MIT, among others, has taken the House's climate bill and ran it through the United Nations own IPCC models and project that PERHAPS, MAYBE, this climate bill will reduce global temperatures by as much as 1/10TH OF 1 DEGREE by the year 2100.

That's all we get after 90 years - and by then trillions of dollars? I don't see any hope or change in that.

But if you libbies out there still think its a good deal, let me know 'cause I got some failing real estate SoCal I'd like to sell you.

You libs get accused of wanting to keep poor and uneducated people poor and uneducated because you care more about good intentions than actual results.

If liberal politicians cared about results, DC and LA would be public school masterpieces and the war on poverty would have been won BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ago.

The recently passed House Cliamte bill was analyzed using the United Nations own IPCC models and it is projected that perhaps, MAYBE the bill will reduce global temps by 1/10TH OF 1 DEGREE!!! After 90 years and TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!

Oh, but they sure mean well...

The reason you dems can say that conservatives are wrong when the accuse libs of wanting to keep the poor - poor, and the uneducated - dumb, etc., is because what matters to you are good intentions, not results.

If you cared about results, Obama couldn't have been elected, DC and LA would public school masterpieces, and the war on poverty would have been won BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ago.

The House Climate bill has been measured according to the United Nations own IPCC models and found that perhaps, MAYBE by the year 2100, the bill will reduce global temps 1/10 OF 1 DEGREE!!! After trillions of dollars and 90 years!!!

Oh, but of course, they sure mean well...

DEBRA QUIT blaming the voters for "voting in the government they deserve." California voters are happy to copmromise and sacrifice (contrary to your claim) to allow expanded services even when it means it will cost them more.

In case you haven't noticed though there's this thing going on right now called a RECESSION (which could turn into a depression). And don't say we should have thought about this when we voted for legislators and ballot measures during the last several years. You didn't see the depth of this recession coming so don't expect us to.

CA is at 11% unemployment and is still climbing. The citizens have all had to change spending habits considerably - AND WE EXPECT THE LEGISLATURE TO GET A CLUE AND DO...

Obama and Hilary Clinton are giving everyone an inside look of what they think of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. If they don't support it elsewhere, why expect them to defend it here?

POINT!
The article laments the erosion of duty and commitment in our culture. Your statistics are irrelevant. Every state has a ton of people from all kinds of political persuasions. Is everyone getting divorced in NC liberal? Conservative? Alas, the stats don't say.

Gallagher has long argued that our society would be better off with committed adults in marriage as opposed to perpetuating a culture that teaches that you can run from responsibility as soon as it gets rough. Children are statistically better off being raised by biological parents who stay together.

Gallagher is simply lamenting the culture of "subprime" marriages.

For the past 18 months we have heard all kinds of stories about lenders who sought out borrowers and faked them into a loan they couldn't afford, urging them to sign on the dotted line without worrying about contractual details, much less the long term risks and consequences. They are now known as evil predatory lenders.

Seems to me that Obama, Sebelius, and the rest of the democrats have copied the play book. Should they be labeled evil PREDATORY LEGISLATORS?

Besides, if this is so urgent, why are they waiting to implement it until 2013?!?!