Only a Liberal…

Their are COUNTLESS arguments for and against the minimum wage (I checked). Forget all of them; liberals are immune to statistics and facts. Try this (I’ll make the numbers rough for the sake of simplicity).

Pizza at Pizza Hut: $5
Pizza at Olive Garden: $10
Pizza at Il Fornaio: $20

The party in power in Congress decides its unfair that Pizza Hut gets less per pizza than the other two restaurants, so they pass a bill that requires pizza be sold at a minimum price of $10 next year, and $20 the year after. Ask your liberal friend what will happen to Pizza Hut. Answer: short of changing their image to substantially more sophisticated, Pizza Hut will cease to exist.
Labor is no different than any consumer product. If someone wants to sell a pizza for $5, they should be allowed to. Raising the minimum price of pizza $10 makes it illegal to sell pizza for $5.

If the minimum wage is $5, you essentially make it illegal to sell labor for $4, or $3. Ask your liberal friend who gets hurt by making $3 labor legal, rich people or poor people. Are liberals saying there is no labor worth $3 per hour? Who decides what its worth? If flipping burgers is worth $5 per hour, might eating burgers and filling out a questionnaire be worth less than $5?
The minimum wage hurts poor people, period. Elevator operators tried to raise their wages above what their labor was worth. As a result, you had to figure out how to use that crazy contraption, and every last one of them lost their jobs. The less obvious consequence is all the people that could have started as elevator operators had to start somewhere else. Have you even experienced “full service” at a gas station? Doubtful.

The employment “singularity”

Fast food restaurants are not only required to provide wages equal or greater than the federal minimum, but they also provide medical benefits, a 401k, everything a human could want. Electronics aren’t quite so picky. Let’s say it costs $20,000 for Burger King to employ someone at minimum wage, but a touch screen order system costs $25,000. Keep raising that minimum, liberals. The rich guys in Silicon Valley who develop touch screen technology thank you. Low wage earners aren’t as thankful.

(Here are some more in-depth analyses of the minimum wage)

Min wage increase result in unemployment increase

George Will: Minimum wage should be $0

Santa Fe citywide wage increase failure

Onlyaliberal.com’s traffic has increased substantially, and the top page is the RSS feed. I really appreciate your return visits and plan to increase the frequency of posts so you have something new every time you return. I’ve been brainstorming some videos and more in-depth analyses. Currently onlyaliberal.com allows user comments for posts, but if you’d like to send me an email with your feedback, email me at comments@onlyaliberal.com.

Whether Republican or Democrat (or Bernie Sanders), liberals will be held accountable for their nonsense on this site.

This post was inspired by the book, Logic of Life by Tim Harford.
Is it better for 100 guilty people to go free than for 1 innocent person to go to jail? What exactly is a guilty person? Murderers are guilty of murder, and pickpockets are guilty of pickpocketing. I think most people would agree that we can survive 100 guilty, but free, pickpockets stealing a few wallets here and there in the face of taking an innocent person’s freedom.

But is it logical to allow 100 guilty murderers free rather than have 1 imprisoned innocent? What if we let those 100 go free, and 10 of them each kill a person. We prevented one man from going to prison, but 10 people lost their lives.

Should we allow 10 people to live, rather than send one innocent person to jail? Seems obvious when put that way.
Self-righteous pontification about fairness and freedom can get people killed. I have no interest in sending innocent people to jail, but I also don’t want a system where murderers and rapists get acquitted of crimes that we know they committed, but some cop didn’t cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s so “in the interest of justice” some despicable human being is released to commit another crime. Punish the cop, not the rest of us.

How about you liberals stop acting so certain about such uncertain things?

I have compiled some terms and phrases that should always set off your liberal B.S. alarm, along with an explanation of “what they mean.”

RESOLUTION - Not to be confused with the word “solution”, it is the act of resolving to do nothing of substance in response to something with the primary goal being not to offend anyone.

VIBRANT - means violent and dangerous as in “Washington D.C. has a vibrant atmosphere.”

IN THE SHADOWS - A liberal wants you to regard everyone “in the shadows” as wonderful and incapable of breaking any law, expects you to throw money at them thankfully, and demands you apologize to said person “in the shadows” for “making” them enter the shadows.

MY FRIENDS - loosely means “my burdensome nuisances who better vote for me”

FOR THE CHILDREN - Well, I’m not against children, so I must support this, no matter what it might be.

HOPE - Giving someone hope means electing a liberal.

WORKING FAMILIES - Are you in a family? Do you work? Well then, by golly, I must be talking about you. Working families are the opposite of conservative families, who inherited their wealth and just sit with their families not working.

COMPREHENSIVE - Used to assure you that the 154 page bill on endangered waterfowl isn’t too narrowly focused. Just in case you were worried.

BIPARTISAN - when a Republican caves to Democrats for political expediency, or a Democrat is shamed to vote with Republicans for political expediency

For those of you that have heard that Sarah Palin is a dumb country-bumpkin from the middle of nowhere, let me introduce you to Joe Biden.

