1. #26
    mongofire_99
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Just wondering, what's the difference between the green party and socialist?

    After all Nader wants the top 500 US companies to be busted up and owned by the public/state.

    Now, what's the difference between socialist and communist?

  2. #27
    chf jstano
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    I have never been in favor of any organization that I have belonged to endorsing one candidate over another.I've always felt the best policy was to encourage people to excersise their right to vote,but as an organization don't tell them who to vote for.Politicians have long memories!On a local or regional level most folks vote for who brings the most pork home anyway.Congressperson Porkbarrel is always there smiling come election time and anybody trying to run against him is usually underfunded anyway!The preceeding posts have certainly been an imformative debate and have given me some information I'll have to sit back and digest before election day.:rolleyes http://www.firehouse.com/interactive/boards/frown.gifDefinitly more interesting than either convention)!STAY SAFE!

  3. #28
    S. Cook
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    The Green Party...?

    Nader...?

    Only in America can someone so set against our own founding principles and everything our country stands for, be allowed to do they things they do based on the freedoms they hate.

    The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independance states "...the pursuit of Happiness."

    Not "the pursuit of someone elses Happiness." Which is just what Nader (and Gore) want.

    Green Party Platform

    "MAJORITY RULE." (really means mob rule)

    "DEFENSE BUDGET MUST BE CUT..." "...by over 50% in the next 10 years"

    "...a graduated supplemental income, or negative income tax" (means income confiscation and redistribution)

    "...raise corporate taxes." (means the stuff you buy will cost more)

    "...progressivity in taxation as a matter of principle...their “fair share.” (they don't want a flat tax, but want everyone to pay a fair share, how do they figure a fair share?)

    "...support the ‘Brady Bill’" (which is designed to keep guns from law abiding citizens and has done absolutly nothing to keep people from being murdered by guns)

    "...do not support, as a matter of conscience, the DEATH PENALTY." (it's not their fault their murderes, it's societies)

    Ther's a lot more crap in there, but I got tired of reading it. Anti-American to the core.

    But, let me say this in all honesty - I strongly encourage you to vote for Nader.

  4. #29
    WLFD59
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    DO ANY OF YOU KNOW WERE I CAN FIND INFORMATION ON ISSUSES AND WERE GORE AND BUSH REALLY STAND.

    ------------------
    "I'VE GOT YOUR BACK"

  5. #30
    S. Cook
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Nutshell stances:

    Bush - you know whats best for you

    Gore - me and the other democrates in government know whats best for you.

    Q: "What's the most a person should have confiscated and redistributed in taxes?"

    Bush - No person should pay more that 33% of their income in taxes.

    Gore - Uh, well, see, um, I, we, I think I feel...

    Bush - The government surplus is the people money.

    Gore - The government surplus is government profit.

    Bush - give it back, everyone deserves a fair share.

    Gore and Clinton - if we give it back you'll just spend it the wrong way. But Gore has a plan to give you a tax cut as long as you you to have:
    - a child in government approved child care;
    - have a child attending college;
    - receive estate tax relief under the "qualified family-owned business" exemption (currently only 1 percent of estates qualify for this exemption);
    - be married and do not itemize;
    - a parent in need of long-term care


    www.georgebush.com www.algore.com www.rnc.com www.dnc.com

    [This message has been edited by S. Cook (edited August 24, 2000).]

  6. #31
    WOODMAN
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    For S.Cook,

    I take it that you are voting for the home team?I still have not figured out why IAFF
    would come out and do what they did and support Gore.What has he done for any fire service issue when it was in the capital?Zip
    nothing good at kissing to support.

  7. #32
    S. Cook
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Yep, I'm voting for the home team.

    A few more policy stands...

    Education

    Bush - hold government schools and teachers accountable.

    Gore - don't worry about accountability, let's just throw more money at them.

    Bush - vouchers so your kids can attend the school of their choice.

    Gore - no way on vouchers. He doesn't want your kids to have the same educational opportunity as he did or his kids did.

    Social Security

    Bush - invest a portion of your money as you see fit in private accounts that give a bigger return if you want.

    Gore - no way, the people are idiots, too stoopid to make sound financial decisions. They must remain dependant on the government, we know what's best for them.


  8. #33
    jj1967
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    I am amazed that the IAFF would support Gore. Lets face, most IAFF members make good money...and pay high taxes. I know many firemen who make over 100K between two jobs and overtime. (Love the look on lawyers faces when they find out their neighbor is blue collar.) How can anyone in the 31% bracket vote for Gore? The FOP is supporting him to. The problem is the unions are being run by union guys, not firemen and cops.

  9. #34
    WOODMAN
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    JJ,

    When was the last time a union pres.ever worked a hose line?Yea some of the smaller ones do but in your larger cities most likely not for some time.Better yet when was the last time the head of a state org.ever worked a hose line.Running a big time union or local is like running a business you forget where you come from.When dealing with people trying to get elected to public office you end up in the mud with them.Take a
    poll and find out just how many IAFF and FOP
    members have or will vote what the union says to vote for I think you will find it will be about 50%.

  10. #35
    RDWFIRE
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Cool

    To the Texas boys, I too am voting for the "home team". Not for any union reasons, but for Al Gore's stance on the environment. If he has his way, Alaska will be locked up, and Gore will hold the key. We already have many millions of acres all around the USA that have been designated "wilderness" areas. California's wilderness areas grew dramatically in the early '90s with the Clinton administration's meddling. The areas are uninforcable, due to the lack of funding for rangers, and impossible to fight fire in due to restrictions on motorized equipment in wilderness areas. It is my understanding that you can't even use colored retardent drops in wilderness areas. Where will it end?

    Vote what ever way you choose, but please vote. We all have our opinions. This is mine. When November rolls around, remember, if you do not vote, don't bitch about who won.
    Just my opinion.

    Be safe. The dragon lurks!!!

  11. #36
    axman
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Red face

    I have seen a lot of sign's for the IAFF supporting AL Gore, I could understand this if he was really for Federal Fire Department Funding, but what does the IAFF get for supporting AL Gore? Did you hear any mention of firefighters in his Democratic Convention Speech? No, He Promised 50,000 More Policemen, So I don't think you should vote for AL Gore just because the IAFF wants you to.

  12. #37
    WOODMAN
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    I tell you one thing the IAFF is never going to do is change thier minds nope we just got
    sold down the river.They the chance to bring out the fire bill to the whole country in prime time and blew it.

  13. #38
    JAMESBENNETT
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Lightbulb

    AS A DISTRICT FIRE CHIEF IN THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS AND LIVING THOUGH REAGANNOMIC'S THE THIRD CHAPTER, GOVENER BUSH HAS BEEN VERY SUPORTIVE TO THE FIRE SERVICE IN GENERAL. TWO YEARS AGO WHEN OUR STATE STARTED BURNING OUT OF CONTROL, DUE TO CUT BACK'S OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS TO OUR FOREST SERVICE, HE MADE A BOLD STATMENT ABOUT THE FUTURE AND HAS PULLED US THOUGHT THIS FAR. HE TOLD THE DIRECTOR AF THE FOREST SERVICE TO REVITILIZE HIS ORGANIZATION AND THAT WE BETTER NOT HAVE ANOTHER YEAR LIKE 1998. SINCE THEN WE HAVE HAD NEW PREVENTION PROGRAMS INSTALLED BY THE STATE AND HAVE HAD A STAGING OF SOME SORT ALL OVER THE STATE CONSISTING OF EXTRA DOZER'S, PREVENTION SPECILIST OR ENGINE CREW'S. THIS HAS INCREASED THE COST OF DOING BUISNESS FOR THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE NEW PROGRAMS ARE GROWING DAILY, BUT WITH BUSHES SUPPORT FUNDING WAS NOT AN ISSUE. IN FACT MOST OF THE PREVETION PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN AQUIRED THOUGH FEDERAL GRANTS. THE FACT IS IT STILL COST LESS MONEY ON THE TAX PAYERS, DUE TO THE INCREDIBLE COST OF POOLING OUT OF STATE RESOURCES.

    I AM NOT TELLING YOU WHO TO VOTE FOR OR EVEN WHO I AM VOTING FOR, BUT LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE TRUTH. GOERGE W. BUSH IS A SUPPORTER OF THER FIRE SERVICE.

  14. #39
    DSmits
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Never believe any politician. Instead of endorsing ahead of time lets make them a deal. If you as President can get the Fire Act funded for the next four years well help you out NEXT time. Until then forget the promises, all of you. Since I feel it my moral responsibility to vote Ill vote for.......the moral candidate...... hmmmmmmm....any thoughts on that one..... That means itll be Bush over Gore

  15. #40
    S. Cook
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    jj1967 said "I am amazed that the IAFF would support Gore."

