Saturday, 7 September 2013

Calling Out The Sugar-Coated Facts

Stumbled upon this absurd picture trying to change people’s thinking using “facts”. 

In 2009 I watched 60 Minutes showing how DHL was leaving a small town; causing devastation to the people. 
 CBS was using this story to depict the suffering of the small town by using “real life examples”.  Was I the only human on the planet who caught the following?!?!?!

This is the lady who was upset about not being able to buy food: 7min 40 seconds, “…you just have to start doing without."
Below is quite the stockpile of "necessary" foods that CBS shot while on the subject of not being able to buy food. (7:20)
Do you see lots of  luxury brand name items too? Ironically, while she is talking about stockpiling necessary foods to survive, I paused the video and this is where the video landed. 
Quite the "necessary" item.  I find it deplorable and a massive insult to the truly needy of the world that a lady who is clearly 40 (or more) pounds overweight is complaining about no money for food while holding Betty Crocker Vanilla Icing (with cake mix in behind) when there are frail and malnourished people who would be thankful for rice and basic food items.  The left needs to address this common reality with food, booze and smokes before it gains an ounce of credibility with their pathetic pictures trying to trick us into thinking the lady is actually holding veggies.  I found no veggies in that mess of foods...did you?
 Oh, and BTW, SHAME on CBS for failing to ask, "If you are short of cash and cannot afford food, then why are you buying Vanilla Icing?"  SHAME.  The very subtle agenda they were promoting is the very opposite of the reality they actually portrayed.  I least edit your own work and replace the Icing with some veggies.
 It's not about the 'mother trying to buy veggies' or else the left would call it's about wealth transfer.
 If the left admitted there is a crisis of money going to poor food choices/booze and smokes, that would de-legitimize their actual goal of massive wealth they need to cover up (tee-he...icing on cake...) the baloney spending of several low income earners with a slender woman holding veggies so they can curry favor with the reasonable masses.
Get real lefties...your only fooling the foolish.


It’s Greedy For You To Keep Your Money…But Not For Me To Take It.


Left wing ideology is much harder to have patience with when you are working your tail off.  A major problem with left wingers is that they are all too often unable (unwilling/incapable?) of debating past their own contradictions and emotional tirades.  Simple points become massive stumbling blocks to further a discussion.  Is there anyone out there who can offer a semblance of intelligence with respect to the dialogue below?  

Socialist: “The employer should be forced to pay the employee more money. It’s not fair for the employee.”

Reason: “Why is it wrong for an employee and employer to come to an agreement  on wages  paid for work performed?”

Socialist: “When it means the worker is living below a poverty line, the employer should do more.”

Reason:  “Why should the employer pay more then the value of their work? Since when is the employer responsible for the financial living conditions of someone else?”

Socialist: “Because the employer has excessive profits and can afford to share”

Reason: “Then the worker should ‘pay up’ when the employer has losses, right?”

----conversation over----

Reason on tail end: “Why is the answer not to increase the skills of the worker and therefore their earning potential?”

Reason: “……I’m genuinely asking…”

----conversation over….still…----

Is it possible to further this discussion?

 The left goes wild when government tries to stop same-sex marriages. They always cite, “2 consenting adults should be able to make their own choice without government stopping them”….yet magically and suddenly…this very logic collapses when it comes to earning wages…all of a sudden 2 adults have no business agreeing on something between themselves and MUST have governments dictate to them the ‘rules of engagement’…please explain how the stench of hypocrisy is not enveloped in this simple matter. In the situations of same-sex marriage and wage negotiations: 1. It is with adults of a sober mind, 2. They are consenting with each other 3. They each agree to certain roles and responsibility within their functions and 4. there is no law being broken and they have the choice to engage or not to engage. 

Until some form of reason can explain these gaps (and I concede gaps are possible to be filled); it is reasonable to state the left’s agenda is not rooted in congruent principles and values, but in a pragmatist ad hoc approach that leaves the on-looker bewildered and confused with obvious contradictions in key policies and core values. 

NDP leader Tom Muclair is at the park with his son.  His son sees a little girl with 12 scoops of ice-cream and starts to cry.  Tom, a seeker of justice, asks his son what’s wrong.  With a huff and a puff Tom’s son pouts, “She has 12 scoops and I only have 1 tiny scoop…that’s not fair.”  Tom (the logical man he is) thinks to himself, “How do I take my core political values and apply them here?”  Tom walks over to the little girl and explains to her, “You do not need all that ice cream…it is a superfluous situation that requires my intervention as my son only has 1 scoop…your excess is causing my sons loss and that simply is unjust.”  The girl says, “This belongs to me,” and pulls the ice-cream back.  Determined to see justice done, Tom pursues the little girl and takes a scoop and gives it to his son who promises to stop whining…until the sugar high is over. 

In the real world, Tom would be charged for robbery…to avoid charges, the left simply seeks to change the laws.  Since the ice-cream ‘belongs’ to the little girl…you simply pass a law that says that ice-cream now belongs to the state. Since this example is absurd, the left will agree the ice-cream belongs to the little girl….hence the contradiction. 

The Left argues it is a core principle to seize ownership (money/property) of group A and forcibly give it to group B to re-distribute the wealth. 

Taking money from Group A (Excess profit mongers: Wal-Mart…Excess playground girl with ice-cream) and forcibly give it to less fortunate Group B (low income wage earners/Tom’s deprived son) brings justice.  The same principle is argued to be sound in 1 case…but clearly foolish in another. Same logic, same basic conditions…contradictory results…telling me the inherent core value is broken.  That’s why several on the left are notoriously known for emotional breakdowns in the midst of a sensible argument; because when faced with the inevitable contradictions of their policy, they do not humble themselves and concede a point…so they lash out.

I strive to live a life where the principles and values that govern my family life are consistently reflected at work, politics, media, church and at the park.

Perhaps the left should strongly consider winding down their strong critique of the right’s core values….and develop some ‘contradiction free’ values of their own.

 Bonus Material:
Who “owns” an employee’s  time and talent?  The evil capitalist thinks: the employee.

Who owns the capital in the company?  The capitalist thinks: the shareholder (by definition).

Who owns the risk of capital, the losses of a corporation, and the profits? The owner.

Why should the worker not determine the fate of what the own, and the shareholder the same; after all, they each own their respective contributions?

Why is it okay to take from one group and give to another?

Left, please create your position of forced increases in minimum wage by incorporating sensible answers to these questions…without embarrassing contradictions…then perhaps we can further the discussion.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain