1. #1
    Forum Member
    furlofmalta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    59

    Default Anyone seen a legitimate candidate yet?

    My analysis (Not yours. You need to read not watch fox or cnn to formulate an opinion. So don't blast me for my interpretation / opinion. Especially if you are using what you saw on tv to argue.)

    On the right we have

    Giuliani - Definately NO. I don't like the guy. I never have liked the guy. All he has is 9/11 and even then he did a bad job as mayor of NYC in the wake of that tragedy. He is a heartless career politician in my honest opinion. I will never vote for this man.
    Huckabee-Good candidate. Unfortunately, due to his handling of the Wayne Dumond case I can never vote for him. If you don't know about the Wayne Dumond case basically, to tell a long story short, Huckabee assumed governorship of Arkansas after Clinton who had been stern with Dumond who had raped a woman who was a distant relative of Clinton; Huckabee assumes office; commutes Dumond's (who was serving a life sentence) sentence for political reasons; Dumond moves to Kansas City and rapes and kills another woman.
    So yeah No. Sorry I can't vote for that.
    Hunter- Don't really know that much about him but he seems like a neo-con and I am a paleo-con and I don't want another dubya so until he proves me wrong. NO.
    McCain- I like the guy. Actually met him once, but I don't think he has the support to be elected.
    Paul- This is from his website...
    He has never voted to raise taxes.
    He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    He has never taken a government-paid junket.
    He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
    He voted against the Patriot Act.
    He voted against regulating the Internet.
    He voted against the Iraq war.
    He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
    He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
    his outlook on the 2nd Amendment:
    He shares our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.
    He has always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills he has introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:
    * H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
    * H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
    * H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
    * H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.
    In the past, he introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and he will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.
    He also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.
    You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, he will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment
    This is actually one candidate I could see myself voting for if he could gain some support
    Romney- NO. I don't need to explain he is a north-eastern elitist trying to play it off like he's not.
    Tancredo- He believes we should respond to terrorism with terrorism. NO
    Thompson- NO. I like his ideas but this statement alone changes my opinion "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." This is just unacceptable. You can't make those sort of ignorant statements and be our commander and chief.

    On the left we have
    Clinton- NO. Where are her ideas? All I've seen is bickering and name calling.
    Obama- NO. For the same reasons. Show me some ideas. Don't just tell me Bush was a horrible president and expect to get my vote. In other news, 2+2=4. SHOW ME THE MONEY!
    Biden- NO. For the same reasons as Thompson. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, ... I mean, that's a storybook, man." in reference to Obama.
    You can't make those sort of statements and expect me to vote for you.
    Richardson- Maybe. I like his ideas on the border. He has the experience to deal with that problem. I think he has a good grasp of the problems this country is facing and has offered up good ideas for remediating those problems. Unfortunately I don't think he is mainstream enough to get elected.
    Gravel- Maybe. Same story as Richardson. Too insignificant to get elected.
    Edwards- NO. He is basically a male Hillary. NO
    Kucinich- Maybe. Same story as Gravel, Paul, McCain and Richardson. They have good ideas in my opinion. They offer solutions. But they are dwarfed by Obama and Hillary.

    Basically this is the worst slate of candidates I have ever seen. True I've only been voting since 2000 and I'm sure that some of you nonos have seen some elections/candidates that were worse but for me this is the most important election I have seen so far in my life and the lack of any quality candidates is somewhat troubling given our current predicament.

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    Actually I think once you look past the rhetoric and the media proclaimed front runners, there are quite a few thoughtful, intelligent and interesting candidates on both sides.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  3. #3
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    207

    Default

    I think you overlooked one candidate...Chris Dodd

    The members of the International Association of Fire Fighters have no greater advocate or leader in the United States Senate than Chris Dodd (D-CT). His tireless work on behalf of fire fighters, emergency medical personnel and their families has helped make the fire fighting profession safer, more adequately funded and equitable to those on the frontline. Chris Dodd currently serves as the chair of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus and is one of only two recipients of the IAFF Lifetime Achievement Award.

    Collective Bargaining

    Chris Dodd has consistently cosponsored legislation to provide collective bargaining rights for all fire fighters (S.513; 3/3/05) and voted in favor of the IAFF Employer-Employee Cooperation Act in November 2001. Chris has supported fire fighters' rights to negotiate wages, hours and working conditions with their employer since legislation was first introduced in the Senate in 1999. In addition, Chris has used his position as the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate's Labor Committee to help win approval in Committee on two occasions (2001 and 2003).

    SAFER Act

    Chris Dodd authored and introduced the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Act in the U.S. Senate to address the critical shortage of fire fighters throughout the country by providing funding to hire additional fire fighters (S.544; 3/5/03). Thanks to Chris's leadership, the IAFF was able to double funding for SAFER to $115 million.

    Since the SAFER Act became law, Chris Dodd has aggressively sought to secure and increase its funding. Not only did Chris Dodd introduce SAFER legislation and execute creative strategies that succeeded in having it signed into law, but nearly every year when the Senate has taken up the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriation, Chris introduces an amendment to increase funding for SAFER. More than two-thirds of fire departments in the United States are understaffed, and Chris Dodd understands that in order to respond efficiently and safely to emergency situations, fire departments must be adequately staffed according to national standards. Without Senator Dodd, the SAFER program would not exist - or if it did, funding would have been slashed long ago.

    FIRE Act

    Chris Dodd authored and introduced the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (FIRE Act) in the United States Senate, which provides critical funding to fire fighters for equipment and training (S.1941; 11/17/99). In addition to introducing the FIRE Act and ensuring it was signed into law, Chris Dodd has introduced an amendment to increase funding for FIRE Act grants nearly every year when the Senate has taken up the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriation. Without Senator Dodd, the FIRE Act program would not exist - or if it did, funding would have been slashed long ago.

    The historic FIRE Act legislation - passed into law in 2000 - marked the first time the federal government acknowledged its obligation to share in the cost of providing fire and emergency protection. After a year of opposition, Senator Dodd broke the gridlock to pass the FIRE Act and ensured it was signed into law. Since the FIRE Act became law, through Chris Dodd's leadership, more than $3 billion has been provided to fire departments across the country.

    Family & Medical Leave Act

    Chris Dodd authored the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and fought for seven years and two presidential vetoes until it finally became law. Since the legislation was enacted in 1993, an estimated 50 million workers have been able to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to recover from an illness or injury, or to care for a new child or a sick family member. Because of Chris's leadership, American families never have to choose between the job they need and the family they love.

    Retirement & Benefits Security

    Chris Dodd has consistently led the effort in the United States Senate to protect fire fighter benefits and pensions, including fighting for passage of the Healthcare Enhancement for Local Public Safety (HELPS) Retirees Act.

    Chris Dodd's leadership in the Senate helped secure the passage of HELPS, which allows all existing and future IAFF retirees to allocate up to $3,000 of their pension or deferred compensation savings tax free to pay for health or long-term premium care. Chris was one of only 13 senators to sign a Senate letter asking the Pension Conference Committee to include HELPS in the pension package. Additionally, he has successfully fought against proposals from the Bush administration and others that would undermine fire fighter retirement systems.

    Chris Dodd also advocates that every fire fighter should be afforded a defined benefit retirement program with provisions to provide pension benefits for any fire fighter injured or disabled in the line of duty and unable to continue work as a first responder.

    In addition, he supports employer-sponsored health care for all active and retired fire fighters and their dependents.

    Public Safety Officers Benefit

    Chris Dodd has been a long-time champion of the Public Safety Officers Benefit (PSOB) program for fire fighters. In fact, one of his first votes as a young congressman was to authorize the original PSOB program in September 1976.

    For 30 years since, Chris Dodd has fought to expand the payable amount and coverage under the program. Originally approved for $50,000 to cover only certain fire fighters and only in the event of death, PSOB legislation now is $300,000, covers all public sector fire fighters and includes a disability benefit. Most recently, in 2003, Chris championed the Hometown Heroes Act to expand PSOB to include heart attacks and strokes.

    Homeland Security

    Chris Dodd has been at the forefront in demanding that adequate resources be expended to protect our homeland. He has advocated for more robust funding to protect our cities and towns, secure our borders, protect our ports, guarantee transportation safety and harden targets such as nuclear facilities, water treatment plants and communications centers.

    Chris Dodd supports increased funding for Urban Area Security Investment (UASI) grants, the Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) program and other block grants to assist first responders. He also recognizes that communities are best protected by well-trained, fully staffed career fire, rescue and EMS departments.

    Commitment to Working Families

    Senator Dodd has championed the rights of all working men and women. He has a 91 percent career voting record on labor issues.

    Federal Employee Rights

    Chris Dodd has led the fight against the Bush administration's assault on collective bargaining rights of federal employees. He has worked to overturn regulations that deny basic labor protections to Department of Defense employees, air traffic controllers and airport screeners.

    Restore Workers' Freedom to Form Unions and Protect Collective Bargaining Rights

    Chris Dodd authored the RESPECT Act (S. 969), which would reverse a series of decisions from the National Labor Relations Board that unfairly expanded the definition of a "supervisor" so that many workers would be denied the right to join a union. Chris believes the freedom to form a union is one of our most fundamental rights and was an original cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act (S. 1041), also known as the "Card Check" bill, which will remove obstacles to joining a union, such as the cumbersome election process that can be delayed by employers to intimidate or discourage workers.

    Paycheck Protection

    Chris Dodd has repeatedly opposed so-called "Paycheck Protection" legislation. This legislation unfairly targeted unions to silence their political voice by requiring unions to obtain permission from dues-paying members before spending money on political activities.

    Opposed Bush Administration Rule to Eliminate Overtime Pay

    Chris Dodd supported a measure to block implementation of the Labor Department's controversial overtime pay rule in 2004. Under the rule, millions of workers lost their right to overtime pay - including those making as little as $23,600 a year. Chris also criticized the overtime rule, stating, "For three years, President Bush and his allies have worked to deny overtime pay to eight million Americans. They want people to work harder, but not be paid for their effort."

    Minimum Wage

    Chris Dodd has a long record of supporting legislation to increase the minimum wage - including the long-overdue measure to increase it from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. (Senate Vote #42, 2/1/07; Senate Vote #179, 6/21/06; Senate Vote #257, 10/19/05; Senate Vote #26, 3/5/05; Senate Vote #75, 4/7/00; Senate Vote #356, 11/9/99; Senate Vote #239, 7/30/99; and Senate Vote #77, 3/25/99)

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    furlofmalta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    59

    Default

    I knew I was forgetting a few (the ones I listed were just those that I know of from all the exposure they get). I don't know much about Dodd but I think he was one of the ones that I liked during the democrat debate.
    Personally, I like to think that I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative which is the exact opposite of what today's republican party embodies and closer to democratic values even though neither side really embraces those views it is just that I am more willing to budge on my economic stance than I am with my social stance.
    After seeing what happened down south last month I really mistrust politicians nowadays in terms of their relation to the fire service. The only thing worse than a fire is a political fire.
    Chris Dodd looks like a good candidate I'll have to read up on him.

    This post just mainly came from watching the Republican Debate (arguing about what types of torture are acceptable??????????I'll have to remember which candidate supported nipple bondage because that is an important issue that I look at when choosing a candidate) and the Democratic Debate (Hillary and Obama arguing about who is more of a pawn for the republican party) all the while people like Ron Paul, Dodd, Richardson etc. trying to bring up issues that are actually legitimate and getting gawked at and cut off by the media covering the debate.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    I personally would like to see a Dodd/Biden or Dodd/Richardson ticket myself. I also think Dodd will do better in Iowa then will be expected.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by localtrainer75 View Post
    The members of the International Association of Fire Fighters have no greater advocate or leader in the United States Senate than Chris Dodd (D-CT). His tireless work on behalf of fire fighters, emergency medical personnel and their families has helped make the fire fighting profession safer, more adequately funded and equitable to those on the frontline. Chris Dodd currently serves as the chair of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus and is one of only two recipients of the IAFF Lifetime Achievement Award.
    Mr. Dodd's long support of the fire service is the only reason he was endorsed by the IAFF. With his track record, how could the IAFF not endorse him? IMHO, it certainly had nothing to do with him having a snowball's chance in Hell of ever being elected President.

    Watch and see who gets the democratic nod: It won't be Dodd. Then watch and see Dodd -- and his IAFF endorsement -- throw in right behind whoever is nominated.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  7. #7
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Mr. Dodd's long support of the fire service is the only reason he was endorsed by the IAFF. With his track record, how could the IAFF not endorse him? IMHO, it certainly had nothing to do with him having a snowball's chance in Hell of ever being elected President.

    Watch and see who gets the democratic nod: It won't be Dodd. Then watch and see Dodd -- and his IAFF endorsement -- throw in right behind whoever is nominated.
    That happens in most any case where a candidates bid fails. It does not necessarily mean Dodd's campaign is doomed from start. If you are an IAFF member, you may want to attend the Legislative conference next March. There is never one party that comes to the table with the perfect ticket and perfect solutions to every issue. The IAFF's approach to support candidates who support firefighter issues is right on target. If they support our issues, they mostly line up with our values..(not individualy). So, time will tell....go to iaff online thats a start.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by localtrainer75 View Post
    That happens in most any case where a candidates bid fails. It does not necessarily mean Dodd's campaign is doomed from start. If you are an IAFF member, you may want to attend the Legislative conference next March.
    In this case, I don't think that anyone has ever seriously considered Mr. Dodd to be a viable candidate. The endorsement is, IMHO, strictly an "attaboy" from the IAFF. Make no mistake, I like him, I like what he's done for the fire service. I highly doubt that he will be nominated. I say this both as a long time IAFF member and as a CT voter.

    As for the conference, I'd love to attend along with a dozen or so other professional conferences and meetings that I'd dearly like to get to every year. Budget and practicality says I probably won't make it to that one but, hopefully, at least one representative from our Local will.

    Quote Originally Posted by localtrainer75 View Post
    The IAFF's approach to support candidates who support firefighter issues is right on target.
    Granted, it was the right thing for us to do. But, let's face it, it was just a political gesture.

    Quote Originally Posted by localtrainer75 View Post
    ...go to iaff online thats a start.
    On that part I have to say, "I'm sorry, but no way." It took me forever to get off of their spam lists when I made the mistake of registering there. I prefer to get my IAFF news in print now.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    Raughammer1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    667

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by furlofmalta View Post

    On the right we have

    Giuliani - Definately NO. I don't like the guy. I never have liked the guy. All he has is 9/11 and even then he did a bad job as mayor of NYC in the wake of that tragedy. He is a heartless career politician in my honest opinion. I will never vote for this man.
    I agree 100% here, your analysis is spot on.

    Huckabee-Good candidate. Unfortunately, due to his handling of the Wayne Dumond case I can never vote for him. If you don't know about the Wayne Dumond case basically, to tell a long story short, Huckabee assumed governorship of Arkansas after Clinton who had been stern with Dumond who had raped a woman who was a distant relative of Clinton; Huckabee assumes office; commutes Dumond's (who was serving a life sentence) sentence for political reasons; Dumond moves to Kansas City and rapes and kills another woman.
    So yeah No. Sorry I can't vote for that.
    Now this one i disagree with, one because you obviously have more info on it than i do, but for one issue...one decision? Of all the top tier candidates i CAN see myself voting for this guy.
    Hunter- Don't really know that much about him but he seems like a neo-con and I am a paleo-con and I don't want another dubya so until he proves me wrong. NO.
    Then do your homework, the guy is everything i wish i candidate should be, well other than his non existent media coverage. I would vote him in a heart beat. He is the BEST of the field ...its just too bad more folks dont know more about him.
    McCain- I like the guy. Actually met him once, but I don't think he has the support to be elected.
    I wouldnt walk across the street to pee in his ear if his brain was on fire. He loathes christian conservatives and only considers us a means to an end. He is the LAST of the republicans i can see myself voting for.
    Paul-
    This is actually one candidate I could see myself voting for if he could gain some support
    The dude is a moonbat...now with that said, i "could" vote for him before i would vote for ANY of the dem candidates.
    Romney- NO. I don't need to explain he is a north-eastern elitist trying to play it off like he's not.
    Yea, but at least you know what your getting, he is not my fav, but i could hold my nose and vote for him.
    Tancredo- He believes we should respond to terrorism with terrorism. NO
    Man, this is my second candidate, he would put America FIRST. He or Duncan Hunter would work for America...i just dont see this guy letting anyone get but not give, i dont see him letting Mexico call the shots in our relationship, but i dont see him having a chance in hell of getting elected either.
    Thompson- NO. I like his ideas but this statement alone changes my opinion "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." This is just unacceptable. You can't make those sort of ignorant statements and be our commander and chief.
    I am not about to write someone off for one statement that for all i know was taken out of context. i would vote for him but he lacks energy and his support is falling daily while Huckbees support is rising. I would vote for Huck before Thompson.
    On the left we have
    Clinton- NO. Where are her ideas? All I've seen is bickering and name calling.
    She has none and that plays well for her, as long as she does not take a stand she does not show her far lefties that she is more of an authortarian then they would stomach. She has ideas but you wont find out what they are until she is in office and by then it is too late. On the plus side people HATE her. Not dislike or think low of...they HATE her. That makes it hard row to hoe to win the highest office.
    Obama- NO. For the same reasons. Show me some ideas. Don't just tell me Bush was a horrible president and expect to get my vote.
    The dude is an idiot who has no ideas and like Clinton refuses to take a stand on most issues when he is not race baiting or pandering to blacks. His church is a maelstrom for racial hatred. No...
    Biden- NO. For the same reasons as Thompson. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, ... I mean, that's a storybook, man." in reference to Obama.
    You can't make those sort of statements and expect me to vote for you.
    LOL, biden is a third tier candidate who i think has some of the best ideas of the lot on that side of the aisle. But, he stands not a chance.
    Richardson- Maybe. I like his ideas on the border. He has the experience to deal with that problem. I think he has a good grasp of the problems this country is facing and has offered up good ideas for remediating those problems. Unfortunately I don't think he is mainstream enough to get elected.
    Ditto, bit his pandering to hispanics over rides any thoughts of voting for the guy. I cant vote for a race baiter. I do not care what race you are, i dont want to see you wear it as a badge of honor....either we are all equal or not, i am color blind to race....but it you shove it in my face that your (insert race here) i will vote against you as a matter of principle.
    Gravel- Maybe. Same story as Richardson. Too insignificant to get elected.
    Ditto...
    Edwards- NO. He is basically a male Hillary. NO
    He was a defense lawyer who made his money suing other people, he is the worst of the worst on that stage. His ideas inclue making it illegal to not go in for a health check up. Yea...the fella is FAR far out there.
    Kucinich- Maybe. Same story as Gravel, Paul, McCain and Richardson. They have good ideas in my opinion. They offer solutions. But they are dwarfed by Obama and Hillary.
    How anyone, and i mean ANYONE can take Kucinich seriously is beyond me. He is the furthest left of anyone on that stage. from taxation, to just down right hostile to corporate America...he would ruin this country like no one since Carter or Before Carter...
    Basically this is the worst slate of candidates I have ever seen. True I've only been voting since 2000 and I'm sure that some of you nonos have seen some elections/candidates that were worse but for me this is the most important election I have seen so far in my life and the lack of any quality candidates is somewhat troubling given our current predicament.
    I disagree, it is just the media picked who was going to be first tier candidates and the quality candidates in the back of the field have not been able to get any traction... i am glad to see Huckabee gaining some exposure.

    Hunter, Huckabee, Tancredo and even Thompson i could and would vote for with little to no hesitation.
    Heck thats 4 candidates from where i am sitting that i can live with...it's all good. :-)
    Last edited by Raughammer1; 11-24-2007 at 01:06 PM.

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raughammer1 View Post
    He loathes christian conservatives...
    I knew there was something I liked about him...
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    Raughammer1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    667

    Talking McCain

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I knew there was something I liked about him...

    We each have or own road to travel. Your goes to the left, mine to the right.

    Thats ok, to each his own.

    Thankfully the candidates who are hostile to Christian conservatives (McCain) are falling to the wayside while the pro-christian candidates are surging (Huckabee).

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default Phony hypocrite

    Quote Originally Posted by Raughammer1 View Post



    I wouldnt walk across the street to pee in his ear if his brain was on fire.
    How very Christian of you.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    I just want Fred Thompson to win so they can play the Law & Order sound when a press conference starts.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raughammer1 View Post
    We each have or own road to travel. Your goes to the left, mine to the right.
    Actually mine doesn't go nearly as far left as you seem to think. I'm just funny about that whole separation of church and state thing. I happen to think that it's a monumentally good idea. The authors of the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) seemed to think so and I agree. Of course, they would have been considered pretty far to the left in their day, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raughammer1 View Post
    Thankfully the candidates who are hostile to Christian conservatives (McCain) are falling to the wayside while the pro-christian candidates are surging (Huckabee).
    I'm less concerned with the "conservatives" than with the so-called "Christians." I don't care for any candidate who abuses the political process to try and force his/her religious views on the electorate.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nmfire View Post
    I just want Fred Thompson to win so they can play the Law & Order sound when a press conference starts.
    I don't see Fred being a big contender but it would at least be impressive to watch him deliver a good speech... The man does have a pretty *****-kicking presence when he's in character...

    This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
    Of course, he'd need to put Tom Clancy on his speech writing staff.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Raughammer1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    667

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Actually mine doesn't go nearly as far left as you seem to think.
    I never alluded to how far to the left i thought it went. It's to the left of me...hence the comment. I never meant you to take offense at it.


    I'm just funny about that whole separation of church and state thing. I happen to think that it's a monumentally good idea. The authors of the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) seemed to think so and I agree. Of course, they would have been considered pretty far to the left in their day, too.
    Yea, their whole support of slavery, only land owning men could vote by thier decree....etc. etc. sure would have had them squarely in the left side of the political spectrum. But that was then and now is now. Like i said your to the left of me and it was only a little comment. I guess if you felt it needed defending...


    I'm less concerned with the "conservatives" than with the so-called "Christians." I don't care for any candidate who abuses the political process to try and force his/her religious views on the electorate.
    Here we disagree, i do not see any candidate forcing their singular religious viewpoint on others with any success or frequency.
    I do see them trying to hold onto the status quo.
    But once again if you feel it is a big issue you are more than in your rights to fight against it; More power to you.

  17. #17
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I'm just funny about that whole separation of church and state thing.

    Where again, is that written in the constitution?

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I don't see Fred being a big contender but it would at least be impressive to watch him deliver a good speech... The man does have a pretty *****-kicking presence when he's in character...
    This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
    Of course, he'd need to put Tom Clancy on his speech writing staff.
    That was on yesterday. Watched it again for the 300th time. Great movie.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasper45 View Post
    Where again, is that written in the constitution?
    That would be in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

    Don't feel badly, lot's of people don't know where to find it.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nmfire View Post
    I just want Fred Thompson to win so they can play the Law & Order sound when a press conference starts.
    http://www.tripletsandus.com/80s/tv_theme_wav.htm
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  21. #21
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    That would be in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

    Don't feel badly, lot's of people don't know where to find it.

    Are you sure that's what it says in the first amendment?

    Are you sure it doesn't say this?

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  22. #22
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasper45 View Post
    Are you sure that's what it says in the first amendment?
    The courts have rendered opinions of the 1st Ammendment as the basis for the seperation of church and state.

    The phrase
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
    has been taken to mean there will be no establishment of an official church or religion by the US Government as it is organized within the confines of the Constitution.

    The Founding Fathers were either aware of or experienced life in Great Britain where Church of England was an integral part of that nation's society.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasper45 View Post
    Are you sure that's what it says in the first amendment?
    I'm sorry, did I use any quotation marks or anything else to imply I was quoting?

    Thank you, scfire, for pointing out what I assumed was obvious.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  24. #24
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Actually mine doesn't go nearly as far left as you seem to think. I'm just funny about that whole separation of church and state thing. I happen to think that it's a monumentally good idea. The authors of the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) seemed to think so and I agree. Of course, they would have been considered pretty far to the left in their day, too.

    Maybe there was some confusion, but here is the quote from you that I responded to. You did use the phrase 'separation of church and state thing'. I know I was being ticky about it, but I have been corrected in the past when talking about the constitution. I'm not saying by you, but from others, and on this issue.

    The constitution, as it is written, talks nothing about separating church and state. It states as SC pointed out, that no establishment of a religion by the government, or preventing the free exercise of one.

    Believe it or not, Sc and I were saying the same thing. There is no such thing as a 'separation of church and state', as written in the constitution. All it states is what Sc pointed out.
    Last edited by jasper45; 11-26-2007 at 12:02 PM. Reason: missed word

  25. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber
    RoughRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oyster Bay, NY
    Posts
    798

    Default

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

    These sixteen simple words in the Constitution of the United States have a unique place. Together they constitute a principle our nation's Founders deemed so important that these two phrases, known as the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, respectively, became the first lines of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights -- the principle enumeration of inalienable rights deemed so essential to liberty that they should be named explicitly in the Constitution, to be protected by it.

    Yet, for something so essential, the rights named in these two phrases have been subject to scrutiny out of all proportion to their sixteen meager words. What did the Founders intend for the relationship between church and state, belief and government, to be? Is there, as Thomas Jefferson suggested in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, a "wall of separation" between the two? In short the answer is yes. But to extend the wall metaphor, a simple "yes" does not answer how high or impenetrable that wall is, what are its contours, or if it contains gates whereby religion and the state may interact. To bring any clarity to these issues, the history and context of the American founding must be accounted for.



    Evidently the authors of the 50 State Constitutions didnt build a big enough wall.

    Alabama 1901, Preamble.
    "We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..."

    Alaska 1956, Preamble.
    "We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land..."

    Arizona 1911, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution..."

    Arkansas 1874, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government..."

    California 1879, Preamble.
    "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom..."

    Colorado 1876, Preamble.
    "We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe..."

    Connecticut 1818, Preamble.
    "The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy..."

    Delaware 1897, Preamble.
    "Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences..."

    Florida 1885, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty... establish this Constitution..."

    Georgia 1777, Preamble.
    "We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution..."

    Hawaii 1959, Preamble.
    "We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance establish this Constitution..."

    Idaho 1889, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings..."

    Illinois 1870, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors..."

    Indiana 1851, Preamble.
    "We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government..."

    Iowa 1857, Preamble.
    "We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution..."

    Kansas 1859, Preamble.
    "We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution..."

    Kentucky 1891, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..."

    Louisiana 1921, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy..."

    Maine 1820, Preamble.
    "We the People of Maine... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity... and imploring His aid and direction..."

    Maryland 1776, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty..."

    Massachusetts 1780, Preamble.
    "We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity... and devoutly imploring His direction..."

    Michigan 1908, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom... establish this Constitution..."

    Minnesota, 1857, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings..."

    Mississippi 1890, Preamble.
    "We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work..."

    Missouri 1845, Preamble.
    "We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness establish this Constitution..."

    Montana 1889, Preamble.
    "We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution..."

    Nebraska 1875, Preamble.
    "We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution..."

    Nevada 1864, Preamble.
    "We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom... establish this Constitution..."

    New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. "Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience..."

    New Jersey 1844, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors..."

    New Mexico 1911, Preamble.
    "We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..."

    New York 1846, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings..."

    North Carolina 1868, Preamble.
    "We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those..."

    North Dakota 1889, Preamble.
    "We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain..."

    Ohio 1852, Preamble.
    "We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common..."

    Oklahoma 1907, Preamble.
    "Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty... establish this..."

    Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. "All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..."

    Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble.
    "We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance..."

    Rhode Island 1842, Preamble.
    "We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing..."

    South Carolina, 1778, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution..."

    South Dakota 1889, Preamble.
    "We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties... establish this..."

    Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. "That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience... "

    Texas 1845, Preamble.
    "We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God..."

    Utah 1896, Preamble.
    "Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution..."

    Vermont 1777, Preamble.
    "Whereas all government ought to... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man..."

    Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI. "Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other..."

    Washington 1889, Preamble.
    "We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution..."

    West Virginia 1872, Preamble.
    "Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God..."

    Wisconsin 1848, Preamble.
    "We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility..."

    Wyoming 1890, Preamble.
    "We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties... establish this Constitution..."
    Last edited by RoughRider; 11-26-2007 at 12:21 PM.
    Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

    The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


    IACOJ PROUD

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. See What Candidate Agrees with you!
    By HotTrotter in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-14-2007, 12:45 PM
  2. What makes a successful FF candidate?
    By JLam77 in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 12:34 PM
  3. Darwin award candidate
    By rualfire in forum News Center
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-08-2006, 12:06 PM
  4. Another darwin Candidate
    By protomkv in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-21-2004, 07:15 PM
  5. Presidential candidate
    By DaSharkie in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 12-10-2003, 12:20 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

Log in

Click here to log in or register