Thursday, October 16, 2008
Heavy breathing
Under Barack Obama's administration, each and every one of us will become, by the deft stroke of a pen, a source of dangerous pollution until we breathe our last.
12 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Oct 16, 03:36:00 PM:
Dont forget the CO2 and hot air emissions given off at the wake, funeral, and following reception.
The C02 given off during the cremation process and during decomposition if you go that way.
needless to say. "Our last" is not really our last.
DTG in NNJ
By 
GreenmanTim, at
Thu Oct 16, 03:44:00 PM:
Something he has in common with Ronald "Tree Pollution" Reagan, then.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Thu Oct 16, 04:33:00 PM:
I guess I'd prefer CO2 be classified a pollutant than O2. Good think Obama is not an Ent, I guess.
By , at
Thu Oct 16, 05:07:00 PM:
How about a list of likely consequences of an Obama win?
I'll predict two: (1) if Hussein wins, the US will be attacked again within 3 to 6 months and, perhaps, a second time withing 6 to 12 months. The 1st attack will allow Hussein to begin surrender negotiations and the second, to allow Hussein to enact anti-hate crime/speech laws that will silence many of us and put some of us in reeducation camps, ala Pol Pot.
(2) if Hussein is elected, a major economic act will bail out newspapers and media oulets (think Air American, PBS, the NYT, AP and other right thinking outfits).
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Oct 16, 05:41:00 PM:
Why not go one better? Will 'Hussein' be complicit in these attacks? Will they actually be carried via cruise missiles fired from submarines off the coast of North America? Come to think of it, why do all these 'foreign' terrorist plots happen near the coast?
We're onto something, anonymous. I'll contact you later, secretly. I fear for your safety.
...
I've spent the last 8 years laughing at these kinds of unhinged rants from the left. Is it time to switch gears?
By , at
Thu Oct 16, 06:02:00 PM:
Hey Dawnfire, put some measurable parameters on those predictions, and you and I may have a bet. I nominate Tigerhawk to hold the money.
By clint, at
Thu Oct 16, 07:50:00 PM:
anon-
I think the first prediction is unlikely (the reeducation camps, at least).
The second is more interesting.
The news media is collapsing in this country. I could definitely see the left getting behind the idea of a "bailout" for the New York Times.
It would even help justify the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, no?
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Oct 16, 08:14:00 PM:
Brian: You do realize that I was mocking that guy... right?
By Brian, at
Thu Oct 16, 10:15:00 PM:
Dawnfire - nope, I missed it - thought the switching gears reference meant this type of rant wasn't unhinged. I stand corrected, thanks.
By , at
Thu Oct 16, 10:25:00 PM:
Any green plant performs photosynthesis while in sunshine, converting CO2 and water into long chains polysaccharides and cellulose.
In darkness, green plants perform respiration (at a lower level), producing CO2 from oxygen and the metabolic consumption of sugars produced in daylight.
So yeah, large forests, farms, etc will produce measurably large amounts of CO2, a natural and necessary atmospheric gas, during darkness.
These people are imbeciles, and it shows.
-David
By Joanne, at
Thu Oct 16, 11:16:00 PM:
Emit CO2; zillions of plant life need it to survive, and we need the oxygen they emit to survive. Give and receive freely, our lives depend on it.
The oceans are the largest emitters of CO2 - do these morons have a plan to control the oceans too or are the oceans just going to be taxed?
By Brian, at
Fri Oct 17, 01:10:00 AM:
Oceans are net carbon sinks for many decades to come, so they won't be labelled polluters.
There are natural sources of nitrate and sulfate pollutants that have been regulated under the Clean Air Act for decades, and nobody's attempted to put a volcano under arrest. I think the same will be true of carbon dioxide and methane.
