Protip: it wasn't Reagan or either one of the Bush's.

You named your post

You need to Google the words Reagan and Amnesty, fucker of dumbs, which went far beyond anything Obama has proposed. Furthermore, if you weren't tripping on the shreds of your 10-pounds-of-bullshit-in-a-five-pound-sack, you'd be asking why Obama didn't do this in his first two years if he wanted to "pander", rather than deporting them at a faster rate than Bush, a fact you conveniently skipped over. This is obviously nothing more than setting up the Obamabot base into voting for Hillary "totally obliterate Iran" Clinton, along with his Very Sincere Proposals for paid leave and free-to-use community college.

You wingers should really move to an island with the Obamabots who think Obama ended the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and fight it out so the problem resolves itself and we're left with a lot less stupidity in this world.

The point is that climate change deniers are impossible to convince, regardless of the type and/or amount of proof gathered and presented. Because they have already decided what they are going to believe, reality be damned.

Then the point was contradicted by the analogy.

Democrats traditionally favor large government and using government assistance programs to buy votes of immigrants who in effect become their clients.

Is that why Democrats have cut food stamps, killed a public option and have been trying to figure out a way to cut Social Security for 6 years, all the while deporting immigrants at a rate faster than Bush?

If someone is willing to do the job for cheaper, why do you think you deserve it?

Why do you think you should be so willfully obtuse? It's not like he's enjoying third world prices for his housing, goods and services while having to compete with third world labor.

I tend to be a strong skeptic on the subject

Do you also tend to use lead paint over the asbestos drywall in your house? If not, why not?

....and that's some seriously weak partisan butthurt. That and it wouldn't matter if it was Barney the Dinosaur testifying to the committee: nuclear power is the most expensive power source ever designed by man, and only desired by corporate hacks and Tom Swift fanboys.

Think that's unfair? Then name a nuclear power company that has rolled the full cost of ore mining, enrichment, plant construction, security, complete insurance coverage, and plant decommission into the rate it charges its customers. Oh, and storing the waste for thousands of years.

2. Probably a net reduction in oil spills, because not having the pipeline would only force the oil to be transported on trains, not stop it.

That's an old chestnut, but it requires ignoring:

a) All pipelines have leaks and spills

b) Not having a pipeline serves as a bottleneck on the destruction of the tar sands. Mining companies aren't going to process far beyond their transportation capacity as that's just throwing money away.

Regardless of the scientific basis, the consensus view of the American public is that they do not want to sacrifice their lifestyles for the environment

The only thing that would be sacrificed would be the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Wind and solar are already cost competitive with coal. And the costs of addressing climate change are insignificant next to the costs of not addressing it - which of course will result in a real sacrifice in the standard of living, as opposed to some winger boogyman.

If the evidence is not humanly possible to gather, then the question is inherently religious, not scientific.

Too bad your analogy was inherently irrelevant, though. Temperature is testable, gods are not.

Well, the legal definition and your definition seem to differ.

No. They don't.

Here in CO a former school coach is currently serving a life term in prison for sleeping with a minor.

When he was 24 at the time? And I suppose you have lovely oceanfront property in Kansas for sale, too.

She was 17

Which would make it statutory rape, not pedophilia.

Too busy with your tantrum to come up with a coherent response, Randian? Getting rid of government, cuz NSA, is as sensible as getting rid of all businesses, cuz Enron.

Or as asinine.

Are we beginning to see that the problem is the government itself, and not the particular party in power?

If you've read so much Rand that you believe that keeping a mining company from dumping lead and arsenic into your drinking water is just as evil as illegal spying and assassinations, maybe. Cuz gubbmit.

Sorry, fucker, if I didn't give you the whole history of this.

He's wrong because you don't know the meaning of the word "pedophile" and went the full Fox News at the same time? Is anyone who calls Reagan a Republican or Warren a Democrat also a fucker? I don't think so.

You engaged in 10-pounds-of-bullshit-in-a-five-pound-sack willful dumbfuckery and are now whining like a bitch because you got caught.

Just as going from Vista to XP was a performance and usability upgrade.

Yes, blame the voters for refusing to vote for the dogshit-in-a-flaming-bag that has been served up by Democratic leadership since 2008. You think Obots could have started to get a clue after minimum wage increases and marijuana legalization passed in deep red states that sent Republicans to Washington.

Get some candidates that are to the left of Reagan's corpse and we'll talk, mmmkay?