• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the fire department right or wrong?

Right or wrong?

  • Total voters
    42
ptif219 said:
So it was run by local government. This means the government is not protecting citizens
Click to expand...

the city govt was protecting the city citizens. this guy lived outside the city, paid no taxes to the city and therefore was entitled to no services from the city.

claiming this govt wasn't protecting its citizens is like blaming the El Paso FD for not putting out a fire in Juarez Mexico.
 
Travelsonic said:
Why should they have to when people capable of putting it out, with the right equipment on hand were right there?
Click to expand...

um...personal responsibility? there was plenty of time for this redneck to get his animals out before the FD showed up.



IMO, if they were doing their duties, trhey would have put out the fire before it spread - insteasd of WAITING until it reached [and damaged] the neighbor's house. For Christ's sake, they are firefighters, they shoulod KNOW how unpredictable and dangerous fires can be.
Click to expand...


since the guy hadn't paid the fee...any action taken on his behalf would have opened up liability issues for the firemen.
 
Listen, I don't mean to turn this into a Glenn thread, and I think anybody who has followed me around here knows I don't run around looking for excuses to bash on Beck.

That said:

Going further, Beck and his co-host actually mock Cranick and his southern accent through much of the segment (audio to the left). Both men portray Cranick as some kind of southern redneck who does not understand how the Tea Party, free market principles are suppose to work.

Glenn Beck and co-host mock man whose house burned down in Tennessee - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com
Click to expand...

I realize the guy is a showman and not a serious commentator or newscaster or journalist.

Nevertheless, you're seriously going to make fun of someone who lost everything he owns just to make a buck?

Seriously?

How can you do that and still call yourself a human being?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Listen, I don't mean to turn this into a Glenn thread, and I think anybody who has followed me around here knows I don't run around looking for excuses to bash on Beck.

That said:



I realize the guy is a showman and not a serious commentator or newscaster or journalist.

Nevertheless, you're seriously going to make fun of someone who lost everything he owns just to make a buck?

Seriously?

How can you do that and still call yourself a human being?
Click to expand...

maybe because this dumbass redneck lost everything he owned due to his own stupidity and cheapness? maybe if more people made fun of other people for doing stupid, self destructive ****, instead of coddling them, people might stop doing as much stupid ****
 
For the christians that hypocritically support libertarian economic policy.

"The LOVE of money is the root of all evil" - The bible.

Not that I'm a christian.. just sayin.

I truly believe for a fire department to sit and watch this mans house burn down was wrong .. insured or not. It is a statement on the morality of society when you see so many in support of not helping this character out. I think it is a disgusting mentality/morality and anarchist to renege help for this man as he watched his life go up in flames.

Yes people need to pay taxes to have public service.. yes people need to pay for private services. The private costs more in many instances. But that doesn't excuse these people as humans. The Nazi's in the second world war whether they agreed with what they were doing were "just following orders".. well so were these firemen.
 
Gabriel said:
The Nazi's in the second world war whether they agreed with what they were doing were "just following orders".. well so were these firemen.
Click to expand...

welcome to kooksville. comparing these firemen to Nazis is beyond stupid
 
OscarB63 said:
welcome to kooksville. comparing these firemen to Nazis is beyond stupid
Click to expand...

I compared it in terms of how they rationalised what they .. didn't do. Of course they are not Nazi's for **** sake. Other then that quote you didn't have an issue with the real point of the post did you?
 
Gabriel said:
I compared it in terms of how they rationalised what they .. didn't do. Of course they are not Nazi's for **** sake. Other then that quote you didn't have an issue with the real point of the post did you?
Click to expand...

actually yes. I feel that one of the biggest issues we have today is people not wanting to take personal responsibility for their actions. This guy knew how the system works, he chose not to participate. the fire department was under no obligation, moral or legal, to put out this fire. It is past time that we started holding people accountable for their actions/choices/mistakes.

Do I feel sorry for this guy that he lost everything? yes, but it was his own damn fault and he brought it on himself.

On a side note: Not sure exactly how far from my area this part of TN is, but in most parts of North Alabama there is a burn ban in effect until the end of October, due to the dryness of the region. By allowing his grandson to burn trash in barrels ridiculously close to his house, this guy may have committed an illegal act.

I guess my main point is, there should be consequences for stupid
 
OscarB63 said:
I guess my main point is, there should be consequences for stupid
Click to expand...

