The Green New Deal

#351
#351
utvolpj said:
you don't even understand my views well enough to make this claim. If something is false I have no issue saying so. You post outright lies yet don't have the guts to remove them or address them when asked. Do what the president commands and quit spreading fake news
so when you read that article did you realize the tweet that posted it was a complete lie? A useless clickbait tweet used to suck in the woefully uninformed while hoping they only read the title. Did you think of any of that when you seent it?
Click to expand...
What is this a congressional hearing? You can't grab the funny cork tweet without grabbing the first tweet. I'll make sure and note not to post funny tweets every month around the 11th for a few days.
 
#352
#352
utvolpj said:
This post has all the truth of an Orange4567890 tweet
Click to expand...
Wow, rent free pj.

I can see you're not on twitter. You can't grab the cork volcano tweet without it grabbing the main tweet and bringing it here too which put your panties in a wad. But from this day forward I do expect you to call out BS posts no matter who the post is from.


You know, you jumped on me in the FF months ago for my criticism of Gov Haslem and it seems it has gained speed since. Sometimes you should sit back and listen especially when you live in Florida while the guy your attacking may just possibly work for the POS he is criticizing. 😉
 
Last edited:
#353
#353
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Wow, rent free pj.

I can see you're not on twitter. You can't grab the cork a volcano tweet without it grabbing the main tweet and bringing it here too which put your panties in a wad. But from this day forward I do expect you to call out BS posts no matter who the post is from.


You know, you jumped on me in the FF months ago for my criticism of Gov Haslem and it seems it has gained speed since. Sometimes you should sit back and listen especially when you live in Florida while the guy your attacking may just possibly work for the POS he is criticizing. 😉
Click to expand...
You post dumb falsehoods, I call you out and then laugh while you dance around changing your story multiple times. It's actually been pretty entertaining but there are so many to choose from. You should choose your sources more carefully

I'm on Twitter but I have no use for following nonsense like you post. I also know how to take a screenshot or just use MS paint to post what I need
 
#354
#354
utvolpj said:
You post dumb falsehoods, I call you out and then laugh while you dance around changing your story multiple times. It's actually been pretty entertaining but there are so many to choose from.

I'm on Twitter but I have no use for following nonsense like you post. I also know how to take a screenshot or just use MS paint to post what I need
Click to expand...
I'd rather you post it straight from twitter. We don't need any doctored screenshots right?

I told you why I brought it over. Half my posts are funny or make fun posts. I didn't change anything. I didn't post any text. Your accusing me of something I never did. I never wrote anything about a volcano. That all came from your head and your position.
 
#356
#356
Orange_Vol1321 said:
I'd rather you post it straight from twitter. We don't need any doctored screenshots right?

I told you why I brought it over. Half my posts are funny or make fun posts. I didn't change anything. I didn't post any text. Your accusing me of something I never did. I never wrote anything about a volcano. That all came from your head and your position.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should doctor it when it contains outright lies. You posted it just own up to it. You even admitted reading the article yet made no mention that it was a clickbait tweet
 
#359
#359
Orange_Vol1321 said:
I told you what and why I brought it over, now FO PJ. I'm done with you tonight.
Click to expand...
When you read the article did you realize the tweet was a lie? Or did you not actually look at it and just assumed it was true? Come on, you can tell us
 
#363
#363
If the Californians had any brain they would take that money and invest in irrigation and canals and pump stations from the ocean to make sure they never have to pay billions for another wild fire. But, hey, too stupid to understand they have a freaking ocean on the coast to prevent wildfires from growing out of control.

All PVC and never have to worry about corrosion.
 
#364
#364
tennvols77 said:
If the Californians had any brain they would take that money and invest in irrigation and canals and pump stations from the ocean to make sure they never have to pay billions for another wild fire. But, hey, too stupid to understand they have a freaking ocean on the coast to prevent wildfires from growing out of control.

All PVC and never have to worry about corrosion.
Click to expand...

Salting the land doesn’t sound like a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01 and AM64
#365
#365
hog88 said:
Salting the land doesn’t sound like a good idea.
Click to expand...

It's the best and fastest way to contain these things, if the land is going to get scorched, why not save as much of it as possible as fast as possible. What's already on fire is on fire, doesn't matter about the salt.
 
#367
#367
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#368
#368
I understand, but, by doing so you will never have any "large" scale fire, you could literally lose a few hundred acres and that's it. I'm sure that something can be done to make that land useful again relatively quickly.

The point is what you save by doing so. No more billions in damages and insurance, no more cost of fighting the fires. You lose very little to gain a lot.
 
#369
#369
tennvols77 said:
I understand, but, by doing so you will never have any "large" scale fire, you could literally lose a few hundred acres and that's it. I'm sure that something can be done to make that land useful again relatively quickly.

The point is what you save by doing so. No more billions in damages and insurance, no more cost of fighting the fires. You lose very little to gain a lot.
Click to expand...
California is, at least the dry parts are, how big? how much irrigation/canals are you building in an earthquake prone environment? I would think something like that would have costs similar to the wall.
 
#371
#371
LouderVol said:
California is, at least the dry parts are, how big? how much irrigation/canals are you building in an earthquake prone environment? I would think something like that would have costs similar to the wall.
Click to expand...

I saw the billions from the article, I'd say that's a good start and probably up there to do it no doubt.

I literally have not put any thought into it other than there is a simple solution to a problem that has never been solved. I'm sure it will be difficult and timely to solve. But, I do think it's doable and from an investment stand point, you literally alleviate billions and billions every year that it currently costs to fight the fires.
 
#372
#372
tennvols77 said:
I saw the billions from the article, I'd say that's a good start and probably up there to do it no doubt.

I literally have not put any thought into it other than there is a simple solution to a problem that has never been solved. I'm sure it will be difficult and timely to solve. But, I do think it's doable and from an investment stand point, you literally alleviate billions and billions every year that it currently costs to fight the fires.
Click to expand...

Might be more cost effective to ban building in or at least declare no active fire fighting measures will be provided in fire prone areas. Let it burn out. Insurance companies should refuse fire coverage in those areas also.

Feel the same way about building in flood zones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and AM64
#373
#373
hog88 said:
Might be more cost effective to ban building in or at least declare no active fire fighting measures will be provided in fire prone areas. Let it burn out. Insurance companies should refuse fire coverage in those areas also.

Feel the same way about building in flood zones.
Click to expand...
Very simple solution as well.
 
#374
#374
hog88 said:
Might be more cost effective to ban building in or at least declare no active fire fighting measures will be provided in fire prone areas. Let it burn out. Insurance companies should refuse fire coverage in those areas also.

Feel the same way about building in flood zones.
Click to expand...
How about areas more likely to have a tornado, an earthquake, a mudslide, or a hurricane?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top