Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 815161718
Results 341 to 352 of 352
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Why are you voting for whoever for President?

  1. #341
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Obama v. Bush Deficits


    FY 2013*: $901 billion
    FY 2012: $1,089 billion
    FY 2011: $1,300 billion
    FY 2010: $1,293 billion
    FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
    FY 2008: $459 billion
    FY 2007: $161 billion

    Yes, you are correct .... It will be under 1Trillion.



    (Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...cit_chart.html)
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 02-27-2013 at 04:32 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.


  2. #342
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Obama v. Bush Deficits


    FY 2013*: $901 billion
    FY 2012: $1,089 billion
    FY 2011: $1,300 billion
    FY 2010: $1,293 billion
    FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
    FY 2008: $459 billion
    FY 2007: $161 billion

    Yes, you are correct .... It will be under 1Trillion.



    (Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...cit_chart.html)
    More importantly is the deficit has been trending downward since Bush's last budget. Which is FY2009.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #343
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    More importantly is the deficit has been trending downward since Bush's last budget. Which is FY2009.
    Though note the total deficits under Obumba ... far higher than Bush's (and that is while we were fighting 2 wars).
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  4. #344
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Though note the total deficits under Obumba ... far higher than Bush's (and that is while we were fighting 2 wars).
    Considering we only pulled out of Iraq in Dec., 2011 and we are still in Afghanistan, the deficit is still trending downward. Plus, Bush was handed a relatively prosperous economy with an almost balanced budget and surplus. Obama was handed an economy with an over $1T deficit with job losses about 500K per MONTH, and the stock market plummeting. When one looks at where we are now with the amount of GOP obstruction that has occurred (record number of filibusters in the Senate), the country's recovery, while fragile, has been incredible during Obama's administration.

    Then there is the idiot conservative noise machine that believes he is really a Kenyan born muslim that hates America. But that is a topic for another day.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #345
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Considering we only pulled out of Iraq in Dec., 2011 and we are still in Afghanistan, the deficit is still trending downward. Plus, Bush was handed a relatively prosperous economy with an almost balanced budget and surplus. Obama was handed an economy with an over $1T deficit with job losses about 500K per MONTH, and the stock market plummeting. When one looks at where we are now with the amount of GOP obstruction that has occurred (record number of filibusters in the Senate), the country's recovery, while fragile, has been incredible during Obama's administration.

    Then there is the idiot conservative noise machine that believes he is really a Kenyan born muslim that hates America. But that is a topic for another day.
    Ya, you're right. Obama has been a wonderful president .... Strangling business with increased regultions, Obamcare, increased enviromental regulation, increased size and scope of government, increased taxes on the rich and class warfare.

    For a man who you claim doesn't hate America, he is sure doing one hell of a bang up job destroying it.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  6. #346
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Ya, you're right. Obama has been a wonderful president .... Strangling business with increased regultions, Obamcare, increased enviromental regulation, increased size and scope of government, increased taxes on the rich and class warfare.
    Yet the markets are at or near all time highs and corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash while producing more private sector jobs in his first term than Bush did in all eight of his administration. Class warfare is indeed being waged. Conservatives are waging class warfare on the working class. In case you haven't noticed, organized labor continues to be under siege and the scapegoat for all the countries ills when it is the failings of the 1% that have caused the economy to tank and sputter during recovery.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    For a man who you claim doesn't hate America, he is sure doing one hell of a bang up job destroying it.
    I see it as just the opposite. America has become stronger since he has become president. The "hating America" mantra that has become a standard of conservatives as usual lacks any substance.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #347
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Yet the markets are at or near all time highs and corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash while producing more private sector jobs in his first term than Bush did in all eight of his administration. Class warfare is indeed being waged. Conservatives are waging class warfare on the working class. In case you haven't noticed, organized labor continues to be under siege and the scapegoat for all the countries ills when it is the failings of the 1% that have caused the economy to tank and sputter during recovery.

    Class warfare on the working class? Interesting.


