CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,089
- 69,039
- 2,330
How many other posters go with you?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
California Passes Law Limiting Each Person to 50 Gallons of Water per Day
- Thread starter Weatherman2020
- Start date
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
wait, we're racist because we don't want illegals here, yet you agree and are not racist....uh..........No I do not. It's one of the things I admittedly love about the Racist Republicans.Yet you support unlimited illegal immigrationWe are overpopulated. Move and have less children8 minute shower - 17 gallons
1 load of laundry- 40 gallons
The left have a train to nowhere to build, no time for water infrastructure.
New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use
Libs can't be racist. You should know that.
Rexx Taylor
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #143
shouldnt the limit be according to their weight? what about people that weight between 600 and 800 pounds?,,,50 gallons is a drop in the bucket for themHow many other posters go with you?deport me!
Right and that's why we are overpopulated and trying to figure out how to get salt out of ocean water.Sure instead of lowering the population to manageable levels .....We are overpopulated. ...8 minute shower - 17 gallons
1 load of laundry- 40 gallons
The left have a train to nowhere to build, no time for water infrastructure.
New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use
No, we are not.
No one asked you, of all people, to manage anything, loser. Typical democrat attitude.
Just because you have your head buried in the sand doesn't mean shit to me bro.
We do not know if today’s population of seven billion is remotely sustainable, or what the limit is
God I hate this saying "It is not the number of people on the planet that is the issue – but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," What does that mean? So we don't have too many people we just have too many people consuming too much? Well I know one way to solve that. Less people. Are you going to engineer a way to get people to consume less? Good luck with that bro.
The number of "modern human beings" (Homo sapiens) on Earth has been comparatively small until very recently. Just 10,000 years ago there might have been no more than a few million people on the planet. The one billion mark was not passed until the early 1800s; the two billion mark not until the 1920s.
As it stands now, though, the world's population is over 7.3 billion. According to United Nations predictions it could reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, and over 11 billion by 2100.
You think we will be ok with 11 billion? You're an idiot.
You said the population would eventually go down? How's that gonna happen? Well however it is, it'll be a glorious day because as I've said before, we are overpopulated.
Population growth has been so rapid that there is no real precedent we can turn to for clues about the possible consequences. In other words, while the planet might hold over 11 billion people by the end of the century, our current level of knowledge does not allow us to predict whether such a large population is sustainable, simply because it has never happened before.
Satterthwaite says that most of the growth over the next two decades is predicted to be in urban centres in what are currently low and middle-income countries.
One way to be able to handle all these people is to go Green but dumb ass Republicans like you don't want to so here we are.
Lucy Hamilton
Diamond Member
- Oct 30, 2015
- 38,422
- 15,170
- 1,590
- Banned
- #145
8 minute shower - 17 gallons
1 load of laundry- 40 gallons
The left have a train to nowhere to build, no time for water infrastructure.
New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use
This is because of very bad forward planning and not looking into the future. California has a coast on the Pacific Ocean that is approx 1,400 kms which is 900 miles, in the 1970s they should have been constructing Desalination Plants and brought their water in from the Pacific Ocean, if they had done this they would not be in this chronic situation now. Saudi Arabia a desert nation, they are the producer of the most desalinated water in the world, they bring their water in from the Red Sea, I think they have approx 24 Desalination Plants on the coast of the Red Sea.
Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,359
- 1,830
Sure instead of lowering the population to manageable levels we can engineer another solution like taking salt out of the salt water. Stupid humans. ParasitesWe are overpopulated. ...8 minute shower - 17 gallons
1 load of laundry- 40 gallons
The left have a train to nowhere to build, no time for water infrastructure.
New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use
No, we are not.
What’s too many?
Oh, your three word reply was not convincing or compelling. I’m winning
Lowering the population to manageable levels? WHAT THE HOLY FUCK?
Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,359
- 1,830
Right and that's why we are overpopulated and trying to figure out how to get salt out of ocean water.Sure instead of lowering the population to manageable levels .....We are overpopulated. ...8 minute shower - 17 gallons
1 load of laundry- 40 gallons
The left have a train to nowhere to build, no time for water infrastructure.
New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use
No, we are not.
No one asked you, of all people, to manage anything, loser. Typical democrat attitude.
Just because you have your head buried in the sand doesn't mean shit to me bro.
We do not know if today’s population of seven billion is remotely sustainable, or what the limit is
God I hate this saying "It is not the number of people on the planet that is the issue – but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," What does that mean? So we don't have too many people we just have too many people consuming too much? Well I know one way to solve that. Less people. Are you going to engineer a way to get people to consume less? Good luck with that bro.
