crowkingblog problems: 1. no link to the actual snopes article, which is this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nbc-vaughn/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/n

crowkingblog problems: 1. no link to the actual snopes article, which is this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nbc-vaughn/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nbc-vaughn/ 2. the link "debunking" that the video was edited on the website is hard to confirm, because it is no longer online, and on archive.org it requires a flash player. But at least in the text version (https://web.archive.org/web/20160807110939/http://www.today.com/id/44056945/ns/today-today_people/t/navy-seals-widow-we-were-blessed-be-together https://web.archive.org/web/20160807110939/http://www.today....), there is the reference to christ. investortimes: I think this is a weird semantic argument. Yes, there are fines that need to be paid by water management companies if they do not reduce the amount of water per capita each person uses, and I think investortimes is correct in saying that the cost will probably be somehow passed on to consumers. But that is still not the same thing as saying how it is illegal. The prices will just go up a lot more, and I imagine some kind of usage based pricing will come into effect to make sure the goals are reached. But calling that illegal is like saying it is illegal to run a mining rig in your home because you will be charged a lot for electricity and a power company might force you to reduce the amount of power you are using. So I believe mostly false is still correct. also inb4 tldr