Since liberals want a nanny state here are five things employers should provide for their employees before birth control

othershoe1030 wrote:In your mind apparently you think liberals want a nanny state. This is absolutely not true. All we want is a level playing field where people without a lot of money and power have a reasonable and proportional say in how their government functions.

You know, sort of the reverse of the present day golden rule of 'he who has the gold rules', which is unfortunately what we have now.

The basic notion of the nanny state is just a smoke screen put out by the special interests to keep unthinking "conservatives" from noticing they too are getting screwed by the current tax code and various other regulatory loopholes created with the help of ALEC etc.

It is working well for the time being, Romney signs went up in the yards of trailers but sooner or later the 98% will get tired of the government only working for the benefit of Wall Street and CEO's and perhaps they will get themselves to the polls and throw some of these corporate shills out.

othershoe1030 wrote:In your mind apparently you think liberals want a nanny state. This is absolutely not true. All we want is a level playing field where people without a lot of money and power have a reasonable and proportional say in how their government functions.

You know, sort of the reverse of the present day golden rule of 'he who has the gold rules', which is unfortunately what we have now.

The basic notion of the nanny state is just a smoke screen put out by the special interests to keep unthinking "conservatives" from noticing they too are getting screwed by the current tax code and various other regulatory loopholes created with the help of ALEC etc.

It is working well for the time being, Romney signs went up in the yards of trailers but sooner or later the 98% will get tired of the government only working for the benefit of Wall Street and CEO's and perhaps they will get themselves to the polls and throw some of these corporate shills out.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:In your mind apparently you think liberals want a nanny state. This is absolutely not true. All we want is a level playing field where people without a lot of money and power have a reasonable and proportional say in how their government functions.

You know, sort of the reverse of the present day golden rule of 'he who has the gold rules', which is unfortunately what we have now.

The basic notion of the nanny state is just a smoke screen put out by the special interests to keep unthinking "conservatives" from noticing they too are getting screwed by the current tax code and various other regulatory loopholes created with the help of ALEC etc.

It is working well for the time being, Romney signs went up in the yards of trailers but sooner or later the 98% will get tired of the government only working for the benefit of Wall Street and CEO's and perhaps they will get themselves to the polls and throw some of these corporate shills out.

 
All liberals want a nanny state and a government that makes everyone conform to their mindset. Sorry, but the Constitution protects us from that government overreach and we are now seeing the SCOTUS take back from a man who thinks he is king.

othershoe1030 wrote:
The basic notion of the nanny state is just a smoke screen put out by the special interests to keep unthinking "conservatives" from noticing they too are getting screwed by the current tax code and various other regulatory loopholes created with the help of ALEC etc.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:So ladies of color don't use bC?

othershoe1030 wrote:.....but sooner or later the 98% will get tired of the government only working.....

Joanimaroni wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:In your mind apparently you think liberals want a nanny state. This is absolutely not true. All we want is a level playing field where people without a lot of money and power have a reasonable and proportional say in how their government functions.

You know, sort of the reverse of the present day golden rule of 'he who has the gold rules', which is unfortunately what we have now.

The basic notion of the nanny state is just a smoke screen put out by the special interests to keep unthinking "conservatives" from noticing they too are getting screwed by the current tax code and various other regulatory loopholes created with the help of ALEC etc.

It is working well for the time being, Romney signs went up in the yards of trailers but sooner or later the 98% will get tired of the government only working for the benefit of Wall Street and CEO's and perhaps they will get themselves to the polls and throw some of these corporate shills out.

Wow, what a snarky little comment.  

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:In your mind apparently you think liberals want a nanny state. This is absolutely not true. All we want is a level playing field where people without a lot of money and power have a reasonable and proportional say in how their government functions.

You know, sort of the reverse of the present day golden rule of 'he who has the gold rules', which is unfortunately what we have now.

The basic notion of the nanny state is just a smoke screen put out by the special interests to keep unthinking "conservatives" from noticing they too are getting screwed by the current tax code and various other regulatory loopholes created with the help of ALEC etc.

It is working well for the time being, Romney signs went up in the yards of trailers but sooner or later the 98% will get tired of the government only working for the benefit of Wall Street and CEO's and perhaps they will get themselves to the polls and throw some of these corporate shills out.

 
All liberals want a nanny state and a government that makes everyone conform to their mindset. Sorry, but the Constitution protects us from that government overreach and we are now seeing the SCOTUS take back from a man who thinks he is king.

othershoe1030 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:In your mind apparently you think liberals want a nanny state. This is absolutely not true. All we want is a level playing field where people without a lot of money and power have a reasonable and proportional say in how their government functions.

You know, sort of the reverse of the present day golden rule of 'he who has the gold rules', which is unfortunately what we have now.

The basic notion of the nanny state is just a smoke screen put out by the special interests to keep unthinking "conservatives" from noticing they too are getting screwed by the current tax code and various other regulatory loopholes created with the help of ALEC etc.

It is working well for the time being, Romney signs went up in the yards of trailers but sooner or later the 98% will get tired of the government only working for the benefit of Wall Street and CEO's and perhaps they will get themselves to the polls and throw some of these corporate shills out.

 
All liberals want a nanny state and a government that makes everyone conform to their mindset. Sorry, but the Constitution protects us from that government overreach and we are now seeing the SCOTUS take back from a man who thinks he is king.

Curious, what makes you an expert or in anyway whatsoever a person who knows what liberals want? You could no more give a true liberal viewpoint on a topic than I could come up with some of the outrageous comments of Limbaugh. Please do't tell me what liberals believe or want, you just never get it right.

othershoe1030 wrote:

It was not meant to be snarky but as a concrete example of how people sometimes get taken in by the party line or by one issue and end up voting against their own interests.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:In your mind apparently you think liberals want a nanny state. This is absolutely not true. All we want is a level playing field where people without a lot of money and power have a reasonable and proportional say in how their government functions.

You know, sort of the reverse of the present day golden rule of 'he who has the gold rules', which is unfortunately what we have now.

The basic notion of the nanny state is just a smoke screen put out by the special interests to keep unthinking "conservatives" from noticing they too are getting screwed by the current tax code and various other regulatory loopholes created with the help of ALEC etc.

It is working well for the time being, Romney signs went up in the yards of trailers but sooner or later the 98% will get tired of the government only working for the benefit of Wall Street and CEO's and perhaps they will get themselves to the polls and throw some of these corporate shills out.

Wow, what a snarky little comment.  

It was not meant to be snarky but as a concrete example of how people sometimes get taken in by the party line or by one issue and end up voting against their own interests.

Sal wrote:Unless you're a rich, white, heterosexual, Christian male, you should not vote for Republicans.

It's not in your interests.

Joanimaroni wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:In your mind apparently you think liberals want a nanny state. This is absolutely not true. All we want is a level playing field where people without a lot of money and power have a reasonable and proportional say in how their government functions.

You know, sort of the reverse of the present day golden rule of 'he who has the gold rules', which is unfortunately what we have now.

The basic notion of the nanny state is just a smoke screen put out by the special interests to keep unthinking "conservatives" from noticing they too are getting screwed by the current tax code and various other regulatory loopholes created with the help of ALEC etc.

It is working well for the time being, Romney signs went up in the yards of trailers but sooner or later the 98% will get tired of the government only working for the benefit of Wall Street and CEO's and perhaps they will get themselves to the polls and throw some of these corporate shills out.

Wow, what a snarky little comment.  

Floridatexan wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:In your mind apparently you think liberals want a nanny state. This is absolutely not true. All we want is a level playing field where people without a lot of money and power have a reasonable and proportional say in how their government functions.

You know, sort of the reverse of the present day golden rule of 'he who has the gold rules', which is unfortunately what we have now.

The basic notion of the nanny state is just a smoke screen put out by the special interests to keep unthinking "conservatives" from noticing they too are getting screwed by the current tax code and various other regulatory loopholes created with the help of ALEC etc.

It is working well for the time being, Romney signs went up in the yards of trailers but sooner or later the 98% will get tired of the government only working for the benefit of Wall Street and CEO's and perhaps they will get themselves to the polls and throw some of these corporate shills out.

Wow, what a snarky little comment.  

Says the QUEEN OF SNARK.

Joanimaroni wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:In your mind apparently you think liberals want a nanny state. This is absolutely not true. All we want is a level playing field where people without a lot of money and power have a reasonable and proportional say in how their government functions.

You know, sort of the reverse of the present day golden rule of 'he who has the gold rules', which is unfortunately what we have now.

The basic notion of the nanny state is just a smoke screen put out by the special interests to keep unthinking "conservatives" from noticing they too are getting screwed by the current tax code and various other regulatory loopholes created with the help of ALEC etc.

It is working well for the time being, Romney signs went up in the yards of trailers but sooner or later the 98% will get tired of the government only working for the benefit of Wall Street and CEO's and perhaps they will get themselves to the polls and throw some of these corporate shills out.

Wow, what a snarky little comment.  

It was not meant to be snarky but as a concrete example of how people sometimes get taken in by the party line or by one issue and end up voting against their own interests.

So people who live in trailers should vote for a democrat?   Got it!

othershoe1030 wrote:

I would suggest they seriously look over the platforms and performance of the two major parties and sort things out. Which is the party of big business? Which one sticks up for basic needs of the working and middle class? Which one wants to raise the minimum wage? etc.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

I would suggest they seriously look over the platforms and performance of the two major parties and sort things out. Which is the party of big business? Which one sticks up for basic needs of the working and middle class? Which one wants to raise the minimum wage? etc.

The problem with this statement is that the alleged party of the working class also supports a lot of ungodly beliefs and activities.