privileged, hypocritical liberals. Robert Kennedy Jr. may well be wrong on the Cape wind power issue and there may even be some self-interest involved. But on much else relating to environmental sustainability, he is a dedicated, extremely knowledgeable, highly articulate champion. I seriously doubt that Mr. Ransom can say the same.- Going Green is Gauche on Robert Kennedy’s Private Ocean
Dear Comrade Hooverville,
I don’t portray all environmental activists as privileged, hypocritical liberals. I just portray those who are privileged, hypocritical liberals as privileged, hypocritical liberals.
And trust me- I’ve been doing this a long time- there plenty of privileged, hypocritical liberals to pick on, without dragging in the non-privileged, hypocritical liberals.
You might notice the picture I inserted in the column with the little Greenpeace raft in the foreground. Certainly they aren’t privileged, hypocritical liberals. They qualify in the non-privileged, hypocritical liberal category.
They also qualify as misguided liberals; liberals in violation of their occupancy rating for the size and type of craft they are on; and liberals who violate OSHA laws.
Actually, we should probably report the Greenpeace folks to OSHA. That raft looks like it’s not the safest of working conditions. And, I don’t see posted any of the mandatory wage and hour notices, and other employment notices that should be displayed prominently on the side of the raft where Greenpeace employees would likely notice it.
Now, you say that Robert Jr. has some self-interest involved? Self-interest? By a Kennedy? Who would have thought it?
Look, let me put it this way: Kennedys have a really bad habit of having navigation accidents that lead to fatalities. If I were Robert Kennedy Jr. I’d be breaking into a cold sweat at the thought of navigation hazards like wind mills in Nantucket Sound too. Kennedys have problems driving across a bridge without ending up in the drink. Hic.
Libhater11 wrote: I want to see the teachers unions destroyed. My taxes are through the roof. Enough already. By far and away the worst, because they affect every one of us. - Hey Unions? Welcome to Politics. Watch That Bloody Nose
I too look forward to a time when school districts are run without unions. I dream of a world without public employee unions.
Unions are the prime obstacle to education reforms that would have the U.S. leading the world once again in education.
Fortunately there are places where getting rid of teachers unions are seriously being contemplated.
In Douglas County, Colorado the board of education is renegotiating with the union now. One of the last sticking points is that the board wants to allow the teachers to be able to opt out of the union.
Personally, I hope that the board goes whole hog and just refuses to approve a contract with any union.
If you agree, send a note to their superintendent Elizabeth Fagan.
As a post script, the board has subsequently decided to kick the union out of the district. Congrats Douglas County.
Steve of CA wrote: It seems both sides ignore that the auto bailout was started under President Bush.-Getting Back the Minutes I Wasted on Liberal Logic
Dear Comrade Steve,
It started under Bush for sure, but: 1) that doesn’t make it a good idea and 2) the terms of the deal changed radically under Obama.
The automakers asked for $50 billion, Bush offered $17 billion and Obama compromised at $80 billion, to paraphrase Winston Churchill. But it's Bush' fault?
And on top of that, $23 billion of taxpayer money was essentially written off as a gift to the United Auto Workers even though we are now being told that the auto industry is healthy.
Why in the world would we not insist that GM and Chrysler pay back every dime of taxpayer money at time that the company’s are making record profits?
MikeTurnerUSA wrote: How again does the government control oil prices? It doesn't because it’s a world commodity. That means that the millions of dollars subsidies that us taxpayers pay the oil companies just go to their profits. - A Second Look at Our Government Overlords
Dear Comrade Mike,
The government doesn’t control oil prices.
But a government that doesn’t allow domestic drilling certainly has an affect on prices. And that affect will hurt consumers.
More importantly, it means that dollars that could be kept here at home for investment are shipped overseas.
Seriously? That’s all you got comrade?
Because if that’s it: Checkmate.
Let’s get rid of all subsidies and all bailouts for all companies, da?
Mac 287 wrote: Wow...maybe if products were made in this country and less were imported from "patriotic" business owners based in China, Walmart would not be as powerful...or politically involved. I know, I know...our taxes make our patriotic American business owners flee to Mexico, China and other "offshore" places. Not their fault. Lies about Solyndra have been "on the loose" since George Bush first approved bucks for them.
