Can we talk about this? Newsom and Karen Bass are getting absolutely destroyed right now.
These fires have exemplified the absolute epic failure that this type of governance has been. These people literally voted for these politicians, and they didn't care when it was other people getting screwed, but now their homes have all burned down... particularly the very wealthy in the area... and what now?
I've never really watched Adam Corolla... but he absolutely nailed it here:
I have serious gripes with how the CA government is run, but this is a surprising take to me. CA has been investing way more in fire prevention recently...like 2-3x what it was a few years ago. It's definitely too-little-too-late, but somehow I don't think "they should've spent more on environmental regulation and management" is the heart of the criticism here. The regulations Corolla is complaining about are local, not statewide. I'll agree completely that the city of LA is a failure of management propped up by disproportionate pockets of wealth, and that the mayor who cut fire protection ought to be run out of town. On top of that it's a city largely populated by douchebags. I don't know what that has to do with CA's fire response, though. Orange County is just as susceptible to burning and it's a conservative area.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-10-2025).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: On top of that it's a city largely populated by douchebags. I don't know what that has to do with CA's fire response, though. Orange County is just as susceptible to burning and it's a conservative area.
The douchebags voted in the inept leadership. Much of the State is infected.
I have serious gripes with how the CA government is run, but this is a surprising take to me. CA has been investing way more in fire prevention recently...like 2-3x what it was a few years ago. It's definitely too-little-too-late, but somehow I don't think "they should've spent more on environmental regulation and management" is the heart of the criticism here. The regulations Corolla is complaining about are local, not statewide. I'll agree completely that the city of LA is a failure of management propped up by disproportionate pockets of wealth, and that the mayor who cut fire protection ought to be run out of town. On top of that it's a city largely populated by douchebags. I don't know what that has to do with CA's fire response, though. Orange County is just as susceptible to burning and it's a conservative area.
Unless I'm mistaken, State Government promoted and authorized the destruction of four existing damns up north that supplied water to LA. The state also hasn't authorized or built any water sheds/reservoirs in the last eight to ten years to replace those water sources up north. Putting the cart before the horse doesn't always work out so well. This assumes that was the possible plan. I honestly can't imagine how or why the leadership of this state did these things in addition to running several insurance companies out of the state. The 6 Ps definitely apply here IMO. Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
Environmental issues are important but, one needs to consider what could happen if the 6 Ps aren't applied.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-10-2025).]
Originally posted by blackrams: Unless I'm mistaken, State Government promoted and authorized the destruction of four existing damns up north that supplied water to LA. The state also hasn't authorized or built any water sheds/reservoirs in the last eight to ten years to replace those water sources up north. Putting the cart before the horse doesn't always work out so well. This assumes that was the possible plan. I honestly can't imagine how or why the leadership of this state did these things in addition to running several insurance companies out of the state. The 6 Ps definitely apply here IMO. Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
Environmental issues are important but, one needs to consider what could happen if the 6 Ps aren't applied.
Rams
You are mistaken. The dam removals I think you are referring to (and the only ones that make sense) were on the Klamath, which supplies approximately 0 gallons of LA's water. LA has near-supreme water rights in CA, and the cities/communities on the rivers and lakes would go dry before they did. They litigated and legislated to make damn sure. LA's water comes from the LA aqueduct, the Colorado aqueduct, and the State Water Project, none of which were impacted by the dam removals on the Klamath. There are also multiple water modernization projects in LA, right now, including a new dam being installed in Perris.
CA is absolutely dumb about it's water...but you chose the one area that CA is dumb in favor OF when it comes to water. William Mullholand was a mobster.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-10-2025).]
You are mistaken. The dam removals I think you are referring to (and the only ones that make sense) were on the Klamath, which supplies approximately 0 gallons of LA's water. LA has near-supreme water rights in CA, and the cities/communities on the rivers and lakes would go dry before they did. They litigated and legislated to make damn sure. LA's water comes from the LA aqueduct, the Colorado aqueduct, and the State Water Project, none of which were impacted by the dam removals on the Klamath. There are also multiple water modernization projects in LA, right now, including a new dam being installed in Perris.
CA is absolutely dumb about it's water...but you chose the one area that CA is dumb in favor OF when it comes to water. William Mullholand was a mobster.
Will take you word on this. In this case, I really only know what's been reported. Obviously, one can't believe everything.
But, based on the end result of little or no water for fire crews, it's painfully obvious the 6 Ps were not applied.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-10-2025).]
Those are caused by LA's garbage infrastructure. LA is a poorly run city.
Edit: "We didn't think about wild fires!" is the best part of the article. Gee, if only you had some warning.
Sounds about right. In this case, Poor Planning Precludes Potential Problems. Obviously, not having the capability to fight a forest fire next to a city wasn't a consideration. Someone should be held responsible this.
I keep thinking about the resistance to using ocean water versus fresh water. I'm simply amazed that environmental concerns took priority over saving homes and lives. Am I to believe that the chemicals the aviation assets are bombing the fire with are environmentally friendly?
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-11-2025).]
Originally posted by blackrams: I keep thinking about the resistance to using ocean water versus fresh water. I'm simply amazed that environmental concerns took priority over saving homes and lives. Am I to believe that the chemicals the aviation assets are bombing the fire with are environmentally friendly?
Sorry, that's not a valid statement. That's propaganda.
The "equipment" they could be using, are helicopters with water buckets, which gets used all the time to fight fires. You don't dump it on a house, but you dump it in an area of the forest where the fire is reaching a neighborhood, or where you can contain and STOP the fire from spreading further. Second, they aren't farming in the forest... and third... when it DOES finally rain, it will wash away all of that salt, unless you continue to dump water in the same area 100s of times. The amount of salt will largely be negligible for benefit of saving entire neighborhoods and people's homes. This is literally common sense. This is more ultra-liberal radicalism that evades common sense.
EDIT: Forgot to add... these buckets can be washed off literally in the days following, and it won't destroy them. I'm not saying to fill pumper trucks with saltwater... let's use common sense here.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-11-2025).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Sorry, that's not a valid statement. That's propaganda.
The "equipment" they could be using, are helicopters with water buckets, which gets used all the time to fight fires. You don't dump it on a house, but you dump it in an area of the forest where the fire is reaching a neighborhood, or where you can contain and STOP the fire from spreading further. Second, they aren't farming in the forest... and third... when it DOES finally rain, it will wash away all of that salt, unless you continue to dump water in the same area 100s of times. The amount of salt will largely be negligible for benefit of saving entire neighborhoods and people's homes. This is literally common sense. This is more ultra-liberal radicalism that evades common sense.
EDIT: Forgot to add... these buckets can be washed off literally in the days following, and it won't destroy them. I'm not saying to fill pumper trucks with saltwater... let's use common sense here.
At this point, you kind of wonder whether the citizens of Los Angeles want Mayor Karen Bass back in Ghana.
As you may recall, the prominent California Democrat -- former head of the Congressional Black Caucus during her time in the House of Representatives and a potential veep pick for Joe Biden in 2020 before her fondness for Fidel Castro and the "Church" of Scientology derailed her -- was over in the African nation for the inauguration of a new president when the devastating California wildfires that have killed at least 11 as of Saturday morning broke out.
Wonderful. As it turns out, however, she actually seems more useful to her city when she's either silent or over in another country.
According to the New York Post, Bass refused help from the New York Fire Department -- even though the city was willing to pay for airfare to bring firefighters out to Los Angeles. This comes as California Gov. Gavin Newsom is soliciting help from Mexico (por supuesto) to fight the blazes.
This was her reaction when she returned to the United States on Wednesday: “Have you absolutely nothing to say to the citizens today?” Blevins asked.
She said nothing.
According to the New York Post, Bass refused help from the New York Fire Department -- even though the city was willing to pay for airfare to bring firefighters out to Los Angeles. This comes as California Gov. Gavin Newsom is soliciting help from Mexico (por supuesto) to fight the blazes.
FDNY Commissioner Robert Tucker reportedly made the offer during the week, sources said Friday, with JetBlue volunteering to allow the firefighters free flights to California.
Mayor Bass' office denied the report, however.
