"There is no controversy about the use of birth control"

Hey, mountain man, I thought you were going to regale me with more tales of your naturalist existence, what with all the global climate glacier fires you are so expert about. lol

"But who are you to judge your neighbor? "

Anyone can judge anyone else if they are willing to be judged themselves.
Would a normal person have any fear of being judged for having attended a Tea Party rally vs an Occupy rally?

"completing over 650,000 medical Continuing Disability Reviews that make sure that Disability Insurance and SSI recipients continue to meet the medical criteria for those programs."

Does that constitute rationing of sort, making sure people are qualified and if they aren't, kicking them off the program in order to save money....?
So what, then, is the liberal definition of the role of gov't? To save money by having people pay in and then not pay them what they are entitled to, or to expand programs to include (aka "help") as many people as possible, in which case there can never be enough money?

I have always been interested in this fuzzy math--'we are going to assure [insert favorite government benefit here] that this / these program(s) are maintained or enhanced; this is going to require shared sacrifice [except for recipients, who are already sacrificing too much].'

"Of course, this will happen after the election... "

at which point Obama will begin to complain about the situation he inherited from the previous term's president, lol, and the libs will lap it up.

Photo caption:
Where's my banana?!

As a western Canadian, kind of right in the middle of the oil patch of Alberta and Saskatchewan, I not only know where the oil comes from but I see the economic activity and happy people that are the result of having a well paying job. You go ahead and continue to buy your oil from whomever you want, it doesn't matter to us who buys it, as we get paid from whomever, whether it is an American or a china man.

Since you are a mountaineer and glacier expert, might I posit something for consideration?
The top of the earth's crust is 6 miles above sea level, the bottom is 7 miles below sea level. How many billions of years, what kind of planetary forces, could make that possible? Yet you seem to ascribe to the school of thought (for lack of a better term) that mankind, in a span of under 200 years (at MOST), can destroy the planet....

You have no doubt seen the History Channel show, After Man (or whatever it is called). You, as a glaciologist and moutaineer, should know more than most that if mankind were to disappear tomorrow, the planet would no more miss us than it even realizes we are here, chipping away at a few rocks here and there, drilling a few holes, trying to warm the planet with insignificant amounts of a trace element of the atmosphere.

I guess it depends upon your life outlook. Is it a tribute to mankind's ability to create livable conditions anywhere on the planet, to build shelter from hot or cold, to utilize their brain to figure out how to use raw materials to turn them into something useful?
Or are all those things just glaring examples of man's arrogance and irresponsibility? 'how dare these specks drill my skin, poison my vast salt water oceans with....tin cans and....plutonium. I'll show them (cue hurricane, tornado, avalanche, wildfire, earthquake...)'

If you think mankind is a pimple on the ass of the planet, something that needs to be squeezed and killed, then there is no use discussing anything with you.
If you think mankind's achievements in the face of brute mother nature are to be admired, now you're starting to get it....

Good example, that second hand smoke screen.... There is exactly as much proof of second hand smoke causing cancer as there is man kind is causing climate change sustainable development--ZERO.
The EPA did what the IPCC is trying to do or has tried to do, they started with a supposition and then conducted experiments in order to prove their point. The only problem arose when their experiments did not prove their point, which is to say that they could not prove that second hand smoke caused anywhere near the 3000 or whatever number of deaths a year that they pretended. So they doubled the margin of error in order to make the numbers say what they wanted the numbers to say.
Same thing at the EU, which did a huge 12 nation study of the effects of second hand smoke,. only to find their results did not prove what they wanted the results to prove, so they promptly stuffed the study in a bottom drawer, refused to release the study results, and said 'nothing to see here.'

Good for you being a mountaineer. Sorry if you get burned out or glaciered over, but you chose to live there.
Insurance costs have gone up because the value of the insured properties has gone up, not because there are more claims.

"make us dependent on Mideast Oil"

Which politician of which political party in the USA recently nixed a pipeline that would have brought 800,000 barrels of oil a day to the US from that Mideast kingdom, Canada?
There is no shortage of oil on the planet; there is no danger to man or the environment from oil, as it is a naturally occurring substance.
No one is trying to ban your ability or your choice to produce your own electricity or power your canola oil half ton truck. Why can you not extend the same courtesy and not try to ban other people's choices?

"is telling us to proceed with caution yet you refuse to listen to the inconvenient message.."

Would you know or think anything of climate warming changing global by looking out your own windows, which is to say have polar bears accumulated or died on your front steps, have icebergs grown or receded in your backyard, are the summers and winters hotter or colder, have the more numerous hurricanes been less numerous, has the sea level rose or fell near your street....or are those just examples of things you have read about, dare I say things your handlers have told you?

Everything the left does is done from a position of crisis; compare what you see on TV or read in your local paper to things you see in your yard, on your street, on your way to the grocery store or concert hall. Homelessness, murder, drought, flood, jeeezus, if one were to immerse their self in the media, there would literally be NO place safe, no place where a lack of crisis is seen for what it is--normal.

Limbaugh said years ago on his TV show that polls and news don't report what is going on, they drive what it going on, and off the top of his head gave the example of 'what if a news organization did a poll and series of reports on the cement crisis in America?' Take a poll of people about what they thought of the cement crisis ("I....didn't...know...there...is one....") and then run a few news stories about the price of cement, that there is too much cement or too little...
Then conduct another poll and ask what is the most pressing issue facing America. "I'll bet you that the cement crisis would be at the top of the list."

"A one-off lucky shot"

Or as Coulter put it, 'camel riding nomads got in a lucky sucker punch.'