and its also not like they can't afford to rebuild it..
new orleans is a very important area to this country. some celeb in the mountains of socal not so much. but, they are white so you have no issue with it.lowing wrote:
I had high hopes for you, but I can see I am going to be disappointed.Red Forman wrote:
oh ok. so, assuming they do pay their taxes, i should be content with paying for thier mountain side home in the middle of a fire zone? rogerlowing wrote:
Because they are tax payers as well, probably more so than you.
Why should my tax dollars pay for those that pay no taxes?
But using your "logic" I was supposed to be happy paying for homes that were built 50 ft below sea level NEXT TO THE SEA!! So, again the difference please.
All I see is wealth envy from your posts.
More wealth envyS3v3N wrote:
and its also not like they can't afford to rebuild it..
What business is it of yours what they can or can not afford?
They pay their taxes and that tax money goes toward police, fire and emergency services. Sorry but those that pay the most for it should expect its services just like all of you "entitled" people who pay a fraction ( if anything at all) for it compared to them.
Well, there ya go folks. The corrupt shit hole of New Orleans is a must save, and the rich people can burn alive, and I am a racist.Red Forman wrote:
new orleans is a very important area to this country. some celeb in the mountains of socal not so much. but, they are white so you have no issue with it.lowing wrote:
I had high hopes for you, but I can see I am going to be disappointed.Red Forman wrote:
oh ok. so, assuming they do pay their taxes, i should be content with paying for thier mountain side home in the middle of a fire zone? roger
But using your "logic" I was supposed to be happy paying for homes that were built 50 ft below sea level NEXT TO THE SEA!! So, again the difference please.
All I see is wealth envy from your posts.
All of this from my questioning why someone would not want to save the homes of fellow tax payers instead of letting them burn because they belong to people that have more than ole' Red Forman.
You belong to the liberal side of this forum. With your logic, argument tactics and attitude toward wealth envy, you will feel right at home over there.
Last edited by lowing (2009-08-25 20:03:27)
rich is a race?lowing wrote:
Well, there ya go folks. The corrupt shit hole of New Orleans is a must save, and the rich people can burn alive, and I am a racist.
You know exactly what you said, don't add stupidity to the list regarding your argument in this discussion.Red Forman wrote:
rich is a race?lowing wrote:
Well, there ya go folks. The corrupt shit hole of New Orleans is a must save, and the rich people can burn alive, and I am a racist.
Its the fact that they won't follow simple guidlines of clear cutting brush and making sure the forest is weedwhacked away from their house.. When *I* refuse to let a crew and a truck sit there to protect their house when it puts the people under me in jepordy..lowing wrote:
More wealth envyS3v3N wrote:
and its also not like they can't afford to rebuild it..
What business is it of yours what they can or can not afford?
They pay their taxes and that tax money goes toward police, fire and emergency services. Sorry but those that pay the most for it should expect its services just like all of you "entitled" people who pay a fraction ( if anything at all) for it compared to them.
Fact* A brush truck with 300 gallons of water cannot protect a house that has trees and under brush 2 feet away from the structure.
They cannot afford a 60,000$ State owned truck and 2 people.
However they can afford a private contractor. Only problem is that particular contractor will say the same thing. Fuck off. I'm not risking personal injury or my life for your goddamn house just because you want to life in the beautiful scenary with the forest right next to your house.
Infact I've had several contractors removed from structure protection because free standing 30foot trees were 10 feet away from the house they were "protecting"
i applaud the effort though.lowing wrote:
I had high hopes for you, but I can see I am going to be disappointed.
This discussion was over acquiring a plane to fight forest fires, amirite? Someone in a position of authority said "No". They had their reasons. From years of seeing the devastation wrought by fires (my family lost a house in the '72 Cali conflaguration) i can only hope that that nameless someone knows what they are doing. And being a no deduction, taking-it-in-the-pants taxpayer, i proudly send in the check every year to support the efforts of those who would provide the services that save life and property.
This I have no problem with, if they do not want to help those trying to help them fuck them.S3v3N wrote:
Its the fact that they won't follow simple guidlines of clear cutting brush and making sure the forest is weedwhacked away from their house.. When *I* refuse to let a crew and a truck sit there to protect their house when it puts the people under me in jepordy..lowing wrote:
More wealth envyS3v3N wrote:
and its also not like they can't afford to rebuild it..
What business is it of yours what they can or can not afford?
They pay their taxes and that tax money goes toward police, fire and emergency services. Sorry but those that pay the most for it should expect its services just like all of you "entitled" people who pay a fraction ( if anything at all) for it compared to them.
Fact* A brush truck with 300 gallons of water cannot protect a house that has trees and under brush 2 feet away from the structure.
They cannot afford a 60,000$ State owned truck and 2 people.
However they can afford a private contractor. Only problem is that particular contractor will say the same thing. Fuck off. I'm not risking personal injury or my life for your goddamn house just because you want to life in the beautiful scenary with the forest right next to your house.
Infact I've had several contractors removed from structure protection because free standing 30foot trees were 10 feet away from the house they were "protecting"
However, in my defense this is not the argument presented by Red Forman. His argument is they are rich so why should he care, they probably didn't earn it anyway, and he does not think his tax dollars should be spent on saving people who have more than he does, even if they paid more tax than he did.
