[BeaverFever]

herbie herbie:

No, read what he said. They're setting a "limit" but its like your Hydro. They'll have to pay more if they go over.

The bill isn’t even doing that it just gives local utility the power to do that if they wish.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

No they’re not saying that. That’s the whole point. You’re distorting their stories then pretending your biased interpretation is what was reported. Nowhere in any of those stories do they use words like “allotment” or “individual quota” or “fine” or “arrested” those are from your own exaggerated spin on the stories now you’re pretending that you’re just repeating their words. Ridiculous that you can’t even see that.

News story: Justin Trudeau says ‘have a good day’
FOG: In other words he just declared himself dictator for life and is telling us what kind of day to have what else could it mean?
Me: Thats not true
FOG: hey I’m just repeating what was reported in the press I guess you’re saying the press is wrong.

So you're saying Trump was right when he said:

It's all fake news.

Or, is it only fake news when you don't agree with it?

The news us real, your boneheaded interpretation of it is what’s fake.

$1:

But, then again I guess my interpretation of "hammer the wallets of excessive users" means something totally different than your interpretation.

It means utilities have been empowered to charge higher rates to excessive users. It means nothing more or kess than that. Anything beyond that is your own imagination. It’s shocking you can’t graduate that.

$1:

The California Gov't may not have come out and used the exact terms allotments and individual quota's but the insinuation is apparent to anyone (like California newspapers) who knows how these institutions work.]/quote]. That’s a baseless claim. I could say Stephen Harpers plot to take over the world is apparent to anyone who knows how super villains work. Empty words, empty argument. And no. ”the California newspapers” didn’t say that, stop pretending as if the consensus of media coverage supports your hysteria, only some articles trying to spin the story for sensation or political agenda did.

$1:

Because, without those two things the possibility of carrying out the nefarious actions of "hammering" anyone would be impossible. Especially if this water bill was only a guideline like you continue to maintain.

For the love of Jesus. You understand “hammering” is just some subjective word that a random reporter chose for his story it’s not the official mandate of the act right? It’s not an actual legal term with some specific meaning? FFS you are one facepalm after another.

Furthermore I’ve asked you now three times if you understand your hydro bill and three times you’ve failed to answer. I’m starting to suspect you maybe don’t pay a hydro bill so maybe can’t grasp the concept. If you use more then a certain amount, the excess gets billed at a higher rate. The point is to make it more expensive to consume more than a certain amount. A sensationalist reporter might decide to call that “hammering their wallet” but that’s meaningless and arbitrary and you might call that “quota”, “allotment” ,”fine” “arrest” whatever else but you’d be wrong.

$1:

But I do like your analogy though because it shows that the cupboard is bare.

The cupboard from which your inane interpretations of mundane aspects of life get exposed will never be bare. The cup runneth over. Remember when you claimed “as a fact” that Trudeau’s passing comment encouraging Canadians to cheer on the Canadian team in the Stanley Cup was some kind of unprecedented dictatorial abuse of power?

What’s funny is not that you offer an extemely biaded worst-case possible interpretation of the facts -Fiddle does that all the time - it's that you honestly believe your interpretation isn’t an interpretation at all but the actual facts you’ve just read.

[BartSimpson]

A good analysis of the two new water laws can be found here:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/31/ ... -new-laws/

$1:

Although he declared an end to California’s historic five-year drought last year, Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed two new laws that will require cities and water districts across the state to set permanent water conservation rules, even in non-drought years.

This means we will have drought-level emergency water restrictions permanently in place.

$1:

Organizations who supported the new laws say it makes sense to reduce demand as the state’s population grows, and allow each local area the flexibility for devising their own plan while California continues to develop new supplies, from recycled water to storm water capture to new reservoirs.

Of course the same cocksucking leftists who say we need water rationing to accommodate the millions more immigrants never once stop and consider that there would not be such a problem if we stopped letting in millions more immigrants when we don't have enough water for them.

A quote from the comments to support my opinion on immigration:

$1:

“I heard somebody say that they we were going to double the population of the State of California by 2050. I don't know what they are going to drink but it's not going to be water."
— Tim Barnett, Marine Research Scientist, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Back to the article...

$1:

Environmentalists like Sierra Club California said the rules didn’t go far enough. Of particular concern was a compromise inserted in the bill that allowed cities and water districts to get 15 percent credit on their water use totals if they produce certain types of recycled water.

