Replies

As I said, who should I believe, my lying ears or Okie's defense of the sainted Senator Feinstein?

Sainted? Excuse me, but here is what I wrote:

Inasmuch as I detest the treasonous corruption represented by Diane Feinstein, this is a false piece of character assasination when it comes to her forest policy.

I called her corrupt and treasonous. She is certainly both. She has supported forest thinning and bears no resemblance to Boxer on this issue.

I know both of you personally. What we have here is a misunderstanding, you're both on the same side.

Jan, Mark is a great guy and a real conservative conservationist.

Mark, Jan is a super gal who doesn't know you. Sometimes us anti-envirals are so warey of anything resembling a green that you may at times become a victim of mis-identification.

I'm for throwing out the baby with the bath water, when it comes to California, let Mexico have it. In ten years the corruption and lack of care for the citizens will have the residents begging the U.S. to liberate them.

I haven't been paying much attention to the fires so I can only make assumptions, maybe you correct them.

It seems to me that both private and public lands have been mismanaged and if the Californians had gotten off their lazy asses and taken care of God's creation these fires would not have been as catastrophic as they became. I don’t support the environmentalist and I believe that the States constituents have allowed them to take control out of ignorance and indifference.

I stopped buying materials from California and those that came through their ports long ago. I hate paying for their socialist policies that seem to me, only promote a lazy culture. The hell if I want America’s tax dollars used to allow them to continue those policies.

Why should we believe that if emergency funds are sent to help California recover from this catastrophe and their economic mismanagement, anything will change in the future?