    And that got me to wondering...

    Did the IAFF poll it's members to see who they wanted the union to endorse?

  16. #41
    tinner
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Here are a few questions that should be asked of Bush, Gore and just anyone running for a political office.


    1 - If you are elected to office what laws will you repeal?

    2 - Would you support criminal penalties:
    a) for politicians who violate their oath of office;
    b) for bureaucrats who act outside the powers delegated to them?

    3 When did you last read the state and / or federal Constitutions?

    4 - Should someone who has sworn an oath to preserve, protect and defend
    the Constitution, but who then votes to allocate tax funds to programs
    or departments not authorized by that Constitution, be removed from
    office?

    5 - Can you name any current areas of government operations that are
    outside the authority delegated to government?

    6 - Can you name areas where government might serve the public interest,
    but where it has no authority to act? If not, is it still accurate to
    say we have "government of limited powers"? Does this matter?

    7 - As a candidate for a state or federal office, can you think of any
    ways to improve enforcement of the 10th Amendment (the states and the
    people retain powers not delegated to the federal government)?

    I wouldn't vote for either Bush or Gore after hearing the syco-babel that has been presented so far. Both will take ya down the road to socialisim, just w/ Gore you will be on the fast track.

    Thanks for the dialoge thus far.
    Dave

  17. #42
    S. Cook
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Register libertarian (or independant) and vote republican.

  18. #43
    WOODMAN
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Hey Cook you running the Bush election bid in
    Texas if not you should be feeding them some
    of this info.Go Bush.

  19. #44
    S. Cook
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Nope, not running the Texas Campaign, just being an informed voter. I did send them an email though telling them firefighters may be an untapped voting block. Out of the over 10,000 of us on these boards, only 2 or 3 support (or will voice their support) Gore.

    And if thats the way folks feel they should vote that's fine - more power to 'em. But they should know the truth so they can make an educated decision and not try to influence other folks with passed on lies. And for sure not vote a certain way because the AARP, IAFF, IBEW or other group that is "only looking out for their best intrest" says.

    Now somebody is gonna be upset because I said lies, but that's what they posted - lies, both on hear and teh career forum. I'm not accusing them of lying personally, I believe they were truly uninformed and unwittingly passed on somebody elses lies.

    Anyway, ya'll be safe and be an informed voter, do your own research, be your own person. If you do all that and still vote Gore, that's fine. But I would venture a guess to say you'd change.

    Scott

  20. #45
    Preston
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Talking

    S.Cook
    I nominate you for President and George W. as your running mate. All of the fellow firefighters cast a write in vote for these men!
    Keep up the good work and don't let any gores of the world disuade you.

  21. #46
    Squadee2
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Thumbs up

    YO "huntere6" in the District, all I can say
    is "Ditto"! I could'nt have said it better.

    Long ago, I once had a political science pro-
    fessor express his philosophy w/this quote:
    "A bad republican is better then no
    republican!"

