Boyscout Leaders Only Exist To Molest Your Children.

As someone who is right-leaning, it disturbs me when I see blatant propaganda coming from the right wing.  I will get to Occu-Demos once again, but this one I cannot let slide:

On the site: Right Wing News, there was an article on the "absurdity" it is to allow a gay person be a Scout Leader (collective fake gasp, I'm sure).  I know many right-wingers, I come from a family of right-wingers, I do not know one person opposed to allowing Gay men to become Scout-Leaders, but let's get into it, shall we?

The article is titled: Gay Scoutmasters Will Lead The Boy Scouts On A March Into Oblivion.  Very propagandy-sounding, and it pulls no punches.  The first paragraph (which is a screen-shot to prevent any editing) reads:

That light blue text is a link, and I was expecting it to be a study (or at least some research) as to why teen-scouts will be "bad touched", but it wasn't.  What was the justification for this bold claim?  The NYT's article simply announcing the lifting of the ban.  So...  please, Right Wing News, where's the basis to the claim?

The people commenting were even more disturbing - for instance:

Great parenting.  Jerry Sandusky was married to a woman, leave your son with him...  right?

Here's another one:

Were they?  According to Wikipedia, homosexuals have not been allowed to join the Scouts since at least 1980.  The 2,000 cases you're referring to were revealed in 1994.  There was another case of "bad touch" in 2006.  If only you were an inmate at San Quentin Prison.

Here's the thing homo-haters: your logic is flawed.  If you think a gay dude is going to hit or make an advance at a straight dude - the Scouts may not be for you.  If you're afraid your son is going to accept that advance and you disown him after you find out he's gay: the Scouts probably aren't for you.

Not only is your argument against this incredibly left-winged, it lacks all forms of logic (keeping it in the left-wing category).  So, if we can't trust someone to be around another person they're physically attracted to, how can we ever trust straight people to meet with other straight people of the opposite sex, say - at church?  I've been to church plenty of times, and I never remember NOT containing myself around a woman I was physically attracted to.  I also have never experienced an orgy inside of a church...

So please, what is the legitimate Republican argument to be against this?  We need to embrace it.  Some may not accept it - but Republicanism does not require everyone to accept what you do.

Update

Did not mean to attack leftists at all.  My apologies.

Racism Takes a Hard Left Turn

The KKK showed up at the South Carolina Statehouse to protest the removal of the Confederate flag yesterday (July 18th, 2015), and man did that mean Republicans are racist.  I guess we're ignoring the fact that a Republican governor is the reason it's being removed, and even stated:

"The strength and grace the people of South Carolina have shown over the last three weeks have inspired our family, our neighbors and the entire world. Our family hopes the people of South Carolina will join us in staying away from the disruptive, hateful spectacle members of the Ku Klux Klan hope to create over the weekend and instead focus on what brings us together. We want to make the Statehouse a lonely place for them. In doing so, we’ll honor those we have lost and continue to make our state stronger. "

Now, of course, in the article linked above (Think Progress), we had to see sh*t like this:

Yes...  of course they will, because - some bullsh*t methodology, I guess.  Or, because this guy said so.  Before I continue, let me point out:  I've been to some dark corners of the internet to figure out what these people really think (white nationalists, KKK, and just general assholes) - here's what I've found: they are pro-union (to protect white labor), they are pro-abortion (to control the non-white population), they are anti-capitalism --  this one for more than a few reasons.  Some believe capitalism is a Jewish construct, therefore cannot be trusted.  Others believe the benefits of capitalism are disproportionately distributed to the non-white population, and the rest are just idiots.

Wait - did I just list reasons to vote for Bernie Sanders?

Now, I didn't go into as much detail, which was obviously a pathetic attempt at ignoring the myth of the southern strategy:

Let's ignore the fact that the Southern Strategy didn't exist.  This person did not answer my question - which is common among those most affected by propaganda - and my question still stands:  why would an anti-capitalist vote for a Republican?

Let's consider: leftist economic policies are meant to "prop up" classes that they deem protected.  Well, white nationalists are seeking to do exactly that: protect their "class", or race.  In the same way La Raza votes for Democrats to protect the Latino population, White Nationalists will vote for the same style politicians to protect whites.

So my question still stands, and I will bring it one step further: why would anyone who is anti-capitalism, or favors protecting one race or group over another, ever vote for a Republican?

What?

Source: Screen Grab

Not much to say.

Obama got us out of war, right?  Oh, he redirected us?  OK.  But, this one deal is the one thing to keep our troops home?

OccuDems - you're assholes for this one.

How can a political party accept this propaganda?

What Would Lincoln Say?

Unfortunately, not always what you think.  Last night I came across a post from the Occupy Democrats Facebook page:

Source: Screen grab

Hear what, exactly?  Something Lincoln never said?

I was immediately skeptical.  Not because I'm a scholar on Lincoln - more so because I know leftists have been trying to hijack Lincoln's legacy for a long time.  So, I googled the quote.  Of course, a site: ratical.org has the same quote attributed to Lincoln, but who the hell are they?  I was shocked the Daily KO's came up - so I checked the link to Lincoln's Take on Capitalist Slavery.  Was this a good quote?  No - considering it never appeared in the Daily KO's article whatsoever.  

I must've glanced over it, because there was a Snopes article that came up as the first result.  Their verdict?  Big fat red false, with a very detailed analysis why.  I suggest going through that article.

Of course, the comments section was filled with praise for Lincoln and his prophetic statement hailing the Democrats of 150 years later as saviors of the world as Lincoln saw it.  One person, did however, point out that: while he liked the quote, Lincoln never said it.  He was met with fact-checking praise:

Source: Screen grab

Wait - is he saying one of the fundamental differences between progressives and conservatives is the progressives fact check, but the conservatives do not?  Is he implying that the conservatives over at Occupy Democrats (I know, right?) posted the fugazy quote and it took a progressive to fact check it?  Maybe it's time to write about the $.77 wage gap.

Let's be real - fact checking is a thing of the past for most people.  The people who simply assume --because of ideology one is more prone to fact check than another -- are victims of propaganda.

Girl from Iraq vs. Girl from Idaho... I guess

If you follow Occupy Democrats' Facebook page, I'm sure you'll know they definitely cross the line from party-support to party-propaganda.  The Conservative Hammer Review Facebook page picked up on one of their memes, and ran with it:

OK, so first, ISIS hasn't banned her from being taught evolution, she's being banned from learning how to f*cking read.  Girl on the right?  Not so much.  I'm pretty sure she can read Richard Dawkins' entire library in public without having acid thrown in her face.

Secondly - how is this not propaganda?

Thirdly - I wouldn't say I'm a republican per se'.  I mean I am, I don't think enough Republicans are Republican enough to throw me in the Republican box - but I fear nothing of science, and as a matter of fact - I embrace it.  Science has explained so much about everything -- too bad the only science leftists focus on are the creation of man (and women, holy hell that should be implied), global-whatever (we'll just call it crisis from here on out) - and the Narnia-style science that says fetuses have zero human DNA.  Trust me lefties, I was disappointed when, what I thought was going to be a baby boy, was born a stove.

Redistribution of CEO's pay makes everyone's life better!

There's an article over on Think Progress about a restaurant in Wisconsin that's raising its employees wages to $15/hr.  You can find it here.  Not too much activity going on in the comments section, but I did see one person offer his very valuable opinion on how fast food restaurants can pay their employee's the same amount:

Well, first - it says right in the article that the owner is adding a 20% surcharge to each check to pick up the burden of the cost.  But, forget that.  I'm on your side Mike, let's redistribute the CEO's pay so that every employee can get the hard-earned raise they deserve.

Don't get me fooled here - I'm not distributing some of his salary, I'm taking it all from that rich privileged asshole who is making everyone's life miserable.

First, what is his yearly salary?  We'll use the data reported here to determine what it is annually.
http://finance.yahoo.com/.../mcdonalds-starbucks-ceos...

$9,247 * 60hrs/week * 50 weeks = $27,741,000. Lot of dough - now, we'll leave out the global empire that is McDonalds, and just use that to give raises to everyone in the U.S, because who gives a shit about the rest of the world, right?

According to Statista - there are 14,350 McDonalds in the U.S., and there is an average of 15 hourly employees per store.

http://www.statista.com/.../number-of-mcdonalds.../

http://www.statista.com/.../employees-per-establishment.../

So, first, let's distribute his salary to each store to spend on labor - 27,741,000 / 14,350 = $1,933.17 for the year to spend on labor. 

Supposing the average store's employee ONLY works 20 hrs per week, there is 300 working hours a week per store, 1,200 per month, and 14,400 hours worked by all employees per year, per store. Now's the fun part, where we make everyone's life better by distributing that money to the employees.

Congratulations. You gave every worker a $0.14 raise.... you f*cking hero.