Socialism and Electric Cars:

First of all, the USPS is NOT a government organization, but a private business. (sigh). Second, the USPS does NOT photograph every piece of mail. (sigh) It does run it thru multiple scanners. One is a bio scanner - developed since the "white powder" scare - that can locate poisons, etc. Another is a zip code scanner, to electronically put zip codes on the mail so that it can be electronically sorted. This saves time and money... except when your Grammy writes so illegibly that her letter has to be kicked out and a real live human has to figure out what zip code (if any) she scrawled on the envelope. Third, Because of ridiculous government regulations - the latest of which is a Congressional math error that has required the USPS to put billions into a slush 'retirement fund' (the only private OR public company in the country that has to do so) the USPS is on the verge of bankruptcy. Congress refuses to correct its error, and is costing the USPS as well as its customer billions of dollars. This is why postal rates keep climbing - not because they are a subsidiary of the government. If you think that this makes the USPS friends of the government, you are mistaken. These facts that you don't know, and that you only hysterically screech about what you think you know, make your entire rant suspect. - Police State: USPS, DOE, IRS, FEC, GSA, DEA, FBI, NSA, DoS, DoD Spying on You

Then I guess the Post Office is the only private organization that has it’s own police force with federal policing powers, huh? It’s called the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and it bills itself as the “Federal law enforcement and security arm of the U.S Postal Service.”

If what you are saying is true, I’m starting my OWN private organization with a federal law enforcement arm and bill it as “John’s Constitutional and Oath of Office law enforcement arm.”

I have sympathy for your point of view, however Beatrice. It’s not your fault. It’s society’s fault—Old White Men, that is-- that you’re a delusional liberal.

Being a liberal, you were probably thrown off by the fact that the Post Office is one of the few agencies of the federal government that derives its power explicitly from the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution is kind of a blind spot for you guys, being both liberal and delusional.

Too, you might have missed the article from the Associated Press where the Postmaster General says that they “image” all the mail.

I don’t know what “image” means to you, but to me, without even using the dictionary, it’s a verb that means: to take pictures of.

The Postal Service takes pictures of every piece of mail processed in the United States — 160 billion last year — and keeps them on hand for up to a month.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe said the photos of the exterior of mail pieces are used primarily for the sorting process, but they are available for law enforcement, if requested.

I know, I know: You’re latching on to that “primarily for sorting process” phrase the AP uses and substituting “scan” for the word “picture” to convince yourself that the Loyal Democrats aren’t spying.

Which is more proof that amazing things happen when let your LAST best-president-of-the-United-States-ever redefine oral sex as no sex whatsoever, under any circumstances.

“I want you to listen to me,” he said, “I’m gonna say this again. I did not have sex with that woman.”

Here’s the give away in the AP article that the “images” kept by the USPS are all about spying: “The automated mail tracking program was created after the deadly anthrax attacks in 2001,” writes the AP, “so the Postal Service could more easily track hazardous substances and keep people safe, Donahoe said.”

Glad to know that they created a system to track us and keep us safe so that they could use it mostly for other purposes.

But here’s the biggest giveaway: Do you really think the Post Office is so smart that they would actually create something that automatically puts zip codes on envelopes when they could hire thousands to do it for more money?

Barskor wrote: Lol you are using the pathetic unionized crony capitalist stupidly produced Gump mobiles as examples privet micro companies without government enslavement funding have been producing far better vehicles greater performance ability to travel through the worst winter offers as electric has better torque and if you spent you tax return on Solar, Geothermal Sterling generators or wind power using air scoops & the bertoil effect you would be free of centralized power companies & gas companies with an ever reducing environmental foot print as three times standard energy storage can be done with Iron Sulfur batteries that cost a third the price of lithium batteries. - Liberal Democrats Propose to Outlaw Gas-Powered Cars by 2040

Nathan wrote: Although I agree that any idea to mandate the use of anything is moronic, I always wonder why people take so much time to denigrate electric cars. The problem with the electric car is not so much that it is a bad idea. It is that you have companies where the best engineers are mechnical, and they are trying to deliver an electric engine. To highlight this fact, see the latest car of the year, The Tesla S. They are only going to get better, faster and with more range after this one. You too will be driving an electric car in twenty years not because somebody is making you, but because you couldn't possibly dream of using anything else. - Liberal Democrats Propose to Outlaw Gas-Powered Cars by 2040

Well first your basic premise that people spend a lot of time denigrating electric cars is mistaken. It takes me very little time, actually, to denigrate electric cars. There is tons of data out there that makes it easy to denigrate electric cars without a lot of effort.

Know how kids today play that game slug bug? They see a Volkswagen Bug and the first one to see it gets too punch their seatmate in the arm while shouting out the color of the car?

In those days, back in the 1970s, Cadillacs came with cigarette lighters for every passenger. On long car trips we kids spent our time trying to spy Chevy Volts on the road. The first one to spot a Chevy Volt got to take the finger of their seatmate and stick it in the electrical receptacle for the cigarette lighter, while crying out the color of the car. It was kind of a Volt test-drive if you ever got into a crash in one.

To this date, my nearsighted sister hates to take long car rides with the family.

And by the way I don’t really denigrate electric cars as a whole generally speaking. I denigrate the Chevy Volt.

Tesla, for example, is a case in point. I hope Tesla is very, very successful at creating electric cars for people who have way too much money and not enough brains. Were I rich, I too might take advantage of every person’s prerogative to spend money on whatever it is that they want regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

But my main criticism about electric cars right now is this: I don’t want my tax dollars subsidizing cars that are not commercially viable without my money. I actually believe that my money is much more valuable in my pocket.

It’s more valuable to me, it’s more valuable to the economy, and it’s probably more valuable even to Obama when my money is in my pocket.

I too look confidently to the day when the electric car makes sense economically.

But it won’t be my children to benefit. It will probably be my children’s children’s children who will benefit from that.

In the meantime I will say about electric cars in general what I have said about the Chevy Volt specifically: alternative energy vehicles, especially electric, are amenity purchases for the metro-testicled.

Electric cars aren't new. They've been around for 100 years, just like socialist governments. Only the Democrats would insist on taking two things that have failed so miserably for four or five generations and call them new ideas.

Lester_Greenfield wrote: John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance

What associates, bachelors,masters, or PHD degrees do you own? What does Chicago's (Obama's neighborhood) statistical data regarding murder and crime have to do with finances?- Obama to Martha's Vineyard as Chicago Crime Burns

I see you’ve pulled the old liberal trick of “What’s your degree in that makes you such a great expert?”

I was a sportswriter previously- that’s how I broke into writing- and I’m still proud to be a member of the Football Writers Association- I’m am also an associate member of the Naval Intelligence Professionals. But had you consulted a host of biographical data available-like this website- you would know a few other things about me.

As I told another reader, genetically speaking, I’m an exact copy of both Koch Brothers. We wouldn’t want that to get around. So I’m keeping those records in the same fireproof box that the Obama administration keeps his college transcripts.

Before joining Townhall, I was both a political consultant and a writer. I wrote mostly about the stock market. My father was a banker. His father was a banker.

Starting in 1994, I followed in my family’s tradition and I worked as an investment executive to several NYSE-member investment firms. I was also a recruiter for one of the largest independent contractor broker-dealers in the country. I co-founded a small boutique investment firm, which was sold eventually for a nice profit- and I worked for a merchant banker.

I’ve filed 10Ks and 10Qs for public companies, and conducted a hostile takeover of a bank; I rescued a federally-insured financial institution- using NO taxpayer money- by helping to raise private money.

For years, I’ve worked as a consultant to a number of businesses in Colorado on business plans, marketing, and acquisitions.

I don’t have an advanced degree in anything. I studied Russian Language and Literature at the University of Maryland and am, somewhat, working on a Master’s degree in Writing- when I have time, which I have had rarely in a few years.

I also like camping in the mountains, horses, cognac and fishing. I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.

I think the better question to be asking is this: do you honestly believe that there is no connection between crime and finance?

RJonesy wrote: John, There you go again, using Repubs statistics. No matter what, the President is always wrong. What about the deficit decreasing? You never comment on that.- Obama to Martha's Vineyard as Chicago Crime Burns

Yo, Comrade Jonesy: you may have missed the part where the statistics come from the Chicago Tribune, not the Republican National Committee. The last time I checked the Chicago Tribune endorsed Barack Obama for president twice.

As to the declining deficit, I would credit Obama if he had anything to do with that decline. But when you don’t actually submit a budget it’s very difficult take credit for the work other people are doing.

I know that won’t stop Obama from pretending like he has something to do with the declining deficit, but that also won’t change the truth that he has nothing to do with the declining deficit.

The deficit is declining right now because outside forces, including the Republican Congress, have imposed upon Obama at least minimal fiscal discipline.

You need only consult Obama’s budget proposals to understand that if he had his way we would be running bigger deficits than ever before.

scott s. wrote: The problem with this article is it doesn't take into account that the BEA has done what they call a "comprehensive revision" to the National Income and Product Accounts effective 31 July. So all the historical numbers for GDP have to be refigured using the new definitions. That makes comparisons difficult. -The Top 7 Lies of Obam-a-CON-omists… So Far

Yes, and the problem with readers is that they don’t seem to understand that I have limited space within the confines of a column. I can’t expose every revision to previous revisions that were already revised to begin with.

But I will say this much: Your observation that the revisions to GDP make comparisons difficult is likely the point of the revisions to GDP in the first place.

And that just goes to show you that you should be reading my columns every single day and sometimes twice a day.

Pete329 wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the Federal Reserve is a part of the federal government. Can anyone confirm this? -The Top 7 Lies of Obam-a-CON-omists… So Far

I think that this is a rumor that was started by the United States Postal Service.

The Federal Reserve banking system is the creation that is jointly owned by the private banks that are members of the Federal Reserve system and Congress.

But the ownership by the member banks, which really is just a fig leaf creating the fiction that the Federal Reserve is a private bank, in reality only legally entitles member banks to a dividend from the central bank.

Constitutionally speaking, the Federal Reserve banking system, because it has been delegated the authority to coin money, a function that was enumerated in the Constitution of United States to Congress, must be a part of the government otherwise it would no longer be constitutional, in my opinion. I don’t believe that Congress has the authority, under the Constitution, to delegate one of its enumerated powers to a private entity.

This is in some part why the chairman of the Federal Reserve testifies from time to time before Congress. This allows Congress to say that they are exercising oversight authority over the Federal Reserve banking system.

As could be observed about the Post Office, I know of no private American corporation where the chairman is appointed by the president of United States.

So you will find comrades out there who claim that the Federal Reserve system is private. Yet, come on: who you kidding?

Dickathome wrote: Discounting old projections proves nothing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is increasing. Arctic ice is melting, as are glaciers all over the world. High temperature records are being broken every year. The oceans are getting warmer and rising. If this is not global warming, what is? Watch a NOVA TV program called "Earth from Space." It shows how very accurate measurements have been taken for the last 30 years of many aspects of every part of the surface of the land and oceans, plus below ground and oceans surfaces. Accurate measurements have also been made of the atmosphere from the surface to above the atmosphere. -Global Warmers Get it Wrong on Arctic Ice, Haircuts

The only thing that matters about so-called global warming is the power to predict what will happen in the future. And so far those predictions have largely fallen flat.

"There's a lot of differing data [about global warming],” quips Dennis Miller, “but as far as I can gather, over the last hundred years the temperature on this planet has gone up 1.8 degrees. Am I the only one who finds that amazingly stable? I could go back to my hotel room tonight and futz with the thermostat for three to four hours. I could not detect that difference."

Here’s some advanced reading from the blog Watts Up With That? debunking climate models and sea ice while noting that global warming has stopped all together:

We’ve illustrated in a number of posts over the past few months that the climate models prepared for the IPCC’s upcoming 5^thAssessment show no skill at being able to simulate:

And we recently illustrated and discussed in the post Meehl et al (2013) Are Also Looking for Trenberth’s Missing Heat that the climate models used in that study show no evidence that they are capable of simulating how warm water is transported from the tropics to the mid-latitudes at the surface of the Pacific Ocean, so why should we believe they can simulate warm water being transported to depths below 700 meters without warming the waters above 700 meters?

The climate science community may believe they understand “the fundamental physics of the Earth system”, but the performance of their models indicate their understandings are very limited and that they have a long way to go before they can “make projections of its evolution”. If they can’t simulate the past, we have no reason to believe their projections of what the future might hold in store.

VLadilyich wrote: Why on Earth, would an article in a blog that touts journalistic integrity, with the headline "Global Warmers Get it Wrong on Arctic Ice" carry the lead graphic of the Antarctic? Penguins only live at the South Pole). -Global Warmers Get it Wrong on Arctic Ice, Haircuts

I’m not a blogger; I’m a columnist. One would think that a reader who touts journalistic integrity would know the difference.

The reason why I picked that picture with the penguin at the South Pole is because I knew some dweeb with way too much time on his hands—yes, I’m looking at you Vlad-- would mouth off about it.

Also, we at Townhall are shooting for something much higher than “journalistic integrity,” which is an oxymoron today.

tbrennan55 wrote: Just how deranged is this character? The evidence of the ice shelves are shrinking in the arctic is overwhelming. It is an easy thing to measure. It's an easy thing to acutally watch. The ocean level is increasing. Temperature is increasing every year. What more do you need to show the world that Global warming is real? ). -Global Warmers Get it Wrong on Arctic Ice, Haircuts

More about that later but for now, I have to go do other things liberals find deranged, like obey the constitution, exercise my First and Second Amendment rights, go to church and fire up my outdoor BBQ and fireplace with green energy, renewable fuels, also known as wood.

Can we just all agree right now that "fossil" fuels are renewable too and put an end to the farce?

Scientific research has demonstrated that Man Made Global Warming is caused by tenure of college professors.

The energy for electric cars comes, 90%+, from something being burned. Exhaust on the road or exhaust at the power plant, take your pick.

It’s all about the hatred of the ‘big oil companies’.

While growing up, and even now, the biggest ‘demons’ to those people are: Oil Companies, Tobacco Companies, and Insurance Companies. ‘Big Tobacco’ seems to be falling out of vogue a bit on their shit list lately, and are being replaced by Firearms Manufacturers.

In the coming decade, I fully expect “greedy, for-profit Doctors” to rapidly ascend to among the top of their most hated list. After doctors are practically enslaved and working for free, Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants will be next. They had all better be READY for it, and I don’t mean by joining the AMA or most existing organizations either.(they’ve already sold out) They had better be ready to form up some sort of trade organization and be willing to throw down the gauntlet, refusing to treat anyone that isn’t paying cash for their services.

When it comes to all of the above, Leftists NEVER stop, once they dedicate themselves to a goal. It’s never over for them. They no know nothing of the word defeat or quit. They may get big setbacks along the way, but they always regroup and return to fight, wearing down their opposition over time.

Leftists have a war on anything THEY deem bad.

Oil (because as we all know fracking is destroying the planet)

Fast Food (except of course the ones THEY like)

Tobacco (but Marijuana is just fine)

Guns (unless of course they are given to Mexican gangs by our govt.)

Big Corporations (unless your name is Apple, Progressive, Starbucks, etc)

And the list just goes on and on and on AGAINST freedom!

and if you spent you tax return on Solar, Geothermal Sterling generators or wind power using air scoops & the bertoil effect

Don’t know bout’ the rest of you but I haven’t had a “Tax Return” in two years.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.