I agree with this.burnzz wrote:
i applaud the effort though.lowing wrote:
I had high hopes for you, but I can see I am going to be disappointed.
This discussion was over acquiring a plane to fight forest fires, amirite? Someone in a position of authority said "No". They had their reasons. From years of seeing the devastation wrought by fires (my family lost a house in the '72 Cali conflaguration) i can only hope that that nameless someone knows what they are doing. And being a no deduction, taking-it-in-the-pants taxpayer, i proudly send in the check every year to support the efforts of those who would provide the services that save life and property.
You lumped me into that arguement.. I'm all about protecting life and property after all I quit being an engineer for 3-5 months to fight fire during the summer.
My father always told me, never own anything you cannot replace.
My father always told me, never own anything you cannot replace.
I did not lump you into that argument unless you are Red Forman as well. Re-read.S3v3N wrote:
You lumped me into that arguement.. I'm all about protecting life and property after all I quit being an engineer for 3-5 months to fight fire during the summer.
My father always told me, never own anything you cannot replace.
you did say that it is no big deal because they can afford a new one. That is hardly the point.
no i get it. white people no issue. black people in new orleans fuck em. we know what you think.lowing wrote:
You know exactly what you said, don't add stupidity to the list regarding your argument in this discussion.Red Forman wrote:
rich is a race?lowing wrote:
Well, there ya go folks. The corrupt shit hole of New Orleans is a must save, and the rich people can burn alive, and I am a racist.
Get back with me when you can present a real argument for expecting tax payers to be left to wild fires because they make more than you.Red Forman wrote:
no i get it. white people no issue. black people in new orleans fuck em. we know what you think.lowing wrote:
You know exactly what you said, don't add stupidity to the list regarding your argument in this discussion.Red Forman wrote:
rich is a race?
You are already down 2 arguments,
1. you not thinking your tax dollars should help someone that also pays taxes)
2. Their daddy left them his estate instead of giving it to you.
I will give you over night to dream up something other than the usual liberal derail and non-argument, you're a racist, or you're generalizing. If you really want to bat the liberal cycle, don't forget to call me a Nazi.
Cos black people can't be rich and live in the mountainsides of California right? And white people can't be poor and live in the ghettos of New Orleans?
christ you're worse than kanye west
I do agree with S3v3n that they should take measures to prevent fires in the first place. The most important being controlled fires to clear the brush that's so easily ignited.
christ you're worse than kanye west
I do agree with S3v3n that they should take measures to prevent fires in the first place. The most important being controlled fires to clear the brush that's so easily ignited.
Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-08-25 20:22:13)
tell that to someone who hasnt seen your bollocks
Last edited by Red Forman (2009-08-25 20:28:33)
.. and I'm sure they carry assloads of insurance to replace their property. People around here have to carry flood insurance. I'm sure it's similar over there with regards to fires.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
you guys can spin what you like. the last people i feel any sympathy for in this world is people in their million dollar mountain homes.
It's not just Russia. There have been several companies that have offered large aircraft for firefighting use, but America doesn't want them.
I love how people chime in with no idea on these sort of subjects.
There is a reason in this instance.. it has nothing to do with "pride".. although m3th pointed out earlier the US doesn't care what anyone thinks.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It's not just Russia. There have been several companies that have offered large aircraft for firefighting use, but America doesn't want them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ffffffffffffFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUU- i should stay out of DAST. S3v3n just summed up my mis-adventures here, lowing agreed with my last post.S3v3N wrote:
I love how people chime in with no idea on these sort of subjects.
before i get a three day for derailment, i'll say this - America is fucked up when it comes to letting it's tax-paying citizens know it's current policies. i'm so fucking tired of some bureaucrat treating the public like it's brainless, and not allowing policy to be a part of public debate. i get to vote for dogcatcher but have no say in other public services?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. America has been offered planes from Canadian companies, and they refused those aircraft as well.S3v3N wrote:
I love how people chime in with no idea on these sort of subjects.
I'll break it down for you all.Kmarion wrote:
There is a reason in this instance.. it has nothing to do with "pride".. although m3th pointed out earlier the US doesn't care what anyone thinks.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It's not just Russia. There have been several companies that have offered large aircraft for firefighting use, but America doesn't want them.
1) Aircraft require highly skilled pilots, DNRC, BLM, Forest Service don't pay as much as say, America's Airlines, also you'll only be employed for the duration of the fire season.
2) Aircraft maintenance, certifications is very EXPENSIVE.
3) BUDGET. BUDGET. BUDGET. and more BUDGET. If you won't understand what a budget is, you get a certain amount of money to effectively run your department, you can't go over that set amount.
If you still don't understand,
My state is 147,165 sq mi or 381,156 km².
We've got 4 helicopters for my district. My district is roughly half the size of the state.
Last year per helicopter it cost 1mil each to operate it, that doesn't include paying the Pilot, spotter and the 3-4 smoke jumpers onboard, and it was a very mild fire season.
It was roughly the same figures for the 4 Tankers. Except they don't usually carry smoke jumpers.
Also my legion of hand crews and wildland engines put out more fires than the flyboys.
Last edited by S3v3N (2009-08-25 21:02:05)
No.. Not a fucking clue.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. America has been offered planes from Canadian companies, and they refused those aircraft as well.S3v3N wrote:
I love how people chime in with no idea on these sort of subjects.
Me Last night after a briefing.