dthompson7417 wrote: Republicans, if you are not part of the 1% stop talking like you are. The 1% doesn't care about you any more than it cares about the lower 50%. Look at where we (US) are on the OECD and WHO lists of countries. We are so close to the bottom in all the desirable categories we might as well be a developing country. You have CEOs making 550 times what there average worker makes. In France, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries the number is 25-30 times the average worker. We (99%) live in a feudal state. - Faith Holds Together the Unready, Unsteady Healthcare Religion Called Obamacare
Dear Comrade 7417,
Yes, the numbers in France and Germany seems to be working out really well for Europe right now.
France in particular is doing great!
“The French economy,” reports ABCNews, “which had no growth in 2012 and shrank at an annualized rate of 0.8 percent in the first three months of 2013, is in slow-motion free fall. Profit margins at French companies are the lowest they have been in 30 years. In the past decade, one in six industrial jobs has been lost. And economists forecast unemployment will rise to 11.6 percent next year.”
France has raised taxes so high that French One-Percenters like Gerard Depardieu and Johnny Depp have fled the country. The result is that France is leading the world in economic stupidity, monetary malaise and women with hairy underarms.
But at least they got that whole “French Revolution” part right in the 19th century shortly after America mucked up her own Revolutionary War.
Scandinavian economic powerhouse, Sweden, is also leading the world, but in other ways, more dramatic today.
“Days of rioting have left Sweden searching for answers,” says USAToday, “wondering what went wrong in a nation welcoming of foreigners and proud of its tradition of tolerance and social equality. It has also spurred a debate about the underlying causes, with some Swedes blaming the perpetrators for failing to integrate and other residents of these suburbs complaining they have been forgotten by mainstream society.”
The French must be jealous.
And this brings me to the question: Do you even know anyone from Sweden? There are many Swedes, highly educated, who would love to immigrate to the United States.
Do you know why? Because, mostly, we reward ability here in the U.S. And one of the rewards of ability is property.
I’m guessing you missed that part of our constitution whereby I get to decide what to do with my property.
I don’t know anything about you, but suppose I did. And suppose that you were successful and had a house that I very much admired. Suppose further that I decided that I wanted part of your house because I decided that it was 550 times nicer than mine. Does that give me the right to take it?
And what’s the difference between me taking it or assigning that job to a government mob that’s supposed to have only limited powers?
You want poor people to do better?
Then get them jobs.
Stop obsessing over shareholders in private corporations who have decided that they will use their own money to handsomely reward CEOs. Or perhaps you can give me the number of your employer and I can organize a little phone calling campaign to express my belief- and the belief of the thousands of readers of this column- that you are way overpaid.
And by the way, China has more income inequality than the United States does. And it’s the wrong kind of income inequality, concentrated at the bottom of the scale. Who really believes that the poor in China are better of than the poor in the U.S.?
Nixon and Russian premiere Khrushchev once compared pedigrees. Nixon claimed that he was a product of upward mobility, proving that in America any boy could grow up to be president of the United States. Khrushchev came from an illiterate peasant-laborer family, in highly stratified society, and eventually ruled over the largest empire ever built.
But yet, still, it’s hard not to credit that Nixon was the better off.
As Peter the Great once observed that it is a better life to be an admiral in England than to be a czar in Russia.
I’m all for more admirals and fewer czars.
Bulldog74 wrote: Am I missing something, or is there a notable dearth of the usual liberal trolls from the TH threads today? - Impeaching Holder is a Good First Start
Yes, you might notice that I have avoided doing a comrade column every single week. In part that has to do with the scarcity of material that I’ve had to work with. It’s hard to be funny, sarcastic and self-righteous when all the comments are from like-minded conservatives.
I do miss the liberals.
AngusMacDivot wrote: Great article. I think the phrase is "....first step." rather than ".....first start." - Impeaching Holder is a Good First Start
OK, it’s hard to be funny, sarcastic and self-righteous when all the comments are from like-minded conservatives, but it’s not impossible.
You can think whatever you want, but that still won’t change the fact that you likely voted for McCain, which by the way, is about the most insulting thing I can say to any conservative today.
Thinking about voting for McCain gives me the same creepy feeling a friend once described when thinking about his ex(es).
Imagine sleeping with Nancy Pelosi. Yeah, it was like that, he said.
But no, you’re wrong: The phrase I wanted to use is “first start,” not “first step.”
LesFalin wrote: John, you are absolutely correct. Some Republicans think impeachment is a waste of time, but this is the product of political machination rather than moral integrity. It is high time for the latter. We have a plethora of the former, and politics tends to favor the immoral. - Impeaching Holder is a Good First Start
Politics tends to favor leaders. Leaders become leaders by leading.
Right now the people are leading. The leaders need to follow.
It helps when you first start by doing the right thing, rather than the popular thing.
You’ll never be alone when you consult your conscience and do the right thing.
God will be there with you.
David wrote: U republicans r blocking every thing the president and democrats during top fix the screw up u and bush made to get back in and finish the job u evil bastards kiss president obama #@$ u raping whores. - Impeaching Holder is a Good First Start
If there is a grammatical mistake left out of your rant, I can’t find it.
I think the most effective part of the presentation here is when you called me “u evil bastards.”
