Page 2 of 2

Re: A place I would not want to be caught

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:16 pm
by Moving Sale
The locals ask for help in 2005 and the gropenator and the Chimp both turned them down. Would you care to try again?

Re: A place I would not want to be caught

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:28 pm
by Left Seater
It wasn't the Feds mess to fix. This is on the state water director. If the spillway needed concrete then the state water office should have done it. They sell water around the state, and it should have been funded by those incoming funds.

As for the governor y'all elected him take some responsibility.

Re: A place I would not want to be caught

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:58 pm
by Moving Sale
You are a mess. It is absolutely something that chimp could have greenlit and I didn't vote for the gropenator.

Re: A place I would not want to be caught

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:44 pm
by Left Seater
Of course the Feds could have paid for it. But they rightly didn't. The fix that was clearly needed should have been paid for by CA and the users of said water.

Re: A place I would not want to be caught

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 5:19 pm
by Moving Sale
Maybe but the fact remains that the dumb fucker said no in 2005 has an R next to his name. That's not a liberal hole in the spillway as you imply.

Re: A place I would not want to be caught

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:53 pm
by smackaholic
Note to MS....

The Shrub is two presidents back now. Might as well blame LBJ as he was in office when the place was built. The trouble is, you fukks are too busy building bullet trains to no where and coddling grape pickers...er prospective grape pickers.

And Ahhhhnold has been out for a spell now as well. This belongs to gov. moonbeam and the idiots that voted for him..

Re: A place I would not want to be caught

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:52 pm
by Left Seater
Moving Sale wrote:Maybe but the fact remains that the dumb fucker said no in 2005 has an R next to his name. That's not a liberal hole in the spillway as you imply.
I don't know the party of the state water director in 2005. Regardless, it is on that person. Further I haven't tried to make this a parties issue. It is a California issue and their citizens as users/rate payers of said water behind the dam.