KaskadskyjKozak

*yawn* get a new line Chicken Little.

You are making the mistake of personalizing the discussion. I wasn't talking about your parents, but about a policy. Liberals advocate policies and social agendas while moralizing. Yet, they attack any suggestion from their oppostion (e.g. "tell people what needs to be said") as presumptiveness, "moralizing", "getting on a high horse", and so on. What constitutes "moralizing" and what constitutes good policy is in the eye of the beholder. Now go - happy now?

It's called reading between the lines. Liberals always point to Socialist Europe and Canada as models to be emulated. Citing higher taxes in Eastern Europe or a third world country will only make your tax-rate comparison an idiotic one. It's been real guys, as usual...

We are moderately overtaxed. Socialist Europe is excessively overtaxed. If you prefer the latter to the former, move to Europe.

Cut the pork and use the recovered funds to pay down the debt.

I actually don't mind being taxed for these things if the money is spent well. I think the taxes are high enough - it's the other side of the equation that isn't coming through.

yeah, much better to hear middle class white guys spout off on racism and posture and its effects - they are definitely experts on that subject.

I wasn't calling YOU a know it all. Give it a rest. There are plenty of people who can do better, but they don't either because they are given enough goodies for free, and/or are encouraged not to try. I'm saying we should start by replacing those messages with more productive ones.

Please. As if liberals don't presume to be "know-it-alls" and tell people "what they need to be told". Liberals always talk about "educating" people to be "tolerant", "informed", etc. So this should be right up your alley.

We can start by telling people what they need to be told, not what they want to hear. And entitlements should be tied to performance/self-improvement - quid pro quo. We can also look at those who are successful, happy, upwardly mobile and learn why this is the case. It seems to me that there are plenty of immigrants who come here with nothing, speak the language poorly, and seem to work their butts off and succeed. The Home Simpson's of America could learn a thing or two from them...

Historically Australia proves a good example of this. There was an interesting book a few years ago ( The Great Wave, here's a review which tied, among other things, increases in crime to a decrease in real wages and an increase in income inequality. Of course, crime has nothing to do with the breakdown of the family unit, destructive socio-cultural attitudes, and a dependency/entitlement mentality fostered by left-wing social engineers. And laziness never ever has anything to do with it either, I suppose. It's easier to demand a check from someone else than to work, study, and aspire to do better.

What does Clinton have to do with this?

What do you expect from a product of our secondary school education system combined with "higher" education in liberal arts by left-wing professors, and tempered by an 18-25 year old mind. That's right, a grammatically-challenged, brain-washed, ignoramus/besser-wisser. This case is much more severe, however, and the recommendation for remedial education, although a noble suggestion, will not help Josh with his cranial-rectal inversion.

Ah, there it is: it's FEELINGS that matter, not reality. Of course demo-liberals will capitalize on these FEELINGS in their class-warfare politics.

yeah, let's just add justices to the court until we get a majority... oh wait that's OK 'cos a Democrat tried to do it.

lick sack

Sounds like a paranoid delusion...

cliques? or cliches? the only clique I see here is the hoard of likeminded leftist sheeple

In a battle of wits, you are an unarmed opponent. Posture elsewhere, moron.

Many counselors counsel those who suffer from problems that they have never experienced. Must a psychiatrist have suffered from schziophrenia in order to counsel a schizophrenic?

I can agree with that. But it doesn't mean they have to be confirmed. Sure, but that hasn't been the norm. They didn't invent the term "Borked" for nothing.

These days its all about obstructionism - far beyond a check and balance. The last two administrations have been blocked in their court nominees in ways that are utterly ridiculous. The president has a right to nominees justices and have them checked and voted on in a timely manner.

Yeah, kinda like how Bush takes tax money and gives it to faith-based charities. Exactly. Time to cut back government and get it out of the charity business.

Define rich. Of course, you'll be excluded from the definition.

I'll bet your plot correlates quite well with the size of government - bigger government = more "social stagnation". Your solution would be, of course, bigger government! Or would it be "revolution"? Sorry, but I'll take stagnation over those alternatives.