    I see it as just the opposite. America has become stronger since he has become president. The "hating America" mantra that has become a standard of conservatives as usual lacks any substance.
    I guess we just see differently.

    Have a nice day.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  8. #348
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I guess we just see differently.

    Have a nice day.
    I see them correctly and use facts to support my claims, you don't.

    You too.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #349
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    Please elaborate? How were those tax cuts a reason the US is now a debtor nation? You are so wrong on so many levels. We have been a debtor nation since at least 1835.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    Not to this level thanks to the fiscal policies of conservatives over the last 30 years. Tax cuts have caused revenues to shrink (as a percent of GDP) while those same conservatives embarked on significant spending programs.
    You didnít say to this level, you said that the Reps caused us to be a debtor nation recently. Yes, revenues dropped dramatically after 9/11, but they returned with the Bush tax cuts. As I have said before, you are right - Bush spent way too much and that is why we have the debt and deficit we have (the same thing Obama is doing). We spent too much, it wasnít that we didnít bring in enough!

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    Even if the government plays a role in helping the individual acquire wealth, why should they pay a higher percentage?
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    Because they have more to lose.
    That is why they pay more. That is the way percentages work and why the flat tax would work.

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    I never said anything about not taxing and neither does Hayak. We were talking about stimulus.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    I was referring to Hayek's philosophy holistically.
    You were wrong. Hayek never, holistically or any other way, said there should be no taxes. Additionally, Hayek even talks about a stimulus to get economies out of a recession, but that should end when the recession ends.

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    Healthier in what way? We did not have a tax rate that high in our largest period of economic growth.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    Define that period.
    The 90s, when Clinton was president. That doesnít disprove my point which was that you said we needed a tax higher to have a healthier economy. Obama is not Clinton. He is a better person, but not a better president.

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    The website, based on his writings and sayings, clearly states that he opposed federal employee unions collectively bargaining. There is no way to dispute this fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    Actually the website stated:
    No statements as to FDRís views on collective bargaining for state or municipal workers were found among his papers as Governor of New York or as President.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    So it said no such thing.
    You either 1)cant read; 2)are deliberately leaving out the websiteís facts or 3)are stupid. I donít think it is 1 & 3. The website states that FDR made no statements on collective bargaining for state or local workers (it wasnít an issue in his time). Its documents quote FDR saying he did not approve of collective bargaining for federal employees. You already tried to argue that he said he was against collective bargaining for federal employees because he was talking about strikes (how stupid would he have to be to confuse the word collective bargaining with strikes numerous times?). You have now stated both that he is for and against collective bargaining for federal employees. Which is it?

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    Why does a policy have to help just one class. The Reagan and Bush Tax cuts helped all taxpayers.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    Because when a nation's middle class is eliminated, the nation usually follows it.
    I am not for eliminating the middle class, but please state where this is prevalent in history as you assert?

    This is a mantra I hear from the left. They believe in making everyone equal. It is not about making everyone equal, but about giving everyone an equal chance. That is done with smaller government involvement and the leftís larger government involvement has done huge damage to the lower and middle classes, especially to the black community. Abortion, affirmative action, welfare, and other social programs are devastating the heart of the middle class, the family which is one of the best ways to stay our of poverty!

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    I can only hope you are not one of those who still believes "trickle down" economics still works. Recent events should have convinced all but the truly idiotic that it is a failure as an economic system.
    Who is calling for trickle down? Not the Reps and you and I were not discussing giving breaks to just the rich, but to all classes. I am for fairness, like the flat tax.

    Quote Originally Posted by scffire
    Yet the markets are at or near all time highs and corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash while producing more private sector jobs in his first term than Bush did in all eight of his administration.
    Because of Bushís policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    More importantly is the deficit has been trending downward since Bush's last budget.
    What a ridiculous statement! It is more important for the deficit to be trending down than to be lower? It would be ok for you to have $100T in deficit as long as it was $110T the year before? Additionally, it is not trending downward because of Obama. If he had his way, he would have spent much more and has said so. Thank you Republicans!

  10. #350
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Healthier in what way? We did not have a tax rate that high in our largest period of economic growth.
    What time period are you referring? If you are referring to the 90's, the top marginal tax rates were higher than they are currently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    The website, based on his writings and sayings, clearly states that he opposed federal employee unions collectively bargaining. There is no way to dispute this fact.
    The website you linked doesn't say that at all. It says they could find no remarks one way or the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    No statements as to FDR’s views on collective bargaining for state or municipal workers were found among his papers as Governor of New York or as President.


    You either 1)cant read; 2)are deliberately leaving out the website’s facts or 3)are stupid. I don’t think it is 1 & 3. The website states that FDR made no statements on collective bargaining for state or local workers (it wasn’t an issue in his time). Its documents quote FDR saying he did not approve of collective bargaining for federal employees. You already tried to argue that he said he was against collective bargaining for federal employees because he was talking about strikes (how stupid would he have to be to confuse the word collective bargaining with strikes numerous times?). You have now stated both that he is for and against collective bargaining for federal employees. Which is it?
    I stated he wasn't opposed to collective bargaining.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Why does a policy have to help just one class. The Reagan and Bush Tax cuts helped all taxpayers.


    I am not for eliminating the middle class, but please state where this is prevalent in history as you assert?
    Since the adoption of conservative policies of the last 30 years this has been the result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    This is a mantra I hear from the left. They believe in making everyone equal. It is not about making everyone equal, but about giving everyone an equal chance. That is done with smaller government involvement and the left’s larger government involvement has done huge damage to the lower and middle classes, especially to the black community. Abortion, affirmative action, welfare, and other social programs are devastating the heart of the middle class, the family which is one of the best ways to stay our of poverty!
    That's the theory. The reality contradicts this claim. You claim to have the solution to fix the nation's ills. Let me ask a simple question. There are roughly 200 sovereign nations recognized by the UN. Can you name one that has adopted your idea of what the perfect amount of government and taxation and do the citizens of that nation live better or worse than in the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Who is calling for trickle down? Not the Reps and you and I were not discussing giving breaks to just the rich, but to all classes. I am for fairness, like the flat tax.
    Conservative ideology currently subscribes to tax cuts with the "trickle down" effect as the rationale.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    What a ridiculous statement! It is more important for the deficit to be trending down than to be lower? It would be ok for you to have $100T in deficit as long as it was $110T the year before? Additionally, it is not trending downward because of Obama. If he had his way, he would have spent much more and has said so. Thank you Republicans!
    For what? It's republicans that are responsible for the current mess.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #351
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    Healthier in what way? We did not have a tax rate that high in our largest period of economic growth.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    What time period are you referring? If you are referring to the 90's, the top marginal tax rates were higher than they are currently.
    You were calling for a top marginal tax rate of 50% or above. It was never that high in the 90s.

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    The website, based on his writings and sayings, clearly states that he opposed federal employee unions collectively bargaining. There is no way to dispute this fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    The website you linked doesn't say that at all. It says they could find no remarks one way or the other.
    That is a lie. Please tell me where it says they could find no remarks one way or the other that FDR was not opposed to federal employee collective bargaining. It gives two source documents in which FDR specifically says he is against federal employee collective bargaining. The same letter where you said he said he was against striking and that was what he referred to when he was talking about collective bargaining. You can’t say he was referring to something else in a letter and then claim the letter doesn’t exist.

