Thank you , unions …. Olbermann is truly insane .

The Cranicks reportedly called 911 several times, but the fire department refused to respond because the Cranicks had not paid the nearby town of South Fulton ‘firefighting’ fee of $75.

Suddenly, I think this makes more sense. The Cranicks don’t live in South Fulton, therefore it isn’t South Fulton’s job to respond to their fire.

As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.

If I’m reading this right, it has nothing to do with governance as the Cranicks don’t live in the jurisdiction of the government in question. It seems South Fulton will provide firefighting services outside of their jurisdiction, but under contract and for a fee. If you don’t contract with them and pay the fee, they won’t come outside of their jurisdiction to fight your fire.

Very related, and cause for diminished sympathy:

South Fulton Fire Chief David Wilds was treated at an area hospital after being assaulted about 5:45 p.m. at the city’s fire station, located in the South Fulton Municipal Building.
Timothy A. Cranick, 44, a resident of Buddy Jones Road near South Fulton, was arrested and charged with felony aggravated assault, according to South Fulton Police Chief Andy Crocker.

The piece also clarifies the service arrangement:

Vowell explained that the property owner was not a paying member of the rural fire subscription service offered to county residents by the City of South Fulton. He said as per city policy, established by city ordinance, the call was declined and the city’s fire department could not respond.
“I have no problem with the way any of my people handled the situation. They did what they were supposed to do,” he said. “It’s a regrettable situation any time something like this happens.”
He said the South Fulton Fire Department did respond to a request to protect the property of the adjacent property owner, who is a member of the rural fire subscription service.
Vowell said county residents do not have guaranteed fire service since there is no countywide fire department to cover rural areas, but many municipalities offer rural fire coverage to residents in specified coverage areas for a nominal annual fee. South Fulton’s fee is $75.
However, Vowell said residents in those rural areas cannot be forced to pay the fee and it’s their decision whether to accept the coverage.
“We are a city fire department. We are responsible for the City of South Fulton and we offer a subscription (to rural residents). If they choose not to, we can’t make them,” he said.

Olbermann, as always, is a moron. As is the idiot grandson that started the fire.

Vowell said people always think they will never be in a situation where they will need rural fire protection, but he said City of South Fulton personnel actually go above and beyond in trying to offer the service. He said the city mails out notices to customers in the specified rural coverage area, with coverage running from July 1 of one year to July 1 the next year.

At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.

“These folks were called and notified,” Vowell said. “I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it’s available. It’s been there for 20 years, but it’s very important to follow up.”

yea.. capitalism.. lets privatize!!!

Straightforward question: Why AREN’T the taxes enough to cover this service? Could it be because the tax dollars instead are going to fund hack retirement funds, or going pay for useless school administrators. This town was holding a NECESSARY (life- and property-protecting) SERVICE hostage so the tax dollars could instead go to UNNECESSARY things…redundant, useless public-sector hacks and womb-to-the-tomb retirement and/or health-insurance programs for all the public-sector workers.

This is an unusual story, not in the least because fire fighters don’t typically sit around watching someone’s house burn regardless of the circumstances. The more common response to put out the fire and bill, much as is done for Fire Department run ambulance calls (pick up, bill later). A more common occurrence is the preferential treatment given to certain people or neighborhoods because of economic circumstances. The northernmost suburb in my area received over 15″ of rain in less than 24 hours immediately after Labor Day as the result of a slow-moving tropical storm which stalled over Central Texas. Neighborhhods which never flooded before did this time. The city Fire Department was busy evacuating Sun City residents who were experiencing minor flooding whilst a Hispanic community was left to fend for itself. Firefighters were actually watching families with small children and elderly parents wading through 4′ of water while the firefighters merely watched, telling the people to wait for a boat which never came. In other words, a mini-Katrina. In our cynicism, we have come to accept such disparity in services. But, denial of essential first responder emergency services? That ought never happen. I do think we could overstate what happened in Mosque-torching Tennessee but as a metaphor for the horrors the Tea Party style of governance might bring us, I do think Mr. Olbermann may have been on target.

Grassroots? Please. If ever a lie had been exposed, it is this one.

ChrisNH said:
Straightforward question: Why AREN’T the taxes enough to cover this service?

Because they don’t pay taxes to the municipality that provides the fire services. They don’t live there. People that do live there don’t have to pay a fee. Fire services are included in the taxes they pay to the city that provides them, because they live in town and pay taxes to the town. The Cranicks don’t.

Actually, the $75 fee is a steal, and you’re a moron if you don’t pay it.

Pablo said:
Because they don’t pay taxes to the municipality that provides the fire services. They don’t live there. People that do live there don’t have to pay a fee. Fire services are included in the taxes they pay to the city that provides them, because they live in town and pay taxes to the town. The Cranicks don’t.

Pablo said:
Actually, the $75 fee is a steal, and you’re a moron if you don’t pay it.

We see firefighters all over the country and all over the world help in extreme conditions (forest fires, too many fires etc.) As RRK stated, taking care of the problem and billing later (like Doctors do in an emergency) would be the Moral thing to do.

The City Fire Department had the opportunity to make a statement (billing actual costs to save, rather that fee) by doing the right thing.
Instead they now look like the idiots.

right-is-wrong said:
(billing actual costs to save, rather that fee)

bill at actual cost to save the house, and point out to other non residents the fee is small compared.

Pablo said:
Actually, the $75 fee is a steal, and you’re a moron if you don’t pay it.

I can certainly agree with that, but the point remains that there were less draconoian means to deal with this.

right-is-wrong said:
We see firefighters all over the country and all over the world help in extreme conditions (forest fires, too many fires etc.)

Read the piece I linked.

He said as per city policy, established by city ordinance, the call was declined and the city’s fire department could not respond.

Departments that pitch in on big fires do so under agreement with the jurisdiction in question. There is no such agreement in play here except for the fee/insurance arrangement, which the Cranicks declined to enter.

Well here is the Libertarian approach. You call 911 They in turn send out a private Company to put out your fire. After they put out the fire you can either pay the company direct for their services. or if you can’t afford it. The local government at hand will pay it and you can arrange a payment plan or work program.

right-is-wrong said:
bill at actual cost to save the house, and point out to other non residents the fee is small compared.

Under what authority are they supposed to collect? If the county/state passed a law allowing that, and creating a legal mechanism for the city to collect, that could work, but that law doesn’t seem to be in place. Another thing is this: Suppose a firefighter dies on that fire? What is the cost they’re supposed to collect then?

As for pointing it out to other non-residents, it seems they already do that. The Cranicks foolishly and repeatedly ignored the advice.

Burnnotice said:
Well here is the Libertarian approach. You call 911 They in turn send out a private Company to put out your fire. After they put out the fire you can either pay the company direct for their services. or if you can’t afford it. The local government at hand will pay it and you can arrange a payment plan or work program.

I would suggest that the Libertarian approach is one that’s been used in New England for ages, and still exists in many places here today. Volunteer fire departments.

Olbermann said:
“A look now into the America envisioned by the Tea Party. A home catches fire. Firefighters arrive on the scene, and watch the place burn down. All because the home owner did not pay an extra fee. Our number one story. Pay to spray, just a preview of what would come in a kind of a la carte government.”

Asinine. Needless to say (for anyone with an IQ higher than, say, 65) this has NOTHING to do with the Tea Party. A la carte government? To try to tie this to the Tea Party is beyond moronic, but to be expected from Olbermann.

Think Progress said:
As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.

Equally moronic. “Conservatives want an ‘on your own’ society where the well off are taken care of (if they’re well off, can’t they take care of themselves?) and everyone else drops dead. Progressives want ‘The American Dream’ where everyone is employed, successful, happy, and healthy!” Way to take a family tragedy and turn it into something political. Typical opportunistic horseshit from folks who in reality could not care less about the Cranicks.

If the fire department responded and then did not put out the fire, shame on them. The fire should have been put out. That said, an attempt to politicize this and use the people affected as pawns is absolutely pathetic. But, from a fat ass, no talent, nobody watches me grunt like Keith Olbermann, to be expected.

This is the right wing and teabagger wet dream, PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING AND IF YOU CAN’T PAY TOO DAMN BAD! IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD THE FOR PROFIT HEALTH SYSTEM YOU AND YOUR FAMILY HAVE TO SUFFER TOO DAMN BAD!
BEND OVER AMERICA!

Or better yet:

A look now into the America envisioned by the Left Wing. A home is set on fire by their own family member. Firefighters do not respond to the call because the home owner refused to pay the fee which would allow them access to the service.

In a moment, the man who chose not to pay the fee (a fee that allows the city to pay their employees, help cover their firefighting expenses, project their area of service and potential hazards) for the service, a man who expects to receive the service for free, fails to take the necessary steps of precaution, and then blames everyone else when he fails to do what is required to protect his home, and then gets violent, will speak out.

There are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States.

One, the conservative vision, that believes in personal ownership, personal responsibility and a pay your fair share society.

The other vision, the progressive one, that thinks everyone else should pay their way, refuse to contribute, and blame everyone else when they screw themselves, and then get violent and attack people, even though it is their own fault for failing to subscribe to the service in the first place society.

The liberal vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee.

South Fulton Mayor David Crocker said city officials don’t want to see anyone’s house burn, but he emphasized that South Fulton has a city fire department which is supported by city taxes in order to serve its residents — with a rural fire subscription service made available outside the city limits to county residents in the city’s designated rural coverage area.
“We’re very sorry their house burned,” he said.
Mayor Crocker said if the fire department operated on a per-call basis outside the city, there would be no incentive for anyone to pay the rural fee. As an analogy, he said if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked.

http://nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=46801

Burnnotice said:
Well here is the Libertarian approach. You call 911 They in turn send out a private Company to put out your fire. After they put out the fire you can either pay the company direct for their services. or if you can’t afford it. The local government at hand will pay it and you can arrange a payment plan or work program.

Sort of like the satellite provider? Call. Get an appointment for a week from Tuesday. An adult must be home from 08:00 Hours until 18:00 Hours. Make sure all pets are put away. Brilliant!

vIris, you moron, this isn’t a privatized fire department it’s a city fire department. Did you learn to read in public school?

sarainitaly said:
Or better yet: A look now into the America envisioned by the Left Wing. A home is set on fire by their own family member. Firefighters do not respond to the call because the home owner refused to pay the fee which would allow them access to the service. In a moment, the man who chose not to pay the fee (a fee that allows the city to pay their employees, help cover their firefighting expenses, project their area of service and potential hazards) for the service, a man who expects to receive the service for free, fails to take the necessary steps of precaution, and then blames everyone else when he fails to do what is required to protect his home, and then gets violent, will speak out. There are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, that believes in personal ownership, personal responsibility and a pay your fair share society. The other vision, the progressive one, that thinks everyone else should pay their way, refuse to contribute, and blame everyone else when they screw themselves, and then get violent and attack people, even though it is their own fault for failing to subscribe to the service in the first place society. The liberal vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. http://nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=46801

You know I am a little sick and tired of you telling us what is happening in America. The cynicism, cold-heartedness and ruthlessness you ascribe to “progressives” is merely a self projection by someone who knows very little about the state of matters in America and who is consummed by a racially-tinged hatred of someone who happened to beat the self-imploding candidate you preferred in the Democratic primary. It’s well past time to get over it. Please spare us all.

Iris said:
This is the right wing and teabagger wet dream, PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING AND IF YOU CAN’T PAY TOO DAMN BAD! IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD THE FOR PROFIT HEALTH SYSTEM YOU AND YOUR FAMILY HAVE TO SUFFER TOO DAMN BAD!BEND OVER AMERICA!

I fear you are correct.

Sorry Pablum I didn’y mean to interrupt your rational discussion of HOW ITS OK FOR SOMEBODYS HOUSE TO BURN DOWN.

The Real Royal King said:
You know I am a little sick and tired of you telling us what is happening in America. The cynicism, cold-heartedness and ruthlessness you ascribe to “progressives” is merely a self projection by someone who knows very little about the state of matters in America and who is consummed by a racially-tinged hatred of someone who happened to beat the self-imploding candidate you preferred in the Democratic primary. It’s well past time to get over it. Please spare us all.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
raaaaaaaaaaaaacist!!!!!!
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Blaming Tea Partiers for this guy burning down his house – A-OK with RRK
Flipping the argument around on them – cynicism, cold-hearted and ruthless, and Raaaaaaaaaaaaaacist according to RRK.

Please RRK SPARE US ALL!

Wow, this is unusual. The left and the right agree that the fire should have been put out, and the house should have been saved, but they don’t agree why, and they both want to point fingers at the other side and say that this kind of horror will br commonnplace if THEY are allowed to take over….. well at least that’s not unusual…

and who is consummed by a racially-tinged hatred of someone who happened to beat the self-imploding candidate you preferred in the Democratic primary

Wow, you libs can insert the race card into ANY conversation. Impressive!

Pablo said:
I would suggest that the Libertarian approach is one that’s been used in New England for ages, and still exists in many places here today. Volunteer fire departments.

Where I live we have exactly that. It works out very well.

The Real Royal King said:
Sort of like the satellite provider? Call. Get an appointment for a week from Tuesday. An adult must be home from 08:00 Hours until 18:00 Hours. Make sure all pets are put away. Brilliant!

We have cable..They Always come out right away. Even if we are slow paying the bill

Iris said:
Sorry Pablum I didn’y mean to interrupt your rational discussion of HOW ITS OK FOR SOMEBODYS HOUSE TO BURN DOWN.

THAT’S OK vIRIS. ITS OK FOR THE IDIOT REDNECK’S KID TO SET THE HOUSE ON FIRE. AND THEN IT’S OK FOR IT TO BURN. IT’S ALSO OK TO PAY THE FIRE PROTECTION FEE. THE IT’S OK FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO IT IT OUT. ITS OK NOT TO PAY IT TOO. BUT NOT IF YOU WANT FIREMEN TO RESPOND.

NICE SCREAMING AT YOU. HAVE A NICE DAY.

Iris said:
This is the right wing and teabagger wet dream, PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING AND IF YOU CAN’T PAY TOO DAMN BAD! IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD THE FOR PROFIT HEALTH SYSTEM YOU AND YOUR FAMILY HAVE TO SUFFER TOO DAMN BAD!
BEND OVER AMERICA!

LOL… I’m not going to say anything other then what part of South Fulton Fire Department, which is public, don’t you understand?

sarainitaly said:
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!raaaaaaaaaaaaacist!!!!!!waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Blaming Tea Partiers for this guy burning down his house – A-OK with RRKFlipping the argument around on them – cynicism, cold-hearted and ruthless, and Raaaaaaaaaaaaaacist according to RRK. Please RRK SPARE US ALL!

What a very mature response. Thank you.

I suspect Iris is the kind of person who doesn’t want to spend her own money to buy health insurance, then when she falls and breaks her arm, knocks on her neighbors door and tells him to pay up!

I guess it would be ok if EMS personel let some one die because they don’t have the money or don’t pay for the ambulance fee.BS.signed;former EMS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT communications Supervisor.

A bit more complex than an idiot like Olbermann presents. The right thing to do would be to put the fire out and sort it out afterward. However, if the city tried to bill them for services, they would be under no obligation to pay, since the fire department was under no obligation to respond. What would this say to others in the unincorporated county who have paid the “subscription”? Would you pay a subscription to a service that’s free?

The citizens of the town pay for the fire department through city taxes, and the people of the unincorporated county do not. Sounds to me like the city ought to enact a policy making it a civil offense for the fire department to respond to non-subscribers. By doing so, non-subscribers get their fire service, and the city can offset the costs by civil process.

The subscription, which I assume is an annual fee, is a pittance, and the Cranicks simply rolled the dice and lost.

Also, the irony didn’t escape me regarding this. Privately owned hospitals are required to treat anyone who shows up in the emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay. They take the initial hit, which is then passed on in the form of higher costs to people who do pay. This fire department, on the other hand, a government entity, lets a guy’s house burn down because he didn’t pay.

They are the family who now live in a trailer near the charred remains of their home in rural Obion County, Tennessee, all because the local fire department refused to extinguish a fire that destroyed their home.

body shops

Lenny72040 said:
I guess it would be ok if EMS personel let some one die because they don’t have the money or don’t pay for the ambulance fee.BS.signed;former EMS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT communications Supervisor.

No, it isn’t and there are laws to that effect. There’s a big difference between protecting property and saving lives.

Excellant post, Mr. Papshmer. I would love to know who gave you a thumbs down for it and why.

Mr.Papshmer said:
Sounds to me like the city ought to enact a policy making it a civil offense for the fire department to respond to non-subscribers.

According to the piece I linked, current city ordinances prevent them from responding in those situations.

exiledtruther said:
Excellant post, Mr. Papshmer. I would love to know who gave you a thumbs down for it and why.

There’s quite a few around here that will ding down facts they simply don’t like.

The Real Royal King said:
What a very mature response. Thank you.

If I were to ever receive a mature response from you, you might just get one back. Your replies to me are extremely juvenile, personal and ridiculous. WTH do you think you deserve any respect or any response at all, from me? You have certainly done N O T H I N G to deserve it. N O T H I N G. N O T H I N G. N O T H I N G. You personally attack every post I make.

Iris said:
This is the right wing and teabagger wet dream, PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING AND IF YOU CAN’T PAY TOO DAMN BAD! IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD THE FOR PROFIT HEALTH SYSTEM YOU AND YOUR FAMILY HAVE TO SUFFER TOO DAMN BAD!BEND OVER AMERICA!

The Real Royal King said:
I fear you are correct.

Yeah, you guys are right, just like Alan Grayson. Conservatives want to eliminate the Federal Government and privatize everything. If you have no money, you can simply drop dead. Progressives, on the other hand, have a different vision. They see an America where there is only one living wage, 40K per year. If you are a bagger at the grocery store you earn 40K. If you are a corporate CEO, you earn 40K. Everyone pays 50% in federal income tax. There is universal government run healthcare. Doctors are federal employees. Being federal employees, they earn 50K per year. Everyone is assigned their doctor by the government, this way they do not have to think or decide. Perhaps he/she is a great doctor, perhaps he/she is terrible, it matters not because at least it is the same for everyone. Privately owned businesses are still allowed, but they are run by the government. If Bob the Butcher puts too much fat in his hamburgers, his business is shut down. All McDonald’s and Wal-Mart stores are immediately shut down. Restaurants and menu content are government run. Waiters and waitresses are federal employees, and they decide what meal you will eat based on your age and weight. Everyone is a union member with no choice in the matter. No one is held to account, because that is not fair. Poor teachers are every bit as good as good teachers, all standards and competency testing is eliminated. All private schools are closed down or taken over by the government. No Child Left Behind is expanded so that ABSOLUTELY no child is left behind. Curriculum is slowed so that all children can keep up. Grades are eliminated, because they are not fair. Everyone gets an “S” for “Swell.” Sex education begins in kindergarten. General Motors becomes Government Motors, and only two vehicle models are offered, a hybrid compact and a hybrid sub-compact. All domestic car companies and factories are taken over by Government Motors. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. are immediately censored by the government and taken off the air. The government assumes control of all media content – print, airwaves, and TV. The Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh shows are continued, but with new hosts. The Glenn Beck Program becomes the William Ayers Program, Rush Limbaugh is replaced with Van Jones, and “Hannity’s America” becomes “Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s America.”

There. You gave your idea of what conservatives want, now you know what progressives want.

Actually, I attack the SUBSTANCE, or the appalling lack thereof, of each post you make. Distinguish between substantive diagreement and personal disagreement and you might get somewhere.

For now, you’re boring everyone, and I am complicit in spreading the ennui, so I bid you TTFN and will not further address drivel today.

Andy Lamb said:
Yeah, you guys are right, just like Alan Grayson. Conservatives want to eliminate the Federal Government and privatize everything. If you have no money, you can simply drop dead. Progressives, on the other hand, have a different vision. They see an America where there is only one living wage, 40K per year. If you are a bagger at the grocery store you earn 40K. If you are a corporate CEO, you earn 40K. Everyone pays 50% in federal income tax. There is universal government run healthcare. Doctors are federal employees. Being federal employees, they earn 50K per year. Everyone is assigned their doctor by the government, this way they do not have to think or decide. Perhaps he/she is a great doctor, perhaps he/she is terrible, it matters not because at least it is the same for everyone. Privately owned businesses are still allowed, but they are run by the government. If Bob the Butcher puts too much fat in his hamburgers, his business is shut down. All McDonald’s and Wal-Mart stores are immediately shut down. Restaurants and menu content are government run. Waiters and waitresses are federal employees, and they decide what meal you will eat based on your age and weight. Everyone is a union member with no choice in the matter. No one is held to account, because that is not fair. Poor teachers are every bit as good as good teachers, all standards and competency testing is eliminated. All private schools are closed down or taken over by the government. No Child Left Behind is expanded so that ABSOLUTELY no child is left behind. Curriculum is slowed so that all children can keep up. Grades are eliminated, because they are not fair. Everyone gets an “S” for “Swell.” Sex education begins in kindergarten. General Motors becomes Government Motors, and only two vehicle models are offered, a hybrid compact and a hybrid sub-compact. All domestic car companies and factories are taken over by Government Motors. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. are immediately censored by the government and taken off the air. The government assumes control of all media content – print, airwaves, and TV. The Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh shows are continued, but with new hosts. The Glenn Beck Program becomes the William Ayers Program, Rush Limbaugh is replaced with Van Jones, and “Hannity’s America” becomes “Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s America.” There. You gave your idea of what conservatives want, now you know what progressives want.

How early did you start drinking this morning?

Whats next we did not receive your 75.00 for police protection so good luck with that home invasion thing.

It looks like hes also having a hard time getting his head out of hannitys ass

I just wish that TN didn’t always look bad in the national news.

This one’s a strange call. It’s hard to tell why the family didn’t pay the $75 but it’s easy to see it’s a reasonable and cheap way to provide a service to rural areas. It looks like the county has considered alternatives because a similar incident happened a couple of years ago. Why isn’t the service added to the taxes they have to pay and then the county pays the township.

Yeah, what if a fireman was hurt, and what if someone was killed in a fire because the fore department didn’t show. Hospitals aren’t allowed to turn people away from the emergency room. Isn’t a house fire an emergency?
That said, citizens have to understand and be responsible enough to know that services cost money and tey have to pay their share.

Why doesn’t the county have a fire department? I have to assume that it’s an attempt to keep county property taxes low, but aren’t the residents paying much of the difference in added insurance costs? It seems to me that the lack of a county service or the fact that the county doesn’t contract on behalf of their citizens with the city department is the real scandal.

I’m not sure about this country, but a century or so ago in England, if you paid your fire insurance, you were given a wrought iron emblem to mark the house. And, I can recall back in the 70s, it seems like my parents had to pay a separate fire tax that was determined by which rural department served our house, but that was soon included in the local property tax. There are tons of small, incorporated communities all across this nation that contract for police protection from their county Sheriff’s office — the town pays the county on behalf of their citizens — and that’s probably what should’ve happened here.

Note: The above comment was started, then some guests arrived and now I’m back to posting. Apologies, if my point was covered by anyone in the interim.

There was a time when taxes, even in rural fire districts with volunteer departments, meant you had fire protection. But now it takes a separate fee, that this homeowner forgot to pay (so he says). A la carte government is just another one of those libertarian notions that looks a lot better on paper than it does on the ground. Congratulation libertarian utopian dreamers, you just got a man’s home burned to the ground. You must be very proud.

They are popping the corks over the dogs and cat being killed for their ala carte government and privatization

Paul Westlake said:
A la carte government is just another one of those libertarian notions that looks a lot better on paper than it does on the ground.

It isn’t a la carte government. The county has no fire protection as they have decided not to make the expenditures necessary to provide it. The fire department that is available is not a part of the county government. Funding it is not optional for those who live in the city that provides it.

Congratulation libertarian utopian dreamers, you just got a man’s home burned to the ground. You must be very proud.

No, genius, that was his grandson, who started the fire. It’s a good thing he paid his homeowner’s insurance though, isn’t it? Would you have them pay to rebuild his house if he hadn’t?

Iris said:
They are popping the corks over the dogs and cat being killed for their ala carte government and privatization

No, but I’ll drink to you being incurably ignorant, vIris.

Paul Westlake said:
Congratulation libertarian utopian dreamers, you just got a man’s home burned to the ground.

no, the guy who failed to act responsibly and pay the fees necessary to ensure the safety of his home got his home burned to the ground. he also apparently wasn’t supervising his son who started the fire in the first place?

“i forgot” doesn’t pay the bills on the firemen station end. nor is it an excuse. people need to take personal responsibility. Hey, I know! Maybe the fire department just forgot to come to his house to put out the fire!

6.25$ A MONTH NOT BAD FOR FIRE COVERAG.

Pablo said:
Would you have them pay to rebuild his house if he hadn’t?

what do you think?

Iris,
How many times do you have to be reminded that your claim of “privitization” is completely false? You’re making yourself look stupid and your last comment doesn’t help. Grow up. I have to laugh at how the left wants us to believe that they are so caring and the right is so uncaring. Remind me which side is all for sticking a pair of scissors into the brain of a baby and killing it?

The bottom line of this story is, how many of those who paid their $75 would pay next year if the fire was put out? Why would they if they know that regardless, they would be taken care of? Having said that, personally, I don’t think I could’ve stood there and not put the fire out.

The Real Royal King said:
How early did you start drinking this morning?

Using comments you’ve posted over time as a gauge, King, I surmised that you are bright enough to recognize sarcasm when you read it. I took Mediaite’s resident genius Iris’s comment on what ‘the right wing and tea baggers’ have as a ‘wet dream’ for America and countered with an equally preposterous interpretation of what progressives want. You understood, right King? I wasn’t overestimating you, was I? You did agree with Iris (good grief) in your response, so perhaps I was.

Pablo said:
Funding it is not optional for those who live in the city that provides it.

sarainitaly said:
Maybe the fire department just forgot to come to his house to put out the fire!

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

Local news shows that the fire department was there and watched.
I’m sure the people who paid for the Fire Department loves to pay for their time and fuel to go “WATCH” a fire.

i also want to point out how this happened to his son last December. They didn’t pay the fee, but called the firemen. The fire was out before they got there, and they waived the fee to the next day.

So, Cranick is well aware of the fee, and they firemen are well aware that they just don’t pay it, but want the service anyway.

Also, on another web site they are calling the guy a “teabagger” and attacking him, even posting subsidies he has recieved.

Funny how he can be the victim of “tea baggers” AND a “tea bagger” in the same story.
Perhaps people are using the *blame it on the tea party* card just a wee bit too much, ya think?

Oh I see the right wing and teatards won’t be happy until a kid dies in a fire all for their privatization and ala carte government, like I said before you just love yelling about TOO BAD FOR YOU IF YOU CAN’T PAY!

vIris, you moron, this has exactly nothing to do with privatization or a la carte government.

sarainitaly says:
October 5, 2010 at 12:05 pm sarainitaly(Quote)
2 2
i also want to point out how this happened to his son last December. They didn’t pay the fee, but called the firemen. The fire was out before they got there, and they waived the fee to the next day.

So, Cranick is well aware of the fee, and they firemen are well aware that they just don’t pay it, but want the service anyway.

Thanks for the info, Sara. It definately should’ve been in the original piece to provide some context.

people probably would have had more sympathy for the guy if people like Olbermann, Paul, Iris and others didn’t BLAME the tea party for his incompetence.

“Friends and neighbors said it’s a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don’t blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.
“They’re doing their job,” Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. “They’re doing what they are told to do. It’s not their fault.”

Does anyone think this might have to do with the economy? Fire stations don’t run for free, and counties/cities/states are having all kinds of financial woes as well. The Cranicks don’t want to pay their share, but they expect others to carry their burden, and be responsible on their end.

How many, if any, firefighters were laid off, or not hired because people in the rural counties didn’t pay for the service?

From listening to other news stories (not Olby’s incorrect hack job interview) it sounds like the fire department has made many exceptions. They most likely had to draw a line and say no more. It doesn’t do any good to have a policy and make exceptions all the time – because like the mayor said – then no one pays.

Pablo said:
vIris, you moron, this has exactly nothing to do with privatization or a la carte government.

So you don’t agree that Police and Fire services are emergency services covered by property taxes paid?

@Iris——-The fire department was required to go into the house if a life was in danger fee or no fee.

What’s next? A yearly fee for Police services?

That’s what the concern is which is completely being missed by the teabaggers here.

Their local government is charging a yearly fee for a basic emergency service. I thought you teabaggers were against the government doing things like…charging more for less. Now a fellow teabaggers house gets burned down and you want to blame the victim, when there’s already been a precedent set that they will come out and waive the fee till the next day.

You people are cannibals. You don’t care about people at all, just your false utopian principals. Well THIS is what happens in the real world.

If we privatize everythin, the only people who can afford any emergency services will be rich people. Why are you fighting for the 3% and screwing your fellow Americans?

as a volunteer firefighter in my town, this story gets me a little sick to my stomach. paid or not, those firefighters should have stood up and done the right thing, not follow some bullshit “ordinance”. It’s like parametics leaving someone to die in the streets because they haven’t pre-paid for the ambulance ride

DEFENDER-90 said:
@Iris——-The fire department was required to go into the house if a life was in danger fee or no fee.

What about the family dogs and cats that died in the fire while they sat back and watched? He offered to pay the $75 fee, which they let him do last time. Is this how you teach someone a lesson? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE HE DESERVED THIS OVER $75!!

Spinecrusher, if you’d read the comments, you would know that in this case their taxes didn’t cover the fire department in their county. It is a seperate fee that they chose NOT to pay. And as Sara pointed out, they were given a pass in a previous fire and still didn’t pay the fee. Where should the line be drawn? If his neighbor, who paid his fee, sees that a fire will be put out regardless if you pay the fee or not, why would he bother paying it? How many people would? And if no one did, who would pay for the fire department? Inconvenient questions perhaps, but they need to be answered.

If this kind of tragedy happened to ANYONE I would feel the same compassion, what the hell is wrong with you right wingers? You display no kindness nor compassion to a tragedy that could happen to you or any one else though I sincerely hope it doesn’t

SpineCrusher said:
What’s next? A yearly fee for Police services?

It’s seems like it’s coming to that, doesn’t it?.. “sorry ma’am but you haven’t signed up for our protect the community package for $99.99 which includes 2 free house calls, we’re going to have to hang up now and let that attacker do what he pleases, thank you calling your local police service”`

exiledtruther said:
Spinecrusher, if you’d read the comments, you would know that in this case their taxes didn’t cover the fire department in their county. It is a seperate fee that they chose NOT to pay. And as Sara pointed out, they were given a pass in a previous fire and still didn’t pay the fee. Where should the line be drawn? If his neighbor, who paid his fee, sees that a fire will be put out regardless if you pay the fee or not, why would he bother paying it? How many people would? And if no one did, who would pay for the fire department? Inconvenient questions perhaps, but they need to be answered.

I read the article and the links provided by other.

So, in your mind, basic emergency services should not have been provided? He deserved to lose his home, his family pets and everything else over $75?

Are you kidding me? Are you truly that cold and heartless?

Iris said:
Oh I see the right wing and teatards won’t be happy until a kid dies in a fire all for their privatization and ala carte government, like I said before you just love yelling about TOO BAD FOR YOU IF YOU CAN’T PAY!

Odd that private operations, such as hospitals, treat people regardless, but in this case, a government entity lets a house burn down. Remind me how this in any way advances your privatization nonsense. The more I read your comments, the more I’m convinced that you’re a really young guy with very little life experience.

Spinecrusher, again, if you would read the comments, you would know that I said, if I were the firefighter, I proabably would’ve put out the fire regardless. Stop “graysoning” those who are trying to ask legitimate questions by saying they want people to die. It makes you look ridiculous. How about answering my question, if his neighbors see that their fires will be put out regardless if they pay the fee or not, who will pay it? And if no one does, where does the money come from to pay for the service?

SpineCrusher said:
So you don’t agree that Police and Fire services are emergency services covered by property taxes paid?

Not in this case, no. Now, if you live in South Fulton, the town that has the Fire Department, they’re covered. The Cranicks don’t, therefore, they’re not covered.

@Spine Crusher———You are right a fireman should risk his life or die for a dog or a cat.

Mr. you can guess all you want about who and what I am, All I know is I am so happy that I am not you or anything like you . You and the other right wingers think its just fine that somebody has to endure this kind of tragedy over 75 bucks
Mazel Tov!

They live in a rural area, out in WA rural areas get all basic emergency services, which are covered by property taxes.

I have never heard of an additional yearly fee to be charged for basic emergency services.

Is this something you pay, does anyone else on this board commenting pay an extra yearly fee, outside of their property taxes, to cover basic emergency services?

OK Mr. “I’d rather talk about what ifs than reality”, don’t forget we’re talking about $75 here, a year, that’s it. The local government let his entire life burn away for $75, when previously they didn’t…I’ll answer your lame questions.

If his neighbors see that their fires will be put out regardless if they pay the fee or not, who will pay it?
- I believe most people will stay pay it

And if no one does, where does the money come from to pay for the service?
- The same place that the money comes from to pay for your basic emergency services, property taxes

I guess I have to repeat it a dozen more times for it to sink into your head, “Why are people having to pay an extra charge for BASIC EMERGENCY SERVICES”

These are the things that are supposed to be provided by the government, even with a small “drowned in the bathtub” government, every property owner is supposed to be provided with basic emergency services. That’s what property taxes are for.

SpineCrusher said:
What about the family dogs and cats that died in the fire while they sat back and watched? He offered to pay the $75 fee, which they let him do last time. Is this how you teach someone a lesson? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE HE DESERVED THIS OVER $75!!

He should have thought about all that when he decided he wasn’t going to pay the $75. Yes, he didn’t think all of that was worth $75/year. He knew what the deal was and he decided to take the risk. He gambled and he lost. I don’t know if it will teach him a lesson, after he already has an excellent opportunity to learn this one. But he got exactly what he bargained for, which was a house torched by his kid.

Life is hard, but it’s even harder when you’re stupid.

So Iris, you’re saying you can’t answer the valid questions posted here? I just want to hear you say it.

Pablo said:
Not in this case, no. Now, if you live in South Fulton, the town that has the Fire Department, they’re covered. The Cranicks don’t, therefore, they’re not covered.

are you saying they don’t pay property taxes?

Why is it that the rest of the county gets this service taken out of their property taxes, but the rural folks have to pay an extra fee?

Tell me how that is just.

Spine, you need to educate yourself on the local policies where they live. By doing that you can answer your own questions.

DEFENDER-90 said:
@Spine Crusher———You are right a fireman should risk his life or die for a dog or a cat.

That should be changed to “You are right a fireman shouldn’t DO HIS JOB to save the life of a dog or cat”.

They put their lives on the line everyday, that’s what they do…dramatizing it as though that’s now what they do is pointless and demeaning to the conversation.

Pablo said:
He should have thought about all that when he decided he wasn’t going to pay the $75. Yes, he didn’t think all of that was worth $75/year. He knew what the deal was and he decided to take the risk. He gambled and he lost. I don’t know if it will teach him a lesson, after he already has an excellent opportunity to learn this one. But he got exactly what he bargained for, which was a house torched by his kid. Life is hard, but it’s even harder when you’re stupid.

and when you have money, like yourself, and don’t have to think about things like this happening to you…it’s just so much easier to blame the victim.

United we stand, Divided we fall.

thank for showing us how much your colors run

Pablum, maybe the next time a tragedy happens to you or someone you care about you will at that time feel its just fine to blame the victim

exiledtruther said:
Why is it that the rest of the county gets this service taken out of their property taxes, but the rural folks have to pay an extra fee?
Tell me how that is just.

don’t turn tail and run because you got a tough question…quid pro quo

I answered yours, now answer mine:

Why is it that the rest of the county gets this service taken out of their property taxes, but the rural folks have to pay an extra fee?

@exiledtruther hits the nail on the head; If they had put out the fire without having the fee paid, then why would anyone pay the fee? As I hit upon in my previous comment, the real answer would be for the county to provide fire protection for their residents or to bulk-rate the fee on behalf of their residents.

I currently live just outside of the city limits and I choose to pay $139 a year for access to the city library and we have to pay something like $35 for the city soccer league. The county has fire department about a mile from the house, so if there were a fire, I’d be covered by my county taxes and I assume that because the rural FD is technically within the city limits, there is some kind of cooperative agreement that allows them to provide assistance for city fires. There’s obviously no such arrangement in place that covered the South Obion area and rather than it being a failure by the city, I’d be looking toward the county for answers.

Oh, and of course, Olbermann is obviously wrong, but he lives in North Jersey or NYC, so his real world knowledge of how things work is very limited.

SpineCrusher said:
They live in a rural area, out in WA rural areas get all basic emergency services, which are covered by property taxes.

This isn’t rural WA.

I have never heard of an additional yearly fee to be charged for basic emergency services.

You have now.

Is this something you pay, does anyone else on this board commenting pay an extra yearly fee, outside of their property taxes, to cover basic emergency services?

There are places near me, an in fact the first town I lived in, that have an annual fee that supports the volunteer fire department.

The local government let his entire life burn away for $75, when previously they didn’t…I’ll answer your lame questions.

No. The government of a neighboring municipality did that. Not his local government. His local government doesn’t provide fire services. They let his house burn down, period. They don’t put fires out.

I guess I have to repeat it a dozen more times for it to sink into your head, “Why are people having to pay an extra charge for BASIC EMERGENCY SERVICES”

I guess I have to answer this a dozen times: People pay an extra charge because it goes to another town, one that they don’t live in and don’t pay taxes to if they want them to LEAVE THEIR JURISDICTION AND GO INTO A NEIGHBORING ONE TO PROVIDE FIRE FIGHTING SERVICES. The people who pay taxes in the town with the fire department don’t have an additional fee.

Pablo said:
Life is hard, but it’s even harder when you’re stupid.

What is stupid is to argue that he deserved it, while now Insurance (paid by all) will either pay for the house, sue the city for the $$$, or pay lawyer fees to be sued by owner, city, etc.

Magister said:
@exiledtruther hits the nail on the head; If they had put out the fire without having the fee paid, then why would anyone pay the fee? As I hit upon in my previous comment, the real answer would be for the county to provide fire protection for their residents or to bulk-rate the fee on behalf of their residents.

Yep. Of course, the government would have to decide to do one of those things and they’ve declined to. So, we have Governmental failure here.

Spinecrusher,
I don’t pretend to know the inner workings of their local gov’t, but it’s my understanding that since they are outside the jurisdiction of the local FD, they have an agreement to outsource their services for the cost of $75 her citizen. If that’s the arangement that the state made, why shouldn’t it be honored?

It’s really too bad the left is more interested in accusing those on the right of wishing death on it’s fellow citizens than having a rational discussion on merits. It’s pretty childish.

right-is-wrong said:
What is stupid is to argue that he deserved it, while now Insurance (paid by all) will either pay for the house, sue the city for the $$$, or pay lawyer fees to be sued by owner, city, etc.

He can’t sue the city because they have no duty to him, and his insurance was paid for by him, not by all.

SpineCrusher said:
Why is it that the rest of the county gets this service taken out of their property taxes, but the rural folks have to pay an extra fee?

The rest of the county doesn’t. Those who live in municipalities do, but they pay their taxes to the municipality that provides the service. The county doesn’t provide the service, so property taxes paid to the county don’t pay for the service.

right-is-wrong says:
Life is hard, but it’s even harder when you’re stupid.

What is stupid is to argue that he deserved it, while now Insurance (paid by all) will either pay for the house, sue the city for the $$$, or pay lawyer fees to be sued by owner, city, etc.

This brings up a great point. If I don’t have fire insurance, should I be able to go down to Allstate the day after my house burns down and demand they not only insure me, but pay for my house?

easy there trotsky…he expects to get emergency services? c’mon man!
at least now people will know better and they could run into their house if it is on fire and put their life in danger so the fire dept. will have to respond.
i think he did say the cat was his grandkids and i do like dogs but hey, the guy didn’t pay.

SpineCrusher said:
and when you have money, like yourself, and don’t have to think about things like this happening to you…it’s just so much easier to blame the victim.

I don’t have a lot of money, but if I were in the Cranicks’ situation, you can be damned sure I’d find the $75 for my fire protection fee. I do have to think about things that might happen to me. That’s why I buy insurance.

right-is-wrong said:
What is stupid is to argue that he deserved it, while now Insurance (paid by all) will either pay for the house, sue the city for the $$$, or pay lawyer fees to be sued by owner, city, etc.

One assumes that the victim doesn’t have any property insurance because any company worth their salt would’ve required him to pay the annual fee. After all, I know that my property insurance rate is effected by the distance to the nearest fire house and fire hydrant, so it makes sense that a total lack of fire coverage would make the victim’s insurance costs astronomical.

Otherwise, the fellow doesn’t have a leg to stand on in a lawsuit because there’s no breach of contract because he chose to not contract for the service.

Fire departments are responsible for more than just fire protection. As EMS services have increased, there has never been a revenue source established to cover the costs of these services. MANY city governments – Democratic and Republican run, conservative and liberal – have established separate fire departments that bill an annual fee. The South Fulton Fire Deptartment is not privatized, it’s an agency of city government. To somehow try to tie this to the Tea Party or privatization is just plain stupid. The guys that responded to the fire apparently decided to not put it out, at least that’s how the story reads. I can’t imagine responding to a fire and letting it burn. Did someone interview all of the respondents to find out if they were all Tea Partiers? Maybe they were all registered Democrats, how the hell does anyone know? Again, what happened here has absolutely zero to do with 1) privatization 2) the Tea Party 3) Conservatives.

Andy Lamb said:
Fire departments are responsible for more than just fire protection. As EMS services have increased, there has never been a revenue source established to cover the costs of these services. MANY city governments – Democratic and Republican run, conservative and liberal – have established separate fire departments that bill an annual fee. The South Fulton Fire Deptartment is not privatized, it’s an agency of city government. To somehow try to tie this to the Tea Party or privatization is just plain stupid. The guys that responded to the fire apparently decided to not put it out, at least that’s how the story reads. I can’t imagine responding to a fire and letting it burn. Did someone interview all of the respondents to find out if they were all Tea Partiers? Maybe they were all registered Democrats, how the hell does anyone know? Again, what happened here has absolutely zero to do with 1) privatization 2) the Tea Party 3) Conservatives.

Your exactly right on this Andy.. this is not a political party issue, this isn’t this movement or that movement, this is about a group of firefighters who instead of doing the right thing and putting out the fire, decided to take a stand (the wrong stand) against a family who didn’t pay $75.. Whether the family was correct or incorrect in paying the $75, the fire should have been put out and the issue over this fee settled later.

PS) Jon Stewart has made some hay from how Fox News tailors a story to fit within their pre-determined narrative and I think there’s no argument that in the above case, Keith Olbermann has done the same.

Magister said:
One assumes that the victim doesn’t have any property insurance because any company worth their salt would’ve required him to pay the annual fee.

In the Olbermann clip, he says he does and that they’re working his claim.

Pablo said:
There’s quite a few around here that will ding down facts they simply don’t like.

Kind of like how no matter what liberals post people rate it down?

jooce81 said:
Your exactly right on this Andy.. this is not a political party issue, this isn’t this movement or that movement, this is about a group of firefighters who instead of doing the right thing and putting out the fire, decided to take a stand (the wrong stand) against a family who didn’t pay $75..

City ordinances prevent them from doing that. They’d not only be breaking the law, but they’d also lose their jobs. But go ahead, and blame people who had no input into the situation instead of the people who created it.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Kind of like how no matter what liberals post people rate it down?

I rest my case…

Pablum there is no rationalizing your and others lack of human compassion, but feel free to continue to try

vIris, there is no rationalizing your utter inability to comprehend the facts of the case, so shaddup.

Pablo said:
City ordinances prevent them from doing that. They’d not only be breaking the law, but they’d also lose their jobs. But go ahead, and blame people who had no input into the situation instead of the people who created it.

Sure they do, what if someone was trapped in that house? they should obey that ordinance and let that person die? purely stupid rational on your part.

jooce81 said:
Your exactly right on this Andy.. this is not a political party issue, this isn’t this movement or that movement, this is about a group of firefighters who instead of doing the right thing and putting out the fire, decided to take a stand (the wrong stand) against a family who didn’t pay $75.. Whether the family was correct or incorrect in paying the $75, the fire should have been put out and the issue over this fee settled later.

Again, city governments all over the country handle fire this way, in cities run by Democrats and Republicans. If government was smart (and it almost never is) it would be made clear to residents that the fee is NOT optional. If there is a fire, the department will respond – it’s what fire departments do. However, residents should also be aware that the cost of a fire call is “X” and spell it out – truck, gas, manpower, time, EMS, water, equipment and all. If the cost is $2000, then that’s what it is. And, if a resident has a fire and has not paid the annual fee, then $2000 is what they will owe. Someone commented that the guy offered to pay the $75 when the fire department showed up. That is simply ridiculous. All that said, if I’m a fireman and I’m called to a fire, I’m going to try to put the fire out.

SpineCrusher said:
What’s next? A yearly fee for Police services?

Yes. Payable in donuts.

@Pablo: I must have missed that part because I watched the clip in segments (and six minutes of Olbermann is a lot to stomach). My instinct is that the homeowner may be mistaken about his insurance situation — if the rates are effected by the distance to the hydrant and whether you have working smoke detectors, then a lack of fire protection would have to be an expensive factor — but if the dude does have insurance, then I don’t expect the company to pay on his claim because the situation could easily and inexpensively been avoided.

Pablum you can tell people to shut up all day but it still doesn;t address your lack of human compassion and when you face your next tragedy you will think of this
Mazel Tov!

IOW: He messed-up and maybe next time, if the county doesn’t step up as they should, I’ll bet he’ll be a responsible member of society and actually pay the fee.

Iris said:
You and the other right wingers think its just fine that somebody has to endure this kind of tragedy over 75 bucks

Fact is, if everyone were as irresponsible as the Cranicks were, there would be no civilized society. You speak of “right wingers” thinking it’s just fine that life served up a crap sandwich to the Cranicks, but why do “left wingers” think it’s just fine that regular people have to foot the bill for the stupid and the lazy? For less than the cost of a carton of cigarettes a year, the Cranicks would have had fire protection, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But rather than act like a responsible adult, Mr. Cranick is now lamenting that society has somehow failed him, when in fact, he has failed society by asking that his neighbors pay for both he and themselves.

