That's up to you, but since I asked about the article can I assume you haven't read it and just assumed it's inaccurate in a knee-jerk reaction based on the title?

[–] Ilovethebomb 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

can I assume

I'm not going to stop you.

[–] Rangelus 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what is the point of going "so biased" and dismissing the article if you haven't read it? If you want to add meaningful discussion about the article, why not point out what's wrong with it, instead of flippantly dismissing it? It makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

[–] Ilovethebomb 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I did actually skim through it, it was pretty light on detail. About what you'd expect from a headline like that.

[–] Rangelus 3 points 1 year ago

I disagree. It specifically outlines the changes National and Act are likely to, or have confirmed they will, bring about regarding water regulations, and how it will remove many protections that are currently in place.

It also explains the "in the shadows" point by pointing out how the indicated changes are buried deep in agricultural documents from the Nats.

Seems like the title, and the article, are as accurate as expected from an Op Ed.

Perhaps it would help if you read the article and argue it's points, rather than jerking that knee?