We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
BD links to plenty of stuff complimentary to Trump. You're going to have to get used to people not always agreeing with you.
Social shaming as an argument is a tactic for liberals, not conservatives.
Assistant Village Idiot
When the government subsidizes something, the costs go up and the ultimate beneficiaries of the sunfish are those who are providing the goods or services, i.e. when the government subsidizes insurance, the cost of insurance goes up and the people providing the insurance and the people the insurance company pays are the ones who benefit.
If someone claims that THE price they pay for the insurance is lower, it may be (it often isn't), but SOMEONE is paying for it and collectively, it's a higher price than if the subsidy didn't exist. In it's essence, it's simply a transfer of wealth from one group to another group.
The same is true with ObamaCare, farm subsidies, etc. as for flood insurance subsidies...and to make matters worse (and the ultimate cost higher), it creates a moral hazard fostering poor decisions.
If USA Today, is upset about the rest of us subsidizing federal flood insurance for foolish coastal dwellers and transferring our $ to them, where is their outrage regarding ObamaCare? Perhaps they're really upset because with Harvey & Irma, it's $ from Blue states going to Red states.
Now you're just being silly. Merely recounting the facts isn't 'social shaming' by any stretch of the imagination. And that's not just three articles in a row featuring Lowry, but on three different sites. Best guess is that Bird Dog has subscribed to Lowry's email newscast, which sends out an email whenever he posts one of his anti-Trump articles. In essence, that says a lot more about Bird Dog and where he's leading this site than it does about Lowry.
Here's a fun fact:
Remember when Maggie's was always on those "Top 100 Conservative Sites" lists?