“This is false, we have never rejected resources — LA welcomes any and all help to fight fires," said Zach Seidl, Los Angeles' deputy mayor of communications.
Meanwhile, also on Friday, Newsom thanked Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum for sending their firefighters to fight the Eaton fire.
"California is deeply grateful for President @ClaudiaShein's support as we work to suppress the Los Angeles wildfires," he wrote.
"Our partnership and shared commitment to helping communities in need is greatly valued."
In other words, while Karen Bass is turning down firefighter help, Gavin Newsom is actively importing it from Mexico. When the optics favor Capt. Hair Gel, you really do need to take a step back and evaluate your leadership ability.
It's worth noting, as the Post did, that there might be reasons why Bass thought the FDNY members wouldn't be a great fit, although they don't really compute. One of them is that this is a wildfire, something that's different from most of the training that New York City's bravest receive.
That being said, firefighters in California are stretched so thin that virtually anyone can help, and they could spell other Los Angeles Fire Department members in fighting fires around urban areas, leaving those closer to home to battle fires that frequently happen on their own terrain.
Moreover, as she faces veritable mutiny at home -- her own fire chief went on TV to savage Bass for budget shortfalls on Friday -- it's a profoundly bad look for the mayor of the second biggest city in the United States to turn down an offer of assistance from the biggest city, which is what one guesses is the reason behind the denials.
Never fear, though: California Democrats have made sure the Mexican fire brigades are coming! At this point, you have to wonder whether Karen Bass is actively trying to make a farce of her own leadership for some unknown purpose. From the outside, it certainly looks that way.
Hmm............. This might be a CYA situation.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-12-2025).]
You seem to be citing...yourself. Again. That right?
Respectfully, New Dustin... you have the opinion that government can do no wrong. You take the default assumption that anything that comes out of government is 100% fact and should not be questioned. So much in fact that you completely avoid even a modicum of common sense, and just inherently believe what you're told... forgetting entirely that government is made up of people who are inherently trying to protect themselves and their personal goals and opinions. You have to Occam's Razor everything... including government speak. You need to think... ok... how bad can a "bucket" get destroyed by using it to capture sea water? Obviously... the common sense is that it literally does nothing.
You obviously see above (thanks Randye) that they're now finally using them to combat the fire... which they should have done from the beginning. This even goes against their own statements. What you view as fact, is a government spokesperson spreading propaganda to protect their political and re-election campaign.
EDIT: I just clicked your link... ??? it literally says what I've been saying:
Yes, saltwater can be used to extinguish wildfires
"Ocean water can be used in extreme cases to fight wildfires, but freshwater is preferred due to equipment corrosion, soil damage, and logistical challenges."
Sigh... come on man, duh. What was the point of that link?
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-12-2025).]
"Moreover, as she faces veritable mutiny at home -- her own fire chief went on TV to savage Bass for budget shortfalls on Friday -- it's a profoundly bad look for the mayor of the second biggest city in the United States to turn down an offer of assistance from the biggest city, which is what one guesses is the reason behind the denials."
I think I would enjoy watching that... I need to look it up. I feel horrible for everyone who's affected (lost property and life), but I will very much take pleasure in these angry radical leftists destroying each other. It's not that I enjoy seeing people ruin their careers... but the left is always so confident in everything that they're so clearly wrong about. They prop each other up with false information to convince themselves that what they're doing is right, and are so incredibly myopic, yet oblivious to their own failures. Their arrogance is the worst kind... it comes from a person who's almost inherently insecure and knows they're a failure. This is why radical leftists cannot share social media sites... they cannot handle differing opinions because it challenges their "tote-the-line" mentality... and they cannot handle it. When everyone goes against them... they cannot admit fault, so they destroy each other. Again, I hate to take pleasure in it... but it's a satisfying conclusion to what's essentially been a constantly attack on the right out of pure hatred. Yeah, I could turn the other cheek... but I'm going to enjoy times like this, when Democrat "leaders" destroy each other.
Stankye, this supports what I'm saying: "Firefighters normally prefer to use fresh water, but given the growing fires and issues with water pressure in Pacific Palisades, the decision appears to have been made to draw from the Pacific."
You gotta read these things before assuming they agree with you. If you go back and re-read this very page, you'll see Rams and Todd start bemoaning not using sea water because "of the environment." I pointed out the reasons for not using sea water are legitimate. Then you came along and posted an article explaining just that.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Respectfully, New Dustin... you have the opinion that government can do no wrong. You take the default assumption that anything that comes out of government is 100% fact and should not be questioned. So much in fact that you completely avoid even a modicum of common sense, and just inherently believe what you're told... forgetting entirely that government is made up of people who are inherently trying to protect themselves and their personal goals and opinions. You have to Occam's Razor everything... including government speak. You need to think... ok... how bad can a "bucket" get destroyed by using it to capture sea water? Obviously... the common sense is that it literally does nothing.
Its crazy that you need to reframe everyone else's stances to meet the needs of your rebuttal before you address them. I have shown considerably less trust for government in this forum than you have, and your constant attempts to misrepresent what I say and believe are not the "GOTCHA!" that you seem to think they are.
The San Diego and Orange County local governments are conservative and their use/funding of their fire departments, as well as their spokespeople, reflect that. They are not involved in this in any way that would require them to CYA. Why would they conspire to lie about the complications of using sea water?
Stankye, this supports what I'm saying: "Firefighters normally prefer to use fresh water, but given the growing fires and issues with water pressure in Pacific Palisades, the decision appears to have been made to draw from the Pacific."
You gotta read these things before assuming they agree with you. If you go back and re-read this very page, you'll see Rams and Todd start bemoaning not using sea water because "of the environment." I pointed out the reasons for not using sea water are legitimate. That the fires have gotten so bad they are using is not proof that sea water should have been used previously.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You obviously see above (thanks Randye) that they're now finally using them to combat the fire... which they should have done from the beginning. This even goes against their own statements. What you view as fact, is a government spokesperson spreading propaganda to protect their political and re-election campaign.
EDIT: I just clicked your link... ??? it literally says what I've been saying:
Yes, saltwater can be used to extinguish wildfires
"Ocean water can be used in extreme cases to fight wildfires, but freshwater is preferred due to equipment corrosion, soil damage, and logistical challenges."
Sigh... come on man, duh. What was the point of that link?
The amount of Dunning-Kruger happening with you is amazing sometimes. You know that you don't know the maintenance of firefighting equipment better than the firefighting authorities in CA. You moved your goalposts from "its the environment! That's why!" to "well maybe it was equipment too -after I insisted it wasn't and cited myself as an expert-"
Or, since you want to bring up Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that they are telling the truth, and they don't want to mess up their equipment and the environment unless they don't have any other choice, and are carefully monitoring to see when that is the case. That you used it to see massive, evidence-less conspiracy instead makes me think you don't actually understand it.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-12-2025).]
LA Mayor Refuses Help from NY Firefighters but Mexico Fire Crews ... Hmm............. This might be a CYA situation.
Rams
It looks like they didn't refuse the help, and are outright saying they'll accept any help, but never responded to the offer. This being LA governance it is almost certainly an incompetence issue.
The amount of Dunning-Kruger happening with you is amazing sometimes. You know that you don't know the maintenance of firefighting equipment better than the firefighting authorities in CA. You moved your goalposts from "its the environment! That's why!" to "well maybe it was equipment too -after I insisted it wasn't and cited myself as an expert-"
Or, since you want to bring up Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that they are telling the truth, and they don't want to mess up their equipment and the environment unless they don't have any other choice, and are carefully monitoring to see when that is the case. That you used it to see massive, evidence-less conspiracy instead makes me think you don't actually understand it.
I have literally no idea what you're talking about here. I said they should be using saltwater.
You brought up the environment and mechanical issues... both of which I specifically said are totally insignificant in comparison to putting out the fire. Go back and read what I said. I've moved no goal posts, it's you who have tried to justify and explain away why they weren't using sea water until the last minute.
Even if the buckets get completely destroyed... they can literally buy new ones. Right now, LA County will be losing billions in potential lost taxes... not to mention that many of these people are gone forever. Do you really think they care about a $75k bucket? You talk about the Dunning-Kruger effect... seriously... stop being so obtuse and blind. You're suffering from mass psychosis. They've screwed up... nearly every decision they've made has been a failure... that's simple observations.
Honestly though... it takes the sinking of the Titanic sometimes for people to recognize failure, and a lack of proper decisions. This failure will lead to a sea-change in political ideology there. I doubt if this mayor lasts through February... and thank God. People like her should never be in a position of authority. She is literally, in the actual sense of the word, a Marxist and Pro-Communist idealist. On a more personal note... your side has lost, and continues to **** up repeatedly. Sometimes a crack addict has to hit rock bottom before they desire to change.
It looks like they didn't refuse the help, and are outright saying they'll accept any help, but never responded to the offer. This being LA governance it is almost certainly an incompetence issue.
Of course... let's believe the people who are trying to get out from under a political failure of epic proportions. I'm sure the city of NY is totally lying.
Originally posted by NewDustin: You gotta read these things before assuming they agree with you. If you go back and re-read this very page, you'll see Rams and Todd start bemoaning not using sea water because "of the environment." I pointed out the reasons for not using sea water are legitimate. That the fires have gotten so bad they are using is not proof that sea water should have been used previously.
Sorry... edit because I'm being mean. This statement is totally incorrect.
They didn't use seawater until they were being criticized for not using it.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-12-2025).]
Yes, saltwater can be used to extinguish wildfires
"Ocean water can be used in extreme cases to fight wildfires, but freshwater is preferred due to equipment corrosion, soil damage, and logistical challenges."
Just yesterday, saw a video of one of those Super Scooper Aircraft gliding just above the "salt" water, dropped down a foot or so and scooped up a load of water. The camera followed it long enough to see it drop that load of water. So, (just guessing here) it's apparently the LA Fire Department unwilling to use that water? Don't know for sure but, we're still seeing fire hydrants with out water.
wonder how much self defense against a fire a homeowner can do
we have a large pool now a koi pond and for hurricanes a generator also a well with a pump 2'' el 220v and small honda gas pump a small 1 1/2'' fire hose with nozzle in south fla ground water is shallow and unlimited
I have heard of some guys saving homes with a garden hose but NOTHING about a fire prepped home owner with a bit of equip
what do you think ? if you have a pool or well would you invest a 1k or a bit more to be able to fight a fire with out the city FD
wonder how much self defense against a fire a homeowner can do
we have a large pool now a koi pond and for hurricanes a generator also a well with a pump 2'' el 220v and small honda gas pump a small 1 1/2'' fire hose with nozzle in south fla ground water is shallow and unlimited
I have heard of some guys saving homes with a garden hose but NOTHING about a fire prepped home owner with a bit of equip
what do you think ? if you have a pool or well would you invest a 1k or a bit more to be able to fight a fire with out the city FD
I saw that someone had done that... I think it was less than that, but they basically used a generator, their pool pump, and a water nozzle and hose, and were able to fend off the fire as it passed through the neighborhood.
I kind of look at it from this perspective...
Everywhere you live, your home is susceptible to certain kinds of natural disasters. In the mid-west, you have tornadoes that pop up almost immediately without warning... so people are more likely to have bunkers under their homes, or reinforced cellars that can withstand a direct strike from a tornado.
In Florida, we have hurricanes, and ever since the massive huge one in 1992 that devastated South Florida, everyone has improved their homes and purchased their own equipment to protect themselves against hurricanes. Like, in my rental house, I installed storm shutters on all my windows. Accordion in the back and rear, and panels in the front (for aesthetics)... plus hurricane-proof doors and garage doors.
I think if I'm coming up with another analogy... you have the police department, and the question is, would you do something to protect your home without the city PD? Well, a lot of people buy guns for home defense... and even security systems... whether that's motion-sensitive flood lights, to fully-automated and internet-connected security systems.
I'd say your point of spending money to protect yourself against a fire in lieu of the PD is probably somewhere in the middle of hurricane protection, and police protection... in similarity.
Since people in California are constantly under threat of wildfire (or arson-related fires)... they absolutely should have something that can protect them.
But that won't always solve the problem because the local government issues mandatory evacuations, which becomes criminal if you refuse it. There's a general interest to help people of course, but the government always enacts these policies ALSO because they don't want the additional strain on resources that come from when people disagree. So I struggle with that, because I think foundationally, the government doesn't really have the right to do this... but no one questions it and I don't think such a case has ever gone to the Supreme Court (I could check though).
For that reason, they almost never enforce it with jail or fines, anywhere... (even in Florida).
I think if I believed I had a very real threat of fire... as I do with hurricanes in Florida... I'd probably do something.
In Mississippi I did have a PTO powered pump with sufficient hoses and a pond about a 70 yards away that I could (should the need arise) pump from that pond to try and save the home. Yes, I bought what I needed to fit my circumstances. But I also clear cut a large number of explosive pine trees down that were on my property. Hattiesburg is in an area called the PINEBELT, one huge forest there. So, there are steps one can take to help in fire protection.
My neighbors thought I was nuts cutting those trees down but, once I explained my reasons, they also took some down. BTW, I don't believe I mentioned that I absolutely hate Pine Trees. If it ain't got leaves on my property, it's destined to be downed and burnt.
One can also look into home fire suppression systems. They aren't cheap but, depending on where you are, it might be worth it.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-13-2025).]
Tyler Perry is opening up about the devastation of the Los Angeles wildfires — and criticizing insurance companies for the role they played as people lost their homes.
In a post shared on his Instagram on Sunday, Jan. 12, the 55-year-old star producer wrote candidly about some of the tragic scenes he has witnessed over the past week.
"Watching a daughter use a garden hose to try and protect her 90-year-old parents' home because their insurance was canceled was just gut-wrenching to me," Perry wrote. "Does anyone else find it appalling that insurance companies can take billions of dollars out of communities for years and then, all of a sudden, be allowed to cancel millions of policies for the very people they became rich on?"
"People who have paid premiums all of their lives are left with nothing because of pure greed," he added. "As I am in the process of trying to figure out what steps to take to do all I can to help as many as I can, I am keeping everyone in my prayers."
Many Los Angeles residents have spoken out against what they deemed exploitative insurance companies, after the Los Angeles Times reported that insurers including State Farm General, the largest home insurance business in California, announced it would not be renewing thousands of home insurance policies in Pacific Palisades, Altadena and other fire-prone areas in 2024.
Stories of residents choosing to defend their homes from the flames by themselves — such as the 66-year-old man who died trying to keep his house from being burned by the Eaton fire with a garden hose — have also garnered national media attention.
While insurance companies have been pulling back on their home policies in California, amid concerns about natural disasters, officials have taken steps to try to encourage insurance companies to stay in the state.
Though the insurance companies draw widespread criticism for dropping policies for catastrophes like the L.A. fires, they say changes must be made (including raising premiums) in order for them to financially be able to cover insurance in places like Southern California. Otherwise, they argue, they wouldn't be able to afford policies for anyone.
Consumer advocates have accused them of focusing on profits over people.
California also offers the FAIR Plan, through the state, as a backup insurance option to cover some damages and costs.
Residents using insurance from other companies were also left with much costlier policies and without adequate means to cover their losses, the Los Angeles Times reported.
What Mr. Perry fails to mention is that the insurance companies recognized the risk of wildfires and attempted to protect themselves and their customers. Recommendations were made but ignored, requests to implement higher premiums to justify the risk but, the CA Board that has to approve such rate increases said no. That board knew those insurance companies might pull out of the state which is precisely what they did.
Don't get me wrong, I've had pissing contests with insurance companies before but, those companies have stock holders and taking risks like they were presented with is not a good way to do business. Those insurance companies are not to blame for the resulting loss of homes, property and lives. The leadership of CA are.
Sorry... edit because I'm being mean. This statement is totally incorrect.
They didn't use seawater until they were being criticized for not using it.
I appreciate the edit.
Given that the explanations of why they weren't using sea water I provided above came from neighboring fire departments who have not been criticized, it seems unlikely criticism from non-firefighting experts is what changed the rationale. Do you think San Diego and Orange County's fire departments are part of a conspiracy to hide the mayor of LA's ineptitude?
