Enter Contact Information Here

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." 

Facebook Twitter Gplus YouTube Zazzle RSS

Hobby Lobby pays to kill innocent babies by forced abortion in China

Hobby Lobby says they are Christian. They say they love God. They claim that the reason they don’t want to pay for employee health insurance is that some of that money might end up paying for someone’s abortion, and they hate abortion. This is their argument:

1) If we pay for health insurance for our employees, that money goes into a pool of money that the health insurance company has to pay for things.

2) If that health insurance company covers abortions, then they might take some money out of that pool and give it to a hospital that performed an abortion.

3) Therefore, if we pay for health insurance for our employees it is the same as if we were paying for abortions.

Hobby Lobby thinks that paying for insurance that pays hospitals that pays doctors who perform abortions is like paying for abortions.

Hobby Lobby thinks that paying for insurance that pays hospitals that pays doctors who perform abortions is like paying for abortions.

As a result, they object, because they don’t want to pay for abortions.

This style of argument is common. This is the same logic that we use to deny public funding to Planned Parenthood, even though only a teeny tiny fraction of what Planned Parenthood does has anything to do with abortion.  The logic is like this:

1) If public money goes to Planned Parenthood, then it goes into  a big bucket with all of their other money.

2) Some part of the money in that bucket might get used to pay a doctor who performs an abortion.

3) Therefore, if any public money at all goes to Planned Parenthood in any way, then it is the same as if we are paying for abortions.

Using tax money to pay Planned Parenthood who might use some of that money to pay a doctor to perform an abortion is like paying for an abortion.

Using tax money to pay Planned Parenthood who might use some of that money to pay a doctor to perform an abortion is like paying for an abortion.

As a result, we object to public money going to Planned Parenthood, because we don’t want to pay for abortions. As you can see, the logic is impeccable.

Unfortunately, THERE IS A PROBLEM!!!!

Hobby Lobby buys some of its materials from Chinese companies! Now, everybody knows that Chinese companies pay money to the Chinese government in taxes, and the Chinese government forces women in China to have abortions.

Notice, this follows exactly the same logic:

1) If Hobby Lobby pays companies in China for their products, then that money goes into a big pool of money owned by the Chinese company.

2) If that Chinese company pays taxes, then some of their tax money will go toward GOVERNMENT-FORCED ABORTIONS IN CHINA.

3) Therefore, when Hobby Lobby buys products from China it is exactly as if Hobby Lobby is FORCING CHINESE PEOPLE TO GET ABORTIONS.

When Hobby Lobby buys products made in China it is exactly as if they are forcing Chinese women to have abortions.

When Hobby Lobby buys products made in China it is exactly as if they are forcing Chinese women to have abortions.

Clearly, as you can see, the logic is the same.

So, Hobby Lobby, I ask you this:

Why do you hate babies?

Why do you hate God?

Don’t you realize that the only way to be Godly–using the logic that you are using to deny employees health insurance–is to make everything yourself and not interact with the world economy at all?

Honestly, Hobby Lobby. I thought you were better than this.

Baby-killers.

 

 
8 Comments  comments 

Obamacare: conservative logic versus liberal facts

WE HATE HEALTH CARE!You are a conservative. You know how to use your brain. You believe things because you have thought them through, and they make sense to you. They seem logical. Unlike liberals, who believe things that totally make NO SENSE AT ALL, just because they have “statistics” to back them up.

Nowhere is difference between conservatives and liberals more apparent than with Obamacare. Let’s take a look.

CONSERVATIVE LOGIC: Employers will reduce their number of full-time employees in order to avoid the costs associated with Obamacare. We will become a part-time employment nation!
LIBERAL FACTS: The  Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has found that part-time workers in the U.S. fell by 300,000 since the Affordable Care Act became law.  In just the past year, full-time employment grew by over 2 million.
VERDICT: Conservative logic sounds good, so it must be right. The statistics must have liberal bias.

 

CONSERVATIVE LOGIC: Millions and millions of people are losing their health insurance because of Obamacare! I know it must be true because I keep hearing these stories!

LIBERAL FACTS: The fact is, millions and millions of people had their policies cancelled every year, before the Affordable Care Act came into being. On average, only 17 percent of people ever retained coverage for more than two years prior to the Affordable Care Act becoming law. After the ACA became law, by contrast, only a relatively small number of people have been asked to change insurance policies because their existing policies were not compliant with the new standards:
Survey of cancellations since Obamacare

VERDICT: I heard tons of horror stories on T.V. This obviously outweighs these actual numbers. Numbers have a liberal bias.

 

CONSERVATIVE LOGIC: There will still be uninsured people after Obamacare is fully implemented. The whole point of Obamacare was to insure everybody. Therefore, Obamacare was completely pointless and achieved nothing.

LIBERAL FACTS: The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index shows that 15.9 percent of American adults are now uninsured, down from 17.1 percent for the end of 2013.  That is about 3 million to 4 million people who have coverage now who did not have it before.  The total number of Americans without health insurance is projected to reach its lowest number since 2008.

Plus, it is worth looking at why some of the people who remain uninsured got that way. There are currently 5 to 8 million people who can’t access Medicaid because their Republican political leaders oppose Obamacare. This isn’t a failure of Obamacare, it is a direct result of obstruction from conservatives. Nothing makes this more obvious than looking down at the breakdown by state of the total number of uninsured people before and after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act: notice that those states that opted in show dramatic reductions in uninsured citizens, while states that opted out do not show the same reduction: Uninsured numbers by state before and after Obamacare

VERDICT: All these numbers are confusing. The bottom line is that some people still aren’t insured, which means Obamacare didn’t solve every single problem, which means it was pointless and a complete failure. How can you argue with that kind of logic?

Clearly, you can’t.

 
1 Comment  comments 

Who needs socialist educations? I got Wikipedia!

Learning with the internet, not schools

Ohio state representative Andrew Brenner (R-Powell) has made an important point that most of the corporate news media has missed. Luckily, I am here to explain it to you.

Normally, of course, I would tell you that anything “scholarly” or “academic” is typically liberal propaganda made up by atheists who worship Satan and think Shortbread is the best Girl Scout cookie.

But representative Brenner, the vice chair of the Ohio House Education Committee, used Wikipedia’s definition of socialism to prove an excellent conservative point!

“Socialism, defined on Wikipedia, ‘is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,’” he wrote, noting that the provided definition “seems to summarize our primary education system.”

MIND = BLOWN!!

Some people have said Wikipedia has a liberal bias, but this just proves that the opposite is true.  In fact, this gave me new respect for Wikipedia. Who needs schools? Obviously, all you have to do to understand things like “socialism” is read Wikipedia… and then use your own logicalness skills to reason out the rest!

After all, think about it: If Wikipedia is so bad, then why did all my teachers try to tell me that it was not acceptable to use as a source in a research paper? Hmm?

Clearly they were trying to hide its ability to speak truth to power. Once I realized this, I looked up as many definitions (which Wikipedia defines as “a statement that explains the meaning of a term”) as possible!

Wikipedia: speaking truth to power!

Authoritarianism, as defined by Wikipedia, is characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.

What does this remind you of? How about the 99% of scientists that have conspired to fool the world that global warming is real even though the winter has never been colder? Or evolutionary biologists that say that just because it’s a theory does not mean it is not a scientific fact? Wikipedia is saying that science in general is authoritarian, and thus anti-American!

An Information Society, as defined by Wikipedia, is “a society where the creation, distribution, use, integration and manipulation of information is a significant economic, political, and cultural activity.”

The key word here is MANIPULATION. Isn’t that exactly what the liberal media does to try to convince people that Barack Hussein Obama is the President despite no proof that he was elected twice? If you don’t have anything to hide, show us the votes! Otherwise, you’re waving a FALSE FLAG!

Speaking of Obama…

Despotism, as defined in Wikipedia, is “a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power.”

Certainly sounds like Obama, doesn’t it? Obama does everything he wants just by making an executive order without the input of Congress. That’s why Obamacare doesn’t have a public option: because Obama always gets his way.

I’d like to thank representative Andrew Brenner for teaching us all a valuable lesson. We don’t need these liberal indoctrination camps, i.e. colleges and universities. We can learn everything we need to know by looking things up on Wikipedia!

It looks like the liberal lie machine has met its match!

Or at least, that’s what I wrote on Wikipedia.

 
1 Comment  comments 

© LiberalBias.com 2011-2014


Google+