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

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Ur a m0ron...

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.

[User]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

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.

Why bother?

You just ran and hid from me when I soundly refuted the nonsense you posted. 

[Nationalist]

On 1/9/2025 at 11:40 AM, 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. 🙄 

OK...I've done some digging and it appears the guy (Harrington) was allowing the ponds to run off back to the stream but...in all fairness I'll have to concede this one to ya.

On 1/9/2025 at 12:07 PM, Hodad said:

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.

No...I won't STFU at all. More often than not, I'm correct and you're a mushy basket case. This time however...

[impartialobserver]

Most folks look for affirmation.. ie cite sources that agree with them. 

[Hodad]

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

OK...I've done some digging and it appears the guy (Harrington) was allowing the ponds to run off back to the stream but...in all fairness I'll have to concede this one to ya.

No...I won't STFU at all. More often than not, I'm correct and you're a mushy basket case. This time however...

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.

 

Edited January 10 by Hodad

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Nah, this is a pretty textbook exchange for us. I do appreciate the retraction though. Good on you.

 

Really? Hey how's that war on carbon going for ya?

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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.

 

Dude you literally look horrible every time you two go at it. And because you have everybody else on ignore you can't see how many of the people are laughing at you.

And yeah, when he makes a mistake he's got the balls to admit it and stand up. Whereas when you make a mistake you just double down on the stupid.