Pint Sized 1 Per Centers

YOU STOLE MY CANDY! It seems that if you find kids, that have not spent enough time being indoctrinated by Liberals, you will find they don’t care for the “Redistribution” Policies of Liberals. There is a certain obvious sense of fairness that comes with the concept of getting to keep what you have worked to earn. Comedian Steve Crowder tested this theory out at a neighborhood trunk and treat at a local church. At these events one shows up with a trunk full of Halloween goodies and hands them out to the little munchkins that attend. Crowder, who appears dressed as a monkee, then proceeds to “redistribute” the candy along Obama Liberal lines.
Of course, the Obama administration’s official stance on tax policy is based on the belief that the rich aren’t paying their “fair share” in taxes — despite the fact that the nation’s top 10 percent of income earners pay roughly 70 percent of all federal income taxes. As Crowder reaches into kids’ candy baskets and gives it to other children with less candy, the idea of redistribution is met with great resistance. “Hey, dude that’s not cool,” one kid says. “It’s not fun to take people’s candy…That’s my candy, I worked hard for it.” “But you had more than him,” Crowder replies. ‘That’s OK.”
You see your standard 8 year old has more common sense than your standard liberal. The kids had more to say:
Seriously man, I’m out of my mind… You just stole my candy!” an older kid says. “I didn’t steal it, I’m redistributing it so it’s fair,” says Crowder. He later told the same kid of his costume, ” You didn’t build that.” Before the prank was said and done, at least one child threatened to “call the police” over the candy theft, er…redistribution. After being repeatedly chastised by the pint-sized trick-or-treaters, Crowder concludes that even children think it’s most fair “to be able to keep what they’ve actually earned.”
Watch the video here. It is hilarious.

63 thoughts on “Pint Sized 1 Per Centers”

  1. …would seem to rule out a capitalist profiting by another’s labor.

    We could all profit if people would mind the golden rule.

    But apparently that’s impossible, especially for those at the top these days. So we probably will not get to have more nice things without establishing an empire in order to make others pay, etc.

  2. Geezer,
    It was me who said natural law means you have a right to your labor but capitalism doesn’t violate that. If I labor to create a rat trap then I own that trap. But if I agree to a wage and labor to obtain that wage then I have a right to that full wage. Corporate profits aren’t what the employee is laboring for.

    Example: if I am a server at a restaurant I am serving to obtain a tip. Just because I create an enjoyable dining experience in my pursuit of that tip does not mean that I also have a right to that enjoyable dining experience. Corporate profits are represented by the enjoyable experience and the wage is represented by the tip.

    I know youre trying to stir them up but this isn’t the first time I’ve seen you advocate socialist policies. I usually call you out on that and your unwarranted aggression under the name DEvoter302 on Delaware liberal.

  3. Dave writes in #46: “And so you continue to argue about labels rather than ideas and solutions. ”

    Dave like the invention of LANGUAGE, labels are representative of IDEAS and SOLUTIONS.

    Like language itself, labels allow for discussion and analysis of complex concepts. WORDS are essentially what you are calling labels.

    So, you, Dave, and Mike Castle are at war with LANGUAGE and want to rever to the pre-civilized state of people without language.

    Without language — and labels (also known as WORDS) experiences cannot be discussed, because if you didn’t personally experience it, you hae difficulty discussing it with anyone else.

    Labels encapsulate and summarize the lessons of history. As a result, they identify ideas and solutions. Repeating failed experiments is a bad idea and not a solution.

    How do you know when a proposed course of action is the same thing that has been tried before and failed?

    You have to know history and what defines the failed experience, put a label on it, and say “LET’S NOT DO THAT AGAIN…”

    So labels can make the difference between prosperity and disaster.

    Similarly, if something is proven to work, you should do more of that.

    HOW? How do you know what to do more of? You have to define it, and for the purpose of discussion put a label on it.

    Now, WHY are Virginia Dave and Mike Castle opposed to labels?

    Because labels CLARIFY what liberals hope to keep obscure and hidden.

