Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://missoulian.com/news/local/study- ... 7d935.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A recently study should put to rest the notion that green lodgepole pine needles burn as fast as red ones.
But more than that, Matt Jolly said, the study could help open firefighters' eyes to the dangers lurking in mountain pine beetle-infested forests where the trees still look to be alive and doing well.
Jolly is a research ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research Station and co-author of a recent study that set out to document the flammability of lodgepole pine needles during different stages of pine-beetle attack.
The researchers collected foliage from lodgepole pine trees and tested changes in chemistry and flammability in an attempt to quantify how much heat was required for those needles to ignite and how fast they would burn.
Jolly said one focus of the study was to put an end to the debate over the flammability of green needles of a healthy tree and those that have turned red after a tree has died.

Dead trees and their needles burn faster than green ones. SMFH

So that was a waste of government money, that study? I don't think so.

I'll never forget Ronald Reagan, in arguing for the line item veto, said, "I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $200,000 for a crawfish study in Louisiana".

Dumbass. At the time, the organization promoting crawfish products was looking for a little help in marketing their products, something that, had they received the grant money, could have meant millions and millions in new revenue and hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs.



Shortsightedness is a bad Conk malady. But, you have to give Ronnie the benefit of the doubt, the oil industry surely needed that money, I guess.....

Shit like this is why Montana is near the top in federal spending per capita.

Whores.

Cap'n Cat wrote:So that was a waste of government money, that study? I don't think so.

I'll never forget Ronald Reagan, in arguing for the line item veto, said, "I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $200,000 for a crawfish study in Louisiana".

Dumbass. At the time, the organization promoting crawfish products was looking for a little help in marketing their products, something that, had they received the grant money, could have meant millions and millions in new revenue and hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs.



Shortsightedness is a bad Conk malady. But, you have to give Ronnie the benefit of the doubt, the oil industry surely needed that money, I guess.....

Since when has a $200,000 marketing budget resulted in hundreds, if not thousands of jobs?

Why should the taxpayers pay for the marketing efforts of a private company or industry?

kalm wrote:Shit like this is why Montana is near the top in federal spending per capita.

Whores.

Nope. Injuns.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:So that was a waste of government money, that study? I don't think so.

I'll never forget Ronald Reagan, in arguing for the line item veto, said, "I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $200,000 for a crawfish study in Louisiana".

Dumbass. At the time, the organization promoting crawfish products was looking for a little help in marketing their products, something that, had they received the grant money, could have meant millions and millions in new revenue and hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs.



Shortsightedness is a bad Conk malady. But, you have to give Ronnie the benefit of the doubt, the oil industry surely needed that money, I guess.....

Since when has a $200,000 marketing budget resulted in hundreds, if not thousands of jobs?

Why should the taxpayers pay for the marketing efforts of a private company or industry?

Agreed, but it happens all the time in many industries and from both sides of the fence.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:So that was a waste of government money, that study? I don't think so.

I'll never forget Ronald Reagan, in arguing for the line item veto, said, "I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $200,000 for a crawfish study in Louisiana".

Dumbass. At the time, the organization promoting crawfish products was looking for a little help in marketing their products, something that, had they received the grant money, could have meant millions and millions in new revenue and hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs.



Shortsightedness is a bad Conk malady. But, you have to give Ronnie the benefit of the doubt, the oil industry surely needed that money, I guess.....

Since when has a $200,000 marketing budget resulted in hundreds, if not thousands of jobs?

Why should the taxpayers pay for the marketing efforts of a private company or industry?

That reading comprehension thing really hamstrings you, Graddy.



I said it "could have" over time. You never know. Thousands of companies have used private and public money to expand their business and be successful. In response to your "Why should taxpayers pay..." whine, their is risk in everything. The government has a place is aiding business.

Cap'n Cat wrote: The government has a place is aiding business.

That's funny....I can't find that listed as a federal government responsibility in the Constitution...

Col Hogan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote: The government has a place is aiding business.

That's funny....I can't find that listed as a federal government responsibility in the Constitution...

Because your mind is arrested and cemented in 1800, Hoagenheimer. And, reading comprehension poster child #2, did I SAY it was listed as a Constitutional responsibility, you fvck?

Bad fail.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
That's funny....I can't find that listed as a federal government responsibility in the Constitution...

Because your mind is arrested and cemented in 1800, Hoagenheimer. And, reading comprehension poster child #2, did I SAY it was listed as a Constitutional responsibility, you fvck?

Bad fail.

So, the Constitution is no longer valid???

Col Hogan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Because your mind is arrested and cemented in 1800, Hoagenheimer. And, reading comprehension poster child #2, did I SAY it was listed as a Constitutional responsibility, you fvck?

Bad fail.

So, the Constitution is no longer valid???

Your credibility here isn't, son. Refer to my question.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
So, the Constitution is no longer valid???

Your credibility here isn't, son. Refer to my question.

OK, The Constitution has a VERY CLEAR list of federal responsibilities and then the 10th Amendment says if it isn't listed as a federal responsibility, then it ISN'T...it can be a state or local...but NOT a federal responsibility...

Or can your reading comprehension rap your gray matter around that nugget???

Col Hogan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Your credibility here isn't, son. Refer to my question.

OK, The Constitution has a VERY CLEAR list of federal responsibilities and then the 10th Amendment says if it isn't listed as a federal responsibility, then it ISN'T...it can be a state or local...but NOT a federal responsibility...

Or can your reading comprehension rap your gray matter around that nugget???

Still don't get it, you dolt.

I'll make it simple for you, church mouse. In the history of the United State, has the federal government ever given away money to entrepreneurs for investment in their business? Federal grants, anything like that, Butch?



Man, Conks flail more and more wildly as Obama's reelection nears.

Ever hearda this, Hoagenmeister?


http://www.sba.gov/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;