Didnt pay for firefighting service: house burns!

ZappasGuitar said:
And here we go...Damo is in his natural environment when he gets to constantly berate another for being "ignorant".

Sometimes I think he derives no greater joy than belittle someone with his "ignorant' label.

And yes, I would gladly spit on ANY fire"fighter" who would refuse to do his job due to non-payment of some pittance like $75.00.
Click to expand...

Damo is to the right of Attila the Hun. Don't let his moderate guise fool you. I gave up arguing with him a long time ago, because if someone won't even tell you what they really believe, then what is the point? They effectively move the goal posts that way. After all, if Damo is a moderate, the rest of us must be unreasonable radicals right?

Of course.
 
CanadianKid said:
The fact of the matter is this was a private service being offered to the home owners. This particular person refused the service, therefore his house burned.

Its private enterprise - cash for service. Now that conservatives see how things work in the REAL WORLD, they don't seem to like it so much.

Cause the fact of the matter is private enterprise and the "market" doesn't work for alot of things - including education, healthcare, public transportation, police and fire services, government, etc....

CK
Click to expand...

It was cash for service via a publically funded fire department. The fee was a public fee for service to an unicorporated area. People pay all kinds of fees to public entities i.e. building departments. That does not make building departments private entities. Your knee-jerk idiocy on this issue is just plain ...well...stupid!
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
Damo is to the right of Attila the Hun. Don't let his moderate guise fool you. I gave up arguing with him a long time ago, because if someone won't even tell you what they really believe, then what is the point? They effectively move the goal posts that way. After all, if Damo is a moderate, the rest of us must be unreasonable radicals right?

Of course.
Click to expand...
When have I ever said I was a moderate?
 
cawacko said:
How compassionate are you to risk your life, not to save someone else's life, but to save someone else's property?
Click to expand...

I am not brave by any means. That is one reason I never became a fireman.

My guess is, if you CHOOSE to be a fireman, you pretty well know going in that AT SOME POINT you are going to be putting your life in danger.

Nobody's asking the firemen to go risking their lives putting put a fire in some four story, office building, and nobody's demanding that they save his "stuff"...it's a tiny home out in the country, they were there and had the equipment...but Conservative/Libertarian ideals won the day.
 
Last edited:
usaloyal2theend said:
pssst!!! s'cuse me. can you move over? I am trying to get in here...s'cuse me??!!!

"Because I am a fire fighter, dinkus. If you can't gather that after reading this thread you are thicker than I thought"


I've seen Zap. He's even thicker than EVERYBODY thought!!!
Click to expand...


:rofl:.........o-tay moving on :)
 
Watermark actually won the thread when he noted that it's not possible to be a big enough douchebag that Republicans won't support you.

Really, everything posted afterwards was strictly extraneous.
 
Darla said:
Watermark actually won the thread when he noted that it's not possible to be a big enough douchebag that Republicans won't support you.

Really, everything posted afterwards was strictly extraneous.
Click to expand...
This made me laugh.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Nobody's asking the firemen to go risking their lives putting put a fire in some four story, office building, and nobody's demanding that they save his "stuff"...it's a tiny home out in the country, they were there and had the equipment...but Conservative/Libertarian ideals won the day.
Click to expand...

um, city council and mayor made these policies. you're still blaming the fire department for following their bosses rules. that's illogical.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
um, city council and mayor made these policies. you're still blaming the fire department for following their bosses rules. that's illogical.
Click to expand...
Policies are set to protect the lives and livelihood of the fire fighters. Paid or unpaid these men and women risk themselves for people and property and deserve the protection of their livelihood in case the worst happens.

Such policies are never as callously set as you believe. The insurance company would read specifically the "boundaries" of their coverage area. Homes that are not within those boundaries (chose not to pay) would not be within the coverage area of the insurance. Risking lives in such a case to save people's stuff is not the right thing to do. They are not fire insurance, nor should they be considered such.

Had they come upon a house in their district that was impossible to save those fire fighters would not enter it if there were no lives at stake. We already know that at least one of our members would be there to spit on them as they protected his house from the flames that might spread to it from this one that they would no longer be fighting...

We also know that some people put their lives and the livelihood of their families at a lower importance level than stuff.

Now I do not know if the fire fighters could have saved this house or not, but risking everything to save stuff (not lives, stuff) when they know that it is against policy set to protect their lives and livelihood just doesn't make any sense at all.
 
I hope the guy whose house burned down was a tea party activist who was whining about paying his taxes.
 
Damocles said:
Policies are set to protect the lives and livelihood of the fire fighters. Paid or unpaid these men and women risk themselves for people and property and deserve the protection of their livelihood in case the worst happens.

Such policies are never as callously set as you believe. The insurance company would read specifically the "boundaries" of their coverage area. Homes that are not within those boundaries (chose not to pay) would not be within the coverage area of the insurance. Risking lives in such a case to save people's stuff is not the right thing to do. They are not fire insurance, nor should they be considered such.

Had they come upon a house in their district that was impossible to save those fire fighters would not enter it if there were no lives at stake. We already know that at least one of our members would be there to spit on them as they protected his house from the flames that might spread to it from this one that they would no longer be fighting...

We also know that some people put their lives and the livelihood of their families at a lower importance level than stuff.

Now I do not know if the fire fighters could have saved this house or not, but risking everything to save stuff (not lives, stuff) when they know that it is against policy set to protect their lives and livelihood just doesn't make any sense at all.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is...Pay the $75.00 and your stuff gets protected.

DON"T pay and your stuff can burn for all they care.

That's one hell of a shallow attitude those firemen have.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Bottom line is...Pay the $75.00 and your stuff gets protected.

DON"T pay and your stuff can burn for all they care.

That's one hell of a shallow attitude those firemen have.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's not that hard to understand the firemen don't make these rules. The firemen didn't draw up the city and county lines and determine what areas would receive service and what areas don't.

And firemen are all union employees and big Democratic donors to boot.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Bottom line is...Pay the $75.00 and your stuff gets protected.

DON"T pay and your stuff can burn for all they care.

That's one hell of a shallow attitude those firemen have.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?)
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Bottom line is...Pay the $75.00 and your stuff gets protected.

DON"T pay and your stuff can burn for all they care.

That's one hell of a shallow attitude those firemen have.
Click to expand...

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....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top