Firefighting Fee

You two are still incredibly crazy.

I understand why hugo refuses to admit I never wanted the guy to get anything for free, but joker are you also just too scared to admit that there can be some degrees of punishment for messing up?


Let me say this again for you two idiots:


I AGREE THE GUY ACTED STUPID AND HIS HOUSE BURNING DOWN WAS 100% HIS FAULT.


The discussion I was trying to have is how we could still put out the fire and still hold him accountable for his mistake because the way I see the world, we should not be having people like firefighters and policemen watch bad things happen because someone did not pay $75. Someone else had a great point, what if someone was trapped in the burning home? Still just stand there and watch them burn alive? If you think this is good why not do the same thing for the police? It is the logical next step. Police cost money to support too. Should we have a yearly fee outside standard property taxes for police coverage and if we don't pay, we don't get any police services?


I am sad that you two can't see that there should be more to being a firefighter or a police officer than how much money you can extract from the community.

 

Times, you do realize that the fire dept. couldn't make him pay anything, no matter how much they shouted or screamed? Cranick and his neighbors aren't incorporated into the city. They're part of the county, but not the city. The city says "Hey, you can opt in to the fire service", but they can't MAKE them because they aren't living in the city. The city couldn't put a lein on his home. The county could, sure, but it's not a county issue.

Also, fun fact: The firefighters weren't even notified of the fire by the dispatcher. The dispatcher refused to do it because Cranick hadn't paid for the service. Mind you, when they got there two hours later to the neighbor's house, Cranick's was engulfed in flames. You can't save that. Another fun fact: There are no hydrants out where Cranick lives. They have to put out fires using what water they have in the truck. So they just made sure Cranick's grandson's stupidity didn't burn down the rest of the neighborhood, then went on their way.

Cranick got exactly what he paid for: Jack sh*t. And the firefighters didn't just stand around like the ever so liberal media likes to say they did, so their bullshit sensationalist news will be popular. They didn't even fucking know. And they sat there while what was LEFT of his house after 2 hours of fire burned to the ground, because there was nothing they could do to save it.

Also, Times, was there someone in the house? No? Then your bullshit argument is utterly irrelevant. What if the sky had fallen on Cranick's doublewide? What if he had a meth lab in his house and that was the cause of the fire? What if the Second Coming of Jesus happened right then? Oh hey, those are all hypotheticals. As in, THEY DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN. So your point is to demonize them because they didn't save non-existent people? Yeah. That's the logical thing to do.

Another point: Cranick's property taxes DON'T GO TO FUND ANYTHING IN A CITY HE DOESN'T LIVE IN. So he doesn't pay for fire, except with the OPT-IN $75 fee. He didn't opt-in, he didn't get the protection. And they city firefighters have no ability to fight fires in an area where the person didn't explicitly agree to such things. Cranick could sue them for water damage caused to his property, etc, etc. He never opted in for their service, so they're spraying water on his house essentially without his informed consent. And again, as it turns out, CONTRACT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THIS IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING. He was under duress, plain and simple. His decision to pay for this was a kneejerk reaction based on the fact that he had no other recourse. There is no court in the nation that would see this as binding, no matter what bullshit you wish to spout about "emergency services". They weren't dying. Their double-wide was burning to the ground because their grandson lit a trash fire in a barrel. Nobody was going to be hurt.

But oh well, it's all the firefighter's faults because Times wants the Obama nanny-state mentality to pervade the minds of the country so people who have no personal responsibility get bailed out for free because the government is made of magical infinite money. Fucking progressives.

 

There was no legal way to hold Cranick liable, as any sane person knows. That is why the upfront fee. Compassionate conservatism put us in this mess. It is more conservative to tax and spend then borrow and spend.

 

1. The dumb ass owner said it himself. He didn't pay because he thought they would still put out the fire his inbred family started. $75 sounds like cheap insurance to me. He gambled and lost..

2. If they put out his fire, why would anyone pay the fee?

3. If they did work outside their employer's allowed criteria, who pays the bills if a firefighter is injured, or killed?

 

During a wild fire firefighters come from all over the place, and even different States to help fight that fire.

In many cases they even get hurt and have to get medical treatments, a few even die while fighting these fires. If "getting paid" while performing emergency services in a place other than where you live as a firefighter was an issue nobody would place themselves at risk to travel and fight these fires.


I offered the law in California as an example of how States have and do charge people for starting a fire even accidently (as in this case) that requires the fire department to put that fire out. I also offered the example of life flight where clearly the helicopter service is not based in that County but the person is still required to pay for the helicopter ride even though they were passed out and could not even agree to the ride.


There is nothing that stops a fire department from charging a person for "emergency" services the same way the life flight charges for "emergency" services. The informed consent is there guys, the homeowner who does not pay the fee ahead of time is making an informed decision not to get the lower fee for services and then becomes subject to whatever firefighting rate the city wants to charge on an "as needed basis".



And asking what the fire fighters would do if the building was occupied is very relivent, it would still require them to fight a fire in a home that did not pay the $75 so will they respond or not? It is just a question on what you think is right, don't run from the question.



I see you also did not reply to my question about police emergency services either. If it is okay to have individual charges for emergency fire services why not emergency police services? It all comes down to money right? Money is the only thing that matters to you guys so why not make everytying that way?

 

Irrelevant.

Hm. This wasn't a wildfire. This was a guy who's double-wide trailer burnt down because he didn't opt-in to firefighting services. By the way, DISPATCH DIDN'T SEND THEM TO HIS FIRE. Thought I would reiterate, since that concept seems lost on you.

Not the same thing. At all. If you accidentally burn down half a forest, you're in a fuckton of trouble. If you don't OPT-IN to your fire protection that the city near you allows, and your house burns down, there's nobody to blame but you.

Why are you comparing apples to oranges, Times? Trying to prove you're right by citing examples that have NOTHING TO DO with the situation at hand?

There was no "emergency service ride" here. He didn't opt-in to a service provided at a modest amount by the nearest city. Because of that, he didn't get the service. BIG DAMN DIFFERENCE.

God damn, you are dense. They can't charge him a dime because he didn't opt-in to the service, so he has no contract with the city. The city has no jurisdiction where he lives because he didn't agree to give them such. They have NO RIGHT to put out the fire. There was no emergency here. He lost his stuff. Big deal. Nobody got hurt besides pets.

And no, he's not making an informed decision not to get the lower fee, he's making an informed decision not to get the services. Then when he cries about not getting the services, oh well. He didn't get the services he hadn't agreed to.

And you keep acting like Cranick was passed out in his home or something. There was no life/death threat there. Thusly, he could make informed decisions, and had already made his.

THEY WERE NEVER DISPATCHED THERE. When you dial 911, where does the call go? Not the fucking firehouse. The firefighters themselves didn't deny him this. Why this concept escapes you is beyond me. And I can PROMISE YOU that when they call, dispatch asks if there's someone in danger before they decide to look at the list. They aren't the soulless, corrupt human beings you seem to think they are.

Also, you don't have to put out a fire to save someone. They could've saved the person and let the place burn.

No, being able to service everyone else is what matters to them. You can't seem to grasp the fact that if they went and spent money they didn't have a lot of on people who didn't pay, they'd run out of money. Or they'd just stop servicing anybody out where Cranick lives and then all of their homes burn. Is that what you think would be better, Times? To have their houses burn to the ground because Cranick is a selfish butt hole?

As far as paying the police, here's the thing: If it's out of their jurisdiction, they have to request to go there. They probably have sheriffs out there in the boondocks that respond to calls of that nature. But the city police probably don't respond unless it's necessary, and with supervisory permission. I've seen VERY RARELY a police officer outside of whatever their city is here. There's a reason for that. And hey, the sheriffs probably get county tax money, which is what would help fund them, which means the service had already been paid for. As it turns out, Times, stuff ain't free. Not sure why that baffles you.

