No such thing as a “nanny state”

[LilOlLady]

NO SUCH THING AS A “NANNY STATE”

There is no such thing as a "nanny state.” This is merely an inflammatory phrase tossed about by Reichtwingers.

Why don't we want a nanny state coddling people? - Yahoo! Answers



Taking care of the elderly, orphans, disabled is not a “nanny state” It is providing for those who are poor because of no fault of their own or anyone else.

 

[The T]

Fine...but where do MOOCHERS fit in that are too lazy, and squirt out children to collect more from the state?

 

[Amelia]

NO SUCH THING AS A “NANNY STATE”

There is no such thing as a "nanny state.” This is merely an inflammatory phrase tossed about by Reichtwingers.

Why don't we want a nanny state coddling people? - Yahoo! Answers



Taking care of the elderly, orphans, disabled is not a “nanny state” It is providing for those who are poor because of no fault of their own or anyone else.

The term "nanny state" applies to excessive regulation and taxation of activities which are mostly harmless or at the very least should be people's choice.

Taxing sugar to try to get people to use less of it. Outlawing cigarette smoking in bars. That sort of thing.



I am not saying I've never heard anyone use the term for taking care of the poor, orphaned or elderly, but that is not the usage I'm most familiar with.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No such thing as a “nanny state”

True.

Or if there is a ‘nanny state,' it’s the consequence of social conservatives’ efforts to expand government control into our private lives with regard to abortion, religion, and sexual orientation.

 

[Full-Auto]

NO SUCH THING AS A “NANNY STATE”

There is no such thing as a "nanny state.” This is merely an inflammatory phrase tossed about by Reichtwingers.

Why don't we want a nanny state coddling people? - Yahoo! Answers



Taking care of the elderly, orphans, disabled is not a “nanny state” It is providing for those who are poor because of no fault of their own or anyone else.

Yahoo answers?

Thank God weve been saved. Did you ask who wins the super bowl?

 

[JoeB131]

NO SUCH THING AS A “NANNY STATE”

There is no such thing as a "nanny state.” This is merely an inflammatory phrase tossed about by Reichtwingers.

Why don't we want a nanny state coddling people? - Yahoo! Answers

Taking care of the elderly, orphans, disabled is not a “nanny state” It is providing for those who are poor because of no fault of their own or anyone else.

"Reichtwingers" isn't inflammetory?

And no one is saying we shouldn't take care of them. We just question if the government is the best one to do it.

When the government tells you you have to buy health insurance, have to wear a seatbelt, can't smoke in a resturant- that's a nanny state.

Incidently, I always buy health insurance, usually wear a seatbelt, and I don't smoke, but I do these things because I choose to. When the government is the one mandating I do these things, it becomes a little less free.

 

[California Girl]

Yahoo Answers is some kind of 'authority'?

Hot damn, people get dumber by the minute.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yahoo Answers is some kind of 'authority'?

Hot damn, people get dumber by the minute.

Any site that supports the lefts opinion is authority.

 

[Fang]

NO SUCH THING AS A “NANNY STATE”

There is no such thing as a "nanny state.” This is merely an inflammatory phrase tossed about by Reichtwingers.

Why don't we want a nanny state coddling people? - Yahoo! Answers



Taking care of the elderly, orphans, disabled is not a “nanny state” It is providing for those who are poor because of no fault of their own or anyone else.

Of course you've missed the point. Its Liberals who don't want to take care of the sick and elderly.

 

[Amelia]

NO SUCH THING AS A “NANNY STATE”

There is no such thing as a "nanny state.” This is merely an inflammatory phrase tossed about by Reichtwingers.

Why don't we want a nanny state coddling people? - Yahoo! Answers



Taking care of the elderly, orphans, disabled is not a “nanny state” It is providing for those who are poor because of no fault of their own or anyone else.

Of course you've missed the point. Its Liberals who don't want to take care of the sick and elderly.

What?

That's not a true statement about liberals, and it is not the point.

The point is that the OP and the poster at the Yahoo! Answers site don't even have the basic definition of "nanny state" correct so how can they even begin to go about refuting what conservatives think about it?

 

[Fang]

NO SUCH THING AS A “NANNY STATE”

There is no such thing as a "nanny state.” This is merely an inflammatory phrase tossed about by Reichtwingers.

