1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Is Liberalism Intellectually Bankrupt?

Luscious Lars Wrote: 8 hours ago (11:09 AM)
The wealthy liberals also have strong guilt feelings about their wealth. But many of them demand that the taxpayers fund programs for the less fortunate, while they give little to charity. Take Al Gore for example. As rich as he is, there was a report that he gave extremely low amounts of money to charitable causes.
In response to:

Is Liberalism Intellectually Bankrupt?

Luscious Lars Wrote: 8 hours ago (10:50 AM)
Some of the most liberal and progressive people I've met have also been some of the richest or wealthiest, whichever word you choose to describe their financial situation. That cannot just be a coincidence. It's also not to say that ALL wealthy people are liberals and progressives. Political ideology is not tied to financial situations. However, there does seem to be an ongoing and false perception that liberals and democrats are less financially well off than are conservatives and republicans.
In response to:

Is Liberalism Intellectually Bankrupt?

Luscious Lars Wrote: 8 hours ago (10:44 AM)
Also, we need to be clear on one point: just because some politician wears a hat which says GOP, doesn't necessarily mean that said politician is not a liberal or progressive. We have to identify progressives and liberals by their ideology and actions, not which party they belong to. Now, that being said, the democratic party is the main dwelling for progressives and liberals. The GOP still has a lot of conservatives and some libertarians (small "l"), but there are some liberals who are in the GOP.
In response to:

Is Liberalism Intellectually Bankrupt?

Luscious Lars Wrote: 9 hours ago (10:22 AM)
They've had blinders put on their eyes. Those blinders are called "dependency on big government". That as always been the goal of the progressive movement. Once you have the lower and middle classes dependent upon government, the government can basically do whatever it wants even if hurts the people. You've marginalized the power of the people, and that means we are less free. Big government types love that scenario.
Yup, anyone who signs moves up to the head of the deportation line. What in the H-E double toothpicks is wrong with those idiots, other than just being idiots? In the words of the Great Santini, "God, why did you have to put so many a-holes on the earth all at the same time?"
I'm not so sure. A lot of people got into the cart while the rest of us have continued to pull out weight and theirs. It won't be so easy to get them to jump out of the cart and start pulling again.
In response to:

Obama Blames Sony

Luscious Lars Wrote: Dec 19, 2014 4:50 PM
If the North Koreans attacked across the demilitarized zone, they could blame it on a video, or in this case a movie. Hey, it worked for the terrorists who attacked Benghazi. Maybe Li'l Kim could get Hillary to support him by saying "At this point, what difference does it make?" And Obama could say, "Look, we tried this separation THING between the two Koreas for over 60 years now and it's just not working. We're going to normalize relations with North Korea, open up travel to and from North Korea from the US, and allow US businesses to invest there. It will be good for both of our countries. We've got Pope Francis' blessing on this, and North Korea will free some American they've been holding for 10 years, while we free 10 North Koreans we've held as spies in the US. This is the right thing to do for left".
Well that would be a racist movie. The only reason to be upset with Obama is because half of his ancestry happened to be black and marxist. But, maybe they could call it "DangO".
Sean Penn and other Hollyweirdos probably want a high speed rail built from Miami to Havanna so they can do down and be entertained by the Casteroil regime.
If you're going to beat up the CIA, then you best also go after the IRS, the EPA, and the BATFE for starters. All of those agencies have become too powerful for their own good and threaten the freedoms of the American People. Nice equivocation. Stalin tortured just because the tortured victims didn't agree with Stalin on tyrannical policies and hard ball politics. We supposedly "tortured" 3 people, terrorists, whom we thought were holding information on who attacked us, where they were now, who masterminded it, what future attacks were planned or being planned, and when would those attacks occurs. I think there's a heckuva lot of difference between electrical shock torture (Soviets), and sleep deprivation and waterboarding. How many people died under Stalins boot and in his torture chambers and prisons? 20 million? How many terrorists died from being waterboarded or being sleep deprived? ZERO!
1 - 10 Next