Posted on 10/07/2010 7:04:54 AM PDT by Catholic Examiner
Greed over need. What would Jesus do?
This has noting to do with TARP, pay attention to what I have been saying before.
They’re not volunteer firefighters either.
Your screen name describes the quality of your logic to a tee, FRiend.
I fully understand what you have said. You believe that contracts should be null and void when it is convenient to do so.
Good luck with that.
apparently you don’t understand what I have posted. Nice attempt at an insult.
Too bad you aren’t smart enough to actually understand the conversation. I never said anything about nullin any contracts or anything of the such. You are just simple minded and lack the ability to understand so instead of becoming smarter decide that it’s easier to try to be insulting.
It’s obvious how that has worked out for you. Good luck in your sad and lonely little life.
First, to explain a nuance of grade school grammar, my comment about your screen name was in a sentence whose subject was your logic, not you. I do not know you, and therefore cannot comment on you as a person. The quality of your logic speaks for itself.
Second, your lack of mention of the word “contract” is beside the point. The $75 was a fee attached to a contract between a homeowner and the fire department. By choosing not to pay, the homeowner excluded himself from being party to the contract, which eliminated the responsibility of the fire department for fighting a fire at his address.
By not entering into the agreement, the owner specifically instructed the fire department to not respond to a fire at his address. Your position requires the fire department to honor a contract they are not party to.
I’ll not try to reason with you further on this subject. Your stand is unreasonable, and your logic behind it impenetrable. Have a good day.
YOu attempted and failed son, don’t try to take the high road now it just makes you look pathetic.
My lack of mentioning a contract is paramount in this along with the fact I have achknowledged ultimately it was the homeowners fault. You just lack simple comprehension skills.
He didn’t instruct anyone of anything and in fact asked them differently along with other home owners. Again you fail. You just jump in without reading and assume. When you assume you make an ass of just you. I congratulate you on that.
You have no ability to reason you lack the simple intellectual skills to do so. Hell you can’t even read a thread and understand what has been said. That didn’t stop you from jumping in unarmed of knowledge or common sense tho now did it? LoL!
I don’t intend to engage in insults, but would guess that you don’t know much about municipal governance, do you? It’s not my place to produce insurance policies for you. To think this town (and every other similarly situated) didn’t have insurance policies in place to cover this scenario is naive.
And, insurance notwithstanding, the family made its decision; they have to live with it. It was the family’s responsibility to see that their property was protected by a very low $75/year fire protection fee. Maybe the ‘lowlifes’ are the family who decided they could freeload off the town’s taxpayers until they needed its services.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
“The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire department several years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached city officials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside city limits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any rural resident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourself a year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’s your choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to forego fire protection.
“(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, it likely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liability insurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into a legally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate” Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreement and put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimited risk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebody violate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the same time.)
“In this case, critics of the fire department are confused both about right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
“The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must accept individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions.”
LoL, I’m betting you don’t know much about municipal governance but want to try this route since you failed to back up your claim. LOL!
Who cares what the family has decided I haven’t disputed that one iota. The lowlifes are the ones who sat there and watched someones house burn down when they had all the tools right there to do something about it.
The judeo Christian mentality also says to help your neighbor. you can’t just pick and choose when and how you want to be a Christian even if it doesn’t support your argument.
it’s also funny how when talking about the insurance they use a very important keyword “likely”. This means the author doesn’t know but is making an assumption. Kind of like what you and others are doing and then thinking your assumption is factual information.
LOL Thats just MAD Max!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.