The number of "modern human beings" (Homo sapiens) on Earth has been comparatively small until very recently. Just 10,000 years ago there might have been no more than a few million people on the planet. The one billion mark was not passed until the early 1800s; the two billion mark not until the 1920s.
As it stands now, though, the world's population is over 7.3 billion. According to United Nations predictions it could reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, and over 11 billion by 2100.
You think we will be ok with 11 billion? You're an idiot.
You said the population would eventually go down? How's that gonna happen? Well however it is, it'll be a glorious day because as I've said before, we are overpopulated.
Population growth has been so rapid that there is no real precedent we can turn to for clues about the possible consequences. In other words, while the planet might hold over 11 billion people by the end of the century, our current level of knowledge does not allow us to predict whether such a large population is sustainable, simply because it has never happened before.
Satterthwaite says that most of the growth over the next two decades is predicted to be in urban centres in what are currently low and middle-income countries.
One way to be able to handle all these people is to go Green but dumb ass Republicans like you don't want to so here we are.
Throughout history, California has experienced many droughts, such as 1841, 1864, 1924, 1928–1935, 1947–1950, 1959–1960, 1976–1977, 2006–2010, and 2012–2017.
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #148
Lack of maintenance of infrastructure is not an argument for denying new infrastructure.That was not what the question. Where do you propose to put these dams? Specifics please. Remember, California has a history of dam failures, 45 in all.There are sites that have been studied and will work...the politicians would rather have the power that comes from the water issue than to fix the problem...it can be done stop cutting the American people so short....Improvise and overcome....Allright there sportcheck, where exactly do you propose building these dams to save water for when they need it?
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
Right and that's why we are overpopulated and trying to figure out how to get salt out of ocean water.Sure instead of lowering the population to manageable levels .....We are overpopulated. ...8 minute shower - 17 gallons
1 load of laundry- 40 gallons
The left have a train to nowhere to build, no time for water infrastructure.
New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use
No, we are not.
No one asked you, of all people, to manage anything, loser. Typical democrat attitude.
Just because you have your head buried in the sand doesn't mean shit to me bro.
We do not know if today’s population of seven billion is remotely sustainable, or what the limit is
God I hate this saying "It is not the number of people on the planet that is the issue – but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," What does that mean? So we don't have too many people we just have too many people consuming too much? Well I know one way to solve that. Less people. Are you going to engineer a way to get people to consume less? Good luck with that bro.
The number of "modern human beings" (Homo sapiens) on Earth has been comparatively small until very recently. Just 10,000 years ago there might have been no more than a few million people on the planet. The one billion mark was not passed until the early 1800s; the two billion mark not until the 1920s.
As it stands now, though, the world's population is over 7.3 billion. According to United Nations predictions it could reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, and over 11 billion by 2100.
You think we will be ok with 11 billion? You're an idiot.
You said the population would eventually go down? How's that gonna happen? Well however it is, it'll be a glorious day because as I've said before, we are overpopulated.
Population growth has been so rapid that there is no real precedent we can turn to for clues about the possible consequences. In other words, while the planet might hold over 11 billion people by the end of the century, our current level of knowledge does not allow us to predict whether such a large population is sustainable, simply because it has never happened before.
Satterthwaite says that most of the growth over the next two decades is predicted to be in urban centres in what are currently low and middle-income countries.
One way to be able to handle all these people is to go Green but dumb ass Republicans like you don't want to so here we are.
Your globalists can't wait to get their killin on. The problem though, is that you'll be a target too. Lol.
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
Sure instead of lowering the population to manageable levels we can engineer another solution like taking salt out of the salt water. Stupid humans. ParasitesWe are overpopulated. ...8 minute shower - 17 gallons
1 load of laundry- 40 gallons
The left have a train to nowhere to build, no time for water infrastructure.
New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use
No, we are not.
What’s too many?
Oh, your three word reply was not convincing or compelling. I’m winning
Lowering the population to manageable levels? WHAT THE HOLY FUCK?
That's the soros globalists dreams. Kill em all.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 129,624
- 24,817
- 2,180
Right and that's why we are overpopulated and trying to figure out how to get salt out of ocean water.Sure instead of lowering the population to manageable levels .....We are overpopulated. ...8 minute shower - 17 gallons
1 load of laundry- 40 gallons
The left have a train to nowhere to build, no time for water infrastructure.
New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use
No, we are not.
No one asked you, of all people, to manage anything, loser. Typical democrat attitude.
Just because you have your head buried in the sand doesn't mean shit to me bro.
We do not know if today’s population of seven billion is remotely sustainable, or what the limit is
God I hate this saying "It is not the number of people on the planet that is the issue – but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," What does that mean? So we don't have too many people we just have too many people consuming too much? Well I know one way to solve that. Less people. Are you going to engineer a way to get people to consume less? Good luck with that bro.
The number of "modern human beings" (Homo sapiens) on Earth has been comparatively small until very recently. Just 10,000 years ago there might have been no more than a few million people on the planet. The one billion mark was not passed until the early 1800s; the two billion mark not until the 1920s.
As it stands now, though, the world's population is over 7.3 billion. According to United Nations predictions it could reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, and over 11 billion by 2100.
You think we will be ok with 11 billion? You're an idiot.
You said the population would eventually go down? How's that gonna happen? Well however it is, it'll be a glorious day because as I've said before, we are overpopulated.
Population growth has been so rapid that there is no real precedent we can turn to for clues about the possible consequences. In other words, while the planet might hold over 11 billion people by the end of the century, our current level of knowledge does not allow us to predict whether such a large population is sustainable, simply because it has never happened before.
Satterthwaite says that most of the growth over the next two decades is predicted to be in urban centres in what are currently low and middle-income countries.
One way to be able to handle all these people is to go Green but dumb ass Republicans like you don't want to so here we are.
We are not overpopulated, and we are not going to be. This has been explained to you before, but you are too stupid and afraid to let go of your false crisis.
whitehall
Diamond Member
How is that going to affect the Beverly Hills swimming pool lifestyle? Will the Hollywood elite be typically exempt from the law?
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
I am all for conservation, but limiting a household to 2 flushes and few quick showers a day is beyond ridiculous. It is derelict. It should cost the democrats every last one of their seats. I just hope those seats don't go to the worthless, do-nothing GOP.I don’t believe desal plants are very efficient. How hard is it to conserve ?
I don’t undering you righties . “I should be able to waste all the water I want ! Screw Big gov! Amerika !!! “
Then the water runs out and you’ll be like “there’s no more water! Big government save meeeeee !”
California has been under the thumb of statists deliberately ignoring or perpetuating the water crisis as a means of gaining more government control. Again, they should all be summarily expelled from office.
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
Thus, the solution is world war.Right and that's why we are overpopulated and trying to figure out how to get salt out of ocean water.Sure instead of lowering the population to manageable levels .....We are overpopulated. ...8 minute shower - 17 gallons
1 load of laundry- 40 gallons
The left have a train to nowhere to build, no time for water infrastructure.
New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use
No, we are not.
No one asked you, of all people, to manage anything, loser. Typical democrat attitude.
Just because you have your head buried in the sand doesn't mean shit to me bro.
We do not know if today’s population of seven billion is remotely sustainable, or what the limit is
God I hate this saying "It is not the number of people on the planet that is the issue – but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," What does that mean? So we don't have too many people we just have too many people consuming too much? Well I know one way to solve that. Less people. Are you going to engineer a way to get people to consume less? Good luck with that bro.
The number of "modern human beings" (Homo sapiens) on Earth has been comparatively small until very recently. Just 10,000 years ago there might have been no more than a few million people on the planet. The one billion mark was not passed until the early 1800s; the two billion mark not until the 1920s.
As it stands now, though, the world's population is over 7.3 billion. According to United Nations predictions it could reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, and over 11 billion by 2100.
You think we will be ok with 11 billion? You're an idiot.
You said the population would eventually go down? How's that gonna happen? Well however it is, it'll be a glorious day because as I've said before, we are overpopulated.
Population growth has been so rapid that there is no real precedent we can turn to for clues about the possible consequences. In other words, while the planet might hold over 11 billion people by the end of the century, our current level of knowledge does not allow us to predict whether such a large population is sustainable, simply because it has never happened before.
Satterthwaite says that most of the growth over the next two decades is predicted to be in urban centres in what are currently low and middle-income countries.
One way to be able to handle all these people is to go Green but dumb ass Republicans like you don't want to so here we are.
No you stupid fools. The rich want the markets flooded with low wage workers.Sure instead of lowering the population to manageable levels we can engineer another solution like taking salt out of the salt water. Stupid humans. ParasitesWe are overpopulated. ...8 minute shower - 17 gallons
1 load of laundry- 40 gallons
The left have a train to nowhere to build, no time for water infrastructure.
New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use
No, we are not.
What’s too many?
Oh, your three word reply was not convincing or compelling. I’m winning
Lowering the population to manageable levels? WHAT THE HOLY FUCK?
That's the soros globalists dreams. Kill em all.
