Or maybe Sandra Bullock used way to much hair gel and it was too rigid to float around.

I feel the same way about self checkout lines.

People with average competence still deserve to earn to earn a living. They may not be able to demand a 40% pay increase, but making ends meet isn't unexpected.

The only reason I get to decide how much I get payed is that I work in an industry with a real unemployment rate around 4%, I am lucky enough to have high quality skills, intelligence, and the work experience to show I am worth the investment.

Most people don't work in that kind of field, and most people have more or less average competence, and many of them lack experience that demonstrates their capabilities. I am lucky as hell to be able to act participate equally in the job market. Most people have no such luxury and are struggling just to make ends meet, accepting less than they are worth, and then working twice as much just hoping to hold on and keep their family off the street.

That is only true in an ignorantly simple approximation of the market, assuming all players are fully informed, without deception, fully rational and possess roughly equivalent negotiating power. That approximation is about as far from reality as you can get for the low end job market.

Capital gains tax in the US is functionally the same as income tax, at a lower rate.

And no, increases in the tax rate of capital gains does NOT at all hinder the economy.

In fact the only tax cut PROVEN to stimulate economy is the corporate tax rate.

All other data points to most other tax cuts having no effect or a negative effect on the economy with the exception of taxes near or below the poverty level.

Almost everything washes out in bright light.

The feds are the last line of defense of your rights against the tyranny of the state government. The feds are the first line of defense against conquest by foreign powers. The feds are the only organization powerful enough to defend against the predations of for profit multinational corporations.

I am an American, not someone born in Montana, who grew up in Mississippi or lives in Florida. I am an American first and foremost.

Yes, I know that for something to be objective, it means there is factual evidence/proof.

And such evidence/proof exists for the universal harm caused by rape and murder.

More or less correct, or like the "invisible hand of the free market"

We are currently facing a soil quality and agricultural water source crisis, using farmed plants to supplement our fuel source is not a sustainable process.

Obviously it helps the greenhouse problem by killing off the dirty masses of the poors. Without them exhaling CO2, the air will be clean and pure for his fellow plutocrats.

I have met dozens of Tea Partiers, comes with the territory of being a libertarian (though one with a non-standard economic and social viewpoint), and they do all express the same level of complete idiocy and ignorance. None of them have been remotely rational or competent.

Fundamentalism requires a component of arbitrary faith. All fundamentalists are religious, even if the thing they hold sacred and believe empowers them isn't a traditional god as such.

Some moral judgments can be based on objective reality and rationality. There can be an objective morality. It is just that it is vastly more limited than what people normally consider morality.

Rape is objectively immoral.
Murder, but not necessarily killing, is objectively immoral.
etc