Hodad

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.

Goddamn he's dumb. President Camacho would be an upgrade.

Trump is a joke. He can't help that he's stupid and crazy. But the fools who decided to give him real power are the real problem. He's not even in office yet and he's turned America into a laughingstock again. That press conference... Good Lord. 70 minutes of pure rambling insanity. The Gulf of America? What a dipshit.

The Smith report has nothing to do with Trump's sex crimes. As to what Trump stole, classified documents are high on that list, alongside an attempt to steal an election.

No, the legal system is simply treating a crook like a crook. And you guys can't stomach accountability.

There's a reason James Woods is typecast as a smarmy arsehole. He's a toxic fark. But I still I don't take any joy in his loss. And on the other hand, if he's not insured, it's unbelievably stupid to forego fire insurance on a property in that area. There are big burns every year. Such a stupid decision. -- He's going to have to dig down deep into his surplus of "personal responsibility" and own the consequences.

Jeebus. You are just unbelievably thick. Government water projects are 100% irrelevant to the regulation you were complaining about. Meanwhile, your solution for preventing people from creating harmful water diversions is to eliminate the regulations that prohibit willy-nilly civilian diversions. I can assume your solution to murder is to legalize murder. There just aren't enough faceplams to capture how stupid your "argument" is. <--ETA, I'm going to put "argument" in quotes, because it's not even coherent at this point.

IIRC that wasn't political violence. Just violence.

Waaaaaah. People will be able to see and judge more of Trump's criminal activity for themselves. The horror!

Jeebus. The regulations REGULATE water collection and diversion, you clown. The regulations are what stop random companies or individual land owners from farking over their neighbors and farking up entire ecosystems. The regulations are what keeps them from drying or damming rivers and streams, for example. This is not hard to understand. WTF is wrong with you?

Let's try this slower fit the Velcro shoes crowd. 1. You complain regulations restricting water diversion. 2. Then you complain about what you view as harmful case of water diversion. 3. Then you complain that the "asinine" law restricting water diversion should be repealed because it causes damage. And even after I point it out explicitly, you can't seem to understand that you're arguing against yourself.

At the beginning of the post you understand the potential impact of water diversion and the case for regulation. But by the end of the post, you're back to arbitrarily calling the unnamed and undiscussed Oregon law "asinine." Fascinating.

Um, no. There is no "ultra left wing" in US politics. There's hardly a left wing at all.

Setting aside the fact that the the information in clickbait listicles is nearly always wrong, can you truly not think of any reasons why water diversion should be regulated? Seriously?

🤣 There's nothing to "refute." It's a farking Buzzfeed-style listicle of 25 things the poster doesn't understand and is too vapid and incurious to even cursorily investigate.

OMG, there is no better summary of your understanding of issues than citing a listicle. Chef's kiss!

Remarkably, she didn't declare herself the winner. No coup attempt? So old fashioned.

Damn right it is. This idea that there would be peace if only Ukraine lacked the means to defend itself is nonsense and pure Russian propaganda.