Andy Lamb said:
And, if a resident has a fire and has not paid the annual fee, then $2000 is what they will owe.

That is exactly my argument.
Do the right thing first.

Now the city looks like the bad guy.

I believe MOST people who become firefighters, or EMT do so not JUST for the job but because they want to help.
The firefighters I know are firefighters, talk firefighting, promote fire safety, not just employees being told what to do.

The facts are…for a lousy $75 the fire department let this house burn down. That is the only fact in this ridiculous affair! Hopefully, the victim will sue this fire department out of existence. If Olbermann, or anybody else is juvenile enough to think this is what the Tea-Party is about, they can wallow in their own self indulgent ignorance.

@Spine Crusher——–Rahlves Dr Castrovalley Ca , zip 94546 used to live the Castrovalley fire chief 3 blocks from my house ,I had met and talked with him a number of times back day,Christmas partys 2 or 3,4th of July celebrations, to hear him tell it animals are not a prioity they are notworth the lives of his men.

Right is wrong says:

That is exactly my argument.
Do the right thing first.

So does is matter that they had a previous fire that WAS put out even though they hadn’t pay the fee? How many passes should they get?

Mr.Papshmer said:
Fact is, if everyone were as irresponsible as the Cranicks were, there would be no civilized society. You speak of “right wingers” thinking it’s just fine that life served up a crap sandwich to the Cranicks, but why do “left wingers” think it’s just fine that regular people have to foot the bill for the stupid and the lazy? For less than the cost of a carton of cigarettes a year, the Cranicks would have had fire protection, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But rather than act like a responsible adult, Mr. Cranick is now lamenting that society has somehow failed him, when in fact, he has failed society by asking that his neighbors pay for both he and themselves.

but his neighbors will ultimately pay the costs in higher insurance premiums. He has insurance, so he will be reimbursed for what was lost, that in-turn will be spread out to the rest of the insured.

So, taking care of the fire and then billing him for the $75 would have saved much more $$ in the long run.

But this is about principles right? Not reality.

Andy Lamb said:
if I’m a fireman and I’m called to a fire, I’m going to try to put the fire out.

I’m with ya there!, but like i said I’m a volunteer fireman so that’s exactly what i do..

I was curious who would make this decision and allow this… So I Googled “south fulton, tennessee” and found the contact number to the mayor’s office, so I called it. A lady answered and I posed the question of who made the decision to allow this home to burn to the ground with living beings in it, dying in one of the most painful ways possible. She answered me “the mayor and city commissioners did”. She then offered to put me through to the mayor, which was a call that ended up at a voice mail. Where I did leave a message explaining my outrage… AND YOU CAN TOO!!!
Mayor: David Neil Crocker
- http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org
- 700 Milton Counce Drive
South Fulton, TN 38257
- 731-479-2151
If you feel as enraged as I am, please, pass/share this with others. Let South Fulton know they had other options and this was beyond animal cruelty. Thank you.

CAconservative said:
The facts are…for a lousy $75 the fire department let this house burn down.

I’m fully insured, but say that I only had liability on my car, then got into an accident that totaled the vehicle. Should I be able to go back and pay one month’s comprehensive, then expect a new car?

I do feel for the Cranicks loss but they did make a choice.
Take this argument one step further, if the Fire Department had put out the fire and something happened, who would the Cranicks sue? The City? The Fire Department? The firefighters that put out the fire? Whose insurance would cover this? Since this was an out of area non subscriber, no contract exists with exclusions, the ultimate responsible party would be the firefighters that put out the fire.
Sure the city would also be brought in on the suit and any others with deep pockets.
Since the Cranicks did not pay the subscription fee, probably do not have insurance (as stated previously), they would be looking for someone to pay restitution for their lack of personal responsibility. What is the American thing to do – hirer a lawyer and file a law suit.

SpineCrusher said:
He has insurance, so he will be reimbursed for what was lost, that in-turn will be spread out to the rest of the insured.

It didn’t say in the story whether or not the Cranick’s had insurance. If they did, I’m guessing that the insurance company will balk at reimbursing their loss.

Also, for what it’s worth, I think that the fire department should have put out the fire, as I said in my first comment on this thread. In subsequent comments, I’ve simply stated that the Cranick’s are irresponsible, and it would be hard to argue otherwise.

DEFENDER-90 said:
@Spine Crusher——–Rahlves Dr Castrovalley Ca , zip 94546 used to live the Castrovalley fire chief 3 blocks from my house ,I had met and talked with him a number of times back day,Christmas partys 2 or 3,4th of July celebrations, to hear him tell it animals are not a prioity they are notworth the lives of his men.

you keep changing the context to fit your narrative.

I understand that if there is a situation that will put their lives at risk they won’t prioritize pets, but each situation is different.

However, no firefighters were risking their lives in THIS situation, they didn’t even bother to TRY and save the animals and you’re OK with that?

Mr.Papshmer said:
It didn’t say in the story whether or not the Cranick’s had insurance. If they did, I’m guessing that the insurance company will balk at reimbursing their loss. Also, for what it’s worth, I think that the fire department should have put out the fire, as I said in my first comment on this thread. In subsequent comments, I’ve simply stated that the Cranick’s are irresponsible, and it would be hard to argue otherwise.

It actually did, which is why I brought it up. He says at the end of the clip that his insurance company is taking care of him…not as much as he’d like, but it’s something.

I’m arguing that it’s irresponsible for a city governemment to take a basic emergency service, that should be covered via property taxes, away and make it an additional fee.

I can only assume that they will be sued for negligence for allowing the home of a taxpaying owner to be completely destroyed when they could have prevented it.

Next up, yearly fees for Police services. Why not, right?

Murders would go unpunished if the victim didn’t pay their yearly fee…nice society you people want to live in.

Magister said:
I’m fully insured, but say that I only had liability on my car, then got into an accident that totaled the vehicle. Should I be able to go back and pay one month’s comprehensive, then expect a new car?

that argument works for insurance on the house, but if we has a hose that could stop a car accident part way through before a total loss, would we then allow the accident to continue?

For once, Ed Schultz is a person of interest.

@Spine Crusher—If there is no risk and they are not needed elsewhere I have no problem with them helping the animals.

DEFENDER-90 said:
@Spine Crusher—If there is no risk and they are not needed elsewhere I have no problem with them helping the animals.

As long as they’ve paid their yearly fee, right? If they haven’t, then let the animals die…like they did in this case?

What happens when it’s a human trapped in the burning house next time? Do they let them die…over $75?

SpineCrusher said:
I’m arguing that it’s irresponsible for a city governemment to take a basic emergency service, that should be covered via property taxes, away and make it an additional fee.

But you’re basing your point on a false premise. The Cranick’s don’t live in the city, and they don’t pay city taxes. I can’t imagine why the county doesn’t provide such a basic service as fire protection, but then, I live in an unincorporated area among about a million others, so the tax base is there. At the very least, the county government should contract with the city for service. Where I live, the county government is wealthy and supports a large sheriff’s office and fire department, which provides services under contract to many of the smaller incorporated cities. If this Tennessee city charges a $75 subscription per household for service, than the county can certainly negotiate something with that town. It sounds to me like it’s a combination of inefficient government (imagine that) and a stupid family.

@right-is-wrong: The old English system that I referenced in my earliest comment was termed “fire insurance”. Somewhere around here, I have one of those wrought iron things they’d attach to a house that I used to display in my office, I’d have to go look for it to find the proper phrasing, but it basically said that the house was protected by X fire insurance and though the victim’s option in this case may have been phrased as a fire tax, it’s still basically the same thing.

Didn’t there used to be something called volunteer fire departments, where people got out and put out each other’s fires because they were too rural or too poor to be able to afford a full-fledged tax-paid fire department? I wonder if this family would get off their fat asses and do the training and effort to become competent at putting out fires if someone would try to pull together a volunteer group. It also seems to me that in the examples cited above of this family refusing to pay $75 and a bunch of Mexicans having to wade through flood waters how much of both of those examples come from people affected by Obama’s economy, who are simply too poor to help themselves and want to — again — mooch off of the rest of us.

I am *not* my brother’s keeper forever and under all circumstances. This expectation that everyone has a god-given right to everything is ludicrous and is the total reason the country is perched on the edge of bankruptcy, preparing to dive headfirst into that fiscal volcano. Olbermann and the progressive left won’t be happy until EVERYone can’t afford fire departments or police protection, and all the wealth has been taken from the middle class and spread around so that we’re all the same amount of poor and stupid.

I have to wonder about this family if no one would come to their aid, either as a volunteer fire department or as a neighborhood barn raising or fund-raising effort. Maybe it’s a case of karma, and they’re getting what they paid for in more ways than just fire protection.

Mr.Papshmer said:
If this Tennessee city charges a $75 subscription per household for service, than the county can certainly negotiate something with that town. It sounds to me like it’s a combination of inefficient government (imagine that) and a stupid family.

I’ve also said several times that the county dropped the ball; They should either provide fire protection or contract with the city, much the same way that some super-small towns contract for protection from the Sheriff’s department. And, though $75 per-household may sound steep if it is taken from every resident’s property tax, one would assume that the rate was set with a presumed percentage of subscribers, so if it was opened to cover everyone, the county should be able to negotiate a lower fee.

Wel papsschmear im glad to hear you have never been irresponsible . So all the rest of us, who if honest would acknowledge that at some point in our lives we were irresponsible should stand there and watch our dogs and cat burn alive when it wasn;t necessary because you self righteous asses think thats the way things should be.

Mr.Papshmer said:
But you’re basing your point on a false premise. The Cranick’s don’t live in the city, and they don’t pay city taxes. I can’t imagine why the county doesn’t provide such a basic service as fire protection, but then, I live in an unincorporated area among about a million others, so the tax base is there. At the very least, the county government should contract with the city for service. Where I live, the county government is wealthy and supports a large sheriff’s office and fire department, which provides services under contract to many of the smaller incorporated cities. If this Tennessee city charges a $75 subscription per household for service, than the county can certainly negotiate something with that town. It sounds to me like it’s a combination of inefficient government (imagine that) and a stupid family.

It’s privatization of a basic emergency service. Call it what it is. The city fire department is being contracted out to handle another county that doesn’t provide the service.

@Magister – The fire department is never on the hook for the damage. Their job is simply to stop it from spreading and lessen the damage in anyway that they can without putting their lives at risk.

Fire insurance is what homeowners pay, on top of property taxes, to cover the replacement of damages.

In this case, I’m pretty sure his insurance company will sue the city for negligence to recoup they money it will cost them to cover the damages.

Once again, what happens next time when a human being is trapped in the house and the $75 hasn’t been paid? Do they let it burn to the ground with someone inside?

Let’s see if these pro-privatization of basic emergency services people have the cajones to respond.

Well nangee its good to hear you too think houses sould burn down and dogs and cats should burn because you don’t think you should be your brothers keeper forever and ever, wow that probably fits in with your nice little perfect life

@SpineCrusher: The $75 fee is a form of insurance. As I said in an earlier comment, though I doubt the victim actually had homeowner’s insurance or was possibly confused by what they had covered, if he had homeowner’s, I sincerely doubt the insurance company would pay.

As for the scenario of people being trapped in a fire, the department and city regulations would’ve probably dictated that they try to save whomever is inside out of human decency, but saving somebody’s house isn’t nearly the same thing.

What does this have to do with the TEA Party?

Abrams needs to get you children under control.

Magister said:
@SpineCrusher: The $75 fee is a form of insurance. As I said in an earlier comment, though I doubt the victim actually had homeowner’s insurance or was possibly confused by what they had covered, if he had homeowner’s, I sincerely doubt the insurance company would pay. As for the scenario of people being trapped in a fire, the department and city regulations would’ve probably dictated that they try to save whomever is inside out of human decency, but saving somebody’s house isn’t nearly the same thing.

You’re wrong. Even the insurance company has more compassion than the fire chief.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2010/10/05/113824.htm

It sounds like an inadequate government to me: http://troy.troytn.com/ocfire.htm

@Spine Crusher—I have lost My internet connection 6x in the last 1hour 45 min, Im going to brake something!

Wether or not the fee is payed,if lives are in danger they(fire department)are supposed to render assistance.

I only had time to scan the article. Is the fire department unionized?

I don’t know Mr. Cranick personally, but I’m willing to bet he voted for Barack Obama. If he didn’t, he should have. Because Gene’s gotten the message of the American Left: Do what you want, be as irresponsible as you want, ignore the rules if you want, and don’t worry about it. If something does go wrong, we’ll bail you out. Or—more accurately—we’ll force your neighbors to bail you out.

There are many Americans with Cranick’s Disease. They buy houses they can’t afford and run up credit card debts they can’t pay, because they figure that, somehow, when the bill comes due, they’ll get out of it. “Gee, I didn’t think the bank would really take my house,” or “You mean if I don’t pay these taxes, I’ll get in trouble? Can’t I just have amnesty?”

Now the Cranicks are upset because they didn’t get the services they didn’t pay for. They’re argument is that they really needed the service, so they should have gotten it anyway. They even generously offered to pay the $75 fee.

Sorry Gene, but your irresponsibility doesn’t entitle you to the wealth of your responsible neighbors. You got exactly what you paid for.

- The great Michael Graham

@SpineCrusher: Based on your link, I assume that the victim had pay-off insurance because they had financed the doublewide and it was required by the mortgage company. And, I’m going to guess that because Farm Bureau is a cooperative, not a for-profit, then they’ve decided to respond in a neighborly fashion, which is all well and good, but from your link;

Simmons said he knows of one other time this has happened. He said the insurance policy has a provision for a reduction in payouts if a fire protection service has not been subscribed but that the insurer has not enforced that in these situations.

They will not be paying the claim because they’re required, they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart (or maybe as a gesture to the finance company to keep their business) and because the policy had provisions for such an anticipated situation, the insurance company will not be able to sue the town.

Denise J I doubt they are unionized but they are good christian tennesseans who won’t allow mosques but will let their neighbors house burn down and let the dogs and cats die in the fire while they stood there watching

And again, Farm Bureau is cooperative. It is owned and operated by it’s members. That is an important distinction, which explains why they may payout in this case.

Lesson: If you’re not going to pay the fire tax, insure through a non-profit.

They didn’t stand there watching, they took action. They doused the fire out when it began to spread to the Cranick’s neighbors’ house because they HAD paid their $75 fee. This is analagous to Emergency Workers refusing to rescue anyone who refuses to evacuate their home when a dangerous hurricane or other natural disaster is imminent and they have been warned.

Thats right liberalbias and you and the other right wingers just love yelling TOO DAMN BAD IF YOU CAN’T PAY! Maybe one day you won’t be able to pay and you can lose your house and have your loved ones animal or human die while people stand around watching sayin well, you didn’t pay

This is intriguing because this Gene Cranick individual is exactly the kind of person that Olbermann makes the average Tea Partier out to be when he lampoons their stupidity on a nightly basis. Now that he can use this man to indict the Tea Party, he is all about showing compassion. Fools…all of you

@Iris: I may only be left of center, while I think of myself as being a pure liberal, but I’m arguing that the fellow should’ve paid his tax or that the county should tax adequately to finance fire protection. I know that the Olbermann story may confuse the “sides” somewhat, but arguing for higher taxes isn’t often called a right-wing proposition.

More proof that Olbermann’s an idiot. The Tea Party is all about personal responsibility. This family should have paid it’s fees. That’s what a Tea Party America is all about.

SpineCrusher said:
It’s privatization of a basic emergency service. Call it what it is. The city fire department is being contracted out to handle another county that doesn’t provide the service.

@Magister – The fire department is never on the hook for the damage. Their job is simply to stop it from spreading and lessen the damage in anyway that they can without putting their lives at risk.

Fire insurance is what homeowners pay, on top of property taxes, to cover the replacement of damages.

In this case, I’m pretty sure his insurance company will sue the city for negligence to recoup they money it will cost them to cover the damages.

Once again, what happens next time when a human being is trapped in the house and the $75 hasn’t been paid? Do they let it burn to the ground with someone inside?

Let’s see if these pro-privatization of basic emergency services people have the cajones to respond.

My cajones are larger than yours, and this has nothing to do with privatization. The homeowners were irresponsible in not paying this fee. Personally I would have ordered the firefighters to put the fire out, then sent the entire bill to the homeowners, which I am sure exceeds $5,000. This entire story is a metaphor for our times: screw personal responsibility, the government will always be there to clean up my mess. We saw it on a large scale with TARP, this was the very same mindset, just on a much, MUCH smaller scale.

GTK chris you and your life are so perfect that you have never been irresponsible or have never made a mistake or have never not paid a bill or have never done anything wrong, who knows maybe if you did your house could burn down and your dogs and cats could burn in it while self righteous perfect people stand around and allow it to happen

Iris, you’ve made the SAME comment about 10 times on this thread. I think we get it. Of course, you haven’t answered any of the questions that have been asked of you. Not surprising.

Pablo said:
Paul Westlake said:
A la carte government is just another one of those libertarian notions that looks a lot better on paper than it does on the ground.

It isn’t a la carte government. The county has no fire protection as they have decided not to make the expenditures necessary to provide it. The fire department that is available is not a part of the county government. Funding it is not optional for those who live in the city that provides it.

Congratulation libertarian utopian dreamers, you just got a man’s home burned to the ground. You must be very proud.

No, genius, that was his grandson, who started the fire. It’s a good thing he paid his homeowner’s insurance though, isn’t it? Would you have them pay to rebuild his house if he hadn’t?

Three dogs and a cat died in that fire. What if a baby or an elderly person had been inside? The county would be looking at a loss-of-life liability right now. I know the structure in that county and it’s bullshit. I’m a volunteer firefighter (inactive) and have been since I was a teenager. We pay county taxes in unincorporated towns, too, and firefighting has been a government function since we did away with the fire insurance companies that did essentially the same thing that happened the other night. There is no excuse for separating fire protection from the other functions of government. This is conservative libertarian idealism gone way too far. Period.

Mr.Magister:
The house was insured and will be rebuilt. That’s not the issue here, is it? The issue is, a fire department, by it’s very nature exists to fight fires, sat by and watched a family loose it’s home and pets, because of a pissing contest over $75 dollars?! And you don’t see the inherent problem here?!! What if you didn’t pay the $75 dollars to a police department and your daughter was being raped. I suppose you’d be good with allowing the police to set by and allow the rape, wouldn’t you?!!!!!! Of course you would because that’s how you think!!

“…the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground:”

Why is anybody surprised at the way these “public servants” acted.? This is EXACTLY the way the millions of government leaches known as SEIU members act on every issue. Same is true for union “teachers” and federal government bureaweenies. “Taking Back Our Country” involves more than removing the self-serving Ruling Class Establishment politicians. It’s also about curtailing, controlling, reducing and – to the maximum extent possible – eliminating theses “public” union goons and bureauweenies from further destroying our country and the American way of life.

sarainitaly said:
“i forgot” doesn’t pay the bills on the firemen station end. nor is it an excuse. people need to take personal responsibility. Hey, I know! Maybe the fire department just forgot to come to his house to put out the fire!

Which is why it is properly a function of taxation, not a separate fee schedule. Enough with the bullshit “personal responsibility” platitudes. Who took personal responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon blowout? Who took personal responsibility for the Lehman collapse, the AIG bailout, etc? Nobody! That’s who! We create systems to guard against disaster for a reason, and those things cost money. I know libertarians think we should live in some romantic version of the wild west, with only the law of the gun to fall back on, but that’s not the way proper civilization works… ever!

Oh exilewhatever get off your self righteous throne, if you got it you would know there are no questions to answer other than why on earth is anyone trying to rationalize a tragedy where a house is ALLOWED to burn down with dogs and cats inside burning while self righteous people stand around and watch it happen. but I guess you imagine yourself as perfect too.

TeaPartyPatriot said:
“…the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground:”

Why is anybody surprised at the way these “public servants” acted.? This is EXACTLY the way the millions of government leaches known as SEIU members act on every issue. Same is true for union “teachers” and federal government bureaweenies. “Taking Back Our Country” involves more than removing the self-serving Ruling Class Establishment politicians. It’s also about curtailing, controlling, reducing and – to the maximum extent possible – eliminating theses “public” union goons and bureauweenies from further destroying our country and the American way of life.

Hey guess what, it’s a PRIVATE fire company. Hey look everyone, privatization at work! What a bunch of totally callous, idiots libertarians are.

From WPSD Local channel 6:

“Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t,” Mayor David Crocker said.

Friends and neighbors said it’s a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don’t blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.

“They’re doing their job,” Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. “They’re doing what they are told to do. It’s not their fault.”

To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff’s Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.

According to Manta.com, South Fulton is a private fire company, and according to Fire Departments Network, they are mostly volunteer. So much for the sneering public union employee thesis.

@CAconservative: The link SpineCrusher provided, says that the family had pay-off insurance for their modular home, so though I’m sure the factory is building another as we speak and the Cranick will likely qualify for the same mortgage because I assume their land is collateral…

Otherwise, as I’ve stated previously, there are lots of municipalities that contract for police protection from the counties in which they exist. I can’t think of any specific references offhand, but occasionally these contracts lapse while they are being re-negotiated and in every instance with which I am familiar, the counties promise to keep responding to immediate threats to life and limb in the meantime.

Not to mention that police protection is also covered under concurrent jurisdiction agreements, which means that the state or county can respond to call which is out of their normal areas of responsibility.

I like to pik on the Union’s as much as the next guy but to link them to this is a stretch.

I’m quite familiar with the libertarian movement, and also with the ‘partiers. I left hundreds of comments at ReasonMag showing how they’re wrong, and I’ve written many dozens of posts about the ‘partiers. I also know who’s promoting the ‘partiers and what they think.

And, the firefighter story is in fact an example of libertarianism *working as planned*. And, since the ‘partiers are either outright libertarians or have libertarian tendencies, the story is in fact an example of what would happen if the ‘partiers fringe wishes came true. Despite what you might hear, they aren’t just about fiscal restraint. They’re about mainstreaming extremist and ofttimes anti-American notions, such as calling their fellow citizens “moochers” and the like.

For the actual facts about them, see: http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties

Don’t believe their hype.

Actually Iris, there are legitimate questions that have been asked, you are just choosing to ignore them.

Magister said:
@CAconservative: The link SpineCrusher provided, says that the family had pay-off insurance for their modular home, so though I’m sure the factory is building another as we speak and the Cranick will likely qualify for the same mortgage because I assume their land is collateral…

Otherwise, as I’ve stated previously, there are lots of municipalities that contract for police protection from the counties in which they exist. I can’t think of any specific references offhand, but occasionally these contracts lapse while they are being re-negotiated and in every instance with which I am familiar, the counties promise to keep responding to immediate threats to life and limb in the meantime.

Not to mention that police protection is also covered under concurrent jurisdiction agreements, which means that the state or county can respond to call which is out of their normal areas of responsibility.

And on top of that, South Fulton FD is a Member of the West Tennessee and Western Kentucky Mutual Aid Pack, meaning they range outside their territory all the time as a matter of neighborly assistance. Whatever the root of this particular case, it’s clear that it was wrong no matter how you slice it.

This is the face of libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ik4f1dRbP8&feature=player_embedded

Chris Kelly said:
I’m quite familiar with the libertarian movement, and also with the ‘partiers. I left hundreds of comments at ReasonMag showing how they’re wrong, and I’ve written many dozens of posts about the ‘partiers. I also know who’s promoting the ‘partiers and what they think.

And, the firefighter story is in fact an example of libertarianism *working as planned*. And, since the ‘partiers are either outright libertarians or have libertarian tendencies, the story is in fact an example of what would happen if the ‘partiers fringe wishes came true. Despite what you might hear, they aren’t just about fiscal restraint. They’re about mainstreaming extremist and ofttimes anti-American notions, such as calling their fellow citizens “moochers” and the like.

For the actual facts about them, see: http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties

Don’t believe their hype.

Agreed. Found the above video via your site. Nice work.

@Paul Westlake: I haven’t read the mutual aid agreements, but based on the titles, I assume that it means one fire department will come to the aid of another. So, if the county did their job and provided fire protection as one of their services, then it would apply.

What questions exile, the one that asks do you think for the lack of 75 bucks should we stand around and watch dogs and cats burn in a house fire that we could actually put out,?… that question? ….or how about the one you seem to think is relevant.. I am so perfect and my circumstances are so perfect so shouldn’t anyone not perfect like me suffer consequences and tragedies for not being perfect? that one?

Magister said:
@Paul Westlake: I haven’t read the mutual aid agreements, but based on the titles, I assume that it means one fire department will come to the aid of another. So, if the county did their job and provided fire protection as one of their services, then it would apply.

It means any department in the “pack” will respond to the needs of any community in the zone, whether another company is there or not. Sometimes random chance stretches a single department too thin and another company may be called to respond as the sole company on the scene. It depends on the arrangement and the capacities of each company (i.e., not all companies have a long ladder truck, some have bigger pumpers, etc).

Paul Westlake said:
According to Manta.com, South Fulton is a private fire company, and according to Fire Departments Network, they are mostly volunteer. So much for the sneering public union employee thesis.

I have no idea what Manta.com is, but if they say that South Fulton is a private fire company, they are dead wrong. The South Fulton Fire Deptartment is not privatized, it’s part of the city government. Here is their website –

http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org/fire.htm

DEFENDER-90 said:
I like to pick on the Unions as much as the next guy but to link them to this is a stretch.

Yes it is, it’s a huge stretch. It is an equally huge stretch to try to link this to the Tea Party, as opportunistic Keith Olbermann tried to do on his show.

Iris said:
This is the right wing and teabagger wet dream, PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING AND IF YOU CAN’T PAY TOO DAMN BAD! IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD THE FOR PROFIT HEALTH SYSTEM YOU AND YOUR FAMILY HAVE TO SUFFER TOO DAMN BAD!BEND OVER AMERICA!

Another dumbass liberal. If the City decided via ordinance by ‘elected’ officials that they would charge a $75 fee per property or house to finance the fire department than that is what the obligation is of the citizen to have fire protection, just like garbage collection or any other service that is billed by the city or county. This guy choose not to pay the fee. You can argue that maybe the per year fee instead of some sort of property tax would be more efficient, but the guy made the choice to roll the dice and not pay the fee. $1.45 per day for fire protection seems like a good deal to me. If they put the fire out and billed the guy $5000 and put him in bankruptsy it would have been another story. If they put the fire out what would be the incentive for all the other citizens to continue to pay the fee? They don’t have one. So then there is no payment and no fire protection for anyone.

Again Iris, you are just repeating the same stupid thing over and over. Your “conservatives don’t care about people and want them to die” is getting tired.

This county has doesn’t have their own FD and outsources for a fee of $75 dollars that this family didn’t pay. In the past they have had a fire and their lack of payment was overlooked and the fire put out, and they still didn’t pay. If they don’t pay and still receive the services, why would his neighbor continue to pay his hard earned money if he would get the same result whether he paid or not? And what if the entire county decides not to pay, then who pays for the FD. If you don’t have fire insurance and your house burns down, do you think you have the right to go into Allstate the next day and not only sign up for fire insurance, but demand they pay for your house? If you choose not to buy health insurance and break your arm, do you think you should be able to knock on your neighbor’s door and tell him to pay up? And if not, what is the difference. I await your response.

TeaPartyPatriot said:
“…the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground:” Why is anybody surprised at the way these “public servants” acted.? This is EXACTLY the way the millions of government leaches known as SEIU members act on every issue. Same is true for union “teachers” and federal government bureaweenies. “Taking Back Our Country” involves more than removing the self-serving Ruling Class Establishment politicians. It’s also about curtailing, controlling, reducing and – to the maximum extent possible – eliminating theses “public” union goons and bureauweenies from further destroying our country and the American way of life.

only 1% of the working force in this country are Unions dimwit….quit with the canards!

Paul Westlake said:
It means any department in the “pack” will respond to the needs of any community in the zone, whether another company is there or not. Sometimes random chance stretches a single department too thin and another company may be called to respond as the sole company on the scene. It depends on the arrangement and the capacities of each company (i.e., not all companies have a long ladder truck, some have bigger pumpers, etc).

But, it’s an agreement between fire departments or governments, not individual citizens.
So in this case, it doesn’t appear to apply. (Still, good find. Thanks)

Spinecrusher says:

only 1% of the working force in this country are Unions dimwit….quit with the canards!

Well, this admin is doing their best to change that.

Back in June, California Congressman Brad Sherman (D) was circulating a letter to his fellow Democrats to introduce legislation to repeal “Right-to-Work” laws in 22 states. Now, with less than a month before the mid-term elections and five weeks before a lame-duck session in Congress, Sherman has introduced legislation to eliminate state Right to Work laws all across America.

Currently, there are 22 states in the U.S. that have laws where workers who are employed at companies that are unionized have a choice whether or not to join or pay the union. These states are known as Right-to-Work states.

Heres my response exile do with it what you will … what you do unto the least of your brethren you do unto Me.
I am so glad that I could not stand and watch such suffering if there was something I could do about it. If you are so concerned that this man didn’t pay his 75 bucks wouldn’t you put the damn fire out and discuss your problem with him later, AND if someone came to me with a broken arm and didn’t have the ability to , yes, I would do anything i could to help.
If in your self righteousness you feel it was just fine for this mans house to burn down with his dogs and cats burning with it because he didn’t pay 75 bucks, I am truly sorry for you, thats something you have to live with

Again, you refuse to see the big picture. I’m all about helping your neightbor. Personally, I would. This is about what extent the gov’t should take from a certain group and give to another. If I had to guess, you are all for the rich paying 90% of their income, but don’t give a whole lot of your money to charity. The gov’t taking your money and giving it to someone else isn’t charity. You do understand the difference, right? And I’m speaking as someone who is the low wage-earning bracket. I do not expect those who have done well for themselves to take care of me. Again, you aren’t doing yourself any favors by framing this in a way that says we want people to die. That just makes you look stupid. But I give up, you either can’t or won’t answer the questions.

@Andy Lamb—–I agree.

Iris says:

If you are so concerned that this man didn’t pay his 75 bucks wouldn’t you put the damn fire out and discuss your problem with him later

This was his second fire. They put it out the first time and he still didn’t pay. How many passes should he get while his neighbor pays every year?

Exile you are a joke , did you actually say you are all about helping your neighbor when all you have done is bitch that this man didn’t pay his 75 bucks and you bitch that as a society we help those less fortunate. Big picture my ass you see through such a narrow selfish lens. You “guess” that i don’t give anything to charity, thats is so unbecoming and on top of that you can “guess” all you want about me and make your judgements but I am at peace with myself and the only Judge that will matter. Again I am so sorry that you feel people should suffer and be judged , its sad that you have no compassion for people whose circumstances you have no idea about

Until a few years ago, the City of South Fulton’s fire department did not respond to any fires outside of city limits. Then, a fire broke out in a rural area that was not covered by the city fire department. The city decided to begin to offer an opt-in service, for $75 a year. The rural homeowners are, collectively, BETTER off than they were before. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department at all. Now they do. The city fire department made the decision, apparently based on past history with Mr. Cranick, to not put out the fire. I have a feeling that after putting the fire out, the City of South Fulton would not have legally been entitled to one dime from Mr. Cranick, and I doubt he would have paid them one dime. They had no contract with him, and they would have willingly put the fire out on their own. Personally, if I was a firefighter and had responded to the call, I would have tried to put the fire out. As a firefighter, that’s what I do – put out fires. Personally, I think Mr. Cranick is a dunce for not paying the $75. And, anyone here trying to pin this on unions, the tea party, or any other “group” is nuts.

Iris, you still don’t answer the questions, but continue to attack. I think you are projecting. One of these days, you will realize that money doesn’t grow on trees like you moronic libs seem to think it does. Someone, somewhere is paying for everything. You expect all things to be equal (not equal rights, but equal stuff, to quote the reverend al), but you don’t give a thought to where all the money to pay for it comes from. Why would anyone continue to work hard to make something of themself if you libs insist on confiscating their earnings? Pull your head out of the sand.

And btw Iris, conservatives consistently give more of their OWN $$ to charity than libs. Chew on that for a while.

Oh sorry exile I didn’t realize you feel it was OK for the dogs and cat to burn while everyone stood around and watched because it was the second fire, I didn’t know that allowing suffering when it could be prevented was based on math

Back to the dogs and cats burning!! Give me a break please! If it were me, I would’ve died saving my animals, that’s how much I love my dogs. That isn’t the issue, you dimwit!! You are just reverting to that because you can’t answer my basic questions. The bottom line, Iris, is Conservratives think you should look out for and help your neighbor and you libs think the gov’t should take people’s money and do it. Well that let’s you off the hook, doesn’t it. Do me a favor and go back and read through your comments on this thread. I guarantee it should embarrass you.

Chris Kelly said:
I’m quite familiar with the libertarian movement, and also with the ‘(tea) partiers. I left hundreds of comments at ReasonMag showing how they’re wrong, and I’ve written many dozens of posts about the ‘partiers. I also know who’s promoting the ‘partiers and what they think. And, the firefighter story is in fact an example of libertarianism *working as planned*. And, since the ‘partiers are either outright libertarians or have libertarian tendencies, the story is in fact an example of what would happen if the ‘partiers fringe wishes came true. Despite what you might hear, they aren’t just about fiscal restraint. They’re about mainstreaming extremist and ofttimes anti-American notions, such as calling their fellow citizens “moochers” and the like. For the actual facts about them, see: http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties Don’t believe their hype.

I checked out the web link you posted. It made for interesting reading, although you incorrectly stated that “actual facts about them (tea partiers)” are posted on the page. In reality, the page is about 5% fact / 95% opinion, with some gems like –

“……tea party leaders falsely try to pretend that anyone who opposes them must be an Obama supporter; almost all of them are truth-challenged and engage in what I call the “Jump, Smear, and Lie” technique. ”

“Rather, they’re coming from peoples’ “lizard brains”: the low-level functions involving territorial claims and the like.”

“….most of those attending are simply selfish people who want to pay as little tax as possible not due to any intellectual reason – such as limiting government intrusion – but simply because they’re cheap.”

“Their methods – standing on street corners waving loopy signs – are like something the Kindergarten version of ACORN would do.”

This site attempts to portray everyone who supports the tea party as a troglodyte. I see no good or truth in that, or in the “tea bagger” comments I see on this website all the time. Am I a tea party member or supporter? No, I’m not. I wouldn’t have backed a ding dong with no chance of winning a Senate seat in DE like Christine O’Donnell. That said, these people have made our government fully aware of the fact that a lot of people are tired of a federal government has spent decades recklessly pissing away taxpayer dollars. We’re on the verge of bankruptcy. For helping make this a central issue in every political debate today, I thank them.

Don’t give me that crap you’ve been defending the firemen standing around watching the suffering because the guy didn’t pay 75 bucks all day now all of a sudden you’re concerned that the dogs and cat burned to death , give me a break! You have made it crystal clear you could care less what suffering happened in that fire cause whine, whine libs want to help the less fortunate with everybody elses moneyBOO HOOO HOO.
You are so blind to your own lack of compassion , as I said before I am sorry that you feel it is fine for others to suffer for any reason

DEFENDER-90 said:
For the actual facts about them, see: http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties

Don’t believe their hype.

cool
7. What the Democrats could do about them

I’ve previously joked about the tea parties conducting an eight-year silent protest against the Bush administration.

that one is going to get me to read more!

Chris Kelly said:
For the actual facts about them, see: http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties

Don’t believe their hype.

sorry defender90

exiledtruther said:
And btw Iris, conservatives consistently give more of their OWN $$ to charity than libs. Chew on that for a while.

He’s simply a kid who thinks it’s cool to engage the adults, but he can’t hide his sixth grade mentality. He’s one to ignore.

Like I said Mr. pap you can go on all day guessing about me but like I said before who and what i am is fine with me and I am so happy I am not you or in any way like you, How can you possibly defend this tragedy where dogs and a cat were burned in a house fire that could have been stopped and you think its just fine that this happened cause a man lacked 75 bucks, I am sorry for you too that you can be so cavalier about suffering of any kind

@right-is- wrong—-Its ok, thank you for fixing it.

Mr Pap says:

He’s simply a kid who thinks it’s cool to engage the adults, but he can’t hide his sixth grade mentality. He’s one to ignore.

I know you’re right, but I can’t help trying to “reason” with the unreasonable. I’ll take your advice now.

Ex and pap it must be embarrassing to be told about compassion and how valuable it is, not only for your own spiritual growth but for the betterment of society in general by someone you see as a kid, no wonder you have to walk away

Andy Lamb said:
I have no idea what Manta.com is, but if they say that South Fulton is a private fire company, they are dead wrong. The South Fulton Fire Deptartment is not privatized, it’s part of the city government. Here is their website –

Having a tab on the city website isn’t proof that it hasn’t been privatized. I called their number twice today but I imagine they stopped taking calls a while ago. I would like confirmation on that, too. But the comment I was responding to was out of line either way. Even if it is a public department, it’s mostly volunteer and blaming SEIU workers is utterly ludicrous.

musiccityvic said:
Another dumbass liberal. If the City decided via ordinance by ‘elected’ officials that they would charge a $75 fee per property or house to finance the fire department than that is what the obligation is of the citizen to have fire protection, just like garbage collection or any other service that is billed by the city or county. This guy choose not to pay the fee. You can argue that maybe the per year fee instead of some sort of property tax would be more efficient, but the guy made the choice to roll the dice and not pay the fee. $1.45 per day for fire protection seems like a good deal to me. If they put the fire out and billed the guy $5000 and put him in bankruptsy it would have been another story. If they put the fire out what would be the incentive for all the other citizens to continue to pay the fee? They don’t have one. So then there is no payment and no fire protection for anyone.

Putting a rural fire like that out wouldn’t cost anywhere near $5000. It’s a mostly volunteer department and the full-timers are on salary, so no extra cost there. Gas to and from, a truck wash, and a pumper refill – maybe $50, tops.

And the whole point of TAXES is to have these services covered in the most efficient manner. Parsing out the services a la carte leads to exactly this type of scenario… obviously.

If I had a nickle for every “dumbass liberal” comment I saw that was based on the person making the comment being a dumbass, I’d own Alpha Centauri by now! LOL

DEFENDER-90 said:
@right-is- wrong—-Its ok, thank you for fixing it.

cool
I broke it, I fix it
As for the blog – might be some information there, but a whole lot of ideology to get through to find it.
I moved on.

@right-is- wrong–Big 10-4 good good budy.

Magister said:
But, it’s an agreement between fire departments or governments, not individual citizens.
So in this case, it doesn’t appear to apply. (Still, good find. Thanks)

Perhaps, but on behalf of citizens, otherwise, what’s the point? And the spirit of the agreement should hold sway. For a fire chief to simply say, flat out, “not my job,” when it’s in a territory that IS covered by his department, is callous disregard of his civic responsibility. I’m CPR and BLS certified (though I need new AHA licenses instead of my old Red Cross ones), and I know that I’M liable if I walk away from a scene that I CAN assist with – that’s the law and the agreement I made when I signed up for the skills. This scenario seem to border on that issue. The chief knew there was no other option but his fire company. It was borderline when the chief decided to keep the trucks parked in the station, but it crossed the line when the truck arrived next door, and did nothing for this gentleman’s house. I don’t know the laws in Tennessee, but in New York, that chief would be busted nine ways to Sunday.

@Paul Westlake: I believe you’re misinterpreting the purpose of the mutual aid agreement and as to your point about rendering medical assistance, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t apply to fire fighters at a property fire, otherwise every fire scene in the country would be overrun with vacationing volunteer firepersons who were passing on the interstate.

Personally, though it may not have been his immediate goal, but I’m betting that in addition to getting phone calls from across the country, the South Fulton FD was probably bombarded by people wanting to pay their $75 today.

Magister said:
I believe you’re misinterpreting the purpose of the mutual aid agreement and as to your point about rendering medical assistance, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t apply to fire fighters at a property fire, otherwise every fire scene in the country would be overrun with vacationing volunteer firepersons who were passing on the interstate.

No, not just being in the area, actually being on scene. That’s why I raised the distinction between leaving the truck at the station and being at the house next door. When the trucks are at the station, he’s just following orders. But once the trucks are on scene and an obvious emergency situation is intentionally ignored for no OTHER emergency reason (eg, it’s not triage), the responders on the scene become liable… at least in New York. That’s the law I was taught in CPR/BLS and firematics in Suffolk County, NY. In the scenario you raised, the volunteers on the highway have no knowledge of the emergency and no expectation of responding unless they happen to be in their own district and receive the call. Nor does a doctor or volunteer, who has not been called, have to pull over at a fresh traffic accident. For professionals and volunteers, the call makes the difference, OR self-determination. If I get no call, I’m out of jurisdiction, and I happen upon an emergency, I can decide to render assistance of my own volition, BUT at that point I’ve signed a contract to finish the job completely or until exhaustion, whichever comes first. There’s no going back once you dive in. You can’t parse a fire. You either fight the fire, or you don’t. But fighting only one part of the fire is a dereliction of duty, as far as I’m concerned, no matter where you are.

Magister said:
Personally, though it may not have been his immediate goal, but I’m betting that in addition to getting phone calls from across the country, the South Fulton FD was probably bombarded by people wanting to pay their $75 today.

No doubt! Wrong way to learn the lesson.

Paul Westlake said:
Having a tab on the city website isn’t proof that it hasn’t been privatized. I called their number twice today but I imagine they stopped taking calls a while ago. I would like confirmation on that, too. But the comment I was responding to was out of line either way. Even if it is a public department, it’s mostly volunteer and blaming SEIU workers is utterly ludicrous.

Everything I have seen, heard, and read indicates that the fire department is not privatized, it is part of the city of South Fulton government. I brought this up because you seemed to indicate that this whole mess occurred because of privatization. I whole heartedly agree that blaming SEIU workers is ludicrous, just as is blaming the tea party or private business – none of these had anything to do with what happened in this case.

Fire departments are responsible for fire protection and EMS services. Many city governments – Democratic and Republican run, conservative and liberal – have established separate fire departments that bill an annual fee. Too much wasteful spending and money mismanagement have led to this as cities continually spend more than they take in. I have city trash collection, but I pay a separate fee for it, for the same reason. If I don’t pay, my trash doesn’t get picked up.

This $75 opt-in fee for rural residents who live outside of South Fulton has been in place since 1990. That means that Cranick’s neighbor (since he paid this year) may well have already paid $1500 over 20 years for fire protection. Cranick hasn’t paid anything. I’ve already said that the firemen who showed up should have put the fire out. Yeah, Cranick is a dunce, but the guys still should have done the right thing and put out the fire. That said, blaming any union OR the tea party OR private business for what happened in this case is way out of line.

Mr.Magister:

Your still not grasping the issue of the lack of humanity here! Who gives a RATS-ASS about who was contracting with who?! The issue is, a family lost their home and irreplaceable articles, and the lives of pets that they loved because some fire chief said, piss on’em, they didn’t pay their $75 dollars. How the hell do you justify that on any level?!! If nothing else, the fire department could have put out the fire and then billed them for their services, but no, the ass-wholes fire chief wanted to make a statement! If I was the owner of that home, I’d be making a statement on the chief of that fire department ass!! Wise up……!!!!

Andy, I’m going with jury being out on public/private for now, but I don’t discount your research. I haven’t found more than one reference since my first citing either.

As to the other points, trash removal is not fire protection. And the fact that anyone would even consider fire protection to be something that could be treated as an opt-in is in complete opposition to every fire department, every known fact about fire science, and every piece of common sense obtainable by humankind. The South Fulton FD was just this year trying to get the fire tax reinstated again, for exactly reasons like this. No 911 operator should ever have to consult a list to see if the person calling is allowed emergency care of any kind. I hope libertarians don’t think it’s a good idea to offer subscription services for police protection, too! Good lord.

The simple fact is this – fire is incredibly deadly, moves fast, and left unchecked, can consume entire counties in a matter of hours. I remember standing on the roof of my apartment building in L.A. as a kid, and counting nine separate fires, fanned by Santa Ana winds, and nearly crapping my pants. Fire protection for that single homeowner is irrelevant. ALL fire protection is protection for EVERYONE, no matter the source. This particular incident was only as bad as one destroyed house because the neighbor hadn’t forgot to pay the fee. If neither had paid, both houses would have gone up, with a lot of propellants inside to ramp up the radiant heat, causing the fire to easily start jumping. The fire that started in a dry field would have consumed two homes and everything around them and then moved on to bigger and better things. If the field was dry enough to burn so deep that a garden hose couldn’t put it out, what else was out there for this fire to consume? I wonder if any of the wildfires, which have increased in recent years and have started to cause significant property loss, started in a field next to a house with an owner who didn’t pay his fire fee. Policies like this put entire communities and ecosystems at unnecessary risk. There’s all kinds of waste in the system politicians can cut their teeth on, and I’m sure there are better remedies for waste in the fire district than an opt-in fire coverage scheme. This is just nuts.

Paul, you made too many points to comment on all of them. The opt-in is for non city residents who live in outlying rural areas. I know nothing about the city of South Fulton, it’s size, or how large the rural area surrounding it is. Rural areas in a state like TN are enormous and open with an extremely low population density. I do not know how far stretched the South Fulton city fire department is. All of that said, I have said repeatedly on this thread that if the fire department responded to this fire, then they surely should have tried to put it out.

My point was and is that this is not a partisan issue as some have pounced on and tried to make it. City governments all over the country have gone this route, led by both Democrats and Republicans. It’s not partisan, and it has nothing to do with the tea party. For Olbermann or Think Progress to try to politicize this will get them nowhere. People are bright enough to see through the BS.

Here’s an 8 month old omen of things to come, from Stockton, CA – a city run by a Democratic Mayor -

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100203/A_OPINION01/2030312/-1/NEWSMAP

Paul Westlake said:
Who took personal responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon blowout? Who took personal responsibility for the Lehman collapse, the AIG bailout, etc? Nobody! That’s who!

BP took responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon blowout. Do you not watch the news? There was something about a $20 billion fund that your side of the aisle was all excited about.

As for Lehman and AIG, we all bent over for took that one. I think we shouldn’t have done it. How did you feel about having the government take that mess over?

Andy Lamb said:
My point was and is that this is not a partisan issue as some have pounced on and tried to make it. City governments all over the country have gone this route, led by both Democrats and Republicans. It’s not partisan, and it has nothing to do with the tea party.

It IS partisan, because only conservative Democrats would go along with such a scheme. It’s libertarian-led pay-as-you-go government brought to you by the less-government conservative ideology that has dominated American civic life for three decades. You bet your sweet ass it’s partisan! And even though the Tea Party didn’t create THIS problem, if they get their way in the country, they will create many thousands or even millions more just like it. Here’s what a firefighter’s blog had to say about rural fire coverage:

“Here is my suggestion to the geniuses running Obion County and South Fulton Tennessee. Make the $75. fee mandatory and if someone does not pay make it known the fire service will respond and you will be billed for the services rendered. Minimum $500. per call and $500.00 per hour after the first hour. Cranick might have been charged $1,500. but he would still have his home and contents.”

And I add this for anyone (not you, Andy) who thinks the firefighters did the right thing:

“I asked the finest, bravest firefighter I’ve ever met what he thought of this situation. I got an earful. He told me this is the difference between professional firefighters vs rural volunteers. In his opinion he says, and I concur, no professional firefighter, and the overwhelming majority of volunteer firefighters would sit back and watch a family home burn to the ground. You attack the fire and take the consequences, that’s what you do, it’s what you signed up to do.”

Damn right!

Pablo said:
BP took responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon blowout. Do you not watch the news? There was something about a $20 billion fund that your side of the aisle was all excited about.

As for Lehman and AIG, we all bent over for took that one. I think we shouldn’t have done it. How did you feel about having the government take that mess over?

Who took PERSONAL responsibility for those failures? Nobody! That’s who.

Paul Westlake said:
Perhaps, but on behalf of citizens, otherwise, what’s the point? And the spirit of the agreement should hold sway. For a fire chief to simply say, flat out, “not my job,” when it’s in a territory that IS covered by his department, is callous disregard of his civic responsibility.

See, when politicians write laws, they should make everyone happy, no matter what they say!

Paul Westlake said:
Who took PERSONAL responsibility for those failures? Nobody! That’s who.

Did you take PERSONAL responsibility, Paul? I don’t think so. Neither did Barack Obama.

What PERSON do you want when you’ve got a multi-billion dollar international corporation on the hook? Do you have a spanking in you that you need to pass on?

Pablo said:
Paul Westlake said:
Perhaps, but on behalf of citizens, otherwise, what’s the point? And the spirit of the agreement should hold sway. For a fire chief to simply say, flat out, “not my job,” when it’s in a territory that IS covered by his department, is callous disregard of his civic responsibility.

See, when politicians write laws, they should make everyone happy, no matter what they say!

Do you even know what you’re saying when you type?

Pablo said:
Paul Westlake said:
Who took PERSONAL responsibility for those failures? Nobody! That’s who.

Did you take PERSONAL responsibility, Paul? I don’t think so. Neither did Barack Obama.

What PERSON do you want when you’ve got a multi-billion dollar international corporation on the hook? Do you have a spanking in you that you need to pass on?

Who the fuck do you think you’re kidding with those juvenile “table-turning” attacks? When you say something that’s actually relevant, whenever the fuck that is, I’ll think about replying… maybe.

Oooooh, you got me, Paul. Killed me dead, ya did. Your logic is just plain lethal. I should probably lay down.

You probably should, because asking ME if I took personal responsibility for the man-made Deepwater Horizon disaster may be the stupidest thing I’ve seen on this site yet… and THAT’S saying something!

CAconservative said:
Mr.Magister:

Your still not grasping the issue of the lack of humanity here! Who gives a RATS-ASS about who was contracting with who?! The issue is, a family lost their home and irreplaceable articles, and the lives of pets that they loved because some fire chief said, piss on’em, they didn’t pay their $75 dollars. How the hell do you justify that on any level?!! If nothing else, the fire department could have put out the fire and then billed them for their services, but no, the ass-wholes fire chief wanted to make a statement! If I was the owner of that home, I’d be making a statement on the chief of that fire department ass!! Wise up……!!!!

Perhaps it sounds callous, but I put stock in contracts because they are the legal mechanisms which govern our society. Of course I may feel a little sorry for the family, but it was their choice to not pay the tax despite being aware of its possible consequences; It was their choice to live in a manufactured home which burns at a hotter temperature and is more difficult to put out; It was their choice to let a grandson (how old?) burn their trash instead of paying a garbage service, thus polluting the environment and risking their home.

Not to mention that in the local station’s report sarainitaly linked, it was estimated that it took about two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels to a shed then to the house, so apparently the trash fire was completely unattended and they allowed it to get out of control. (Especially negligent, since the Smoky Bear signs in the region are showing just moderate or mid-range fire danger, so it’s not like an errant ember started the blaze)

Predictably (and perhaps appropriately) they are also about to become a cause célèbre thanks to Countdown host Keith Olbermann, who presented their story as the “the America envisioned by the Tea Party.”

I assure you Mr. Overbite, this is just the opposite of how the Tea Party envisions America. That MediaLite advances utter tripe such as this is a CLEAR indicator that they know less than nothing of objectivity and journalism sans bias.

Paul Westlake said:
Which is why it is properly a function of taxation, not a separate fee schedule. Enough with the bullshit “personal responsibility” platitudes. Who took personal responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon blowout? Who took personal responsibility for the Lehman collapse, the AIG bailout, etc? Nobody! That’s who! We create systems to guard against disaster for a reason, and those things cost money.

People that live far outside of the city limits do not pay the same taxes because they do not benefit from the same services, i.e. schools, roads, mail service, fire service, water, sewer, trash, etc. (not sure which apply, but having lived in rural WA, I am somewhat familiar). I believe if you were to ask any of Cranicks neighbors if they would prefer to pay the annual $75 or be incorporated into the city and pay those taxes, they would opt for the $75 fee.

The $75 fee is like insurance. You don’t buy buy insurance after your house burns down and expect the company to replace your home. Or same with your car.

“We create systems to guard against disaster for a reason, and those things cost money.”

EXACTLY PAUL! THEY COST MONEY. Money that Cranick didn’t PAY. He didn’t pay but he still wants the service. And if you would listen to his interviews you would know that he KNEW about the fee, and his son had done the same exact thing in the past, and they helped him, and he paid afterwards. That is in part why the FF refused to help this time. It kept happening, with the Cranick families and others.

THESE SERVICES COST MONEY – MONEY THAT THEY WEREN’T GETTING PAID TO PERFORM.
You said it yourself.

Paul Westlake said:
It IS partisan, because only conservative Democrats would go along with such a scheme. It’s libertarian-led pay-as-you-go government brought to you by the less-government conservative ideology that has dominated American civic life for three decades. You bet your sweet ass it’s partisan! And even though the Tea Party didn’t create THIS problem, if they get their way in the country, they will create many thousands or even millions more just like it. Here’s what a firefighter’s blog had to say about rural fire coverage:
“Here is my suggestion to the geniuses running Obion County and South Fulton Tennessee. Make the $75. fee mandatory and if someone does not pay make it known the fire service will respond and you will be billed for the services rendered. Minimum $500. per call and $500.00 per hour after the first hour. Cranick might have been charged $1,500. but he would still have his home and contents.”

And here is what I posted above, much earlier in this thread –

“Again, city governments all over the country handle fire this way, in cities run by Democrats and Republicans. If government was smart (and it almost never is) it would be made clear to (rural) residents that the fee is NOT optional. If there is a fire, the department will respond – it’s what fire departments do. However, residents should also be aware that the cost of a fire call is “X” and spell it out – truck, gas, manpower, time, EMS, water, equipment and all. If the cost is $2000, then that’s what it is. And, if a resident has a fire and has not paid the annual fee, then $2000 is what they will owe.”

Sounds pretty much like what the firefighter’s blog said regarding payment policy. It’s common sense, something government rarely if ever has. I don’t have the time to hunt, but I have no doubt that if I did I would find similar policy to the South Fulton case in cities run by liberals as well (the Democratic Mayor of Stockton may be one herself, I have no idea nor do I care.)

My point is, again, this is not a partisan issue. It’s easy to take an occurence like this fire, and say “see, a big government apparatus IS the answer to everything!” It doesn’t apply across the board, and it doesn’t wash in this case either. Keep in mind that prior to 1990, the rural residents outside of South Fulton had no access to the fire department at all. Another rural fire years ago prompted them to adopt the opt in policy for rural residents outside city limits. The city of South Fulton couldn’t tax these people if they wanted to. So, the problem in this case is poor decision making (in my opinion) by firefighters on the scene, based on past occurences with this same family. Partisan policy has nothing at all to do with it.

Paul Westlake said:
And I add this for anyone (not you, Andy) who thinks the firefighters did the right thing:
“I asked the finest, bravest firefighter I’ve ever met what he thought of this situation. I got an earful. He told me this is the difference between professional firefighters vs rural volunteers. In his opinion he says, and I concur, no professional firefighter, and the overwhelming majority of volunteer firefighters would sit back and watch a family home burn to the ground. You attack the fire and take the consequences, that’s what you do, it’s what you signed up to do.”

I agree with this, and it only reinforces the fact that partisan policy has nothing to do with what happened. It would be wonderful if there were a professionally trained fire department in every Hee Haw sized town and village in America. In the real world, this is not possible. It is in la la land, but not in the real world. Thus, small towns and villages have to be served by smaller departments and volunteers. The volunteer firemen made a decision that many, perhaps most, firemen would not have made. You talked about seeing fires from the rooftop of an apartment building in LA as a kid. That is a far cry from a fire at a manufactured home on a rural road in TN where there are stretches of many miles that you might only see 2 or 3 homes. Hit pieces like the one Olbermann put together to use Gene Cranick as a political chess piece are deplorable. It would be great if folks living in Nowhereville, TN had access to the LA Fire Department. Again, not real world.

Paul Westlake said:
You probably should, because asking ME if I took personal responsibility for the man-made Deepwater Horizon disaster may be the stupidest thing I’ve seen on this site yet… and THAT’S saying something!

Oh look! I made it!

I notice you still didn’t tell us who ought to have taken PERSONAL responsibility for the DH blowout and why, despite the BP corporation responsible having taken corporate responsibility. What’s up with that, Paul?

sarainitaly said:
THESE SERVICES COST MONEY – MONEY THAT THEY WEREN’T GETTING PAID TO PERFORM.
You said it yourself.

I think the question is why weren’t the fees already built into whatever taxes he was already paying. I don’t know what the tax set up is there but it seems the county could contract with the closest FD and include the $75 in the annual taxes.

I think that’s also the larger question concerning the libertarian philosophy. Yes, services cost money and people need to pay their share, and even then there are limits to what services can be provided. The question is, what choices should be left to the individual and which ones should be made by the government. In cities and towns people don’t get to choose whether they pay for the fire department or not. Should they be able to opt out as part of liberty and the freedom to choose?
Granted the guy didn’t pay the $75 , and had the opportunity to, but allowing his house to burn down seems excessive. Maybe the officials involved should have already found a better solution since they had dealt with this before.

Andy Lamb said:
My point is, again, this is not a partisan issue. It’s easy to take an occurence like this fire, and say “see, a big government apparatus IS the answer to everything!” It doesn’t apply across the board, and it doesn’t wash in this case either. Keep in mind that prior to 1990, the rural residents outside of South Fulton had no access to the fire department at all. Another rural fire years ago prompted them to adopt the opt in policy for rural residents outside city limits. The city of South Fulton couldn’t tax these people if they wanted to. So, the problem in this case is poor decision making (in my opinion) by firefighters on the scene, based on past occurences with this same family. Partisan policy has nothing at all to do with it.

I’d don’t disagree. It seems the officials involved made a mistake by having it optional.
How do we decide what services should be optional and which ones paid for with taxes?

CosmosDan said:
I’d don’t disagree. It seems the officials involved made a mistake by having it optional.How do we decide what services should be optional and which ones paid for with taxes?

As I mentioned earlier, I know nothing about the city of South Fulton, it’s size, or how large the rural area surrounding it is. Rural areas in a state like TN are enormous and open with an extremely low population density. I do not know how far stretched the South Fulton city fire department is. My understanding is that in this case, these rural residents do not pay City of South Fulton taxes and therefore do not have access to fire department services. The $75 fee policy was added about 20 years ago to give the rural residents access to Fire AND EMS services. $6 per month doesn’t seem too bad to me.

I said the same thing that was posted from the firefighter’s blog, the policy should have been set for the rural residents that if the department responds to an emergency call and they have not paid the $75 annual fee, then they will be charged the cost of the call – $500, $1000, $2000 – whatever the cost is set at. If they receive fire or EMS service and they have not paid the $75 and do not pay the set cost, then legal action will be taken against them to recover this cost. If I’m a fireman and I respond to that call, I don’t let the house burn down, and I’m a conservative. I’m sure there are liberals who would say the opposite. Again, as you agreed, politics have nothing to do with this. Just a policy that, in my opinion, needs more tweaking.

sarainitaly said:
The $75 fee is like insurance. You don’t buy buy insurance after your house burns down and expect the company to replace your home. Or same with your car.

That’s not what anyone is saying, and not what I said. Fire coverage should NOT BE an opt-in service and treating it as such is TOTALLY STUPID! Of course it costs money! But the cost should be MANDATORY, not optional. It doesn’t matter where you live (Italy doesn’t count in this one), there isn’t a single square inch of the United States that isn’t in a fire district – from the biggest cities to the widest stretches of Rocky Mountain high. Rural services are subsidized by the cities all over the country, from electrification to communication. Before neo-con policies started starving governments, we could afford these things, no problem. But in the neo-con era of corporate profits first, people last, this is what we wind up with. And, by the way, I’m a New Yorker, which means I SUBSIDIZE EVERYONE! And you’re not even here! So quit yer bitchin!

Andy Lamb said:
My point is, again, this is not a partisan issue.

No, Andy, I’m not letting neo-cons off the hook on this one. Of course you’ll find Dems that bought into this scheme, but it was sold by the right, not the left. The only fire companies that fell in with these schemes are the ones that lost the fight. Firefighter are a known Democratic block, especially professional union firefighters, and fire companies are always the first on the chopping block when conservative administrations need to balance their budgets after they slash taxes. Well, opt-in fire coverage became one of the solutions, and it failed. This is NOT bipartisan, it’s neo-con. It’s libertarian pie-in-the-sky utopian dreaming come to life. Just because some Dems fell in thrall, doesn’t mean it’s a bipartisan issue – many Dems have fallen for neo-con promises, or have we forgotten “the era of big government is over?”

I appreciate the humanity you bring to this issue and your understanding that this policy is for shit, but I’m not letting you drag the left into this one. No way this policy would be in place in an era that was NOT dominated by right-wing, government-is-the-problem ideology. Fire coverage is one of those line items that corporate bean counters tell their government puppets can be trimmed to allow for more tax cuts for business. Just because a few Dems may have fallen for it, doesn’t make it a bipartisan plan. It’s libertarian, through and through.

Pablo said:
I notice you still didn’t tell us who ought to have taken PERSONAL responsibility for the DH blowout and why, despite the BP corporation responsible having taken corporate responsibility. What’s up with that, Paul?

Corporate responsibility!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How about the people who made the executive decisions to ignore safety protocols that would have prevented the blowout? That’s what TransOcean keeps saying – we followed orders, ask the guys giving the orders.

You really are a total right wing tool. Hope you enjoy life as a marionette.

Paul Westlake said:
there isn’t a single square inch of the United States that isn’t in a fire district

Sure there is. The Cranicks live in one.

Before neo-con policies started starving governments, we could afford these things, no problem.

Like back before 1990, when the Cranicks residence had no fire protection whatsoever? Paul, you need to quit making shit up just because it feels warm and fuzzy to you. The truth will set you free.

Andy Lamb said:
have not paid the $75 annual fee, then they will be charged the cost of the call – $500, $1000, $2000 –

The cost of the call is minimal in a mostly volunteer department without overtime. It’s the cost of gas and maintenance. Full-timers are on salary. The point of the fee schedule is also a penalty. And if that’s the best way to deal with rural coverage, so be it. But the fee should still be mandatory, not opt-in. It doesn’t cost the South Fulton FD much to cover its rural surroundings. This $75 fee seems excessive to begin with. I think we’d find exactly the same kind of waste and corruption investigating these fees as we would with any other opaque city agency (assuming it’s a city agency). Liberal policy has ever been to spread the burden, and it’s doubtful that the original taxes this fee replaced came anywhere near $75 per resident per year. Not only is this libertarian dreaming gone too far, but I would wager that it has actually created MORE corruption, not less. Just take a look at the animosity toward that Fire Chief, who is now being reviled across the country, not just in his own backyard. This was a disaster in the making from the get-go.

Paul Westlake said:
Corporate responsibility!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, $20 billion plus. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

How about the people who made the executive decisions to ignore safety protocols that would have prevented the blowout?

MMS approved every bit of the protocols used and issued waivers for the ones avoided. So, I think the person you’re looking for is Barack Obama.

Pablo said:
Like back before 1990, when the Cranicks residence had no fire protection whatsoever?

Bullshit! They HAD fire protection, it was provided as free service by whoever was closest, that’s the way ALL fire coverage works, moron! This scheme is just a way of paying for it! You’re an idiot on your best day.

Paul Westlake said:
Liberal policy has ever been to spread the burden, and it’s doubtful that the original taxes this fee replaced came anywhere near $75 per resident per year.

There was no tax replaced by the fee. There was no fire protection available at all before the fee. You may be the world’s first expert on a subject they know exactly nothing about.

Pablo said:
Yeah, $20 billion plus. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

MMS approved every bit of the protocols used and issued waivers for the ones avoided. So, I think the person you’re looking for is Barack Obama.

Still no PERSONAL responsibility, because NOBODY took PERSONAL responsibility. You can jump on your high horse all day long about lowly liberals and their lack of personal responsibility but we’re not the ones hiding behind limited liability all day every day. You got nothin, little boy.

Andy Lamb said:
The $75 fee policy was added about 20 years ago to give the rural residents access to Fire AND EMS services. $6 per month doesn’t seem too bad to me.

Exactly right, Andy. But Paul is going to scream that it isn’t true, so I guess you can just ignore all those silly facts you’ve gathered. NEO-CONS DID IT, I TELL YOU!!!!

Pablo said:
There was no tax replaced by the fee. There was no fire protection available at all before the fee. You may be the world’s first expert on a subject they know exactly nothing about.

Again, bullshit! If there was no rural tax, then it was provided free. That’s the way fire coverage works in America, EVERYWHERE in America. Don’t you remember Louisiana firefighters in New York after 9/11? The way fire coverage works is this – it’s covered! Whoever is closest, whoever is free, whoever has a pumper truck with water in it, can and must respond to emergencies. The bigger the emergency, the more companies you need. That’s it. There is no political side to fire coverage. We cover it. Period. Get over your bullshit.

Paul Westlake said:
You got nothin, little boy.

I have a president that doesn’t take responsibility. And I have an ill-informed lunatic to talk to on the internet. I’m living the hopeychangey dream, baby!

Pablo, your heroes did this and I’m going to rub your fucking noses in it. You betcha!

Pablo said:
I have a president that doesn’t take responsibility.

I get the impression that you wouldn’t know personal responsibility if crawled up your ass and exploded. You have NO CLUE what you’re talking about. And, as usual, your sophistry is exceeded only by your stupidity.

Paul Westlake said:
Again, bullshit! If there was no rural tax, then it was provided free. That’s the way fire coverage works in America, EVERYWHERE in America. Don’t you remember Louisiana firefighters in New York after 9/11? The way fire coverage works is this – it’s covered! Whoever is closest, whoever is free, whoever has a pumper truck with water in it, can and must respond to emergencies. The bigger the emergency, the more companies you need. That’s it. There is no political side to fire coverage. We cover it. Period. Get over your bullshit.

And it’s free!

Paul Westlake said:
your sophistry is exceeded only by your stupidity.

Pablo said:
And it’s free!

The prosecution rests, your honor.

LOL

Paul Westlake said:
No, Andy, I’m not letting neo-cons off the hook on this one.

A neocon is a conservative that believes in helping spread freedom and democracy throughout the world by use of our economic and military power. I can’t see what a fire in a remote rural area in TN has to do with neoconservatism.

Paul Westlake said:
Firefighter are a known Democratic block, especially professional union firefighters, and fire companies are always the first on the chopping block when conservative administrations need to balance their budgets after they slash taxes.

All unions are a known Democratic block. I don’t want to get started on unions, we’ll be here all day. And, I gave you a link to a Democratic administration that needed to make budget after slashing taxes (or perhaps) wasting too much taxpayer money. I know, as you said, the neocons made them do it.

Paul Westlake said:
many Dems have fallen for neo-con promises, or have we forgotten “the era of big government is over?”

Yes, I recall when Bill Clinton said this. I guess he was duped or coerced into saying it.

Paul Westlake said:
No way this policy would be in place in an era that was NOT dominated by right-wing, government-is-the-problem ideology. Fire coverage is one of those line items that corporate bean counters tell their government puppets can be trimmed to allow for more tax cuts for business.

This policy, in this case, is in place because we are talking about a little city out in the middle of nowhere, with outlying rural areas that stretch out for God knows how far with very sparse population. No services were trimmed, no taxes were cut. People living out in the sticks had no coverage, and coverage was ADDED for them. If it was added sloppily or incorrectly, then fine. Left wing, right wing, in this specific case, has not a damn thing to do with it. Can’t you see that?

Last post by me on this Paul, respond as you will. We’ll go back and forth forever. I’ve gotten into these debates with guys like you and Cobra one too many times, and I don’t have time for it. I remember the last one, debating Cobra on health care. He posted tons of data on Nixon’s plan for universal healthcare so impressively that it prompted you to jump in and congratulate him on his fact filled, “high signal to noise” thesis. Summary – Cobra was posting great data, and I was posting a bunch of shit. When I replied with actual facts on Nixon’s plan, and broke the backbone of Cobra’s argument that Nixon’s plan was as or more liberal than Obama’s vision because it contained a government run public option (which it didn’t in any way, shape, or form) suddenly my comments became the “high signal” and Cobra’s thesis turned into a pile of dung.

I really don’t like extremists on either side. You seem to only dislike the ones on the right. Extremists help create a middle, and I really honestly believe that I am much closer to the middle than you are. You mentioned somewhere that a percentage of those that are dissatisfied with Obama’s job performance are so not because he’s gone too far, but because he hasn’t gone far enough. Maybe you’re one of those folks. Obama hasn’t “not gone far enough” for lack of want, he simply can’t go as far as the far left wants him to, because most people don’t want to go there. He IS part of the far left. He has spent 20 months in office on a “social justice” crusade with zero regard for the economy or the national debt. Conservatives, moderates, AND independents have stood in his way. I’m rambling, and I gotta go. Take it easy, Paul.

Andy Lamb said:
A neocon is a conservative that believes in helping spread freedom and democracy throughout the world by use of our economic and military power. I can’t see what a fire in a remote rural area in TN has to do with neoconservatism.

Neo-cons rob peter to pay Paul, that’s how they afford the adventurism. They starve domestic priorities on purpose.

Andy Lamb said:
Yes, I recall when Bill Clinton said this. I guess he was duped or coerced into saying it.

He was saying it to coddle libertarian neo-cons in Congress.

Andy Lamb said:
People living out in the sticks had no coverage, and coverage was ADDED for them.

NO, it wasn’t. They had fire coverage that was provided for free as necessary by the closest fire station in the area – as it is on every other square inch of America. Just because a company may not be stationed nearby, doesn’t mean your property doesn’t belong to a fire district. It does. All of America is divided into many districts, from voting to schooling, and fire coverage. Cities have been subsidizing rural services since the first telegraph wires were laid down. What changed twenty years ago was the addition of a fee for a service that had traditionally been provided for free in areas with low risk and little cost. But South Fulton planners decided to change all that, adding a fee, and denying service for non-payment. People don’t pay their taxes all the time, but they still get to use 911, and the IRS catches up with them eventually. That’s the way the system works. Going a la carte is a recipe for disaster with emergency services, as I’m sure every fire captain mentioned at the time. This is just the first time we’re hearing about the results. According to Cranick, the old Chief blew that reg off all the time. But the new hard-ass, no doubt a Republican, decided to make an example of his rural neighbors. Nice guy. The whole thing is preposterous, libertarian, neo-con pie-in-the-sky experimentation that just blew up in everyone’s face. No. I;m not backing down on this one. Firefighters PREDICTED this would happen, and were right. I’m tired of right-winger calling liberals wet blankets for making dire predictions that ultimately prove true – like the stupidity in Iraq. This is just one item on a very, very long list of libertarian mistakes that conservatives desperately want to pin on liberals. But it’s the right-wingers fault – straight up.

Andy Lamb said:
Last post by me on this Paul, respond as you will. We’ll go back and forth forever. I’ve gotten into these debates with guys like you and Cobra one too many times, and I don’t have time for it. I remember the last one, debating Cobra on health care. He posted tons of data on Nixon’s plan for universal healthcare so impressively that it prompted you to jump in and congratulate him on his fact filled, “high signal to noise” thesis. Summary – Cobra was posting great data, and I was posting a bunch of shit. When I replied with actual facts on Nixon’s plan, and broke the backbone of Cobra’s argument that Nixon’s plan was as or more liberal than Obama’s vision because it contained a government run public option (which it didn’t in any way, shape, or form) suddenly my comments became the “high signal” and Cobra’s thesis turned into a pile of dung.

I didn’t see the end of that discussion. If you want to give me the link, I’ll go destroy your ass over there, too. ;-)

Actually, I know Nixon considered a public option but I think you’re right that it never made it in. My high signal-to-noise ratio comment was aimed at the drive-by shooters who leave one sentence insults after such a detailed comment. You’ve been much more forthcoming in your comments. I still think you’re totally wrong, but you haven’t been obnoxious in that regard.

Andy Lamb said:
I really don’t like extremists on either side. You seem to only dislike the ones on the right.

What extremists on the left am I defending? Seriously? If you think Rachel Maddow, who I will defend until as long as she does the great work she’s doing, is “extreme,” your definitions are off-center.

Andy Lamb said:
He IS part of the far left. He has spent 20 months in office on a “social justice” crusade with zero regard for the economy or the national debt.

Now you’re completely off the rails and I won’t even engage on such obvious points. Social justice crusade? That is the most obnoxious thing I’ve seen from you and it’s really very sophist. I’m not proving anything. If you think Obama is a social justice crusader, prove it. Or cut it out.

Tennessee is a right to work state meaning– the company has the right fire and hire —-and labor has no rights what so ever…unions do not encourage such behavior as denying a human the right to protect itself from harm… for it is bad for business and so theEFFIN what if the Obama supports social justice shouldn’t we all if we claim to lovers of mankind a product that was produced my something greater than us all…shissh…I blame mindless television for the opinions of the weakminded on this page

Tell me pablo would you be more sympathetic if the guys whole family died in the fire or would you be saying he cheated the funeral home services by getting free cremation services?

Honestly this is not about jurisdiction here this is about what is right and wrong. It is quite possible to forget to pay a fee when you meant too after all we all forget car payments or utility bills from time to time or even neglect to check mark something on our taxes. Those do not however lead to potentially life and death circumstances. Sure you could argue that he could not compensate a fire fighter who might die putting out his house but that is the reality of the thing you are arguing is like car insurance. Not something you will lose your life over. A fire fighter could die fighting any fire anytime it is a fact of life for fire fighters. Does that mean they should not help people who need it?

Seriously you make me sick, I am just thankful it was not worse.

snow1wolf said:
Tell me pablo would you be more sympathetic if the guys whole family died in the fire or would you be saying he cheated the funeral home services by getting free cremation services?

Yeah, I would. Property is replaceable, people are not. Your little joke is not very funny. I’d also be more sympathetic if Timothy Cranick weren’t facing felony aggravated assault charges.

Sure you could argue that he could not compensate a fire fighter who might die putting out his house but that is the reality of the thing you are arguing is like car insurance. Not something you will lose your life over.

Just…wow.

Andy Lamb said:
A neocon is a conservative that believes in helping spread freedom and democracy throughout the world by use of our economic and military power. I can’t see what a fire in a remote rural area in TN has to do with neoconservatism.

That’s because you’re sane, Andy. Paul is not weighted down with reality.

Pablo said:
Yeah, I would. Property is replaceable, people are not. Your little joke is not very funny. I’d also be more sympathetic if Timothy Cranick weren’t facing felony aggravated assault charges.

I’d be facing those charges, too. And so would you. So shove your righteous indignation up your ass where it belongs.

Pablo said:
That’s because you’re sane, Andy. Paul is not weighted down with reality.

All insane people think they’re perfectly sane, while normal people know they have a touch of the insane within them…

“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” ~Willie the Shake, As You Like It

Pablo said:
Andy Lamb said:
A neocon is a conservative that believes in helping spread freedom and democracy throughout the world by use of our economic and military power. I can’t see what a fire in a remote rural area in TN has to do with neoconservatism.

That’s because you’re sane, Andy. Paul is not weighted down with reality.

BY the way, that is an incorrect definition. A neo-conservative seeks to spread non-sovereign, corporate hegemony through economic and military imperialism. It has ZERO to do with democracy and freedom. Nice try, though. You almost got that one past me. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
A neo-conservative seeks to spread non-sovereign, corporate hegemony through economic and military imperialism.

And that has what to do with rural fire protection? Not a damned thing, but that doesn’t stop you from spouting lunatic crap like “I’m not letting neo-cons off the hook on this one.” Me, I’m not letting the Illinois Nazis off the hook on this one. Booga booga.

I’d be facing those charges, too. And so would you. So shove your righteous indignation up your ass where it belongs.

No, I wouldn’t. I’m not nearly as stupid as Timothy Cranick and you are.

Pablo said:
And that has what to do with rural fire protection? Not a damned thing, but that doesn’t stop you from spouting lunatic crap like “I’m not letting neo-cons off the hook on this one.” Me, I’m not letting the Illinois Nazis off the hook on this one. Booga booga.

Where do you think the fucking money comes from, idiot? They starve domestic priorities to finance their overseas adventurism. How many times do you want to prove your stupidity?

Pablo said:
I’d be facing those charges, too. And so would you. So shove your righteous indignation up your ass where it belongs.

No, I wouldn’t. I’m not nearly as stupid as Timothy Cranick and you are.

Oh… at least twice in this comment. I think your brain is holding you back. You should have it scooped out and replaced with spackle – it would be a big improvement, to be sure.

They are popping the corks over the dogs and cat living being killed for their ala carte government and privatization.

las vegas bail bonds

In a Tea Party America, there wouldn’t be towns that are so broke they have to choose between buying fuel for their fire trucks and paying for the retirement accounts of union fire fighters who sit around while homes burn.