Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

1514, 12 Feb 19

McConnell to Call Vote for Green New Deal


McConnell told reporters after a meeting of the Senate Republican caucus that he has “great interest” in the plan, which would spell an end for coal, a key economic driver in McConnell’s home state of Kentucky, while promising new jobs for out-of-work miners and other workers.

“We’ll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal,” McConnell said.

McConnell did not say when the vote would happen. McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the vote has not been scheduled.


1514, 12 February 2019


  1. Kevin Scheunemann

    This will be the best thing he has ever done!

    My money is on Baldwin’s suicide vote in favor.

    She will mark herself as being against the “Dairyland state” she represents!

  2. Le Roi du Nord

    At least he will allow a vote.  That is far more than he allowed Garland.


    Could you explain how Baldwin’s vote would be “against the “Dairyland state”?   Thanks

  3. Kevin Scheunemann

    Oh Nord.

    The “Green New Deal” bans/eliminates cows because cow farts cause global warming.

    As a disciple in the warming cult, you should know this.

    In the “dairy” state, Baldwin voting for it would be the height of ideological idiocy.

    I bet she votes yes to destroy WI.

  4. Le Roi du Nord


    Another great example of you perpetuating a lie to serve your fact averse ideology.

    Below is the actual text of the “Green New Deal”.  Would it be of a bother to you to actually read the Resolution and point out the specific section and/or subsection that bans/eliminates cows.  Then square up your contention with Section (G) i, ii, and iii.

    FYI:  This is a House Resolution, not a Bill.  Big difference.

  5. Kevin Scheunemann


    I will accept your apology.

    In the “fact sheet” AOC attached, and has now withdrawn like a coward:

    Key part though people is bit in fact sheet that explains why resolution is not immediately banning fossil fuels or demanding zero-emissions across economy. Because “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”

    You are a liar, and I demand an apology.

  6. Le Roi du Nord


    No apology forthcoming. I can’t be responsible for your dishonesty, only my reliance on fact and truth.

    Are you disputing the text of the Resolution, or the fact that you were wrong again?  And you failed to point out where cows are banned or eliminated.  What puzzles you so much about truth?

  7. Kevin Scheunemann


    The advocates want to get rid of planes and cows.

    They screwed up and revealed their true intent.

    That is still part of their agenda.

    You ignore it because you are a rabid disciple.

  8. Le Roi du Nord


    Those are all assumptions on your part.   You can’t show anything that proves your claims.  Too lazy to read the document?  Or unwilling to read it because it doesn’t say what you say it does?

    You sure are a poor loser….

    I am a disciple of truth…

  9. Kevin Scheunemann


    AOC had it on her web site!

    That is what she truly believes and that is goal of green new deal!

    How else do you get to zero emissions without eliminating planes and cow farts?

    She withdrew it because Pelosi thumped on her. So your little liberal honey does not even have courage of her convictions!

    If Green New Deal is no longer zero emission goal, who sold out to farm lobby and airline lobby?

    You should excommunicate them from church of climate change immediately.

  10. dad29

    Baldwin will vote for it–cows be damned–if it kills more babies and forces Christians to leave the US.

  11. Kevin Scheunemann


    Just amazing the fierce counter spin out there “no, AOC didn’t say that”.

    They can’t admit what they believe because it is reckless, disgusting, and awful.

  12. Le Roi du Nord


    The house votes for the Resolution, not what AOC or anyone else has on their web site.  And a Resolution is not law.  Anyone that took a HS Civics class in a public school would know that.

    And you still haven’t provided the language in the Resolution where it bans or eliminates cows.  Nor have you considered the language in (G) i, ii, and iii.  Is it a comprehension problem, or are you just plain lazy?

  13. Merlin

    McConnell is just gratuitously piggy-backing on Pelosi’s control strategy of letting Cortez briefly burn white hot, burn out quickly as her idiocy becomes self-evident, then relegating her to dark corner obscurity until the end of her one and only term. Pelosi has been playing this game longer than Cortez has been alive. Put your money on Pelosi.

  14. Kevin Scheunemann


    From House resolution:
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—
    (1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—
    (A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;
    How do you get to “net zero” without getting rid of airplanes and cows?

    Are you going against the conviction expressed in the resolution?   Isn’t that heresy.

    It’s in the bill.  AOC said it.

    I’ll accpet your apology now.

  15. Pat

    I love how Republicans are fixated on AOC out of all other individuals in Congress. For some reason they’re all scared shitless of this one person.

  16. Kevin Scheunemann


    If we are fixiated on AOC, the LEFT is certainly nuts on Trump by comparison.   They have been rabid fixiated on Trump since November 2016.

    AOC is just amusing because she blurts out the insane totalitarian things liberals really believe.

    It is more amusement than fixiation.

    When was last time a liberal was ever amused by anything????

  17. Le Roi du Nord


    I have tried for several years to get you up to speed on understanding science but you have refused to become enlightened.  For me to explain how to get to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions (the key word here is “net?) would be yet another exercise in futility.  There are a number of alternatives and opportunities for achieving net-zero, and apparently any and all of them are beyond your comprehension.

    Nowhere in the Resolution is there any language to prove your claim that it will ban or eliminate cows.  Why must you be so dishonest? Nature, or nurture??

    It is a Resolution, not a Bill.


  18. Kevin Scheunemann


    When AOC says “net-zero” she means “none”.

    You think it means “net new zero”, which means no increase from current levels.

    The church of liberalsim believes in no carbon emissions.

    You need to be careful here, you will be excommunicated for not towing the line.


  19. Le Roi du Nord


    You are not anywhere close to being correct on any of those claims,  but I can’t help your willful ignorance.

    You can’t even get a common phrase like, “toeing the line” correct.  Wow.

  20. Merlin

    That resolution reads like a shameless socialist propaganda piece, rather reminiscent of Obamacare’s vague framework that was sold sight unseen… to be fleshed out and implemented by toady bureaucrats through administrative regulation at a later date, allowing the Congress critters to distance themselves from the failures.

    McConnell and Cheney are right to get their brethren involved in the national debate, on the record and taking ownership, in broad daylight. If the Democrats believe in it they should be willing to sell it.

    I’m curious as to who actually wrote that resolution, a rather bold communist manifesto disguised as an offering of preferred seating in the First Church of Climate Change. I’d be very surprised if she who was tending bar a year ago had any involvement other than allowing her name to be put on it. But of course I could be wrong.

  21. dad29

    We know there was some professor at Yale who “advised” her, which brings up the question:  would you pay $78K/year for THAT sort of ‘education’?

  22. Kevin Scheunemann


    I meant it in the context of dragging your stuck and rusted out hulk that you call an intellect down the street.

    But you will probably be more upset with that context, so I will accept the walking the tightrope analogy.

    So walking on your tightrope, why do you lie about the idea these liberal crazies DON’T mean total zero on Carbon emissions in 10 years?

    They want all fossil fuels eliminated, that is not maintaining, that is intention to cut 100%.

    So quit your lying. It annoys me that you are so clueless.

  23. jjf

    Dad29, when ALEC or similar hands a bill to legislators, do you question the author’s educational credentials?  How do you think bills should be written?

  24. MjM

    Jiffy gurggles: “.. when ALEC or similar hands a bill to legislators, do you question the author’s educational credentials?”

    Are you aware of who the members of ALEC are?


    Keven sez: “AOC had it on her web site!”

    It was also emailed to all the big time Leftstream media outlets; NYT, WaPoo, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc., etc..

  25. Le Roi du Nord


    “Toe the line”, or “Toeing the line” has nothing to do with tightropes.  Great job of doubling down on ignorance.

    “Total zero” is something you made up as an excuse for your previous flubs.  I’m not lying about anything, total zero is all yours.

    I’m glad I have raised your annoyance level.  To quote a wise man, “I am here to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable”.  Looks like I have succeeded.

  26. Kevin Scheunemann


    The expression can be used in all the contexts.

    Here is what I was originally indicating in context:

    For someone that preaches diversity, you certainly got in a judgemental snit about it.

    Interesting, coming from someone who refuses to be clear on what happens to his soul at death, or cannot work up any outrage toward evil of baby killing.


  27. Le Roi du Nord

    Diversity of facts, diversity of truth??  Otherwise known as telling a lie, such as conway’s “alternative facts”, or guliani’s truth isn’t truth” nonsense, or your whole banning cows lie.   If being truthful doesn’t matter to you then you should revise your set of tablets.  Don’t you worry about your soul, being a serial teller if untruths?

    I’ll stick to what I was taught in public school; tell the truth.

    The rest of your drivel is just another poor deflection.

  28. Kevin Scheunemann


    Isn’t “diversity of truth” the whole point of liberal diversity you extol?

    So you have hard, absolute truth, on that expression?

    That is not very inclusive.

    Practice what you preach.

  29. jjf

    MjM, do you think ALEC doesn’t pre-made hand bills to legislators?  Yes, legislators are in ALEC, but their bills aren’t necessarily written where they are delivered, and there are private-sector members of ALEC.  Your point is?