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    You either 1)cant read; 2)are deliberately leaving out the website’s facts or 3)are stupid. I don’t think it is 1 & 3. The website states that FDR made no statements on collective bargaining for state or local workers (it wasn’t an issue in his time). Its documents quote FDR saying he did not approve of collective bargaining for federal employees. You already tried to argue that he said he was against collective bargaining for federal employees because he was talking about strikes (how stupid would he have to be to confuse the word collective bargaining with strikes numerous times?). You have now stated both that he is for and against collective bargaining for federal employees. Which is it?
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    I stated he wasn't opposed to collective bargaining.
    When I quoted FDR’s thoughts on collective bargaining and why he was against it, you said in Post #273: “Because the term collective bargaining implied the right to strike.” How can he never have said it if you think he was talking about striking? How stupid was he that he didn’t know the difference between striking and collective bargaining? I don’t think he was stupid, but I think you are lying so that you don’t have to admit that you are wrong.


    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    I am not for eliminating the middle class, but please state where this is prevalent in history as you assert?
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    Since the adoption of conservative policies of the last 30 years this has been the result.
    You were talking about the reason you help the middle class and not all classes was because when a middle class fails, so does the country predominantly. Again when has this happened in history? When you have no facts to back up your claims, you change the subject.

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    This is a mantra I hear from the left. They believe in making everyone equal. It is not about making everyone equal, but about giving everyone an equal chance. That is done with smaller government involvement and the left’s larger government involvement has done huge damage to the lower and middle classes, especially to the black community. Abortion, affirmative action, welfare, and other social programs are devastating the heart of the middle class, the family which is one of the best ways to stay our of poverty!

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    That's the theory. The reality contradicts this claim. You claim to have the solution to fix the nation's ills. Let me ask a simple question. There are roughly 200 sovereign nations recognized by the UN. Can you name one that has adopted your idea of what the perfect amount of government and taxation and do the citizens of that nation live better or worse than in the US.
    What do you mean by living better or worse than the US? Please define better or worse because that will make a big difference. The reality is that the US has the greatest mixture of freedom and ability for people to be self-sufficient. This is not because of our tax system, but because our government has stays out the way. This is proven by the fact that the US has been the greatest country with high, low and medium taxes. When government has gotten involved in people’s lives to take away their self sufficiency, they have suffered. If that were not the case, Native Americans would be the most successful race in the country. Do you really think we will be a better nation if the government takes care of people who do not need it?

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    Who is calling for trickle down? Not the Reps and you and I were not discussing giving breaks to just the rich, but to all classes. I am for fairness, like the flat tax.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    Conservative ideology currently subscribes to tax cuts with the "trickle down" effect as the rationale.
    The trickle down theory says that you give tax breaks to just the rich or businesses so that their returned money will trickle down to the poor. Please tell me where a national Republican representative has proposed tax cuts for just the rich.

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    What a ridiculous statement! It is more important for the deficit to be trending down than to be lower? It would be ok for you to have $100T in deficit as long as it was $110T the year before? Additionally, it is not trending downward because of Obama. If he had his way, he would have spent much more and has said so. Thank you Republicans!
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    For what? It's republicans that are responsible for the current mess.
    I was clear what to thank them for. They have kept Obama from spending more than he wants to which would put our deficit higher. You said the reason the deficit was lowering was because of him. It is not. Both you and he have called for more spending which would have driven our deficits up.

  12. #352
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    You were calling for a top marginal tax rate of 50% or above. It was never that high in the 90s.
    I didn't say it was. I said America has experienced its highest growth when the marginal tax rates were above 50%. You may be surprised to know there was economic activity prior to 1990.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    That is a lie. Please tell me where it says they could find no remarks one way or the other that FDR was not opposed to federal employee collective bargaining. It gives two source documents in which FDR specifically says he is against federal employee collective bargaining. The same letter where you said he said he was against striking and that was what he referred to when he was talking about collective bargaining. You can’t say he was referring to something else in a letter and then claim the letter doesn’t exist.
    From the website you posted:

    No statements as to FDR’s views on collective bargaining for state or municipal workers were found among his papers as Governor of New York or as President.

    It should be pointed out, however, that the President had a much more expansive view of the rights to collective bargaining of workers not engaged in Federal employment, as can be seen by the following statements:

    "It is now beyond partisan controversy that it is a fundamental individual right of a worker to associate himself with other workers and to bargain collectively with his employer."
    --Address at San Diego Exposition, October 2, 1935.

