Skip to main content

A Utah smoothie shop charges liberals more than conservatives

When you think of a good smoothie shop name, what's the first name that comes to mind? Don't tell me - it's I Love Drilling Juice and Smoothie Bar, right? That's what I thought. I was thinking the same thing. While we're on the same wavelength here, let me tell you more about this smoothie shop.

I Love Drilling Juice and Smoothie Bar is actually the name of a smoothie shop in Vernal, Utah. It's owned by pro-oil and gas activist (go figure, right?) George Burnett. So what has Mr. Burnett done to anger so many? Here's how the prices of his 16 oz. smoothies line up:

"Conservatives: $4.95

Liberals: $5.95

Crew Team Members: $3.95"

No, that's not a misprint. The guy charges liberals a dollar more per smoothie than conservatives.

As Burnett says: "I'm very open about it, very public about it, that I'm going to charge them a little bit more, and I have liberals come in and pay the extra dollar surcharge. And actually all three liberals have been happy to pay it. We had a husband and wife come in - he was a conservative and she was a liberal - and he paid conservative for himself and liberal for her."

He added that the dollar difference between conservatives and liberals was to get people talking about "the fiscal differences between big government/small government and liberal ways" and the extra charge for liberals was to "help make that point."

A conservative customer of his said, "For him to do this kind of puts a face out there on people who are, in my opinion, in the wrong. 'In the wrong' being liberals. To see them being charged a little bit more, it makes me happy."

Alright, first off, how many self-described liberals are going to call themselves such if it means they have to pay an extra dollar for a fricking smoothie? Seriously? Also, how do we know they're liberals? Mr. Burnett donates the extra money he makes from smoothies to conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation. What's more likely - a self-described liberal referring to themselves as such to pay an extra dollar for a smoothie which will be used as a donation to a conservative organization or a self-described conservative paying an extra buck for the smoothie since the money will go to an organization they likely support? In any case, I'd walk up to the guy and call myself a moderate, a liberal conservative, or a conservative liberal and see what he does. My guess is his head would explode in approximately 3.29 seconds.

Also, it makes me laugh to hear the guy talk about his "reasons" for the price difference. Really? He's trying to start conversation about the "fiscal differences between big government/small government and liberal ways?"

After two terms in office, Republican President (and God) Ronald Reagan increased the debt by 189%. Republican George W. Bush increased the debt by 86%. Democrat Bill Clinton increased the debt by 37%. Republican George H.W. Bush increased the debt by 55% in just one term.

If Burnett was talking about taxes, I find that to be rather humorous as well. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, taxes for the wealthiest among us was between 91 and 92%. Under Republican President Richard Nixon, those tax rates were between 70 and 77%. They stayed at 70% under Republican President Gerald Ford. For most of the Ronald Reagan years, those taxes were between 50 and 69%, before dropping to 38.5% in 1987 and 28% in '88 and '89. Under President Obama, those tax rates have been at 35% - far less than they were under Republican Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, or even Reagan for most of his presidency.

So, please, Mr. Burnett, tell me more about this big-government spending and high-taxing by the Democratic Party and small-government saving and low-taxing by the Republican Party. I'd really love to hear more about this. If I may lend some advice, though - you may want to charge conservatives a dollar more than liberals, if you are trying to be at all accurate about government spending, high taxes, and with that, prompt conversations revolving around those topics. Just a suggestion...

As far as the conservative who gave credit to Mr. Burnett for charging liberals more because it "kind of puts a face out there on people who are, in my opinion, in the wrong," I seriously wonder if someone tells him to look right, he looks up and if someone tells him to pull a door, he walks right into it. Really? So, it's good, decent, and moral to charge people more or less based on the subjective notion that their ideals are finely-tuned or flawed?

Well, if that's how it has to be, I'll start my own smoothie shop and list the prices of our one-of-a-kind 16 oz. smoothies as follows:

Evangelicals: $ (the price is unknown and can't be seen - faith will make it known)

Pro-lifers: $5.95 (following a mandatory transvaginal or pelvic ultrasound in the back area of the shop)

Assault rifle owners: $47.00 (and a free extra-small condom)

Birthers: $18.84 (a birth certificate is required)

Mitt Romney: $10,000

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/15/1448801/utah-smoothie-shop-charges-liberals-more-donates-surcharge-to-conservative-causes/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

http://americanhistory.about.com/library/charts/blchartpresidents.htm

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...