Glenn Beck Mocks Fire Victims

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by macfan881, Oct 8, 2010.

  1. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #2
    You pays your money (or not) and you takes your choice.

    Sad about the pets, for sure, but their owners had less concern for them than you and I.

    There are few entitlements in life, so stop crying when you fail to protect yourself and your loved ones.

    <scurries to his hidey-hole>
     
  2. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
  3. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #4
    That's why this $75 fee should be mandatory.
    People feel they're saving money by being cheap on protecting their home, and then appeal to the media when they get what they expected in the event of a fire.
    I also didn't see Glenn Beck mocking these people. We gave a well-reason argument saying that if the Fire Department put out the fire in this guy's house, why would anyone pay the money?
    It's seems like a terrible thing to do, but what was the family that didn't pay for the Fire Department expecting to do if their house catches fire?
     
  4. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #5
    Definitely... Same reason that everyone should have health coverage.

    He had a 'dialogue' with the guy whose house burned down, played by his cohost with a thick country accent and an air of stupid. I think it was in very poor taste, though I do feel that his points were better than usual.
     
  5. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    Didn't they offer to pay whatever it took right then and there and the house was still allowed to burn?

    I haven't been following this story that much
     
  6. jknight8907 macrumors 6502a

    jknight8907

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Location:
    Hudson Valley NY
    #7
    Yes. Do you suppose the man had $5,000 cash on him right then (or whatever the cost would be, and you can bet it wouldn't be a small number)? People will say whatever they think will help them in a time like that. I would say that if the fire department agreed to do it in exchange for him paying the entire cost, the fire dept would have seen very little if any money.
     
  7. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #8
    Exactly. If you don't have health insurance you shouldn't be allowed to get medical care?
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #9
    He had a checkbook out from what I heard....
     
  9. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #10
    So what??

    The point has already been made, that you don't throw money at Allstate AFTER an accident.
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    They would have made more money from that than a $75 fee. Not to mention that the whole affair was completely cruel.
     
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    Cruelty has become the coin of the realm in America.

    The land of the freaks.

    And the home of the depraved.

    Or am I just being cruel?
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    I have to ask how many conservatives can consider themselves Christian. I thought Christians helped people no matter what. Jesus did, after all. But given my experiences, that is certainly not true of many.
     
  13. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    Because calling an insurance company after the fact is the exact same thing as talking to the fire department that is putting out the fire at your neighbors house (which incidentally was started by your own house being on fire).

    Considering the massive hole this creates in public safety I can't believe this type of policy is acceptable. From what I've read, another city that has a similar pay-for-spray policy will always come to put out the fire but if you haven't 'pre-paid' the $60 or whatever you'll get billed $400 or $500 by the fire department. Put the fire out so that no other homes or lives are put at risk and then bill the home owner appropriately.


    Lethal
     
  14. jknight8907 macrumors 6502a

    jknight8907

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Location:
    Hudson Valley NY
    #15
    Honestly they probably really did the guy a favor. Having had a house fire personally, I know there's a point where it's much easier for all involved for it to burn to the ground. 90% of the time it's far faster, easier, cheaper, and better end results, to start over than to try to fix a fire-damaged home.
     
  15. AceWilfong macrumors regular

    AceWilfong

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    Sad. When I was a kid, protection rackets would send a guy to let you know if you fell behind. More evidence of the general decline of good will.
     
  16. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #17
    What would they have done if a person was inside? Would they still be obligated to put out the fire?
     
  17. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #18
    Make smores?
     
  18. cleanup macrumors 68030

    cleanup

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto
    #19
    Hoo-ee, we got ourselves a cookout!

    Honestly, although Beck has a point, the problem is far more fundamental. To assume that if the fire department puts out a fire for someone who hasn't paid this fire protection fee, then nobody will pay the fee, and fail to support their local services, is not speaking highly of the local community. Who's to say that people wouldn't keep paying the $75? Is it really worth the risk to assume that the fire department will put out your fires anyway? Beyond that, what happened to just being a good citizen and paying your damn taxes because you know it's the right thing to do?

    The failure here is that the government, at every level, has neglected to take into account the spillover cost of people who don't follow the rules, and as a result they are completely excluded from the treatment that SHOULD be afforded to not only taxpaying citizens, but HUMAN BEINGS. They have placed personal and domestic responsibility entirely within the hands of the citizen, but the ability to fulfill that responsibility is still completely dependent on government services. I never want to live in America as a result. I don't want to watch my house burn down because I didn't pay a $75 fee, I don't want to watch loved ones get sick, or worse, die, because they can't afford their insurance premiums, and I don't want to see them go to war because they can't enrol in post-secondary education.

    I am not fully employed, I do not pay income tax, I am supported majoratively by my scholarships (some from the federal government). My parents don't even live in Canada anymore. However, because I am a CITIZEN of this country, I can still receive financial aid from the government (despite my parents' income level), I can see a doctor for whatever I like, whenever I'd like, get free medication from the provincial government at the discretion of my doctor, understand that if I am ever in peril, I will receive help from the city of Toronto, and know for certain that regardless of who I am or what I do, there are people in this country whose DUTY it is to protect me, not their job.

    Suckaaaaas.
     
  19. chris200x9 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    #20
    why wasn't the $75 just added to their taxes? It's quite ridiculous something like that is optional. While I see the principle of not putting his house fire out, the fire fighters were just being plain spiteful. They failed to look at the bigger picture, his house being on fire was a danger to other residents who had paid the fee. So in my opinion they should have put out the fire, not necessarily for that guy but for the people who did pay.
     
  20. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #21
    Lee, you of all people know that they're only using God, as a way to circumvent logic, to fuel their archaic political and moral beliefs.
     
  21. cleanup macrumors 68030

    cleanup

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto
    #22
    That's precisely what they did. They put out the fire with respect to it spreading to a neighbour's property. That neighbour happened to pay the fee. Any flames on the non-paying property in question were ignored, to the point that the house essentially just burned down. Then I imagine they worked to control the flames so that it wouldn't spread to other people's property, but that's it.

    What's even sadder is now the homeowners will have to handle the cleanup process out of their own pocket, in addition to, well, replacing their home.
     
  22. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #23
    Too many people on this forum defend Fox News, and it's opinionated reporting. If Fox News would be more objective like the the writer of this article, I think most people would be more open to Fox News. See for yourself how good reporting is done - here's the opening paragraph of the article at issue:

    I think it's indicative of how level-headed this article is that no one here mentions any (non) biases it has.
     
  23. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    Are you under the impression that anyone here thinks that HuffPo doesn't have a bias? :confused:
     
  24. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #25
    I think the policy should be this: you either pay the $75 per year up front, or you pay some other determined amount after the fact...say the full cost of the response, or $5000 or something like that.

    If my choice was to either pay $75 a year, or pay more than that would add up to in a lifetime on the other side, I'd pay the $75 for sure. That way, people could have a choice...and if they try to be cheap, and end up needing the service, they pay dearly for it (but still get their house saved).
     

Share This Page