"Worst educated states" You're not much for grammar, are you? You can split hairs all you want; however, inner cities across the country are largely comprised of people who are uneducated. There are high rates of illiteracy and general hopelessnes. These cities vote almost exclusively for Democrats. Romney got about 6,000 votes in the city of Detroit, that's it. What do you think the average IQ and education level is of the rest of that city? If it weren't for th uneducated, Democrats would lose every national election.

Yes, but somehow the Dems and the media have convinced an ignorant society that Bush ruined the economy. The unemployment rate was never above 6% while Bush was in office--even after the dot-com bubble burst and the 9/11 attacks. We had 5+ years of strong growth under Bush--until the Dems took control of Congress and the subprime mortgage fiasco (created primarily by liberals).

Hardly. GW Bush created strong growth with his tax cuts. It is a fallacy that the economy was lousy during his entire term in office. In fact, he inherited an economy in decline and turned it around rather quickly--so quickly that most did not even notice it was in decline. After 9/11, we were told there would be a catastrophic recession; the economy was humming just fine only months later. I'm getting tired of the nonsense that is bandied about by liberals (and ignorant conservatives) that GW Bush somehow ruined the economy. If he were president right now, the economy would be in better shape than it is.

Remember when Democrats hoped we'd lose the Iraq War? That is much more serious than where an Olympic games is held, don't you think? We had boots on the ground in Iraq, and Dems demagogued the war for poltical gain, something which I guarantee emboldened our enemy.

Many Democrats say, "Bush did it, Bad. Obama does it worse, good." Then look up the word hypocrite.

Sowell's point is valid: If capital gains are taxed at too high a rate, investment will dry up. This is because capital gains is based on "at risk" capital. The incentive to invest one's money drops considerably if any potential gain from that investment is taxed at higher levels. If I have $100 to invest in McDonald's stock, I am far more likely to do so if there was no capital gains tax at all as opposed to a capital gains tax of 50% (for instance). Why should I bother to risk losing my money (if McDonald's stock drops), when half of any potential profit is going to be skimmed off by the government? Sowell's point is that capital gains have to be taxed at lower rates than ordinary income to encourage economic investment.

Well, I don't see Romney trying to systematically dismantle the republic from its foundations on up, do you? In the the four years Obama has been in the White House, we have spent more money than any period in history, we have insulted long time allies overseas and embraced dictators and we are enjoying the worst economic "recovery" after a recession in history. Policy differences? I'll settle for the fact that at least Mitt Romney gives the appearance that he actually likes the country; I can't say that for Obama.

Pluto, by no means could you substitute "humans" for liberals in this writing. All humans do not run around screaming about "diversity" as if it is the end all objective of any endeavor. All humans do not claim that anyone who disagrees with them is full of "hate". And I do not see conservatives confiscating other people's money to give away to those who did not earn it, and then marveling at their own "charity" for doing so. No, all of these behaviors are characteristic of the political left, period.

Me thinks you missed Sowell's point entirely. Perhaps a reading comprehension class is in order for you.

The Republican alternative to ObamaCare is FREEDOM. Read the Constitution and learn from it. The government doesn't exist to make everybody's life better.