You're assuming that regulation/burn bans actually work in deterring people from performing the banned activity.Originally Posted by agamemnus
And off goes Don Quixote.
You didn't even segue to libertarianism being the cause of all anarchy in this post. Aren't you even trying?
And what the fuck does grilling have to do with Texas being on fire? NOTHING.
Putting him in one of those big buckets the helicopters scoop up lake water with appeals to my sense of justice. If he survives the fall, and the fire he started, it's clearly God's will, and if he doesn't, he died trying to fix his mistake. Win-win.
And we're back to banning cars, electricity and all heat sources, to prevent wildfires. Which, technologically speaking, would put us behind the stone age, because even stone age man had figured out how to start and use fires.
Huh. Wish I had the power to make Luddites look like far off sci-fi figures pushing the cutting edges of science.
OH MY GOD, TEH COWS ARE BURNING TEXAS!!!!!!!!!! BAN ALL BOVINES, BEFORE THE FIRE CLAIMS US ALL!!!!!!11
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Stop being such an asshole, Cain. Right now it doesn't matter how the Texas fires were started, or by whom. The only fact that matters right now is how to put all the fires out, and gain 100% control of the situation. Do you think Texas can do that on its own, or do they need federal assistance?
That we indulge your bitching about how backyard grilling caused this wildfire? I mean, wildfires in general. Er, some wildfires, somewhere. Well, theoretically, the possibility of starting a wildfire. Actually, it doesn't matter. But that's why we must ban all technology developed during and after the stone age, and anyone who disagrees is an anti-government lunatic who doesn't understand the puppy-kicking, Satan-worshiping, kid-raping nature of "FIRE."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
This sounds like an appropriate plan of action to me
At least one of the fires in Texas is thought to have been caused by arson.
Back yard grilling is safe... for now.
It does if it is even remotely enforced, which is, I know from experience, often not the case.
All of Texas is burning. They haven't had rain in months or something to that effect. If a hot steak falls on the grass, say bye-bye to the house.
This post only shows you can't or won't organize and assimilate public policy when it matters most.That we indulge your bitching about how backyard grilling caused this wildfire? I mean, wildfires in general. Er, some wildfires, somewhere. Well, theoretically, the possibility of starting a wildfire. Actually, it doesn't matter. But that's why we must ban all technology developed during and after the stone age, and anyone who disagrees is an anti-government lunatic who doesn't understand the puppy-kicking, Satan-worshiping, kid-raping nature of "FIRE."
Fire has been around since the stone age, but that doesn't mean we have to act as if stone age principles still prevail. We're supposedly smart enough, and evolved enough, to know that Fire can still spread and kill. Even in the 21st century.
Call me a bitch all you want. Twist my posts all you want. Fight fire on your own, if being on your own is really what matters most to you, above all else. I'd lay odds in favor of fire as the more powerful force.
Fire is nothing to be messed with, or underestimated. Fire spreads, destroys, and kills. Far be it for you to "indulge" in the mindset that a force as powerful as Fire is stronger than you.
With your incarceration rate, it's only a matter of time!I think the only solution to this is to ban everyone from ever leaving their house.
Wait, that's not really funny, is it?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Sounds like an acceptable response to the endless "sent from my iDevice" sigs.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Arson, eh? Next thing you know, GeeGee's gonna be calling for a ban on arses to solve that problem.
So, ban cooked meat and eating outside? Gotcha.
The issue isn't what causes fires, or fire ordinances in general, or even fire ordinances in particular. It's GeeGee going all nuts over something she's imagined into existence again. This time it's propane embers that give rise to living, breathing, thinking fire elementals that kick puppies, worship the anti-Christ, eat children, rape gayosexuals (or is it rape children and eat gayosexuals?) are currently burning the entire state of Texas and will consume the entire continent in fire if we don't give fire the respect it deserves, and maybe a human sacrifice or two.
Ri-ducking-ficulous.
Yeah, I smoked. I played with fire dozens of times a day for years.
Not once did it rape my children, spread to my puppy, destroy my state or kill my wife. And I can't be sure, but I also saw no other signs of sentience or devil worship on the part of fire. I think I both know more about fire and have more experience with it than you do, so kindly shove your hysterics, because they're laughable. Or, they would be laughable if hysterical shit like that wasn't exactly how we end up with federal felonies for mailing batteries. (Punishable by up a $10,000 fine, and up to two years in prison, IIRC.)
Just drop it. You clearly know nothing about fire (and boy is that list getting humongous), how to harness and control it, how to use it, or what its dangers really are. So stop assuming everyone else is as limited as you and basing your opinions on absurd fantasies of ass-raping fire demons, or what the hell ever.
I'd rather they just start shipping spell-checkers in mobile browsers, which would negate the need for those bloody things. Probably still a few years off, though.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
No, (obviously!) GGT's point was that you have to be very careful in such dry and hot conditions, and I happen to agree!
FFS Cain, you can't seriously believe that there is no chance of burning your backyard/house from a BBQ. The odds are most definately against it, but the possibility exists. It is for this very reason that some states, mine included, enacts occasional bans on "open fires". The possibility increases with population density, apartment complexes with balconies in particular are exceptionally prone to BBQ fires. Many apt. communities don't allow BBQ's, some only allow gas grills ( no embers being blown from them), for this reason. GGT's shock that a similiar type ban was not already in place in an arid region like Tx. is justified. Your attempts to conflagrate this into a desire to ban all things tech, or whatever the hell you're doing, is plain ignorant. Maybe you should read some facts about fire prevention and safety, maybe you should climb down off your cross use the wood to build a bridge and get over it.
The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless
I am curious as to how you ascertained THAT as GeeGee's point. I mean, damn, it's so not even close to what I read it's perplexing.
Caution is fine. Banning people from smoking and using propane grills is a whole different beast that falls under hysterical shit, however.
You couldn't set my lawn and/or house on fire even if you used the propane tank as a flamethrower, actually. Not from the outside, at least, so I do seriously believe that there is NO chance of setting my backyard or house on fire with a BBQ, yes.
Yeah, well maybe you should read some of GeeGee's posts, such as the ones I've been responding to. Not something I'd normally advocate, but strange times and all that. Excerpts italicized below.
Someone sure is conflating shit and being ignorant and ridiculous, but it ain't me. GeeGee's gone from banning grills (note, she didn't even start at the reasonable position of open flame bans) to the need to ban anything that could theoretically summon into existence the "living, breathing" essence of flame that will ass-rape us all. Like cows and hay.Basically, any technology of any sort, including animal husbandry could theoretically ignite a wildfire, and must be banned immediately, according to GeeGee's hysterical reasoning. So Christ, take it up with her, not me. Like I said, I played with fire dozens of times a day for many years, and have yet to start a single wildfire or have my ass raped by a fire elemental - this is not a situation that urgently needs government interference, no matter what GeeGee claims. Anyway, since you didn't seem to read them the first time around, in order:
Texas is a red state, with a governor and legislature loath to "tell people what to do". [...] I'd have thought a ban on outdoor burning and water restrictions during drought would have been enacted long ago.
There are at least three huge fires raging in separate areas, affecting Austin and Houston and their suburbs.
You may think it's "chicken little-ing" to recognize risk contagion. Especially when it comes to fires in dry, drought-ravaged areas, with high winds changing direction. But I don't downplay fire (or flood) at all. In fact, it's part of Emergency Management and Disaster Planning on every local level. Whether local legislation is part of that effort remains to be seen.
99.999% of backyard BBQ's aren't being made in Texas, or under their same risky conditions. It's SOP whenever there are dry, drought conditions that local governments implement temporary bans, just as state and federal parks and campgrounds do for any use of flame or fire. No fireworks, no grilling, no campfires, no smoking, no burning garbage, no burning of dormant crop fields.
Dry forests don't spontaneously combust without some human element. Backyard trees or grasses don't start their own conflagrations. But yes, one reckless backyard BBQ griller can send a live ember or blowing spark into a grove of private dry trees or brush, and start a fire that turns into a wildfire. One stray match can burn swaths of public forest. Fire doesn't recognize private vs public lands. That's why local fire prevention ordinances are supposed to be fairly strict.
Actually, I AM the voice of reason when it comes to FIRE. The only reasonable position is to recognize that FIRE is a living, breathing entity that spreads itself quite easily. Fire doesn't discriminate, and is something to be actively prevented and controlled. You and Enoch are busy using stupid analogies to disrespect the role of government, like banning cars or telephones, instead of respecting FIRE.
Oh, for fuck's sake. The Great Chicago Fire was started either by a person or a bovine, or maybe hay and a flammable liquid, but all had human impetus. Fire, itself, didn't care who started it.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Do you currently live in Texas, Cain?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
IIRC, lightning strikes are the most common source of wildfires in the US. Dry lightning being a major contributor to those. From what I've heard, human sourced wildfires is actually a minority of the events in the US, though there are places in the world where they are the majority. Of the human sourced fires, a large portion are arson, not accidental. Wildfires are actually a part of the natural cycle of things, and mechanisms have been evolved to deal with and even flourish due to wildfires.
There was a story I heard once in school, I can't remember why it came up, but basically it went that back in the earlier parts of the 20th century when the US started getting serious about fighting wildfires. We got really good at it, and this is what caused the problems. Whereas before humans started fighting forest fires, wildfires were a cyclical thing that would clear flammable debris and the old, dying, and weaker plants, and also help fertilize the soil for the next generation of plants, after humans got involved none of this happened. It was noticed that each wildfire that started was becomming more vicious than the next, and forests just weren't growing as fast as they used to. Eventually there were fires that were just too big and hot to be stopped. With previous fires, hardier plants could survive because the flames weren't as intense as they'd become when they had ten to twenty years of flamable debris to burn instead of just three to five years worth, but not so with the hotter, later ones. Firefighting strategy has evolved since then, and now the efforts focus more on controlling the fires than stopping them. Stopping them completely is actually harmful to the environment. There are even cases where local authorities have intentionally started controlled wildfires because they decided that it's been dangerously long since the last natural one.
I'm not actually sure if that last paragraph has any bearing on this conversation.
Florida does controlled burns all the time. Mainly for the reasons you stated, especially because it clears out the weaker vegetation, which is usually hostile vine plants that don't belong here anyway. We lost one of our Boy Scout camp grounds from a control burn that got out of hand
Wildfires spread insanely fast, so the taller trees don't suffer to much, one reason Pine Trees are so common around here and Oaks are protected once they get old enough
Do love the irony of the state needing federal assistance after slashing the state fire department, needing FEMA only days after attacking it.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Sure.
If GeeGee gets to talk about the horrors of propane embers from backyard grills starting wildfires miles away (you know, out in the wild) that give rise to fire elementals which will consume us all, I get to have a residence in Texas. And it's a huge one too.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Hi there, rummie!Yep, temporary bans happen all the time, in parks or state forest campgrounds, also residential areas during drought. It is surprising if Texas hadn't put those precautions in place. Cain is being obnoxious again, that's all.
During a long drought a few years ago, our localities even temp banned the use of heat paint-stripping tools, diesel generators, and propane torches for any residential construction/welding. Everything was too dry and crispy, including the grass.
The irony is rich, innit? Like how they blame FEMA for people building where they shouldn't, or living in risky coastal towns and seashores. (Lewk is big on that idea.) But disasters happen everywhere, and states can't afford emergency response or repairs on their own. Rain and flooding all along the mid-Atlantic, from Maryland to New York. We're getting hit hard now with flooding, after 10 inches of rain in two days, and more on its way. Roads and highways washed out, 8-9 feet of water in homes nowhere near rivers or creeks. Susquehanna River won't crest until later today and it's already over flood stage. Too bad we can't send Texas all our water.Florida does controlled burns all the time. Mainly for the reasons you stated, especially because it clears out the weaker vegetation, which is usually hostile vine plants that don't belong here anyway. We lost one of our Boy Scout camp grounds from a control burn that got out of hand
Wildfires spread insanely fast, so the taller trees don't suffer to much, one reason Pine Trees are so common around here and Oaks are protected once they get old enough
Do love the irony of the state needing federal assistance after slashing the state fire department, needing FEMA only days after attacking it.
Not really, no. One of the things the atrocious federal tax rates allegedly pay for is services like FEMA. So if you don't want Texas to have access to FEMA, that's fine, and fair, just as soon as Texas and Texans don't have to pay the feds for those services. They are owed those services by the feds, for payment already rendered, and thus, are either entitled to the services, or a full refund of their federal tax bills. Pick one.
Wanting the government to fuck off and leave you alone is not incompatible with wanting to get what you're owed, because the government refuses to stop taking your money.
Sorry, that was entirely logical and reasonable, meaning it has no place in your little rant. Pardon the interruption, and do carry on.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Owed services by the feds, payment already rendered and entitled to refunds? Pick one...WTF?Not really, no. One of the things the atrocious federal tax rates allegedly pay for is services like FEMA. So if you don't want Texas to have access to FEMA, that's fine, and fair, just as soon as Texas and Texans don't have to pay the feds for those services. They are owed those services by the feds, for payment already rendered, and thus, are either entitled to the services, or a full refund of their federal tax bills. Pick one.
Wanting the government to fuck off and leave you alone is not incompatible with wanting to get what you're owed, because the government refuses to stop taking your money.
Sorry, that was entirely logical and reasonable, meaning it has no place in your little rant. Pardon the interruption, and do carry on.
That's not how nations, federal taxes, or united states work, but you know that already.
If anything, you may have it backward. Texas doesn't have a state income tax or a corporate tax. Maybe if they did, they could have paid for more and better state fire prevention/public rescue workers/first responders/disaster planning, and the fires wouldn't have spread to several thousands of acres and hundreds of homes? Instead, the whole thing got out of hand, until the fires are visible from satellite, ultimately requiring federal assistance.
Hate "taxes" all you like, but they serve a genuine purpose. Hate "gummint regulation" all you want, but they also serve a legitimate purpose.
You're on no higher ground than the person who'd complain if their apartment or home was lit on fire, because some twit was BBQing on a balcony during dangerous drought and high wind conditions. Then bitch even more when the public fire department can't save all their stuff and they're suddenly homeless, because there are too many fires out of control. Never mind being apopleptic when their insurance turns out to not cover wildfires that spread to suburban areas.
Pretty much like bitching about mandatory measles inoculation and subsidized vaccine costs, but only after contagious people are giving others the measles.
Swing and a miss.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Cain: You're wrong on point X for reasons A, B, and C.
GGT: What do you mean? Reasons D, E, and F are incorrect, and don't justify your support for point Z.
Hope is the denial of reality
Let me see if I can't take a stab at a productive exchange of information.Owed services by the feds, payment already rendered and entitled to refunds? Pick one...WTF?
That's not how nations, federal taxes, or united states work, but you know that already.
If anything, you may have it backward. Texas doesn't have a state income tax or a corporate tax. Maybe if they did, they could have paid for more and better state fire prevention/public rescue workers/first responders/disaster planning, and the fires wouldn't have spread to several thousands of acres and hundreds of homes? Instead, the whole thing got out of hand, until the fires are visible from satellite, ultimately requiring federal assistance.
Hate "taxes" all you like, but they serve a genuine purpose. Hate "gummint regulation" all you want, but they also serve a legitimate purpose.
You're on no higher ground than the person who'd complain if their apartment or home was lit on fire, because some twit was BBQing on a balcony during dangerous drought and high wind conditions. Then bitch even more when the public fire department can't save all their stuff and they're suddenly homeless, because there are too many fires out of control. Never mind being apopleptic when their insurance turns out to not cover wildfires that spread to suburban areas.