Why don't we want a nanny state coddling people? - Yahoo! Answers



Taking care of the elderly, orphans, disabled is not a “nanny state” It is providing for those who are poor because of no fault of their own or anyone else.

Of course you've missed the point. Its Liberals who don't want to take care of the sick and elderly.

What?

That's not a true statement about liberals, and it is not the point.

The point is that the OP and the poster at the Yahoo! Answers site don't even have the basic definition of "nanny state" correct so how can they even begin to go about refuting what conservatives think about it?

Are you that blind? Its pretty obvious what the OP was trying to imply. Conservatives are far more generous when it comes to caring for the sick and elderly. Thats a fact.

 

[Amelia]

Of course you've missed the point. Its Liberals who don't want to take care of the sick and elderly.

What?

That's not a true statement about liberals, and it is not the point.

The point is that the OP and the poster at the Yahoo! Answers site don't even have the basic definition of "nanny state" correct so how can they even begin to go about refuting what conservatives think about it?

Are you that blind? Its pretty obvious what the OP was trying to imply. Conservatives are far more generous when it comes to caring for the sick and elderly. Thats a fact.

Sure, the OP was taking a swipe at her imaginary image of heartless conservatives but that still wasn't "the point". And you don't help by turning it around and suggesting that liberals are heartless. That's lowering yourself to her level.

This thread is about the "nanny state". It says there is "no such thing". But the OP doesn't even know what is meant by "nanny state". So the ad hominem is just that - gratuitous ad hominem. The thread is simply empty because the OP doesn't know the basic terms she is posting about. That is the point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

NO SUCH THING AS A “NANNY STATE”

There is no such thing as a "nanny state.” This is merely an inflammatory phrase tossed about by Reichtwingers.

Why don't we want a nanny state coddling people? - Yahoo! Answers



Taking care of the elderly, orphans, disabled is not a “nanny state” It is providing for those who are poor because of no fault of their own or anyone else.

Nanny state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No such thing as a “nanny state”

True.

Or if there is a ‘nanny state,' it’s the consequence of social conservatives’ efforts to expand government control into our private lives with regard to abortion, religion, and sexual orientation.

Which explains why it was coined by a conservative MP in Britain.

 

[grunt11b]

Fine...but where do MOOCHERS fit in that are too lazy, and squirt out children to collect more from the state?

The left uses the elderly and handicap to tug at peoples heartstrings to support the nanny state agenda. Only problem for the lefties is, you and I both know the tactic so it does not work on us, but it will work on the gullible people like the OP is, or the people who are complicit in the scheme. It is designed to make people lazy and independent on the programs, nothing less, the elderly and handicapped is just an excuse to push forward.

 

[grunt11b]

No such thing as a “nanny state”

True.

Or if there is a ‘nanny state,' it’s the consequence of social conservatives’ efforts to expand government control into our private lives with regard to abortion, religion, and sexual orientation.

The left push for more government control of everyday lives, not conservatives, we like to shrink government intrusion into our liberties. And the whole abortion thing? A womans right to choose does not trump that babies right to live. As far as religion goes, it's only numbuts on the left that wish to oppress our first amendment right to religious freedom, no conservative is trying to pass legislation to push any type of religion on you dingbats. And when it comes to sexual orientation, no conservative is saying you cannot be gay, unless you sneakily crafted that sexual orientation term when you really meant gay marriage, and in that case that is a states rights issue, not a federal one, if you wanna marry your gay lover then it must be put up for a vote at the state level, not legislated from a federal bench. You dont have to like it, you just have to deal with it.

 

[whitehall]

Think "Yahoo answers" is fair and balanced? The answer they liked best included the intentionally insulting word "reichtwingers".

 

[grunt11b]

Yahoo Answers is some kind of 'authority'?

Hot damn, people get dumber by the minute.

Any site that supports the lefts opinion is authority.

 

[grunt11b]

Of course you've missed the point. Its Liberals who don't want to take care of the sick and elderly.

What?

That's not a true statement about liberals, and it is not the point.

The point is that the OP and the poster at the Yahoo! Answers site don't even have the basic definition of "nanny state" correct so how can they even begin to go about refuting what conservatives think about it?

Are you that blind? Its pretty obvious what the OP was trying to imply. Conservatives are far more generous when it comes to caring for the sick and elderly. Thats a fact.

Like Biden donating $380 to charity in 2011, that was pathetic of him, but you know....liberals really do care, they just care more with other peoples money.