"hmmmm.... the cartoon implies that since it is cold out that global warming isnt happening but if it were to be hot out and someone implies that global warming is happening then they must be using "liberal logic". Why doesnt using the same logic for both sides of the argument work?"

Oh great and wise toad, why don't you take a stab at debunking the climatologists data who stand opposed to the concept of global warming? I know it's problee like a major challenge for you to attempt such a feat while runnin a train of logic without even any wheels, much less track to take it anywhere, but why not give it the good ol college try anyway.

My problem with "liberal logic" is it doesn't require its users to base their claims on verifiable, much less reasonable ideologies but prefers instead to utilize pie in the sky dreamlike visions based on fantastic improvable emotionally tainted BS. Even worse, then these same liberals will expect to use $$ slyly slipped from other folks pockets to push their agenda upon the same folks they took it from.

Ever seen "Resevoir Dogs" toad? In the opening vignette where they're all sittin in the restaurant havin breakfast Steve Beshemis' character Mr.Pink reveals the typical liberal mindset in his rant about tipping the waitress when he states that it must suck to be a waitress tryin to get by on minimum wage (or as is the case most often, less) , but it's unfair of a waitress to expect customers to tip her because the owner doesn't pay her enough.

He then goes on to say if the government were to propose a law to make the owner pay her better he'd support and vote for it, but he flat out waddn gonna take money outta his pocket to tip her for her labor. In effect this makes the point that government is the great social equalizer and that government, not the people themselves, should be expected to take care of the people, taking all responsibility away from the people to make righteous actions in life and instead expect "the government" to take care of it.