KaskadskyjKozak

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.

Are you in the top 50%? If so, and you feel so bad about the "widening gap between rich and poor", nothing is stopping YOU from donating a portion of YOUR salary to someone in the bottom 10% thereby equalizing your income with theirs. Go for it. This is my favorite response to this issue. There is always one idiot who makes it. Yeah, a donation will certainly fix the systemic problem. Donate every dollar you make over the median income to people who make less than that amount every year of your life. Facta non verba, archenemy. You dislike my response because you're full of crap - like all liberals charity begins with someone else's bank account (the so-called "rich").

the precedent is to confirm the President's nominees unless they are grossly unqualified. BTW - eat s**t.

Are you in the top 50%? If so, and you feel so bad about the "widening gap between rich and poor", nothing is stopping YOU from donating a portion of YOUR salary to someone in the bottom 10% thereby equalizing your income with theirs. Go for it. Oh, yeah, I forgot, the definition of rich for a liberal is: "someone who makes more than me" or better yet "a conservative who makes more than me and doesn't work in arts or entertainment, or head a left-wing interest group"

JFK was the last Democrat president that I respect. I can even overlook his dalliances, for unlike Bubba, at least he had affairs with attractive women.

Republicans believe in democracy and follow the constitution as constructionists, and are more fair-minded. They realize that when the president is a Democrat, he has the right to nominate his choice for supreme court justices. Democrats are like whiny little children who kick, scream, and cry foul when they don't get their way.

It is hypocritical bullshit to claim the Nazis were not elected democratically and simultaneously claim Chavez was. You're playing semantic games. His party was elected with a plurality, and he followed democratic processes in Germany at that time to become chancellor. Now piss off, I have better things to do than waste my time on you.

His party won a plurality of votes in a democratic election. The point is that calling an election democratic does not justify its results, the person elected, or the government when it morphs into something far from "democratic". Of course, that isn't obvious to you all in the case of Chavez, because your goal in life is to be contrarian in all matters of US foreign policy positions because you hate Bush: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

He was through his party's victory. Go read a history book. Dru's posting on the other thread is just an exercise in useless semantic games, meant merely to obfuscate - modus operandi for liberals. Just because Chavez was "elected" does not mean the process was anywhere near to the principles of democracy, nor is he given a carte blanc to act however he wishes once he gained power. You liberals are so f**ked in the head with your rationalizations that it's unbelievable.

You seem to be having great trouble answering my above question regarding the particular points made in the movie that you deem fallacious. You are beginning to sound like Pat Robertson, relying on emotive innuendo devoid of substance. You hit the nail on the head.