Moochers are not likely to be intelligent. Why? Because intelligent people have self-respect, and people with self-respect value what they earn, not what is given to them. Also, as Mr. Mitchell notes intelligent people understand that there can not be a free lunch without a cook and somebody to pay for the ingredients. This is something we Americans have understood since Jamestown -- over 150 years before we became a nation.

The grandeur of the internet is that we can laugh at these policies without being subject to them. I'm just curious as to when Dr. Adams takes his treasure trove to Comedy Central. Two other great reads are "Diversity: The Invention of a Concept" by Peter Wood and "The Politically Correct University" edited by Robert Maranto, Richard E. Redding, and Frederick M. Hess.

Where to start? Those who hate Ryan almost invariably do so because he is ACTIVELY countering their cavalier spending, AND because he comes armed with the facts that expose how they are insanely bankrupting this country. As to the incestuous nature of the MSM with the Soetoro-Biden regime, tell me something new.

Let me see: Obamacare will not increase the budget deficit: check, oops, not so; There will be no death panels: check, oops, HHS is setting them up as I type; The federal government will not pay for abortions: check, oops, not so; Health premiums will go down $2,500 per family: check, oops, up $3,065 (maybe that's a rounding error?). Wow, see Obama was so honest about Obamacare wasn't he? Hmmm?

How can you say electrics aren't a great idea, John? Why in 1905, without question, electric was the way to go. Oops, that was steam.

This is what we need. Anybody who cares the least about the U.S. continuing as a capitalist juggernaut has to drop any petty differences they have over Romney. I have a lot of differences philosophically with Romney, but he is a decent human being who cares deeply about the U.S. and understands capitalism better than any other prominent U.S. politician at present. Also, and this is critical, he is competent. He made millions for himself and thousands of other people at Bain Capitol, he balanced the budget in a spendthrifty state, and he turned around an Olympics which was disintegrating. Incidentally, he took no salary for those last two jobs. Wayne Allyn Root is spot on in his analysis.

Ahh, I love the sound of good satire. No, Mr. Ransom not you, I'm referring to Dr. Wolfe, certainly he was just putting us on. Certainly, he can't be as dumb as he sounds and have a Ph.D. can he? Please, say it ain't so, John. Charitable giving may well be the best measure of socialism. After all, why would a socialist give away his own money when he has other people's money to give away? Oh, and just to be clear: Atheist = socialist.

Superb analysis from Morgan: She understands, as do Romney and Ryan, unlike the clueless Barry Soetoro. The government would never have built a nationwide highway system had it not been for Ford making the automobile accessible to the 99%. Nor would we be having this conversation on the internet were it not for Gates and Jobs making desktop computers available to the 99%.

Thank you Comrade tblankman for the eclectic analysis. Read Thomas Sowell on Marxism -- it has failed everywhere it has been tried. Incidentally, your ignorance wouldn't be quite so obvious if you knew the difference between "their" and "there" and the difference between "tail" and tale. Of course we need working people, just as we need professional people, teachers, managers, farmers, and entrepreneurs. Working people have not constituted 99% of our population in well over a century. But then, you are stuck in the nineteenth century.

I think that Saunders is also walking a narrow line -- we all must be careful not to put ourselves in a place where there is any hint of racism. D'Souza clearly was walking that same thin line. (I try to, as well). This limits what he can say and do. Also, this is a movie. Time is limited, and it is difficult to translate concepts such as "anti-colonialism" visually. Ms. Saunders should read the book as well. Finally, it is always problematic when anybody tries to get "inside someone else's head" as D'Souza does. I would like to add, however, that the MSM had no problem when many pundits "psycho-analyzed" "W" and found him to be a dimwit, trigger-happy, cowboy.