(06-29-2016 10:37 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:34 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:33 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:31 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  no problem. thanks for letting us know that all you do is *****.

you are so right, all I do is *****

Honesty is the 1st step to recovery.

yeah, something your democrapic counterparts lack...

That's odd because I'm a registered Republican.

like I said... honesty is something you and your democraptic counterparts lack...

(06-29-2016 10:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 09:59 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  What I got from the story is the DOD paid these guys hazardous duty pay -- which they deserved, IMO -- and then someone ratted them out, there was an investigation and the DOD determined they weren't entitled to the pay and ordered it stopped and that the guys pay it back. Now they're going public. Good for them. I'd do same. And I hope someone orders this crap stopped.

It's bull**** these guys are being treated this way, but to say it's Obama is a bit of a stretch. I doubt he or his administration knew of it prior to the Washington Post story.

That said, pay screw ups weren't unheard of in 80s and 90s Army. Finance clerk makes a mistake and next thing you know someone's getting an NPD on LES.

Personally not Obama, but its the people he has appointed. And the people he has appointed have not stopped it. They have, on the other hand, encouraged the nonsense.

Is it...are they? I didn't read the whole story, but could this be the "fault" of career people at the Pentagon and not necessarily folks Obama was directly responsible for "hiring"?

And also, what power does Obama have here to "correct" this anyway?

(06-29-2016 10:40 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:37 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:34 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:33 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:31 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  you are so right, all I do is *****

Honesty is the 1st step to recovery.

yeah, something your democrapic counterparts lack...

That's odd because I'm a registered Republican.

like I said... honesty is something your democraptic counterparts lack...

facts never mattered to you.....

(06-29-2016 10:51 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:40 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:37 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:34 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:33 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Honesty is the 1st step to recovery.

yeah, something your democrapic counterparts lack...

That's odd because I'm a registered Republican.

like I said... honesty is something your democraptic counterparts lack...

facts never mattered to you.....

Quote:What difference at this point does it make?

what a terribly editorialized sensationalist title.

on a side note it has been my understanding that military bomb squad members can't have any authority at a site. the reason for this is "military not being used as law enforcement" is a pretty critical part of the constitution and federal law. obvious bomb squads are important and we need them but that has always been an interesting element.

(06-29-2016 10:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Pretty much agree with gsu. Stop the pay yes, but don't demand the money back now. That's bush.

And yeah...this has zip an pip to do with the political affiliation of the president.

unless they intentionally knew they were being overpaid, I agree.

(06-29-2016 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  what a terribly editorialized sensationalist title.

on a side note it has been my understanding that military bomb squad members can't have any authority at a site. the reason for this is "military not being used as law enforcement" is a pretty critical part of the constitution and federal law. obvious bomb squads are important and we need them but that has always been an interesting element.

This team isn't military, it's staffed and ran by the civilian side of DOD.

The reason a military bomb squad can't have authority at a site is because it's not a military facility thus they would be responding to assist and under the command of the agency who's jurisdiction the incident falls under, or if a terrorist incident the FBI. Military EOD teams assist civilian authorities all the time through mutual aid agreements just like military fire departments assist civilian fire departments.

(06-29-2016 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  what a terribly editorialized sensationalist title.

on a side note it has been my understanding that military bomb squad members can't have any authority at a site. the reason for this is "military not being used as law enforcement" is a pretty critical part of the constitution and federal law. obvious bomb squads are important and we need them but that has always been an interesting element.

What did you expect in the Spin Room?

(06-29-2016 12:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  what a terribly editorialized sensationalist title.

on a side note it has been my understanding that military bomb squad members can't have any authority at a site. the reason for this is "military not being used as law enforcement" is a pretty critical part of the constitution and federal law. obvious bomb squads are important and we need them but that has always been an interesting element.

This team isn't military, it's staffed and ran by the civilian side of DOD.

The reason a military bomb squad can't have authority at a site is because it's not a military facility thus they would be responding to assist and under the command of the agency who's jurisdiction the incident falls under, or if a terrorist incident the FBI. Military EOD teams assist civilian authorities all the time through mutual aid agreements just like military fire departments assist civilian fire departments.

Kaplony, you are making too much sense for him

(06-29-2016 12:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  what a terribly editorialized sensationalist title.

on a side note it has been my understanding that military bomb squad members can't have any authority at a site. the reason for this is "military not being used as law enforcement" is a pretty critical part of the constitution and federal law. obvious bomb squads are important and we need them but that has always been an interesting element.

This team isn't military, it's staffed and ran by the civilian side of DOD.

The reason a military bomb squad can't have authority at a site is because it's not a military facility thus they would be responding to assist and under the command of the agency who's jurisdiction the incident falls under, or if a terrorist incident the FBI. Military EOD teams assist civilian authorities all the time through mutual aid agreements just like military fire departments assist civilian fire departments.

i heard about this from an interview I saw with a bomb squad member. he said exactly what you said, he assists in civilian cases but if he ever wanted to have an evacuation and the civilian force refused, he would be powerless to enforce it.

(06-29-2016 01:32 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 12:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  what a terribly editorialized sensationalist title.

on a side note it has been my understanding that military bomb squad members can't have any authority at a site. the reason for this is "military not being used as law enforcement" is a pretty critical part of the constitution and federal law. obvious bomb squads are important and we need them but that has always been an interesting element.

This team isn't military, it's staffed and ran by the civilian side of DOD.

The reason a military bomb squad can't have authority at a site is because it's not a military facility thus they would be responding to assist and under the command of the agency who's jurisdiction the incident falls under, or if a terrorist incident the FBI. Military EOD teams assist civilian authorities all the time through mutual aid agreements just like military fire departments assist civilian fire departments.

Kaplony, you are making too much sense for him

I know right? it's nice to see him contribute to a real discussion and use sound logic rather than his usual xenophobic crap and troll arguments.

(06-29-2016 06:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 12:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  what a terribly editorialized sensationalist title.

on a side note it has been my understanding that military bomb squad members can't have any authority at a site. the reason for this is "military not being used as law enforcement" is a pretty critical part of the constitution and federal law. obvious bomb squads are important and we need them but that has always been an interesting element.

This team isn't military, it's staffed and ran by the civilian side of DOD.

The reason a military bomb squad can't have authority at a site is because it's not a military facility thus they would be responding to assist and under the command of the agency who's jurisdiction the incident falls under, or if a terrorist incident the FBI. Military EOD teams assist civilian authorities all the time through mutual aid agreements just like military fire departments assist civilian fire departments.

i heard about this from an interview I saw with a bomb squad member. he said exactly what you said, he assists in civilian cases but if he ever wanted to have an evacuation and the civilian force refused, he would be powerless to enforce it.

And that's no different than if another civilian law enforcement agency bomb squad responded to assist a neighboring jurisdiction. If the agency in command doesn't want to evacuate there's nothing legally they can do either as they are under the command of the agency having jurisdiction.

We responded our hazmat to assist one of our rural neighboring departments with a toluene tanker spill on the interstate one night. We wanted to evacuate a trailer park that was both downwind and uphill because of the vapor danger but the County Sheriff refused, stating there was no need. We immediately started breaking down our equipment when their Fire Chief finally arrived on scene (he had been out of town visiting family and when notified immediately returned) and asked what was going on. When we informed him of the situation he said "Well last time I checked the state law says that as Fire Chief I'm in charge" and he advised the Sheriff if he didn't do the evacuation that his next two calls would be for the Highway Patrol to handle the evacuation and the news media to explain why he was having the County Sheriff hauled away from his scene in handcuffs. We got our evacuation.

(07-04-2016 12:12 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 06:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 12:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  what a terribly editorialized sensationalist title.

on a side note it has been my understanding that military bomb squad members can't have any authority at a site. the reason for this is "military not being used as law enforcement" is a pretty critical part of the constitution and federal law. obvious bomb squads are important and we need them but that has always been an interesting element.

This team isn't military, it's staffed and ran by the civilian side of DOD.