  4. Now, WHY are Virginia Dave and Mike Castle opposed to labels?

    From their perspective, they seem to think that they have ideas and solutions “out there” that transcend current labels. And maybe that’s so. But they’re going to have to label them in some way in order to… well, actually tell people about them eventually. I suspect that they’re so refined, so sophisticated and so “moderated” that they cannot even be communicated. If that’s the case then the main point of it all, is merely this… they are higher and you are lower.

    However, here is how I would label Castle’s attempts at the game. He was full of corporate B$ of all sorts. Or did he work to correct the financial services industry, such as it is?

    His Green B$, portrayed as being beyond or transcending the polarizing labels of “red state” and “blue state” politics:

    Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution
    Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.
    Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore.
    Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries.
    Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
    Rated 33% by CAF, indicating a mixed record on energy independence.
    Yes, to sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    Maybe no “label” other than globalist is really needed, as apparently he was a sucker for corporate B$ and the central bankers who will probably eventually move toward establishing a police state to finance the “credits” and “debits” of your use of energy down to your own flatulence. But not their own flatulence or their private jets and so on, not unless they print more paper ponzi to redistribute your wealth so that they can afford more of their decadent indulgences. In any event, I wonder who debits the account of central bankers when a Greek burns themselves to death in protest over it all? Why isn’t that type of fire framed as causing global warming by those who have profited from usury?

    The simple fact is this, when people are able to live harmoniously in the body politic then it’s good for their environment and the birds and the bees too. There is really no need to go crazy with “Save that bird!!!!” based on the rules of ignorant, vain and corrupt rulers like Castle. Look at it this way, you’re not really saving a bird with them… because it still dies underneath the wings of their tender care just as you will too. Remember, there’s a 100% extinction rate at the end of it all so you didn’t really save a bird or the planet either. But we could probably be doing better than we are here and now, as far as less Greeks burning themselves to death and so on.

  5. I would love to hear Geezer and others, perhaps Dave, “compare and contrast”

    o “NEWSPEAK” from George Orwell’s warnings in “1984” and “Animal Farm” — in which a totalitarian government manipulated the language in order to confuse and enslave the population


    o The “NO LABELS” movement promoted by Mike Castle (among others)

    WHY do Mike Castle and others want to CHANGE the way political candidates and ideas and philosophies are talked about in public discussion?

    Isn’t that what George Orwell predicted in “1984” and “Animal Farm?” The meaning of words is manipulated in order to manipulate people. It is called “NEWSPEAK.”

    And why do they want “No Labels?” They say “to get things done.”

    In other words, people who would not accept ideas and candidates if they KNEW what those ideas really were and what the candidates actually stood for might be fooled into accepting what they would not otherwise accept.

    To “get things done” by manipulating language means getting people to do things they don’t want to do, would not otherwise accept.

    And when people want to rearrange society “to get things done” it is fair to ask: WHAT things? A burglar who wants to rob your house wants to get it done. But we want to stop him.

  6. Greece:

    Christoulas’s death can be added to an increasing number of suicides in Greece, as more people feel hopeless amid the worst economic crisis in the country’s recent history: according to the health ministry data, the suicide rate jumped about 40% in the first five months of 2011 compared with a year earlier. Austerity drives up suicide rate in debt-ridden Greece

    Goldmans, Blankfeins, Bernankes, Goldstein and Goldmembers in general closer to the top of paper ponzi in general should take note, if history is any measure then people will begin using false labels again or trying to seek a scape goat. And it’s doubtful that the “Golden Dawn” of a correction away from paper medias and back toward physical or “brutal” reality will be profitable to anyone. The bitter irony, those who profit the most from the rise of civilization seem to want its decline and destruction.

    Greenspan’s view of the end: “Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should.”

    Utter, foolishness… he will be viewed as the parasite if his manipulation of paper ponzi collapses and people begin to wonder why they can’t seem to get enough dollars or food stamps with “purchasing power.” Same thing with the rest of the main stream media and all their manipulations and illusions linked to the almighty dollar. Duh? It’s not one nation under God. It’s more likely that the religious sinews holding everything together is the almighty dollar.

