I think it is shameful that already overpaid firefighters are demanding raises and even more disgusting that the City approved them. Obviously, some other services will be cut, just wait for the announcements, when nothing can be done to stop them. And all because some greedy individuals cannot just accept that when there are tought times everybody should suffer a bit. And then they want us to call them "heroes"? A real hero is somebody who sacrifices for someone else, the opposite of what is going on here. They push sacrifices on the already disadvantaged, and only because they want one more bite of an already large slice they have.
Why? I want fire services at a reasonable price, especially during tough economic times. What I DON'T need is paying more to have "HEROES" provide fire services. I only need competent people.
Anyone who commutes to work takes substantial risks. That means that either everybody is a hero, or that nobody is a hero. Either way, the word "hero" is completely inappropriate for fire fighters and by using it for fire fighters you make it empty.
Are you seriously comparing commuting to work (which firefighters do, also) with running into a burning building, while everyone else is running out of it?
Oh, so in your world view there are only "heroes" (firefighters) and "cowards" (those who disagree firefighters are heroes). Anyone who claims firefighters are heroes has a conflict of interest: the person is a firefighter or has a relative or a friend who is one.
Anyone who claims firefighters are heroes has a conflict of interest: the person is a firefighter or has a relative or a friend who is one.
A: that's a great assumption, but you're wrong, and an ass.
2: how is that a conflict of interest, when I haven't ever suggested I have any impartiality in this, and I gain nothing, financially, from this internet discussion?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-20 01:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-20 02:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-20 03:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-20 05:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-21 02:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-21 09:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-23 02:01 pm (UTC)So, the risks they take aren't sacrifices?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-29 05:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-29 11:16 pm (UTC)Because they're totes equivalent, y'all.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-27 02:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-29 05:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-29 09:41 pm (UTC)A: that's a great assumption, but you're wrong, and an ass.
2: how is that a conflict of interest, when I haven't ever suggested I have any impartiality in this, and I gain nothing, financially, from this internet discussion?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-20 05:35 pm (UTC)http://davis-square.livejournal.com/2821158.html