- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/26/26 at 7:54 pm to Veritas
quote:
SFP can't even answer a simple question.
I'm avoiding irrelevancies and attempts to create diversions from the thread topic, is a better way to describe what's happening.
quote:
Don't expect an honest conversation.
Says the guy dishonestly trying to create a digression and ignore the actual topic
Posted on 6/26/26 at 7:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
The question I have asked is at the foundation of why this legislation is bull shite.
So I once again ask, do you want ADUs in your backyard?
I look forward to your straightforward response.
So I once again ask, do you want ADUs in your backyard?
I look forward to your straightforward response.
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:11 pm to Ailsa
Also, if you say f all this I’m moving on out in the county, this zoning just drove up the price of that property cuz a bunch of folks want to move out there now
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:24 pm to Ailsa
I know people complain about local zoning, but this is why it matters.
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:33 pm to Veritas
quote:
The question I have asked is at the foundation of why this legislation is bull shite.
I addressed NIMBY-ism in my initial post.
The OP avoids it. You support it. You've stated your side/position.
The point of this discussion isn't to defend NIMBY-ism, since the OP doesn't even address it (and that's dishonest, as I pointed out).
The legislation is attempting to address local regs that are raising prices and decreasing inventory.
You support decreasing inventory and using government to raise prices. You've stated as much ITT.
This post was edited on 6/26/26 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
So I once again ask, do you want ADUs in your backyard?
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:38 pm to Veritas
And once again, I'll tell you the question isn't relevant to the discussion.
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
I'm asking a direct question, do you want ADUs in your backyard?
It's not that difficult.
Why can't you answer a simple question. What are you afraid of?
It's not that difficult.
Why can't you answer a simple question. What are you afraid of?
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SB 1354: says ADUs can now be forced into every community and HOAs are stripped of the ability to block them (SB 1353 would've crammed duplexes in too but that one died in the House).
How are ADUs not part of this discussion?
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
NIMBY-ism
You introduced this into the discussion.
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:46 pm to Veritas
quote:
You introduced this into the discussion.
The laws combat NIMBY-ism and local regs that promote it
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
I hope you're not a trial lawyer
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:54 pm to Veritas
I am, and have won multiple cases at the appellate level. 
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
You never lose and are never wrong!
It's fricking amazing!
Half a million of perfection!
It's fricking amazing!
Half a million of perfection!
Posted on 6/26/26 at 8:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
Honestly, congrats if that is true. However, if this thread is a case study, I'd be very concerned about having you represent me.
You introduced a talking point and then said it's not relevant to the discussion. If you introduce the point, it is now very relevant and shows an underlying point to the overall discussion. Especially, when it comes from the party that is saying it's not relevant.
If it's not relevant, why did you even bring it into discussion?
You introduced a talking point and then said it's not relevant to the discussion. If you introduce the point, it is now very relevant and shows an underlying point to the overall discussion. Especially, when it comes from the party that is saying it's not relevant.
If it's not relevant, why did you even bring it into discussion?
Posted on 6/26/26 at 9:00 pm to Ailsa
Without reading three pages of posts…is this ties to the housing bill Trump just pocket vetoed?
It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they engineered a way to siphon off more money for their own pockets.
It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they engineered a way to siphon off more money for their own pockets.
Posted on 6/26/26 at 9:06 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Without reading three pages of posts…is this ties to the housing bill Trump just pocket vetoed?
No it's a state law from Idaho
Posted on 6/26/26 at 9:08 pm to Veritas
quote:
However, if this thread is a case study, I'd be very concerned about having you represent me.
Why?
To use a legal metaphor, this thread is discussing the possible prescription of a claim, but you keep asking me if I'd be happy if my case prescribed...or it's discussing a murder case, and instead of discussing the legal or factual aspects of the case, you just want to ask me if I'd like to be murdered.
See how silly that is?
Posted on 6/26/26 at 9:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No it's a state law from Idaho
I get that, but does the bill Congress passed prime the state law for a windfall?
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News