Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

The Administration Is Run By Jr. High GirlsFollow

#27 Jun 26 2008 at 2:13 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
I don't know, you've not seen how sticky some of the greenage I come across here in south knox is.


And I might add, I would prefer to smoke a spliff with a caribou, than a beer swilling, gun-toting, woman/self/blacks/everyone-who-isn't-exactly-like-me/fluffy animal hating fool with the world awareness of a rock, dimwit like you, as well.

Guns, weed, religion and beer....Hmmmm.

Have fun without me, eh?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#28 Jun 26 2008 at 2:18 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Why won't the Dems let us drill domestically?


Same reason the GOP wants to. Wins them votes in their base.

Both sides recognize that it wouldn't do much of anything either way, so it's strictly a political football.



____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#29 Jun 26 2008 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxsouthy wrote:
Why won't the Dems let us drill domestically?
Who says you can't? There's millions upon millions of acres available for domestic drilling and currently leased for exactly that purpose. Go crazy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Jun 26 2008 at 4:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm less interested in Oil Thread II than I am the fact that the administration didn't like the way a report was going to turn out and so, without even reading it and seeing why it said what it did (or even if they were in error), they said "We refuse to look at it until it reflects what we want!"


Maybe because it's a case of a political organization changing the definition of "pollutant", and then basing their entire report and recommendations on that bizarre change?

Guys. CO2 is *not* a pollutant. Not by any scientific standard in use, and not by the EPAs own use of the term for decades. The report is bogus. Everyone knows it's bogus. It's "cart leading the horse" politics. Change the definitions of things so as to make the situation match the requirements for whatever you want to do. It's really stupid. The White House knows this. Both parties know this. The people involved know this. That's why pretty much only the fringe guys like Waxman are making any issue about it (and the NY Times of course!).


It would be kinda like if the EPA took the risks of Dihydrogen Monoxide seriously and then wrote a report talking about the benefits to the environment if we classified it as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.


So yeah. They refuse to read it because it's just that silly and stupid.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Jun 26 2008 at 4:40 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Guys.


Laughing begins. Really, using "guys" or "folks" or "heh" makes your posts unreadable. Let me try taping over the word with electrical tape to see if I can prevent laughing uncontrollably.


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#32 Jun 26 2008 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

It would be kinda like if the EPA took the risks of Dihydrogen Monoxide seriously and then wrote a report talking about the benefits to the environment if we classified it as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.


Ohh I see now, Capitan. Anything that occurs naturally isn't a pollutant. Fantastic. Uranium? Fine, it grows out of the ground for **** sake! Sulfur DiOxide? Fine! Guys, these aren't "pollutants", because they're here already, see! the quantiles released or their effects don't matter! They're already here! When you throw up, part of your puke is HCl, so it's fine to dump that in rivers, too! Yay!

Oh, Capitan Oblivious. Who could have known your middle name was Naive?

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#33 Jun 26 2008 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
CO2 is *not* a pollutant.
Says you. The EPA says otherwise.

As I recall, your brilliant argument last time was that CO2 can't possibly be classified as a pollutant because it occurs in the air naturally. It was pointed out that CO and methane also occur naturally in the air and are yet classified as pollutants and you never had much of a response for that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Jun 26 2008 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
CO2 is *not* a pollutant.
Says you. The EPA says otherwise.


Yeah. That's the problem. By their definition of "pollutant", water is a pollutant as well. In fact, *everything* is a pollutant that can be present in high enough quantities to cause harm. Um... That's just about every substance on the face of the planet.

Quote:
As I recall, your brilliant argument last time was that CO2 can't possibly be classified as a pollutant because it occurs in the air naturally. It was pointed out that CO and methane also occur naturally in the air and are yet classified as pollutants and you never had much of a response for that.


To be a pollutant, something has to be "introduced" into something else (ie: not be there naturally), not have a useful purpose there, and cause harm.

Whether or not the EPA has in the past *also* used bogus methodology to classify substances as pollutants doesn't make doing it again right. It just means continuing along a stupid path. At some point someone has to point out the silliness of what's going on and say enough is enough. That time has come with CO2. We could argue the points for methane and CO, because they exist naturally in the air in incredibly small amounts, and don't really do anything there other then add extra stuff into the mix. They are byproducts of other interactions, and I'm not aware of any necessary interactions they perform (but I could be wrong, in which case their classification is just that much more wrong).

In any case, CO2 is a completely different animal. It's necessary for life to exist. CO2 *must* be present in the air in significant quantities for plant life to survive on the earth. To label CO2 in the air a "pollutant" is ridiculous.


Clear enough?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Jun 26 2008 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Clear enough?


No one's had a problem understanding your point for months now, Capitan. It's just still stone ******* wrong by any measure.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#36 Jun 26 2008 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
WGARA? Lame duck administration, everything is just posturing now. If they try to get anything constructive done, Congress would just sit on it till November in hopes they can shift the credit to Obama if he wins. If Bush does the supposedly wrong thing, Congress tries to hammer him for not being touch, ignoring the problem, et al.

Anything and everything that isn't going to happen-- and that includes this email you're talking about --is simply political chest thumping and gorillla grunting. Nothing more.

Totem
#37 Jun 26 2008 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
To be a pollutant, something has to be "introduced" into something else (ie: not be there naturally), not have a useful purpose there, and cause harm.
Make that up yourself, did you?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Jun 26 2008 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be a pollutant, something has to be "introduced" into something else (ie: not be there naturally), not have a useful purpose there, and cause harm.
Make that up yourself, did you?


I think the proper conclusion to this thread is that there is no credible opposition. Jophiel is right. Ergo, the administration is indeed run by junior high girls.

However, that may be giving them way too much credit. At what age do children threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue?
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 359 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (359)