Orange Duce

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don't give 2 figs about what Hannity says. When her royal majesty proclaims in public that she would like to be POTUS... maybe an off the cuff remark... maybe not... never ever underestimate the power of the Hilda beast... cussing1 angry4 angry5 bang1 bang1 angry8 angry4 angry5 The wrath of Hillary is the death of many lamps.

I don't give a rat's ass about Hillary and Bill Clinton....you mentioned them more than virtually anyone on this board....it's the bold faced deception at Fox News that I am pointing out.

[holmes435]

Trump is funding the military, while the only deployment he's added has been to our southern border.

His chiding of our under-investing, under-deployable allies resonates.

So why do we need all that extra funding if the only additional thing we're doing is sitting out in the desert doing nothing? You know how much of a bureaucracy the military is, and how much wasteful spending there is.

Why do you feel our allies are under-invested and under-deployable? What have they needed to do that warranted additional spending?

We're not just sitting in the desert. Trump's continuing the deployments he inherited in Afghanistan, Poland/E Europe, Syria & the Horn of Africa.
Our maritime deployment strategy has shifted, closer to home.

We're catching up on readiness, following a decade of under-funding & over tasking, replacing obsolete, worn out weapons systems.

We are just sitting out the desert. I was talking about the Mexico Patriot Freedom Operation you mentioned as far as new deployments. They're sitting out there with their johnsons in their hands using port-a-potties for friendship with no real mission.

What obsolete, worn out weapons systems are we replacing that aren't effective? Who are we using them against? What funding popped up via Trump that wasn't already there? We already had spending in place for pretty much all those upgrades anyway. Obama-rama didn't gut the military in any meaningful way - virtually all the problems you mention or that others mention were in place or coming up from many previous administrations. What are we doing to curb the massive bureaucracy that is the military? Making it more efficient...

Again why do you feel our allies are under-invested and under-deployable? What have they needed to do that warranted additional spending?

[old salt]

Trump is funding the military, while the only deployment he's added has been to our southern border.

His chiding of our under-investing, under-deployable allies resonates.

So why do we need all that extra funding if the only additional thing we're doing is sitting out in the desert doing nothing? You know how much of a bureaucracy the military is, and how much wasteful spending there is.

Why do you feel our allies are under-invested and under-deployable? What have they needed to do that warranted additional spending?

We're not just sitting in the desert. Trump's continuing the deployments he inherited in Afghanistan, Poland/E Europe, Syria & the Horn of Africa.
Our maritime deployment strategy has shifted, closer to home.

We're catching up on readiness, following a decade of under-funding & over tasking, replacing obsolete, worn out weapons systems.

We are just sitting out the desert. I was talking about the Mexico Patriot Freedom Operation you mentioned as far as new deployments. They're sitting out there with their johnsons in their hands using port-a-potties for friendship with no real mission.

What obsolete, worn out weapons systems are we replacing that aren't effective? Who are we using them against? What funding popped up via Trump that wasn't already there? We already had spending in place for pretty much all those upgrades anyway. Obama-rama didn't gut the military in any meaningful way - virtually all the problems you mention or that others mention were in place or coming up from many previous administrations. What are we doing to curb the massive bureaucracy that is the military? Making it more efficient...

Again why do you feel our allies are under-invested and under-deployable? What have they needed to do that warranted additional spending?

Just sitting out in the desert. Are you disappointed they're not fighting someone ? Which units are just sitting around ?
Mattis is going to visit our troops on border ops. Pay attention, we might learn more about what they're doing.

Here's just one example of replacing worn out, obsolete weapons systems -- we're finally phasing in the F-35, the most advanced tactical aircraft in the world. A technological leap forward which can transform & integrate the battle space in unprecedented ways. It's replacing aging 4th gen acft like the F-15/16/18 which are worn out & reaching the end of their service lives. It's a leap forward & our smarter allies are buying it. That's just one of our new aircraft. We have new ships & subs coming on line which represent a similar leap forward.

Finally free of the uncertainty of sequestration CR budget caps, procurement contracts can be locked in, spare parts inventories are being replaced & deferred maintenance is catching up. We now have the funding needed to procure the F-35 inventory we need. Ditto for new ships & 2 classes of next generation subs. ...& a long overdue 2.6% military pay raise.

What can't our EU/NATO allies do ? They can't deploy a credible army to their eastern border. That's why we have to ship an armored brigade (& all their armored vehicles) back & forth between the midwest US & Poland every 9 mos, as an example. Why do we need to have Marines practicing amphibious landings in Norway & storing tanks in caves there ? We're the only ones who can deploy a carrier battle group to the North Sea, Arctic Circle & GIUK gap. The lone French aircraft carrier is the yard for long term nuc refueling (they're flying their Rafales from a US carrier, so they don't forget how). The Brits finally got their new aircraft carrier underway, but they no longer have any jets to fly from it. They're off the coast of NJ working with the USMC learning how to operate the F-35 from it.

Our NATO allies took a nap after the Cold War. They're slow to wake up, groggy & cranky. They're not yet hysterical Russophobes like we've become. They prefer doing business with the Russians to deterring them & defending NATO's eastern members. The GRU kills defectors with CW on EU soil, but the EU won'r even implement Magnitsky Act sanctions.

[cradleandshoot]

I don't give 2 figs about what Hannity says. When her royal majesty proclaims in public that she would like to be POTUS... maybe an off the cuff remark... maybe not... never ever underestimate the power of the Hilda beast... cussing1 angry4 angry5 bang1 bang1 angry8 angry4 angry5 The wrath of Hillary is the death of many lamps.

I don't give a rat's ass about Hillary and Bill Clinton....you mentioned them more than virtually anyone on this board....it's the bold faced deception at Fox News that I am pointing out.

Maybe you need to read your friggin post. It was you amigo that mention HRC wanting to run for POTUS again. I do agree with you... I don't give a rats ass about Bill and Hillary either. For the record you whine and complain about Fox news here more than anybody else. I think it has become rather comical over time. If you don't take things so seriously they won't get under your skin. MSNBC does the same damn thing, they put forward their own view of the world and practice the same type of deception. It is what it is. If you can't stand FOX turn the dog gone channel. I prefer the history channel. I just can't see some people that allow themselves to get torqued all out of shape by a news network. I know that you have your own point of view and you share it all the time. Go with what you know and stop worrying about what someone on FOX is saying.

[Trinity]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/us/p ... trump.html

Conservative lawyers oppose Trump’s destruction of the rule of law.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yeah, & that was supposedly the incident that exasperated Trump, who blasted Kelly for not making the problem go away.

Apparently Kelly just did. The First Lady's staff was supposedly frustrated with the W Wing staff.

Maybe Kelly just fired the source of the problem.

Big slap down for Bolton.

So, you're saying that the reporting is wrong?

That Kelly had Ricardel fired not Melania? Really?

Of course, it does beg the question as to why Melania would have any involvement at all.

Ricardel apparently had some friction with Mattis over some hires he wanted to make that she blocked as being insufficiently loyal to Trump...they publicly supported HRC...

But Mattis is reportedly on the way out.

But first is our Homeland secretary, Kelly's protege...and Kelly's reportedly on the way out after her...

So, why Ricardel??? Over seating assignments on an Africa trip??? What the heck does that mean?
Did Melania want a chum sitting next to her or something...

Reportedly, reportedly, blah, blah, blah.

Don't get your hopes up based on what WH hacks leak to MSM hacks, just so they get today's bombshell by deadline.

Yes, I use the word "reportedly" because it's actually being "reported" as compared to your statements as if you actually know better. I don't, so I reference the open question that is being "reported". Such are not always accurate, but golly they've had a heck of a lot better track record than your pronouncements.

Asked the question about Melania's involvement simply because her office actually made a statement. Pretty darn unusual, so what the heck does she have to do with it? Is it your hypothesis that Kelly wanted Ricardel out and he got Melania to make the statement? Really?

BTW, I'm not all "getting my hopes up" about Mattis getting pushed out or fed up. Quite the opposite.

Consider the source -- MSNBC mean girls reporting WH powder room bitching by WH staff mean girls.

hmmm, did Melania's office put out a release or not?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don't give 2 figs about what Hannity says. When her royal majesty proclaims in public that she would like to be POTUS... maybe an off the cuff remark... maybe not... never ever underestimate the power of the Hilda beast... cussing1 angry4 angry5 bang1 bang1 angry8 angry4 angry5 The wrath of Hillary is the death of many lamps.

I don't give a rat's ass about Hillary and Bill Clinton....you mentioned them more than virtually anyone on this board....it's the bold faced deception at Fox News that I am pointing out.

Maybe you need to read your friggin post. It was you amigo that mention HRC wanting to run for POTUS again. I do agree with you... I don't give a rats ass about Bill and Hillary either. For the record you whine and complain about Fox news here more than anybody else. I think it has become rather comical over time. If you don't take things so seriously they won't get under your skin. MSNBC does the same damn thing, they put forward their own view of the world and practice the same type of deception. It is what it is. If you can't stand FOX turn the dog gone channel. I prefer the history channel. I just can't see some people that allow themselves to get torqued all out of shape by a news network. I know that you have your own point of view and you share it all the time. Go with what you know and stop worrying about what someone on FOX is saying.

I thought Hannity’s comment was indicative of where that network is. I don’t recall saying I never mention HRC’s name. I was using her name in the context of a misleading statement Fox News put out to agitate the base. As for turning the channnel, I eventually did. It’s not news but I still want to see the rhetoric. Maddow and Dom Lemon aren’t news either....PS. Fox News is still on the air. Bill Clinton’s show ended 20 years ago.

[Brooklyn]

Imagine if that indiscretion had been committed by Clinton or Obama. We would never hear the end of it from the controlled right wing media.



more Orange Douche toons:

[old salt]

CU-77 -- this is not the time to evaluate policy, but has there been any serious discussion within CA about how to effectively mitigate & reduce the wildfire risk. It would seem that a large scale, significant near term effort is required, beyond waiting for a reversal of climate change. El Nino & Santa Ana will never go away.

Stay safe. Thoughts & prayers don't put out the fires, but you & your neighbors have mine.

It's not an easy problem, mainly because many people like to live near the wild areas, and quite a few have built expensive homes there. Tell them that they can't do that, and they'll decry gubmint interference in the free market.

I'm no forest-management expert, but I know that plans for controlled burns that would mitigate future wildfires are sometimes derailed by NIMBYs. Who have a point that "controlled" burns can very easily become uncontrolled, despite all best practices.

The perennial fire problem has been greatly exacerbated by the severe droughts of recent years that have turned much of the back country into a giant tinderbox, and the persistence of warm weather later and later into the Fall. In years past, my wife & I would try to see if we could make it to Halloween without turning on the furnace. The past few years, we've been wishing we had air conditioning.

This article provides some useful background.

Maybe it's time to unshackle the loggers (again)

In 1977, I visited a former squadron mate who was working for Columbia Helicopters, flying long line timber extraction in the Sierras.
Their thinning & extraction process was very impressive. They were strictly regulated, in the field, on what trees they could take.
In 2016 the volume of timber harvested in CA's govt owned forests was down to 1/8th of the volume thinned in 1978.

Five Myths about Wildfires

Myth #1: Regularly logging forests prevents wildfire

Myth #2: There is nothing you can do to protect your property

Myth #3: Forest fires are an inevitable fact of nature

Myth #4: All wildfires are bad and must be quenched immediately

Myth #5: It is possible to eradicate (or control) all forest fires

Here's a good NPR report on how logging factored into wildfire prevention & how it could again.
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/29/64295578 ... -wildfires
Clear cutting more firebreaks could limit the spread of wildfires & yield timber revenue to help offset the cost of removing tinder underbrush in the vulnerable forests.
Wildfires will never be eliminated, but more active forest management can help contain them & reduce their incidence.
How many spotted owls are being lost now ?

[MDlaxfan76]

But not a darn thing to do with the current fires in California

[old salt]

But not a darn thing to do with the current fires in California

So what ? Are you now moderating the discussion ?
Did you read the NPR article ? There was info on past logging & forestry management.

When these fires are put out, does the issue go away, again ?
Do we just give up & say we can't do anything, because of climate change ?
Nothing needs to change ?

More clear cut fire breaks could buffer populated forest areas from unpopulated forest areas.
Maybe we should be more focused on saving people rather than spotted owls & delta smelt.

[a fan]

Right. The owls are the problem. Not a lack of Federal funding for Forestry Management.

Maybe we could take a few billion from the DoD and put it toward Forest Management, and fix the problem?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Right. The owls are the problem. Not a lack of Federal funding for Forestry Management.

Maybe we could take a few billion from the DoD and put it toward Forest Management, and fix the problem?

But that would get in the way of readiness

[youthathletics]

I thought California (Calexit) wanted to break away from the Union, you would think they would "do what is right" and protect their citizens by self-funding controlled burns. Or, these fires are inevitable and just another political tactic. I suppose it is just easier to blame the other side...business as usual.

[old salt]

Right. The owls are the problem. Not a lack of Federal funding for Forestry Management.

Maybe we could take a few billion from the DoD and put it toward Forest Management, and fix the problem?

But that would get in the way of readiness

The classic liberal accountability dodge. Didn't throw enough Fed $$$ at the problem.
The CA Congressional delegation is hardly underrepresented.
CA state govt has no responsibility for land management or public safety ? Blame it on DC.
Why & when did the controlled burns & clearing of underbrush stop ?
https://www.motherjones.com/environment ... in-flames/
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ne ... story.html
Remember when the enviro-terrorists were driving spikes in trees to injure loggers.
The logging trails (which also served as fire breaks) are now overgrown.

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editoria ... 08995.html

...the U.S. Forest Service is moving to allow commercial logging of thousands of healthy pine trees – for the first time in decades – across 2,800 acres in the Los Padres National Forest north of Los Angeles. The agency doubled the annual timber production target from 200,000 cubic feet of wood last year to 400,000 this year, and is moving ahead without first conducting formal environmental impact reviews of the potential damage to wildlife, including the federally endangered California condor.

The Forest Service justifies its plan by saying the area is overgrown and a fire danger, and that it includes creating a firebreak 12 miles long and as much as a half-mile wide

[runrussellrun]

But not a darn thing to do with the current fires in California

What do you think about hiring $1 a day.........and STILL trained to be firefighters........federal prisoners to help put these fires out?

Posted something about this yesterday.....as usual, the pretends ignore the problems that matter.

If only we could start talking about Barron failing school.........THAT needs attention. Or, tRumps choice of ties?

[runrussellrun]

Right. The owls are the problem. Not a lack of Federal funding for Forestry Management.

Maybe we could take a few billion from the DoD and put it toward Forest Management, and fix the problem?

A few......how about $300 billion. And cut booz allens budget too........they are doing such a bang up job with the Veterans Admin. icon_puke

Almost $2 billion to fight wild fires. That works out to be about 28,000 firefighters, making $70 k a year. So, when California is saying hiring a $dollar a day Prisoner saves them $100 million, every year......where does the saved money go?

https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/fil ... erview.pdf

[runrussellrun]

OH....and everyone....it is AUDIT season. Remember, the Pentagon audit was promised to be ready during November. ANyone see it yet? Does anyone CARE to see it?

(of course NOT, you idiot fatty, they haven't cared since they refused to pay the Continental army all those years ago....... )

[old salt]

Enlist all the inbound migrants in the caravan into the CA Conservation Corps & turn 'em loose clearing the underbrush.

Set up a recruiting center in TJ.

[a fan]

Screw that. Send in the military. Apparently they're the only Dept. in our Federal government that deserves "adequate" funding.

The sequester only hit the DoD, right old salt? Our Federal infrastructure, which includes our Federal forests, didn't suffer at all, right?

Right.

You have a consistent view of our Federal resources I'll give you that much: The DoD is always underfunded. Every other Dept. is overfunded. Rinse. Repeat.

640 million acres of Federal land. And you think that money isn't an issue in its management. And one things for sure, if everything isn't perfect, it's the environmentalists' fault, and couldn't possibly be an issue of funding, even thought the logger mentioned in your above link said that lack of funding for clearing brush is absolutely a factor.