Welcome To Trump World

[Richard]

Richard, you're swimming in it. Oh, I know, I know, our schoolchildren are starving and Canada's standards are below Venezuela's. lol

Well at at least you guys have gotten serious about the killer cell phones,so I will allow the thimble full of credit for that,did you know in the UK it is an automatic 90 day loss of driving privileges if caught useing a cell phone in a car,even if you are sitting parked.

I am still on the fence with the whole you guys sending the Jews back to the death camps in 1939 but maybe if you actually start feeding your school children you can be on the path to amends.

In regards to the whole California fire aspect everything in between is kinda a moot point with diversionary tatics.

Read this article from December 2017,the only thing that has changed in November 2018 is the amount of deaths.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...co-los-angeles

It kinda shows 26 billion for illegals takes precedence over Americans.

And yes I am aware that this is a flame Trump thread and any discussion outside of constant repeating of Trump sucks is not considered a discussion but I guess some cannot see the unproductive aspect of that and will continue with bungee jumping into a brick wall,no matter how much it hurts.

[aj3647]

For some reason I do not think it would take a wise one to educate you,search,so easy a cave man can do it.

https://www.auctiontime.com/listings...1990-destec-d6

Make sure you get your bid in,that one is made in Canada,so it may contain Chinese steel.

Commonly used to create a fire break or wide path through the forest to prevent the spread of forest fires,unless you are an adamant save the trees person and prevents the state from useing them,then Mother Nature takes her course,as we can see.

Well your spelling and grammar are roughly the equivalent of a cave man's, so you're not too far off there. Anyways, as jcole pointed out, NO ONE anywhere refers to what you just linked to as a "forestry rake." In fact, if you google "forestry rake", you get mostly links to garden rakes. Words matter Richard, call something what it is if you want people to know what the hell you are talking about. And feel free to cite the specific part of California law that prohibits the use of such devices.

[Richard]

^ I am thinking that you just have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees.

Words matter but so does common sense and context.

If you have a flat tire,do you also argue with the tire shop because it is only flat on one side?

Your statement of no one referes to it as a forestry rake.

http://www.wilco.co.nz/slashrake.html

There is no law,the consensus is the save the forest groups have limited the clearing or thinning of forests for proper fire prevention and the increased building in historic fire zones.

That was all included in the link that I provided provided that you conveniently overlooked and chose to obsess with a word that you could not perform basic reasearch on and blame others for.

I will retract the statement of so easy a cave man can do it,because apparently not.

Feel free to continue with the spelling attacks,it just shows that you have nothing of substance to post so you revert to your childhood and call names and look for reasons to discredit or divert.

[jcole]

Nowhere on that site does it says it's for fire prevention:
It is "purpose-built" for planting new trees and vegetation.

Purpose-built for clearing vegetationThe Wilco Slash Rake is a specially designed excavator attachment for use in preparing tree sites unaffected by ground compaction. With its unique rake-in rake-out double action, it allows vegetation and forest debris to be raked into rows and compressed for efficient preparation of any planting site.

Provides excellent access for planting

By clearing forest debris into rows, planting areas are easily defined and able to be accessed by planters or for further work such as releasing pruning.

No matter how hard you try to twist and turn the words, no one "rakes" the forest to prevent forest fires. They dig, they chop, they burn but they don't "rake"

[Richard]

^ let me guess,if your house was on fire you would not grab a garden hose to put it out,because it is called a garden hose and not a fire hose.

When was the last time that you dug a fire break with a table spoon,you are going to clear a path miles long through a forest digging up the tree roots,tree by tree?

You are lke like the other one,two peas in a pod,I provided all of the links but yet you guys perfer to stand in the corner with you finger in your ears going bla bla bla.

Here I will make the discussion easy and go down to the bottom.

Trump sucks,anything and everything he says or does sucks and any reasoning contrary to that sucks.

There that was a discussion among adults.My six year old granddaughter can type that out,but she would not because even a 6 she has some common sense.

[bust]

Let's stop twisting words as if by doing so we can twist reality to conform to an imaginary world view. Take a step back and look at the big picture.

Trump is an idiot, prone to saying the idiotic. His supporters jump through idiotic hoops to defend him, like idiots.

But, yes, he is for now still our lying idiot president.

[oladub]

Nowhere on that site does it says it's for fire prevention:
It is "purpose-built" for planting new trees and vegetation.

No matter how hard you try to twist and turn the words, no one "rakes" the forest to prevent forest fires. They dig, they chop, they burn but they don't "rake"

I don't claim to know as much about fire prevention as liberal talk show hosts and some posters here but I found this on Google:

"Out West, where the terrain is usually hilly and rocky, a typical dozer blade or brush rake [[see picture) is often used for fire line construction."

[bust]

^^ Yeah, but try to find one of those in use for fire prevention in Finland. Finland has a cold, wet climate. The idea that Finland has fewer fires because of rakes of any variety is idiotic.

[Richard]

^ Some would feel that obsessive fretting over a word is a bit idiotic,just kinda shows how easy it is to manipulate others into distractions.

Who is really the idiot,the one manipulating or the ones allowing themselves to be manipulated.

[canuck]

^ Some would feel that obsessive fretting over a word is a bit idiotic,just kinda shows how easy it is to manipulate others into distractions.

Who is really the idiot,the one manipulating or the ones allowing themselves to be manipulated.

You sure wasted a lot of time on others fretting over your rake, you can't be on the fence on this issue, you must realize you are both manipulator and manipulated if you dig your claws in like an ill eagle.

[Richard]

^ is that kinda like,hold my beer Detroit,I got a bridge for ya.

[ABetterDetroit]

it just shows that you have nothing of substance to post so you revert to your childhood and call names and look for reasons to discredit or divert.

The most hypocritical statement of all time on these forums.

All you ever do here Richard is ramble on endlessly constantly diverting to anything from lunch, cell phones, Venezuela, nazis, bridges and whatever else you can dream up and then finish with your childish insults.

[bust]

Everyone knows Trump's vocabulary doesn't extend beyond the first definition of a rake, and of the garden variety. Even though he is a perfect example of one of the other ones.

[Richard]

The most hypocritical statement of all time on these forums.

All you ever do here Richard is ramble on endlessly constantly diverting to anything from lunch, cell phones, Venezuela, nazis, bridges and whatever else you can dream up and then finish with your childish insults.

As you provide a childish attempted insult,thank you for your contribution to the definition of hypocrisy.

You could have at least added a Trump sucks line in there in the interest of staying on topic.

Having said that,you must be following me closely in order to have so much insight into my ramblings.

Thank you for your support.

[oladub]

^^ Yeah, but try to find one of those in use for fire prevention in Finland. Finland has a cold, wet climate. The idea that Finland has fewer fires because of rakes of any variety is idiotic.

I was responding to jcole's comment that "no one "rakes" the forest to prevent forest fires. They dig, they chop, they burn but they don't "rake". My link claimed otherwise.

Finland does not have a wet climate. "Across the country, precipitation is not very abundant, and it ranges from 400 millimeters [[15.5 inches) per year in the extreme north-east, to 650 mm [[25.5 in) in the east and south, and to 700 mm [[27.5 in) in the south-western tip [[see Turku)"

Paradise, CA gets an average of 58" of rain for comparison.

[bust]

According to the Koeppen-Geiger classification there are two different climate zones in Finland. Most regions have a Dfc Climate: a "humid snow climate" with less than four months above 10°C over average. The climate of the northern coastal areas and the mountainous regions can be classified as E Climate: an "ice climate" with the warmest month under 10°C.

Finland is covered in snow and ice for half the year. The ground is muddy from it melting half of the rest. Next comes their rainiest season, through late summer and fall. And it famously has about 188,000 lakes.

When the ground isn't frozen it's hard to put your foot down without getting it wet.

I hope that clarifies what I meant.

It's similar to the UP, northern Minnesota, and further North. Forest fires aren't a big problem there either.

C'mon, do we really need to debate that?

[coracle]

Enough of this “Finnish” Rakes [[introduced by Jimaz # 2013) and “idiot hoops” crap.

If California had spent the tax monies it pisses away on Welfare, ILLEGALS, homeless, sanctuary cities, plastic straws etc etc on the management of its forests it would have alleviated the utter devastation of the lives of the people that pay the taxes it pisses away.

“California” represents the redistribution of other people’s money wasted to the ultimate degree by democrats that can’t see farther ahead than the ends of their own noses.

[Canadian Visitor]

Enough of this “Finnish” Rakes [[introduced by Jimaz # 2013) and “idiot hoops” crap.

If California had spent the tax monies it pisses away on Welfare, ILLEGALS, homeless, sanctuary cities, plastic straws etc etc on the management of its forests it would have alleviated the utter devastation of the lives of the people that pay the taxes it pisses away.

