Skip to main content

View Diary: Greedy, Lazy Firefighters Caught on Tape Wasting Tax Money (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Idiot civilians? Young Turks? I'm confused. (6+ / 0-)

    Calling the rest of us idiot civilians is pretty damn condescending.  And I still haven't figured out what this has to do with the Young Turks.

      •  Your anger is misdirected. It's not the media, (4+ / 0-)

        It's the Republicans that don't want to pay enough taxes to cover essential services.

        How do you think the public will respond to firefighters who don't respond to fires?

        There was far more criticism of the local government and the stupid concept of voluntary fire protection, than the firefighters themselves.

        Why didn't you criticize the Republicans who are cutting services to the bone, and the morons who are supporting them, and put it in bold in your diary?

        •  It's interesting to me (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pollwatcher, 4Freedom, KenBee

          That two people have now told me my anger is misdirected.  Are you a firefighter?  How do you know how I should see things?

          How do you think the public will respond to firefighters who don't respond to fires?
          When the fire isn't in their service area?  The public should take issue with the Republican Governor of Tennesee, Bill Haslam, with his Grover Norquist-y policies that allow Obion County to not have a fire department.  

          I guess I also expect Republicans to be douchey, whereas having someone in a prominent position on my own team fighting against me seems like a bigger problem IMHO.

          There was far more criticism of the local government and the stupid concept of voluntary fire protection, than the firefighters themselves.
          I disagree.  And as linked many times in this comment thread, I've documented the independent, progressive media driving fury against the individual firefighters, specifically The Young Turks. Not once or twice, but many, many times -- much more than I documented.

          Again, are you a firefighter?  Do you believe you observed the coverage the same way I did?

          •  I saw this story covered by several outlets. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mikeconwell

            This story was all over the place, and it seemed like the coverage was about the same.  Anger for having voluntary fire protection, and yes, some anger at the firefighters.

            I am not a firefighter, although I'm not sure what that has to do with the news coverage.  Your explanation of the district coverage was helpful, but my guess is the public really doesn't care about where the district boundary is when it comes to preventing someone's home from burning down.

            Ok, let's get out of this in a reasonable way.  You're not going to help your cause by slamming just the "progressive media", we hear that every day from Rush and FOX and a host of others.  I've got plenty of complaints about TYT, but try and put on an infotainment show every day and see if you don't make mistakes.

            But most of all, I think you should have called the producer of TYT and explained the situation as you see it.  I wouldn't be surprised that they would put you on the air, and at the very least you might very well have given them a different perspective that would have changed future broadcasts.

            •  I appreciate your comments (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pollwatcher, KenBee
              This story was all over the place, and it seemed like the coverage was about the same.  Anger for having voluntary fire protection, and yes, some anger at the firefighters.
              Right.  My position is that the firefighters were 100% NOT GUILTY.  TYT curb stomped this tiny, beleaguered department at least four different times that I know of.  To this day, they're drawing fire from the public when frankly they're as much the victims as the homeowners, if not more.
              I am not a firefighter, although I'm not sure what that has to do with the news coverage.  
              Because you suggested that my anger was misdirected.  I believe that my cultural understanding gives me a completely different viewpoint, which is entirely valid, and perhaps also more informed than average.  So I believe my anger is correctly directed.
              Your explanation of the district coverage was helpful, but my guess is the public really doesn't care about where the district boundary is when it comes to preventing someone's home from burning down.
              Yes, I'm well aware of that.  However, that is, in and of itself, a major problem.  Fire departments MUST care about distict boundaries.  We have a very sophisticated sort of "bee dance" among many different agencies, and we don't get to make things up as we go along.  

              I know, the public doesn't care.  They still want to whip us when they're angry, whether we deserve it or not.  It's a problem.

              Ok, let's get out of this in a reasonable way.  You're not going to help your cause by slamming just the "progressive media",
              I don't slam all progressive media.  I didn't even start out slamming TYT the first, second, third, or even fourth time they gave serious offense.  This didn't go from 0 to 60 in under 5 seconds.
              But most of all, I think you should have called the producer of TYT and explained the situation as you see it.  I wouldn't be surprised that they would put you on the air, and at the very least you might very well have given them a different perspective that would have changed future broadcasts.
              I also hoped for something similar, though I have no desire to go on air.  However, I repeatedly contacted them with clarifications and insight hoping they would change when informed.  They have zero interest in being informed.  On the contrary, Cenk at one point came right out and said that sensationalizing a public safety story makes for good ratings, then proceeded to do just that.

              These people are a problem.  No apologies.

    •  Let me be clear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      Not all civilians are idiots.  

      Civilians who believe they are fully qualified to armchair quarterback fire operations, and worse yet do so in the media, while completely disregarding any factual input coming at them, are idiots.

      And yes, TYT is 100% guilty on that.

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  Not all civilians are idiots, from what I can (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mikeconwell

      gather. Just the ones who might want to close fire stations... :)

      Are all firestations when closed it is the result of civilians? Or are there non-civilians who also close fire stations? Are civilians the ones allowed free speech, even if the speech is idiotic? Or can non-civilians sometimes participate in idiotic types of free speech?

      It's hard to tell what the diarist is trying to say here. Maybe more background as to what diarist is referring to or thinking of would help.

      H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

      by Knarfc on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:23:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This seems to be more (0+ / 0-)

        snark than a legitimate question, but I'll assume I'm wrong in that interpretation.

        Are all firestations when closed it is the result of civilians?
        Yes.  Those decisions are made unilaterally by civilian politicians, responding the the whims of civilian taxpayers.
        Or are there non-civilians who also close fire stations?
        No.  While this could be possible in theory, in practice the above has been true for so long that it's more a fight on our part to maintain what little infrastructure we have left.  Kinda like the rainforest, but different.  We have nothing to say about it.  See Sparhawk's comments above.
        Are civilians the ones allowed free speech, even if the speech is idiotic?
        Yes.
        Or can non-civilians sometimes participate in idiotic types of free speech?
        First responders and military personnel do not have free speech, idiotic or otherwise.
        It's hard to tell what the diarist is trying to say here. Maybe more background as to what diarist is referring to or thinking of would help.
        I linked this in the diary http://claycord.com/... which, if you read the comments, is pretty much self-explanatory I think.
        •  I dunno. You seem to live in a great fear that (0+ / 0-)

          "civilians" might limit the rights or determine the livelihood of "first responders" and "military personnel".

          Not sure what this means, in practice. Perhaps you would prefer a military government? Perhaps along the lines of a Napoleon Bonaparte, an Adolf Hitler, or a Julius Caesar?

          H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

          by Knarfc on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 11:56:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not a great fear (0+ / 0-)

            it's the way things already are.

            Not sure what this means, in practice. Perhaps you would prefer a military government? Perhaps along the lines of a Napoleon Bonaparte, an Adolf Hitler, or a Julius Caesar?
            Is that just trolling?  Or do you really and truly not understand a single thing I've said?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site