Mediaboss Marketing

In the past few weeks, progressives have gone into paroxysms of pleasure over the results of two special Congressional elections. In Kansas, James Thompson managed to LOSE by over eight thousand votes. In Georgia, Joel Ossoff found a way to fight another day by forcing a runoff election in June. Alas, the way that progressives count votes, both of these developments are counted as "moral victories". However, in the real world of politics, the one result is a defeat and the other is still a pipe dream.

I hate raining on the progressive parade, I really do. They get so excited over moral victories, sort of like small children on Christmas morning, jumping up and down in anticipation and excitement. It's kind of heart warming to see really. Their little cheeks get all red and rosy and their smiles could light up a room. But, at the end of the day, the sad fact is that Republican Ron Estes is now sitting in Congress and Jim Thompson is back practicing law or whatever else he does in his spare time. While Joel Ossoff can take some consolation in the fact that he came in first in the Georgia special election, he faces a steep uphill climb if he expects to address himself as Congressman Ossoff.

Oh, it IS gratifying to be competitive in Congressional districts that had previously been considered lost causes just six months ago, but losing is still losing and there are no consolation prizes in politics. Unlike the Special Olympics, in politics there are winners and there are losers and the winners invariably say deal while the losers just say cut the cards. As the late Tip O'Neill used to say, "politics ain't bean bag!".

There is a hard political lesson to be learned from conservatives. You constantly have to keep your eyes on the prize. There is no "off season" in politics. While progressives may be doing a happy dance that Joel Ossoff got 48.1% of the vote, conservatives are spending THEIR time planning for the rest of the elections coming up in 2017, the 2018 mid-terms, and the 2020 general election. They're recruiting candidates from a large bench of office holders who already know how to win an election and who have been promised they will have whatever resources they need in order to run a successful campaign.

The problem with the progressive approach to politics is that they view politics like a game, a more advanced form of three dimensional chess. Conservatives see politics as war and they will do anything and everything in order to win it. Yes, it's true, this approach takes all the joy and sheer spontaneity OUT of politics, but it DOES have its rewards. Republicans now control every branch of the federal government, and as bad as things may seem for Republicans right now, it is more than likely that they will dominate the political arena for many years to come.

This is the harsh reality of politics. It's not the fantasy world of meaningless polls and impractical pipe dreams that progressives seem so eager to occupy. It is hard and tough and mean. It's definitely a big boy's game, not some playground confection like Ring Around the Rosie. Unless and until progressives get their heads out of the sand and become fully engaged in the grim reality of the political world, they will be treated to moral victory after moral victory until they're moral victoried out of existence!

More here:
Progressives, "Moral Victory" Is Just A Euphemism For Defeat! - ChicagoNow (blog)

Well, the liberals are at it again with their political correctness nonsense. This time they took aim at the 22,000-lb Massive Ordnance Air Blast (aka the Mother of All Bombs), which progressives found offensive. While never been used in the field, its been in service since the Bush administration, so this outrage seems a bit delayed. Second, no one really cares that this bomb was gendered. Its these politically correct antics that will continue to make the Left look abjectly insane and unpalatable. Its part of the speech codes, the lectures on so-called privilege, and safe space authoritarian ethos that only emboldened the forces the helped elect Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States. A lot may not have liked Trump, but after being lectured to, among other things, about how calling this 22,000-lb bomb is an example of lethal patriarchy, you would vote for the candidate who shunned this nonsense. And believe me mother of all bombs is a much friendlier term than what we really could call this bomb, give the conflict were in with radical Islamic terrorists.

I really want the media to STOP using the term "mother of all bombs". Offensive.

It's grotesque to call a killing device, the Mother of All Bombs. The #MOAB is the epitome of lethal patriarchy.

#MOAB actually stands for Massive Ordinance Air Burst. Trump is sexist even when referring to bombs. Nice consistency.

i'm not sure what's stupider: dubbing a bomb "mother of all bombs" or calling a bigger bomb "father of all bombs" in response

The U.S. dropped a MOAB on ISIS fighters in Afghanistan, killing nearly 100 of them last week. Some saw this as sending a message to North Koreas Kim Jong-un, who was making preparations for the 105th anniversary of the countrys founder, Kim Il Sung, which also included a possible nuclear weapons test. That didnt happen. A missile test was conducted on Sunday, but it blew up on the platform.

Tillerson Slams Obama Admin For Passing them the 'Buck' on Iran

More here:
Liberals: Saying 'Mother Of All Bombs' Is 'The Epitome Of Lethal ... - Townhall

Every summer in Canada, companies and organizations receive federal grants to help ensure college and university students get an internship. I worked for a pro-life organization that received grants over the summer, but recently, the Liberals started looking into axing these grants for pro-life organizations.

An argument can be made on why these grants shouldnt be given to any company or organization at all.

