Re: Conservatives Get What They Want! I.E (A House on Fire)

by **Talkin'boutFreedom** Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:43 am

To be honest depending on the case, those firefighters had balls. If it's in a clause to give a measly 75 DOLLARS per year and you don't do it.Tada, your house is on fire and you didn't want to pay, too bad.

by Nihil Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:45 am

Ara, it is NOT common practice to do the conservative thing that they did, which is making the people outside the county pay a fee, as a result of WHAT I SAID ABOVE.

Do you need to know that some animals died in that fire? 3 dogs and a cat, now go defend the homocide of three dogs and a cat, i dare you.

Aard, you are immediately saying that they did not pay it by saying that it was "something simple" and that you don't "accidentally forget" something like that. THAT IS HUMAN INFALLIBILITY, mmk?

And aard, would that extra 75 dollars made that much of a difference in the overall expenditure?

Also, again, you assumed that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So did you Freedom, assuming that they intentionally didn't pay it.

by **Aragorn** Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:47 am

Nihil wrote:Ara, it is NOT common practice to do the conservative thing that they did, which is making the people outside the county pay a fee, as a result of WHAT I SAID ABOVE.

Do you need to know that some animals died in that fire? 3 dogs and a cat, now go defend the homocide of three dogs and a cat, i dare you.

Aard, you are immediately saying that they did not pay it by saying that it was "something simple" and that you don't "accidentally forget" something like that. THAT IS HUMAN INFALLIBILITY, mmk?

And aard, would that extra 75 dollars made that much of a difference in the overall expenditure?

Also, again, you assumed that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So did you Freedom, assuming that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So it's not normal? You butthurt over it? Doesn't matter if it's not normal practice, it's the practice there. I am not defending them at all. I've said TWO TIMES that what they did was wrong but what is being said is they lost their house over 75 bucks, 7 bucks a month. That's a stupid reason.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:47 am

Oh and, lives could of been loss. I would like to see their conscience as a life was lost over 75 dollars. I am still stating that even the fact you have to pay 75 dollars, despite paying your taxes to the government, makes me sick. Make some votings or some shit. Change that.

by Nihil Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:48 am

Aragorn wrote:
Nihil wrote:Ara, it is NOT common practice to do the conservative thing that they did, which is making the people outside the county pay a fee, as a result of WHAT I SAID ABOVE.

Do you need to know that some animals died in that fire? 3 dogs and a cat, now go defend the homocide of three dogs and a cat, i dare you.

Aard, you are immediately saying that they did not pay it by saying that it was "something simple" and that you don't "accidentally forget" something like that. THAT IS HUMAN INFALLIBILITY, mmk?

And aard, would that extra 75 dollars made that much of a difference in the overall expenditure?

Also, again, you assumed that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So did you Freedom, assuming that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So it's not normal? You butthurt over it? Doesn't matter if it's not normal practice, it's the practice there. I am not defending them at all. I've said TWO TIMES that what they did was wrong but what is being said is they lost their house over 75 bucks, 7 bucks a month. That's a stupid reason.

so, are you agreeing with me, that this conservative practice out in Tennessee is stupid and that they should have helped or not? :serious:

by **Talkin'boutFreedom** Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:49 am

Nihil wrote:
So did you Freedom, assuming that they intentionally didn't pay it.

Talkin'boutFreedom wrote:To be honest depending on the case...

by **Dray The Fingerless** Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:49 am

Nihil wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Nihil wrote:Ara, it is NOT common practice to do the conservative thing that they did, which is making the people outside the county pay a fee, as a result of WHAT I SAID ABOVE.

Do you need to know that some animals died in that fire? 3 dogs and a cat, now go defend the homocide of three dogs and a cat, i dare you.

Aard, you are immediately saying that they did not pay it by saying that it was "something simple" and that you don't "accidentally forget" something like that. THAT IS HUMAN INFALLIBILITY, mmk?

And aard, would that extra 75 dollars made that much of a difference in the overall expenditure?

Also, again, you assumed that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So did you Freedom, assuming that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So it's not normal? You butthurt over it? Doesn't matter if it's not normal practice, it's the practice there. I am not defending them at all. I've said TWO TIMES that what they did was wrong but what is being said is they lost their house over 75 bucks, 7 bucks a month. That's a stupid reason.

so, are you agreeing with me, that this conservative practice out in Tennessee is stupid and that they should have helped or not?

Stop associating this with conservatism. It is just plain greed and stupidity. Not everything has to do with politics nihil. in fact, very little in life has to do with it.

by Nihil Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:50 am

Conservatism = Laissez-faire Politics Economics

Therefore, those firefighters did what was probably in their best economic interest.

Result?

Thus.

by **Talkin'boutFreedom** Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:51 am

Just like trying to take the smell of shit outta shit...impossible...

by **Dray The Fingerless** Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:52 am

No, conservatism means keeping with tradition and taking slow evolution of culture and society. You know, conserve stuff. You are simply stretching a definition for your own means.

by Nihil Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:53 am

srry, i'll clarify, that was too general:

Modern American Conservatism, AKA, Reaganism, AKA, Supply-Side Economics.

by **Aragorn** Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:56 am

Nihil wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Nihil wrote:Ara, it is NOT common practice to do the conservative thing that they did, which is making the people outside the county pay a fee, as a result of WHAT I SAID ABOVE.

Do you need to know that some animals died in that fire? 3 dogs and a cat, now go defend the homocide of three dogs and a cat, i dare you.

Aard, you are immediately saying that they did not pay it by saying that it was "something simple" and that you don't "accidentally forget" something like that. THAT IS HUMAN INFALLIBILITY, mmk?

And aard, would that extra 75 dollars made that much of a difference in the overall expenditure?

Also, again, you assumed that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So did you Freedom, assuming that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So it's not normal? You butthurt over it? Doesn't matter if it's not normal practice, it's the practice there. I am not defending them at all. I've said TWO TIMES that what they did was wrong but what is being said is they lost their house over 75 bucks, 7 bucks a month. That's a stupid reason.

so, are you agreeing with me, that this conservative practice out in Tennessee is stupid and that they should have helped or not?

No, I'm not. I'm agreeing that this wasn't handled incorrectly. I still fail to see how this has anything to do with conservatism.

by Nihil Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:00 am

Aragorn wrote:
Nihil wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Nihil wrote:Ara, it is NOT common practice to do the conservative thing that they did, which is making the people outside the county pay a fee, as a result of WHAT I SAID ABOVE.

Do you need to know that some animals died in that fire? 3 dogs and a cat, now go defend the homocide of three dogs and a cat, i dare you.

Aard, you are immediately saying that they did not pay it by saying that it was "something simple" and that you don't "accidentally forget" something like that. THAT IS HUMAN INFALLIBILITY, mmk?

And aard, would that extra 75 dollars made that much of a difference in the overall expenditure?

Also, again, you assumed that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So did you Freedom, assuming that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So it's not normal? You butthurt over it? Doesn't matter if it's not normal practice, it's the practice there. I am not defending them at all. I've said TWO TIMES that what they did was wrong but what is being said is they lost their house over 75 bucks, 7 bucks a month. That's a stupid reason.

so, are you agreeing with me, that this conservative practice out in Tennessee is stupid and that they should have helped or not?

No, I'm not. I'm agreeing that this wasn't handled incorrectly. I still fail to see how this has anything to do with conservatism.

O.K so are you trying to justify the murder of three dogs and a cat?

This deals with conservatism because it is not a liberal decision, it deals more with the fallibility of the human, having to pay for social services which otherwise would be free. So it is a conservative decision.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:00 am

He is asociating the freedom of such public services to private or at least local institutes, instead of being a general countrywide government controlled service. Thus, by giving the power of freedom to use the service as a town resource, the government gave more power to the local powers, a direction aimed by conservatists. Thus because the power was given to the local administration, the power was misused. Basically, hes blaming this on conservatist economics.

by Nihil Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:02 am

Dray The Fingerless wrote:He is asociating the freedom of such public services to private or at least local institutes, instead of being a general countrywide government controlled service. Thus, by giving the power of freedom to use the service as a town resource, the government gave more power to the local powers, a direction aimed by conservatists. Thus because the power was given to the local administration, the power was misused. Basically, hes blaming this on conservatist economics.

Sort of, I'm saying that these services should be free but they should be dealt with on a local basis, instead of making people pay... use the taxes collected to pay for it, so that everyone will have access, regardless of their standing in society, wealth, health, or record.

by **Aragorn** Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:04 am

Nihil wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Nihil wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Nihil wrote:Ara, it is NOT common practice to do the conservative thing that they did, which is making the people outside the county pay a fee, as a result of WHAT I SAID ABOVE.

Do you need to know that some animals died in that fire? 3 dogs and a cat, now go defend the homocide of three dogs and a cat, i dare you.

Aard, you are immediately saying that they did not pay it by saying that it was "something simple" and that you don't "accidentally forget" something like that. THAT IS HUMAN INFALLIBILITY, mmk?

And aard, would that extra 75 dollars made that much of a difference in the overall expenditure?

Also, again, you assumed that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So did you Freedom, assuming that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So it's not normal? You butthurt over it? Doesn't matter if it's not normal practice, it's the practice there. I am not defending them at all. I've said TWO TIMES that what they did was wrong but what is being said is they lost their house over 75 bucks, 7 bucks a month. That's a stupid reason.

so, are you agreeing with me, that this conservative practice out in Tennessee is stupid and that they should have helped or not?

No, I'm not. I'm agreeing that this wasn't handled incorrectly. I still fail to see how this has anything to do with conservatism.

O.K so are you trying to justify the murder of three dogs and a cat?

This deals with conservatism because it is not a liberal decision, it deals more with the fallibility of the human, having to pay for social services which otherwise would be free. So it is a conservative decision.

So from your own words since it isn't a liberal decision it must have to do with conservatism and therefore it's bad and lets bash the party even more to further my liberal agenda and beliefs. Nihil, your passive aggressiveness is so annoying. I am not justifying this at all. For the 4th time. How the situation was handled was done POORLY. Does that seem like justification to you? They do use taxes to pay for the service WITHIN the county. This was OUTSIDE the county of the firefighters responding to the call hence why the money played a factor. I've already said this...

by Nihil Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:08 am

Aragorn wrote:
Nihil wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Nihil wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Nihil wrote:Ara, it is NOT common practice to do the conservative thing that they did, which is making the people outside the county pay a fee, as a result of WHAT I SAID ABOVE.

Do you need to know that some animals died in that fire? 3 dogs and a cat, now go defend the homocide of three dogs and a cat, i dare you.

Aard, you are immediately saying that they did not pay it by saying that it was "something simple" and that you don't "accidentally forget" something like that. THAT IS HUMAN INFALLIBILITY, mmk?

And aard, would that extra 75 dollars made that much of a difference in the overall expenditure?

Also, again, you assumed that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So did you Freedom, assuming that they intentionally didn't pay it.

So it's not normal? You butthurt over it? Doesn't matter if it's not normal practice, it's the practice there. I am not defending them at all. I've said TWO TIMES that what they did was wrong but what is being said is they lost their house over 75 bucks, 7 bucks a month. That's a stupid reason.

so, are you agreeing with me, that this conservative practice out in Tennessee is stupid and that they should have helped or not?

No, I'm not. I'm agreeing that this wasn't handled incorrectly. I still fail to see how this has anything to do with conservatism.

O.K so are you trying to justify the murder of three dogs and a cat?

This deals with conservatism because it is not a liberal decision, it deals more with the fallibility of the human, having to pay for social services which otherwise would be free. So it is a conservative decision.

So from your own words since it isn't a liberal decision it must have to do with conservatism and therefore it's bad and lets bash the party even more to further my liberal agenda and beliefs. Nihil, your passive aggressiveness is so annoying. I am not justifying this at all. For the 4th time. How the situation was handled was done POORLY. Does that seem like justification to you? They do use taxes to pay for the service WITHIN the county. This was OUTSIDE the county of the firefighters responding to the call hence why the money played a factor. I've already said this...

You neglected to read to key point of factual information i provided before: A city provides these services, since that city must have been the nearest one to service that community, and because that community was not a city, it does not have a fire department and must rely on a city to provide it for them, and now, as we can see, this practice can lead to results that are both unjust and mentally painful.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:09 am

Yeah that is stupid....i mean if there is only ONE fire department in the area, it should prest services to that area, regardless of whatever stupid borders you make up.

by **Aragorn** Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:11 am

No, I read that just fine. It's fine that they rely on the city, but in order for that service to applicable to them because they're out of the county of that city, they have to pay the fee. In order for the city to do that for the community outside of that county, they have to pay the fee. The city still provides that service.

I totally agree with Dray here. It's completely stupid that this happened. They should have done it anyway out of decency and good morales...

by **Disturbed** Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:31 am

idgaf if its a minor fee I'd save their ass for free even if it cost me money on my behalf. Stupid money hogging assholes...

by **Champion** Fri Oct 08, 2010 5:03 am

If I was a firefighter there that day, I would be in the news as the one fired for trying to help. I could not sit idly by and watch that, for any amount of money in the world. Those assholes could have even gone "off duty" and put it out or something. This is rediculous bullshit and im ashamed to live in a country that this has happened.

by **Disturbed** Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:40 am

yeah wtf. He didn't pay, why should he pay for help? I remember when abroad, we were stranded on a street with our car broken down. A random driver who our dad didnt even know, saw us and fixed the car, and refused the money when we tried to give him in thanks.

THat is true humanity and its sad that it is so weak here.

Even on the local bus, I notice some poor looking workers trying to desperately get to work on time, but no money. THe driver kicks them out and noone gives a damn. If I have a buck on me I always make sure to hand them one..what's a buck for me? I have parents and am well off, I can ask for another, these guys have a livelihood to make.

Back on topic, there's a reason ppl like me find corporations/companies evil, they only think money and believe they deserve to weed out money for 'services' like these.

by **Ptolemy** Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:35 pm

That fee had been in place for 20 years. It would be interesting to see if he ever paid it.

I am also sure that this is not the first time this has happened either.

I would also be interested in knowing what kind of taxes the guy pays now in the county he is in. It is not the responsibility of a neighboring county to offer that protection.

Thing is he knew that he needed to pay the fee and he knew that his county didn't offer that service. I actually have a hard time feeling sorry for the guy. he had opportunities to protect himself and he didn't take advantage. From burning trash close to the home to living in a county with no fire protection to not paying the fee. This is as much his fault as it is the FD for not rolling up and putting it out.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, it seems, only goes so far in this day and age. At least he had SOME insurance. not enough by his own admission but he had some... he didn't even do that right.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:33 pm

There is one thing for sure, and that is, wether he would have paid or not the silly fee, That fire would have happened. Him paying the fee did not ensure his house wouldnt get caught on fire. The only difference made was that he wasnt offered assistance.

by **Ptolemy** Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:41 pm

Dray The Fingerless wrote:There is one thing for sure, and that is, wether he would have paid or not the silly fee, That fire would have happened. Him paying the fee did not ensure his house wouldnt get caught on fire. The only difference made was that he wasnt offered assistance.

Well maybe. I have been on the planet for a long time with out anything of mine catching on fire that i did not intend to or that i was not stupid enough to light. He had chances to take steps to protect himself and did not take advantage. You all seem to think that you should be protected even if you do not follow the rules. I do not share that position. even my son is of that opinion and he is wrong as well. If this guy followed the rules and used common sense he may not have needed to call the FD. He let the trash fire get out of control and forgot to pay the fee. That is like not paying for Health insurance and demanding coverage when you get sick. It does not work that way. OH wait i guess it does now...

Yeah it sucks that he lost everything. It is tragic that he lost his animals. He was not paying for the fire service so he did not have access. seems straight forward to me.

by Sponsored content