4th&long Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago 1 hour ago, Doc said: Where is he causing war and instability? He hasn't even taken Office yet. You don't think his words can cause instability? What happens when Putin goes for another land grab? You think he is going to listen to the US government when that Jackass is talking about using force to take land and economic warfare before he takes office? How do you think this stuff starts? 3 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Do you think the message of “we’re going to take Greenland by any means necessary” promotes stability? It obviously doesn't. These people are beyond help.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago 5 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Do you think the message of “we’re going to take Greenland by any means necessary” promotes stability? I know you are very fearful about the impending Greenland invasion and that’s good. Do not relent. On the other hand, you’ve got 4th&d0ng in your corner on this. You should really give that some thought.
4th&long Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago 1 minute ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said: I know you are very fearful about the impending Greenland invasion and that’s good. Do not relent. On the other hand, you’ve got 4th&d0ng in your corner on this. You should really give that some thought. Thought-something you have no concept of or taken any time to do. Seek help.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago Why isn’t Lurch taking the Greenland invasion seriously? What does he know that Roundy and 4th don’t? This is all spinning out of control!
4th&long Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago 22 minutes ago, Doc said: LOL! Being peaceful doesn't mean you don't take measures to avoid carnage. And you believe a country won't go after the US soldiers because we take out their general? OK. You live in a dream world.
daz28 Posted 11 hours ago Posted 11 hours ago 11 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I am truly not sure how to respond to this because if you can look at Cali who spent a record amount to end homelessness and got more, spent 24 billion on a train for 1 mile of track, and now doesn't have water for the hydrants but expect me to show you how Cali is incompetent, I can't get to a bar higher than what is easily present. Almost all States have large forest but none have the continuous issues of Cali, the fact that you are defending thr lack of progress because of politics is on you. I'd be willing to bet they spent WAYYY more on fire prevention than other state. Were the measures enough? That's a question I'm not prepared to answer. My point was simply pointing out that you're talking out your ass. You don't know what caused the fire, what could have prevented it, or if California faces conditions that are different from other states. The few people with functioning brain cells here can answer the last question quite easily. Again, I don't live in Cali, don't pay taxes in Cali, or worry about forest fires, so it means nothing to me. People talking like they know things, because they're political hacks, DOES bother me though. 1
daz28 Posted 11 hours ago Posted 11 hours ago 5 hours ago, Westside said: This is the exact moment I knew you are way over your head. I'd prefer that when I'm told I'm in way over my head that it be by a person that understands why, and can explain it.
Orlando Buffalo Posted 11 hours ago Posted 11 hours ago 15 minutes ago, daz28 said: I'd be willing to bet they spent WAYYY more on fire prevention than other state. Were the measures enough? That's a question I'm not prepared to answer. My point was simply pointing out that you're talking out your ass. You don't know what caused the fire, what could have prevented it, or if California faces conditions that are different from other states. The few people with functioning brain cells here can answer the last question quite easily. Again, I don't live in Cali, don't pay taxes in Cali, or worry about forest fires, so it means nothing to me. People talking like they know things, because they're political hacks, DOES bother me though. I worked fire claims near Sacramento in 2008. I understand the fire situation in Cali. Keep calling me stupid but I have discussed it with the people who tried to get the state to do the right thing back in 2008, to no avail. As for how much money they have spent, spending it improperly does not do any good. Your not having an opinion on whether it is enough, which is the only standard that matters, is all I need to know you have no clue.
Doc Posted 11 hours ago Posted 11 hours ago 7 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Do you think the message of “we’re going to take Greenland by any means necessary” promotes stability? 5 minutes ago, 4th&long said: You don't think his words can cause instability? What happens when Putin goes for another land grab? You think he is going to listen to the US government when that Jackass is talking about using force to take land and economic warfare before he takes office? How do you think this stuff starts? No, I don't think words cause instability. Actions do, however.
daz28 Posted 11 hours ago Posted 11 hours ago 1 minute ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I worked fire claims near Sacramento in 2008. I understand the fire situation in Cali. Keep calling me stupid but I have discussed it with the people who tried to get the state to do the right thing back in 2008, to no avail. As for how much money they have spent, spending it improperly does not do any good. Your not having an opinion on whether it is enough, which is the only standard that matters, is all I need to know you have no clue. Then why does everyone have to continually remind you this is NOT A FOREST FIRE, and that your proposed "culling" would have been ineffective. I'll admit I know next to nothing about fire prevention/management, but you've not provided one ounce of information to make one believe you know any more than they do.
Andy1 Posted 11 hours ago Posted 11 hours ago 26 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I worked fire claims near Sacramento in 2008. I understand the fire situation in Cali. Keep calling me stupid but I have discussed it with the people who tried to get the state to do the right thing back in 2008, to no avail. As for how much money they have spent, spending it improperly does not do any good. Your not having an opinion on whether it is enough, which is the only standard that matters, is all I need to know you have no clue. Tonight they are estimating losses of at least 20 billion $. Any thoughts on how the insurance industry will respond to this type of event? It will be interesting to see how they respond. I heard so many stories about companies paying out peanuts to people after Florida hurricanes. Seems like the most prudent solution is to just pull out of the state and insure other areas with less risk for catastrophic events, unless State money helps them out.
