The American poor have it so rough. Here's a little history lesson for you on the minimum income bracket required to pay income taxes. In 1944, when the standard deduction was first introduced, the minimum tax bracket was $0 -$2,000, and the first standard deduction was 10% of adjusted gross income, calculated for the taxpayer earning less than $5,000 on the 1040 tax form for 1944 (see here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f1040--1944.pdf). You will note on page two the tax table starts taxing income at $575, which in today's dollars would be about $2,300. That year the tax rate on regular income over $200k ($800k in today's dollars) was 94% (source: http://federal-tax-rates.nationaljournal.com/l/29/1944). Everyone needs to chip in.

No, the young man died because he thought he had a right, was "entitled" to tell the owner of the property how to run his business. This is the strangest, most incoherent version of morality I think I've ever seen anyone propose. Did Regal attack the young man? No. Did they ever state or imply they thought the young man's life wasn't worth $11? No. Were the officers they called to remove him from the property ever convicted, or even charged with a crime? Apparently not. So there's no crime committed here, and no evidence whatsoever that Regal intended any harm to the young man, much less that they wanted him dead, but none of that matters to you, because you want the right to tell others how to run their businesses.

And that's how the world will eventually be saved from liberalism...one liberal at a time.

For women the position of chief officer in a company requires they make a choice between career and family. It doesn't for men. There is the difference that accounts for the difference in achievement between men and women in upper management. This isn't gender bias. It's simply the way Nature works. Children need more time with their mothers than with their fathers while they're small. That's all there is to it, but liberals have great difficulty with the way Nature works. They're always wanting to tell Mother Nature what to do, instead of her telling them. It's really weird for people who claim to be so in love with "science".

Sheryl Sandberg is leaning heavily on the debunked "disparate impact" theory that says differences in achievements between groups is compelling, prima facia evidence of discrimination. It isn't, as has been demonstrated over and over again by Thomas Sowell, the author here, Larry Elder, and many others. But it doesn't matter to liberals. They just add this to the ever growing list of inconvenient truths they ignore, and go merrily on their way.

So would Stalin.

From, of course, Soda Springs, Idaho.

You're forgetting one thing about liberals. They define "charity" as working to force you to support the poor to their satisfaction.

It makes perfect sense that Libs would break out in a rash over an ad stigmatizing teen pregnancy. If teens are routinely shamed for getting pregnant, then it stands to reason that eventually less teens will get pregnant. If less teens get pregnant, then Planned Parenthood loses an important market share, and the class of people raised to be dependent upon government programs will shrink. Since this is the very class Libs have traditionally used to gain political power, they're clearly not going to like these ads that threaten the economic health of an industry for which they can plausibly claim full ownership, the abortion industry, and their primary voting bloc.

In his book, Intellectuals and Society, Sowell gives us many reasons to question the societal reverence accorded the "intellectual class" in America, but to my mind one stands out over the others. When the society in which the intellectual class exists routinely fails to censure individuals of that class when they are publicly and stupendously wrong about something, then there develops an environment in which the intellectual class wanders further and further out on the "fringe" of reality, thus always increasing the percentage of times they take a false position. In short, in the absence of any societal checks on intellectuals they tend to become less and less worthy of respect by non-intellectuals.