Posted on 03/29/2012 10:05:34 AM PDT by CNSNews.com
This women makes misogyny sound like a rather reasonable outlook on life.
Just a boatload of money. I wonder where it comes from?
Does Michael Moore make hating men seem reasonable?
From Obama's "stash"?
Is this woman a lunatic? The Federal government has no “gift” money to give. It doesn’t produce, it consumes! The coercion happens prior to the gifting!
If he were a man, it might. Fortunately, he is just a pig that talks. So it's a moot point :)
“It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.” Which was followed by ...from his stash..OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA.....
Ya can’t fix stupid.
You care where it came from. The left doesn’t care.
Her point was not even that...her point was, there’s no coercion.
All you have to do is spend it as we tell you, you don’t have to spend state money on this expansion, so where’s the coercion?
“spend it as we tell you to spend it”
And if you refuse, we will punish you by cutting off other funds.
DUH.
That money gets phased out so is useless in the long run. The long run is what states are complaining about.
If that doesn’t make sense to you, then have I got a deal for you.
I am willing to sell you my house such that you won’t have to pay me any money for the first two years. After that, you need to pay me $50,000 a month for life.
Any takers?
These Obama-bucks come from Obama-boats moored in Obama Harbor.
From what I have read about Kagan’s background and outlook - I highly doubt she believes in the Constitution as worded.
I am sure she views it as an interesting document for the period in which it was created - and I am also sure she views the Constitution as irrelevant for our present age.
Reading this make me want to break into her house and take everything in it.
Elmer Kagan thinks money grows on trees.
The government, by its very nature, cannot give except what it first takes.
As between being a man, or a woman, which is Michael Moore?
I’ll tell you why using him as an example is a moot point, and it’s not because he’s a pig.
Justice Breyer will vote with Kagan.
He’s kind of a likable idiot.
John Paul Stevens is who Kagan replaced. He was a huge lib icon. They said people liked him. Another idiot.
So, are Justices Breyer and Stevens examples of why hating men is reasonable?
You get my drift.
I’ll flip the argument.
Margaret Thatcher.
Would she make a good case for misogeny, or would she destroy the case for it?
The making of this Kagan issue an issue of justifiable misogeny, which is against ALL women, is where the wrong turn was taken.
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.