Hodad

Go read a book. The "American experiment" refers to the creation of a constitutional democracy, a government of, by and for the people--the first of its kind in the world. You clearly want to destroy that experiment, but you should at least know what it means before you throw it away in service to a dictator.

May or may not? WTF? Are you pretending that you didn't read the quote you posted and applauded as "a solution"? The strategy he PROPOSES to achieve the aim of dictatorship is a farking footnote to the goal of ending a democratic America. Jeebus.

I'm not going to watch a video of some asshat. You quoted the man calling for dictatorship and called him "a solution." You're welcome to bend the knee to some tyrant if a daddy is what you need, but go do it in some other country instead of trying to destroy this one.

Did anyone tell you that circle jerking is gross? Maybe try to contribute something relevant to any conversation--ever--rather than wasting our time with gibber. I know you guys aren't much into reading, but KSU literally quoted Yarvin calling for dictatorship and applauded it, calling Yarvin "a solution." No spin needed.

Ah, another faux "conservative" saying the quiet part out loud, eager to toss the American experiment in the dumpster and prostrate himself before a dictator.

That radical liberal, Thomas Jefferson, was deeply concerned about wealth inequality, the creation of a new aristocracy and the threat that would pose to the stability of the nation. His deeply un-American, commie proposal? Progressive taxation. "another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1785

It feels pretty shitty, thanks for asking. Somehow half of America voted for a man so repugnantly un-American that he will shit on everything--and everyone--this country once stood for.

This reminds me of something... Oh, that's right. Go fark yourself.

You clearly enjoy living in your fantasy world. Biden is clearly not remotely as bad off as you pretend, and Trump is not remotely as competent as you pretend. Hours without "slip ups"? lol Good gods, the dude can't finish a single thought--in between threatening to invade our allies and renaming the Gulf of Mexico. It's pure crazy 100% of the time. The more that lunatic sleeps and the shorter his workdays the better off we'll all be.

So crazy. In your weird, broken conspiracy brain this topic is somehow related to comment I made. Fascinating. And no, the MSM didn't lie about Biden's mental health. They reported, as always, what was said and done by others. The MSM does not, as you may mistakenly believe, have access to the president outside of specific windows of availability. However, if he fell going up the stairs to AF1, they reported it. If he was strong and capable (he was) during the last SOTU, they reported it. If he was slow and foggy during the debate, (he was) they reported it. That's how reporting works. 💡 Biden is not some brain-dead zombie, as you goons like to exaggerate. He's in natural cognitive decline and is slower for it. That was obvious in the debate. But he did a fine job with the Carter eulogy today. Which is a reminder that Biden needs to live at least 4 more years to avoid having his state funeral turned into a Trump sideshow with disjointed talk of crowd sizes and beautiful little circles.

Nah, this is a pretty textbook exchange for us. I do appreciate the retraction though. Good on you. And to circle back to the original point, this is an example of a regulation that was ridiculed, but in fact is totally sensible. Like most regulations, it exists for a reason. Whether you pause and investigate to understand that reason --or ignorantly rail against it-- is entirely up to you.

Great. More out-of-left-field talk about the MSM, apropos of nothing. Although it's nice that you're not whining about covid vaccines for a change.

Hey, look. An idlot ranting about nothing in particular, rambling on and on, never coming to a coherent point. I don't even need to see the user name to identify the author. Sigh.

It's great that you're passionate about mitigating conditions that exacerbate risk, but once again it's irrelevant to the exchange into which you've inserted yourself. I don't mind people jumping into a conversation (it's an open forum) but you clearly want to talk about something other than climate change. And I'm real sorry some dummy broke your plane.🤷‍♂️

Our shibboleth would be to make everyone pronounce the word "about."

A. Some goofball looking at a chart is not "called science." B. Especially when said goofball badly misreads it. 100 years ago is NOT a "valley. And we aren't up 1.5 degrees from the "valley." We're up 1.5 degrees from the historical average--and in a remarkably short period of time while the sun is relatively cool, BTW. Even an innumerate child could look at this and see the aberrant spike in the post-industrial years. You sourced that chart (directly or indirectly) from https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/ Why don't you go read some actual science from the scientists who made the goddamn chart. Climate Is Changing, and Scientists Understand Why It is unequivocal that human activities have increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is also unequivocal that global average temperature has risen in response. Observed warming over the continental United States and Alaska is higher than the global average (virtually certain, very high confidence). Long-term changes have been observed in many other aspects of the climate system (very high confidence). The Earth system is complex and interconnected, which means changes in faraway regions are virtually certain to affect the United States (very high confidence). Extreme Events Are Becoming More Frequent and Severe Observations show an increase in the severity, extent, and/or frequency of multiple types of extreme events. Heatwaves have become more common and severe in the West since the 1980s (high confidence). Drought risk has been increasing in the Southwest over the past century (very high confidence), while at the same time rainfall has become more extreme in recent decades, especially east of the Rockies (very high confidence). Hurricanes have been intensifying more rapidly since the 1980s (high confidence) and causing heavier rainfall and higher storm surges (high confidence). More frequent and larger wildfires have been burning in the West in the past few decades due to a combination of climate factors, societal changes, and policies (very high confidence).

Apparently "conservatives" are sitting around thinking that the role of climate change in wildfires would mean that temperatures simply rose to the combustion point of wood. 480 degrees would be a hot day in the valley indeed. I use the word "thinking" very loosely.

Strong. That's the proper respect to show the man who pressure her husband to betray his country and subsequently egged on his attempted lynching.

You didn't make an observation. You made a slanderous attack. So go fark yourself.

As with every post in this thread, you've failed to make any coherent argument. But at least it was short. I appreciate the brevity. It's progress. Next step: STFU.

A. Call it what you want, but the water he's collecting is water that's not going to its natural destination--which you acknowledge can have significant consequences. Obviously it's very easy to make the logical case for regulation. B. It wasn't "a pond." I told you that stupid listicles are almost always inaccurate. You have zero ability to vet information--will just believe whatever is convenient in the moment. He set up 15+ foot dams and created 3 reservoirs storing 13 million gallons of water that should have otherwise fed the watershed and creek owned by the city. Oh, and he stocked them with fish. They told him to desist for a DECADE before it ended up with jail time. Oh, but wait, that's the law you think should be abolished. So you're cool with people doing that. Hell, everyone should have their own lakes and if the creek runs dry, no problem! Because "regulations" baaaaaaad. 🙄

Not at all. You made a hateful blanket attack against all "liberals" based on the attitudes of a few, while pretending that "your side" doesn't do the exact same things at scale. So really, go fark yourself. Thanks for the reply completely unrelated to the "conversation" we were having. 👍

Aren't you late to a "God Hates Fags" aids funeral protest?

Go fark yourself. A. There are outliers, but this is obviously untrue at scale. B. Conservative America rejoices in the misery of others as a damn platform position.

Hey, dumbfark, you literally posted a listicle story about some arsehole in Oregon who was jailed for capturing water without government permission it financing. Literally. And then you complained about the law that prohibits his doing so and lamented the fact that he was held accountable. Shouldn't be regulated! And then you complained about what are, in your view, harmful water diversions and acknowledged capacity for external harm. And then you said again that the law that prohibits people diverting water flow must be abolished. You're fighting with yourself because you don't know your arse from a hole in the ground that collects runoff. Try picking a position--any position. Jeebus.