- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,505
- 143,615
- 2,615
- Thread starter
- #61
Oh dang, another worthless RW thread.
Shocking that he couldn't even quote his own source correctly... Really, I'm so surprised.
Next I see RW on damage control by trying to equate a nanny state to breast pumps VS "oil pumps." Oh, I understand it's an attack on the oil hungry righties, makes me wonder if RW used any oil based products today, like his computer.
So, yes RW... If the Government gives tax credits or help to oil companies to buy "oil pumps" that could be looked at as a nanny state, kind of. When the Government has to help people go through school (college), buy a house, buy a washer/dryer, buy food and send their children to school... Pay for peoples HC and pay them to be un-employed then yes, helping them buy breast pumps would be another added example to the "nanny state." Do you disagree RW, or are you that mentally challenged?
Keep the retarded threads coming RW, you inspire people every day to move from the left and think for themselves.
lol, *Retardism* is RW ideology hahah.
I mean... question for you RW, not that you could answer it... Are you against Government subsidizing "oil pumps?" If so, why on what grounds being you support the Government subsidizing breast pumps, Lol I can't wait.
Breast pumps themselves are a non-issue a 50 dollar item will yield maybe a 20 buck tax break. What is the issue is that the government is being called a nanny state for advocating healthy activities
It once again shows the pettiness and vindictiveness of Bachmann
The first lady has every right to advocate breastfeeding and trying to remove restrictions in the workplace
Does Bachmann even know what a nanny state is?
Oh my LoLing gawd hahaha... It's only 20$... Yes RW, it only cost the tax payer 20$.
What???
A right-winger admitting that a tax cut costs money? How did you reach that conclusion?