“California” represents the redistribution of other people’s money wasted to the ultimate degree by democrats that can’t see farther ahead than the ends of their own noses.

I try not to respond to ill-informed cretans such as yourself. But, periodically it is necessary to set the record straight with actual facts.

California is not in the Top 10 states for Welfare spending.

See link:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features...ost-on-welfare

You may also note they are not on the list of highest numbers of SNAP recipients.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...amps/21877399/

***

As to California's Forest Management practices, how about looking at a science publications analysis?

https://www.popsci.com/forest-manage...a-fires#page-2

[oladub]

According to the Koeppen-Geiger classification there are two different climate zones in Finland. Most regions have a Dfc Climate: a "humid snow climate" with less than four months above 10°C over average. The climate of the northern coastal areas and the mountainous regions can be classified as E Climate: an "ice climate" with the warmest month under 10°C.

Finland is covered in snow and ice for half the year. The ground is muddy from it melting half of the rest. Next comes their rainiest season, through late summer and fall. And it famously has about 188,000 lakes.

When the ground isn't frozen it's hard to put your foot down without getting it wet.

I hope that clarifies.

California has everything from Death Valley to rain forests around Crescent City; a more diverse range of climates than Finland. Your previous point was that "Finland has a cold, wet climate" in response to my link saying rakes are used in response to jcole claiming they weren't . This is fun but when do we get to the part about Russia and Trump? Are we there yet?

California's population has doubled since about 1975. Were I to attach blame to California's situation, I would point out that California's population growth and resultant sprawl as abetted by government policies have contributed to more people being the cause and victims of more forest fires whatever California's forest fire prevention policies or even whether or not Finland uses rakes ore has more than one climate. To have more fun with this, California's current population growth is immigrant driven.

[oladub]

California is not in the Top 10 states for Welfare spending.

See link: https://www.foxbusiness.com/features...ost-on-welfare

Perhaps because different definitions or variables are used, Marketwatch claims that California has the highest state welfare spending in the Country. "with $103 billion going toward welfare, the Golden State’s spending on the financially needy is more than the next two on the list combined. New York, at number two, paid out $61.4 billion in 2015, while Texas, in the third spot, spent $35.4 billion, according to U.S. Census Bureau data."

Marketwatch didn't break its numbers down to per capita welfare usage but New York and Texas have more combined residents than California.

1. California	$103 billion
2. New York	$61 billion
3. Texas	$35 billion

[Richard]

Mr Canadian visitor,you just make no sense,you call people cretins and feel the need to present the facts in order to set people straight.

But then present facts and opinions on things that nobody was even disputing in the first place.

The facts are,California spends 30 + million a year on supporting illegal immigration.

California has a yearly fire season,and as the population seeks to move further out into nature,the risk for loss of life increases,the fires are not getting worse because of climate change,they were already there,they just put more people in harms way.

No different then building a subdivision in the suburbs without the infrastructure to support it.

California collects billions a year off of the tourism trade from the national parks and forests.

California has a homeless population of over 60,000.

It does not matter how much you make as a state,it is how you prioritize your spending,and California just kinda seems to have thier priorities a little skewed up.

The opinion piece claiming climate change is all Trumps fault is hilarious,climate change is not like a light switch,decisions made today may or may not impact until 40 50 years down the road.

Trump did not create the ice age or all the events that occurred thousands of years ago.

Anybody that claims support with the save the planet from climate change but fills thier House with imported things are direct supporters,the cargo ships carrying that junk across the water emits more CO then every vehicle in the United States combined,in one trip.

They made changes to Freon because they said the properties effects the ozone,the same properties that millions of swimming pools evaporate into the atmosphere every day but yet made no changes there.

Even the experts cannot agree on climate change with all thier difference in what regulates it.Outside of the billions in grants spent studying it every year,it is good money in that.

The only no brainer in that is,climate change has been happening for thousands of years.

[Canadian Visitor]

Perhaps because different definitions or variables are used, Marketwatch claims that California has the highest state welfare spending in the Country. "with $103 billion going toward welfare, the Golden State’s spending on the financially needy is more than the next two on the list combined. New York, at number two, paid out $61.4 billion in 2015, while Texas, in the third spot, spent $35.4 billion, according to U.S. Census Bureau data."