“All water should be valued,” said Sara Aminzadeh, executive director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance, which opposed the bills. “With energy we wouldn’t want to offer incentives for the wasteful use of solar or wind energy. Likewise, we want to make sure all water is used efficiently.”

In other words these fucking assholes just took away any incentive for a community to recycle their water because any use of recycled water is considered part of the initial allocation...so why bother? Brilliant move you idiot bastards!

And here's the text of the two bills:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0180AB1668

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20180SB606

And to put aside any bullshit claims to the contrary this law specifically says:

$1:

377. (a) From and after the publication or posting of any ordinance or resolution pursuant to Section 376, a violation of a requirement of a water conservation program adopted pursuant to Section 376 is a misdemeanor. A person convicted under this subdivision shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.

The law is aimed at PEOPLE not water districts!

[Freakinoldguy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

No they’re not saying that. That’s the whole point. You’re distorting their stories then pretending your biased interpretation is what was reported. Nowhere in any of those stories do they use words like “allotment” or “individual quota” or “fine” or “arrested” those are from your own exaggerated spin on the stories now you’re pretending that you’re just repeating their words. Ridiculous that you can’t even see that.

News story: Justin Trudeau says ‘have a good day’
FOG: In other words he just declared himself dictator for life and is telling us what kind of day to have what else could it mean?
Me: Thats not true
FOG: hey I’m just repeating what was reported in the press I guess you’re saying the press is wrong.

So you're saying Trump was right when he said:

It's all fake news.

Or, is it only fake news when you don't agree with it?

The news us real, your boneheaded interpretation of it is what’s fake.

$1:

But, then again I guess my interpretation of "hammer the wallets of excessive users" means something totally different than your interpretation.

It means utilities have been empowered to charge higher rates to excessive users. It means nothing more or kess than that. Anything beyond that is your own imagination. It’s shocking you can’t graduate that.

$1:

The California Gov't may not have come out and used the exact terms allotments and individual quota's but the insinuation is apparent to anyone (like California newspapers) who knows how these institutions work.]/quote]. That’s a baseless claim. I could say Stephen Harpers plot to take over the world is apparent to anyone who knows how super villains work. Empty words, empty argument. And no. ”the California newspapers” didn’t say that, stop pretending as if the consensus of media coverage supports your hysteria, only some articles trying to spin the story for sensation or political agenda did.

$1:

Because, without those two things the possibility of carrying out the nefarious actions of "hammering" anyone would be impossible. Especially if this water bill was only a guideline like you continue to maintain.

For the love of Jesus. You understand “hammering” is just some subjective word that a random reporter chose for his story it’s not the official mandate of the act right? It’s not an actual legal term with some specific meaning? FFS you are one facepalm after another.

Furthermore I’ve asked you now three times if you understand your hydro bill and three times you’ve failed to answer. I’m starting to suspect you maybe don’t pay a hydro bill so maybe can’t grasp the concept. If you use more then a certain amount, the excess gets billed at a higher rate. The point is to make it more expensive to consume more than a certain amount. A sensationalist reporter might decide to call that “hammering their wallet” but that’s meaningless and arbitrary and you might call that “quota”, “allotment” ,”fine” “arrest” whatever else but you’d be wrong.

$1:

But I do like your analogy though because it shows that the cupboard is bare.

The cupboard from which your inane interpretations of mundane aspects of life get exposed will never be bare. The cup runneth over. Remember when you claimed “as a fact” that Trudeau’s passing comment encouraging Canadians to cheer on the Canadian team in the Stanley Cup was some kind of unprecedented dictatorial abuse of power?

What’s funny is not that you offer an extemely biaded worst-case possible interpretation of the facts -Fiddle does that all the time - it's that you honestly believe your interpretation isn’t an interpretation at all but the actual facts you’ve just read.

I guess all those California Newspapers are wrong and you're right. It's becoming more and more apparent that your idea that the concept of the water utility being able to charge up to 10k in fines for people who abuse the system that has a per person quota isn't going to change. Not to worry though, I'm sure that the first person to get fined for exceeding their limit will take succor in you interpretation of the two new laws.

And for the record I fully understand hydro and surprise, surprise my contract with them doesn't have a "limit' on how much electricity each person in the house can use before I get charged for more, it doesn't have a clause that allows Hydro to fine me up to 10k for going over my limit and it doesn't give the Hydro utility the right to shut my power off if I exceed my limit. All I have to do is pay for the extra hydro.

