Didnt pay for firefighting service: house burns!

Damocles said:
Bottom line is:

You believe that the fire fighters lives and the livelihood of their families is less important than stuff they aren't even supposed to "protect" and would lose everything if they payed the ultimate price.

Again, if there were lives at stake they'd go in without thinking. Your analogies are based in ignorance which you refuse to fix. I'm good with that. I see you as one of the idiots who slow down in front of fire trucks running with lights and siren when you think they haven't responded in time in the past, who would spit on fire fighters in ignorance, and whom they'd still work to save if you were inside a burning building.

Shallow is the belief that stuff is more important than their safety.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but all those flaws you assign to me pale in comparison to the fireman who won't do his job due to nonpayment of $75.00 dollars.

Just so we're clear...

Pay $75.00...your stuff gets saved.

Don't pay...tough titty.

Supremely callous...however typically conservative.
 
cawacko said:
And Zap I do think the rules are messed up. I agree with others that the person should have been able to pay a fine and have his house saved.

(As an aside, that's awesome you got the Orndorff reference. God I feel old now. Remember that guy was in the Main Event of Wrestlemania I?)
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere...

I do not think the guy should get off scott free. They could fine him ten times the amount for non-payment, AFTER they've done their job and put the fire out.

But for them to come out to his house and then IGNORE his pleas is callous, it's un-American and it's not very Christlike.

and btw...I am just as old...I remember Wrestlemania I! Watched it with my Bro!
 
cawacko said:
And Zap I do think the rules are messed up. I agree with others that the person should have been able to pay a fine and have his house saved.

(As an aside, that's awesome you got the Orndorff reference. God I feel old now. Remember that guy was in the Main Event of Wrestlemania I?)
Click to expand...
It really depends on how the area was defined whether or not the policy is set arbitrarily. I need more information.

They may have defined it in a way that it would be detrimental to the firefighters to have any other policy, and if so they need to redefine the district so such a scenario can take place. If they put the policy in for any reason other than to protect firefighters' and their families from losing it all, then they need to lose their jobs and the new group needs to rewrite the policy.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Sorry, but all those flaws you assign to me pale in comparison to the fireman who won't do his job due to nonpayment of $75.00 dollars.

Just so we're clear...

Pay $75.00...your stuff gets saved.

Don't pay...tough titty.

Supremely callous...however typically conservative.
Click to expand...
Again, his job was in a defined set area.

1. It isn't his "job" to fight every fire. It is never their job to fight every fire. There are times when their job is to do exactly what they did, even with homes in that defined area. I've explained that to you several times. Sometimes it is impossible to save a structure, when that happens it is their JOB to protect surrounding properties and let the structure burn.
2. You continue to put firefighters' lives as less important than this guy's stuff, when even this guy didn't deem it important enough to protect.

You are supremely callous with firefighters' lives and the livelihood of their families. I will always remember that. You too will remember it when you really need to call on them.
 
Yurt said:
you're really defensive...guess i hit a nerve :)
Click to expand...

You consider what she wrote "defensive"? Really?

Whenever I see your responses - especially in those terrible neg reps - my first impression is of someone whose face is a deep shade of purple, gritting their teeth and practically pounding the keyboard w/ their fists.

Now, THAT is defensive, imo....
 
Damocles said:
Again, his job was in a defined set area.

1. It isn't his "job" to fight every fire. It is never their job to fight every fire. There are times when their job is to do exactly what they did, even with homes in that defined area. I've explained that to you several times. Sometimes it is impossible to save a structure, when that happens it is their JOB to protect surrounding properties and let the structure burn.
2. You continue to put firefighters' lives as less important than this guy's stuff, when even this guy didn't deem it important enough to protect.

You are supremely callous with firefighters' lives and the livelihood of their families. I will always remember that. You too will remember it when you really need to call on them.
Click to expand...

If my house catches fire I'll simply make sure that I don't call you...don't want to take a chance that you might not feel like fighting fires that day because I forgot to pay some shitty little fee.

And if I sound callous it's simply because I've been properly trained by those Tennessee firemen
 
ZappasGuitar said:
If my house catches fire I'll simply make sure that I don't call you...don't want to take a chance that you might not feel like fighting fires that day because I forgot to pay some shitty little fee.
Click to expand...

There's a good deal of people here you shouldn't call Zap. You've just endeared yourself to so many. Knowing that someone wouldn't even piss on you if you were on fire is a real claim to fame!

Now roll on out of here Rollo Man. It must be time to hang the feed bag!
 
usaloyal2theend said:
There's a good deal of people here you shouldn't call Zap. You've just endeared yourself to so many. Knowing that someone wouldn't even piss on you if you were on fire is a real claim to fame!

Now roll on out of here Rollo Man. It must be time to hang the feed bag!
Click to expand...

WOW...actually had the spine to post one of your patented fat jokes out here for a change, eh?

My guess is you probably just couldn't neg rep me again so soon...
 
Onceler said:
You consider what she wrote "defensive"? Really?

Whenever I see your responses - especially in those terrible neg reps - my first impression is of someone whose face is a deep shade of purple, gritting their teeth and practically pounding the keyboard w/ their fists.

Now, THAT is defensive, imo....
Click to expand...

still whining about my neg reps....:)

and your post is a classic example of defensive and projection

sucks to be you onceler :clink:
 
Yurt said:
yeah, you're right....have NO ONE pay the fee...despite CHOOSING to live outside the tax radius that supports the fire department....and still get the benefit of fire department

while you're at it, why don't we abolish ALL taxes and still demand the fire department put out our fires....
Click to expand...

ZappasGuitar said:
Sorry, but all those flaws you assign to me pale in comparison to the fireman who won't do his job due to nonpayment of $75.00 dollars.

Just so we're clear...

Pay $75.00...your stuff gets saved.

Don't pay...tough titty.

Supremely callous...however typically conservative.
Click to expand...

.
 
Onceler said:
That's a pretty clinical way to look at it. If someone on a beach or in a plane is choking or has a medical emergency, and there is a doctor around, that doctor usually helps out, and doesn't wait to see if that person has insurance or can pay or has paid.

I can't really make sense of qualified people sitting there watching while someone's house goes down in flames. And didn't a neighboring house catch fire because of that?

What you're arguing makes sense at a certain level - certainly as a strict interpretation of the policy they had in the area - but on a basic level of humanitarianism, it's just weird, callous and unsettling (at best).
Click to expand...

Bingo! The only comment I'm seeing from conservatives is the time-honored money argument, i.e. "not on my dime". For a measly seventy-five dollars these morally-repugnant freaks let a house burn to the ground, along with four animals that were trapped and couldn't get out. Would they have stood there flapping their gums and bloviating about following the rules if human beings were inside, too?

There was no excuse for this... zero, zip, nada. It' one instance where standing on principle isn't going to change the opinion of millions that this was a disgusting display of callousness.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Sorry, but all those flaws you assign to me pale in comparison to the fireman who won't do his job due to nonpayment of $75.00 dollars.

Just so we're clear...

Pay $75.00...your stuff gets saved.

Don't pay...tough titty.

Supremely callous...however typically conservative.
Click to expand...

Several centuries ago, houses in England would have a plaque on a wall to indicate that they've paid the fee to the local fire service, sounds like not much has changed in some parts of the USA.

http://www.moleseyhistory.co.uk/books/surrey/fireplaques/index.html
 
christiefan915 said:
Bingo! The only comment I'm seeing from conservatives is the time-honored money argument, i.e. "not on my dime". For a measly seventy-five dollars these morally-repugnant freaks let a house burn to the ground, along with four animals that were trapped and couldn't get out. Would they have stood there flapping their gums and bloviating about following the rules if human beings were inside, too?

There was no excuse for this... zero, zip, nada. It' one instance where standing on principle isn't going to change the opinion of millions that this was a disgusting display of callousness.
Click to expand...

why don't we abolish taxes for firemen and have them all work for free?
 
Yurt said:
why don't we abolish taxes for firemen and have them all work for free?
Click to expand...

It should come out of the property tax, otherwise what is the point of them?

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax"]Property tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Assorted_international_currencies.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Assorted international currencies.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Assorted_international_currencies.jpg/180px-Assorted_international_currencies.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/89/Assorted_international_currencies.jpg/180px-Assorted_international_currencies.jpg[/ame]
 
christiefan915 said:
Bingo! The only comment I'm seeing from conservatives is the time-honored money argument, i.e. "not on my dime". For a measly seventy-five dollars these morally-repugnant freaks let a house burn to the ground, along with four animals that were trapped and couldn't get out. Would they have stood there flapping their gums and bloviating about following the rules if human beings were inside, too?

There was no excuse for this... zero, zip, nada. It' one instance where standing on principle isn't going to change the opinion of millions that this was a disgusting display of callousness.
Click to expand...

As Damo has already stated firefighters are required by law to go in if human life is in danger.
 
tom prendergast said:
How can they possibly know that in advance without going inside to see if there are any occupants? That just doesn't make any sense!
Click to expand...

The firefighters talked to dude who owned the home. If someone were in there he would have told them. In retrospect maybe he should have lied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top