Why do right wingers believe they know so much about US politics when you only watch and cite right wing propaganda sites?

[Hodad]

52 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Explain this then:

The state of Oregon owns the rain? Who can they put in jail when rain falls in Todd Lake?

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?

[User]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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?

Hodad is going to hide from the simple question and play these dumb games instead. 

[Nationalist]

21 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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?

As a matter of fact, I can give you a very good example of why water diversion should NOT be allowed.

Currently the Klamath dams in Oregon are planned for demolition. They are because:

1. These dams have all but destroyed the salmon and trout in the river system.

2. California happens to need much more fresh water.

In Canada, nobody can "own" the water. Thus there are many small lakes where a single family owns all the land around them, but if one flies a pontoon plane onto the lake, one can fish and stay all one likes. I happen to know a family in just that position.

That asinine law in Oregon has caused all sorts of damage. It needs to be revoked.

Edited January 8 by Nationalist

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

As a matter of fact, I can give you a very good example of why water diversion should NOT be allowed.

Currently the Klamath dams in Oregon are planned for demolition. They are because:

1. These dams have all but destroyed the salmon and trout in the river system.

2. California happens to need much more fresh water.

In Canada, nobody can "own" the water. Thus there are many small lakes where a single family owns all the land around them, but if one flies a pontoon plane onto the lake, one can fish and stay all one likes. I happen to know a family in just that position.

That asinine law in Oregon has caused all sorts of damage. It needs to be revoked.

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.

[User]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

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.

Come on Hodad, stop hiding. Answer the question. 

[Nationalist]

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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.

Its not a case for diversion at all, Dimwitty. Its a case for no diversion.

Are you fcking stupid? Or just stupid?

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Its not a case for diversion at all, Dimwitty. Its a case for no diversion.

Are you fcking stupid? Or just stupid?

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. 

 

Edited January 8 by Hodad

[Nationalist]

52 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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. 

 

OK so...fcking stupid it is then.

I said the restrictions and regulations are asinine. Damaging. Stupid...like you apparently.

[Hodad]

32 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

OK so...fcking stupid it is then.

I said the restrictions and regulations are asinine. Damaging. Stupid...like you apparently.

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?

 

 

[Five of swords]

20 hours ago, robosmith said:

Regulations are passed to deal with abuses of power and those are the reasons they exist whether you recognize them or not.

It is your lack of recognition, and false claim of "fake news" which is an example of why it is often so easy politically to dismantle the regulations.

RepubliCONS do the dismantling because the regulations interfere with their desire to make an unlimited amount of money. 🤮

Dude..I am a national socialist. I am the last person who would oppose state management of the economy. That was not the subject at hand. What I am mocking is your idea that anyone who identifies as 'left' cares one bit about causes.

 

If you were serious and engaged in politics at all then you would actually seek to solve the problem of monied elites exploiting workers and consumers. Instead you focus on crying whenever Trump makes a mean tweet. You are not serious. You are not engaged in politics. And you do not know or care about cause and effect. As I said...nobody who cares about the left or right directions do.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

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?

 

 

OK so you continue to prove that you're fcking stupid.

The dams they built DID fck up the ecosystem. They were built with government approval, oversight and financing. They regulated the ecosystem to Hell.

[Hodad]

54 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

OK so you continue to prove that you're fcking stupid.

The dams they built DID fck up the ecosystem. They were built with government approval, oversight and financing. They regulated the ecosystem to Hell.

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. 

Edited January 8 by Hodad

[robosmith]

20 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...ok so you're full o' sh1t again.

Nope; you're just ^BANKRUPT AGAIN.

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Explain this then:

The state of Oregon owns the rain? Who can they put in jail when rain falls in Todd Lake?

You're the lDIOT who doesn't understand that natural lakes are not included in the regulation.

Such laws are OBVIOUSLY aimed at man made water retention. Duh

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Five of swords said:

Dude..I am a national socialist. I am the last person who would oppose state management of the economy. That was not the subject at hand. What I am mocking is your idea that anyone who identifies as 'left' cares one bit about causes.

^This OPINION is NOT SERIOUS because it cites NO EVIDENCE. You don't even give a REASON WHY you believe it.

2 hours ago, Five of swords said:

 

If you were serious and engaged in politics at all then you would actually seek to solve the problem of monied elites exploiting workers and consumers. Instead you focus on crying whenever Trump makes a mean tweet. You are not serious. You are not engaged in politics. And you do not know or care about cause and effect. As I said...nobody who cares about the left or right directions do.

I did give an example. Trump eliminating regulations designed to control the monied interests from stomping all over the powerless' rights.

AND those asserting there are NO REASONS for those regulations as part of the plan to demolish them. 

[User]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

I did give an example. Trump eliminating regulations designed to control the monied interests from stomping all over the powerless' rights.

AND those asserting there are NO REASONS for those regulations as part of the plan to demolish them. 

That isn't an example. It is a vague baseless assertion. 

Name a specific regulation that Trump did away with that does what you claim. 

 

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

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. 

Government water policy and regulations are the issue. Nobody just dams up a waterway without government permission and financing.

Your smug bullshit is still just bullshit.

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're the lDIOT who doesn't understand that natural lakes are not included in the regulation.

Such laws are OBVIOUSLY aimed at man made water retention. Duh

Ummm...

https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/programs/WaterRights/Pages/default.aspx

 

[Hodad]

48 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Government water policy and regulations are the issue. Nobody just dams up a waterway without government permission and financing.

Your smug bullshit is still just bullshit.

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.

Edited January 9 by Hodad

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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 would prohibit his doing so. 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.

Uh oh.....  triggered disproven tribal leftie is triggered! 

[Nationalist]

10 hours ago, Hodad said:

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.

It was a pond, you stupid half-wit. A pond on his own property.

I know you try hard to hold up the saggy ass-end of Libbie stupidity but, this has been one for posterity.

[Hodad]

49 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

It was a pond, you stupid half-wit. A pond on his own property.

I know you try hard to hold up the saggy ass-end of Libbie stupidity but, this has been one for posterity.

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. 🙄 

[User]

13 hours ago, Hodad said:

Try picking a position--any position. Jeebus.

Says the coward hiding from me. 

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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. 🙄 

Ur a m0ron...

[Deluge]

On 1/5/2025 at 12:53 PM, DUI_Offender said:

Right wingers use emotion to choose their position,  without analyzing facts. Moderates use reason, and carefully review facts.

Moderates also suffer from TDS. It's why they're often viewed as left-wing wokejobs.