Pretty much like bitching about mandatory measles inoculation and subsidized vaccine costs, but only after contagious people are giving others the measles.
What I would argue, and Cain too if I am understanding him correctly, is that when the federal government assumes a function or responsibility in an area that states once held, funds that role, and makes it available to the states, that it's not unreasonable to expect that agency to fulfill the function of their responsibility.
Let's look at a reasonably similar comparison. Let's say I don't like my health insurance company. I may even decide I want a new health insurance company. I might call other insurance companies to check pricing, looking into alternatives to switch over to another health insurance provider. However, when I get hit by a car the next day, I don't think it's crazy to expect to be covered under my existing insurance's umbrella.
Does that mean my current health insurance is the only, or best option?
Federal programs like FEMA aren't "made available," they're made mandatory. So, to correct your anaolgy, it would be more like if your health insurance provider put a gun to your head and forced you to do business with them, stole your car, ran you over with it, denied your claims because you complained about the level of service they provided and then mocked you and called it ironic that now you "need" them (after they crippled you, but they ignore that little detail, natch).
And good luck with that productive exchange with GeeGee, by the way. Let me know how it turns out.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
To get aid from FEMA the governor has to request assistance from the president. In that sense, the federal government isn't mandating states declare states of emergencies and use their services.Federal programs like FEMA aren't "made available," they're made mandatory. So, to correct your anaolgy, it would be more like if your health insurance provider put a gun to your head and forced you to do business with them, stole your car, ran you over with it, denied your claims because you complained about the level of service they provided and then mocked you and called it ironic that now you "need" them (after they crippled you, but they ignore that little detail, natch).
And good luck with that productive exchange with GeeGee, by the way. Let me know how it turns out.
However, you are right in that funding for FEMA is mandatory; there's no opt out option for people living in states that don't want their assistance.
In short GGT, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for states to pay for two insurance policies when they've already paid for one.
For the record, the thing about Mrs. O'Leary's cow is a myth. The Irish were not responsible for the burning of Chicago.
(This PSA brought to you by Prof. Peter Hayes, the best history teacher I have ever had. And a Boston Irishman to boot.)
Mrs. O'Leary.
Correct, there's no mandate for a governor to request FEMA assistance. Texas could choose to go it alone on these fires, since their governor claims the federal government should be inconsequential in their lives. After all, they rebuilt Galveston after hurricane devastation, and didn't need no stinkin' federal help.
Besides, federal taxes aren't quite like that insurance policy analogy. Federal taxes also pay for other things like our military, with no "rebate" for states who enlist more soldiers for duty, and no "refund" if a state doesn't like being in Iraq or Afghanistan. They're funds collected for the collective good. That doesn't mean states shouldn't hire police and then need the National Guard or Reserves....
I think Perry (and other Republicans) are being dishonest, or not genuine about important roles of the federal government. He's just fine asking for federal assistance in border control, knowing full well all other states help pay for that. That's how united states work and help each other out. That would be the honest stance, at least.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
True, Texas could go it alone and foot the whole bill itself, but then it's essentially paying twice for the same service.Correct, there's no mandate for a governor to request FEMA assistance. Texas could choose to go it alone on these fires, since their governor claims the federal government should be inconsequential in their lives. After all, they rebuilt Galveston after hurricane devastation, and didn't need no stinkin' federal help.
There is a real and undisputed constitutional mandate for the federal government to maintain a military, including the national guard. For states who don't agree with contributing their National Guard to war, they can establish State Defense Forces.Federal taxes also pay for other things like our military, with no "rebate" for states who enlist more soldiers for duty, and no "refund" if a state doesn't like being in Iraq or Afghanistan. They're funds collected for the collective good. That doesn't mean states shouldn't hire police and then need the National Guard or Reserves....
There is a less compelling argument for the constitutional mandate of FEMA.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 09-09-2011 at 03:34 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote