yeah but as i recall the last time there was some question that the people forgot to pay or something like that, whereas this time...
Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them.
welp
seriously though that county needs to get its shit together and pass a tax to either fund a county fire department or provide additional funding to the municipalities so that there's no need for a separate fee
I vaguely remember last time this issue came up that someone said the county was unable to levy the taxes necessary for fire protection because of anti-tax shitheads refusing to allow it or something. I would be utterly unsurprised if, faced with a levy (or a county commissioner election) in which they were presented with the option, the couple in this latest news story would have voted against raising taxes to provide for rural fire protection.
Seriously, having to pay the cost for the fire department saving your house seems lesson enough over "we'll sit and watch as your home and everything in it burns to the ground".
You and I have a very different concept on what the word "Gaming" means.
You seem to think that if a laptop can play MW3 that makes it a gaming laptop..
Good luck finding a gaming laptop that can play Metro: Last Light maxed out under $1000.
I take it from your lack of worry about what piracy is doing to PC gaming that you're just a worthless game pirate yourself? Peg leg and all..
Sorry but I find it hard to believe anyone that call's them self a PC gamer that doesn't care about what piracy is doing to the genre actually goes out and buys their games.
Hell you probably think because you play WoW that makes you a PC gamer..amirite?
Zod wrote:Let's put it this way, can you imagine if the police refused to investigate crimes if you didn't pay a fee?
I mean pft, as long as the criminals aren't causing bodily harm who cares right?
I did say the county needed to unfuck itself.
That said, I actually could imagine city police refusing to respond to non-violent crimes outside of their jurisdiction, especially if the complainants were dumbass freeloading country hicks. That doesn't mean I think it's good, but I think it's entirely plausible for that scenario to occur in the US.
but i'm working up an inflammatory post because i recognized the name
denyse o'leary, canadian creationist and supporter of islamophobic conspiracy theorist mark steyn
the trouble is that it will remain a shitty thread as long as rouge stays in it
students who have just begun an ethics unit reserving an ethical judgement HOW DARE THEY
edit: actually, i'm not going to put more effort into replying to him than i did into replying to you, because really, he can't even post reams of drivel like formless can, so what's the use
Last edited by Nietzslime on Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Addendum: Actually, to be bluntly cynical, I could even imagine American police refusing to respond to violent crime. The Supreme Court has already established precedent that the police do not have an inherent duty to protect citizens; I don't remember the exact case but it was pretty shocking.
EDIT: Seems I was wrong about that, here's the post I remember reading at SA:
A bigger problem was actually a decision by the lower court that was sustained by the Court (and as a result I don't have the text in front of me) that the police officers who failed to arrest the man involved were deserving of qualified immunity and thus unable to be sued. That means that not following statute (and before you pooh-pooh that this was merely a restraining order the acts of the husband violated criminal statute, it was a failure to arrest that led to the suit) is not considered negligence on the part of the police. Can in fact not even be brought to trial, because it is prima facie not negligence. That's huge. I can in fact say that this establishes that it can never be negligence because this failure to follow statute led directly to the deaths of three children and the man they were supposed to arrest. Clearly it is not an issue of scope.
The last problem is that precedent had already required that one could not bring a lawsuit against the State for any specific action or inaction without showing an infringed 'liberty' or property interest.
Which is to say, you could sue the State if police stole something from you, but unless you can show specific negligence (and inaction is demonstrated by this case not to be negligence) on the part of the police you can't sue them for loss of life.
The fun part is that it establishes this without actually saying that nonenforcement of a mandatory law that leads to death is legal, just that no one will ever have grounds to sue over it.
Last edited by uraniun235 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
but i'm working up an inflammatory post because i recognized the name
denyse o'leary, canadian creationist and supporter of islamophobic conspiracy theorist mark steyn
the trouble is that it will remain a shitty thread as long as rouge stays in it
students who have just begun an ethics unit reserving an ethical judgement HOW DARE THEY
edit: actually, i'm not going to put more effort into replying to him than i did into replying to you, because really, he can't even post reams of drivel like formless can, so what's the use
woah, woah, woah, you aren't... effortposting when you reply to me?
an insult
but not as much as rouge's posts
EDIT: also, is it wrong that i'm not gonna post in the latest obama thread because i don't want to agree with jaerimuse at all
