Page 136 of 228 FirstFirst ... 3686126134135136137138146186 ... LastLast
Results 1,351 to 1,360 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #1351
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Though - what IS California's past political choices on forest fire management? Well, not to do burns, not to log, and not to go heavy on fire brakes. Not to do much management at all. Oh yeah, to blame Global Warming, like Governor Brownstone just did. These or the policies they do enact, and have for decades. That is why it is getting worse.
    California's past politics on fire management has been that the state owns 3% of fire prone land. The rest is reservations, privately owned or federally owned. Why did it take so long to do the feds' job for them? I don't know, and I don't think you do either.
    Last edited by PBSteve; 11-14-2018 at 03:36 PM.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  2. #1352
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    That was a far better reply than normal Gordon - thanks! Good to see you are making an effort. I agree with the bolded area, he is doing exactly that as I see it.

    Though - what IS California's past political choices on forest fire management? Well, not to do burns, not to log, and not to go heavy on fire brakes. Not to do much management at all. Oh yeah, to blame Global Warming, like Governor Brownstone just did. These or the policies they do enact, and have for decades. That is why it is getting worse.

    Trump's doesn't actually set forest fire management policy. He could I guess. But to think HE has some magic Trump Golden Fire Management Policy he is trying to sell is pure misdirection. I mean, even you say it is non-existent. All agree to that. Did you have a point there? Not sure if you do. Other states do have plans, the BLM does, and they have had these in place for decades. What they do differently works better than what California is doing.

    Or do you think California is doing it right? That their internal politics made for the right choices here? This is how the rest of the US should follow, not logging, not doing controlled burns?

    Which is the best in your opinion Gordon? California or everybody else? I mean, Trump. California or Trump? Because he really seems to be the center of your universe.

    You know what California is doing though? In fact, I posted a report FROM California TO California about what they should be doing, and were not. Why? Their political policies had been wrong, and they needed to address them.

    Yes, California Politics on fire management failed. They know it. Steve showed the link that they knew it and they are trying to fix it now, finally.

    So the only one who doesn't seem to know it, between Trump, California, Steve, you and I, is you Gordon.

    But nevermind, blame Trump. Or better yet, a tweet.

    Trump is your Troll Gordon. He fucking owns you.
    blame the guy who tweeted the stupid thing for tweeting the stupid thing.


    yup. thats exactly what i did. oh darn. im such a liberal meanie.

    if trump didn't say fucking stupid things, we wouldn't have talk about the stupid shit he says.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-14-2018 at 03:39 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #1353
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    On an unrelated note, I couldn't have made a video this good to capture what Gordon and I are talking about. He even invokes the border.

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...08009612563863
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  4. #1354
    as frequently detailed, the land is federal, not state, so trump can change the management any time he wants to, and its not California states politics or issue.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  5. #1355
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    On an unrelated note, I couldn't have made a video this good to capture what Gordon and I are talking about. He even invokes the border.

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...08009612563863
    takes pride in literal treason. its a monument to ACTUAL TREASON. never mind slavery and it be a monument to notion of one human owning another human. the confederacy was an act of TREASON. and he's proud of it.


    its amazing we took these humans seriously about anything ever. you know what patriotic americans do? not build monuments to treason. thats what they do.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-14-2018 at 03:46 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #1356
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Sorry - no facebook at work or I would comment.

    He didn't tweet a stupid thing - what he said was spot on. EDIT: This time, specifically. That man tweets a LOT of stupid. This just happened to be correct, even if it hurt your Fwheelings.

    May 23rd, 1017:

    SACRAMENTO ? Governor Jerry Brown?s $180 billion May revision to the 2017-2018 budget proposes cutting millions of dollars from funding to fight fires and support local tree mortality projects in California?s forestlands.

    The Governor?s updated budget, released on Thursday, May 11, cuts funding for the Office of Emergency Services from $52.7 million to $8.5 million, with only $2 million allocated ?for local agencies to remove dead or dying trees.?

    ?This is less than four percent of the funds allotted in January of this year,? says Assemblyman and Budget Committee Member Jim Patterson of California?s 23rd District in a statement released today.

    ?Cal Fire would also see a huge cut if the Governor?s budget is approved. Funding for the extended fire season, increased firefighter surge capacity, Conservation Corps fire suppression crews, and aerial assets is set to be slashed by nearly half ? from $91 million to $41.7 million.

    ?The drought may be officially over, but the tree mortality crisis is not. Trees are still dying and the need to fund local efforts is greater than ever. Now is not the time to slash and burn these vital programs.?

    Richard Bagley, President of the 168 Fire Safe Council believes the drastic cuts threaten to undermine the ongoing work within mountain communities statewide.
    In California?s Sierra Nevada in recent years, megafires have burned at much greater severity than those forests ever saw in the past, killing trees across large landscapes and unleashing enormous quantities of carbon. The remedy, Berleman and many other scientists say, is to reintroduce fire to the landscape by allowing more natural fires to burn and setting controlled burns when weather conditions minimize the risk of a catastrophic blaze.

    ?We have 100 years of fire suppression that has led to this huge accumulation of fuel loads, just dead and downed debris from trees and plant material in our forests, and in our woodlands,? says Berleman. ?As a result of that, our forests and woodlands are not healthy, and we?re getting more catastrophic fire behavior than we would otherwise.?
    From the conservative mother jones - https://www.motherjones.com/environm...-is-in-flames/

    And this: https://www.kqed.org/science/1927354...OSSvZZl4TGRwFs

    That shows a part of the problem is the controlled burns are not allowed due to air quality issues, and limited days they can burn due to air quality policies. That only California have in place.

    "We have to protect public health; that's our mandate,? says Dar Mims, a meteorologist with the California Air Resources Board. ?But we also recognize that we need burning in the forest, and a lot of those trade-offs have to happen in real time because the decisions have to be made?do we want to potentially impact the air basin, or do we want to burn.?

    Air regulators and fire officials say that to promote prescribed burns will require better public education about their relative hazards. Last year, a groundbreaking study concluded that wildfire smoke contains three times as much pollution as smoke from prescribed fires.
    In a side find:

    https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publicatio...usda_ah499.pdf

    The "Fuel-Break Research? and De?monstration
    Program," organized in 1957, was designed to expand
    construction of wide breaks in southern
    California, to gradually incorporate type conversion
    as a means of reducing maintenance problems, and
    to develop and improve techniques of vegetation
    management on fuelbreaks. This program was later
    extended to all California wildlands.
    Availability of labor provided by correctional
    facilities of the State and some counties stimulated
    fuelbreak construction during ~he 1950's and early
    1960's. After 1965, less inmate labor was available
    and less money was provided through regular appropriations.
    Consequently, the rate of new. fuelbreak
    construction declined markedly.
    The California Division of Forestry reported a
    total of 1,353 miles of fuelbreak being maintained in
    December 1970 (personal communication 1971). Of
    this; 39 percent was over 300 feet wide, 41 percent
    was 200 to 300 feet, and 20 percent 100 to 200 feet.
    Fuelbreaks on National Forest land are more difficult
    to estimate. About 1,400 miles have been
    cleared (personal communication, Oliver L. Holmes,
    1972), but for lack ~f funding, ?much of this mileage
    has not been fully established and maintained. Also,
    a considerable amount of it was constructed
    cooperatively by .the California Division of Forestry
    and is included in the 1,353 miles reported as main.:
    tained. We may assume, however, that about 500
    miles of maintained? fuelbreak on National Forest
    lands were not included. About one-third of this is
    less than 200 feet wide.
    It is reasonable to say, then, that in 1972 there
    were some 1,850 miles of fuelbreak wider than 100
    feet in C.alifornia.
    Basically, they stopped doing this also.

    All of these are policies and practices that were discontinued or not put into play because of California specific politics.

    You are mad because he made a tweet pointing that out - and call him and the tweet stupid.

    The real stupid is the policies over decades that resulted in this. You can't seem to accept this as some sort of troll, or otherwise. But in this you are wrong. Even Mother Jones calls ya wrong bud. But as shown, again - the problem with burns have to do with California specific regulations that you feel Trump should just over write with his small orange hands.

    Is that what you really want him to do? You have said this about quite a few issues.

    I mean, you call the guy stupid, say you hate him, etc. Then turn around in your argument and say 'Trump can just fix this if he wants to' - which means you just want Trump to go around fixing things however he feels on it, no matter what law he breaks. All the while blaming him for a problem that he didn't cause, and interestingly enough, in both of the recent cases these happened or were caused under direct Progressive administrations.

    Dude. Do you even see what you are saying?

    "This is bad! Trump is bad because of this!"
    "It is happening because of [insert liberal policy]."
    [quotes entire post, instead of just the relevant information] "Trump can fix it by being a dictator and breaking laws because President!"
    "Uh, don't you hate him? Why the fuck would you want him break laws when he feels like it?"
    "You are stupid and a liar! Bad tweet bad!"