    In any event, as Chris Christy and Bloomberg seem to have figured out… in case of emergency, grovel before the central powers of finance so that they pull from other states to rebuild your own. Christy: “He’s not fit to run a lemonade stand!!!” vs. “Wait, I need money. Best president, ever! Yay!!!”

    It’s like a small window into how much power the central $tate and the private banking cartel financing it have amassed.

    Fun times.

  7. The meaning of words is manipulated in order to manipulate people.

    Something you should consider in “red states” that want limited government but then want to blow the budget on “underwear bomber” type DHS programs or defense contractors who provide “arms” to rebels like Al”CIA”eda/Osama while our own troops come back limbless later.

    What’s the first thing that Romney Inc. will want to do? Avoid budget cuts for defense contractors by looting more wealth from the states, probably…

    But some states: “Say, we’ll get more jobs and wealth back because we’ve been incorporated in arming the rebels or somethin’.”


    The U.S. defense industry is counting on developing nations to help them make up for declining domestic and European sales, reports DOD Buzz.
    A recent Congressional Research Service report indicated that U.S. arms transfer agreements tripled in 2011 compared to 2010, rising from $21.4 billion to $66.3 billion, the story said. From that total, $56.3 billion worth of arms transfer agreements were made to developing nations.
    Among the nations offering promising sales markets are Saudi Arabia, India and the United Arab Emirates*, the story said.
    U.S. defense contractors have pleaded with the Defense Department Pentagon to loosen restrictions on foreign military sales to offset the drop in domestic sales…

    *That will end well.

  8. “But they’re going to have to label them in some way in order to… well, actually tell people about them eventually.”

    Jon, I’m not sure why I would have to explain this to you but what the heck, I’m feeling charitable and there is a remote possibility you might be able grasp the concept.

    Solutions and ideas cannot be communicated in labels. Sure politicians tend to do that because they do not credit the public with any brains. But the fact is, when cast something as liberal or conservative, you are not only being lazy you are being condenscending and patronizing.

    Want to make an argument against an idea? Try doing it without using the word “liberal” (or words that connote liberalism). Try arguing the merits. Why is it a bad idea. Why won’t it work. What is a better idea. Why will this help the nation or the community. In fact, I challenge you to argue a single “liberal” stated idea (not one you made up but a real one) and argue the merits without labeling. Try something like comprehensive immigration reform, taking each point and arguing the merits of it.I bet you can’t do it. In fact, even if it you could do it, I bet you won’t do it.

    The reason you won’t do it, even if you could, is that you are intellectually lazy and labels are the easiest way to dismiss something without having to actually form complete sentences that challenge premises and conclusions.

    So you will continue to make “liberal” “socialism” “communism” and labels like that the most used words in your vocabulary because to you it communicates volumes without ever having to dissect an idea. In short, I am being kind when I say you are intellectually lazy because I am giving you credit for having a modicum of intelligence. I could just label you as “stupid” but I try not to label.

  9. Dave writes in #58: “Jon, I’m not sure why I would have to explain this to you but what the heck, I’m feeling charitable and there is a remote possibility you might be able grasp the concept. Solutions and ideas cannot be communicated in labels.”

    That’s where we disagree. I respect that you have a strongly-held, deeply-felt, and extensive system of belief on this (and I am not suggesting that it is the only issue for you, but an important one). Where I believe people are using such arguments dishonestly, I tend to think you are the manipulatee rather than the manipulator.

    Politicians continue to use arguments when they sound damn good and sound convincing. I respect the fact that an argument may sound very persuasive and very appealing, and anyone can be taken in. The counter-argument has nothing to do with good will or intelligence, but with EXPERIENCE in seeing how what sounds good has been tried before.

    One dimenson of the two different analyses is this:

    I and many conservatives say that WE ALREADY KNOW what the ideas and solutions are. They have already been tried. Liberalism, socialism, and communism (different intensity levels of the same fallacy) have been TRIED and TESTED and found to be failures.

    So we don’t need to re-examine and reconsider what has already been decided. I don’t need to re-evaulate and go over old ground to know that liberalism, socialism, or partial socialism (heading in that direction) is a bad idea and not a solution.

    Your thinking (which again I do not place only at your door step, but the tide that you are swept up in, no matter who started it) wants to RE-OPEN the question of whether certain solutions are good or bad or certain ideas are good or bad.

    You don’t want to look at labels, because you want to re-open the discussion.

    For most conservatives, we have had a hundred years of experience and empircal evidence and we already know the outcome.

    For most conservatives, the labels are enough BECAUSE we already know whether these ideas are good or bad.

    For most conservatives, wanting to re-open what has already been tested and failed is an attempt to simply EVADE the proven results of history.

  10. Consider this: Suppose I don’t like Cajun food. (In reality I don’t even think I would recognize Cajun food one way or the other, but let’s just say.)

    So you say “Let’s go to X, they serve Cajun food.” The label “Cajun” is enough to tell me that I don’t want to eat there. You can, if you want. But I won’t enjoy it.

    Now why is the label “Cajun” enough? Presumably because I have already tried it before.

    If I have never tried it, then it would be foolish to judge or decide based on the label: I need to actually try the food. I need to look behind the label. It is the actual fod that I will like or not like not the label.

    But once I have tried that style of food, and ruled out perhaps an out-lier bad cook, I know now what the label represents.

  11. Good analogy, Jon, up to a point. Too often I hear you label things “Cajun food” just because you don’t like them. The labels aren’t interchangeable.

    What your reasoning often leads to is tautological arguments: I don’t like it because it’s liberal; it’s liberal because I don’t like it.

  12. “I and many conservatives say that WE ALREADY KNOW what the ideas and solutions are. They have already been tried. Liberalism, socialism, and communism (different intensity levels of the same fallacy) have been TRIED and TESTED and found to be failures.”

    See what you did? You cast “liberalism”, “socialism”, and “communism” as ideas and solutions. You either did not comprehend what I meant or you chose to ignore what I meant.

    And idea and solution is a plan of action. A solution takes and “as is” condition and proposes a “to be” condition. For example, a (partial) solution to illegal immigration would be for all states to implement e-Verify or to penalize all businesses for hiring illegal immigrants. That’s not liberal or conservative, socialistic, or communism. It’s just a partial proposed solution. But then, I’m assuming you knew exactly what I was talking about and chose to responsd as you did because you are intellectually dishonest. Of course I will take that back if you honestly did not comprehend what I was talking about.

    Either way, you met my expectation for a response – meaning I expect no more than what I got from you, which is why I so rarely bother to direct any comments to you or about you, because it just isn’t intellectually stimulating and leaves me dissatisfied, sort of like Chinese food (which I like) leaving me hungry again after 30 minutes.

  13. Geezer writes in #61: “What your reasoning often leads to is tautological arguments: I don’t like it because it’s liberal; it’s liberal because I don’t like it.”

    I understand how it may look that way to you, particularly if you simply assume — as liberals and Dave-type moderates do — that conservatives are conservatives because they are stupid, ignorant, uneducated, illogical, emotion-driven, and slavishly following what they are told. Dave’s entire outlok has always been that if only we conservatives were smarter, more worldly, and more informed we would agree with him.

    I don’t like it because it is liberal, because I have thoroughly and completely explored all of the arguments and I have come to a conclusion a very long time ago.

    I have repeated many times here on these pages how I used to be pro-abortion. Not pro-choice. I thought abortion — which I knew absolutely nothing about — was great if magically becoming “unpregnant” (which I did not bother to understand) gave college girls less reason for hesitation. (Not that it mattered much in my life, being a computer nerd in high school. I was a sinner, but not very successful at it.)

    I know what I reject, not because I reject it, but because I have explored it thoroughly. Even after becoming a conservative I have always listened and talked openly with those whose opinions are completely different from my own. I know all the arguments. You might not be aware of it. But you are the one assuming that a conservative rejects liberalsim for lack of knowledge.

Comments are closed.