Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Snow and Ice in the South

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Vehicle fuel standards, as an example. The cost of engineering those standards, and more importantly, the cost to the public in terms of repair bills associated with the increased complexity of the engines required to meet those standards, are a perfect example. The problem is that the environmentalists want to eliminate all pollution, despite the costs. Republicans want to eliminate pollution where the coasts to business, consumers and society as a whole are reasonable and the reductions are significant enough to warrant the costs.
    This statement is so vague (which I'm sure is its purpose) so as to be complete nonsense.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And for the record, I do believe that manmade global warming is a load of crap.
    It is for all of those who lack the ability to read a report or a book with no pictures.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by captnjak View Post
    What possible opposition could you mount against reducing greenhouse gases? And even if you could (you surely can't) why would you? This is where the wheels come off in this debate. If you are against the federal government, or anyone else for that matter, reducing greenhouse gases then you are in favor of pollution. Why is it nonsense to want to reduce pollution?
    I am not in favor of pollution, but that being said, there is a cost to that reduction, and there are times when the costs simply are not reasonable or justified.

    Vehicle fuel standards, as an example. The cost of engineering those standards, and more importantly, the cost to the public in terms of repair bills associated with the increased complexity of the engines required to meet those standards, are a perfect example. The problem is that the environmentalists want to eliminate all pollution, despite the costs. Republicans want to eliminate pollution where the coasts to business, consumers and society as a whole are reasonable and the reductions are significant enough to warrant the costs.

    And for the record, I do believe that manmade global warming is a load of crap.

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    Originally posted by WVFD705 View Post
    Not saying reducing greenhouse gases is a bad thing, and some regulation of greenhouse gases is a good thing. But the problem is that when the government regulates to the point it becomes cheaper for manufacturing and industry to move overseas, it does. Cheap labor isn't the only reason things are being manufactured in China.

    It is possible for the feds to increase regulations to reduce greenhouse emissions here, but for net global emissions to increase as businesses simply move to areas with fewer regulations.
    So you are AGAINST trying to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the federal government?

    We can only control what we can control.

    Manufacturing has NOT moved overseas because of government regulation run amok. That is a fairy tale told by big business to get people who believe in small government on their side. They have gone overseas because it is drastically cheaper to build factories and hire employees. Very likely that there are income tax advantages too. Less regulation is just a small by-product compared to the costs I mentioned.

    Leave a comment:


  • WVFD705
    replied
    Not saying reducing greenhouse gases is a bad thing, and some regulation of greenhouse gases is a good thing. But the problem is that when the government regulates to the point it becomes cheaper for manufacturing and industry to move overseas, it does. Cheap labor isn't the only reason things are being manufactured in China.

    It is possible for the feds to increase regulations to reduce greenhouse emissions here, but for net global emissions to increase as businesses simply move to areas with fewer regulations.

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I guess you're right. After all the republicans want dirty air and dirty water.

    Keystone Pipeline. Happy now?

    I saw today that Obama wants to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the federal government by 40%. Nonsense. I'll have to idle my car extra long in the driveway tomorrow morning to celebrate.
    What possible opposition could you mount against reducing greenhouse gases? And even if you could (you surely can't) why would you? This is where the wheels come off in this debate. If you are against the federal government, or anyone else for that matter, reducing greenhouse gases then you are in favor of pollution. Why is it nonsense to want to reduce pollution?

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I guess you're right. After all the republicans want dirty air and dirty water.
    They certainly don't support clean air and water.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Keystone Pipeline. Happy now?
    Still makes no sense given the context.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I saw today that Obama wants to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the federal government by 40%. Nonsense. I'll have to idle my car extra long in the driveway tomorrow morning to celebrate.
    Good for Obama. Obviously gas is not a high priced item for you if you can afford to sit and get zero miles to the gallon.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Because clean air and water are such a bother. How much poison do you want to eat and drink?


    Huh? Is this a tourettes remark?
    I guess you're right. After all the republicans want dirty air and dirty water.

    Keystone Pipeline. Happy now?

    I saw today that Obama wants to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the federal government by 40%. Nonsense. I'll have to idle my car extra long in the driveway tomorrow morning to celebrate.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The fact is that the EPA has run amuck with ridiculously stringent clean water regulations. Most Republicans support reasonable loosening of some of those restrictions.
    Because clean air and water are such a bother. How much poison do you want to eat and drink?

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Keystone Pipelines.
    Huh? Is this a tourettes remark?

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Like which ones and what do they consider reasonable regulations?

    Please be specific.
    Most Republicans are not openly anti-coal, like Obama. Given today's technology coal is a reasonably clean, and more importantly cheap, fuel source, not to mention that it is the economic lifeblood of Appalachia.

    The fact is that the EPA has run amuck with ridiculously stringent clean water regulations. Most Republicans support reasonable loosening of some of those restrictions.

    Keystone Pipelines.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Not at all.

    I think there are many Republicans today that make reasonable environmental arguments, given the compromises need to continue the use of fossil fuels and bring manufacturing back to the US, while at the same time not financially overburdening the business sector and allowing for reasonable profit margins.
    Like which ones and what do they consider reasonable regulations?

    Please be specific.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Great, then you just blew up your argument of GOP electeds supporting reasonable enviro regulations.

    Thanks.
    Not at all.

    I think there are many Republicans today that make reasonable environmental arguments, given the compromises need to continue the use of fossil fuels and bring manufacturing back to the US, while at the same time not financially overburdening the business sector and allowing for reasonable profit margins.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And when Reagan was president it was a different era with different problems.

    Some of what Reagan did as President would not be applicable and not good policy with the current state of affairs. If he proposed the same agenda today, I would likely not vote for him.
    Great, then you just blew up your argument of GOP electeds supporting reasonable enviro regulations.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by scfire86; 03-16-2015, 04:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    The difference is that I point to things Reagan did as Governor of CA that would keep him from getting elected president today as a GOP.

    The same can't be said of JFK as a senator or Clinton as governor.
    And when Reagan was president it was a different era with different problems.

    Some of what Reagan did as President would not be applicable and not good policy with the current state of affairs. If he proposed the same agenda today, I would likely not vote for him.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by conrad427 View Post
    Whoa, whoa, whoa! You didn't dare bring JFK into this, did you?

    Oh, snap.
    Originally posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    There are a lot of people would also say Bill Clinton is dang near too moderate to ever get nominated in the present democrat party.
    The difference is that I point to things Reagan did as Governor of CA that would keep him from getting elected president today as a GOP.

    The same can't be said of JFK as a senator or Clinton as governor.

    Leave a comment:


  • slackjawedyokel
    replied
    Originally posted by tree68 View Post
    I've heard it said that JFK probably wouldn't be considered a Democrat these days, either.
    There are a lot of people would also say Bill Clinton is dang near too moderate to ever get nominated in the present democrat party.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X