The reason a military bomb squad can't have authority at a site is because it's not a military facility thus they would be responding to assist and under the command of the agency who's jurisdiction the incident falls under, or if a terrorist incident the FBI. Military EOD teams assist civilian authorities all the time through mutual aid agreements just like military fire departments assist civilian fire departments.

i heard about this from an interview I saw with a bomb squad member. he said exactly what you said, he assists in civilian cases but if he ever wanted to have an evacuation and the civilian force refused, he would be powerless to enforce it.

And that's no different than if another civilian law enforcement agency bomb squad responded to assist a neighboring jurisdiction. If the agency in command doesn't want to evacuate there's nothing legally they can do either as they are under the command of the agency having jurisdiction.

We responded our hazmat to assist one of our rural neighboring departments with a toluene tanker spill on the interstate one night. We wanted to evacuate a trailer park that was both downwind and uphill because of the vapor danger but the County Sheriff refused, stating there was no need. We immediately started breaking down our equipment when their Fire Chief finally arrived on scene (he had been out of town visiting family and when notified immediately returned) and asked what was going on. When we informed him of the situation he said "Well last time I checked the state law says that as Fire Chief I'm in charge" and he advised the Sheriff if he didn't do the evacuation that his next two calls would be for the Highway Patrol to handle the evacuation and the news media to explain why he was having the County Sheriff hauled away from his scene in handcuffs. We got our evacuation.

Just curious, is your department billing insurance companies for spills? I ask because couple of FDs I covered in GA couple years ago started passing on costs for hazmat cleanup and other major response incidents to insurance companies of guilty parties. Both are small municipal departments near major interstates (one is close to 95) and both have had to respond to some serious stuff in recent years involving tankers.

Apparently, they were annually using up about a third of their budget just going out to clean up messes left by idiots on the interstate -- and I say idiots because in many of these it was basically bad driving that led to the wrecks. Told city council they could either do without, raise taxes or start billing the insurance companies, so council voted to bill the insurance companies for responses.

(07-04-2016 09:41 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 12:12 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 06:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 12:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  what a terribly editorialized sensationalist title.

on a side note it has been my understanding that military bomb squad members can't have any authority at a site. the reason for this is "military not being used as law enforcement" is a pretty critical part of the constitution and federal law. obvious bomb squads are important and we need them but that has always been an interesting element.

This team isn't military, it's staffed and ran by the civilian side of DOD.

The reason a military bomb squad can't have authority at a site is because it's not a military facility thus they would be responding to assist and under the command of the agency who's jurisdiction the incident falls under, or if a terrorist incident the FBI. Military EOD teams assist civilian authorities all the time through mutual aid agreements just like military fire departments assist civilian fire departments.

i heard about this from an interview I saw with a bomb squad member. he said exactly what you said, he assists in civilian cases but if he ever wanted to have an evacuation and the civilian force refused, he would be powerless to enforce it.

And that's no different than if another civilian law enforcement agency bomb squad responded to assist a neighboring jurisdiction. If the agency in command doesn't want to evacuate there's nothing legally they can do either as they are under the command of the agency having jurisdiction.

We responded our hazmat to assist one of our rural neighboring departments with a toluene tanker spill on the interstate one night. We wanted to evacuate a trailer park that was both downwind and uphill because of the vapor danger but the County Sheriff refused, stating there was no need. We immediately started breaking down our equipment when their Fire Chief finally arrived on scene (he had been out of town visiting family and when notified immediately returned) and asked what was going on. When we informed him of the situation he said "Well last time I checked the state law says that as Fire Chief I'm in charge" and he advised the Sheriff if he didn't do the evacuation that his next two calls would be for the Highway Patrol to handle the evacuation and the news media to explain why he was having the County Sheriff hauled away from his scene in handcuffs. We got our evacuation.

Just curious, is your department billing insurance companies for spills? I ask because couple of FDs I covered in GA couple years ago started passing on costs for hazmat cleanup and other major response incidents to insurance companies of guilty parties. Both are small municipal departments near major interstates (one is close to 95) and both have had to respond to some serious stuff in recent years involving tankers.

Apparently, they were annually using up about a third of their budget just going out to clean up messes left by idiots on the interstate -- and I say idiots because in many of these it was basically bad driving that led to the wrecks. Told city council they could either do without, raise taxes or start billing the insurance companies, so council voted to bill the insurance companies for responses.

Only to recover the cost of consumables like suits, protective boom, etc. There's some departments out there trying to gouge insurance companies charging for everything....fuel, manpower costs, restock fees, etc. , but our philosophy was that our manpower was going to be getting paid already and the fact that our hazmat team was graced with being funded by a ton of federal and private grants the cost to our taxpayers was minimal already. As a result of this billing philosophy we actually had companies pay their bill then make a significant donation of either cash or some piece of needed equipment. I know of one lowstate agency that is constantly in court defending their outrageous billing process.

(07-04-2016 12:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 09:41 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 12:12 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 06:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 12:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  This team isn't military, it's staffed and ran by the civilian side of DOD.

The reason a military bomb squad can't have authority at a site is because it's not a military facility thus they would be responding to assist and under the command of the agency who's jurisdiction the incident falls under, or if a terrorist incident the FBI. Military EOD teams assist civilian authorities all the time through mutual aid agreements just like military fire departments assist civilian fire departments.

i heard about this from an interview I saw with a bomb squad member. he said exactly what you said, he assists in civilian cases but if he ever wanted to have an evacuation and the civilian force refused, he would be powerless to enforce it.

And that's no different than if another civilian law enforcement agency bomb squad responded to assist a neighboring jurisdiction. If the agency in command doesn't want to evacuate there's nothing legally they can do either as they are under the command of the agency having jurisdiction.

We responded our hazmat to assist one of our rural neighboring departments with a toluene tanker spill on the interstate one night. We wanted to evacuate a trailer park that was both downwind and uphill because of the vapor danger but the County Sheriff refused, stating there was no need. We immediately started breaking down our equipment when their Fire Chief finally arrived on scene (he had been out of town visiting family and when notified immediately returned) and asked what was going on. When we informed him of the situation he said "Well last time I checked the state law says that as Fire Chief I'm in charge" and he advised the Sheriff if he didn't do the evacuation that his next two calls would be for the Highway Patrol to handle the evacuation and the news media to explain why he was having the County Sheriff hauled away from his scene in handcuffs. We got our evacuation.

Just curious, is your department billing insurance companies for spills? I ask because couple of FDs I covered in GA couple years ago started passing on costs for hazmat cleanup and other major response incidents to insurance companies of guilty parties. Both are small municipal departments near major interstates (one is close to 95) and both have had to respond to some serious stuff in recent years involving tankers.

Apparently, they were annually using up about a third of their budget just going out to clean up messes left by idiots on the interstate -- and I say idiots because in many of these it was basically bad driving that led to the wrecks. Told city council they could either do without, raise taxes or start billing the insurance companies, so council voted to bill the insurance companies for responses.

Only to recover the cost of consumables like suits, protective boom, etc. There's some departments out there trying to gouge insurance companies charging for everything....fuel, manpower costs, restock fees, etc. , but our philosophy was that our manpower was going to be getting paid already and the fact that our hazmat team was graced with being funded by a ton of federal and private grants the cost to our taxpayers was minimal already. As a result of this billing philosophy we actually had companies pay their bill then make a significant donation of either cash or some piece of needed equipment. I know of one lowstate agency that is constantly in court defending their outrageous billing process.

That's a good philosophy. From what I've gathered in departments I referred to, they're similar in intent and are merely trying to break even, not make bank. It seems a way to recover cost of making the runs - labor, materials, etc., and not have to pass on cost to taxpayers. I also know they do it on a sliding scale depending on how big the hazmat incident is. I don't know if it' s led to any donations or lawsuits yet, but I'm of opinion it's a smart way to do things.

(06-29-2016 10:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 09:57 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 09:53 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 09:51 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 09:43 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  stop your trolling, this isnt a Trump thread...

When you guys stop your bitchin'.

thanks for letting us know that you are trolling...

he's pretty good at it....got to give him 'street cred' for that....

his jekyll/hyde persona is pretty good.....

I'd hire him....

Better than Cheeto Jesus? I'm not as liberal/conservative as you think. Probably one of the most middle of the road posters in here.