To recap:

*The firefighters were never dispatched, so blaming them is fucking asinine.

*Cranick didn't opt-in to the service, so he didn't get the service.

*You don't understand the difference between large fires that require multiple fire services to put out, and the burning of a double-wide on someone's property that had opted-out of the fire services.

*Fire services require funding, and if they don't have it, nobody's fires get put out.

*The police cost money too.

*Public services needing funding seems to be a concept you just can't grasp no matter how hard you try.

*The sheriff is already paid for, so your point is irrelevant, like so many of your other "points".

 

Okay, if you are going to ignore the spirit of the conversation and only resort to flame and childish behaviors like putting words in my mouth I never said then you will be assigned "wez" status by me kid, there really is no excuse for most of what you just posted other then to be a temper tantrum.


Let me say this again, I 100% agree with you and other people about how this is the homeowners entire fault. I do not blame the firefighters themselves for this policy or their refusal to fight the fire. I did say that if I had been there I could not just watch a home burn down but that is just me.



What I was trying to do is offer some discussion and ideas to help keep firefighters doing their jobs and helping people and not having to be bureaucrats who refuse to help people in need just because of $75, to me it diminishes the job to tell firefighters not to fight fires.




So I offered the idea to have two charges, the first charge being the "insurance payment" that is a lower fee "just in case" and a second fee that can be called an "as needed charge" for those who did not want to pay the insurance rate but still wanted the service at a later date. There can be many reasons people could not pay their fee earlier and it could even be a government mistake to leave their name off a list even if they did pay and the time to sort those things out is not while a home is burning down and every second counts.

There are many ways the city can protect their right to charge a higher fee for "as needed" emergency services such as sending mailers to the homes or just putting it in the newspaper over a period of days. But, I also posted a California law that says any fires that have to be put out because of negligence (as in this case) gives them the right to charge for their services.



I think your biggest mistake was listening to hugo and running with his false notion that there was no way a higher charge for "as needed" emergency services could be enforced. I gave you many examples of how people are responsible for emergency services charges even from agencies and groups outside their county and I also gave you a California law showing you that even in your own State, they reserve the right to charge for emergency services should there be negligence involved that starts a fire. There is a lot of legal foundation that will give full protection to charges for services rendered from emergency services joker, don't fall for hugo's games, the only real smart stuff he posts is what he can copy/paste from other people.




I am going to comment on one of your childish rants though, several times you tried to claim I did not understand that things cost money, and considering your support for socialist programs it seems you don't understand that things cost money, not me my young friend. I own two homes and about 200 acres of undeveloped property myself as well as much more land and a subdivision through my company. I actually pay property taxes kid, I know more about the cost of feeding the Government monster than you ever will in your life. Just one recent construction job I ran in Tampa cost me over $100,000 in fees, taxes, and permits so believe me when I tell you, I know things cost money, the problem you seem to be having is you think it would have cost a lot more to fight this man's fire so let me educate you a little bit:


The paychecks for everyone from the fire chief down to the newly hired fresh recruit is already in the budget as well as an average for the yearly cost for fuel and other expendables they will use. Most states do offer a slight increase in pay for responding to a fire, but as we see in this example, they responded anyway to the neighbor and using logic it is reasonable to believe with some people paying and some people not paying, they will be responding to keep fire from traveling to a covered home even if the original home is not covered so there is no discernable change in cost there either. So where is the higher cost to the city joker?

Answer, there is none. Yes, the city should get paid for fighting the fires, I have never said anything other then that, all I was trying to do is offer a way for firefighters to stick with fighting fires and not be forced to sit and watch homes burn just because their name is not on a list.


********************

Consider this:

You are 11 years old and your home is burning down, the fire truck drives up with lights flashing and the siren blaring and you believe that a real hero has shown up to help save your home.....but they stop short of your house and only wet down the ground between your home and the home next door to keep the fire from spreading......will the firefighters still be your hero?

Forgive me for trying to preserve the idea of heroes in our society, if feel losing the few heroes we have is a bigger problem for society than someone not paying $75.

*********************

Now, when you dodged my question about a person being trapped in a burning home you got extra silly, the question is pretty simple but you went through crazy loops and excuses to try and dodge that very simple question, either saving a life is important or not.
Under this policy it does not matter if there is a child stuck in the burning home or not, they will not respond to the fire unless their name is on the list, now is that right or wrong joker?

**********************

I see you also dodged my question about police services. Should the police charge you a separate fee to protect you from crime or do an investigation? If your home gets robbed is that more or less of an impact on the community than your home burning down?

 

Waah.

The firefighters didn't refuse to fight it, they were never dispatched. Something you seem to dodge to keep thinking the firefighters are bad people.

They didn't tell the firefighters anything. That's the point. And he didn't pay for the service, the firefighters had no right to put the fire out in the first place. He didn't put anybody else in danger, because the other people had paid their fee.

Get him to sign a contract stating that, in such an event, he's willing to pay an extra amount for services rendered, and that's a good idea. He couldn't get out of it because it's a legally binding contract.

But there is nothing they can do otherwise.

Well, for one, they aren't in California. CA law doesn't apply to them.

They can't charge him for "as needed" emergency services because they didn't HAVE to put it out. And they didn't. They'd already been paid for what they did, so they had no need for more money, and had no need to put out half a forest worth of fire. They couldn't charge him a thing. Basically, he didn't light PUBLIC property on fire, so they had no reason to charge him a dime. He destroyed his own property.

CA law still doesn't apply to TN. Also, see above.

A little presumptuous.

And I support PROPERLY FUNDED "socialist programs". I don't support our current SS system. I don't support all of the welfare crap we have.

So they should put all of the fires out, whether people pay? Then why would anybody pay? They would lose a fair chunk of money when people realize they don't have to pay a thing for their fires to be put out.

Let a double-wide trailer burn for 2 hours. There will be pretty much nothing of it left. Why waste time putting it out? They don't have hydrants out where he lives. They have the water they have in the truck. That's it. It's more efficient to just wet down the area around it.

It's not their fault they know how to do their job better than an 11 year old.

Yes. They are evil, evil people. They would never ask if there was anybody in the building when they got the call. I bet the would tell Cranick to go blow a duck if he said his grandson was in there, because they're Hitler.

Irrelevant. Apples and oranges. I'm not dodging this, Times, I'm simply calling it out for what it is: a load of bull.

If you live out in the middle of nowhere, and you get told "Hey, if you want police to respond to your calls, give us $50 to pay for gas, etc, etc. If you don't want it, you don't have to pay. It's up to you", and you don't pay, then they don't respond. Simple as that. Now, if they said "You can pay us $50 now, or $500 later when you get robbed or need something", then they should respond no matter what. But if you don't pay for the service, or agree you'll pay if needed, then why should you get it? You can talk about how much you pay in taxes all you want, but if you didn't pay such things in taxes, you wouldn't get certain services because they wouldn't be properly funded, Mr. Property Tax. If nobody paid property taxes, there would be no funding. And because the people where Cranick live don't pay into the fire service via property tax, this is what's been decided they need to do.

 

Look, I didn't make you act like a child and insert words into my mouth kid, all I did was point out what you did, that is not crying, but it is giving you fair warning that if you want to be taken seriously, you have to stay on topic and stop trying to play childish games.

There you go again kid, where did I ever say the firefighters were "bad people"? You spend most of your replies commenting on things I never said so why do you bother to post?

Yes they were dispatched, to the next door neighbors house to prevent the fire from spreading. They were there and they watched the home burn down. Not because they were evil people but because the powerd that be decided they felt their firefighters needed to be more concerned about a name on a list than helping people.

Again you continue to miss the point, I am talking about how things can change for the future, this home is already gone and nothing can change that but we can learn from this example and try to improve things for the future.

Making firefighters watch homes burn down simply seems wrong to me, so I am trying to offer how things can change while you seem to not care about trying to improve things and you are more closed off to new ideas than most people I know.