    "Cooperation with labor as well as with business is essential to the continuation of the programs we are working out for a more stable and more satisfactory industrial life in this country. I have on a number of occasions urged the necessity, as well as the soundness, of furthering the principle of collective bargaining as between labor and management."
    --A Greeting to the American Federation of Labor, February 11, 1935.
    There is nothing in there stating opposition. He does address that collective bargaining should be different for public vs private sector unions in his letter to the National Federation of Federal Employees when he states:

    Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.
    The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
    Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
    You either 1) cant read; 2) are deliberately leaving out the website’s facts or 3) are stupid. Which is it? Reading. It's FUNdamental.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    You were talking about the reason you help the middle class and not all classes was because when a middle class fails, so does the country predominantly. Again when has this happened in history? When you have no facts to back up your claims, you change the subject.
    Pick a nation that has had an expansive middle class during its history. UK, Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Rome. I'm not going to do your research for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    What do you mean by living better or worse than the US? Please define better or worse because that will make a big difference.
    Literacy, poverty rate, infant mortality and life expectancy. The usual yardsticsks learned individuals use to determine quality of life. Which nation that utilizes your ideal form of government has most of its citizens living better than US citizens in those factors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    The reality is that the US has the greatest mixture of freedom and ability for people to be self-sufficient. This is not because of our tax system, but because our government has stays out the way. This is proven by the fact that the US has been the greatest country with high, low and medium taxes. When government has gotten involved in people’s lives to take away their self sufficiency, they have suffered. If that were not the case, Native Americans would be the most successful race in the country. Do you really think we will be a better nation if the government takes care of people who do not need it?
    The American way of life and capitalism wouldn't exist were it not for government. Were it not for the protections afforded by government, American capitalism wouldn't exist in its present form. We wouldn't even have a functional economy right now if we had not had the FDIC providing for orderly bank failures, and no SEC fighting against the Enron-ization of corporate accounting practices. Those bastions of market power Wal Mart and Coca Cola wouldn't have thousands of employees if the government hadn't given them the ability to copyright their images and ideas, expand production into Third World countries, and protect their trade secrets from competitors. Pentagon-driven companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin wouldn't exist without massive taxpayer handouts feeding the war machine. The U.S. markets are heavily propped up by state money, and are saved from their own inability to control themselves by legislators and regulatory agencies.

    The business community has done a remarkable job of convincing working class people that their tax dollars are mainly going to support indigent minorities and illegal immigrants, rather than right into their (business) own hands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    The trickle down theory says that you give tax breaks to just the rich or businesses so that their returned money will trickle down to the poor. Please tell me where a national Republican representative has proposed tax cuts for just the rich.
    They haven't. However, it has been proven the wealthy enjoy a disproportional gain from that type of policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I was clear what to thank them for. They have kept Obama from spending more than he wants to which would put our deficit higher. You said the reason the deficit was lowering was because of him. It is not. Both you and he have called for more spending which would have driven our deficits up.
    Spending is what is needed during economic catastrophes like the one handed off to Obama by Bush. Let's play a game. It's called Austerity. I'll name a country that adopted austerity only as a way to deal with the economic collapse and whose condition became worse and then you name a country that utlilized austerity only and whose condition became better.

    My first response is "Spain."

    Your turn.

    Conversely. I can point to two instances where massive amounts of government spending were utilized to get the economy out of recession.
    Last edited by scfire86; 04-06-2013 at 08:10 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. membership voting
    By FF7679 in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-31-2010, 03:00 PM
  2. Voting compromise
    By fyrmed in forum Career/Paid Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-15-2009, 04:00 PM
  3. Even though Im voting for....
    By BCmdepas3280 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-28-2004, 09:19 AM
  4. Voting for Officers
    By thoskin in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-05-2002, 10:29 AM
  5. Juniors Voting
    By HF&R_H28 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-21-2002, 10:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts