Firefighters refuse to put out fire, watch house burn down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Knoell, Bob, and thrust, do you recognize that this is the definition of hypocricy? Rich land owning guy doesn't pay a "fee" and then feels entitled to the same service.

You guys sit there and harp on and on about personal responsibility, entitlement, and all that but here's a rich dude that does the same thing that poor ghetto birds are doing. Where's the condemnation?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Knoell, Bob, and thrust, do you recognize that this is the definition of hypocricy? Rich land owning guy doesn't pay a "fee" and then feels entitled to the same service.

You guys sit there and harp on and on about personal responsibility, entitlement, and all that but here's a rich dude that does the same thing that poor ghetto birds are doing. Where's the condemnation?[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about?

I condemned the guy. Said he was stupid and that the fire department shouldn't render services to those who don't pay. Not sure what you think you're getting at.
 
The overarching theme that EVERYONE feels entitled to services from the government. According you guys, only ghetto birds and liberals feel entitled.
 
[quote name='depascal22']The overarching theme that EVERYONE feels entitled to services from the government. According you guys, only ghetto birds and liberals feel entitled.[/QUOTE]

Umm... don't think I've ever said anything like that. Feel free to provide a quote.

Nearly everyone will try to take advantage of the government.

I merely favor a system where the government doesn't allow this to happen. Where the government treats all citizens equally. Scary thought, I know.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Umm... don't think I've ever said anything like that. Feel free to provide a quote.

Nearly everyone will try to take advantage of the government.

I merely favor a system where the government doesn't allow this to happen. Where the government treats all citizens equally. Scary thought, I know.[/QUOTE]

How can you treat everyone equally when they didn't have equal opportunities until that point? Do you draw an arbitrary line in time and say that no one from that point can complain about past regressions?

I'm all for that but many many different peoples would need some sort of reparations on par with casinos to get to an equal starting block. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with this conversation.

Here we have a middle class (at least) white rancher that feels entitled to get his house fires put out without paying a dime toward the work. If it was a black man in the ghetto, he'd already be strung up by the conservatives in this forum. He'd be an example for how minorities suck on the teat of government without ever giving back.

Hence the hypocrisy. Don't act like you and Knoell haven't come here and bullshitted about welfare babies and whatnot. Now it's a middle class working man and you wanna act like the government shouldn't allow it to happen. Give me a friggin break. Call this dude out for what he is. A welfare baby.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Now it's a middle class working man and you wanna act like the government shouldn't allow it to happen.[/QUOTE]

I am seriously amazed by some people on this forum at times. I see someone make a post, then I see someone twist the post, change the OP's side of the argument, then argue against the changed argument.

This is the clearest case of that *ever*.

I have been very clear thorough this entire thread - this man did not pay for service, in spite of clearly having the means to do so, so I have no qualms against the decision that was made.

For you to say that I'm a hypocrite for saying "the government shouldn't allow it to happen"... well, there's only two explanations - either you sincerely just aren't reading my posts (which is okay, but then I'd think you shouldn't be responding to them) or you're just flat being dishonest in your replies.
 
[quote name='depascal22']The overarching theme that EVERYONE feels entitled to services from the government. According you guys, only ghetto birds and liberals feel entitled.[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid I haven't said this either. While you are getting UB's quote ready feel free to throw mine in there.


[quote name='depascal22']
Hence the hypocrisy. Don't act like you and Knoell haven't come here and bullshitted about welfare babies and whatnot. Now it's a middle class working man and you wanna act like the government shouldn't allow it to happen. Give me a friggin break. Call this dude out for what he is. A welfare baby
[/QUOTE]

I have condemned the guy for being an idiot for not paying the fee. In the beginning all I knew was that he was a white guy living in a rural type area. Now I know he is a more or less middle class white guy, and I still say he was an idiot for not paying the fee. Where is the hypocrisy again?

If I remember correctly the libs on this forum were arguing that the fire dept shouldnt let that happen to someone until they found out he lived comfortably. Then they turned on him. That is where the real hypocrisy lies.
 
Sucks doesn't it, Bob and Knoell. When someone twists your words, and argues with a different position. Derails the thread and leads us nowhere. I shouldn't have called you hypocrites but sometimes it's the only way to get you guys to actually make a decent point.

It's not hypocrisy to get more information and change your mind about a situation. At first, it seemed like a poor white guy in the country that didn't have the means or didn't know about the fee. Then, it came out that he had plenty of money being a rancher AND he's already done this once. That changes the story and context of what is going on.

You guys condemn the guy from the get go and when the story changes to put you in the majority, you sit there and pat yourself on the back? What if it had been some poor country dude that just forgot to pay the $75? Would you still be sitting there all smug? You take the facts, make judgement, and then stick with that no matter what?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Sucks doesn't it, Bob and Knoell. When someone twists your words, and argues with a different position. Derails the thread and leads us nowhere. I shouldn't have called you hypocrites but sometimes it's the only way to get you guys to actually make a decent point.

It's not hypocrisy to get more information and change your mind about a situation. At first, it seemed like a poor white guy in the country that didn't have the means or didn't know about the fee. Then, it came out that he had plenty of money being a rancher AND he's already done this once. That changes the story and context of what is going on.

You guys condemn the guy from the get go and when the story changes to put you in the majority, you sit there and pat yourself on the back? What if it had been some poor country dude that just forgot to pay the $75? Would you still be sitting there all smug? You take the facts, make judgement, and then stick with that no matter what?[/QUOTE]

The guy is still an idiot for not paying the fee to protect his house, even if he is poor, or rich, forgot, or just didn't want to etc.

Regardless I don't think the fire department should let the fire run rampant in any case, I think that they ought to put the fire out and charge the guy the full cost of putting out the fire. It is just dumb because they had to put out the neighbors fire because it spread from the uncontrolled fire at the original house.

Overall though, "forgetting" to pay for fire protection for your house is not a reasonable excuse, and neither is being poor. It is a $1.44 a week to make sure your house doesn't burn down. Responsibility is not a luxury of the rich. Everyone can be responsible.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Sucks doesn't it, Bob and Knoell. When someone twists your words, and argues with a different position.[/quote]

It does. And yet, I see it all the time on this board from you and a few other posters. You guys twist and snake my words, then, when I ask for quotes to back up the crap you're trying to pin on me - well, the quotes never come, but the baseless, mindless insults do.

It's not hypocrisy to get more information and change your mind about a situation.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. That, alone, is not hypocrisy.

At first, it seemed like [...]
Click to expand...

Naw, it never seemed like any of that to me. From the beginning, I understood that there was a fire station in a town, paid for by the citizens of the town and designed to serve the town. On a subscription-bases, they provided services outside of the town. This guy didn't subscribe, so he didn't receive services. Everything else piled on is just gravy.

*Now* - let's say he was poor guy who couldn't afford the $75/year. And yes, I recognize that asking some people to pay $75/year is asking a lot. Well, (aside from the fact that if he can't afford $75/year for fire protection services, he probably shouldn't own four indoor animals), if that is the case, then I'd be interested in knowing what alternatives the fire department offers. Do they offer something were, say, you can volunteer services in exchange for coverage? Now, I'm not expecting this guy to suit up and start rushing into burning houses - how about washing the trucks? Cleaning up around the fire station? Bake sale? Hell, if this fire station runs like some, the crew is there for extended periods of time and can't leave except in cases of emergency... Run and pick up supplies for them occasionally. Beyond that, I'd have trouble believing there isn't odd jobs around that could be done to scrounge up an extra $75/year. Worst case, I'm sure there is at least one charity in this guy's area that could put together a $75 donation if this guy absolutely, positively could in no way come up with the money.

But, from the beginning, the money was never mentioned to be an issue. And even if it was, then it'd be a good idea to bring it up sometime in the twenty years between when this service went into effect and your house catches on fire. It's like driving down the interstate until you run out of gas, then complaining because there's no gas stations. Prepare.

You take the facts, make judgement, and then stick with that no matter what?
Click to expand...

You make that sound like a bad thing.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Umm... don't think I've ever said anything like that. Feel free to provide a quote.

Nearly everyone will try to take advantage of the government.

I merely favor a system where the government doesn't allow this to happen. Where the government treats all citizens equally. Scary thought, I know.[/QUOTE]

One man is well fed, in fact overweight due to it, and regularly throws out food he doesn't finish because he could care less about portioning it beforehand.

Another is skin and bones, willing to eat whatever he can get his hands on.

How much food should each person get at dinner time?

[quote name='Knoell']
Overall though, "forgetting" to pay for fire protection for your house is not a reasonable excuse, and neither is being poor. It is a $1.44 a week to make sure your house doesn't burn down. Responsibility is not a luxury of the rich. Everyone can be responsible.[/QUOTE]

Being poor is an excuse. Some many people cannot afford $1.44 a week.
 