    Repeat on the next topic.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-14-2018 at 05:28 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  7. #1357
    and then you try to defend it.

    see and again, thats where im faced to either conclude you are lying on a purpose. or a moron.

    do you want to run around this one for 10 pages like the whole "trump did the exact same thing at the boarder as obama" claim? until you have to conclude that indeed, trump changed the methods of enforcement?

    lets look at this tweet:

    There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!
    First sentence: There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor.

    flat out and completely and utterly false in every way. im not exaggerating. and you even agree in your posts that there are plenty of other reasons why these fires are as deadly and costly as they are, and its not JUST management. i mean we could go with the experts, and trump administration officials, who have concluded that climate change is a major reason, but then we'd have to go back to looking at ruler-flat lines and you claiming they mean the TSI is increasing.

    its still not increasing.

    second sentence: Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests.

    another total and complete lie. #1, these arn't forest fires. #2 that means mismanagement of the forests isnt the reason.

    third sentence: Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!

    another totally factless statement. trump has the power to change the management on federal properties, right now, with only a signature. so if he wants a change, he can have it. #2 fed payments of what to whom? his own land management departments? to California for other things? California pays the feds to manage the land.



    there literally, isn't a factual statement at any point in the presidents tweet. none. this was debunked days ago, and posted here, and your continue to puke up crap to defend it that has long been dealt with. eventually you will run out of places to hide, probably another 10 pages, and take your ball and leave (like our boarder conversation).
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-14-2018 at 05:42 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #1358
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    While we are at it, Captain Eviiiiiil did this:

    At a White House event, Trump threw his weight behind the FIRST STEP Act, a bill that includes major reforms to the federal prison system, as well as four relatively modest provisions that would reduce some of the harshest mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the U.S. Code.

    "I'm thrilled to announce my support for this bipartisan bill that will make our communities safer and give second chances," Trump said. "We're all better off when former inmates can reenter society as law-abiding, productive citizens."

    The House passed the FIRST STEP Act in May by a wide, bipartisan margin. The House version of the bill mainly addresses prison reforms and improves reentry programs and job training for federal inmates. Among other things, it would also ban the shackling of pregnant inmates, increase the amount of "good time" inmates can earn toward shortening their sentences, and expand the Bureau of Prisons' compassionate release program for terminally ill inmates.

    On Monday, the draft text of the long-awaited Senate version of the FIRST STEP Act leaked. The Senate version will include several provisions that were originally part of a bipartisan sentencing reform bill hammered out between Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R*Iowa) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D*Ill.). Those provisions would eliminate mandatory life sentences for drug offenses under a federal "three strikes" law, reduce the "stacking" of firearm penalties for certain crimes (like the kind that led to a 55-year sentence for Weldon Angelos), expand the so-called "safety valve" to give judges more discretion in sentencing, and retroactively apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010's penalty reductions to crack-cocaine offenders sentenced before the law was passed.
    So, good or bad?
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  9. #1359
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    While we are at it, Captain Eviiiiiil did this:



    So, good or bad?
    so trump did nothing that any other president wouldn't have done.

    k.

    the real work here was getting congress to agree to some common sense and basic reforms. trump did essentially nothing. which, cuddos on him, he is such a cartoonishly silly villain that he thinks asbestos is a good thing, so some pretty basic and common sense reforms to our judicial system is nothing to take for granted from the idiot.


    dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-14-2018 at 05:43 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #1360
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    trump changed the methods of enforcement?
    He didn't change the method. He changed the rate. The method was exactly the same as previous administrations. They were bound by the same laws, the Flores Act. These were put in place by congress. Changing them failed in 2016 under Obama, in the court of California.

    He has done what he legally can until the court reassess Flores.

    You don't like that fact, so you pussy foot around it like you are trying to make a point. The point is you are wrong in your assessment and you do a piss poor job carrying water for your tribe.

    these arn't forest fires
    The semantics argument we have been over. You lost.

    mismanagement of the forests isnt the reason.
    Wow, double down on semantics.

    That is all you have to hold onto. Whither a bush fire is or isn't a forest fire. Your entire point, as you repeated here, is Trump use Forest Fire instead of Brush fire, when everyone knows he is talking about the same thing. They all are. California, the federal government, Mother Jones. Friggen mother jones.

    You lost this one Gordon.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •