BF2S Forums US too proud to accept help from Russia for forest fires?

DrunkFace wrote:

Dutchland seems to do ok.

You mean Germany has no storms, floods, forest fires, avalanches..... NOTHING?

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Dutchland seems to do ok.

You mean Germany has no storms, floods, forest fires, avalanches..... NOTHING?

Errr, I edited my post... and Dutchland as in the Netherlands.

I see, so if something did happen to someone in the Netherlands of course you would refuse to help because they shouldn't have built there?


There are no safe places in the US regarding natural disasters.

lowing wrote:

I'm sorry, where did I miss where these people do not have insurance? Also Insurance is not relevant, you claim you are a tax payer and should not have to pay, well, they are tax payers as well, paying for most of the shit they do not use either.

That makes it worse, if they are insured then they really shouldn't need tax payer money in the first place right? Yet you do not bitch about it.

When dealing with flooding of a home 50 ft or 7 ft makes no difference. I used 50 ft as an exaggeration to prove a point.

Well, it was in my first post.

Most, but not all, of these houses on the hills are uninsurable because of fires, earthquakes & mudslides.  It's a pretty common topic when each year with the disasters surrounding the areas.  I have a few clients in California, one has a house up the hill like this...and has no insurance, because the insurance companies will not offer it.  But it has a nice view for a $3M 1400 sq foot house.  Crazy.

In my little town of Corpus Christi, you can't file an insurance claim for black mold damage because every house has this problem.  So you get mold as part of living here.

The point, as you have been dirt roaded on, is about the big glass houses on the hills and the extra expense to protect these houses.  I certainly have the right to bitch about this they are dumbasses for living there.  Why?  Because I know enough of these houses are uninsured to bother me.

"they really shouldn't need tax payer money?"  I have no idea where you are going with that one.  I could give a shit what the guy on the hill pays the government.  All I know is I get to pay more to the gov't because of these dumbasses.

For instance, when Hurricane Ike hit Galveston, Texas, some people were airlifted out at the cost of $75k per ride...people ignored a mandatory evacuation order.  The issue here isn't about the natural disaster, its the fact that both of us shared in the cost of these idiot's behavior.  Consequently, these helos were diverted from their primary mission to a secondary mission.  What was the cost of that?

There was a recent story about a hiker somewhere in Arizona (I think) who got stuck in a canyon and radio'd to get choppered out.  So the sheriff sends him a bill.  He bitches, doesn't pay.  Four months later he radios to get choppered out from the same fucking canyon.  He gets another bill.  Yay, the public paying for this dumbass again.

There's fires in California that aren't being controlled effectively...don't you think that if less houses were in risky areas, it would be a touch easier as less dangerous for the firefighters?  Isn't that equate to extra taxpayer money also?

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

I'm sorry, where did I miss where these people do not have insurance? Also Insurance is not relevant, you claim you are a tax payer and should not have to pay, well, they are tax payers as well, paying for most of the shit they do not use either.

That makes it worse, if they are insured then they really shouldn't need tax payer money in the first place right? Yet you do not bitch about it.

When dealing with flooding of a home 50 ft or 7 ft makes no difference. I used 50 ft as an exaggeration to prove a point.

Well, it was in my first post.

Most, but not all, of these houses on the hills are uninsurable because of fires, earthquakes & mudslides.  It's a pretty common topic when each year with the disasters surrounding the areas.  I have a few clients in California, one has a house up the hill like this...and has no insurance, because the insurance companies will not offer it.  But it has a nice view for a $3M 1400 sq foot house.  Crazy.

In my little town of Corpus Christi, you can't file an insurance claim for black mold damage because every house has this problem.  So you get mold as part of living here.

The point, as you have been dirt roaded on, is about the big glass houses on the hills and the extra expense to protect these houses.  I certainly have the right to bitch about this they are dumbasses for living there.  Why?  Because I know enough of these houses are uninsured to bother me.

"they really shouldn't need tax payer money?"  I have no idea where you are going with that one.  I could give a shit what the guy on the hill pays the government.  All I know is I get to pay more to the gov't because of these dumbasses.

For instance, when Hurricane Ike hit Galveston, Texas, some people were airlifted out at the cost of $75k per ride...people ignored a mandatory evacuation order.  The issue here isn't about the natural disaster, its the fact that both of us shared in the cost of these idiot's behavior.  Consequently, these helos were diverted from their primary mission to a secondary mission.  What was the cost of that?

There was a recent story about a hiker somewhere in Arizona (I think) who got stuck in a canyon and radio'd to get choppered out.  So the sheriff sends him a bill.  He bitches, doesn't pay.  Four months later he radios to get choppered out from the same fucking canyon.  He gets another bill.  Yay, the public paying for this dumbass again.

There's fires in California that aren't being controlled effectively...don't you think that if less houses were in risky areas, it would be a touch easier as less dangerous for the firefighters?  Isn't that equate to extra taxpayer money also?

I appreciate what you are saying but insurance and taxes are 2 separate issues. If they are not breaking the law, they are therefore law abiding tax payers, deserving of every bit of help as anyone else.

you need to be careful as to who you want to legislate help for and who you want to see burned out, stuck on a mountain, or lost at sea etc. You are going to have an extremely hard time finding the edge of that line you are trying to draw.

If help is good enough for the leeches of New Orleans 4 years after the fact, it sure as fuck is good enough to spray down a tax payers home for a day or 2....

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-28 05:06:07)

They are slugged with extra taxes. People that build along the coast here also pay higher property taxes. It is collected by the county not the state. That is a fact.

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Errr, I edited my post... and Dutchland as in the Netherlands.

I see, so if something did happen to someone in the Netherlands of course you would refuse to help because they shouldn't have built there?

No, when did I say that?

There are no safe places in the US regarding natural disasters.

Thats not my fault.

Well, if you would help what the hell are we arguing about?



Not blaming you, but unless your solution is to accept all US citizens as refugees and put us up to escape nature in America I do not understand your point.

Shahter wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

They are slugged with extra taxes. People that build along the coast here also pay higher property taxes. It is collected by the county not the state. That is a fact.

^this kinda ends the argument i guess. imo, those people should be taxed extra for their idiotic desire to shit diamonds, but if they already are - wtf, let them get their arse holes torn apart all they want.

Maybe, the extra property taxes are collected by the county or city.  How many county/city owned water bombers are there?

The money is mostly going elsewhere, and it is the same % based on home value whether you live on the mountain peak as it is in the valley.  It is possible they have district taxes though (aka subdivisions within the city...).