As to some of your other ’science’ views:
“The reality-based position on Global Warming is that it is a bunch of overhyped junk science, getting disproven daily by temperature facts on the ground, wrapped up in UN-approved twaddle”.
That is total BS. It is true that scientists measure data and do modeling with those data. That is done in atmospheric science, climate science etc. Based on different parameters and selection of data you will obviously get different outcomes. That is NOT a liberal plot and to call all scientist working on this ‘junk scientists’ is simply wrong.

See a trend?

No Travis, I don’t. All I see is you spreading FUD. For anyone who didn’t feel like substantiating all of your sky is falling claims, here’s an example of what Travis has done…

The EPA is about to impose dumb and draconian regulations on chemicals used in the $200 billion semiconductor industry that will drive it all overseas - bye bye US fabs, all gone to Taiwan.

Your alarmist tone makes it sound like death of the fabs is imminent. This is nonsense. What really happened is that the EPA issued a finding stating that chemicals used by the fabs could pose a health risk to the public.

What you failed to mention was that the EPA finding DID NOT INCLUDE ANY PROPOSED REGULATIONS. In fact, not only did you fail to mention it, you said the exact opposite. You also failed to mention that most manufacturers of fab tools use abatement systems. Pathetic. If you’re going to spread bullshit, at least make it harder than one google search to prove you completely wrong.

Yes I do. The EPA is about to impose dumb and draconian regulations on chemicals used in the $200 billion semiconductor industry that will drive it all overseas - bye bye US fabs, all gone to Taiwan. See recent EE Times. Cap-and-trade is going to ship all energy intensive industry to China and India if we are dumb enough to impose it. Bye bye steel, aluminum and heavy industry.

Sarbanes-Oxley has hurt the IPO market and through that the VC-funded R&D cycle. Bye bye tech sector, software.

Obama’s socialized medicine will kill innovation in the healthcare sector. bye bye pharms and medical advances.

And now Obama, rather than lowering tax rates is calling corporations ‘tax cheats’ for legally trying to not get raped by the IRS for overseas earnings. For shame.

See a trend?

The #1 role for Govt is to stop doing counterproductive things like that which harms our competitiveness.
The #2 thing would be to end earmarks. that would make our R&D spend in govt far more cost-effective.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/05/rss-msu-2nd-coldest-april-since-1999.html
“April 2009 was also a whopping 0.65 °C cooler than April 1998″
“The mid troposphere saw a nearly trivial anomaly of 0.037 °C in April which is 0.022 °C cooler than the number from March 2009 and the second coldest April figure since 1997 (after 2008).”

And continental USA temps for April 2009 are lower than in April 1980:
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TMT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt

What I meant with competitiveness was more about funding R & D, how do you maintain a manufacturing base. Do you see a role for government here too? Sorry, it’s getting late.

Obama’s dog-whistle references to Malcolm X and Islam are not conservative, true. Nor is it conservative to knee-jerk accuse people of racism. That’s a liberal thing, for sure.

There’s also nothing “conservative” about wishing away climate change,

Yes, it is left to liberals to construct climate fictions.
The cap-and-trade non-solution to the non-problem of Global Warming (April was the second coldest month since 1980) is not conservative, true. The reality-based position on Global Warming is that it is a bunch of overhyped junk science, getting disporven daily by temperature facts on the ground, wrapped up in UN-approved twaddle. One can try to wish away the recovery of the artic sea ice, the non-rise in sea levels this century, or the fact that temperatures are lower now than in 1998, but … horror of horrors, there it is.

There’s nothing “conservative” about nation-building, or wars of choice … which made Clinton’s Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo excursions and his desert fox attacks on Iraq, both ‘non-conservative’ and a poor model for GWB to emulate.

As for marriage, the conservative position is to defend the definition of marriage as it has been defined for millenia - one man, one woman. Should the liberals want to suggest a ’states rights’ position on the matter … let’s put the states rights position in place for the abortion matter first and see how THAT goes first.

(self-described conservative) radicals, or loud-mouths, haters or fools.

The ad hominem argument is a weak argument, but it sure is great to see Liberals fall back into bad habits and practice it so readily… Like when Obama would pull the race card, its a sign you know that the card they have left are pretty poor.

Having a non-conservative try to define what conservatives believe is a bit like relying on the Osmond Family to define Rap music … by attempting to sing it. It’s embarrassing all around.

Achieving US economic competitiveness is a great topic on which I have a few ideas myself.
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/03/fundamental-tax-reform-15-solution.html

Ah, I see. Now you are lying. I mistook your earlier comments for face value commentary instead of the liberal talking point tripe you are now parading.

Conservatives didnt choose that name. Fact is that the only people using the term ‘teabagging’ in relationship to the Tea Parties were MSNBC and related sicko / juvenile liberals. That was never used by anyone until Rachel Maddow and others picked it up. Since you are apparently so knowledgeable about this stuff, this is something you surely know. Twisting someones name to make fun of it … how very 7th grade.

As I said, the complete lack of distancing by anyone in Democrat party from these clowns, similarly to the lack of distancing to that racialist clown Al Sharpton in the primaries, is telling point about left partisans are tolerated much more.