Marketwatch didn't break its numbers down to per capita welfare usage but New York and Texas have more combined residents than California.

1. California	$103 billion
2. New York	$61 billion
3. Texas	$35 billion

Per capita is the only fair measure. Places w/more population, will, all other things being equal have more of everything.

The numbers I posted clearly show Cali is not in the top 10 per capita.

New York State has almost exactly 1/2 the population of Cali. So its welfare spend is 20% higher per capita.

[Canadian Visitor]

California's population has doubled since about 1975. Were I to attach blame to California's situation, I would point out that California's population growth and resultant sprawl as abetted by government policies have contributed to more people being the cause and victims of more forest fires whatever California's forest fire prevention policies or even whether or not Finland uses rakes ore has more than one climate.

I actually think this position has a great deal of merit. To be clear, climate is also playing a role. Drier ground, and drier vegetation will get you more fires that spread faster.

However, more people locating in 'wild' areas will get you more destruction when fires occur, because there's more to destroy.

More people also amplify the risk of accidental [[or arson) fires.

***

Whether the 'more people' are born to lawful citizens, legal immigrants or illegal immigrants has no material impact on the risk.

[Canadian Visitor]

Mr Canadian visitor,you just make no sense,you call people cretins and feel the need to present the facts in order to set people straight.

But then present facts and opinions on things that nobody was even disputing in the first place.

The facts are,California spends 30 + million a year on supporting illegal immigration.

California has a yearly fire season,and as the population seeks to move further out into nature,the risk for loss of life increases,the fires are not getting worse because of climate change,they were already there,they just put more people in harms way.

No different then building a subdivision in the suburbs without the infrastructure to support it.

California collects billions a year off of the tourism trade from the national parks and forests.

California has a homeless population of over 60,000.

It does not matter how much you make as a state,it is how you prioritize your spending,and California just kinda seems to have thier priorities a little skewed up.

The opinion piece claiming climate change is all Trumps fault is hilarious,climate change is not like a light switch,decisions made today may or may not impact until 40 50 years down the road.

Trump did not create the ice age or all the events that occurred thousands of years ago.

Anybody that claims support with the save the planet from climate change but fills thier House with imported things are direct supporters,the cargo ships carrying that junk across the water emits more CO then every vehicle in the United States combined,in one trip.

They made changes to Freon because they said the properties effects the ozone,the same properties that millions of swimming pools evaporate into the atmosphere every day but yet made no changes there.

Even the experts cannot agree on climate change with all thier difference in what regulates it.Outside of the billions in grants spent studying it every year,it is good money in that.

The only no brainer in that is,climate change has been happening for thousands of years.

Virtually none of what you said is true; a good deal of it wanders far away from my post and the thread at large.

Yes, there are issues at play other than climate change.

California's spending choices are not material to this issue, whether you support them or not. [[ I would likely oppose a few, but so what?; my preference for how they spend their money is not only irrelevant to how they spend it, but to managing fire risk)

Climate change is occurring, on that there is consensus among all reputable scientists around the globe.

It is a part of the reason that fire-risk is increasing in Cali; by no means is it the only one.

Whether that climate change is man made is not even relevant t this thread, that it exists IS.

That said, there is no dispute in the scientific community that climate change is accelerating, that this is being induced, at least in part, by greater amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, and that humanity is the source of said carbon. If you think any of that is in question, you are simply wrong.

[Canadian Visitor]

As a further note, there are a host of measures which can reduce the risk of forest fires in urban areas.

There are no absolutes, at least none that would be ecologically or economically practical.

1) Rather than a huge fire break around every area, modify the local forest with native species, that non-conifer [[in forested areas). Conifers are much more flammable. Hardwoods will catch fire in an intense blaze, but they catch more slowly, burn more slowly, and if nothing else, increase evacuation time.

2) Do not permit highly flammable building materials in areas where fire risk is high. ie. No wooden fences or conventional roof shingles as both of these products catch fire easily. Use concrete or metal instead.

Likewise, no timber on the outside of any building.

3) Absolutely do not build as often and as far into natural areas, at least at scale.

4) Reduce risk of accidental fire from campfires, by making cleared campsites large, making fire pits concrete or stone, and putting a 'hat over a fire pit that minimizes the risk of errant sparks.

5) If you must build a community in an area your probably shouldn't, FFS build more than one-way out. 2 points of access/egress is non-negotiable.

That doesn't solve the problem, but it would reduce the risks and consequences somewhat.