Read this silly article on a right-wing propaganda website. The article itself will be in red and my direct responses will be in blue .
Although we do try to report on hard-hitting issues, we’re not above a few good laughs at the expense of far-left nutjobs like Hillary Clinton. Here’s an amazing anecdote about the difference between a conservative and liberal, attributed to Jim Spivey on Facebook.
Right from the start, this writer starts misrepresenting one of her political opponents. Hillary, like her husband Bill, is not far-left. She is actually a fairly conservative Democrat. It is Bernie Sanders, who is also running as a Democrat for the Presidency, who can be called a “far-left nutjob” because he professes to be a democratic SOCIALIST. Yet he seems to have far more integrity than most other politicians, including Hillary herself.
It sums everything up perfectly:
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. Trump gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
Uh, NO! Usually when you fill out a job application, you must state your home address, thus preventing a homeless person from getting a job anywhere. This is exactly why being homeless is such a terrible trap!
Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Trump’s pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.00.
Welfare offices DO serve homeless people in ways that private industry does not. And the implication here is that liberals must “steal” from the rich in order to give away money and other gifts to the poor. But that is a lie on several levels: First, taxation by legal definition is NOT and can never be theft. Second, government officials must eat too, so they do have to be paid for their services. Or would you rather try to live without them and rely only on for-profit businesses for all your services? You will end up even poorer as a result! And why would the writer say $15 for administrative fees and not a more reasonable amount like $5? For hyperbole, of course. Note to right-wingers: Private industry MUST make a profit to function, while governments do not!
Now, do you understand the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal progressive?
No, but I know a bigoted LIAR when I see one! Of course, the incident never happened anyway!
Read this horrible story:
In a $725 million deal, the 127-year-old National Geographic magazine is leaving behind its nonprofit status and becoming a key piece of a new venture between its parent organization and 21st Century Fox.
The dramatic shift will place the venerable magazine, with its iconic yellow-rimmed covers, under a new venture called National Geographic Partners. Fox will own 73 percent of the new company, with the National Geographic Society owning 27 percent.
Those proportions are similar to the ownership split of National Geographic’s cable TV channels. The new deal is being called an extension of that partnership, which began 18 years ago and now reportedly reaches more than 500 million homes worldwide.
James Murdoch, who took over the post of CEO of 21st Century Fox from his father, Rupert, this summer, said:
“We are privileged to have the opportunity to expand our partnership to continue to bring to audiences around the world, ‘The world and all that is in it,’ as National Geographic Society’s second president Alexander Graham Bell stated more than a century ago. We believe in the Society’s mission of bringing the world to audiences through science, education and exploration.”
The new media company will be headed by CEO Declan Moore, a 20-year veteran of National Geographic who is currently its chief media officer. Gary Knell, the CEO of the National Geographic Society, will remain in that role.
“We will now have the scale and reach to fulfill our mission long into the future,” Knell said. “The Society’s work will be the engine that feeds our content creation efforts, enabling us to share that work with even larger audiences and achieve more impact. It’s a virtuous cycle.”
National Geographic Partners will combine the National Geographic TV channels with a list of media properties that, according to a news release, includes “National Geographic magazines; National Geographic Studios; related digital and social media platforms; books; maps; children’s media; and ancillary activities, including travel, location-based entertainment, archival sales, catalog, licensing and ecommerce businesses.”
The deal will raise the value of the National Geographic Society’s endowment to nearly $1 billion.
21st Century Fox is in turn owned by News Corporation, which also owns…..FOX News!
Hasn’t the Murdoch family and their companies done enough damage to the mass media already?! Why take over National Geographic, one of the most respected publications in history?! HOW DARE THEY?!!
Let us not forget what happened to MySpace when it was part of the FOX empire.
Seeing this news story made me laugh.
The most hated companies in America have a knack for angering people. Whether it’s due to inept management, subpar products, poor service, or lackluster stock performance, these businesses earn the wrath of customers, employees, and shareholders alike.
When I was a small child, John Wayne was one of the greatest celebrities in the world. He has been dead for decades, but his movies remain as his legacy. Sadly, he was also an incredibly blind and arrogant bigot.
The basic conflict between conservatives and liberals can be illustrated by the following pie charts.
In the first, we see a typical arrangement in which a certain class that is privileged gets most of what they want, leaving only a little for members of a non-privileged class.
A truly just society, one that liberals would favor, would have an arrangement like this:
But this would cause the formerly privileged group to have less, which would go against their interests. But what if we could enlarge the amount of resources so that everyone could have more?
Sounds ideal, no? But conservatism depends on social inequality, so instead they might push for THIS instead!
It does not matter how large or how small the pie is, as long as a privileged class gets most of it, period!
Maybe that explains this: http://dalehusband.com/2009/07/13/the-absurd-scam-of-reaganomics/
Until the American Civil War ended, slavery was a common institution in the United States. Often portrayed as cheap, it still had costs associated with it. These included:
1. Obtaining the slaves: They were often kidnapped from Africa and shipped across the Atlantic Ocean under cramped conditions. That cost money. The slave trade was eventually abolished long before slavery ended, but that had the effect of making the slaves already in America more valuable.
2. Buying the slaves.
3. Giving the slaves food, water, clothing and shelter.
4. Treating the slaves of illnesses and injuries.
4. Guarding the slaves to prevent them from revolting or escaping.
5. Burying or cremating the slaves after they died.
Now compare that with people who work today at minimum wage. If you can only afford food to feed yourself and your children, a place to live at, medical expenses, and to pay for your funeral when you die, how are you any better off, materially speaking, than slaves 200 years ago?
And if you wonder why some want the minimum wage increased, that is why!