MSNBC Continues "Collective" Propaganda ads

[bucfan64 307]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/10/critics-pan-yet-another-msnbc-promo-with-harris-perry-you-have-right-to-health-care-decent-housing-and-quality-food-at-all-times/

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/08/glenn-beck-eviscerates-msnbc-promo-claiming-your-kids-belong-to-the-whole-community-and-makes-some-scary-connections/

 

 

IMO, this is nothing more than MARXISM.

 

Human rights do not include Health Care, Education, and Quality food.

In order to "guarantee" these "rights" to others as she suggests, we must first violate the rights of someone else.

 

You cannot violate the rights of one individual in order to give another individual a certain "right!"

 

Thoughts?

Edited April 10, 2013 by bucfan64

[redtiger 1,742]

I was gonna post a nice long write up with everything I have wrong with what she is saying but I quickly realized I pretty much disagree with most of it. The only thing she is right about is children have a right to those things; its not their fault their parents either cant afford those things or are to sorry to provide for their children. But adults, we all have the right to access those things but we do not have a right to them.

[deuceswild 15]

I was gonna post a nice long write up with everything I have wrong with what she is saying but I quickly realized I pretty much disagree with most of it. The only thing she is right about is children have a right to those things; its not their fault their parents either cant afford those things or are to sorry to provide for their children. But adults, we all have the right to access those things but we do not have a right to them.

 

Assuming people who can't afford something are just "too sorry" to provide is extremely flawed.

[bucfan64 307]

Assuming people who can't afford something are just "too sorry" to provide is extremely flawed.

 

You are correct, it is easy to suggest that someone who cannot afford something is just "too sorry," and we often do not take into consideration those who are unable.

 

However,

 

What the lady is suggesting is Marxism. She is not applying NATURAL LAW when she says that people have a right to "housing, education, and quality food." She is suggesting that government GRANT OR GIVE the right to those things, and it is important for us to remember that our rights as individuals come from our creator, and for for our atheist friends out there (our rights come from nature).

 

The means to her end, is wealth re-distribution. Taking from one and giving to another. If you believe in NATURAL LAW, and I do, you will understand that you cannot deny the rights of one person in order to "grant" a right to another person.

 

If "free education, housing and quality food," means robbing Peter so that Paul can have these "rights," we need to understand that Paul is having his rights to his own personal property violated and this is not in line with our Founding Principles.

 

Food, housing, education and universal health care are commodities, they are purchased with currency. Individuals do not have a right to these items anymore than they have the right to a big screen t.v., a car, an iPhone etc.

 

Should we as a society let children slip through the cracks and be deprived the needed necessities? Absolutely not! We as a society need to apply higher moral standards and protect those who cannot protect themselves. However, it is important that we understand exactly what it is that this woman, this network and these collectivist are suggesting. This ad and others like it are framed in compassion, yet they harbor a much more sinister plot.

 

For example, she comes across as being so compassionate about children, yet she openly supports abortion on demand and refers to children in the womb as "things." Regardless of your position on abortion, it is difficult to see how she can be so calloused toward "things," and then be so concerned about those same "things," at a later time.

 

Not being argumentative, Just some thoughts.......

Edited April 12, 2013 by bucfan64

[Hacker 82]

A simple question; don't we feel that they are the community's kids when they play sports, and a community problem when they are running in gangs?

 

Also don't we also say "somebody should do something about this and that." So who are these somebodies?

[bucfan64 307]

A simple question; don't we feel that they are the community's kids when they play sports, and a community problem when they are running in gangs?

 

Also don't we also say "somebody should do something about this and that." So who are these somebodies?

 

My children play ball for their respective schools, I do not think or believe that they BELONG to the school.

 

I understand exactly what you are saying and this is comon rhetoric, however, the context of the rhetoric must be taken into consideration. Most people associate themselves with teams, communities and even express a strong sense of nationalism, but they still embrace the power of choice as an individual, free to think, act and do as they please without the constraints of having to answer to the state.

 

The implication being made in the video and the one being advocated by the Marxist/Progressives is one in which they suggest that parental rights be supplanted by childrens rights (and since children need an advocate to speak and act for them, the Govt. will be happy to stand in for them). In essence, they would support the notion that parents should not instill ideas, traditions, religious views, principles and values through the children in lieu of the notion that it is denying the child the right to become their "own person." These folks would much rather the STATE perform this duty.

 

Once again, I understand your point, but respectfully disagree with your supposition that associating ourselves and our children with teams, communities, schools etc. implies the same thing as is being suggested in the video.

Edited April 12, 2013 by bucfan64

[redtiger 1,742]

Deuces, I didnt say people who cant afford these things are too sorry to work, I said either. Some adults cant afford good housing, good housing isint a right. I think the Government has a responsability to ensure that proper housing is affordable, but the Gov has no business guaranteeing housing. I believe as anation we have a moral responsability to provide for those who cannot provide for them selves(the old, young and sick) but just about everyone who is not one of those 3 should be on their own.

 

As far as kids belonging to the community; the community/society has a responsability to look out for, support and play a part in the raising all children but ultimate responsability lies with the parents. This woman is taking all of that responsability and giving it to the community. Imo the issue is parents who dont properly raise/provide for their children and instead of making parents take responsability the solution is let the gov do it, I have a real problem with that.

Edited April 13, 2013 by redtiger

[HurricaneWarning 212]

Assuming people who can't afford something are just "too sorry" to provide is extremely flawed.

 

You would be surprised at the ones that are too lazy to work. Why get a minimum wage job when you can live better without one?

[Deleted Account 5,203]

A simple question; don't we feel that they are the community's kids when they play sports, and a community problem when they are running in gangs?

 

Also don't we also say "somebody should do something about this and that." So who are these somebodies?

 

There's a difference between representation and ownership, without getting to the whole in loco parentis aspect that schools serve.

[deuceswild 15]

You would be surprised at the ones that are too lazy to work. Why get a minimum wage job when you can live better without one?

 

I wouldn't, actually.

 

You might be surprised at the number of people who genuinely use, not abuse, government safety nets.

[HurricaneWarning 212]

I wouldn't, actually.

 

You might be surprised at the number of people who genuinely use, not abuse, government safety nets.

 

I know there are many that do and I'm glad it is there for those who need it.

[redtiger 1,742]

I would say, at one time or another, most of us have benefited from one type of gov safety net or another. Unemployement comes to mind, I know it has really helped me out a time or two but it is a safety net, not a hammock.

[deuceswild 15]

I would say, at one time or another, most of us have benefited from one type of gov safety net or another. Unemployement comes to mind, I know it has really helped me out a time or two but it is a safety net, not a hammock.

 

I agree. But you can't assume everyone is using it as a hammock. I only took offense to the "too sorry" comment because I know several to have lost jobs at already low points in their lives. We're thankful for the government cushion there for them to bounce up off of.

 

That's not to say there aren't plenty of those out there who cheat the bottom of the system, there are an equal plenty who abuse it from the top as well, perhaps even more severely.

Edited April 15, 2013 by deuceswild

[redtiger 1,742]

My fault for not being clear. Im glad, very glad that people who need help have access to it. My issue is that gov assistance is becoming a way to attempt to eliminate hard times from peoples lives and that isint the point of assistance nor is it possible; unemployement for instance was set up as a way carry workers over between losing their job to finding their new/next job, it has become a way to support workers until they get their old jobs back. I dont have a problem with government assistance, I have a problem with the way it has come to be utilized.

[Hacker 82]

My fault for not being clear. Im glad, very glad that people who need help have access to it. My issue is that gov assistance is becoming a way to attempt to eliminate hard times from peoples lives and that isint the point of assistance nor is it possible; unemployement for instance was set up as a way carry workers over between losing their job to finding their new/next job, it has become a way to support workers until they get their old jobs back. I dont have a problem with government assistance, I have a problem with the way it has come to be utilized.

 

The abuse is found at all levels of the system. Just look at major corporations who take operations overseas to avoid US taxes and then take government subsidies. Or those companies who sole purpose for being is to suckle at the government teat.

[redtiger 1,742]

Very true Hacker. This problem of living off of government money can be found from top to bottom and needs to be addressed.

[bucfan64 307]

True, welfare abuse is not only found at the personal level but also at the corporate level!

[bucfan64 307]

In regards to the Boston bombing:

 

MSNBC's Chris Matthews informed the proud peacock network's viewers that "as a category, normally, domestic terrorists tend to be on the far right."

 

This is baiting and speculation at its finest. Horrible journalism and just another example of the subjective manner in which MSNBC and the rest of the lamestream media spins everything to fit their agenda.

 

What ever happened to the "understood fourth" branch of government?

[blueinbama 259]

In regards to the Boston bombing:

 

MSNBC's Chris Matthews informed the proud peacock network's viewers that "as a category, normally, domestic terrorists tend to be on the far right."

 

This is baiting and speculation at its finest. Horrible journalism and just another example of the subjective manner in which MSNBC and the rest of the lamestream media spins everything to fit their agenda.

 

What ever happened to the "understood fourth" branch of government?

 

There are no more 'honorable' journalists on the national level, in my opinion. That's across the board. Also every network leans one way or the other (mostly left) and has an agenda. I'm older than most here , and I truly miss the days of Huntley/Brinkley and Walter Cronkite. Even if they had personal preferences, which we all do, those guys were right down the middle. One couldn't tell a political preference by listening to them report the evening news. Today, you have Fox leaning hard to the right and MSNBC leaning hard to the left. The major networks (NBC, CBS, and ABC) all lean left. There is no "fair and balanced" news anymore. That's a crock.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

There are no more 'honorable' journalists on the national level, in my opinion. That's across the board. Also every network leans one way or the other (mostly left) and has an agenda. I'm older than most here , and I truly miss the days of Huntley/Brinkley and Walter Cronkite. Even if they had personal preferences, which we all do, those guys were right down the middle. One couldn't tell a political preference by listening to them report the evening news. Today, you have Fox leaning hard to the right and MSNBC leaning hard to the left. The major networks (NBC, CBS, and ABC) all lean left. There is no "fair and balanced" news anymore. That's a crock.

 

Well stated.

[redtiger 1,742]

True, welfare abuse is not only found at the personal level but also at the corporate level!

 

Medicaid abuse is probably worse than welfare, or atleast on the same level. The ammount of money that is paid out to companies(hospitals, home health, etc) that dont actually deserve it is rediculious. In alot of cases they either didnt do what they billed medicare for or more often do things that arent necessary.