But thats not what this is about.

Watch as I explain why the Liberals are doing this and where the problem is.

The government shouldnt just fund those they only ideologically agree with. In a free and open society, individuals and groups should have the right to advocate for what they believe.

Its called free speech and expression. At the end of day, if these pro-life groups arent doing anything illegal (and theyre not) they should be able to receive public funding for their student summer internship program.

If they dont, if they are being singled-out for this, then thats discrimination. If pro-life groups or politicians did this to you, Id be staunchly defending your right to advocate and hold your beliefs.

So, do me the favour and dont discriminate against my advocacy and beliefs.

Lets not simply discriminate against ideas, Liberals. Were better than that.

Follow Jay on Twitter at @JayFayza

Read the original here:
Trudeau Liberals consider defunding pro-life summer internships - The Rebel

posted at 4:01 pm on April 19, 2017 by Jazz Shaw

This entire process certainly didnt start with Michael Bloomberg, but he definitely made it famous. The subject at hand is the increasing popularity of soda taxes (or more broadly, sugary drink taxes) as the latest sin tax of choice among liberals. Its been attempted in various places, but one of the more recent ones was enacted in 2015 in the liberal bastion of Berkeley, California. Since going into effect there have definitely been some impacts on the local economy and this piece from Time Magazine attempts to pick out some sweet spots in the data (if youll pardon the pun) as proof that the system is working. Lets see what they came up with.

The researchers looked at whether the tax impacted the buying behaviors of Berkeley residents. They found that one year after the tax took effect, sales of sugar-sweetened drinks fell by close to 10%, and sales of water increased in Berkeley by about 16%. Sales of unsweetened teas, milk and fruit juices also went up, suggesting people were substituting their sugary drinks with healthier alternatives

The findings suggest that even in higher-income communities, a soda tax can impact sales. Popkin predicts that the drops would be even greater in cities and counties with lower-income communities. In Mexico, which passed a similar tax that took effect in 2014, there have been significant declines in the consumption of sugary beverages. Among low-income residents, it dropped by 17% early on.

So since the tax was enacted, sales of all sugar sweetened drinks fell by 10% in the area where the tax was collected. I suppose if we bring the conversation to a dead stop right there you might be led to believe that the effort was effective, eh? But as with so many other metrics in society, the raw numbers dont speak to a host of other factors. Heres one thought Berkeley is a very liberal spot with lots of vegans and other health conscious lifestyle types of folks. Do you suppose that people were just looking for healthier options anyway? The study doesnt tell us if this was a sudden reversal or part of a longer trend.

Heres another factor to consider. When you drive up the price of any goods or services, its true that some people will choose not to spend their money in that fashion. But others may seek a cheaper option. Heres where the report goes completely off the tracks. (Emphasis added)

Another interesting finding in the study was that sales of sugar-sweetened beverages in neighboring cities rose nearly 7%possibly because people may be buying their soda where its cheaper. Yet Popkin says hes skeptical that the number of people in Berkeley would be great enough to increase the rates of other cities substantially, and believes that the higher rates could be partially unrelated.

So you were willing to flatly accept a 10% drop as being attributable to the tax, but youre skeptical that the 7% rise next door could be caused by people buying in bulk where the product is cheaper? Yeah that makes total sense.

Far more likely is that the real drivers for these changers are, to some significant degree, attributable to normal market forces. When you drive up the cost of something people look for other options. That happened in Philadelphia where the city government decided to save the people from themselves with a similar soda tax. The net result seemed to be angry consumers, more people shopping in the nearby county without the tax and, just by the way, the local Pepsi plant laying off a bunch of their workers. Brilliant!

None of this, of course, addresses the underlying problem with this approach. Since when is it the governments job to engage in social engineering experiments using the power of taxation as a cudgel to wield against the citizens? If you honestly believe that soda is a dangerous product unfit for human consumption, then ban it. If the people support your efforts you will be reelected. But if its good enough to be legally sold, then dont pretend youre trying to make people healthier by letting them drink something that you are saying is borderline toxic while actually just filling the city governments coffers with their grocery money. Thats both dishonest and insulting.

Go here to see the original:
Liberals attempt to point to success of soda tax in Berkeley - Hot Air

Globalnews.ca

B.C. Liberals take aim at NDP economics Globalnews.ca VANCOUVER Christy Clark's Liberals are ramping up attacks on the NDP's ability to manage British Columbia's economy, accusing the party of releasing a platform that will cost billions with no way to pay for it. The New Democrats' platform includes ... The politics of the BC Liberal 'troll' truckCBC.ca Latest poll shows Greens taking votes from Liberals, NDPVancouver Sun BC Liberals, NDP spar over Site C damThe Globe and Mail The Province all 102 news articles »

Read more:
B.C. Liberals take aim at NDP economics - Globalnews.ca