Are you for the poor single women who have four kids and she’s on welfare? So we don’t really need to kill em do we? Those poor women on welfare should only have one mistake not 2-5
No. Anyone in the future on welfare will make one maybe 2 mistakes but after that screw them. They’ll know that and get their tubes tied after the second mistake.Thus, the solution is world war.Right and that's why we are overpopulated and trying to figure out how to get salt out of ocean water.Sure instead of lowering the population to manageable levels .....
No one asked you, of all people, to manage anything, loser. Typical democrat attitude.
Just because you have your head buried in the sand doesn't mean shit to me bro.
We do not know if today’s population of seven billion is remotely sustainable, or what the limit is
God I hate this saying "It is not the number of people on the planet that is the issue – but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," What does that mean? So we don't have too many people we just have too many people consuming too much? Well I know one way to solve that. Less people. Are you going to engineer a way to get people to consume less? Good luck with that bro.
The number of "modern human beings" (Homo sapiens) on Earth has been comparatively small until very recently. Just 10,000 years ago there might have been no more than a few million people on the planet. The one billion mark was not passed until the early 1800s; the two billion mark not until the 1920s.
As it stands now, though, the world's population is over 7.3 billion. According to United Nations predictions it could reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, and over 11 billion by 2100.
You think we will be ok with 11 billion? You're an idiot.
You said the population would eventually go down? How's that gonna happen? Well however it is, it'll be a glorious day because as I've said before, we are overpopulated.
Population growth has been so rapid that there is no real precedent we can turn to for clues about the possible consequences. In other words, while the planet might hold over 11 billion people by the end of the century, our current level of knowledge does not allow us to predict whether such a large population is sustainable, simply because it has never happened before.
Satterthwaite says that most of the growth over the next two decades is predicted to be in urban centres in what are currently low and middle-income countries.
One way to be able to handle all these people is to go Green but dumb ass Republicans like you don't want to so here we are.
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #157
The 21st century under Democrat rule - pit toilets and bathing once a month in a creek or the ocean.
You’ve never explained anything Coach.Right and that's why we are overpopulated and trying to figure out how to get salt out of ocean water.Sure instead of lowering the population to manageable levels .....
No one asked you, of all people, to manage anything, loser. Typical democrat attitude.
Just because you have your head buried in the sand doesn't mean shit to me bro.
We do not know if today’s population of seven billion is remotely sustainable, or what the limit is
God I hate this saying "It is not the number of people on the planet that is the issue – but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," What does that mean? So we don't have too many people we just have too many people consuming too much? Well I know one way to solve that. Less people. Are you going to engineer a way to get people to consume less? Good luck with that bro.
The number of "modern human beings" (Homo sapiens) on Earth has been comparatively small until very recently. Just 10,000 years ago there might have been no more than a few million people on the planet. The one billion mark was not passed until the early 1800s; the two billion mark not until the 1920s.
As it stands now, though, the world's population is over 7.3 billion. According to United Nations predictions it could reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, and over 11 billion by 2100.
You think we will be ok with 11 billion? You're an idiot.
You said the population would eventually go down? How's that gonna happen? Well however it is, it'll be a glorious day because as I've said before, we are overpopulated.
Population growth has been so rapid that there is no real precedent we can turn to for clues about the possible consequences. In other words, while the planet might hold over 11 billion people by the end of the century, our current level of knowledge does not allow us to predict whether such a large population is sustainable, simply because it has never happened before.
Satterthwaite says that most of the growth over the next two decades is predicted to be in urban centres in what are currently low and middle-income countries.
One way to be able to handle all these people is to go Green but dumb ass Republicans like you don't want to so here we are.
We are not overpopulated, and we are not going to be. This has been explained to you before, but you are too stupid and afraid to let go of your false crisis.
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #159
No you stupid fools. The rich want the markets flooded with low wage workers.Sure instead of lowering the population to manageable levels we can engineer another solution like taking salt out of the salt water. Stupid humans. Parasites
What’s too many?
Oh, your three word reply was not convincing or compelling. I’m winning
Lowering the population to manageable levels? WHAT THE HOLY FUCK?
That's the soros globalists dreams. Kill em all.
Are you for the poor single women who have four kids and she’s on welfare? So we don’t really need to kill em do we? Those poor women on welfare should only have one mistake not 2-5
The rich want the markets flooded with low wage workers.
That's why Democrats love open borders.
Republicans will ruin the water. Corporations aren’t pro environment. They pollute. Americans not smartThe 21st century under Democrat rule - pit toilets and bathing once a month in a creek or the ocean.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 170
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 154
- Replies
- 40
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 63
- Views
- 865
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 56
- Views
- 267
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 298
- Replies
- 135
- Views
- 828
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8371
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-