.gif){kind=spacer}
Posted on 02/11/2009 5:24:20 PM PST by pissant
“With a first name of Mike and a middle name of Loretta, what is this critter?
Obviously He/She is a bit confused about many things in life.
Mike Loreta should go back to square one...age one, and start over.
Mike Loretta Kowalczyk needs to grow a pair. How pathetic.
Better yet, identify which one is being emotional and which one is being practical.
I have another way of saying that, but it's much less PC. ;-)
You first.
I guess I didn’t get that from what you said. You’re saying they vote that way because they are more apt to trade freedom for security. I don’t think that’s the primary reason why. I think it’s more because they view it as a matter of compassion rather than security. I don’t think they see that even though they may feel more secure, I don’t think they feel they are less free. I think many feel that when they feel more secure, they are more free (even though we guys would know they are less free because they are now more dependent on government).
The only reason I say that is because I know that women look at the decisions they’d make and justify it because ‘people need help’, etc. - but generally I haven’t heard them justify something because ‘I’ll give up this/my freedom for security’.
The article is written in a ridiculous and somewhat hysterical manner by someone who certainly doesn’t “get” Ann at all. She’s been writing and saying things like this forever, it’s part of her charm that she can get her point across with a pithy comment. Where did the name Loretta come from? On the page from the signal that has the original article it’s just Mike Kowalczyk.
Racist remarks make Coulter an unwelcome speaker at the College
By Mike Kowalczyk
Issue date: 2/11/09 Section: Opinion
I think it’s more because they view it as a matter of compassion rather than security. I don’t think they see that even though they may feel more secure, I don’t think they feel they are less free. I think many feel that when they feel more secure, they are more free
and I agree with that, especially that last sentence.
I do believe that's how they see this security/freedom arrangement, which is why I summed it up with "this is why they are so dangerous as voters/leaders".
they've willingly locked themselves into a cage that they can't see (until it's too late) and call themselves free.
And, as you can see upthread, some even mock those who point out the bars.
Mike Loretta is intolerant.
None of those remarks are racist.
Liberal Democrats. Following the Obama Fascist Camp.
KUDOS to Anne Coulter.
She is pushing them and she should.
Fine. Are you being chivalrous (as in ladies first) or are you just cowardly? One parent wants the child to "feel good" (emotion) about an action. The other parent wants the child to consider the consequences of its actions. Which is based on emotion and which is based on the real world?
Thanks, it’s the type of answer I thought you would give. So predictable that I almost posted this even before your post.
As you can see by looking upthread, I asked a simple question, you ducked and ran away from giving the answer. Why you did that I could only speculate, but the why doesn’t matter.
Most Americans could have given the one word answer in a flash.
As I pointed out upthread, I don’t expect you to be able to comprehend but it’s just more evidence why (generally) women shouldn’t vote, and shouldn’t be leaders.
In this typical situation the parent who said ““get down from that tree, you’ll hurt yourself!” was being the most emotional.
The father was also being emotional when he revealed his pride at the prowess of his son, but mostly he was encouraging his son to continue to be brave and try new, and somewhat dangerous, things.
“In many cases it would be better if women did not vote. They vote their feelings. Feelings is hardly what government should be concerned about. It’s not the job of government to feel. government is not parent. It is not spousal supporter. It is not dad to your kids. It is not your sole benefactor.”
Ann is practical and fact based in her opinions—that’s why it’s so devastating to argue with her. Based on how men have voted, we would not have had Presidents Kennedy, Carter, or Clinton, had women not had the vote. I believe there are other Presidents as well who would not be there, but for the women.
Living up to your moniker. Did you read the rest of my post or just the first sentence. Check out my other posts along the way in this discussion as well.
Oh good ... I pretty much agree with and expand on your comments and I’m dumb for having done so. Nice. I further made a point, in the hope that you might consider the unintended consequences of your wish. Do you have an answer for that, or are you only interested in unoriginal, juvenile insults?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.