I truly see the error of my ways, now, thanks to your precise use of logic. Your stunning use of the corresponding conditional in deploying deductive reasoning smashed all my resistance.
DoctorRoy wrote: Well McCain has never been my cup of tea but at least he is an honorable man. You guys want to claim the moral high ground and gripe about who Democrats elect but won't say a word about degenerates like Vitter and Sanford that keep getting elected on your side. And another thing. What's with the censorship, Chief? I've been here almost 10 years and have never, I mean never, had a post deleted or even come close to being banned except on your column. Now if you don't want me to comment on your columns just say the word and I'll save us both a lot of time. - The Senate Does the Bullying for the IRS
Dear Comrade Doctor,
McCain’s an operator. John McCain is about John McCain.
I honor the service he undertook for the country, but the country has paid him back handsomely.
When I was volunteering on the McCain campaign one of the very top senior staffers joined a group that I was part of with this opening (I paraphrase here): “The platform in XX collapsed at the event.”
“Oh my God! Is John O.K?” asked another senior staffer.
“McCain?” laughed the man. “McCain always walks away without a scratch. It’s everyone else I’m worried about.”
It’s everyone else I’m worried about too. We all seem to have to pay for McCain’s periodic foolishness. One time, in Vietnam, there were actual consequences for the guy and he’s dined out on it ever since.
It’s time he took his watch and exited stage right.
I don’t have time to censor the page.
With the exception of Mikey Hillinger, I only delete something if it contains something that is offensive. With Hillinger I delete random posts at times because it really spins him out of control. He got so mad one time that he wrote to my publisher and charged me of the liberal crime of “self-plagiarism.” So every once in a while if I get a chance to tweak him, I will.
There are other people moderating the page, Comrade Doctor, however, and I can’t speak for them.
If it continues, shoot me an email and I will check on what’s up. With the page redesign there could be technical problems.
Corbett wrote: OK, I know it is a bit nit-picky, but doesn't Ransom proofread his column? There are at least two sentences that make absolutely no sense. - The Senate Does the Bullying for the IRS
Dear Comrade Corbett,
I did better than I thought.
Marie169 wrote: When Huckabee was running for Pres. he was attacked by everybody (even Rush and Levin) . He ran on abolishing the IRS and instituting the Fair Tax . That is why people voted for him , not his Social Agenda . He may have made it if Fred Thompson didn't jump in the race and gave McCain the election by splitting the conservatives in N.C . He was ahead up 'till then. - The Senate Does the Bullying for the IRS
Alas Huckabee isn’t the man either. There is a whole bunch of stuff that Ole Huck did in Arkansas that would be better if it remained between him, God and the bagman.
One of the best things that happened to Huckabee was his ten-minutes of fame as a presidential candidate. One of the better things that happened after that was when his fame as a presidential candidate faded.
He’s a good host, but I don’t think he’d be able to stand the scrutiny as a candidate.
MoreFreedom wrote: I have to disagree with Ransom's statement that Klein is an idiot. I think he's very smart. He's positioning himself for an overpaid government job, to spin Democrat scandals out of existence for one of the many Democratic politicians who have scandals to deal with. - On IRS, Ezra Klein is Still an Idiot, and so is the White House
Dear More Freedom,
If Klein would trade his freedom of the press for an indenture to any Democrat politician in a temporary government job, he’s a bigger idiot than I thought. He makes more money working for the WaPo.
TunTavern wrote: The proof is there. Both the poor and the country in general has always done better under democrats:
Now, you won't accept those facts...but guess what---that doesn't matter. Because it's not we who need to sell our party--we're winning. It's YOU that had better learn to lay out your arguments and do some explaining. Maybe then your tired, beaten old party can rise from its grave. -Country Infected with Virus Democratus
Dear Comrade Tun,
So some guys wrote a book that PROVES that Democrats are better than Republicans when it comes to the economy.
Oh, now we are in real trouble.
Their argument seems to rely on mostly stock market returns.
Here’s one problem that I have with that thesis: No one can seriously argue that the policies fostered by any president can be measured in increments of time that start when a president is inaugurated and ends when he leaves office- especially when it comes to the stock market.
Are we to believe that under Clinton defunct grocery start-up webvan.com, according the CNET, one of the biggest dotcom busts ever, was correctly valued in 2000 at $1.2 billion or more correctly valued under Bush a few months later with “an accumulated deficit of $830 million”?
Because if the authors are seriously arguing that stock market performance should start and stop with inaugural dates, then the authors are right: the ability to deceive the public is a major asset for any president. It seems, in fact, under their premise, that we should look for presidents who can help sustain the fiction that whatever.com will go higher and higher forever and home prices can never ever be defeated!
I can pick them apart all day long, but I’ll leave you with one last example before I close.
In 1995 president Clinton, with bipartisan support, repealed safeguards to the banking and investment business known as Glass-Steagall. The repeal of those safeguards was in some measure responsible for the financial debacle that culminated in the fall of 2008. Yet these same authors would have you believe that Clinton was the greatest president for the economy ever.
And if you believe that, I guess you’d vote for Obama too.
But don’t be surprised when fifteen years later you seem similar results, no matter who is president.
That’s it for this week.