Re: Doug3370, "The true costs of fossil fuel include costs arising from climate change." The problem resides in the premise that Climate Change is a) a phenomenon derived exclusively from usage of fossil fuels and b) a bad thing in itself. So in one instance you commit a non sequitur and on the second you beg the question, e.g. "Climate Change is Bad so burning fossil fuels is bad, since fossil fuels cause climate change." That's circular thinking. Newsflash: The climate ALWAYS changes. The change in nomenclature came after it became more than obvious that the Earth was NOT warming, making a mockery of the term Global Warming.

Doug3370, If an industry requires massive subsidies, then that industry is NOT economically viable. The idea that nascent industries require subsidies so later can stand on their own is nothing more than a manifestation of economic ignorance. The personal computer industry did not require any subsidies, indeed most of the companies forming from someone's garage. You seem to believe that the economy ha to serve a political goal. The purpose of production is consumption: People produce so they can consume. Production for the sake of it is a waste of resources and productive capability. And if there is something that isthe least environmentally friendly, is WASTED resources.

Re: johnm h, "The government hires people and spends money, but it does not, nor can it create wealth or jobs." I believe there's a general misconception regarding jobs, john. The government CAN create jobs - any fool can create a job. The question which people never seem to posit (because of lack of knowledge in basic economics) is if the jobs create VALUE. Jobs are not the end of economic activity, it is only part of the cost of production. Before you can have your wonderful Mission Style cofee table, yopu havr to spend time and effort building it. Your labor is your cost. So it is the same for any producton. The important thing is if the end result - the PRODUCT - adds value. Government jobs DO NOT ADD VALUE.

Many people place a moral judgment on profit-seeking due to the fact they do not understand this economic concept. Not only is not not immoral, it is a MORAL IMPERATIVE to seek profits. The profit motive is what drives us to seek our improvement, it is what differentiates us from the beasts in nature. As long as profits are made through voluntary and free exchange, profits will be moral, always. What is NOT MORAL is to steal, enslave or kill. In that list of immoralities is included taxation, forced conscription/schooling and war. Obtaining profits through government action IS immoral, but you won't hear that from Progressives or their enabling brethren on the neo-con side.

Re: bbtruth, "Still not my kind of movie as I am an atheist, " Even as an atheist, you should see this movie, as it tells the story of a people fighting for their liberty. I am also an atheist and I would fight for my freedom to not believe, the same way my compatriots fought a tyrannical government for their freedom to believe.

Re: shubi_, "You know what is funny about most of these Paul supporters?" You mean those that you think you know, or the real Paul supporters? "They are mostly Dem operatives posing as Paul supporters." Ah, my question is answered: You're paranoid. "When the trolls can't believe a conservative has more education and experience than they do[...]" You mean the faux conservatives that, like their Progressive brethren, plunder our pockets to pay for THEIR favorite things, like wars? Or which "conservatives" do you purport to talk about?

Re: AllisonrAtWar, "I am shocked Stossel would have Buchanan on his show." Why are you shocked? Pat's views may be controversial, but a show where the guests all agree with the host is less interesting. "[H]is [Pat's] outdated bigotries are an embarassment." An embarassment for whom? You? Not me. His views are not mine, so I don't feel embarassed.

Re: David238, "I'm all for Rubio as the V.P. Hispanics are a huge, and growing, demographic in the U.S." I'm Hispanic and I would not vote for Mitt if he chooses that warmongering and hotheaded nincompoop as his running mate, Dreamact or otherwise. There's only ONE candidate to choose that can win against Obama, who can bring peple together through a message of liberty and individual responsibility. You know who that is.

"Why Rubio for Vice President Makes Sense" Because this country needs someone who is more of a hothead than good ol' Joe Biden. Remember when Rubio wanted to force a vote on a piece of legislation that was tantamount to starting a war with Iran? If it wasn't for stalwart libertarian/Constitutional Kentucky Sen. Dr. Rand Paul, that vote would have lead to even higher oil prices and an international conflict the US could ill-afford.

Re: IsraelFirsterSecond, You're quite irrelevant yourself.