Saturday, October 07, 2006

Guilt by employment

I wasn’t going to write about this tonight.  I changed my mind.  I was watching the 6:00p.m. local news on WEEK, channel 4 Friday night.  I heard the following from a Mike Smith commercial.  (Mike Smith is the incumbent state House candidate whose opponent is Republican Daryl Dagit.)

It seems Dagit is employed by a bank—the bank was not identified nor was his job.  It seems the bank has outsourced some work to another country—I believe the commercial said India but I’m not sure of that.  The conclusion in the commercial?  It is Daryl Dagit’s fault that the bank outsources jobs.  Therefore, Daryl Dagit is a poor choice for the House seat because the bank outsources jobs.

Are the Democrats serious???  Was this commercial written by a Chicago Democrat Party flunky???  Do they really believe that this type of inane logic will fly in Peoria???  I guess they do because they are spending good money to run the commercial.  

What a ridiculous concept.  Guilt by employment.  Unless Daryl Dagit is directly responsible for that decision to outsource (I doubt he was or the commercial would have declared that to be the case.), how can he be held accountable for what his company decided to do?  That would be like holding all Caterpillar employees responsible for Caterpillar selling tractors to Israel, Israel using the tractors to bulldoze a house, and a person who refused to leave the house dying.  Therefore, according to this logic, all Caterpillar employees are responsible for the death of that person.  What utter nonsense.  Only libertine Democrats could actually believe such a concept!!!

Therefore, I ask.  Do you agree with the concept of

Guilt by employment!!!    


Post a Comment

<< Home