# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 200
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3981 "2015-10-06T18:07:18Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Just ask MacDonald’s. I realize that this is probably a lost cause with regard to this particular poster, but for any in the peanut gallery who want to fight their ignorance, they can get the actual facts about the coffee lawsuit [here](http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm). It wasn’t just a simple case of someone suing for millions of dollars because they spilled their coffee. Basically, McDonald’s had a policy requiring their coffee to be served at 180-190 degrees. This is 50 degrees hotter than typical hot coffee, and is hot enough to cause third degree burns. They had resisted recommendations to change this behavior despite 700 claims against them from people severely burned by their coffee. A multimillion dollar judgement against them was the only way to get them to change their dangerous policy. This is exactly the sort of thing that punative damages are designed for. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3982 "2015-10-06T20:45:49Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Is there a counter-argument that’s not “this will lead to confiscation”? Yes. Each of these can be argued without relying on the argument against the ultimate goal of confiscation. Though, in looking at the list again, I’m not sure what “Expand inspections of gun dealers” means so I don’t think I’d make an argument either way on that one. But yes, if you or \*\*eschereal \*\*wished, we could stipulate that no confiscation arguments would be relied upon. There was another thread that I was engaged with \*\*Marley \*\*in, and ultimately I made the point that since the opposition doesn’t have the votes, it’s irrelevant what they want. He countered by saying that’s couter-productive to debate which was a good point and I conceded that I wouldn’t make those arguments anymore for the sake of debate, but that I thought it was still viable strategy in politics. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There is a ton of grey area here – “the term `negligent entrustment’ means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others”… and “aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe…” **who decides whether the seller “reasonably should know”, or the manufacturer had “reasonable cause to believe”?** If you can’t conceive that there might be a possible scenario in which a case with merit is thrown out due to the PLCAA, then I don’t think you have much imagination. (my bold) In your example, you decided. You stated that knowledge in the context of your hypothetical. But in reality, this doesn’t mean a suit can’t be brought. A suit can be brought, and defendants can move to dismiss the suit based on PLCAA. If the judge believes that the claim falls within one of the exceptions, then the suit will continue. If not, then the suit will be dismissed per the PLCAA. For example of this, see [ILETO V. GLOCK, INC. from the 9th Circuit](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/11/06-56872.pdf). Plaintiffs argued an exception to the PLCAA and it was adjudicated. Ultimately this was appealed to SCOTUS but cert was denied. Can you enlighten me as to what cause of action that has merit but if not for the existence of the PLCAA would be thrown out? I may have poor imagination, but I’m not coming up with anything. > [@](#): > > Further, you didn’t address the rest of my post – particularly that I still don’t see a compelling reason (unlike the protection for vaccine companies) that gun companies and dealers need this special government protection that most other companies don’t have. Do you have one? Yes, it’s well stated in the text of the legislation itself, but I will highlight a few of the reasons: > [@](#): > > (6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation’s laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States. > > (7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. > > (8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States. > > … > > (2) To preserve a citizen’s access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting. > > (3) To guarantee a citizen’s rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment. > > (4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce. I’m not sure you would find these compelling though, that’s rather subjective. How about this, is there a rationale you can conceive of that would be compelling? You have already stated you don’t think cascading litigation against gun manufacturers would put them out of business - but lawsuits have threatened larger businesses like vaccine manufacturers so I think it’s clear that it can be done. Would the threat of putting gun manufacturers out of business be compelling? ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3983 "2015-10-06T20:50:59Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Basically, McDonald’s had a policy requiring their coffee to be served at 180-190 degrees. This is 50 degrees hotter than typical hot coffee, and is hot enough to cause third degree burns. They had resisted recommendations to change this behavior despite 700 claims against them from people severely burned by their coffee. A multimillion dollar judgement against them was the only way to get them to change their dangerous policy. This is exactly the sort of thing that punative damages are designed for. Plus, the punitive damages had a very strong underlying rationale. In short, McDonald’s knowingly created a severe hazard in order to increase profits. They had full knowledge that they were causing substantial harm to a number of people, but the payouts in damages were much lower than the increased profit. This is not unlike the notorious Ford Pinto memo ([PDF](http://www.autosafety.org/uploads/phpq3mJ7F_FordMemo.pdf)) (and both caused burns). In determining punitive damages, the jury was asked to consider the above facts and the well-established principle of [disgorgement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgorgement_(law))(“the act of giving up something (such as profits illegally obtained) on demand or by legal compulsion”). The punitive damages were equal to about two days worth of coffee profits. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3984 "2015-10-06T21:19:02Z")
