# Our government in action



## Thorim (Jan 19, 2015)

There was an earlier thread I believe that talked about the e.p.a. and its over reach. Came across this today Frustrating to say the least.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/%E2%80%98regulatory-war%E2%80%99-fought-over-a-wyoming-family%E2%80%99s-pond/ar-AAetO4r?li=AAa0dzB


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

Maybe there should be a new coin...It should feature no reverse side (tails) and two obverse (heads) sides...it could be two-faced like most of the ruling class. Get rid of the IN GOD WE TRUST to make room for REGULATING CITIZENS INTO CRIMINALS SINCE xxxx.

The encouraging part of the story was the fact that someone threw out their anchor and fought. ....The only problem is: they are petitioning a federal judge to rule on a federal regulatory agency in which the federal gov't has no other jurisdiction than self-proclaimed.

Thanks for the read, I can skip another dose of low blood pressure meds

73, Mark


----------



## Grateful11 (Apr 5, 2009)

On the subject of this here pond this man built. I grew up on a place that had about an 1 1/2 acre pond, it was spring and storm runoff fed. Well you when a pond is full the overflow has to go somewhere, my Dad's pond had a 4" pipe on the end that was about 16' deep and unless there was a bad drought there was always a small stream of water coming out the overflow.

What I'm trying to say is unless the guy's using more water than is going into the pond the water still has to be flowing through and back into the creek so I don't see what the problem is.

Let me tell you how dumb some people are these days. There's a wet weather creek here on the farm that during average weather it'll have a small stream of water flowing through it and it goes across a couple pieces of property on the other side of the road and into a decent size pond down the road. Well the fire dept. has an agreement with the pond owner that they get water from the pond for firefighting. Well some years ago we had pretty bad drought and the pond wasn't filling back up so a couple a people came out and traced the creek onto the farm and wanted to know why it wasn't flowing. My wife explained to them that it was dry at the time and it doesn't flow when it gets that dry. She took them to the head waters and it wasn't flowing and they asked if it would start flowing again and she had to explain to them again that it was a wet weather creek and that yes when we start to get decent rainfall it would start flowing again. She said they still didn't seem to understand what she was trying to tell them.


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

With this story I could easily see where the state of Wyoming might have issues with this guys small pond, but apparently he did all he needed to satisfy any Wyoming water laws. The EPA is just sticking their nose into where it doesn't belong. So if the guy had some beavers building him up a nice pond on his property would the EPA fine the beavers?


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

glasswrongsize said:


> Maybe there should be a new coin...It should feature no reverse side (tails) and two obverse (heads) sides...it could be two-faced like most of the ruling class. Get rid of the IN GOD WE TRUST to make room for REGULATING CITIZENS INTO CRIMINALS SINCE xxxx.
> 
> The encouraging part of the story was the fact that someone threw out their anchor and fought. ....The only problem is: they are petitioning a federal judge to rule on a federal regulatory agency in which the federal gov't has no other jurisdiction than self-proclaimed.
> 
> ...


Or you could have a coin with the presidents face on the heads side and an aborted late term fetus on the other side.
Don't laugh, our president asked "God to bless planned parenthood". 
Watch here:





Why would God bless a facility that ends the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings, many capable of living outside the womb? 
Would God really "bless" such a practice? 
Our president seems to think so.....


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

jd3430, maybe you are looking at the current abortion situation with a "unenlightened" eye? I am personally waiting on "x-late term" abortions to become legal...say a range between the 72nd and 320th trimester or so... That would legally place some "fetuses" that have enacted the current abortion laws squarely in the "sweet spot" to be recipients of the actions that they think are good enough for innocent babies. And besides, my ole Dillon has had it too easy since I haven't been prairie dog huntin' or shooting competition in a year or two.

Dominus Vobiscum, jd3430

73, Mark


----------