It's a two tiered system with a smart meter that tells them at all times exactly how much I use but doesn't have limits. Although I guess that's must be your best shot because claiming I can't comprehend Hydro as a claim to validate your point of view shows just how much out of touch with reality you really are.

And once again you're twisting facts when you claim that I said Trudeau's idiotic statement telling people to cheer for the Canadian team was an abuse of dictatorial power because in case you can't remember correctly or your version is a little twisted I'll show my posts to you so you can point out your warped fact?

Remember these?

$1:

Well that does it.

Given his latest self serving request, there's no way in hell I'll cheer for the Senators now. Sorry Ottawa.

$1:

I'm not excusing Trump i'm pointing out that your continual haranguing of him and his administration is no better than someone pointing out that Trudeau shouldn't be telling Canadians who to cheer for, especially when he didn't have the decency to do it when we had 4 other Canadian teams in the hunt.

Now I could be mistaken but, could you give me a couple of examples of these PM's who told Canadians who to cheer for during a professional sports playoff since I can't remember anyone of them doing anything more than cheering for their favorite team?

$1:

Nobody's freaking out, I'm just pointing out that it's inappropriate to have the PM pick one Canadian team and then tell everyone to cheer for it without having done it for the other 4 teams. But on the plus side at least he waited till they were eliminated before telling us who to cheer for.

And a big thanks for pointing out that Harper tried to sway the vote and get Lowery picked as an all star by using twitter, a medium that holds sway over vast swaths of the sport watching population. But, for the record that's just as inappropriate as Justin urging us to cheer for the Sen's.

Besides, if we have the politicians telling us how to think and act what will Hollywood celebrities have left to do.

$1:

They're expected to get Canadians to support Canada and not a specific NHL or NBA team. But on the plus side Ottawa has more Canadians on their roster than the Penguins so I suppose that's something.

BTW I'm still waiting for the example of other PM's who told Canadian hockey fans who to cheer for.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A good analysis of the two new water laws can be found here:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/31/ ... -new-laws/

$1:

Although he declared an end to California’s historic five-year drought last year, Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed two new laws that will require cities and water districts across the state to set permanent water conservation rules, even in non-drought years.

This means we will have drought-level emergency water restrictions permanently in place.

No it means you will have water conservation rules. Period. The “drought-level” part is from your imagination. You guys keep inserting terms that aren’t there.

$1:

Of course the same cocksucking leftists who say we need water rationing to accommodate the millions more immigrants never once stop and consider that there would not be such a problem if we stopped letting in millions more immigrants when we don't have enough water for them.

. This whole “immigrants are using up all the water “ bit is ridiculous. How many swimming pools and golf courses do these immigrants own?

$1:

Back to the article...

$1:

Environmentalists like Sierra Club California said the rules didn’t go far enough. Of particular concern was a compromise inserted in the bill that allowed cities and water districts to get 15 percent credit on their water use totals if they produce certain types of recycled water.

“All water should be valued,” said Sara Aminzadeh, executive director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance, which opposed the bills. “With energy we wouldn’t want to offer incentives for the wasteful use of solar or wind energy. Likewise, we want to make sure all water is used efficiently.”

In other words these fucking assholes just took away any incentive for a community to recycle their water because any use of recycled water is considered part of the initial allocation...so why bother? Brilliant move you idiot bastards!

How do you figure? It means A utility that’s averaging 57.5 gallons per user across its system would get a 15% credit for its recycling program and instead be rated as using 50 gallons.

$1:

And here's the text of the two bills:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0180AB1668

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20180SB606

And to put aside any bullshit claims to the contrary this law specifically says:

$1:

377. (a) From and after the publication or posting of any ordinance or resolution pursuant to Section 376, a violation of a requirement of a water conservation program adopted pursuant to Section 376 is a misdemeanor. A person convicted under this subdivision shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.

The law is aimed at PEOPLE not water districts!

The law is aimed at districts. The law doesn’t forbid people from doing anything that’s just a fact. Nowhere does it say you’ve comimited an offence if you’ve used too much water. Nowhere.

Now that said, it empowers the districts to make their own conservation laws and it’s a misdemeanour to violate whatever law that would be. For example a conservation program might forbid you from watering your lawn between 8 am and 8 pm, because thats peak demand time and that water just evaporates and doesn’t even benefit your lawn anyway.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I guess all those California Newspapers are wrong and you're right.

. No. you don’t even understand what the “California Newspapers” say. The newspapers and I are right and you’re wrong.

$1:

It's becoming more and more apparent that your idea that the concept of the water utility being able to charge up to 10k in fines for people who abuse the system that has a per person quota isn't going to change.

It doesn’t have a per person quota. It’s just that simple.

$1:

Not to worry though, I'm sure that the first person to get fined for exceeding their limit will take succor in you interpretation of the two new laws.

Let me spell this out for you: nowhere does the law say “any person exceeding their quota shall be fined”. That means this law doesn’t impose quotas on citizens or punish them fo any behaviour. It’s that fucking simple. We know murder is against the law because the law says it is a crime to comit murder. The law tends to be pretty unmistakable that way. They don’t leave you to assume that murder must be illegal. It’s the law its it’s not an interpretive play where the reader is left to interpret meaning based on their own political bias and (lack of) reading comprehension. The law nowhere says “limit” or “quota” or “allotment”. Tell me how it impised penalties for those things without actually using those words.

Let me chew your food for you some more. The law says:

1) water districts shall develop and implement their own water conservation programs so as to not waste water including fixing leaks in the distribution systems

2) a successful conservation program is one in which total daily gallons consumed in the district divided by total number of consumers in the district equals 55

3) the water district may use tiered pricing to discourage excessive consumption

4) it is a misdemeanour for any person to violate the terms of any conservation bylaws (as it is to violate many other bylaws)

That is all. Anything more than that is in your imagination.

$1:

And for the record I fully understand hydro and surprise, surprise my contract with them doesn't have a "limit' on how much electricity each person in the house can use before I get charged for more, it doesn't have a clause that allows Hydro to fine me up to 10k for going over my limit and it doesn't give the Hydro utility the right to shut my power off if I exceed my limit. All I have to do is pay for the extra hydro.

It's a two tiered system with a smart meter that tells them at all times exactly how much I use but doesn't have limits. Although I guess that's must be your best shot because claiming I can't comprehend Hydro as a claim to validate your point of view shows just how much out of touch with reality you really are.

Oh my lord you’re going to give me an aneurism! That’s my whole goddam point in the first place!!! For the love of god is this whole schtic of yours some kind of practical joke? I want you to just stop and think for one minute about what I said.

OF COURSE your hydro bill doesn’t give you a quota or fine you or cut you off for exceeding it! Neither does this water law!! That’s what I’ve been trying to get through to you! You’re making all that up! I’m telling you this water law would be no different than your hydro bill! It would just allow for multi-tiered pricing just like you have for your hydro. You currently are charged one rate for electricity up to a certain threshold in each billing period, and a higher rate for all electricity use beyond that threshold. There’s no “limit” there and there’s no “limit” in this California water law.

Do. You. Understand???

$1:

And once again you're twisting facts when you claim that I said Trudeau's idiotic statement telling people to cheer for the Canadian team was an abuse of dictatorial power because in case you can't remember correctly or your version is a little twisted I'll show my posts to you so you can point out your warped fact?

Remember these?

$1:

Well that does it.

Given his latest self serving request, there's no way in hell I'll cheer for the Senators now. Sorry Ottawa.

$1:

I'm not excusing Trump i'm pointing out that your continual haranguing of him and his administration is no better than someone pointing out that Trudeau shouldn't be telling Canadians who to cheer for, especially when he didn't have the decency to do it when we had 4 other Canadian teams in the hunt.

Now I could be mistaken but, could you give me a couple of examples of these PM's who told Canadians who to cheer for during a professional sports playoff since I can't remember anyone of them doing anything more than cheering for their favorite team?

$1:

Nobody's freaking out, I'm just pointing out that it's inappropriate to have the PM pick one Canadian team and then tell everyone to cheer for it without having done it for the other 4 teams. But on the plus side at least he waited till they were eliminated before telling us who to cheer for.

And a big thanks for pointing out that Harper tried to sway the vote and get Lowery picked as an all star by using twitter, a medium that holds sway over vast swaths of the sport watching population. But, for the record that's just as inappropriate as Justin urging us to cheer for the Sen's.

Besides, if we have the politicians telling us how to think and act what will Hollywood celebrities have left to do.

$1:

They're expected to get Canadians to support Canada and not a specific NHL or NBA team. But on the plus side Ottawa has more Canadians on their roster than the Penguins so I suppose that's something.

BTW I'm still waiting for the example of other PM's who told Canadian hockey fans who to cheer for.

Yeah you ridiculously overreacted ,right?