IIRC internal studies from McDonalds told their bean counters that people drank their coffee as soon as it was purchased. That means that people got more free refills when the coffee was not as hot. The bean counters did bet that the cost of paying burned clients or employees would not be as costly as serving coffee at a reasonable temperature. Looking at the amount that was paid against the profit they got from coffee alone they sure did won that bet, but they eventually lost in the end because they had to reduce the temperature of the coffee and the company lost a lot of PR credit. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3985 "2015-10-06T21:25:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > IIRC internal studies from McDonalds told their **bean counters** that people drank their coffee as soon as it was purchased. That means that people got more free refills when the coffee was not as hot. Now that’s specialization. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3986 "2015-10-06T21:42:35Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3987 "2015-10-06T21:52:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Can you enlighten me as to what cause of action that has merit but if not for the existence of the PLCAA would be thrown out? I may have poor imagination, but I’m not coming up with anything. How about the manufacturer one that I laid out earlier, but instead of conspiring to sell to criminals, they openly market it to their normal gun-buying demographics, but with pop-culture-criminal imagery and themes (ties to mafia movies and the like)? Isn’t there a chance such a lawsuit would have merit, if someone staged a killing with the same imagery or themes? > [@](#): > > Yes, it’s well stated in the text of the legislation itself, but I will highlight a few of the reasons: > I’m not sure you would find these compelling though, that’s rather subjective. How about this, is there a rationale you can conceive of that would be compelling? You have already stated you don’t think cascading litigation against gun manufacturers would put them out of business - but lawsuits have threatened larger businesses like vaccine manufacturers so I think it’s clear that it can be done. Would the threat of putting gun manufacturers out of business be compelling? I don’t think these are compelling (in terms of whether they would pass), but I would support some sort of change to the law if I believed there was a real threat of gun companies not being viable any more. But I think the better legislation would be on the other end – with robust appeals, “loser pays” laws, and similar, rather than a blanket ban on any particular type of lawsuit. Since these companies stood on their own two feet and were profitable for so long, this law seems to just be another favor to special interests. I don’t believe that gun companies were ever or are now in serious danger from such lawsuits were they allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3988 "2015-10-06T21:53:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Looking at the amount that was paid against the profit they got from coffee alone they sure did won that bet, but they eventually lost in the end because they had to reduce the temperature of the coffee and the company lost a lot of PR credit. Not really. Because of a lot of bad reporting, 99% of the public still thinks that McDonald’s was fucked over in the Liebeck case. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3989 "2015-10-06T21:57:43Z")
That’s not bad reporting, that’s brilliant PR. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3990 "2015-10-06T22:00:25Z")
McDonald’s themselves didn’t plan it that way. No company would want to be associated with years of corrective lady-parts surgery. It was the US Chamber of Commerce, if you credit the movie. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3991 "2015-10-06T22:17:43Z")
Can we please: (a) please get this perfectly reasonable and interesting and substance-filled debate about lawsuits and gun companies out of the “stupid liberal idea of the day” thread, and (b) all agree that this thread and SRIOTD should be reserved for egregious stupidity, not legitimate policy disagreements? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3992 "2015-10-06T22:23:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > How about the manufacturer one that I laid out earlier, but instead of conspiring to sell to criminals, they openly market it to their normal gun-buying demographics, but with pop-culture-criminal imagery and themes (ties to mafia movies and the like)? Isn’t there a chance such a lawsuit would have merit, if someone staged a killing with the same imagery or themes? That would have no merit just as a claim against the creator or distributor of the movies would have no merit. Why target the gun and not the movie, the marketer, the distributor, the advertiser, the television station? Violent video games (another thing that Hillary Clinton opposes) have been a target of this type of scrutiny before but have not had nearly as much litigation against the industry. Those too have no merit. There is no way to reach the conclusion that the proximate cause of some harm is a result of the manufacturer who engages in lawful commerce. What tort do you think that manufacturer in your example has committed? > [@](#): > > I don’t think these are compelling (in terms of whether they would pass), but I would support some sort of change to the law if I believed there was a real threat of gun companies not being viable any more. But I think the better legislation would be on the other end – with robust appeals, “loser pays” laws, and similar, rather than a blanket ban on any particular type of lawsuit. That’s fair. But in the status quo and the absence of loser pays, the PLCAA is necessary, IMO. If loser pays passes, then I could see PLCAA being dismantled. > [@](#): > > Since these companies stood on their own two feet and were profitable for so long, this law seems to just be another favor to special interests. I don’t believe that gun companies were ever or are now in serious danger from such lawsuits were they allowed. You could say the same thing about drug companies. They were fine, until they got sued so much they stopped manufacturing vaccines. I can’t change how you think about this, but the PLCAA was passed because the majority of Congress and the President disagreed with you. #7 above is really the heart of the issue, IMO. > [@](#): > > (7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. …Based on theories without foundation. It contemplated a maverick judge or small jury creating bad law and circumvented it. There are plenty of ways to sue a gun manufacturer, just not those ways deemed without foundation. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3993 "2015-10-06T22:30:56Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That would have no merit just as a claim against the creator or distributor of the movies would have no merit. Why target the gun and not the movie, the marketer, the distributor, the advertiser, the television station? Violent video games (another thing that Hillary Clinton opposes) have been a target of this type of scrutiny before but have not had nearly as much litigation against the industry. Those too have no merit. There is no way to reach the conclusion that the proximate cause of some harm is a result of the manufacturer who engages in lawful commerce. What tort do you think that manufacturer in your example has committed? I don’t know. I just think it’s possible that such a suit would have merit – not guaranteed, but possible. I think the makers or sellers of a gun are a bit different than the other media forms, because the gun was definitely-without-a-doubt a part of the murder. > [@](#): > > You could say the same thing about drug companies. They were fine, until they got sued so much they stopped manufacturing vaccines. I can’t change how you think about this, but the PLCAA was passed because the majority of Congress and the President disagreed with you. #7 above is really the heart of the issue, IMO. I see a compelling governmental and societal interest for the drug companies – not so for the gun companies. And obviously I think President Bush and the Republicans in Congress were wrong. I believe that they were pretty much in the palm of the NRA and the gun manufacturers and in terms of gun legislation do whatever they say. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3994 "2015-10-07T02:48:46Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I don’t know what Honda suit you’re talking about but because you said it, reality is probably is the opposite of what you intended it to mean. You’re an idiot still peddling a 20 year old case as a grudge against corporate responsibility. Had you bothered to read the link, you would have seen this: > [@](#): > > In 1992, 23-year old Karen Norman accidentally backed her car into GalvestonBay after a night of drinking. Norman couldn’t operate her seat belt and drowned. Her passenger managed to disengage herself and make it to shore. Norman’s parents sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunken daughter (her blood alcohol level was .17 - nearly twice the legal limit) couldn’t open underwater. A jury found Honda seventy-five percent responsible for Karen’s death and awarded the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case. And explain this if you would. Why do liberals like you deliberately misconstrue what conservatives like me say? It’s either intentional, or you are all so fucking stupid that you can’t pour piss out of a boot with the directions printed on the heel. Given who the current President is, I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3995 "2015-10-07T03:18:32Z")
I for one am sorry for generalizing. You say such stupid things. Stupid, stupid, pig-ignorant things. And not easy, simpleton stupid, but logical contortions that border on obscene. And you do so with shocking regularity. You do so often. In many other threads you’re a fantastic poster, but when you post to GD or the Pit the stupid flows as if you have some sort of quota to fill. So I don’t _deliberately_ misconstrue what you say. But given your long history of dragging coherent thought processes through an macabre pretzel factory, I tend to jump to the conclusion that what you say is going to be embarrassingly dumb—and that colours my perception. So if you leave something vague or if there are multiple possible interpretations, I default to the most idiotic choice possible. I give you the benefit of the dumb. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3996 "2015-10-07T04:19:13Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Had you bothered to read the link, you would have seen this: > > And explain this if you would. Why do liberals like you deliberately misconstrue what conservatives like me say? It’s either intentional, or you are all so fucking stupid that you can’t pour piss out of a boot with the directions printed on the heel. Given who the current President is, I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter. Actually, most of the recent discussion has been on the subject of the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit, on which you are, not for the first time, completely wrong. But of course you’ll never acknowledge that, will you? Honestly, I worry about you. You come off as just about the unhappiest person I’ve ever heard of. Do try to stop obsessing so much about the damn liberals and try to enjoy life a little. If you must obsess, however, why don’t you try actually talking to people here instead of constantly verbally pissing on them? A few days ago I challenged you to name two or three ways in which you had suffered personal harm by the Obama Presidency. You couldn’t be bothered to answer that, yet here you are once again complaining vaguely and ineffectually about how awful he is. One gets the impression that you just seem to enjoy bitching for the sake of bitching. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3997 "2015-10-07T04:21:41Z")
What makes liberal ideas on guns dumb is that none of it matters. Either they deceitfully see these steps as a beginning that will lead to 1970s-style restrictions on firearms ownership, or they are just stupid, because none of these proposals will make a dime’s worth of difference. I favor a lot of these changes, they are actually common sense reforms. But I also favor voter ID laws, and they are equally effective at achieving their goals. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3998 "2015-10-07T04:39:20Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > And explain this if you would. Why do liberals like you deliberately misconstrue what conservatives like me say? You mean your cite that said the case against Honda was thrown out? You’re right, that proves that frivolous lawsuits are a problem; I don’t know how we could have missed it. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3999 "2015-10-07T04:52:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But I also favor voter ID laws, and they are equally effective at achieving their goals. Yes, they are. Just not the stated goals. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4000 "2015-10-07T04:53:57Z")
They aren’t very good at those either. And it’s not as if most of the people favoring these gun laws don’t have ulterior motives. They don’t want to keep guns just out of the hands of criminals. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=199) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=201)