Orlando Buffalo Posted 10 hours ago Posted 10 hours ago 43 minutes ago, daz28 said: Then why does everyone have to continually remind you this is NOT A FOREST FIRE, and that your proposed "culling" would have been ineffective. I'll admit I know next to nothing about fire prevention/management, but you've not provided one ounce of information to make one believe you know any more than they do. Fires are a fact of life, and sometimes they happen even with intelligent prevention. I will say California has not done enough to prevent fires and then respond. They ran out of water for the hydrants for Pete sake and they lose a larger percent of the state annually than most states lose in a decade. Controlled burns might have prevented this, or at least contained it, that is what has to happen here in FL before fire season. All of that being said State Farm, Allstate, Farmers, Progressive, Liberty Mutual all want California to do certain things to prevent fires and they do not do them.
Orlando Buffalo Posted 10 hours ago Posted 10 hours ago 39 minutes ago, Andy1 said: Tonight they are estimating losses of at least 20 billion $. Any thoughts on how the insurance industry will respond to this type of event? It will be interesting to see how they respond. I heard so many stories about companies paying out peanuts to people after Florida hurricanes. Seems like the most prudent solution is to just pull out of the state and insure other areas with less risk for catastrophic events, unless State money helps them out. Several of the larger companies have already broke off their Cali business into its own company so I doubt too much weirdness occurs from them but for the smaller companies I would not be surprised if their reserves don't have depth needed to survive this and that is when the state will get involved and the state won't give the little guy a bailout without the big guy getting their cut
daz28 Posted 10 hours ago Posted 10 hours ago 13 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Fires are a fact of life, and sometimes they happen even with intelligent prevention. I will say California has not done enough to prevent fires and then respond. They ran out of water for the hydrants for Pete sake and they lose a larger percent of the state annually than most states lose in a decade. Controlled burns might have prevented this, or at least contained it, that is what has to happen here in FL before fire season. All of that being said State Farm, Allstate, Farmers, Progressive, Liberty Mutual all want California to do certain things to prevent fires and they do not do them. You might have been able to stop right after your first sentence. Low humidity, high winds, and 1/4 inch of rain in the last 8 months might be the real cause. As for being out of water, I wouldn't be a fan of creating another disaster to avert a possible disaster elsewhere. That isn't a great solution at all, and blaming it on a fish is weak political BS. As far as I'm concerned, when you build in a high frequency event area, whatever happens is between you and your insurance company. If you can't afford to live somewhere, then you move, like Andy has been explaining. Simple as that. I'll bet the insurance company would love for socialism to intervene to lower their payouts, and increase profits. Could you share a comprehensive list of the measures that the insurance companies suggested, yet California ignored, that were actually feasible, which should have been implemented? Lastly, California is not Florida. It's not apples to oranges, but close.
Orlando Buffalo Posted 10 hours ago Posted 10 hours ago 5 minutes ago, daz28 said: You might have been able to stop right after your first sentence. Low humidity, high winds, and 1/4 inch of rain in the last 8 months might be the real cause. As for being out of water, I wouldn't be a fan of creating another disaster to avert a possible disaster elsewhere. That isn't a great solution at all, and blaming it on a fish is weak political BS. As far as I'm concerned, when you build in a high frequency event area, whatever happens is between you and your insurance company. If you can't afford to live somewhere, then you move, like Andy has been explaining. Simple as that. I'll bet the insurance company would love for socialism to intervene to lower their payouts, and increase profits. Could you share a comprehensive list of the measures that the insurance companies suggested, yet California ignored, that were actually feasible, which should have been implemented? Lastly, California is not Florida. It's not apples to oranges, but close. You seem to be having a mental breakdown with no coherent thoughts. I am sorry I am more aware of what California does not do to prevent fires but since I am not sure what started this fire and why it blazed so fast there is no point in discussing it with you. You are committed to this and I don't care enough to educate you.
4th&long Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago (edited) 1 hour ago, Doc said: No, I don't think words cause instability. Actions do, however. Of course you don't, you have to defend your guy. If someone from the other side was saying these things you would be up in arms. Hypocrite. Edited 9 hours ago by 4th&long
Doc Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago Just now, 4th&long said: Of code you don't, you have to defend your guy. If someone from the other side was saying these things you would be up in arms. Hypocrite. Wrong. I learned a long time ago that words are just that because everyone has an agenda/lies/doesn't know what they're saying and actions speak louder.
4th&long Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago 39 minutes ago, daz28 said: You might have been able to stop right after your first sentence. Low humidity, high winds, and 1/4 inch of rain in the last 8 months might be the real cause. As for being out of water, I wouldn't be a fan of creating another disaster to avert a possible disaster elsewhere. That isn't a great solution at all, and blaming it on a fish is weak political BS. As far as I'm concerned, when you build in a high frequency event area, whatever happens is between you and your insurance company. If you can't afford to live somewhere, then you move, like Andy has been explaining. Simple as that. I'll bet the insurance company would love for socialism to intervene to lower their payouts, and increase profits. Could you share a comprehensive list of the measures that the insurance companies suggested, yet California ignored, that were actually feasible, which should have been implemented? Lastly, California is not Florida. It's not apples to oranges, but close. They need to water the forest lol. In a desert Rotflmfao!
4th&long Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago 3 minutes ago, Doc said: Wrong. I learned a long time ago that words are just that because everyone has an agenda/lies/doesn't know what they're saying and actions speak louder. All these protests we see, how do they start out? Words! Next thing you know it escalates, a city block burns down. Someone gets shot and killed. I could go on but you can't think for yourself. I'll give you time to get into your propaganda.
Recommended Posts