Originally posted by NewDustin: Do you think San Diego and Orange County's fire departments are part of a conspiracy to hide the mayor of LA's ineptitude?
"Using salt water would destroy homes they are trying to save" ? Is it a good thing they saved those homes by not using salt water.
Corrode the equipment ? Equipment is a consumable. It can be replaced. In the oil field drilling operations our mud (drilling fluids) pumps used brine water. At a much more concentrated salt solution as sea water. It was important to use brine water.
Is it a good thing the fire extinguishing equipment was saved and the houses which were burning were not.
Devastate plant growth ? How did all those burnt out homes not devastate plant growth. Thinking about it, ... plant growth caused the problem.
Uultra-liberal radical tree huggers. Kalifornia tree huggers are so so worried about the Delta Smelt. Texas tree huggers are so so worried about the Texas Blind Salamander, Scientific name: Eurycea rathbuni.
I can understand why. They are so so more important than humans, . We can not succeed without their economic contribution or life improvement contributions..
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 01-13-2025).]
Given that the explanations of why they weren't using sea water I provided above came from neighboring fire departments who have not been criticized, it seems unlikely criticism from non-firefighting experts is what changed the rationale. Do you think San Diego and Orange County's fire departments are part of a conspiracy to hide the mayor of LA's ineptitude?
Some of them have blasted the mayor... and they could lose their job for it. The mayor, at will... can fire people who are not democratically elected. They can also "relieve them of duty" for people who are democratically elected (like the County Fire Chief, or the County Police Chief, for example).
I think they all know they've screwed up... from top to bottom... from Newsom on down to the voter ... since the voter also voted for things, the least of which is not just the politicians. I'm not totally against returning the water to how it was... ecologically... but there's a laundry list of failures at basically every level... and pride gets in the way a lot. I don't think there's a conspiracy... but here is what I do think.
I think most conservatives... MOST... do not view party as something that needs to be protected. We basically just blew up the Republican party with an ultra-populist ... quasi-liberal president. Democrats on the other hand, often view the Democrat party in the same way that many Republicans view their own religion. I'll lived in plenty of liberal states, but Democrats... not the usual people who vote just because their parents voted a certain way, or whatever... but Democrats are very protective of the party... so what's being criticized here isn't just the failure to put out fires... but the party and politics. So no conspiracy, I just think they're trying to defend their politics...
Word on the street is that Greenland isn't going to sell for less than $400 billon. Probably more. That's quite a hit to a budget already in deep deficit. Invading Panama again won't be $400 billion but it won't be cheap either.
In all seriousness, you might have noticed that Trump was pressuring the the House to the suspend the debt ceiling until he left office in 2028. Fortunately he didn't get his way. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that that indicates he will cut taxes again for the wealthiest Americans and gut programs such as Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and many other programs that benefit low and middle income people. In addition many regulations on business and industry will be gutted. These acts certainly could provide a brief boom in the economy but in the long run the result will be catastrophic to the entire country in many terrible ways. Trump doesn't care because he has no desire or ability to look any further than his own interests and those of his uber wealthy friends to whom he is beholden. In my opinion it's a perfect storm of greed and self interest with no regard for the common good of the country.
You and others might be fine with that scenario but I'm not alone in the opinion that it isn't a very good idea. Unfettered capitalism is a seductive and dangerous thing and is very selfishly shortsighted.
Word on the street is that Greenland isn't going to sell for less than $400 billon. Probably more. That's quite a hit to a budget already in deep deficit. Invading Panama again won't be $400 billion but it won't be cheap either.
In all seriousness, you might have noticed that Trump was pressuring the the House to the suspend the debt ceiling until he left office in 2028. Fortunately he didn't get his way. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that that indicates he will cut taxes again for the wealthiest Americans and gut programs such as Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and many other programs that benefit low and middle income people. In addition many regulations on business and industry will be gutted. These acts certainly could provide a brief boom in the economy but in the long run the result will be catastrophic to the entire country in many terrible ways. Trump doesn't care because he has no desire or ability to look any further than his own interests and those of his uber wealthy friends to whom he is beholden. In my opinion it's a perfect storm of greed and self interest with no regard for the common good of the country.
You and others might be fine with that scenario but I'm not alone in the opinion that it isn't a very good idea. Unfettered capitalism is a seductive and dangerous thing and is very selfishly shortsighted.
These are definitely not your words, Ray... this isn't your grammar, sentence structure, or mannerisms. But regardless... I'll respond to it.
500 billion for a piece of territory that will allow us to almost double the size of U.S. territory in the world, is an incredible opportunity. We literally spent 200 billion on just the Ukraine war... for which we will have literally NOTHING to show for it, like... at all. I have no problem with going into debt to purchase more territory for a land that is vast with resources, and an already self-sustainable society that needs nothing from us.
The economic benefit from this purchase would be huge. I can't even imagine in my lifetime, that I might actually see the purchase of Greenland.
As for the debt itself, yes... totally agree with the person you're quoting. I think we need to cut federal spending significantly. Without looking at all the numbers. I'd like to see regulations reduced significantly in key areas (especially eliminating the ridiculous AI/GPU regulation that was just passed last week), to spur additional growth. I'd like to see a complete stoppage of mass migration, and I'd like to see more work visas being issued. I'd also like to see taxes on people sending money to people in other countries (specifically... nearly 1/3rd of the GDP of Central America comes from workers here sending money home to their families in central America).
But I'd also like to see huge cuts across government in everything from welfare to military. Military needs to stop producing stuff that no one really needs... like tanks. The M1 Abrams is an amazing tank... but it's useless. A smaller more mobile vehicle that can launch drones or something would be much more versatile.
etc... etc... just my thoughts. I could go on forever, nit pick certain things... but purchasing territory is not a problem.
Originally posted by ray b: Word on the street is that Greenland isn't going to sell for less than $400 billon. Probably more. That's quite a hit to a budget already in deep deficit. Invading Panama again won't be $400 billion but it won't be cheap either.
What street do you live on ? Greenland can not choose who they want to be a member of ?
How much will a blockade of the Panama Canal be ? Word on the other side of the street is that there is a repossession clause in the contract signed by the Panamanians for breach of contract.
quote
Originally posted by ray b: I don't think it's unreasonable to say that that indicates he will cut taxes again for the wealthiest Americans and gut programs such as Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and many other programs that benefit low and middle income people. In addition many regulations on business and industry will be gutted.
You may have noticed that despite Biden's promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400.00 but your taxes went up. Mine did by about $400.00 a year.
Boo whoo about your fear that regulations enacted by unelected officials nor approved by Congress will be gutted. Perhaps, yet many will be down right eliminated.
quote
Originally posted by ray b: You and others might be fine with that scenario but I'm not alone in the opinion that it isn't a very good idea. Unfettered capitalism is a seductive and dangerous thing and is very selfishly shortsighted.
Word on the street is that Greenland isn't going to sell for less than $400 billon. Probably more. That's quite a hit to a budget already in deep deficit. Invading Panama again won't be $400 billion but it won't be cheap either.
In all seriousness, you might have noticed that Trump was pressuring the the House to the suspend the debt ceiling until he left office in 2028. Fortunately he didn't get his way. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that that indicates he will cut taxes again for the wealthiest Americans and gut programs such as Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and many other programs that benefit low and middle income people. In addition many regulations on business and industry will be gutted. These acts certainly could provide a brief boom in the economy but in the long run the result will be catastrophic to the entire country in many terrible ways. Trump doesn't care because he has no desire or ability to look any further than his own interests and those of his uber wealthy friends to whom he is beholden. In my opinion it's a perfect storm of greed and self interest with no regard for the common good of the country.
You and others might be fine with that scenario but I'm not alone in the opinion that it isn't a very good idea. Unfettered capitalism is a seductive and dangerous thing and is very selfishly shortsighted.
I rarely read Rayb's post due to the childish way they are written so, this one caught my attention. Not because of his views.
Ray, if you're going to plagiarize, you should remember to give credit to the author.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-14-2025).]
This might be a CYA situation. 
. We can not succeed without their economic contribution or life improvement contributions..