You just can't seem to get past the wrong assertion hugo has offered kid.

Do people sign a contract before lifeflight takes them to the hospital? There is no requirement for emergency services to have that kind of contract and do you know why? Well do you kid? Because under emergency situations it is assumed by the law that any reasonable person would want themselves flown to the hospital to save their live and any reasonable person would want ther home fire put out. The reasonable person standard has always been honored in the courts.

All states have similar laws kid, stop acting stupid, I showed you the CA law because I know you live there and if that liberal utopia is charging people to fight fires, you can bet everyone is.

Now what are you ranting about kid? The property being private or owned by a government has nothing to do with this, you seem to waste a lot of time typing about things that have nothing to do with this conversation.

I do see you again talked about money though, first you say people should not get services for free, then you say the fire department did not need more money, make up your mind kid.

My point is firefighters should always be allowed to fight fires, so how do we get to that point that they don't have to be seen as the bad guys for watching a family home burn down? If you don't like my ideas, offer some of your own, or are you happy to see situations like this?

And as I said above all States have these laws, and this discussion is not restricted to any one state, this could happen in any state so the point is can we let firefighters stay firefighters or are they just another money making venture by the Government?

And true....

Properly funded? Where do you get that word play from? SS is completely funded, for a few more years, and the Government can certainly increase taxes to increase the funding for SS and keep it funded forever, just keep taking more money from the workers to pay to the non-workers, if funding is your only concern then what is the difference between giving someone foodstamps or giving someone firefighting services? The firefighting will cost about a thousand times less than the foodstamps.

There you go again getting all worked up and upset over something I did not say.

Why do you constantly put words into my mouth then you use those false words to go on a rant complaining about what I did not say? You need to grow up.



How many times do I have to say I don't want people to get free firefighting services before you will have the ability to understand this fact? Everything I have been taling about is how there can be two seperate fees, one for insurance "just in case" and the other much higher fee for "as needed services"? Is this concept really that difficult for you to understand?

Go to your mother and ask her if her home burned down what kinds of things she would hate to lose the most.

You might not understand how bad a home fire is but talk to a few people who have had to go through it and you will understand that some of the more profound losses are not things like a television, it is family photos, a couple keepsakes your child gave you when they were 7 years old, a pressed flower you keep in a book or an number of of things that can't be replaced.

Being efficient is not why we have firefighters, is is about helping people at a time they are the most vulnerable and need someone to help them save what they can save from a horrible situation.

You completely missed that point.

Don;t you understand the concept of heros? Did you grow up that jaded in life you can't see the value of heros in a society?

There you go again, you have no decent reply to my question so you go on a crazy rant trying to put words in my mouth I never said. Hitler? Really? You had to invoke the name of Hitler in your childish rant? People like you actually diminish the reality of the evil of Hitler by trying to compare his level of evil to minor and insignificant things like this Joker. This is not in that arena, stop over reacting and compose yourself.
********


But I will say that putting money first in every possible way can be evil sometimes. People should always pay their way, in the old days people did not have much money but they felt compelled to pay their way so the barter system was used most of the time. Maybe they have a chicken or maybe you need help fixing your roof, there was always a way to let people help each other and to settle their debts in different ways.

Today all we care about is money, does that mean we have evoved for the better or the worse?

Not irrelivant, it is very much the same thing. You see property taxes used to pay for all emergency services, irresponsible spending by our elected officials have made them look for new ways to get more and more taxes from each of us because they can't learn how to control their spending. So things like garbage, fire, schools, etc have been given their own fees while still getting the same base taxes from property.

And still it is not enough. These Government officials can never get enough tax funds to pay the bills, no matter how much they increase taxes, they always find a way to spend it all and fall short each and every year. I understand things cost money kid, my bigger point is in my belief, people are paying enough taxes to receive "basic emergency services" through their basic home taxes, in this case the county is taking that tax money and not providing any emergency services at all, to me that is just sad. If you own property and you pay your taxes the least the Governing body should provide is basis emergency services.