Stupid would be in this case, believing that taxes are wasted on valuable public services that are actually cheaper then if provided privately. The idiocy from the far right seems to be that all government is wasteful and more expensive then private services. This is an outright lie and anyone who believes it has been duped. Hence I agree being stupid does have consequences.
 
OscarB63 said:
maybe because this dumbass redneck lost everything he owned due to his own stupidity and cheapness? maybe if more people made fun of other people for doing stupid, self destructive ****, instead of coddling them, people might stop doing as much stupid ****
Click to expand...

It's one thing to use this as an object lesson.

It's another thing entirely to make light of it.

If the guy had burned down his own house because of his own stupidity, I suppose that's one thing. This is something entirely different.
 
Gabriel said:
Stupid would be in this case, believing that taxes are wasted on valuable public services that are actually cheaper then if provided privately. The idiocy from the far right seems to be that all government is wasteful and more expensive then private services. This is an outright lie and anyone who believes it has been duped. Hence I agree being stupid does have consequences.
Click to expand...

which I would agree...IF this guy had paid taxes to the city...which he did NOT. Perhaps the county residents should pay a tax to fund a county fire department instead of bitching that the city FD won't come outside the city limits and service them for free.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If the guy had burned down his own house because of his own stupidity, I suppose that's one thing. This is something entirely different.
Click to expand...

the guy allowed his grandson to burn trash in barrels close to the house, he waited until the fire was beyond his control before he did anything about it. so, basically...he did burn down his own house because of his own stupidity.

I burn trash at my place all the time. I have a "burn pit" that is located about 100 feet away from the back of my house. I always stand by with a hose, just in case.

Basic common sense and a few simple precautions could have kept the fire from reaching the house.
 
OscarB63 said:
which I would agree...IF this guy had paid taxes to the city...which he did NOT. Perhaps the county residents should pay a tax to fund a county fire department instead of bitching that the city FD won't come outside the city limits and service them for free.
Click to expand...

Yeah well in a publicly funded system whichever fire department is closest just helps. In my very humble opinion I think they should have helped but clearly this is what happens when you privatise a public service. Clearly this is the sort of thing that the general population should be alerted to as a consequence to smaller government and taxes paid.
 
Gabriel said:
Stupid would be in this case, believing that taxes are wasted on valuable public services that are actually cheaper then if provided privately. The idiocy from the far right seems to be that all government is wasteful and more expensive then private services. This is an outright lie and anyone who believes it has been duped. Hence I agree being stupid does have consequences.
Click to expand...

This was a public, city funded fire department. This guy just didn't live in the taxing jurisdiction of the city that provided fire service.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
This was a public city funded fire department.
Click to expand...

Hrm.. thats pretty sad. I definitely think it should have been put out. But the thing here is the city is acting like a private business. In my country these services are paid for by local and provincial taxes and everyone is just covered. I can't believe how messed up the American political condition is.
 
Gabriel said:
Yeah well in a publicly funded system whichever fire department is closest just helps.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world, yes. In the real world there are things like police jurisdictions, school districts, city limits, etc that place restricitons on what services can be rendered and where.


In my very humble opinion I think they should have helped but clearly this is what happens when you privatise a public service. Clearly this is the sort of thing that the general population should be alerted to as a consequence to smaller government and taxes paid.
Click to expand...

except that this public service wasn't "privatized". the city graciously offered to provide service as a courtesy, for a very nominal cost, to those people residing outside of their normal coverage area.

that fact that this guy refused to purchase this service does not make the FD the bad guys.
 
Gabriel said:
Hrm.. thats pretty sad. I definitely think it should have been put out. But the thing here is the city is acting like a private business. In my country these services are paid for by local and provincial taxes and everyone is just covered. I can't believe how messed up the American political condition is.
Click to expand...

that is the point you are missing. the city is not acting like a private business. they are covering the people who live inside the area where the city has legal authority.

the problem is that the city cannot force county residents to pay taxes. and since the county residents don't voluntarily pay a tax to fund a "county FD" they are without coverage. the city has been kind enough to offer them coverage for a ridiculously modest fee.
 
OscarB63 said:
that is the point you are missing. the city is not acting like a private business. they are covering the people who live inside the area where the city has legal authority.

the problem is that the city cannot force county residents to pay taxes. and since the county residents don't voluntarily pay a tax to fund a "county FD" they are without coverage. the city has been kind enough to offer them coverage for a ridiculously modest fee.
Click to expand...

