"San Francisco where the parents of white kids would love nothing more than for their child to have a playdate with a non-white schoolmate"

How exactly is that different from "parents of white kids would love nothing more than for their child to have a playdate with a white schoolmate"

Is sure seems to me that a large number of progressives are just racists in another guise.

I see some people decrying that the rich benefit from illegal immigration, and others saying that the poor suffer from illegal immigration. It seems that these two facts are related.

Is this comic a veiled jab against the college athletes who run rampant in small towns across america?

In response to:

"feminist Shirley Conran, who writes, "Life's too short to stuff a mushroom" -- a call to arms for women to abandon the kitchen in favor of professional careers. "

I can create a stuffed mushroom meal for my whole family in about an hour and a half. How many hours do you have to labor at your job in order to purchase a similar meal at a restaurant? I would guess that it costs you more labor the Shirley Conran way.

It ids easy to miss in the biased coverage of this tax system, but it actually hits the wealthy the hardest. A wealthy person is someone who is sitting on a huge pile of money which has been taxed already. Under the current structure, they get to go out and spend that money with no additional tax burden. Under the "Fair Tax" they would have to pay tax again on that money when they spend it.

Kind of reframes the whole class warfare part of this argument.

There is a very basic misunderstanding of the current tax code that would make you, and probably a lot of other people, feel better. The tax rates that you discussed are "marginal" tax rates. That means that when your income jumps from 63,700 to 63,701, only that last $1 is taxed at 25%. The dollars up to that amount are taxed at the lower rate.

"Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, I hope you're sitting on a HUGE pile of cash. Otherwise, you are an idiot."

I AM sitting on a big pile of cash, and I have already paid a 35% tax on all of it. With the "fair tax", I would get to pay a 30% tax again on this money when I spend it in my retirement. Therefore count me as wealthy and against it.

Who benefits is the high income individual. All of their income would come in tax free, and they would only pay the tax when the small potion of their income that goes towards consumption gets spent.

Retirees who have saved their entire lives, and who have already paid taxes on their savings, will see their savings taxed again at a 30% rate. I believe that the weight of opinion will go against this because of the large number of baby boomers will not support something so against their own self interest.

What a perfect compliment to our already violent society. Concealed weapons for everybody!

It's the demographics. Married people are generally more conservative than single people. And married people have more sex than single people. Therefore it is no surprise that conservative people have more sex.

A good politically timed cry can be soothing and energize your poll numbers. But at some point, the tears are going to add up into a picture of Hillary as irrational and emotional. Maybe she should try to control herself a little?

Limbaugh hates him, and Santorum too. It only makes me like him more.

Both the minutemen and La Raza are hate groups, but a journalist is not a purveyor of hate for interviewing them. They are both very real influences on an issue that is dearly important to many Americans. It is the very purpose of free speech in a democracy to inform the electorate about the variety of ideas out there. Murguia's attempt to squelch this debate is nothing less than anti-democratic.

When you buy your way through life, the media doesn't see fit to give you free publicity.

This is exactly what happens when politicians run for office on the platform of supporting their own ethnic group to the detriment of the other ethnic groups that make up the country. What was once a unified and peaceful country is now approaching civil war.

Hunting, killing, for sport is cruel and sadistic no matter who does it. How about a little less glorification of violence?

It is a silly proposition that doing chores would make your man more attractive sexually. I don't sleep with the help. My maid is not an increased target of my lust. My gardener and lawn boy don't receive forward advances. My man brings home the money that pays these people, and that makes him extremely sexy. He is sexiest after he changes the flat tire in our car, or steps in between me and an aggressive panderer. Man jobs.

Watching him on hands and knees scrubbing the floor just doesn't do it. Sorry.

Capitalism works just fine thank you. All of the "problems with capitalism" stem from overeager governmental intervention that bends the outcome away from the pareto optimal outcome that a pure market provides. The "Creative Destruction" of capitalism cannot work if the government props up failing banks, and gives multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts to uncompetitive companies. Bear Stearns, for example, needs to fail in order to free up market share for new more competitive banks. Mortgage holders who bet heavily on continually rising home values need to lose, and lose big. This is how we can learn the necessary lessons to avoid this sort of disaster from happening again.

It is precisely the federal reserve's interventions that have created this problem to begin with. The solution is not more intervention, but less.