Why did Rachel lose?

[Votto]

Why did Rachel Canning lose? In a world that has sold it's collective soul to redistribution, why should Rachel's parents not pay for her education?

What has surprised me is that most liberals I talk to think that she should lose. Why? Her parents are much better off than she. In addition, most all of them think that society should pay for the education of our children in college. If so, then what is the difference between Rachel's parents paying for her education by letting her win the law suit verses a law saying that they should be taxed to help pay for it? Either way the little monster would have her schooling paid for her and her parents will have to help pay.

 

[blackhawk]

View attachment 29658

Why did Rachel Canning lose? In a world that has sold it's collective soul to redistribution, why should Rachel's parents not pay for her education?

What has surprised me is that most liberals I talk to think that she should lose. Why? Her parents are much better off than she. In addition, most all of them think that society should pay for the education of our children in college. If so, then what is the difference between Rachel's parents paying for her education by letting her win the law suit verses a law saying that they should be taxed to help pay for it? Either way the little monster would have her schooling paid for her and her parents will have to help pay.

Because in some parts of the nation common sense still rules.

 

[candycorn]

View attachment 29658

Why did Rachel Canning lose? In a world that has sold it's collective soul to redistribution, why should Rachel's parents not pay for her education?

What has surprised me is that most liberals I talk to think that she should lose. Why?

Likely because what you think you know about liberals comes from what you are spoon fed by Fox.

Her parents are much better off than she. In addition, most all of them think that society should pay for the education of our children in college. If so, then what is the difference between Rachel's parents paying for her education by letting her win the law suit verses a law saying that they should be taxed to help pay for it?

Congresses and administrations of both stripes have supported education grants but mostly loans. Usually parents don't require their kids pay back their grants. Society does require that kids pay back loans.

Did you really need me to explain this to you or were you just pretending to be daft?

 

[Politico]

She lost because she is an adult and should pay for her own shit.

 

[racewright]

View attachment 29658

Why did Rachel Canning lose? In a world that has sold it's collective soul to redistribution, why should Rachel's parents not pay for her education?

What has surprised me is that most liberals I talk to think that she should lose. Why?

Likely because what you think you know about liberals comes from what you are spoon fed by Fox.

Her parents are much better off than she. In addition, most all of them think that society should pay for the education of our children in college. If so, then what is the difference between Rachel's parents paying for her education by letting her win the law suit verses a law saying that they should be taxed to help pay for it?

Congresses and administrations of both stripes have supported education grants but mostly loans. Usually parents don't require their kids pay back their grants. Society does require that kids pay back loans.

Did you really need me to explain this to you or were you just pretending to be daft?

Well you think non liberals have liberals defined by what Fox says. How about you giving us a education as to what liberals are like.
You can start with what they believe and how they plan to run the future.

 

[Votto]

View attachment 29658

Congresses and administrations of both stripes have supported education grants but mostly loans. Usually parents don't require their kids pay back their grants. Society does require that kids pay back loans.

Did you really need me to explain this to you or were you just pretending to be daft?

Your so right. Politicians simply lower interest rates as the loans just keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Then when they get out of school they come to realize that capitalism is dead and so is their ability to find work. Then they are stuck with a loan that will follow them to their death bed. In return, colleges around the country indoctrinate our children towards collectivism and big government policies which will produce larger and larger college loans. However, most libtards don't understand all this. All they know is that they have their man Obama in the Oval Office and everything's gonna be alright.

BTW, your avatar gave me an idea for a Presidential ticket.

How about a Fluke/Canning Presidential ticket. Liberals would go nuts!! Free sex and college are two unbeatable combo's to run on. They will be just like Obama promising that health premiums will not change or increase in price.

 

[Votto]

View attachment 29658

Why did Rachel Canning lose? In a world that has sold it's collective soul to redistribution, why should Rachel's parents not pay for her education?

What has surprised me is that most liberals I talk to think that she should lose. Why?

Likely because what you think you know about liberals comes from what you are spoon fed by Fox.

Her parents are much better off than she. In addition, most all of them think that society should pay for the education of our children in college. If so, then what is the difference between Rachel's parents paying for her education by letting her win the law suit verses a law saying that they should be taxed to help pay for it?

