Gene Frenkle

That's the point. Make the effort to link to a decent source.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that a ridiculous source with an agenda is more likely to place a whole lot of self-serving spin on it. I'd be interested to see a report from a more legitimate source. If the story is newsworthy it likely was reported somewhere less obviously biased. Find a link to an AP story, that's all. Threads started based on links from sites like this one (including HuffingtonPost, moveon.org, etc...) speak more to the mentality and built-in bias of the thread starter. You don't generally see the more level-headed rational people on PPP linking to these "please reinforce my worldview" websites and blogs.

Those damned Democrats have been pushing their Big-Oil-friendly offshore drilling agenda for years. It's about time they got their comuppins!

Way to set that bar!

Cute. So the source of news isn't relevant. Got it. Has anyone ever told you that you're a great mod?

biggovernment.com?

By the time the consequences kick in, there's not much you can do about their existence. The question becomes what to do about them. The anti-big-government stance is to simply ignore them.

At least you don't try to weasel your way around it.

Beware the Libertarian backlash.

Couldn't resist.

It's the same idealist argument as always. There is no morally acceptable answer the problems brought about by "no government interference". The classic anti-big-government stance is to simply ignore the consequences.

I wonder if we could some way quantify if any life-forms have souls.

That private business owners should be able to exclude whoever they want based on whatever criteria they like. I don't necessarily agree, but it's not like he's David Duke.

It's not really that extreme a position.

I'm not going to argue economic theory with you, but it seems to me that neither extreme on its own is very good. It also seems to me that the pendulum is continually swinging back and forth between the two extremes, depending on which constituency is pissed off enough to rally Independents at any moment.

This illustrates my point. No principled anti-big government honk worth his salt ever answers that question with anything other than vague references to personal responsibility. Talk about idealism...

Oh look, you've painted the conservative position in a favorable light and given the extreme socialist alternative as the only available alternative. How enlightening... In the far better compassionate conservative scenario, what do you do with those who "decide" to fail?

As with selfishness, idiocy is relative.

I'm just having fun. You really need me to explain why a big-government-endorsing, fetus-killing, idealistic, idiotic bleeding heart liberal like myself thinks conservatism is a selfish philosophy? If you ask me nicely 3 more times, I'll fill you in on the bullet points. The term "class" is so over-used and cliché. Try not to be a cliché.

I actually did know. Does that make me less of an idiot?

What a revelation. I wouldn't reserve "irrational" for any one group, as it seems to cross all demographics.

PPP

Are you keeping a list? Is it driving you nuts? Cool, but I don't owe you anything pal. Selfish is of course a fairly subjective term, so I guess you could say that it is my opinion that conservatives are selfish - especially if it makes you feel better. I don't really think a partisan shill like yourself really needs me to spell it out, do you? You should be well-versed in the arguments. If you have some introspection to engage in and/or some issues to work out I suggest: This Link. If that doesn't work, try: This Link. Good luck!

Moron. The lowest standard may not have been set in 2000, but it was certainly reinforced. Thank you! Perhaps I overestimate PPP's reading comprehension level in general.

It was a nothing comment and most people here are smart enough to see it for what it is. Get a grip.