[quote name='J7.']One man is well fed, in fact overweight due to it, and regularly throws out food he doesn't finish because he could care less about portioning it beforehand.

Another is skin and bones, willing to eat whatever he can get his hands on.

How much food should each person get at dinner time?[/QUOTE]

Thirteen.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Damn 13 dollars. For dinner? What the hell do you eat? My entire days worth of meals is like 8 dollars.[/QUOTE]

I live close to Manhattan and go there for business occasionally, 13 bucks in the big city barely gets you a polenta (read: guinea grits) appetizer.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I live close to Manhattan and go there for business occasionally, 13 bucks in the big city barely gets you a polenta (read: guinea grits) appetizer.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. I have been conditioned most of my life to lunch box it with a tiffin. But then I also see fast food as a luxury so I am also probably not your average American. BTW I am hungry as hell now thanks to this thread, I think I will make chile verde burritos now.

Feel free to ignore my rambling.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I don't know. I have been conditioned most of my life to lunch box it with a tiffin. But then I also see fast food as a luxury so I am also probably not your average American. BTW I am hungry as hell now thanks to this thread, I think I will make chile verde burritos now.

Feel free to ignore my rambling.[/QUOTE]

Your rambling is better than others.
 
[quote name='Msut77']polenta (read: guinea grits)[/QUOTE]
fuck you man.

I laughed out loud. I can't believe I've never heard that before. I cant wait to call em that when I fly home to my dego family for Christmas.
 
[quote name='J7.']What are you saying?[/QUOTE]

It was a sarcastic response to your question.

Without knowing more about these two men, one cannot make the "best" choice.

In your story, the second guy also took 13 different little girls, killed their parents in front of them, then raped and killed the little girls while filming it and sending the video to people on the internet. Then sent the severed heads of the families to the grand parents. Also, he called Obama a "****er-Muslim" and voted for Bush in the last election. Yes, in the last election.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It was a sarcastic response to your question.

Without knowing more about these two men, one cannot make the "best" choice.

In your story, the second guy also took 13 different little girls, killed their parents in front of them, then raped and killed the little girls while filming it and sending the video to people on the internet. Then sent the severed heads of the families to the grand parents. Also, he called Obama a "****er-Muslim" and voted for Bush in the last election. Yes, in the last election.[/QUOTE]

WTF :shock:. That ain't my story, that's yours, and I don't know how anyone was supposed to interpret something like that from your comment.

Given what I had said, which was one guy is well fed and doesn't think twice about the food he wastes, and someone who is so poor he'll eat whatever he can... what is equal treatment by government? Giving them the same amount of food or giving them an amount equal to their needs?
 
[quote name='J7.']WTF :shock:. That ain't my story, that's yours, and I don't know how anyone was supposed to interpret something like that from your comment.

Given what I had said, which was one guy is well fed and doesn't think twice about the food he wastes, and someone who is so poor he'll eat whatever he can... what is equal treatment by government? Giving them the same amount of food or giving them an amount equal to their needs?[/QUOTE]

A.) Why are we to assume the government is supposed to step in and give either of these people food?

B) "That ain't my story" - the point being is that, with the information you have provided, you can't reasonably draw a conclusion because you simply haven't provided enough information. I assume you've seen this before:

It is time to elect a new world leader, and your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:

* Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

* Candidate B: He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

* Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs.

Which of these candidates would be your choice?
Click to expand...

Same thing here - you're wanting me to cast an opinion on two imaginary people without knowing hardly anything about them. My added scenario to the story is just as valid as your original story. Oh, the first guy in your story - he's got some medical conditions. People think that he "wastes" food because he doesn't eat it when, in reality, he's got a pretty large list of allergies so he has to avoid eating certain things. Also, he's not fat just from over eating, he just has a legitimate thyroid problem. Some of the thyroid medicine he's taking messes up the balance of insulin in his body so that he's perpetually always hungry. Oh, his granddaughter was one of the kids raped and killed by the second guy.
 
[quote name='J7.']WTF :shock:. That ain't my story, that's yours, and I don't know how anyone was supposed to interpret something like that from your comment.

Given what I had said, which was one guy is well fed and doesn't think twice about the food he wastes, and someone who is so poor he'll eat whatever he can... what is equal treatment by government? Giving them the same amount of food or giving them an amount equal to their needs?[/QUOTE]

WTF indeed, that is what the ignore option is for (I know I have it on there).

But that is something a wee bit past good taste even by my standards, maybe this is something that should be brought to a mods attention.
 
[quote name='J7.']WTF :shock:. That ain't my story, that's yours, and I don't know how anyone was supposed to interpret something like that from your comment.

Given what I had said, which was one guy is well fed and doesn't think twice about the food he wastes, and someone who is so poor he'll eat whatever he can... what is equal treatment by government? Giving them the same amount of food or giving them an amount equal to their needs?[/QUOTE]

Fire protection is not something that should be distributed based on wealth on either side, but by the funds available that the community deems appropriate to properly run a fire department.

$75 dollars a year is very reasonable to protect your house, I challenge you to find someone who isn't putting something of lesser value ahead of the protection of their home. Cable tv would be a big one.

My gosh, when did Americans become such wannabe victims.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It was a sarcastic response to your question.

Without knowing more about these two men, one cannot make the "best" choice.

In your story, the second guy also took 13 different little girls, killed their parents in front of them, then raped and killed the little girls while filming it and sending the video to people on the internet. Then sent the severed heads of the families to the grand parents. Also, he called Obama a "****er-Muslim" and voted for Bush in the last election. Yes, in the last election.[/QUOTE]

hey buddy don't try to ape my posting style

[on Americans becoming such wannabe victims]
Click to expand...

when they called the fire department when their house was burning down and were told to fuck off

alot of the nets we use to have are starting to come apart (mostly due to greed and indifference from the people at the top...and i guess you could say bottom too)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Fire protection is not something that should be distributed based on wealth on either side, but by the funds available that the community deems appropriate to properly run a fire department.

$75 dollars a year is very reasonable to protect your house, I challenge you to find someone who isn't putting something of lesser value ahead of the protection of their home. Cable tv would be a big one.

My gosh, when did Americans become such wannabe victims.[/QUOTE]

I read your first sentence. Then your second sentence. Then your first sentence. Then your second sentence.

Do you have a definitive position, or are you just psychotic?
 
[quote name='camoor']I read your first sentence. Then your second sentence. Then your first sentence. Then your second sentence.

Do you have a definitive position, or are you just psychotic?[/QUOTE]

Care to clarify? Or are you attempting to attack my position again without actually attacking my position?
 
Fire protection should not be distributed based on wealth but by funds available....but $75 is a very reasonable fee and fuck you if you don't pay it, even if the fire truck is right behind your house trying to stop your fire from damaging a paying customer's field.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Fire protection should not be distributed based on wealth but by funds available....but $75 is a very reasonable fee and fuck you if you don't pay it, even if the fire truck is working on stopping the fire when it spreads to a paying customer's field behind the house that's on fire.[/QUOTE]

Sigh....go back through the thread and read where I said the firefighters should have put it out. It is retarded for two reasons:

1 is that they had to come out for the neighbors house, because they didn't put out the first fire.
2 is that we can't be letting fires burn uncontrolled because someone doesn't have the presense of mind to pay the fee.

The second reason leads into my position, which has been stated 3-4 times that they should put the fire out, and the guy should have to pay the full cost of putting out the fire.

This stops fires from spreading, people who don't pay will have to cover the expenses, more people should pay when they realize they are on the hook for the expenses, and lastly it is just common decency to help out our fellow citizens, but we should realize that this help costs something to work properly.

Not sure how this conflicts with the position that $75 is a affordable and reasonable fee, and anyone who doesn't pay it is an idiot.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Sigh....go back through the thread and read where I said the firefighters should have put it out. It is retarded for two reasons:

1 is that they had to come out for the neighbors house, because they didn't put out the first fire.
2 is that we can't be letting fires burn uncontrolled because someone doesn't have the presense of mind to pay the fee.

The second reason leads into my position, which has been stated 3-4 times that they should put the fire out, and the guy should have to pay the full cost of putting out the fire.

This stops fires from spreading, people who don't pay will have to cover the expenses, more people should pay when they realize they are on the hook for the expenses, and lastly it is just common decency to help out our fellow citizens, but we should realize that this help costs something to work properly.

Not sure how this conflicts with the position that $75 is a affordable and reasonable fee, and anyone who doesn't pay it is an idiot.[/QUOTE]

Really, why bother arguing with this guy. Any rational person knows that the 75 dollar fire protection fee is the worst policy ever. Case fucking closed.
 
[quote name='camoor']Really, why bother arguing with this guy. Any rational person knows that the 75 dollar fire protection fee is the worst policy ever. Case fucking closed.[/QUOTE]

Yeah - the better option is to simply not offer any kind of fire protection services outside of one's home territory. Those who live outside the territory, well, **** 'em.
 
[quote name='camoor']Really, why bother arguing with this guy. Any rational person knows that the 75 dollar fire protection fee is the worst policy ever. Case fucking closed.[/QUOTE]

Nice argument. :roll:. "anyone knows that the way I see things is the right way"

What if we label the $75 dollars a tax instead of a fee, will that make you feel better?
 
Why the fuck would you make a tax to save somebody's house? Its a service that Americans rely on when their house goes up in flames.
 
Because, in this instance, the fee was instituted to cover the cost of fire protection outside of the city's limits. It costs money to run a fire department and pay firefighters, and since the area didn't pay city taxes - which pay for the fire department - the fee was offered as a way to give fire protection to the rural area outside the city limits.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Because, in this instance, the fee was instituted to cover the cost of fire protection outside of the city's limits. It costs money to run a fire department and pay firefighters, and since the area didn't pay city taxes - which pay for the fire department - the fee was offered as a way to give fire protection to the rural area outside the city limits.[/QUOTE]


How did they know if they had payed the tax, and why was it the firefighters call? This whole event echoes of Fahrenheit 451
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A.) Why are we to assume the government is supposed to step in and give either of these people food?

B) "That ain't my story" - the point being is that, with the information you have provided, you can't reasonably draw a conclusion because you simply haven't provided enough information. I assume you've seen this before:

Same thing here - you're wanting me to cast an opinion on two imaginary people without knowing hardly anything about them. My added scenario to the story is just as valid as your original story. Oh, the first guy in your story - he's got some medical conditions. People think that he "wastes" food because he doesn't eat it when, in reality, he's got a pretty large list of allergies so he has to avoid eating certain things. Also, he's not fat just from over eating, he just has a legitimate thyroid problem. Some of the thyroid medicine he's taking messes up the balance of insulin in his body so that he's perpetually always hungry. Oh, his granddaughter was one of the kids raped and killed by the second guy.[/QUOTE]

A) If the public is not stepping in (enough), if the rich would rather spend millions on homes that are too big, buy frivolous overpriced luxuries, own dozens of cars, etc instead of giving enough to charity, then maybe someone should step in. Who is left to step in when the public is too greedy to address the need? The government is.

If you disagree then you should not be given help in your time of need. If you disagree maybe you should live without enough food for a year, then come back and tell us what you think then. The situation seems quite foreign to you or you don't really care about those below you because you put all blame on them as individuals and you don't view them as being worthy of the same respect.

B) If I was given that information about candidates I would try to find out more. If I did not know enough about them I would not vote. I could always show up to a rally with a sign that said "12".

Then you state there is not enough information and ask me to elaborate, you don't type "13" as a response. There is also the point that the type of scenario I did give does exist in many cases. So either you take that scenario or you elaborate on it in a civil manner.

What I see you doing is painting the 2nd guy to be the lowliest of society and making excuses for the first. You paint the 2nd guy to be intentionally responsible for the problems the 1st guy has. I may have exaggerated the first guy but I didn't paint him out to be some psychopath who destroyed the first guy's life. If we did use your twisted scenario then it would also be fair to say the 2nd guy ended up the way he was because the 1st guy fostered a type of society where that happens to the disadvantaged. You want a legit scenario then you can come up with one and other's can give you their input regarding it's validity because the one you gave is not valid, it is incredibly biased.

[quote name='Knoell']Fire protection is not something that should be distributed based on wealth on either side, but by the funds available that the community deems appropriate to properly run a fire department.

$75 dollars a year is very reasonable to protect your house, I challenge you to find someone who isn't putting something of lesser value ahead of the protection of their home. Cable tv would be a big one.

My gosh, when did Americans become such wannabe victims.[/QUOTE]

This is not about the fire issue. Someone brought up the overarching theme of entitlement beyond this issue. I probably should have clarified that. However I admit it probably applies the same here even though that was not why I had posted that. How do you think the fire department should be funded in this case?

I say fire department funding should run off property taxes. If they live outside that jurisdiction, the fee should be mandated and be prorated. If it is not mandated, the home should be saved anyways and their should be a prorated fine. If their is a surplus left over from the funds at the end of the year it should either be used to improve something that benefits everyone equally, like maintaining the fire department and supplies or rebuilding the roads, and giving advice on fire prevention so that the surplus could get even larger.

$75 is reasonable, but even then some cannot afford it. I'm not saying it's unreasonable, I'm just pointing out the fact that some cannot afford that. There are people without cable tv, who can barely afford to buy food, despite that being hard for some people to imagine. Ya I'm sure there are people who pick cable tv over fire protection, but if they're that low income they probably maintain their sanity by not having to watch some crap network show every night. (There is even the chance of free local tv going the way of the dodo). They choose that over the rare chance there is a house fire and deal with the consequences later.

Is that wrong, sure it is to some degree. Are we better off if they don't go off and kill them self or somebody else because they have a shit job and their entertainment/escape from the perils of life only makes them feel worse? If you don't care about the value of their life, would you at least care that you are now paying higher taxes to fully support them in jail? Is that better than prorated taxes? What about the people that used to be able to afford a home but lost it due to crooked bankers? What about people who used to own a home but couldn't afford the fees and are now living in a car because they were exploited by the rich? Is it more fair for the rich to exploit and not have to pay higher taxes?

When did Americans become so self serving and above their common man? Nevermind, that's how it usually has been, but it's time to evolve towards a fairer society. Saying the rich shouldn't pay a higher % is just as stupid as saying the poor are stupid for not paying a fee. Do away with exploitation and then we can all pay a more equal fee. If people want to have everyone pay up more equally then you need to pay out more equally. That is elementary mathematics. Not meant to be offensive.

[quote name='seen']^Wrong, if they had paid the $75 annual fee this thread wouldn't exist.[/QUOTE]

Until it happened to someone else who had not paid. But this helps illustrate a larger problem regarding people's views towards the rich and the poor.

[quote name='UncleBob']Yeah - the better option is to simply not offer any kind of fire protection services outside of one's home territory. Those who live outside the territory, well, **** 'em.[/QUOTE]

Let's restrict homeland security to metropolitan areas while we're at it.
 
[quote name='J7.']The situation seems quite foreign to you or you don't really care about those below you because you put all blame on them as individuals[/quote]

Please provide quotes from me where I said anything like that. Or is this another case of "claim the other guy said mean things even though he didn't."?

Then you state there is not enough information and ask me to elaborate, you don't type "13" as a response.
Click to expand...

The problem is, since your scenario is something you made up, you get to twist it and fit it so that it fits your agenda - so asking you to elaborate really wouldn't change things.

Let's restrict homeland security to metropolitan areas while we're at it.
Click to expand...

What percentage of all those homeland security dollars after 9/11 went to small, rural communities... ;)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Please provide quotes from me where I said anything like that. Or is this another case of "claim the other guy said mean things even though he didn't."?[/QUOTE]

Here you go. Underlined the strongest parts.

[quote name='UncleBob']the second guy also took 13 different little girls, killed their parents in front of them, then raped and killed the little girls while filming it and sending the video to people on the internet. Then sent the severed heads of the families to the grand parents. Also, he called Obama a "****er-Muslim" and voted for Bush in the last election. Yes, in the last election.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']
My added scenario to the story is just as valid as your original story. Oh, the first guy in your story - he's got some medical conditions. People think that he "wastes" food because he doesn't eat it when, in reality, he's got a pretty large list of allergies so he has to avoid eating certain things. Also, he's not fat just from over eating, he just has a legitimate thyroid problem. Some of the thyroid medicine he's taking messes up the balance of insulin in his body so that he's perpetually always hungry. Oh, his granddaughter was one of the kids raped and killed by the second guy.[/QUOTE]

You appear to disagree with giving aid to the disadvantaged, with taking more from the rich and giving more to the poor. I've gathered this from the responses you have made, and from your views on past issues.

If you hold such a view then you should not be entitled to such help if you ever come to need it. Maybe if you experience it for a year you would then understand. Your above quotes demonstrate that either the situation that faces the 2nd guy is too foreign to you for you to understand his plight or you could care less about his plight. You've put all the blame on him for his situation.

Like I said you paint the 2nd guy to be the lowliest type of person that could exist. You make him out to be a psycho rapist killer and the 1st guy as having problems that make him eat too much. Furthermore, you blame the 2nd guy for destroying the life of the 1st guy. There was no reason to paint them out in such a drastic way. My original scenario was nowhere near that drastic.

There are far more people who are poor and are genuinely good people than there are people who are poor because they're psycho killers. And there are far more people who waste food, among other things, then there are who buy stuff and then don't eat it because they have allergies and eat a lot due to their thyroid. You make a point, but the fact is that your scenario is rare compared to the one I gave.

It is far more common that the rich exploit the poor. Even in your scenario, the rapist psycho killer may have become that way because his life was shit due to being exploited and being malnourished. More so though, other types of crimes, such as burglary, drug dealing, etc is fueled by disadvantage. If you want to have a comfortable life and not help those below you, then be prepared to face the consequences. Be prepared to be scared to enter certain neighborhoods or deal with certain people. Be prepared to worry about getting your shit stolen. Be prepared to have more psycho killers. It doesn't have to be like that though.

[quote name='UncleBob']The problem is, since your scenario is something you made up, you get to twist it and fit it so that it fits your agenda - so asking you to elaborate really wouldn't change things.[/QUOTE]

The fact is you didn't even ask me to elaborate, you just typed "thirteen". How would you know unless you asked me to elaborate... I said you can come up with a legit scenario and other's can give you their input regarding it's validity. You can come up with it and try to be fair or you can not try.

[quote name='UncleBob']What percentage of all those homeland security dollars after 9/11 went to small, rural communities... ;)[/QUOTE]
What percentage of all those fire protection services went to areas outside of the town's territory... :roll: BTW, saying fuck those living outside the town is equivalent to saying fuck the disadvantaged, and doing so even when they are required to pay.
 
[quote name='51jack']How did they know if they had payed the tax, and why was it the firefighters call? This whole event echoes of Fahrenheit 451[/QUOTE]

Fahrenheit 451 was about the burning of books. Firemen didn't put out fires in that book. The book wasn't about taxes either. It's a civil liberties thing. Do you have a constitutional right to read and learn? Is it a human liberty on par with the right to purse happiness? That's what the book and movie touched on.

Oh, and J7, don't even bother with Bob. He'll ask for quotes of something he said. You'll provide them and then he'll say they were taken out of context or he'll take one super tiny part of the quote and disqualify the entire quote by saying that's not what he meant. It's a losing battle that many of us stopped fighting a long time ago.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Oh, and J7, don't even bother with Bob. He'll ask for quotes of something he said. You'll provide them and then he'll say they were taken out of context or he'll take one super tiny part of the quote and disqualify the entire quote by saying that's not what he meant. It's a losing battle that many of us stopped fighting a long time ago.[/QUOTE]

That's bull**** and you know it.

This, coming from the guy who attacked me because I "changed my opinion" on something, then, when I pointed out that my opinion has never changed, attacked me for not changing my opinion. It's getting so deep in here, you're going to need a bucket truck to lift you out of it.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I am not even sure what you are arguing any more J7. Focus your argument.[/QUOTE]

What part of it do you find unfocused?

[quote name='depascal22']
Oh, and J7, don't even bother with Bob. He'll ask for quotes of something he said. You'll provide them and then he'll say they were taken out of context or he'll take one super tiny part of the quote and disqualify the entire quote by saying that's not what he meant. It's a losing battle that many of us stopped fighting a long time ago.[/QUOTE]

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. I can see both sides at times. Meaning sometimes some people say some things that I seriously question for a variety of reasons, and other times I see people attack the minority opinion to demoralize them even during times where they should not be attacked. There's a bit of truth to both, but it's hard to see who is doing what unless I personally witness or experience it one way or the other. I'm not directing anything at you, I hate to say something like this as a direct reply to someone, I just need to explain why I'm giving him a chance.
 
Knoell, what do you find unfocused? Seriously. I will elaborate if you want.

UncleBob, I'm still giving you the option to come up with a legit scenario. If you choose not to I come to the conclusion that either you don't want to try, you can't come up with one, or you'd rather just avoid hearing someone oppose any part of it. I've given you the benefit of the doubt after being informed I shouldn't. You're proving depascal22's advice being right by staying silent. In fact, you can just provide an explanation of why you shouldn't come up with a legit scenario if you want to.
 
[quote name='J7.']Knoell, what do you find unfocused? Seriously. I will elaborate if you want.

UncleBob, I'm still giving you the option to come up with a legit scenario. If you choose not to I come to the conclusion that either you don't want to try, you can't come up with one, or you'd rather just avoid hearing someone oppose any part of it. I've given you the benefit of the doubt after being informed I shouldn't. You're proving depascal22's advice being right by staying silent. In fact, you can just provide an explanation of why you shouldn't come up with a legit scenario if you want to.[/QUOTE]

You want me to make up a fake situation, giving the details that will skew the situation in the way that I want it to, then let you judge how the situation will play out?

Fine, two guys walk into a bar and both order the same drink. The bill comes - it's $5 even. How much should each of the two guys pay?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You want me to make up a fake situation, giving the details that will skew the situation in the way that I want it to, then let you judge how the situation will play out?

Fine, two guys walk into a bar and both order the same drink. The bill comes - it's $5 even. How much should each of the two guys pay?[/QUOTE]

It doesn't have to be a fake situation. Come up with something that you think is legit, that is the most common situation there is. I don't want you to give details that will skew it in the way you want to, on purpose. I want you to give the most objective situation that you can come up with, and let people give you feedback. Otherwise you're not letting your opinion be heard. If others don't give good feedback or just insult you, after you make an attempt at an objective situation, then they're being worse than you even if your situation is not objective enough in their eyes.

My situation had a lot of subjectivity to it and yours I believe was even more subjective. You had some reason to make it more subjective, but it didn't make it better. You proved a point by making your past situation more subjective, perhaps at your own expense, so I want you to give something as objective as can be to see what your true view is.

They should pay the same amount regardless of income, unless their incomes highly differ AND they're not paying prorated taxes elsewhere. If one of them has a serious drinking problem that is negatively affecting him and others, there should be a gradual limit on the amount of drinks he can drink over time. So he can hopefully be helped to get better to some extent, if he's not able to do that himself without help. What do you think they should pay? Please give related outside circumstances.

But what I was hoping you would do is give a situation of direct entitlement.
 
[quote name='J7.']They should pay the same amount regardless of income, unless their incomes highly differ AND they're not paying prorated taxes elsewhere. If one of them has a serious drinking problem that is negatively affecting him and others, there should be a gradual limit on the amount of drinks he can drink over time. So he can hopefully be helped to get better to some extent, if he's not able to do that himself without help. What do you think they should pay? Please give related outside circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Both guys are on their 34th consecutive week of unemployment. Before they were terminated from their job, they had $0 in savings between the two of them. So, to answer my own question, both guys paid nothing, tax payers paid about $10 ($5 for the drinks, $3 in tips and ~$2 in government administration - payroll, processing fees, etc., etc - to get the money to the two unemployed guys).

How's that for entitlement? ;)

But, seriously, this is a waste of time.

Any time taxpayer money is given directly to an individual, there should be someone looking at the details of that exact situation to make sure the money is going to the right person for the right reasons. Making guidelines is fine, but "skinny guy gets free food, fat guy gets nothing" isn't the best plan for anyone involved.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Both guys are on their 34th consecutive week of unemployment. Before they were terminated from their job, they had $0 in savings between the two of them. So, to answer my own question, both guys paid nothing, tax payers paid about $10 ($5 for the drinks, $3 in tips and ~$2 in government administration - payroll, processing fees, etc., etc - to get the money to the two unemployed guys).

How's that for entitlement? ;)

But, seriously, this is a waste of time.

Any time taxpayer money is given directly to an individual, there should be someone looking at the details of that exact situation to make sure the money is going to the right person for the right reasons. Making guidelines is fine, but "skinny guy gets free food, fat guy gets nothing" isn't the best plan for anyone involved.[/QUOTE]

You're being biased again. Sure that example happens. But you think there are not people who use the money on food, their children, pay for rent, credit card debt from losing their job? There is the matter of how they lost their job, but let's make that neutral...

It is a waste of time if you won't drop bias (at least to a certain extent) and make an attempt at a fair comparison.

I agree when taxpayer money is given directly there should be someone looking at the exact details of the situation. Why should one get money only if they're more right though? If they can't use the money for the right thing them self, then restrict them using the money on something that would better them. Like food stamps. I never said fat guy get's nothing. And interestingly I never called him fat. I said he was overweight. You're the only person in the thread who ever called him fat. What should the overweight guy get when he's already got enough food to eat whenever he chooses to?

By not being able to come up with a more fair example regarding entitlement, it is showing you're biased.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top