  30. Le Roi du Nord


    Truth is truth.  2+2=4 is truth.  6000 YO earth is not.

    You get to choose how honest you will be, better choose wisely as your soul depends on it…..

  31. jjf

    So how’d they check the credentials of people who signed an online petition?

    And how should we judge 1,000 claimed names, as compared to how many people who also have a “Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine.”

    So, 1,000 out of how many millions?  Overwhelming opinion, there!


  32. Kevin Scheunemann

    The same way you check the “credentials” of those distributing your evolution religion.

  33. Le Roi du Nord


    I haven’t smeared anybody, not even you.  I just question claims, made as fact, that have no evidence to support the claim.  Big difference.

    You said, “the earth is 6000 years old” several times.  Even when you flippity-flopped to 6000-10000 you are still wrong by a whole bunch of zeros.  I got the quote(r)s right, you just can’t abide by being wrong yet again.

  34. Kevin Scheunemann


    Thousands of scientists disagree with you on your Darwin religion.

    You reject this science because your Darwin faith demands it.

    I at least admit my faith.

    You are too cowardly to admit your faith.

  35. Le Roi du Nord


    Any many more thousands of actual scientists disagree with your religious beliefs on evolution.

    I believe in truth.  You believe in faith.  Big difference.

    No cowardice here, just a reliance on truth. You can believe whatever flat earth nonsense you want.

  36. Kevin Scheunemann

    Just more denial of your Darwin faith.

    I was hoping for a step forward in honesty from you, but it is my painful optimistic nature that expects more from you than you are capable of.

  37. Le Roi du Nord


    Could you point out that denial?  Or are you just making stuff up again?

  38. jjf

    Kevin, how many PhDs in those categories are granted per year?  How many are there in the world today, and therefore what fraction does this online petition represent?

  39. Kevin Scheunemann


    So science is decided by stomping out “diverse” viewpoints?

    How exclusionary of you.

  40. dad29

    MjM, do you think ALEC doesn’t pre-made hand bills to legislators?  Yes, legislators are in ALEC, but their bills aren’t necessarily written where they are delivered, and there are private-sector members of ALEC.  Your point is?

    Po’ li’l Jiffy.  He couldn’t read my first comment correctly and his tricycle careens down the hill un-guided….

    AOC’s “advisor” is a Yale prof.  So her STATED INTENTION to eliminate cattle, airplanes, and internal-combustion-engine powered cars in about 10 years or so is likely to have been abetted–if not drawn up– by said Yale professor.

    ALEC may or may not distribute bill ideas which are the product of professors.  But ALEC does not distribute bill ideas which are clearly insane, or completely un-doable.

    ‘K, Jiffy?  Does that help you?

  41. Le Roi du Nord

    Science isn’t based on viewpoints, but rather on evidence.

  42. Kevin Scheunemann


    When the science conflicts….yes it is all “viewpoint”.

  43. Le Roi du Nord

    Wrong again.

  44. Kevin Scheunemann


    So when “evidence” conflicts, you are so arbiter of which evidence gets credence and which is not?

    You sound Very, very exclusionary.

    What happen to practicing inclusiveness?

  45. Le Roi du Nord


    You provided no evidence, so there is no conflict.

  46. Kevin Scheunemann


    Your religious Darwinism calls on you to ignore the evidence of thousands of scientists dissenting from Darwinism.

    I presented the evidence.

    You chose to ignore the evidence in favor of your faith.

  47. Kevin Scheunemann


    Wikipedia as “evidence”.

    That is hilarious.

    Read this before you make a bigger fool out of yourself on morality:

  48. Le Roi du Nord

    Since you view the question about evolution as a popularity contest (that you lost) I can’t do any thing further to advance your comprehension or understanding.  I’ll leave you to your self-imposed ignorance.

    I’ll also leave you with this nugget, found while doing some research; “Lying for Jesus is – well, lying. It makes your side look dishonest, and tars decent sincere believers with the same brush”.

  49. Jason

    >You provided no evidence, so there is no conflict.


    Then why do you keep coming back?  Lol, you’re either lying or a moron.

  50. Kevin Scheunemann


    I did not say it was a popularity contest.

    I only said the “science” is disputed on both sides.

    I have faith on my side.

    You have faith on your side, you are just dishonest and don’t admit it.

  51. Le Roi du Nord


    Then you didn’t read either article, even the one you posted.  Why are we not surprised??

    So why is your faith honest, and mine dishonest?  Your pathological need to be right?

Pin It on Pinterest