|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: in the news today started by: Malcolm Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2010,12:44
Just skimming through a few stories ...< First amendment about ready to be fucked up the ass >, maybe. QUOTE During Wednesday's argument, the justices seemed to agree that a general protest sign, such as "Stop the War" or even "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" would be protected as free speech. The Phelps family crossed the line when they made clear they were targeting the dead Marine's father with their protest, argued Sean E. Summers, a lawyer for Snyder. "We have personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family," he said. So, you can exercise free speech all you want, as long as you don't refer to specific people? Glad that's cleared up. Say goodbye to any Internet flame war from this point on. < Sarah Palin still fucking psycho batshit insane >. QUOTE At a Texas fundraiser on Tuesday, Sarah Palin urged audience members to vote in the midterm elections for candidates who would focus on overturning health care reform, citing the importance of choosing a "culture of life" over "a culture of death," She goes on about how abortion is evil. If she could ever separate religion from politics, she might actually get somewhere. < Man house burns for want of a $75 fee >. QUOTE A man whose home burned down because he hadn't paid a $75 municipal fee said he had made a simple mistake and wasn't trying to take advantage of the system. The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond, because Cranick had not paid the annual fee. Even given he hadn't paid the fee & that perhaps his grandson should've been a shade more careful when playing with fire, what kind of fucking dick asshole do you have to be to sit around and watch someone's house burn for $75? Fuck you. Just fuck you. I'm sure you can collect the amount later. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2010,12:55
(Malcolm @ Oct. 06 2010,15:44) QUOTE < Man house burns for want of a $75 fee >. QUOTE A man whose home burned down because he hadn't paid a $75 municipal fee said he had made a simple mistake and wasn't trying to take advantage of the system. The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond, because Cranick had not paid the annual fee. Even given he hadn't paid the fee & that perhaps his grandson should've been a shade more careful when playing with fire, what kind of fucking dick asshole do you have to be to sit around and watch someone's house burn for $75? Fuck you. Just fuck you. I'm sure you can collect the amount later. Not sure if I share your opinion on this one. Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 06 2010,14:43
I don't share your opinion on the first, certainly, especially the way they targeted the family in question.As for the last one, I agree. If I had been one of the firefighters, I would have just done it. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2010,15:16
(TheCatt @ Oct. 06 2010,17:43) QUOTE I don't share your opinion on the first, certainly, especially the way they targeted the family in question. As for the last one, I agree. If I had been one of the firefighters, I would have just done it. I bet not a single person in that area will be shirking on getting their fire department bill paid, after that, or will be thinking, "Fuck um, no way they'll just let my house burn down." Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2010,15:18
(GORDON @ Oct. 06 2010,17:16) QUOTE (TheCatt @ Oct. 06 2010,17:43) QUOTE I don't share your opinion on the first, certainly, especially the way they targeted the family in question. As for the last one, I agree. If I had been one of the firefighters, I would have just done it. I bet not a single person in that area will be shirking on getting their fire department bill paid, after that, or will be thinking, "Fuck um, no way they'll just let my house burn down." Yep, nothing provides a solid foundation for community like extortion and fear. Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2010,15:20
(GORDON @ Oct. 06 2010,14:55) QUOTE (Malcolm @ Oct. 06 2010,15:44) QUOTE < Man house burns for want of a $75 fee >. QUOTE A man whose home burned down because he hadn't paid a $75 municipal fee said he had made a simple mistake and wasn't trying to take advantage of the system. The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond, because Cranick had not paid the annual fee. Even given he hadn't paid the fee & that perhaps his grandson should've been a shade more careful when playing with fire, what kind of fucking dick asshole do you have to be to sit around and watch someone's house burn for $75? Fuck you. Just fuck you. I'm sure you can collect the amount later. Not sure if I share your opinion on this one. If he's delinquent on some other financial items or has a history of not paying on time, then yeah, he might've'd this coming (again, given that a member of his family started the fire). If this is just some shit he forgot to pay once or twice & he has a history of consistently paying his debts, then fuck the fire department & the entire city. Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2010,15:23
(TheCatt @ Oct. 06 2010,16:43) QUOTE I don't share your opinion on the first, certainly, especially the way they targeted the family in question. I'd rather the cops just forgo protecting the idiot protesters from the consequences of their actions. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2010,15:31
(Malcolm @ Oct. 06 2010,18:18) QUOTE (GORDON @ Oct. 06 2010,17:16) QUOTE (TheCatt @ Oct. 06 2010,17:43) QUOTE I don't share your opinion on the first, certainly, especially the way they targeted the family in question. As for the last one, I agree. If I had been one of the firefighters, I would have just done it. I bet not a single person in that area will be shirking on getting their fire department bill paid, after that, or will be thinking, "Fuck um, no way they'll just let my house burn down." Yep, nothing provides a solid foundation for community like extortion and fear. What are you talking about? You just reasoned away all need for insurance by saying "extortion and fear." Posted by Cakedaddy on Oct. 06 2010,16:17
If they aren't going to pay for their own fire department, the next town over should? Someone chose not to pay for the services the fire department provides and it's extortion and fear?I don't understand why there is a conversation at all. The guy chose not to pay for fire fighting services and his house buned down. I don't pay for flood insurance. Should the insurance company cover me anyway just so people don't think they are dicks? What kind of cheap ass fucking bastard do you have to be to not pay $75 a year to the fire department. Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 06 2010,16:51
QUOTE I don't pay for flood insurance. Should the insurance company cover me anyway just so people don't think they are dicks? The insurance company is not the government. They don't have the power to prosecute you for not paying your premium. In a libertarian world where fees like this are optional, then by all means let it burn. But in our world, where we are being extorted for our tax dollars, then no government organization has the right to check the records before providing emergency services. They should deal with the lack of payment in the usual ways as a separate issue from his house being on fire. Either it's optional or it's required, and both methods come with responsibilities on the parts of each party and an understanding of what will happen in the case of non-payment. You can't have it both ways at once. EDIT: I should clarify, this subscription system IS a sort of libertarian method, but those departments aren't completely run that way. They ARE a branch of local government supported by tax dollars. They should not be also doing subscriptions for areas outside that tax base. The two methods should not be mixed. It just leads to problems like this. They should either be all subscription or all local tax dollars. IMO. Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 06 2010,17:05
Further edit after edit time expires: They do get federal and state dollars to help, which those rural citizens are paying their part of (or going to jail courtesy of the IRS). That's part of the muddling here, too.If they have to use a blended tax and subscription method, then they should have a policy to fight all fires (unless specifically directed not to by the home owners on the scene). Then if they haven't paid their subscription you send them a bill for all the costs for that fire, which will probably be several hundred or even a thousand or more dollars. Call it ordering fire fighting services a la carte, if you with (and the neighbor was on the scene offering to write a check for any amount required to have them get to work on the fire and they refused). If they don't pay the bill then pursue them for non-payment in the usual ways. Letting the house burn down under these particular circumstances is not the answer. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2010,17:22
Are you saying that because you know how that particular local government runs their fire department? I don't. I assumed the optional $75 fee was in lieu of taxes to pay for the fire department.I know my local fire department is "volunteer," but since I don't pay a fee I assumed those big trucks were getting paid for by taxes, somewhere. I'm guessing property taxes, since I also do not pay a city tax. I assumed the county the guy in the article lived in must have voted for exactly what they have. They didn't want their taxes going up, so fire protection became voluntary. So either he WHOOPSIE, FORGOT TO PAY, MY BAD! or he said "fuck it, what are the odds." Either way.... he made a choice. Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2010,18:38
You'll let someone's house burn for $75? You'll toss away any positive effect he has on the immediate, local economy for $75?If the cops worked this way, do you let folk get murdered over $100? Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 06 2010,18:41
(GORDON @ Oct. 06 2010,20:22) QUOTE Are you saying that because you know how that particular local government runs their fire department? I don't. I assumed the optional $75 fee was in lieu of taxes to pay for the fire department. The fire department in question is for a municipality near the place that burned down. They offer optional protection to people near, but not in, the municipality, who otherwise would have no fire department. Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 06 2010,20:09
(GORDON @ Oct. 06 2010,19:22) QUOTE Are you saying that because you know how that particular local government runs their fire department? I don't. I assumed the optional $75 fee was in lieu of taxes to pay for the fire department. Yes, it was explained in detail in the linked video. The department is paid for by city taxes for the city, then they also do the extra payment for people out in the county. But they also accept state and federal funds, part of which is paid for by those county people. That makes it less cut and dried, IMO. If they stop accepting those state and federal funds that would make it more clear. As it is they need to find ways to be more flexible while still not allowing people to just wait until a fire then pay the basic $75. There are plenty of middle grounds here. Find some. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2010,21:52
Well... cool.Next time I break my leg, I can say that medicaid should cover it because I pay taxes. Everything comes down to the fact the dude knew (or should have known) he'd need to buy the fire service, and didn't. And for all we know the fire department may have put out 100 fires of peeps who didn't bother to pay, and got stiffed for the "charge them more after the fact" bill. That would put this situation squarely in a middle ground. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2010,05:59
I just read that their state law prohibits them from charging per incident. Illegal to bill after the fact.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2010,06:05
- He had a chimney fire a few years back and hadn't paid yet they worked the fire- He had another fire and coincidentally hadn't paid again - He first claimed "we figured they would come anyway" before later claiming "we forget" "Honey, you know that 75$ bill to keep our house from burning down they said we should pay last time our house almost burnt down?" ... "Yea, put that in the minor priority pile next to the furnace recall letter and the burn barrel warning" Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 07 2010,08:06
(GORDON @ Oct. 07 2010,07:59) QUOTE I just read that their state law prohibits them from charging per incident. Illegal to bill after the fact. That's beyond insane. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2010,08:14
I can see the point, though. Fire departments cost money even when they aren't putting out fires. These jackoffs only want to pay when they need it, they don't want to pay even when they don't need it to ensure it is there when they do.It is a harsh lesson, it is only too bad he didn't learn it while young like most people do, when the consequences aren't huge. I do have sympathy for the guy. But, he brought it on himself, like most of the "bad luck" that happens to people in this country. Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 07 2010,08:26
I haven't seen the facts you listed anywhere.But he is on record as having paid for 2009. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2010,09:58
Peeps on another forum did the research. If I find their links again I will post them.
|