IMHO.

 

The residents of Obion County will get another chance to vote for fire services. That is the way it should be.

Times is the big government guy here. Seems to think everyone should have fire services whether they want it or not.

 

The original purpose of government is protect individuals from external and internal aggressors, not from accidents. There is no inalienable right to fire services.

 

Yeah, trying to force fire protection on somebody who doesn't want it is un-American.

Times, show me the law that says they can make Cranick pay later. The TN law, not CA. Pretty sure if there was a law stating they could, they would've put the fire out. You act as if dispatch/the FD are corrupt, bad people. No matter how much you say "I NEVER SAID THAT", your comments imply otherwise.

 

Waah.

They were dispatched two hours later to the neighbors house. Not much of Cranick's shitty little double-wide after that.

Try reading the stories before you comment, eh?

They didn't "watch it burn down". It was pretty much gone by the time they got there. They just made sure it didn't spread.

Amazing how you seem to believe the story as told by the liberal media, instead of using common sense and just a wee bit of research.

Firefighters don't have jurisdiction there. If they went on this call outside of where they were allowed to fight fires, and they got injured, would insurance cover them? Would they be liable for any damages caused to the house by their spraying of water? Answers: (1) No. (2) Yes. They can't fight the fire.

CA is still not TN. Show me the TN law and stop making assumptions, old man.

Also, the CAL FIRE pdf says they can be charged if it's neglect. Cool. In this case, it was. But had this been because of faulty wiring, or some other issue, the same thing would've happened. He wasn't under the city's area they cover because of pre-negotiated contracts. But either way, CAL FIRE policy/CA law isn't TN.

Except it does. They had no responsibility to put it out. He doesn't live in the city, old man. They only work for the city and those county residents they specifically contract out to.

I never said they didn't need any more money. I said they had no reason to charge Cranick because they didn't HAVE to come out there. If he set half the county on fire, they probably would've been called to help, as would the surrounding cities. Then they would probably charge him.

Already offered a solution, old man. Make ALL OF THEM sign a contract to (A) Opt-in for 75, (B ) Opt-in for a higher fee later if needed, or (C ) Opt-out completely.

Also, they didn't just watch the guy's house burn down. Why do you take the story at face value?

They aren't a "money making venture". The county residents voted for the "Pay to Spray" fee so their property taxes would be lower.

Again, show me these laws. Looked for them, couldn't find them myself.

You don't know this.

Properly funded wouldn't mean 1 person supported 4-5 people's SS. That's what it's currently working out to because the old people keep living.

Also, apples to oranges, old man.

No. I understand it perfectly. But saying "there should be" doesn't mean there is. Currently, if they put all of the fires out, nobody would pay because they can't charge after the fact. Or, scratch that. They COULD, but people don't pay them back. The other cities in the county that HAVE done such things, have major issue with people paying them back. So yeah, they're basically doing it for free.

Actually, firefighters have to be efficient. Part of their job.

And yes, I understand how horrible a home fire would be. Never had to go through one, so I can't properly comment on what it's like.

What I can tell you, is that by the time the firefighters got there, the home was engulfed in flames. Quite possibly it would've taken more water to put out than they had. Or would've been safer to do what they did. Not 100% sure what protocol is on this, but I'm guessing they followed it.

Yes, let's be a hero instead of doing our jobs properly. I understand the value of a hero. What I don't understand is why you consider "being a hero" better than doing what they're supposed to do.

No, I was being sarcastic because your assumption that they would let someone die is asinine and makes them seem evil.

I can promise you that's one of the first things the dispatchers ask. They won't let someone die. And if you ask for proof? They're human beings.

They didn't "sit by" and watch this guy's house burn. They weren't sent there because nobody was in danger. Then it's just a matter of following policy at that point.

You do realize that their property taxes don't pay the city, and this is a city FD right? That's why it's irrelevant. The city FD is not responsible for the county unless they pay for said services.

And if the county isn't providing these services, HOW IN THE BLOODY HELL IS THAT THE CITY'S FAULT? The city has said "Hey, we'll put out your fires for a small fee, since you have no FD." The residents got things mailed to them, and a few phone calls as a reminder. If they didn't pay, why is the city at fault there? They've said they don't want the protection through lack of payment, and they got exactly that.

 

Again, almost all of your reply was putting words in my mouth then you ranting like a child over what you falsely put there kid, this is exactly what Wez does and unless you grow up I will not even read what you post most of the time because you have proven you are more interested in taking shots at me than actually discussing the situation. You are acting like a Government excuse machine and diverting attention away from the facts.


I will say this again, THIS HOME IS GONE, NOTHING WE SAY CAN CHANGE THAT FACT, SO NOW I AM TRYING TO DISCUSS WAYS THIS CAN CHANGE FOR THE FUTURE.


FUTURE Joker, can you understand this idea?


Unless you can show how a lifeflight helechopter is different on a legal scale, then that is the best example of how a service based in a different County or State can still charge someone for emergency services legally. You are trapped in the mindset hugo offered that there is no way they could collect on the debts later and that is 100% wrong kid. Emergency services can always be charged later but if they want it to be easier they can pass a law like California has if they don't already have one.



There are a lot of ways things could be changed to allow fire fighters to do their jobs of fighting fires so why are you so desperate to show why it is okay for firefighters to NOT fight fires joker? I am not arguing against the fact that the fire fighters followed their orders, I completely understand that and I reject that idea as evil because it forces fire fighters to let people and animals die because of buracratic Government greed. You are right, the County did not have fire protection, but the residents of that County was still paying taxes so what did they get for their taxes Joker? Are you the kind of Government man hugo is and you believe residents should pay taxes without getting anything in return for those taxes?



What "should" happen is the County should enter into an agreement with the local city to help cover all County residents, but in the absense of that kind of agreement, the city can still get paid for every fire they fight because emergency services are always given protection under the law.

*****************************

I did read enough of your post to see you blew off my Hero point.

Why do you want to eliminate all concepts of heros in society Joker? Fire fighters watching homes burn to the ground because their name is not on a list is nothing to be proud of and certainly is not something a kid could understand Joker.




You and hugo keep saying over and over that I want people to get firefighting services for "free" and that is a lie, stop telling that lie. I want fire fighters to fight fires, and buracrats to be buracrats. Those buracrats can pass whatever laws they think will help them collect if they like, but the foundation for emergency services having protections under the law is already there. What is happening here is the buracrats are lazy Joker.

 

Waah.

As in, "Back to the..."?

How about the fact that the other FDs nearby that serviced other parts of the county without a subscription were having big issues with people not paying? So they were basically doing it for free. And the city can't do a damn thing to collect, really.

I'm saying it's OK to do what they did because that's how the city policy was written up. Obviously it's not the best idea, but it's what's there, and it was followed.

Their taxes don't go to the city. If they had a county-wide FD, the taxes would go to fund that. Instead, they pay a subscription fee.

No, they can't. Again, the ones that charge after the fact have no way of getting the money back, and often don't.

*****************************

I never said that. I don't want to eliminate them. But I'm not going to advocate doing things so children can have heros. That's just ridiculous. The firefighters followed the policy they had in place, whether they had objections to it or not. That's their job. Too bad the kid won't look at firefighters as heros, but life sucks. They can't base their decisions on keeping a bubble intact that'll burst eventually anyway. I still think firefighters are heros, even these guys. They did their job and followed orders.

Hell, the Cranicks don't even blame the FD. They blame the guys in charge (i.e. the bureaucrats). Which is rightfully where the blame should lie.

No, what's happening is that they realize people tend not to pay for things after the fact if they don't have to because they're assholes. And it's happening all over the rest of the county. They see that and go "well, we either get paid, or we don't" and go with getting funding. Makes sense.

 

So you lie and insert words I never said and claim I did say them and all you can say is "Waah"?

Is your only recourse in a debate to lie?

Childish much?

Either you have the ability to discuss how things can be improved or not. If all you want to be is a Government excuse machine like hugo, be my guest.

Just because a liberal paper told that lie to give cover to fellow Democrats, that does not make it true, and even if it was true is that because they cant or because they are too stupid to do the proper process to collect?

If they don't pay simply lean the home and to not release a CO on the new home until they pay, it has almost no cost to the City and everyone will pay. It is a simple lean process Joker, if the idiots can't figure that much out they don't deserve to have their jobs.

A lot of city policies used to force blacks to sit in the back of the buss or stand if a white wanted the seat they had, was it "RIGHT" just because it was a city policy?


Are you that liberal that you only see "right and wrong" as what the Government tells you to believe?

And? Who said otherwise? The County certainly "could" offer fire protection or enter into an agreement to pay the local city through taxes if they wanted to but I guess they prefer to just take tax money from residents and give nothing in return.

Lie, time and time again I prove emergency services always have the legal right to get their money but you still blind yourself to that truth just so you can play government excuse machine. The only way they don't get their money is if they are stupid and don't file the paperwork correctly. Hell they could file a "mechanics lien" against the home if they wanted to, I believe most States still allow cities to file mechanics liens.


Don't forget I also said they could pass new laws if they felt it was needed as well, I fully believe the city should get paid for their services rendered.

Yes you did and your about to say it again:

But? You just point out you don't want to preserve the idea that the police and fire fighters are heroes and that to you the most important thing is supporting Government policies, even if they hurt people.

And that is all I have said kid, you and hugo tried to lie and say I thought they were evil and bad but I never said that.

What I said is fire fighters should stick to fighting fires and let the bureaucrats be the bureaucrats. You never answered my question of what happens when a name is not on the list but they paid anyway. What then Joker? Can the fire fighters and the bureaucrats just say "sorry" and no big deal?

Bull, they can always get paid if they get off their behinds and do the work. The problem is not the laws, they will always support the emergency services. The problem is the lazy bureaucrats who are too incompetent to do what they need to do.

 

The person wanting foreigners receiving benefits from taxes on local citizens is Times. I don't call that conservative.

 

What the hell is it with you and the kid telling these lies hugo?

Where did I ever say I wanted foreigners to get benefits from taxes? Once again you prove you have no connection to reality with the majority of what you say, and now the kid is following your lead and doing the same thing.

 

Yes. You know it was the liberal media supporting my "they shouldn't have gotten services" opinion. You know how those liberals are the ones who don't think everyone should benefit from social programs and this sort of thing in general.

You seriously cannot be that ignorant, Times. Just because something doesn't agree with you doesn't mean it's "progressive" or "liberal".

 

No, you said that putting money above everything can be evil, and that they did just that. The implication would be that you think they were evil. I'm not making up things, Times, I'm inferring based on your previous posts.

For instance, if I say that having an abortion can make you evil, and Jane Doe had an abortion, there's a high chance I think she's evil.

No, it's not childish. I understand what the "future" is. You were being a condescending ass. Why would I reply with anything else?

http://troy.troytn.c...0Commission.pdf

From the above:

But yeah, you're right, Times. Just those silly Democrats and their lies.

Which brings me back to "What the flying f*** are you talking about?" Why would a Democratic paper be supporting this argument?

By the way, the PDF is a presentation to attempt to get the Obion County FD up and running. Apparently, they passed a resolution at some point to have one, but nothing got implemented, so it's unfunded, unmanned, and non-operational. Go figure.

Then they can fight to change it. Change doesn't come from disobeying the law and putting yourself (and possibly others) in danger. Change comes from going "you know what? That situation was crap. We shouldn't have to go through that again." Then you go through the motions.

Oh, and let me requote some of my post:

You didn't pay attention to my post, Times. I didn't say it was a good idea, and in fact said it wasn't the best. I never said it was right. I said it was what's there. And they followed their policy. See the previous part about change.

[Continued on next page...]