The stock market did crash back in the 20s. FDR was president at one point. Television does exist. Evidently this is enough information for Joe Biden to spout the following:
“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘look, here’s what happened.’”

Unfortunately FDR did not appear on TV until 1939, 10 years after the stock market crash. This was the first appearance of any U.S. President. FDR was not President when the stock market crashed; Herbert Hoover was.

Details like this do not concern liberals. Its not the truth that matters, but the message that is conveyed. The truth is a speed bump to liberals. Like when the Obama campaign dismissed the Obama-Ayers connection as just “living in the same neighboorhood” and their kids “attend the same school.” That’s interesting since Ayers’s kids are adults, while Obama’s kids are in elementary school.  You can call each individual lie a “slip-up” but after you see it countless times, it is obviously a symptom of a liberal lack of concern for fact-checking. They just don’t give a crap whether what they say is true or not.

While it doesn’t apply to all liberals, most support a “woman’s right to choose” whether to abort a fetus or not, but oppose the death penalty for any criminal, no matter what they did. Pro-abortion, anti-death penalty. This is not consistent.

It is rational to be against the death penalty. There is a rational train of thought that can conclude that just because someone killed a lot of people does not mean a government has the right to kill that person. The rationale is that killing is killing, and killing is wrong. That is rational even if it is simplistic.

But for that same person to be supportive of a woman’s right to arbitrarily end the existence of an 8 1/2 month old fetus, or even a 9 month old fetus that is in the process of being birthed, makes no sense. I’m not talking about situations where the baby will die anyway and the mother needs the abortion to survive. I’m talking about the liberal position that you can NEVER infringe upon a woman’s right to “privacy.” Being for abortion but against the death penalty is inconsistent, and makes no sense.
I have a solution. Instead of calling it the “death penalty” we will refer to it as “post-birth abortion.” If a woman has the right to choose the fate of an innocent fetus, a society should be allowed to choose whether to abort a guilty adult. Do you think liberals would get mad if “post-birth abortions” were carried out with the same techniques used for fetal abortions?

Allowing citizens to own guns does not increase crime. Take a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

The video that should eliminate Barack Obama from consideration for President.
“I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”

Hey Barack, you wouldn’t be planning to send that money to unproven alternative energy systems, would you?
“I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons, I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off of hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

Aside from the fact that our ICBMs haven’t been on hair-trigger alert since the 80s, “seeking” a global ban on fissile material may prove difficult. On what planet, or in what paranormal dimension, does Barack Obama think he can convince the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and China, or any other nation to stop trying to make nukes? The only way other countries get rid of there nukes is if we get rid of ours first. Does anyone else see how insane that would be?

This guys is such a joke, I am insulted as an American that so many people not only would vote for him, but adore him as though he is the next Jesus Christ. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

I know myths get perpetuated all the time, but this isn’t up for interpretation. Ayers and Obama were good friends from ‘95-’03 with no doubt, and probably were friends long before and long after. Allow me to prove it.

A taste of Bill Ayers

“Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.”
“Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,” he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: “Even though I didn’t actually bomb the Pentagon — we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.”

‘But Obama was only 8!’

The main argument the Obama campaign keeps making about Ayers is that Obama was only 8 when he was involved in the Weather Underground. Notice they do not deny Ayers was a terrorist. So perhaps Ayers grew up and realized how stupid he was back then. WRONG.

9/11/2001 NY Times

”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.”

So maybe Obama met Ayers after 2001. WRONG. Obama had one of his first political campaign events hosted by Bill Ayers at AYERS’S HOME. The same year, Ayers co-founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and Ayers appointed Obama the chairman of the board, where Obama worked for 8 YEARS.

They also served on multiple panels and boards together, which are public record.

Top-ten-highlights-of-the-20-year-obama-ayers-connection/

None of what I just said is disputed. It is just ignored, glazed over, “not important” to people who want “real change.” How can you liberals be ok with voting for Barack Obama? Not only does he have STRONG connections to a self-proclaimed, unrepentant terrorist, but he has ties to radical racists, including Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, and his wife.

A passage from Michelle Obama’s thesis:

‘There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.’

Does voting for this guy really make you feel better about 8 years of George W. Bush? Is that rational, to vote against RINO John McCain because some Democrat bigshots have convinced you he is the same as Bush? You’re being lied to.

“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America,” Biden said. “Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend; she is qualified to be president of the United States of America. She’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me, but she is first-rate.”

Mark my words. The nomination of Sarah Palin has scared the pants off the Democrats. McCain’s post-Palin surge in the polls, plus Biden’s statement lead me to believe that the Democrats may switch Biden out for Hillary to win the election. I still dont see why Hillary would agree to it.

Actually, one way to do it would be not to tell Hillary. All they would need to do is put together an event where Obama, Biden, and Hillary are all in attendance, then surprise her with it. She would have to accept, or risk pissing off Democrats.
Biden will be the one to give the speech if they do it. That way he can save face, and Obama/Hillary can still hire him to defense secretary or something if they win as an apology for benching him.