[screener]

Is this the future for the states if numnuts like Sharron Angle get elected?
Tennessee Firemen ignore burning house over unpaid subscription fee - Telegraph

Gene and Paulette Cranick, of South Fulton, Tennessee, US, lost their home after officers were ordered by bosses not to extinguish it.
Fire fighters only arrived when the flames spread to the property of a neighbour, who had paid the fee. However, they continued to refuse to help the Cranicks.

God Bless America.

[screener]

Yeah, America, is the place to be if you want a modern version of the old wild west.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04guns.html?hp

Tennessee is one of four states, along with Arizona, Georgia and Virginia, that recently enacted laws explicitly allowing loaded guns in bars. (Eighteen other states allow weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol.) The new measures in Tennessee and the three other states come after two landmark Supreme Court rulings that citizens have an individual right — not just in connection with a well-regulated militia — to keep a loaded handgun for home defense

.
Drunk and legally armed, good idea huh?
God Bless America.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by screener 

Is this the future for the states if numnuts [sic] like Sharron Angle get elected?
Tennessee Firemen ignore burning house over unpaid subscription fee - Telegraph

God Bless America.

Oh my lord! Those poor people who refuse to pay for a service didn't get that service!

I feel sooooo angry and embarrassed that in America people could be responsible for their own property and stupid people can be allowed to actually pay for their stupidity!

Craaaaazy

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by screener 

Yeah, America, is the place to be if you want a modern version of the old wild west.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04guns.html?hp
.
Drunk and legally armed, good idea huh?
God Bless America.

Good idea? Probably not. That is not the point.

A person's right to defend himself does not end suddenly because he decides to enter a certain building over another, and not every man is entering a bar to get drunk. I personally know plenty of people who like the bar atmosphere and go there for a drink and some lunch or dinner. It is not the job of the legislature to pass blanket restrictions over all to prevent crimes by the few. Especially laws that restrict basic rights as enumerated by the constitution.

They have it exactly right. They even respected property rights by "allowing" that the bar owners are free to ban weapons on their premises. The only thing wrong with this story is that they had to "pass legislation" to do something that was the peoples' right to begin with.

[screener]

Right, you are is what is wrong with America.
No one said they refused, wait until the facts come out.

Just waiting for some one like you to reply.

Drunk and legally armed, only in America.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by screener 

Right, you are is what is wrong with America.
No one said they refused, wait until the facts come out.

Just waiting for some one like you to reply.

Drunk and legally armed, only in America.

Yep, I am what is wrong with America.

And you are what's wrong with this forum. Have you ever tried to actually have an intelligent conversation…ever?

Why don't you try to make an actual argument against mine. C'mon, kick my ass, I deserve an intellectual beating for being an advocate of personal freedom and responsibility.

No, nevermind. You can go on my ignore list just like your alter-ego.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No, nevermind. You can go on my ignore list just like your alter-ego.

Alter ego huh?
And who would that be?

Convenient for you isn't it.

It used to be neighbors helped each other, now, with the mentality of the tea party, libertarian bull, you're on your own.

Like the yahoos say, we'll help if you believe, we like you, and pray.

F*&^ing Americans.
Said with affection.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No, nevermind. You can go on my ignore list just like your alter-ego.

Oh my, that hurts.

[screener]

I wonder how many citizens showed up and cheered as the house burned.
If you can't afford it, I ain't paying.

Tennessee volunteers be damned.

Volunteers? What?

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Why don't you try to make an actual argument against mine. C'mon, kick my ass, I deserve an intellectual beating for being an advocate of personal freedom and responsibility. .

The argument is, letting it burn.
God Bless America.

[screener]

I can't help it, does doofus ring a bell?

[screener]

And seeing who's here, just me and smac?, what, you'all sleeping?

[screener]

And the smac is gone, typical.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Good idea? Probably not.

Probably not.
But hey, 200 hundred years later, we ain't being evolved enough to control ourselves.

Look at me the wrong way, well....

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by screener 

Yeah, America, is the place to be if you want a modern version of the old wild west.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04guns.html?hp
.
Drunk and legally armed, good idea huh?
God Bless America.