Yeah I took that for granted it was a privately owned operation based on how it behaved. Because it behaved similarly. State and federal taxes revenues could be used to subsidize rural services like they are in most countries and it would be cheaper then paying a fee a kin to a private service fee. Couldn't they just put the fire out and take the fee when he had the money?
 
Gabriel said:
Yeah I took that for granted it was a privately owned operation based on how it behaved. Because it behaved similarly. State and federal taxes revenues could be used to subsidize rural services like they are in most countries and it would be cheaper then paying a fee a kin to a private service fee. Couldn't they just put the fire out and take the fee when he had the money?
Click to expand...

that's the point. he had the money, he just didn't want to pay it.

Which is why I am on the side of the fire department in this case. had this guy been unable to pay, then I think they should have helped him. He chose not to pay, which is why I feel that they had no moral obligation to help him.
 
OscarB63 said:
that's the point. he had the money, he just didn't want to pay it.

Which is why I am on the side of the fire department in this case. had this guy been unable to pay, then I think they should have helped him. He chose not to pay, which is why I feel that they had no moral obligation to help him.
Click to expand...

Funny he would expect to have service then .. he doesn't pay taxes to cover it .. assuming he understands that. Yes.. I agree but I still could not sit in a fire truck and watch his house burn down. Americans expect to not pay taxes and still get services .. what would be the cause of that? Stupidity.. well yes but a further misunderstanding that taxes are not a waste of money but rather an investment in your collective social well being is being confounded by confusion spread by extreme right wing anti government and taxation retoric. Other then that I could only suggest stupidity.
 
Gabriel said:
Funny he would expect to have service then .. he doesn't pay taxes to cover it .. assuming he understands that. Yes.. I agree but I still could not sit in a fire truck and watch his house burn down. Americans expect to not pay taxes and still get services .. what would be the cause of that? Stupidity..
Click to expand...

Yes, he understands that. The city sends him a bill, a reminder bill and makes a follow up phone call to collect the fee. Additionally, he had a previous run in with the fire department three years prior. That time the FD let him skate and pay the $75.00 fee the day after they responded to his fire. This almost certainly led him to beleive he could continue with this practice and save some money. It's kind of like only paying for insurance after you have the loss and expecting the insurance company to reimburse you.

a further misunderstanding that taxes are not a waste of money but rather an investment in your collective social well being is being confounded by confusion spread by extreme right wing anti government and taxation retoric. Other then that I could only suggest stupidity.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. It was the far right wing that caused him to believe that he was entitled to fire protection even though he didn't pay for it. Yeah, that's it. Sure sounds like a far right wing idea to me.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
Yeah.. It was the far right wing that caused him to believe that he was entitled to fire protection even though he didn't pay for it. Yeah, that's it. Sure sounds like a far right wing idea to me.
Click to expand...

Well what else would cause an average person to be confused? Other then a misunderstanding I don't understand what else would cause that sort of confounded logic outside of outright stupidity. What else in society would cause a person to think he was covered by what is generally a public service?
 
Gabriel said:
Well what else would cause an average person to be confused? Other then a misunderstanding I don't understand what else would cause that sort of confounded logic outside of outright stupidity. What else in society would cause a person to think he was covered by what is generally a public service?
Click to expand...

Since you want to make this overly partisan to the point of being dumb, maybe he saw how democrats constantly take from those that provide to give to those who either can't or won't. Maybe it was just a continuation of the democrat's constant call for a nanny state. That belief was solidified when the fire department responded to his fire three years ago even though he hadn't paid the fee yet.
 
Gabriel said:
Well what else would cause an average person to be confused? Other then a misunderstanding I don't understand what else would cause that sort of confounded logic outside of outright stupidity. What else in society would cause a person to think he was covered by what is generally a public service?
Click to expand...

bolded...there's your answer. this guy was a dumbass. he admitted that even though he didn't pay, he thought they would come out anyway.
 
I think the fire department was neither right or wrong. They were lawful. They have no legal responsibility to attend to fires outside of the area they are assigned. They also have no legal responsibility to attend to fires to the people in the county who refused to pay the taxation. I own a house outside of Montreal, Canada. The fact that it's about 45 mins to an hour outside of a metropolitan area means that there is a high probability that if our house will catch on fire, the firefighters in the nearest town won't have time to get to it as it's a pretty rural area. It's a chance we took when we bought the house. These people likewise were too cheap to pay what is essentially a $75 tax to have firefighting service. I don't know why. I don't care really. What I do know is that they got exactly as they deserve. As I stated in another thread: If you want the government's help, pay your taxes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom