Posted on 05/15/2014 4:06:24 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Sen. Dianne Feinstein will try to fast-track farm-friendly drought legislation through the Senate over the objections of environmentalists, who the senator complains have done nothing to help her adapt California's aging water system to deal with climate change and the addition of millions of thirsty residents.
Feinstein's bill alarms both environmentalists and Bay Area House Democrats, who fear she would tilt California water policy away from the state's devastated salmon runs.
Asked about opposition from environmental groups, Feinstein said, "Well, that's really too bad, isn't it? I would be very happy to know what they propose. ... I have not had a single constructive view from environmentalists of how to provide water when there is no snowpack."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“Diane, I have a suggestion. Let the farmers use the water from Hetch Hetchy for the crops or even better, tear it down. If it gets torn down I will stand back to watch what SF will do without any water. That could produce a reality check.”
Nice to see that your meds are not working today!
You obviously haven’t been around here long enough to recognize sarcasm when you see it.
I hope it gets to PeLousey’s vineyards soon.
“You obviously haven’t been around here long enough to recognize sarcasm when you see it.”
Well, it does come in a number of sizes and shapes you will have to admit. But as you know, the enviroidiots here would seriously like to remove the Hetch Hechy Dam, and a number of the North Coast rivers dams (the fish and rodents uber alles crowd)!
But that is the irony of the whole situation. They want to “protect” the environment as long as it doesn’t apply to them. If they were serious about applying their ideas equally they would get their reality check pretty quick. Most tree huggers think that they are morally superior to the rest of us, therefore the rules do not apply to them. They should be able to see Yosemite, and other areas of this state, but not the rest of us.
My liberal brother has lectured me more than once about how I should act and be, only to prove himself to be a huge hypocrite.
“But that is the irony of the whole situation. They want to “protect” the environment as long as it doesn’t apply to them. If they were serious about applying their ideas equally they would get their reality check pretty quick. Most tree huggers think that they are morally superior to the rest of us, therefore the rules do not apply to them. They should be able to see Yosemite, and other areas of this state, but not the rest of us.”
Yeah, it’s the old “everyone wants to fly, but nobody wants to live next to the airport.”
P.J. O’Rourke said it best recently:
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”
Does that fit anyone you know?
It has been a tough road, but he is finally starting to come over to the dark side.
As for me, I cannot wait until I can leave this moral sewer. Hubby and I are packing up and leaving for Alaska ASAP.
IOW, expect her to be arrested for gun-running, or for one of her actual corruptions.
Thanks Oldeconomybuyer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.