• HiTekRedNek
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    The military can go around, they’re not supposed to be on my property anyway. It’s my property, I should be able to do what I want on it.

    Just more government overreach.

    You think that sort of thing is new, or limited to just half of the Uniparty?

    Or do you actually realize it’s not and are simply simping for your chosen side of the same stupid bird?

    Fuck em both, and fuck anyone who wants “their side” to win. I am so sick and tired of having to deal with these kinds of power hungry assholes.

    • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Or do you actually realize it’s not and are simply simping for your chosen side of the same stupid bird?

      Me: Answers questions with facts

      You: Simp!

      Dude, I’ve never even been to the States.

      The military can go around, they’re not supposed to be on my property anyway.

      Also in case you didn’t realise, we’re talking airspace. Those turbines are way high.

      • HiTekRedNek
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        Again, what gives anyone the right to determine what someone else puts on land they own?

        You seem to actively want people to have to obey someone else, and if that’s not sucking authoritarian cock I don’t know what is.

          • HiTekRedNek
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            There are far too many laws already on the books now.

            • BradleyUffner
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              True, but that doesn’t change the fact that laws are what “gives them the right”.

              • HiTekRedNek
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Immoral laws should not exist, and when they do they should not be followed.

                Any laws without an actual victim are immoral laws.

                Therefore any law that says I can’t build something out in the middle of nowhere, on land I own, with no neighbors within a mile of me where no other land owners could conceivably be affected is itself also an immoral law.

        • Zanacross
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I hope you don’t mind when I build a 50 meter tall sun blocker to block your land from getting any sunlight since I should be allowed to build what I want.

          • HiTekRedNek
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            23 hours ago

            Go for it, a nice shaded area would help me immensely. I do, however hope you’ve done a ground analysis, because if it falls on my house you’re building me another. That’s how it works. If it’s no longer on just your property, it becomes my problem too.

            Edit to add: Besides, in cases where there’s clearly been damage to another person and/or their property, that in itself is at the minimum a civil case.

            One could even argue that environmental concerns could also be a civil problem, as one person’s poisonous fumes could easily cross into another person’s property and damage their person or effects.

            All these so called environmental laws do is make it legal for any amount under a set limit. Regardless of any damage to people or property it causes. It’s a legal amount after all!

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          You keep ascribing desires to me when I’ve done nothing more than explain the current situation… I have not stated a single opinion of mine in this thread thus far.

          • HiTekRedNek
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            It all goes back to the fact that you tried to blame it all on Trump and his ilk, while I agree that he shares the blame, you are actually refusing to acknowledge the rest of the situation.

        • AA5B
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          In case your attempt to start arguments is sparked from actual ignorance ….

          federal permitting and leasing for wind projects

          • many wind farms are not on owned property. In particular for offshore wind farms there is no land that can be owned. Many projects are in locations leased from the government
          • if turbines are above above a certain height, it affects airspace used for flying, you don’t own
          • even renewables can be bad for the environment. The trope about killing birds has some truth to it, and environmental review keeps it from happening
          • yes, renewables can affect your neighbors and they deserve some consideration
          • yes, it’s conceivable that a wind farm offshore or near a base or a border can have national security implications

          In a nation of laws, things like this are worth considering. However that is different than using them as cover for personal beliefs

          • HiTekRedNek
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I’m well aware of the justifications used to say a person’s property isn’t actually theirs.

            I just disagree with them all.