I'll bite. You seem to have a low opinion of people who carry, implying that they're going to get drunk when they're going into a bar with a gun. You're wrong. Concealed Pistol Permit owners have to undergo training, and know the laws regarding guns and alcohol, and one of those laws is that one can't drink when carrying. I carry, and in MI I can't go into a bar with my gun, but I can go into a restaurant that serves alcohol, which is kind of stupid. I am presumed to be able to control myself in a restaurant, but I'm presumed to not be able to control myself in an establishment who's primary purpose is to serve alcohol. In either event, I don't have any alcohol, because I know not only the law, but the possible consequences of my actions if I had to use my weapon, and I don't ever want to use it. I can assure you that the vast majority of gun owners are not wild west cowboys (who didn't act like that either). Perhaps you're projecting?

As smacintush, and others, pointed out, you're rarely here to provide any intelligent conversation. You come in here with your little snide one-liners, rarely rebutting anything with some thoughtful commentary.

Are you getting bullied at school, and you're trying to overcompensate for it here?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'll bite. You seem to have a low opinion of people who carry, implying that they're going to get drunk when they're going into a bar with a gun. You're wrong. Concealed Pistol Permit owners have to undergo training, and know the laws regarding guns and alcohol, and one of those laws is that one can't drink when carrying. I carry, and in MI I can't go into a bar with my gun, but I can go into a restaurant that serves alcohol, which is kind of stupid. I am presumed to be able to control myself in a restaurant, but I'm presumed to not be able to control myself in an establishment who's primary purpose is to serve alcohol. In either event, I don't have any alcohol, because I know not only the law, but the possible consequences of my actions if I had to use my weapon, and I don't ever want to use it. I can assure you that the vast majority of gun owners are not wild west cowboys (who didn't act like that either). Perhaps you're projecting?

As smacintush, and others, pointed out, you're rarely here to provide any intelligent conversation. You come in here with your little snide one-liners, rarely rebutting anything with some thoughtful commentary.

Are you getting bullied at school, and you're trying to overcompensate for it here?

screamer (all that is wrong with the UK) claimed that no one said the Cranicks refused to pay, but a statement by Mr. Cranick seems to suggest he was fully aware of the policy regarding surrounding rural areas and hadn't paid, but thought they'd put the fire out anyway. From the article - Mr Cranick said: "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."

Yes, he was wrong. Cranick's 44-year old son decided to ask for the chief and when the chief came forward asking how he could help, was punched out by Cranick's son. They didn't pay the fee, they expected the service anyway, and when it wasn't forthcoming the son decided to resort to violence.

To make sure I have this right; screamer defends what results in aggravated assault, but derides a legal gun owner who hasn't committed a crime? There seems to be an intellectual conundrum of sorts here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

screamer (all that is wrong with the UK)

I'm fair sure he's not one of ours:

Originally Posted by screener 

It used to be neighbors helped each other

Plus nobody in the UK knows who people like Sharron Angle are.

He's prolly from one of your coasts.

[subego]

There is a point in here somewhere. Fees aren't really a good system for services like fire and police.

[subego]

I thought screener was a she.

[andi*pandi]

I didn't know there were places that required fees (aside from taxes) for services like police and fire. Seems very 19th century, gangs of new york "protection", until you read the "rural" part. $75 isn't that much to cough up for service outside city limits.

Screener, chill the heck out.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Aaaaaannnnnnnd the ignore list expands yet again.

What a tool.

greg

[SpaceMonkey]

I just wonder what would have happened if someone was trapped inside the house at the time. Would they still have just stood by? Weird situation.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Oh my lord! Those poor people who refuse to pay for a service didn't get that service!

I feel sooooo angry and embarrassed that in America people could be responsible for their own property and stupid people can be allowed to actually pay for their stupidity!

Craaaaazy

There ya go, what I expected.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I just wonder what would have happened if someone was trapped inside the house at the time. Would they still have just stood by? Weird situation.

Yeah... and from the sound of the report, the firemen didn't even show up until the neighbour's house was effected. So they really had no idea whether or not lives were in danger?! Imagine if somebody would have died and sparks would have leapt into a forest and created a gargantuan fire... criminal charges no doubt.

[screener]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'll bite. You seem to have a low opinion of people who carry, implying that they're going to get drunk when they're going into a bar with a gun. You're wrong. Concealed Pistol Permit owners have to undergo training, and know the laws regarding guns and alcohol, and one of those laws is that one can't drink when carrying. I carry, and in MI I can't go into a bar with my gun, but I can go into a restaurant that serves alcohol, which is kind of stupid. I am presumed to be able to control myself in a restaurant, but I'm presumed to not be able to control myself in an establishment who's primary purpose is to serve alcohol. In either event, I don't have any alcohol, because I know not only the law, but the possible consequences of my actions if I had to use my weapon, and I don't ever want to use it. I can assure you that the vast majority of gun owners are not wild west cowboys (who didn't act like that either). Perhaps you're projecting?

As smacintush, and others, pointed out, you're rarely here to provide any intelligent conversation. You come in here with your little snide one-liners, rarely rebutting anything with some thoughtful commentary.

Are you getting bullied at school, and you're trying to overcompensate for it here?

Of course there are responsible gun owners, carriers but you can't lump them all together and say they all are.
Not all licensed drivers drive drunk, but some do, don't they.

Sometimes one liners are all it takes to point out ridiculous posts.

Always stuck up for those being bullied, sometimes snide one liners was all it took.

[turtle777]

LOL, serves those cheap skates right.

It's tragic, but an important lesson in life: there ain't such thing as a free lunch.

-t

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

screamer (all that is wrong with the UK) claimed that no one said the Cranicks refused to pay, but a statement by Mr. Cranick seems to suggest he was fully aware of the policy regarding surrounding rural areas and hadn't paid, but thought they'd put the fire out anyway. From the article - Mr Cranick said: "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."

Yes, he was wrong. Cranick's 44-year old son decided to ask for the chief and when the chief came forward asking how he could help, was punched out by Cranick's son. They didn't pay the fee, they expected the service anyway, and when it wasn't forthcoming the son decided to resort to violence.

To make sure I have this right; screamer defends what results in aggravated assault, but derides a legal gun owner who hasn't committed a crime? There seems to be an intellectual conundrum of sorts here.

You have to take it a step further, from my opening post, I put forth the possibility of this sort of thing expanding to all aspects of citizen services.
Think about it.

I didn't defend the sons assault, but do understand it and I didn't deride any gun owner, carrier.
The intellectual conundrum of sorts must be assumed by you.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm fair sure he's not one of ours:



Plus nobody in the UK knows who people like Sharron Angle are.

He's prolly from one of your coasts.

Proud Canuck thank you.

Only those that interested in US politics.

Prolly from Ontario, for those yanks geographically challenged, you probably don't care where it is.

[screener]

Originally Posted by subego 

There is a point in here somewhere. Fees aren't really a good system for services like fire and police.

It wasn't that hard to figure out was it?

[screener]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I didn't know there were places that required fees (aside from taxes) for services like police and fire. Seems very 19th century, gangs of new york "protection", until you read the "rural" part. $75 isn't that much to cough up for service outside city limits.

Screener, chill the heck out.

Aren't you glad it was brought to your attention?
The point is, the expansion and denial of services unless you're paid up.
They did offer to pay whatever it took.

Chill out?, in a political forum?, this place needs a kick.

[The Final Dakar]

Dude, you need to learn how to multi-quote.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Aaaaaannnnnnnd the ignore list expands yet again.

What a tool.

greg

Never could understand the need to block posts.
The scroll wheel does work, and you might not miss the humor snide one liners give, if you actually think about them.

[screener]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Yeah... and from the sound of the report, the firemen didn't even show up until the neighbour's house was effected. So they really had no idea whether or not lives were in danger?! Imagine if somebody would have died and sparks would have leapt into a forest and created a gargantuan fire... criminal charges no doubt.

The full story isn't out yet, but yeah, didn't even show up to make sure it didn't spread at the least.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Dude, you need to learn how to multi-quote.

I remember when I first multi-quoted a couple of years ago and totally blew someone's mind.

[screener]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Dude, you need to learn how to multi-quote.

I know how, answering by points isn't that much different and quicker.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by screener 

I know how

O'Rly

-t

[screener]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, serves those cheap skates right.

It's tragic, but an important lesson in life: there ain't such thing as a free lunch.

-t

Apparently the US is leaning, going that way, posted as I watch someone step over a sleeping, I think, body on the sidewalk.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by screener 

answering by points isn't that much different

Sure about that ?

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by screener 

... and quicker.

Doubtful.

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by screener 

I know how, answering by points isn't that much different and quicker.

Actually it's not. You'd have to load multiple pages rather than one. Plus, it's spamming.

[screener]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Sure about that ?

-t

Riiight, I understand now, break up one sentence to reply.
How could I miss such a simple solution, thanks.

[screener]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Actually it's not. You'd have to load multiple pages rather than one. Plus, it's spamming.

Quicker for me.
The spamming bit is BS.

[besson3c]

So what happens if somebody hasn't paid the fire fee but has fire insurance, couldn't they just burn their own house down and collect the insurance money with no way of providing evidence as to the cause of the fire?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So what happens if somebody hasn't paid the fire fee but has fire insurance, couldn't they just burn their own house down and collect the insurance money with no way of providing evidence as to the cause of the fire?

If someone in this situation has homeowner's insurance, they must have paid more in their premiums due to being so far from a fire station, so it's probably a wash in the insurance company's bottom line. Anyway, if the insurance company is really suspicious, don't they pay for investigations themselves?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If someone in this situation has homeowner's insurance, they must have paid more in their premiums due to being so far from a fire station, so it's probably a wash in the insurance company's bottom line. Anyway, if the insurance company is really suspicious, don't they pay for investigations themselves?

If they did I'm sure they would want to know whether or not this household paid their fire fee, cause obviously there is no point in paying for an investigation if it would be pointless.

If somebody chooses not to pay the fire fee, what are the hidden costs that the neighbors and the rest of the community has to absorb? If both the fire fee and fire insurance are optional, maybe car insurance should also be optional?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I didn't know there were places that required fees (aside from taxes) for services like police and fire. Seems very 19th century, gangs of new york "protection", until you read the "rural" part. $75 isn't that much to cough up for service outside city limits.

Screener, chill the heck out.

The areas in Tennessee that have subscription-based fire protection are in rural areas where no governmental agency can afford to pay for fire protection anyway-thus the need for something else. I have trouble with the business model for this; instead of not fighting the fire, they should instead bill the crap out of the homeowner's insurance company, especially if they actually responded to the fire in the first place.

In rural Central Texas, a lot of areas are protected by a rather robust system of volunteer fire departments. But these departments don't cover everywhere-some people are completely unprotected. Without a government agency collecting taxes and paying for this service, where else would a homeowner get that protection?

[andi*pandi]

Where I grew up was very rural, but we had volunteer-run department too. There were no "protection" fees, that I can recall, just your fire permits and fundraisers for new engines. Charging the insurance is not a bad idea... unless they don't have insurance. Compare to hospitals, they don't turn people away without insurance.

[The Final Dakar]

Seeing this is the US and all, I've got to wonder if its possible for the neighbors to sue for their house catching on fire because the other house didn't have protection.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Compare to hospitals, they don't turn people away without insurance.

Well, in the future, hospitals will not turn people down, but thei ability to fund treating people w/o insurance will greatly diminish. So they will hand out free band aids for everything.

Alas, I would require the fire department to do minimal service for peopel that didn't buy the $75 protection.

That minimal service should be like one or two buckets of free water.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I didn't know there were places that required fees (aside from taxes) for services like police and fire. Seems very 19th century, gangs of new york "protection", until you read the "rural" part. $75 isn't that much to cough up for service outside city limits.

Screener, chill the heck out.

Crassus used to do this in ancient Rome. Not only would he charge you an exorbitant fee for his hoodlums to put out the fire, he'd get that money by buying your now destroyed property for asses on the denarius.

Originally Posted by screener 

It wasn't that hard to figure out was it?

It's not as cut and dried as you seem to think. If they let people steal fire service, then they won't have enough money to run the department properly. Then, people die.

Nice job breaking it hero.