    The fact that we (firefighters collectively)
    have endorsed AlGore just goes to show how
    low we have stooped. By this, I mean, are'nt
    we (the fire service)the last real heroes and defense from the chaos that exists on the
    streets of urban America every day? We provide the best service of any local Gov't.
    agency, even though our staffing, equipment,
    and resources are at pitiful levels. Yeah, we
    need funding, equipment, FEMA, a effective
    NFA and a big dose of common sense! But, the IAFF endorsement has, to me and obviously
    many others, essentially made us just like
    all the other special interest groups that
    has tied the hands of our elected officials
    and the legislative process, which is for
    the "good of all the people", at least that's what I once thought and wish were true. The many problems the fire service faces daily is the direct result of a failed
    liberal/socalist agenda! If this analogy is
    wrong, then why is the urban fire problem the same or worse as it was in 1964? Even
    more so, go back to FDR! Because it does'nt
    work. The big picture, to see it, is for us
    to realize that despite the promises made by
    AlGore, which very well may help us, it or
    his proposed policies will NOT alleviate the
    ungoing war we are entrenched in! The war will not end until a National Fire and Build-
    ings Codes exists(from the Left Coast to the Atlantic), and our staffing, equipment, and
    resources are sufficient to be supported by
    a LOCAL economy that is permitted to thrive
    with LOCAL/regional money that stays and is
    not sent to Washington to support layer upon
    layer of Federal bureaucracy.
    The hallmark of recent liberal history is the
    100K Cops program. Well, maybe not, check the
    Justice Dept. for the real #'s (about 50K),
    and find out how many of those cops are still
    w/the same Dept. after Fed. funding ran out,
    and the local Gov't. could not afford to con-
    tinue w/there salaries and benefits! Back to
    square one apparently...Why? Because liberal
    policies "feel good, sound good, and look
    good", but have no real substance or meaning-
    ful longterm effectiveness! If the liberals
    had sound and equal policy agendas as they
    have promised currently and previously to
    special interest and minority groups, why are
    the same cries, disparity, and real world
    urban problems in existance? Need I be redund
    ant in answering! Unfortunately, we (IAFF)
    have fallen for the same Democratic promises.
    In a nut-shell, all I'm trying to say is that
    our interests, all worthy and well past due,
    pale in comparison to the needs of a strong
    and united nation. A strong nation of people,
    not divided by race and economic status as
    the AlGore campaign is manipulating, and a
    strong and diverse economy are the effects
    that will permit the fire service, as indiv-
    iduals,and as families to see equality and
    prosperty in the longterm sense. And w/that,
    less money to the Fed.s, more money in our
    pockets to spend locally, which supports the
    economy, and ultimately our local coffers
    for sufficient public safety!

    I appologize for the length of this reply, but "huntere6" is right and it really ticks
    me off that people don't see the big picture!
    A Fed. Gov't. surplus means only one thing
    to me: OVER TAXATION! I want my money, and I
    don't want or need some liberal to dictate
    what's best for me or how to spend it!!!

    THE AFOREMENTIONED COMMENTS ARE THAT OF I
    ANY I ONLY!

  22. #47
    phxfyr
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Exclamation

    I realize that this is not much of an open debate but rather a pro-Bush topic. That's OK. Many of you on this site have stated your opinions well and I am sure I cannot persuade you to the contrary.

    But for you undecided out there let me say this, Gov. Bush has proven that he has NOT supported firefighters in areas such as collective bargaining, pensions, union rights, and political rights of firefighters.

    Collective bargaining: George W. Bush vetoed 1997 legislation providing "meet and confer" rights to Texas firefighters and refused to grant full collective bargaining rights to transit employees. (Texas Legislative Council, "Summary of Enactments, 75th and 76th Legislatures.")

    Pensions: George W. Bush proposed raiding the teachers' pension fund to pay administrative costs of the Teacher Retirement System, costing Texas teachers $47 million in lost benefits. (Amarillo Daily news, 2/7/97. Austin American Statesman, 12/3/98).

    Union rights: George W. Bush has bragged about Texas' "right to work" status and vetoed 1997 legislation requiring Texas municipalities to offer payroll diduction for fire fighter union dues. (Texas Legislative Council, "Summary of Enactments, 75th Legislature").

    Political Rights of firefighters: George W. Bush supports "paycheck deciption," a proposal that would severely limit the ability of firefighters and other union members to participate in legislative and political activity. Bush has not made similar demands on corporations. (Iowa GOP Debate, Des Moines, IA 12/13/99.

    http://www.firehouse.com/interactive/boards/eek.gif As I stated previously, many of you have made up your minds. These are some facts to consider and I have included my references so you may research for yourself.

  23. #48
    S. Cook
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Here's the link to one of the bills you referenced - http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/7...t/SB00621F.HTM

    It would have affected transit cops in cities over 1.5 million. That means probably only Houston, I'm not sure if Dallas, Austin and San Antonio have transit cops.

    This was a useless bill. In the State of Texas employees are allowed to organize for collective bargaining if a majority of those that will be affected agree too. Meeting and confering also takes place under current law.

    I cannot find anything regarding "George W. Bush vetoed 1997 legislation providing "meet and confer" rights to Texas firefighters." Please tell me where you found it, bill number and such, maybe a hyperlink.

    "vetoed 1997 legislation requiring Texas municipalities to offer payroll diduction for fire fighter union dues."

    Can't find this one either.

    But if he did veto it, good call! This should not be a state (or federal) law, it should, just as it is, be part of the negotiations.

    The only reason the union wants payroll deduct is because it makes paying dues easier and so they'll have more dues paying members. They will do anything to ensure this, including openning an account at a bank so that employees can direct deposit into it when they don't get, or lose, payroll deduct.

    "Pensions: George W. Bush proposed raiding the teachers' pension fund to pay administrative costs of the Teacher Retirement System, costing Texas teachers $47 million in lost benefits."

    Hey, that's just what Gore wants to do with the money he wants to over-confiscate from us! Gore wants to raid your personal finances and ability to increase your retirement investment to help pay the costs of administering social programs. Only he wants TRILLIONS.

    Can't comment on Bush supporting this as I don't know anything about it. But he has been good to Texas teachers, he increased teacher pay by 33 percent (average salary increase of $8,232) and increased funding for public schools by $8.3 billion. State funding per pupil has increased 37 percent. Texas is also first in teacher quality.

    "George W. Bush supports "paycheck deciption," a proposal that would severely limit the ability of firefighters and other union members to participate in legislative and political activity."

    What is paycheck deception?

    In a nutshell, it's the practice of charging you for political activities. They take more of your dues than necessary for union/employer stuff. They spend this money on political activity like getting people elected so they can start balancing the budget on the back of the fire department.

    I believe to the contrary, Bush's support of this does not "severely limit" your ability to participate in legislative and political activity. In fact, it increases your ability to do this. Instead of the union sending your money to some politician or political cause you may not support, you get to choose where your political dollar is spent. All you have to do is decide where you want to spend it and send in your check. (Just a thought - isn't it funny how to democrates choice only applies to abortion? Not to schools, social security, gun ownership... Just a thought.)

  24. #49
    S. Cook
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    OK, here's a few contrasts. Ya'll post some of your own - even you silent Gore supporters.

    If you believe:

    That there should not be a limit on the amount of money the government can confiscate from you; vote Gore.

    That 33% should be the maximum amount the government should confiscate; vote Bush. (Note, personally I think that is too much, flat tax me at 20% - 25%)

    Government should provide for all of your needs because you failed to do so; vote Gore.

    Government should help those truly in need; vote Bush.

    That it is OK for your minor child to have an invasive medical procedure without your knowledge as long as she doesn't smoke in the school of your choice; vote Gore.

    That you should know if your minor child is going to have an invasive medical procedure; vote Bush.

    Government schools are the best places for your children to be educated; vote Gore.

    You should be allowed to choose where your child is educated; vote Bush.

    That the character of a man does not matter in his ability to lead; vote Gore.

    That the character of a man does matter in his ability to lead; vote Bush.

    That you get a choice in only one situation that may or may not affect you or your family; vote Gore.

    That in all situations that may or may not affect your family you get to choose; vote Bush.

    That there is no controlling legal authority; vote Gore.

    That there is a controlling legal authority; vote Bush.

    Throwing more money at the education system will result in better education; vote Gore.

    Holding the education system accountable for its own success; vote Bush.

    The office of the president is above the law; vote Gore.

    The office of the president is not above the law; vote Bush.

    Bigger government makes things better; vote Gore.

    Less government makes things better; vote Bush.

    (Request, if you think bigger government makes things better, please give an example.)

    Our military should continue to be under funded and over-deployed and marginally ready for battle; vote Gore.

    Our military should have the best equipment available and be ready to serve us at a moments notice and be able to quickly neutralize any threat to our security with extreme prejudice; vote Bush.

    We should buy prescription drugs for every senior citizen; vote Gore.

    We should buy prescription drugs for those that can't afford them; vote Bush.

    The government surplus is the government’s money and they should keep it; vote Gore.

    The government surplus belongs to the people it will be confiscated from and it should be returned; vote Bush.

    (Imagine if a business did this sort of thing and the outrage that would go along with it from the buying public.)

    Requiring the registration of fire-arms will reduce the crime rate; vote Gore.

    Requiring the registration of fire-arms will not reduce the crime rate; vote Bush.

    Outlawing hand-guns will keep them out of the hands of criminals and reduce the crime rate; vote Gore.

    Outlawing hand-guns will only keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leave them with less means to defend their home and family, and not reduce the crime; vote Bush.

    The thought that a potential violent crime victim may shoot back will not deter an attacker/criminal; vote Gore.

    The fact that a potential victim may shoot back does deter an attacker/criminal; vote Bush.



  25. #50
    chf jstano
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Wink

    Wow, I guess it's a good thing Hillary didn't decide to run for US senator from Texas! http://www.firehouse.com/interactive/boards/eek.gif

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register