"but fires always hot"--HB

These fires we have had since 2000 in the forests dickweed are burning hotter, plume dominated fires (which you obviously have never seen on your scrub brush ranch full of one and 10 hour fuels) the ones that create the firestorms are the norm in these forests because these forests have six to ten times more trees per acre and are six to ten times more dry and they explode into flames and it is not uncommon for thousands of square miles to be barren wastelands once the fire is through exhausting every available fuel it has.

now as to your Clinton is the boogie man, will you get over that fat irrelevant fuk and his cronies, in case you haven't noticed he has been out of office for seven years now.

And as to your idiotic they would support only democratic supporting businesses then why is it when I interview Republicans, be it land owners or governors or legislators in the west, which I happen to do on a daily basis, they all spout my idea? And why is it that they point to the number of mill closings they have seen in the last 20 years and how those closings due to the lack of logging going on have increased the fuel levels and created fires they have never seen in their lifetimes which they spent entirely in the west. Can you answer that ye who thinks he has a damn clue about anything going on out here...I didn't think so

And why is it that managed private lands don't suffer the catastrophic forest fires, while the federal lands just burn away? You are arguing for the feds to keep control over a situation you admit they can't control, damn liberal.

Perhaps the reason you mention Clinton is because he was in charge when you last set foot in the west, and that was a long time ago, I hear though that dementia can be a biotch.

In case you wondered, Clinton doesn't support thinning the forests, that'd be President Bush who does, or did you not read those links I posted way back.

And if I am so damn liberal, why is it your stance is exactly the same one as all the leftist groups? And mine is the polar opposite? Got any answers...I didn't think so

Can you answer that? You can't, because you haven't and I've given your tired, pathetic argument enough time to make a point, which you've yet to make.

I'm arguing with an idiot, closet-liberal, tree-hugging jackass who doesn't realize that this idiotic let nature take care of nature is a load of bullchit. Anybody who actually lives out here understands that now, with the exception of the granolas. Hey dumbass, man is an integral part of nature.

All your simpleton leave it alone argument is doing is creating vast expanses of destruction. You have no appreciation of the value of a natural resource, you'd rather it burn up and not be used at all. I imagine you feel the same about seeking out energy sources as well, just leave them where they are and let nature take care of nature, damn you're an idiot.

All your simpleton argument leads to is a destruction of the forests, which in turn leads to a destruction of the watersheds, and why? Because you're afraid of capitalism, it scares the hell out of you, freedom scares the hell out of you. And all this time I thought I was talking to an American.

All you accomplish after destroying everything out here in a matter of a couple of decades is you falsely limit the supply of wood products, why don't you start your own damn OPEC for forest products while you are at it.