Posted on 07/31/2009 4:38:17 PM PDT by Pyro7480
The children/parent analogy is a bad one anyway. What were the parents before they were adults?
One child in particular (Texas) ought to be given full parental rights is how I see it. We don’t need Washington telling us how to live.
talking head, bobbling head, empty head, no brain...
That’s a dangerously stupid woman right there. I’m glad I don’t have cable.
She should have said older.
That being said, I would venture to say a sizeable portion do it as a matter of choice. Far too many, from what I have seen.
Earth to Costello: The federal government is the “child” of the states. The states are only the children of the people.
/johnny
That's not in the FedGov job description. It is in the job description for the able-bodied men in the family.
/johnny
‘zactly ....
The 1960s Marxist-Alinsky hippie street rabble and their ideological issue (children)-cum-Rat Party (formerly the traditional, patriotic Democratic Party) wish to make it known this 31st day of July 2009:
Asking for states’ rights is asking the children to be the parents.
It seems to me that only the individual exists by nature and then by consent and contract, either real or implied, the other groups are formed from marriage, family, town, city, county, state, federal. We are soverigns of our souls. At least that is how I see it.
This is not, I repeat NOT, the United Federation of America. It is the Untied STATES of America.
Whoops...Friday night typo...but right now maybe we are the untied states.
What do you expect from a bunch of intellectual CHILDREN?
I've read a lot of ridiculous comparisons, but this takes the cake - even more so because it's obviously being tested to see if it sticks for women as a meme. But the very concept that the most profound development in the history of the world for freedom, a masterpiece of social philosophy for which generations of Americans have fought and died to protect, and which has become a beacon of possibility for the whole world (and an example for women's social freedom, BTW), should even be remotely considered as being tossed because some woman wants to chase some man because she's pissed off at him (reason doesn't matter, it's the comparison that's the point), has got to be a new low.
This type of insanity puts the selfishness of a woman's needs above all, and the country and the world be damned. No responsibility whatever for the woman - not in selecting the rat husband, not in dealing with the rat relationship with him, not in pursuing ten kids in the first place (or three, or even one) - no. Just: woman is pissed, so woman is victimized, so burn down the country and destroy the world so she can get whatever she thinks she wants (and then when it doesn't work, she's still victimized).
Women should be absolutely outraged that they are portrayed as mindlessly destructive and idiotically selfish as you have portayed them. Instead, by the millions, they think this craven and vicious attitude actually represents freedom, as they destroy education and job opportunities and family life for men, and then continue in their still-unfulfilled collectivist rage to try to burn down the country around them, without ever once realizing that their limitless selfishness is precisely the thing that prevents them from ever being fulfilled by anything or anyone, ever.
Guy knows nothing about history.
Sovereign states existed BEFORE federal govt.
They were MUCH more powerful than the infant federal govt.
The powers of the fed govt were very limited.
The fed govt was to be the agent of the states, not the master of the states. Only had the few powers the states had given it.
The more these morons talk the more they confirm they are morons and do not know real history at all. And they don’t care, they are happy idiots and have high self-esteem.
Since when is the government supposed to be your personal detective?
I have long wondered whether a Henry Bowman (re: Unintended Consequences by John Ross) would come along at some point and start taking out legislators. Not that I advocate that, mind you, but conditions are about right for one to emerge.
I believe it was a mistake to allow women to vote. I also believe it is a mistake for people who don’t own property (non-taxpayers) to vote.
Too many people who don’t have any skin in the game voting in people who will give them other people’s money.
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.