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

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Othershoe,

Condense your rant and at least have a train of thought that isn't all over the place.

I know Godly values are not the things that Democrats look for in their lives or politics because it requires a conscience. Dems only care about whatever splinter group they can bring into their  fold to stay in power. If it means selling out to a cause that is sinister or immoral they could care less. If it means having the middle class pay more taxes to care for the illegals they let into the nation, so be it. Just tax more every time right? It's bad enough that 1.9 trillion in taxes were collected last year and the Dems still cannot balance or pass a budget. Yeah, even when the Dems had a total control of the government they could not pass a budget. How hard is that?

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Othershoe,

Condense your rant and at least have a train of thought that isn't all over the place.

I know Godly values are not the things that Democrats look for in their lives or politics because it requires a conscience. Dems only care about whatever splinter group they can bring into their  fold to stay in power. If it means selling out to a cause that is sinister or immoral they could care less. If it means having the middle class pay more taxes to care for the illegals they let into the nation, so be it. Just tax more every time right? It's bad enough that 1.9 trillion in taxes were collected last year and the Dems still cannot balance or pass a budget. Yeah, even when the Dems had a total control of the government they could not pass a budget. How hard is that?

Code:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Othershoe,

Condense your rant and at least have a train of thought that isn't all over the place.

I know Godly values are not the things that Democrats look for in their lives or politics because it requires a conscience. Dems only care about whatever splinter group they can bring into their  fold to stay in power. If it means selling out to a cause that is sinister or immoral they could care less. If it means having the middle class pay more taxes to care for the illegals they let into the nation, so be it. Just tax more every time right? It's bad enough that 1.9 trillion in taxes were collected last year and the Dems still cannot balance or pass a budget. Yeah, even when the Dems had a total control of the government they could not pass a budget. How hard is that?

There is a core of voters who will always vote for Republicans. They have bought in to the sales pitch of the R's and look no further. Pacedogs posts are a perfect example of knee jerk uninformed thinking.

The Republicans have convinced their base that Democrats have no morals so there is no use in looking into what the party really stands for or has done for the working class and not so well off among us. So be it. It is a simple ploy and it works so you will keep doing it.

Of course it is not true but that is beside the point.

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.

Joanimaroni wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Othershoe,

Condense your rant and at least have a train of thought that isn't all over the place.

I know Godly values are not the things that Democrats look for in their lives or politics because it requires a conscience. Dems only care about whatever splinter group they can bring into their  fold to stay in power. If it means selling out to a cause that is sinister or immoral they could care less. If it means having the middle class pay more taxes to care for the illegals they let into the nation, so be it. Just tax more every time right? It's bad enough that 1.9 trillion in taxes were collected last year and the Dems still cannot balance or pass a budget. Yeah, even when the Dems had a total control of the government they could not pass a budget. How hard is that?

There is a core of voters who will always vote for Republicans. They have bought in to the sales pitch of the R's and look no further. Pacedogs posts are a perfect example of knee jerk uninformed thinking.

The Republicans have convinced their base that Democrats have no morals so there is no use in looking into what the party really stands for or has done for the working class and not so well off among us. So be it. It is a simple ploy and it works so you will keep doing it.

Of course it is not true but that is beside the point.

And there are many Democrats that do the same.....many of whom only  voted for Obama because of his color.

Markle wrote:

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.

Show us all a grand example of where Progressives DO NOT want or have voted against anything providing free benefits, i.e. a nanny state.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

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.

Show us all a grand example of where Progressives DO NOT want or have voted against anything providing free benefits, i.e. a nanny state.

Better yet, why don't you show us all a grand example of where Republicans have voted in favor of anything that has not benefited big business, the financial sector, agribusiness or the military industrial complex, extraction industries, etc.?

Your question is basically un-answerable because it is misstated. The country has determined that there is a basic level of poverty that won't be tolerated so programs are set up to help people in such circumstances. I guess you would call that a give away, some would just call it basic human decency.

knothead wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Othershoe,

Condense your rant and at least have a train of thought that isn't all over the place.