Congresses and administrations of both stripes have supported education grants but mostly loans. Usually parents don't require their kids pay back their grants. Society does require that kids pay back loans.

Did you really need me to explain this to you or were you just pretending to be daft?

Well you think non liberals have liberals defined by what Fox says. How about you giving us a education as to what liberals are like.
You can start with what they believe and how they plan to run the future.

Why is it that every time someone on this site questions the powers that be in any way they think Fox news is behind it?

I guess the media has to have some token news organization out there that questions the powers that be every now and again. Otherwise it would just be like reading Pravda everyday. But to be honest, I hate Fox news. They don't cover half of what goes on.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Why is it that every time someone on this site questions the powers that be in any way they think Fox news is behind it?

.

Because you are usually getting upset about the same things Faux News is at the same time they are.

So let's take a silly lawsuit out of the thousands of silly lawsuits filed and make it a national case because those kids are so unfucking grateful.

That's pretty much the meme of this non-story

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't think she lost. Her noteriety is sure to help in kicking off her future porn site. I can't see her doing much more than that.

 

[Truthmatters]

I cant tell you how many times I have heard the same EXACT line come out of the mouths of republicans who didn't even KNOW each other.



they are brainwashed idiots

 

[Truthmatters]

who is brainwashing them doesn't much matter.

Lush limpballs, fox , glenny Beck, Mann cultwhore


the effect is the same

 

[KNB]

When is Obama going to redistribute all of those record corporate profits?

 

[DriftingSand]

View attachment 29658

Why did Rachel Canning lose? In a world that has sold it's collective soul to redistribution, why should Rachel's parents not pay for her education?

What has surprised me is that most liberals I talk to think that she should lose. Why? Her parents are much better off than she. In addition, most all of them think that society should pay for the education of our children in college. If so, then what is the difference between Rachel's parents paying for her education by letting her win the law suit verses a law saying that they should be taxed to help pay for it? Either way the little monster would have her schooling paid for her and her parents will have to help pay.

Most liberal-progressives live in a sort of dream world where the sky is made of honey and the trees are made of money. A place where "responsibility" is a bad word and all needy leftists receive an endless supply of free handouts; a guitar; plenty of reefer; a cell phone; and a pair of Birkenstocks. A place where the evil producers are required to pay for everyone else's education, housing, food, and prescription drugs ... oh ... and condoms.

BUT ... when reality slaps them in the face and they see their philosophy in real-life, practical application they become conservatives in a real hurry (even if only for a moment or two). Unfortunately, after they take a couple of hits of ganga they return to their dream-state of imaginary, heaven-like Nirvana where food-stamps are a-plenty.

 

[deltex1]

LIBTARDS are afraid the little bitches they raised will follow her example and drag their self serving whiney asses into court

 

[BobPlumb]

View attachment 29658

Why did Rachel Canning lose? In a world that has sold it's collective soul to redistribution, why should Rachel's parents not pay for her education?

What has surprised me is that most liberals I talk to think that she should lose. Why? Her parents are much better off than she. In addition, most all of them think that society should pay for the education of our children in college. If so, then what is the difference between Rachel's parents paying for her education by letting her win the law suit verses a law saying that they should be taxed to help pay for it? Either way the little monster would have her schooling paid for her and her parents will have to help pay.

No, the liberal stance would not be that her parents should pay. The liberal stance is that Rachel can now qualify for government help such as welfare and snap.

 

[DriftingSand]

When is Obama going to redistribute all of those record corporate profits?

Last I heard, there are a number of "filthy rich" Democrats. When are they going to put their "money" where their mouth is?:

1) Bill & Hillary Clinton are worth $85 million (Democrat progressives)
2) Al Gore is worth $100 million (Democrat progressive)
3) John Kerry is worth $193 million (Democrat progressive)
4) John Corzine is worth $375 million (Democrat progressive)
5) Michael Bloomberg is worth $27 billion ... yes ... billion (Extreme leftist, Democrat progressive).
The Top 10 Richest Politicians in the United States - TheRichest

They all want YOU and ME to pay our "fair share" while they horde their fortunes. But just listen to the hypocritical Dems scream and whine about the "greed" of the businessmen of the free-market-system.

 

[Votto]

View attachment 29658

Why did Rachel Canning lose? In a world that has sold it's collective soul to redistribution, why should Rachel's parents not pay for her education?

What has surprised me is that most liberals I talk to think that she should lose. Why? Her parents are much better off than she. In addition, most all of them think that society should pay for the education of our children in college. If so, then what is the difference between Rachel's parents paying for her education by letting her win the law suit verses a law saying that they should be taxed to help pay for it? Either way the little monster would have her schooling paid for her and her parents will have to help pay.

Most liberal-progressives live in a sort of dream world where the sky is made of honey and the trees are made of money. A place where "responsibility" is a bad word and all needy leftists receive an endless supply of free handouts; a guitar; plenty of reefer; a cell phone; and a pair of Birkenstocks. A place where the evil producers are required to pay for everyone else's education, housing, food, and prescription drugs ... oh ... and condoms.

BUT ... when reality slaps them in the face and they see their philosophy in real-life, practical application they become conservatives in a real hurry (even if only for a moment or two). Unfortunately, after they take a couple of hits of ganga they return to their dream-state of imaginary, heaven-like Nirvana where food-stamps are a-plenty.

All they need are Obamaphones and a continuous never ending feed of rhetoric about how they are gonna make the rich share their wealth to keep them happy.

 

[KNB]

When is Obama going to redistribute all of those record corporate profits?

Last I heard, there are a number of "filthy rich" Democrats. When are they going to put their "money" where their mouth is?:

1) Bill & Hillary Clinton are worth $85 million (Democrat progressives)
2) Al Gore is worth $100 million (Democrat progressive)
3) John Kerry is worth $193 million (Democrat progressive)
4) John Corzine is worth $375 million (Democrat progressive)
5) Michael Bloomberg is worth $27 billion ... yes ... billion (Extreme leftist, Democrat progressive).
The Top 10 Richest Politicians in the United States - TheRichest

They all want YOU and ME to pay our "fair share" while they horde their fortunes. But just listen to the hypocritical Dems scream and whine about the "greed" of the businessmen of the free-market-system.

Yeah, that doesn't answer the question at all.

Democrats are supposed to "put their money where their mouth is"? What does that even mean? Rich Democrats should give all of their money to poor people? But they're not doing that, nor is Obama redistributing any money except from the poor and working class up to the 1% who then funnel that money into overseas tax shelters.

This should tell Republican Teabaggers that Democrats aren't socialists and Obama isn't redistributing any money to poor people as part of some scary Communist right-wing nightmare, but Republican Teabaggers are fucking morons who don't understand reality.

If Obama is a Socialist, then why do rich people keep getting richer? Is that Socialism, or Capitalism?

 

[Votto]

When is Obama going to redistribute all of those record corporate profits?

Last I heard, there are a number of "filthy rich" Democrats. When are they going to put their "money" where their mouth is?:

1) Bill & Hillary Clinton are worth $85 million (Democrat progressives)
2) Al Gore is worth $100 million (Democrat progressive)
3) John Kerry is worth $193 million (Democrat progressive)
4) John Corzine is worth $375 million (Democrat progressive)
5) Michael Bloomberg is worth $27 billion ... yes ... billion (Extreme leftist, Democrat progressive).
The Top 10 Richest Politicians in the United States - TheRichest

They all want YOU and ME to pay our "fair share" while they horde their fortunes. But just listen to the hypocritical Dems scream and whine about the "greed" of the businessmen of the free-market-system.

Yeah, that doesn't answer the question at all.

Democrats are supposed to "put their money where their mouth is"? What does that even mean? Rich Democrats should give all of their money to poor people? But they're not doing that, nor is Obama redistributing any money except from the poor and working class up to the 1% who then funnel that money into overseas tax shelters.

This should tell Republican Teabaggers that Democrats aren't socialists and Obama isn't redistributing any money to poor people as part of some scary Communist right-wing nightmare, but Republican Teabaggers are fucking morons who don't understand reality.

If Obama is a Socialist, then why do rich people keep getting richer? Is that Socialism, or Capitalism?

Obama is a collectivist whore. The only reason collectivists often champion socialist ideology of any sort is because it brings them power and you less of it.

 

[KNB]

What are Obama's collectivist policies if rich people have made 95% of the financial gains during the economic recovery since 2009?