FY2009 was signed into law by President Obama, not President Bush. FY 2009's record-breaking $1.4 TRILLION deficit was approved by President Obama. The last Bush deficit was $453 billion, about 65% of the current FY deficit.

You got FY2009 wrong - as most of the anti-Bush/pro-Obama crowd do. FY2009 was signed into law by President Obama, not President Bush. Changes your calculus somewhat, don't you think?

What was the deficit of the last fiscal year budget that President Bush signed? What was the deficit of the first fiscal year budget under President Obama?

Those claims you make only hold up if you assign the 2009 budget to Bush. Who signed the FY 2009 budget?

It's a UTILITY PATENT, not a design patent. The look of the element on the screen is irrelevant, it is the function of the element that matters. And that is clearly predated by the Microsoft video. And whilst I am not a patent attorney, I do hold 25 utility - and 30 design - patents, I've been through it enough to understand the difference and what is relevant in each case. Design patent = look; utility patent = function.

California is not going broke because of businesses not paying; the State brings in about $5000 per man, woman and child (in the top 10 across the nation, per capita). Localities add even more to the revenue stream. It's not a lack of revenue, it's decades of continued excessive spending that has California in continual budget crises.

Wouldn't militant lesbian imply anti-shaving, thus the furry tag is redundant?

James Hansen, noted pro-AGW, ex-NASA researcher disagrees with you. The pause is real. The data we have verifies it. The models do not. Which do we believe - the models or the data?

Actually it was more akin to you taking your car to the mechanic for a squeal coming from the rear passenger side tire, and being told that your driver side front blinker isn't working right.

Here's at least one link about the models not matching reality. When data and models collide, which one should win?

That's because AGW isn't science, it's a religion. Now that we have data conflicting with the theories and models (data that exceeds the limits set by the promoters of the theories and models), the attacks will heighten - and choosing to believe empirical data over the models and theories will be dismissed as ignorant and unenlightened.

Science thrives on questioning and testing - both of which are currently eschewed by the pro-AGW acolytes. It's a religion, not science.

What happens when the authority's theories and models do not match reality, and yet they stand by their theories and models? Does that discredit the authorities, the models, and theories, or do we simply ignore reality and those who ask about the disparity?

When models and theories clash with data, it is the data that wins - every time.

...on the monolith declaring "All your worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there."

"Oh, and also Enceladus on the next planet over. Thanks!"

No they wouldn't; they only have to show that Costco distributed foods that it should have known were dangerous (at least, that's what the plaintiff's case would be). Costco's providing of food or lack thereof would be immaterial - it would be "Costco/BigEvilCorporation fed us poison!" and that is that.

They don't. If a corporation makes profit, they pay taxes.