I know Godly values are not the things that Democrats look for in their lives or politics because it requires a conscience. Dems only care about whatever splinter group they can bring into their  fold to stay in power. If it means selling out to a cause that is sinister or immoral they could care less. If it means having the middle class pay more taxes to care for the illegals they let into the nation, so be it. Just tax more every time right? It's bad enough that 1.9 trillion in taxes were collected last year and the Dems still cannot balance or pass a budget. Yeah, even when the Dems had a total control of the government they could not pass a budget. How hard is that?

There is a core of voters who will always vote for Republicans. They have bought in to the sales pitch of the R's and look no further. Pacedogs posts are a perfect example of knee jerk uninformed thinking.

The Republicans have convinced their base that Democrats have no morals so there is no use in looking into what the party really stands for or has done for the working class and not so well off among us. So be it. It is a simple ploy and it works so you will keep doing it.

Of course it is not true but that is beside the point.

And there are many Democrats that do the same.....many of whom only  voted for Obama because of his color.

Absolutely true, however, far more voted against him because of the same reason joan.  You could not rebut the valid points made by OS. Why? Because they invalidate the core beliefs of the GOP of which you are a proud cheerleader which is a choice.  Like OS said, it is a simple ploy, it works and you will continue to keep doing it.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

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.

Show us all a grand example of where Progressives DO NOT want or have voted against anything providing free benefits, i.e. a nanny state.

Better yet, why don't you show us all a grand example of where Republicans have voted in favor of anything that has not benefited big business, the financial sector, agribusiness or the military industrial complex, extraction industries, etc.?

Your question is basically un-answerable because it is misstated. The country has determined that there is a basic level of poverty that won't be tolerated so programs are set up to help people in such circumstances. I guess you would call that a give away, some would just call it basic human decency.

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

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.

Show us all a grand example of where Progressives DO NOT want or have voted against anything providing free benefits, i.e. a nanny state.

Better yet, why don't you show us all a grand example of where Republicans have voted in favor of anything that has not benefited big business, the financial sector, agribusiness or the military industrial complex, extraction industries, etc.?

Your question is basically un-answerable because it is misstated. The country has determined that there is a basic level of poverty that won't be tolerated so programs are set up to help people in such circumstances. I guess you would call that a give away, some would just call it basic human decency.

Better yet, you proved you can't think of anything.

THANKS!  Of course we already knew the answer.

PkrBum wrote:Do you really need any examples beyond what obama has done for banks, wall st, corps... during this recovery?

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Do you really need any examples beyond what obama has done for banks, wall st, corps... during this recovery?

The bailout of the banks was completely and totally a product of the George W Bush administration, from the costs of war to the deregulation of every possible roadblock to complete chaos and exploitation of the MIC.  Why is this eluding you?  The entire thing was done in September and October of 2008, months before Obama took office.  You really need to start there and work your way forward, or you'll never understand it.

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Do you really need any examples beyond what obama has done for banks, wall st, corps... during this recovery?

The bailout of the banks was completely and totally a product of the George W Bush administration, from the costs of war to the deregulation of every possible roadblock to complete chaos and exploitation of the MIC.  Why is this eluding you?  The entire thing was done in September and October of 2008, months before Obama took office.  You really need to start there and work your way forward, or you'll never understand it.

othershoe1030 wrote:So, Markle, we're waiting to read the list of bills passed by the Republicans lately that have benefited the working poor or middle class folks.Did they vote to expand veterans' benefits or vote for equal pay for women? Just wondering.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

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.

Show us all a grand example of where Progressives DO NOT want or have voted against anything providing free benefits, i.e. a nanny state.

Better yet, why don't you show us all a grand example of where Republicans have voted in favor of anything that has not benefited big business, the financial sector, agribusiness or the military industrial complex, extraction industries, etc.?

Your question is basically un-answerable because it is misstated. The country has determined that there is a basic level of poverty that won't be tolerated so programs are set up to help people in such circumstances. I guess you would call that a give away, some would just call it basic human decency.

PkrBum wrote:Do you really need any examples beyond what obama has done for banks, wall st, corps... during this recovery?