redisdributing wealth = stealing kindly borrowing from somebody and giving to another

Which it can't be in modern superstates like the USA or EU because the people who call the shots are physically and socially too far removed from the people in whose name they enrich themselves govern.

Yes, if only they were free to wield their power without financial concerns. It's all that pesky money. Like Lord Acton said, "Money tends to corrupt, and absolute money corrupts absolutely."

I was probably speaking too loosely there. What I meant was that Morales has enjoyed the same fetishization as a lot of dictators such as his buddy Hugo, although he probably doesn't qualify as one himself. As far as I know he's merely a race-baiting shithead.

Again, this is circular reasoning. You have to pay taxes to support the activities of the government, so shouldn't the government give you something for paying taxes? Well, now! The government is giving us so much, so we should be glad to pay more taxes! Hmm... but shouldn't the government maybe give us more? I mean we pay all these taxes...

I think you are quite naive to believe that there aren't genuinely lazy people who are perfectly happy to subsist on welfare and you miss the larger point, besides. Even if you insist that all poor people are such saints that they are immune to the incentives and disincentives that drive us mere mortals, any system that punishes work is a terribly perverse one.

Proof. Maybe I shouldn't say hurriedly, because it's part of a longer trend. One I would expect to accelerate if the native Swedes lose patience with welfare-dependent immigrants after all the rioting of late.

You are indeed wrong.

Most people don't know this... I'm guessing you don't... fracking has existed for about 50-60 years now... with generally no complaints until the last 5 or so.

Fracking can be done extremely safe with very little effects to the enviroment.

For example, contamination of ground water?  That only occurs when fracking fluids are spilled above ground.  Actual fluids used by frackers have pretty much zero chance of effecting ground water.   It's certaintly safer then nuclear power assuming you take the right precautions.

The recent hysteria is ironically enviromentalists being whipped into a hysteria by big oil who are afraid the new fracking methods for natural gas will cause a cheaper more envirometnally friendly, eaisly deployed power source that will kill oil prices.   Which means cheaper power and gas prices for everybody.

It's really all just big oil tricking enviromentalists to support a law that will prevent fracking for natural gas.  While big oil continues to frack for oil.

As for improving renweable enrgies.  Sure lets do that.  In 50 years or so it'll be great.

Nuclear Energy?  Sure, though it generally takes 10-20 years to build a nuclear plant due to all the crazy regulations for them, and often times they don't get finished for said reasons.

Additionally the waste effects of nuclear waste are going to be worse then actual fracking.   So it's really just more an anti-greenhouse stance in general.  In which case... fracking is STILL good because it lowers oil use.

Only because they are prefectly happy with invading the middle east! while reducing taxes for the rich. That's basically what George Bush did. 

The recession made the debt issue far worse though due to lost income and tax revenues. 

Dont know why you would think that. Must not have any corruption where you live, and people must not abuse their powers for their own gain. I myself although not religous, would trust the church to not put profit above others more than the government, and i would trust the government least of all with any type of power.  I mean we see abuses and overspending by every branch of the US government at every level (city, county, state, federal) so why should we believe that they dont put profit and power over our well being when its shown day in day out that they do?

Edit: I would add that if politicions in your area live better than every day people do, does that not show they value their success more than their fellow mans success? If not why dont they donate more time, money, and help to their neighbors as they are asking their neighbors to do for each other and them?

you, realize if, the US taxed the evil "rich" at even a 100% tax rate, that would fund the government for like 2 weeks, right?

you should really invest in some critical thinking instead of just spouting regurgatated talking points..

also, pro-tip, bush cut taxes for every income bracket. obama, has raised taxes (lying about his campaign promises) on all income brackets.

Tax cuts are ok but not at a time of declaring war. Surely thats just common sense. 

This is all kinds of illegal...

Not really.  Not anywhere.  If someone is illegally breaking into areas, endangering themselves and getting in way of buisness being done, a restraining order is perfectly legal... and one for all properties owned by the group makes sense.

Or if someone was stalking you and your famoly would you like to have to file 15 restraining orders for everywhere you or your family lives and visits?

It's pretty common sense that is someone is constantly tresspassing into areas owned by someone, they will get an injuction barring them from all of their property.

Are you fucking kidding me, it's against the God damn Bill of Rights! It's against the 1st Amendment! It's unconstitutional! It is anything but common sense. And that analogy of yours is completely invalid. Stalking and protesting are two completely different things, not analogous.