Liberals have spent so much time worry about global warming deniers on the right that they forgot to keep an eye on the most powerful deniers of all, thermometers.
The National Academy of Sciences recently published a paper explaining why Al Gore's hypocrisy is a dish best served hot. Apparently, global warming needs all the help it can get, because in the last decade there really hasn't been any change in the climate.
Isn't it funny what liberals decide they want to effect change on? The federal deficit needs more taxes like Obama needs another tee time, and they can't even raise enough to cover it, but they are in complete denial of the need to fundamentally reform entitlements.
Meanwhile they think Mother Nature can be controlled like the....knobs on her chest....are controls to a big thermostat.
It's not conservatives that liberals should be worried about when it comes to "denying" climate change. It's the science they so ardently defend with religious zeal, and claim the right is at war with.
If conservatives seem to be at war with science then I'll spell out what is really happening...F-R-I-E-N-D-L-Y F-I-R-E
I've never understood the debate over whether or not climate change is happening. I've always been more interested in whether or not it's actually bad...
Maybe global warming sucked for woolly mammoths, but it ain't good enough to heat Al Gore's pool. So if you really want to keep count, Gore's chicken little attitude toward his life's work would make him very close second to "science" in the race to deny it's seriousness.
Conservatives aren't even a distant third here, we're more like critical spectators sitting in the bleachers.
Remember when George W. Bush....after using it's reflection to groom his Hitler stash...would wave his scepter and declare stuff conservatives didn't like unconstitutional?
Law professors, Democratic senators and liberal commentators have recently raised a tantalizing possibility for ending the congressional wrangling over raising the federal limit on borrowing:
President Obama could simply declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional and be done with it.
Advocates of this approach cite the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states that the “validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned.”
From The Washington Post
What an explosive revelation to make after decades of raising the limit. Now that liberals have their backs are against the wall of accountability their strategy is to say the rule shouldn't exist in the first place?!?
This is the line of the 14th amendment they think allows them to steamroll through the ceiling and continue to pile debt ad infinitum, the part in the "..." that the Washington Post conveniently left out of their report is actually the most important part....
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Even if you don't want to take the narrow view that this was an attempt to deal with post Civil War debt. Even if you wanted to ignore the fact that this was so unimportant that it was placed at the very end of the amendment. There is nothing in that language, even generally speaking, that says capping the debt is unconstitutional, especially since everything below the cap, an act of Congress signed into law by the president, is "authorized by law" and EVERYTHING ABOVE IT ISN'T.
If they wanted to hide behind the skirt of 14th amendment, then liberals should look for inspiration in their pandering to Hispanics by waiting until the debt crashes through the ceiling. Then they can declare the ensuing illegal debt anchored to debt that came before it. Then we could fight over debt amnesty.
Liberals could accuse the GOP of wanting to heartlessly send money back to the communist tyranny from whence it came (China, if you're having trouble keeping up). This would actually lead to a watershed moment in American politics to get liberals to forsake condemning anything to a communist state, at least until someone in the GOP comes up with the brilliant endgame strategy of changing the name of the "dollar" into "little Elians."
Then it all goes back, at gunpoint. It's a win-win for the country, because the GOP gets their way while liberals still get to conveniently suspend disbelief in at least one portion of the Constitution.
That logic would still cause Kotex stumping nose bleeds, but it would at least make a lot more sense.
This entire argument takes liberalism's infantile view of the Constitution to a whole new level. Even Obama isn't willing to go along with it because if feces could....excrete....it would stink less and hold more nutritional value than this leftist logic.
That is what qualifies as "tantilizing" in liberal circles these days...feces excrement.
Ewww...Add a comment
It appears the intellecterati (my word) has determined the stimulus was a miserable failure.
I contend that this isn't true because there are still things left for liberals to try....----------
10. Commission study on how studying climate change affects demand for magic 8 balls.
9. Green jobs to harvest the natural gas that comes from inside the earth's liberals.
8. Green jobs building high fuel efficiency bicycles.
7. Fund an exploratory committee for Obama's challenge to Palpatine for Galactic Emperor.
6. Relieve the financial burden of seniors by paying for either ALL of their AARP dues, or only for Helen Thomas's, retroactively.