Dear Comrade 287,
If it’s possible for someone to know less about how economics works than you do, well then, I’d be scared.
Fortunately all liberals are about as ignorant as you, no more or less.
I think you are trying to say: 1) Walmart should buy more products from union shops here in the US and pass along higher prices to consumers in order to help pay bloated union pension benefits. As result, you would then ask the various attorney generals of the various states to investigate Walmart claiming price gouging so that in a multi-state settlement you could use the billions extorted from Walmart on some bogus educational program that teaches 5 year-olds how to put condoms on carrots- they’re not just for eating!- and also gives them matchbooks with the Planned Parenthood number on it; and 2) That George Bush was born about the same time that the Solyndra executives were, and therefore it must be George Bush’s fault because otherwise the Solyndra families knowing of the failure that the company honchos would be subjected to would have opted for a late term abortions as the only obvious choice- and so therefore, once again, if we didn’t hear it before: IT MUST BE BUSH’S FAULT.
Gosh, I scare myself. I could be a darn good writer for Democrats too.
Aura wrote: I don't get why you conservatards don't criticize Jesus Christ for his wealth redistribution schemes. All liberals are doing is carrying out JC's instructions, more or less. - The Emancipation Proclamation: The Man Who Freed the Gays
Dear Comrade Aura,
Oh, here we go: The great liberal in going to break out the Bible for us and explain to us the Gospel According to Barack.
Aren’t you worried about displaying “false religiosity?”
If anyone thinks that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has anything to do with standard tables of deductions and tax returns, then they either don’t understand the Bible or they are just willing to twist the Bible for their own purposes.
Don’t liberals like you, at some point, tire of being hypocrites?
I guess the answer is no.
GaryPatriot wrote: What a pile of cow chips! Instead, let's get everyone all worked up about the high gas prices! Oooops, Sorry! That was last month's "fear and smear' hatred of Obama by your puppetmasters. How soon the puppets forget that they are being jerked around.
Dear Comrade Gary,
People get worked about high gas prices because…um…it costs more.
We actually don’t need a puppet master to remind us that it sucks to pay more for gas at the pump.
There is this invention called Economics.
It’s all about money and society and stuff.
So, anywho, in economics the theory goes that when you spend more money on energy, you have less money for other important things like, say, food, or housing, or life-saving medicine, or schools, or poker games.
This hits poor people and the middle class especially hard.
Reminder: The poor and middle class are the ones that liberals like John Kerry get all misty eyed about from the back of their new $7 million, 76 foot yacht that they dock out-of-state to avoid paying $500,000 in taxes.
Reporting. For. Duty.
BTW, which side exactly has the puppet master?
Idopas- Voice from the UK wrote: You John, as usual with most of you geographically shallow right of centre people, title your article as "Euro Zone", then proceed to talk about Europe, which is NOT the Euro Zone as most of us are not in the Euro, then go further and label all Europe socialist, when Europe is a collection of countries with their own political systems. It may have escaped your blinkers but my country has a Tory government, look close to home John, YOU have the socialist president. -We Got Your Euro Zone President Right Here
Dear Comrade Idopas,
This is an American publication, for Americans, by Americans. And if’n we want to confuse Azerbaijan with Armenia, we will do it, by Ginger. That won’t stop us from putting a Cruise missile within 9 feet of targeted GPS coordinates anywhere in the world no matter how you spell it, smart guy.
Twice in the last 250 years you guys in the UK- or whatever you call it this decade- had the greatest empire known to man. Both times you blew it.
Way to go.
Plus you guys still have a queen. So don’t even start with us.
And by the way, if you knew me, you’d not say that I’m geographically shallow. My geography is more on the deep, hilly side.
Truth001 wrote: Way to rally the troops Ransom. Blame SSDI for the lower unemployment numbers! That is stretch even for you John. You don't mention that many baby boomers are starting to retire. SSDI is nothing but a slam at many good people who have had to resort to this program. That does not mean there isn't some fraud. There are always a few that make it bad for the many- Unemployment Explained: Obama's Disability Scammers
Dear Comrade Pravda,
At issue here, as we wrote originally, is that SSDI enrollments have gone up while the number of people in the workforce has gone down. And the numbers and timing are such to cause one to examine the link.
While it’s true that more people are retiring, Baby boomer retirement has nothing to with the increased numbers of SSDI recipients. And the drop in the workforce participation rates has nothing to do with Baby Boomer retirements either. The topline number might go down. but not participation rates.
Fortunately, since liberals have such terrible math problems, Madeline Schnapp, the director of research at Trim Tabs, did a little graph for Mike Shedlock, following up on his original story.
As we noted in our original piece, Bloomberg.com reported that “Based on current trends, 7 percent of the nonelderly adult population could be receiving disability benefits by 2018, Richard Burkhauser and Mary Daly wrote in the spring issue of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. That’s two years after the SSDI program will run through its trust fund, according to an April report by the Social Security trustees.”
You liberals want to pretend to care about the unfortunate? Then quit defrauding them. That SSDI money is there for people who are legitimately disabled, not for more of your OWS The-World-Owes-Me-Something nonsense.
You know who your economic policies have hurt most? Young black males, followed by youth of any race, followed by black males of any age, followed black women.
There is just no delicate way of putting it: You continue to cheat the very people you say you care about most.
It’s one thing for me to disagree with your ridiculous economic theories. But this goes farther. The Democrats under Obama have proven to be the most hypocritical and unethical manifestation of party politics in at least the last 100 years.
Mac 287 wrote: These kinds of articles may really help in taking disability away from folks who really need it...wow! Success is yours! Misery is those folks who really are disabled and really need it to survive. So what? we have the next several years to show 'em...get up and get a job...disabled or not! hey, you. Christian conservative caring people have the formula for saving money, saving the country and getting rid of all these slugs...have at it...destroy the possible only place the disabled can go for help! Remember Ebeneezer Scrooge? "Have they no prisons, no workhouses?" not an exact quote... .-Unemployment Explained: Obama's Disability Scammers
Dear Comrade 287,
Actually, I want the money reserved for people who are really disabled. We owe them that much.
They have paid into the system for insurance. And the system is not solvent even before this new massive wave of claims. If any private insurance company acted like that people would go to jail.
Do you even understand what insurance is supposed do about? It’s about spreading the risk amongst large pools so that if catastrophic events overtake individuals, they are not without resources. But if you game the system as politicians and citizens have done, it collapses.
It’s just a welfare entitlement now.
Tad6 wrote: As usual, John Ransom speaks without evidence. - Unemployment Explained: Obama's Disability Scammers
Dear Comrade 6,
As usual, 6 writes without reading.
There is quite a bit of evidence.
In addition to the data provided above, you can read the Bloomberg story I cited, the Daniel Mitchell story, the story from Charles Payne, and the original Shedlock piece penned about the issue.
I would link to them, but you won’t click on the links anyway.
If you had done that in the first place you wouldn’t have written at all.
None1257 wrote: What will John Ransom say about his prediction, if Obama wins re-election? Will he post an article on this site that admits that he was dead wrong? -No Confidence will Kill Obama Reelection Chances
Dear Comrade 1257,
Wrong about what? Obama’s reelection?
Sure. It’s not like I could hide being wrong.
I’ve been saying that Obama would be a one-term president for a while. It doesn’t take a Princenton Ph.D. to see that the trillion dollar stimulus boondoggle was going to fail.
And that’s how he planned on getting reelected in fact. The stimulus program was created supposedly to have maximum effect for years 3 and 4 of the president’s term specifically sacrificing mid-term elections for Democrats in order to help Obama get reelected.
Face it: Obama does whatever is best for Obama. Always.
What? Did you think I was going to do the liberal weasel-word maneuver and redefine what I wrote into something else?
Like going from talking about creating jobs to only talking about “saving” jobs? Or how’s about this one: “Investing” government money with my fat-cat contributors in the guise of “green” jobs? Or one of my favorites: Campaign against military action and war, even with the approval of Congress, and then start unilateral military actions in Libya, without Congressional approval calling it “time-limited, scoped-limited kinetic activity?”
Or my favorite: Obama went from being the post-racial president to all race and gender, all the time. Never mind that he’s abused his black constituents worse of all through his economic policies.
So, yeah if he wins reelection, I’ll admit I’m wrong.
I’m just not wrong.
That’s it for this week,