5. Bailout the liberalism's moral bankruptcy
4. Commission scientists to track the rate of decline in the blood alcohol level of Ted Kennedy's corpse.
3. Shovel ready jobs for unemployed fans of Planned Parenthood.
2. Job retraining programs for people stuck in unskilled labor, like Vice President of the United States.
1. Cancel half of what is left of it, take the other half and bribe Obama to leave politics forever.Add a comment
You know the desperation of liberals and New York Times "conservatives" like David Brooks is starting to grow when the GOP swapping tax hikes in a down economy for an end to structural budget deficits is deemed "the mother of all no-brainers".
Brooks is dead wrong, not just in fact, but we've also already settled this matter years ago....
For an excellent (and more serious) answer check out Ed Morrissey's response to this column at Hot Air.Add a comment
Or are they teenage boys raging with hormones, like E.J. Dionne, that are willing to say anything to get into some panties? (with shows like Glee out there I'll throw libs a bone and not assign any pronouns to said panties)
...our friends in the Tea Party have offered a helpful clue by naming their movement in honor of the 1773 revolt against tea taxes on that momentous night in Boston Harbor.
Whether they intend it or not, their name suggests they believe that the current elected government in Washington is as illegitimate as was a distant, unelected monarchy. It implies something fundamentally wrong with taxes themselves or, at the least, that current levels of taxation (the lowest in decades) are dangerously oppressive. And it hints that methods outside the normal political channels are justified in confronting such oppression....
We can wreck that system if we forget our Founders’ purpose of creating a representative form of national authority robust enough to secure the public good...but if we pretend we are living in Boston in 1773, we will draw all the wrong conclusions and make some remarkably foolish choices.
See the full article here.
Yes, this is only about our already "generously low" tax rates being oppressive, and not the indecent proposal that government grabs our liberty by the only jewels liberals don't think belong in the federal treasury (yet) and insist on government engaging in activities the founding fathers never envisioned the constitution authorizing.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like my jewels being grabbed unless the president can make me feel denigrated about it in a State of the Union speech. Somehow, that makes me feel like he's personally checking on them with his own hands, and now, like the time I touched the same smart iPhone Anthony Weiner test drove at the Apple Store, I now have to add one more thing to the list of body parts I can never wash again.
I don't know what alternate universe liberals live in, but they must've missed the presence of Tea Party candidates in the 2010 election. That sounds less like they're political outlaws and more like asking the American people to find out what's behind door number 3. I can only imagine this expansion of choice is offensive to liberals because they know that in opening it they wont find a fetus in a jar.
The Tea Party of today rails against higher taxation because it rails against these "public goods" like Social Security that shouldn't objectively exist in the first place (in its current form). That they came with representation is moot if the power exerted to enforce them is extra-constitutional. A law isn't right, just, or justified just because elected officials will them into existence.
If liberals disagree then they can go ahead and vacuum seal their mouths with the same thing they use on their brains when duly elected legislators pass laws regulating abortion and gay marriage in a way that gives their souls a wicked hangover for drinking too much morality.
If control is the primary value judgment that liberals insist on asserting over the liberty to be self-determining, then freedom is impossible to preserve. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, since The New Deal we have been sacrificing liberty for (social) security, and we are ending up with what he said we would deserve, neither.
For 70 years liberals have been so obsessed with making the system "work" that they've failed to see the gas it runs on is the now rejected principles and morals the nation was found upon in the first place.Add a comment
I don't know about you guys, but I think either that body is BANGIN'...or I've fallen for another case of plastic perjury.Add a comment
While I've always known about this famous monologue, I'm sorry to admit that in posting it today it is the first time I've actually seen it. If the phrase "sometimes you have the stop and smell the roses" has any meaning, it's certainly for something like this...
Happy Independence Day, and may GOD Bless AmericaAdd a comment