Why I'm voting Democrat Part 2: Romney's insult to cops/firemen

[California Girl]

More? No. But we need to keep the ones we have.

Not surprisingly, your position makes no logical sense. The rate of fires has been decreasing dramatically over the years, as has the rate of injury due to fire. There are fewer fires and fewer dangers from fires, but you want to keep the number of firefighters locked. If you owned a firefighting business, is that how you would run it?



No one "deserves" a salary, one EARNS a salary. What Marxist bullshit are you spreading here?



Clearly.

But I'll take a guess. When the colonies won the Revolutionary War, they helped each other on US soil. They helped put out fires the Brits set. Their common folk in the non-regular militia fought off threats for each other, over state lines. I'd guess if George Washington was asked to send help to CHarleston to put out a massive fire, or to control violent crime waves, he would. Oh wait............HE DID.

So, yeah, I'd argue the Feds can send resources to a state for the protection of it's people if needed.

A wild ass guess. Those militia were STATE militia. States are free to send their citizen's money to other states for the purposes of hiring firefighters...even if they're not needed. The federal government has NO such authority...unless I missed that in the enumerated powers.

1) Why do you think the level of fires has dropped? (Hint: Good firemen) Should we change that now and risk it going back?

2) So you're saying George Washington would have opposed sending federal aid to Charleston, SC, to control massive fires or violent crime? (Because he did just that).

**So risking one's life to defend strangers in his city isn't "deserving" of a decent salary? I suppose you'd argue that cops should only get paid when a crime is occurring then right? Otherwise, what are they doing to "earn" their salary?

How many firefighters are employed by the federal government?

 

[bucs90]

LOL!

The poseur is back?

Ask Jake Starkey to help you pick a new avi and again, thanks for validating my "Progs are Compulsive Liars" thesis

As I explained, my avatar still applies. I still think Obama should stop blaming Bush, thats not leadership. Speaking of avatars, I find it a bit offensive you have a law enforcement officer who was murdered on-duty as your avatar in a political forum. Not the place.

 

[bucs90]

Not surprisingly, your position makes no logical sense. The rate of fires has been decreasing dramatically over the years, as has the rate of injury due to fire. There are fewer fires and fewer dangers from fires, but you want to keep the number of firefighters locked. If you owned a firefighting business, is that how you would run it?



No one "deserves" a salary, one EARNS a salary. What Marxist bullshit are you spreading here?



Clearly.



A wild ass guess. Those militia were STATE militia. States are free to send their citizen's money to other states for the purposes of hiring firefighters...even if they're not needed. The federal government has NO such authority...unless I missed that in the enumerated powers.

1) Why do you think the level of fires has dropped? (Hint: Good firemen) Should we change that now and risk it going back?

2) So you're saying George Washington would have opposed sending federal aid to Charleston, SC, to control massive fires or violent crime? (Because he did just that).

**So risking one's life to defend strangers in his city isn't "deserving" of a decent salary? I suppose you'd argue that cops should only get paid when a crime is occurring then right? Otherwise, what are they doing to "earn" their salary?

How many firefighters are employed by the federal government?

A lot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not surprisingly, your position makes no logical sense. The rate of fires has been decreasing dramatically over the years, as has the rate of injury due to fire. There are fewer fires and fewer dangers from fires, but you want to keep the number of firefighters locked. If you owned a firefighting business, is that how you would run it?



No one "deserves" a salary, one EARNS a salary. What Marxist bullshit are you spreading here?



Clearly.



A wild ass guess. Those militia were STATE militia. States are free to send their citizen's money to other states for the purposes of hiring firefighters...even if they're not needed. The federal government has NO such authority...unless I missed that in the enumerated powers.

1) Why do you think the level of fires has dropped? (Hint: Good firemen) Should we change that now and risk it going back?

2) So you're saying George Washington would have opposed sending federal aid to Charleston, SC, to control massive fires or violent crime? (Because he did just that).

**So risking one's life to defend strangers in his city isn't "deserving" of a decent salary? I suppose you'd argue that cops should only get paid when a crime is occurring then right? Otherwise, what are they doing to "earn" their salary?

How many firefighters are employed by the federal government?

Progressives are a bottomless pit of lies and distortion. The only thing they're honest about is their hatred of American founding principals.

 

[bucs90]

Not surprisingly, your position makes no logical sense. The rate of fires has been decreasing dramatically over the years, as has the rate of injury due to fire. There are fewer fires and fewer dangers from fires, but you want to keep the number of firefighters locked. If you owned a firefighting business, is that how you would run it?



No one "deserves" a salary, one EARNS a salary. What Marxist bullshit are you spreading here?



Clearly.



A wild ass guess. Those militia were STATE militia. States are free to send their citizen's money to other states for the purposes of hiring firefighters...even if they're not needed. The federal government has NO such authority...unless I missed that in the enumerated powers.

1) Why do you think the level of fires has dropped? (Hint: Good firemen) Should we change that now and risk it going back?

2) So you're saying George Washington would have opposed sending federal aid to Charleston, SC, to control massive fires or violent crime? (Because he did just that).

**So risking one's life to defend strangers in his city isn't "deserving" of a decent salary? I suppose you'd argue that cops should only get paid when a crime is occurring then right? Otherwise, what are they doing to "earn" their salary?

How many firefighters are employed by the federal government?

Not only a lot, but until recently their compensation was so "bloated".....they didn't even have health insurance while fighting a fire: Federal Firefighters Can Get Health Insurance

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL!

The poseur is back?

Ask Jake Starkey to help you pick a new avi and again, thanks for validating my "Progs are Compulsive Liars" thesis

As I explained, my avatar still applies. I still think Obama should stop blaming Bush, thats not leadership. Speaking of avatars, I find it a bit offensive you have a law enforcement officer who was murdered on-duty as your avatar in a political forum. Not the place.

Oh Bucs90! You're so dreamy! You're like independent minded or something! You're flipping to an Obamaroid is really made me reconsider...well nothing, except how accurate I am that you Progressives are compulsive liars.

I've been posting about Brian Terry since about the second week of his murder and if it bothers you you can always go fuck yourself.

 

[California Girl]

More? No. But we need to keep the ones we have. And they deserve a decent salary and modest retirement. Union FD's have bloated it, and I accept there will be cutbacks in some of those. The non-union ones in the South, who already dont make much, shouldn't be cut or be cut as LAST resort along with PD. TP mayor are slashing like Edward Scissorhands.

Authority? I dont know. I'm not a Constitutional Law expert. But I'll take a guess. When the colonies won the Revolutionary War, they helped each other on US soil. They helped put out fires the Brits set. Their common folk in the non-regular militia fought off threats for each other, over state lines. I'd guess if George Washington was asked to send help to CHarleston to put out a massive fire, or to control violent crime waves, he would. Oh wait............HE DID.

So, yeah, I'd argue the Feds can send resources to a state for the protection of it's people if needed.

The federal government has jack shit to do with police and firefighters. And, Romney hasn't disrespected them... unless of course, you're getting your "facts" from the left wing media... who have consistently lied about what Romney says.

You're either:

a. lying your ass of for the craic of it

or

b. totally lost your fucking mind.

I don't really care which... as long as you don't repeat bullshit.

If you think the Feds dont have "jack shit" to do with police and fire, then you've obviously never worked as either. Local PD/FD get a LOT of funding, training, aid from the state and federal levels. From 2009-2011 lots of PD's kept cops employed through stimulus money. Tea Partiers call that a handout: The kids of those cops and firemen call it keeping food on the table.

They are not employed by federal government. The stimulus was supposed to stimulate the economy... the reason why this country is still struggling as badly as it is is because the stimulus was pissed away protecting union jobs rather than stimulating the economy. That's a hand out. That money was supposed to provide money to stimulate the actual economy... which then could have provided private sector jobs, which would increase tax revenue, which would then provide more money for public sector jobs. I personally support police and fire jobs as something that I am happy to pay for. The problem is not them... it is the rest of the clusterfuck of 'essentials' provided by government.

I suggest you get your facts straight before you rant.

 

[bucs90]

1) Why do you think the level of fires has dropped? (Hint: Good firemen) Should we change that now and risk it going back?

2) So you're saying George Washington would have opposed sending federal aid to Charleston, SC, to control massive fires or violent crime? (Because he did just that).

**So risking one's life to defend strangers in his city isn't "deserving" of a decent salary? I suppose you'd argue that cops should only get paid when a crime is occurring then right? Otherwise, what are they doing to "earn" their salary?

How many firefighters are employed by the federal government?

Progressives are a bottomless pit of lies and distortion. The only thing they're honest about is their hatred of American founding principals.

You accused me of lying when I said the Feds are in fact involved with local PD's and FD's, in funding, training, aid, etc.

Can you prove it? Because I worked for a large PD, and know it for a fact.

 

[eflatminor]

More? No. But we need to keep the ones we have.

Not surprisingly, your position makes no logical sense. The rate of fires has been decreasing dramatically over the years, as has the rate of injury due to fire. There are fewer fires and fewer dangers from fires, but you want to keep the number of firefighters locked. If you owned a firefighting business, is that how you would run it?



No one "deserves" a salary, one EARNS a salary. What Marxist bullshit are you spreading here?



Clearly.

But I'll take a guess. When the colonies won the Revolutionary War, they helped each other on US soil. They helped put out fires the Brits set. Their common folk in the non-regular militia fought off threats for each other, over state lines. I'd guess if George Washington was asked to send help to CHarleston to put out a massive fire, or to control violent crime waves, he would. Oh wait............HE DID.

So, yeah, I'd argue the Feds can send resources to a state for the protection of it's people if needed.

A wild ass guess. Those militia were STATE militia. States are free to send their citizen's money to other states for the purposes of hiring firefighters...even if they're not needed. The federal government has NO such authority...unless I missed that in the enumerated powers.

1) Why do you think the level of fires has dropped? (Hint: Good firemen) Should we change that now and risk it going back?

It has nothing to do with firefighters. It has everything to do with construction materials, interior furnishings, and automobiles being made from material that is less prone to combustion and when it does burn, less prone to produce toxins. Hint: You're wrong.

2) So you're saying George Washington would have opposed sending federal aid to Charleston, SC, to control massive fires or violent crime? (Because he did just that).

First, that was pre-Constitution. Second, he sent STATE militia, not federal resources, which the Constitution does not allow.

So risking one's life to defend strangers in his city isn't "deserving" of a decent salary?

Of course it is, but when job is no longer necessary, there is no obligation to continue to provide that salary. Are you really this thick...or are you just being obtuse on purpose?

I suppose you'd argue that cops should only get paid when a crime is occurring then right? Otherwise, what are they doing to "earn" their salary?

No, I would not argue that. When a local community employs a police force, they are of course obligated to pay them. That does not mean other communities are obligated to pay for their police force.

 

[bucs90]

The federal government has jack shit to do with police and firefighters. And, Romney hasn't disrespected them... unless of course, you're getting your "facts" from the left wing media... who have consistently lied about what Romney says.

You're either:

a. lying your ass of for the craic of it

or

b. totally lost your fucking mind.

I don't really care which... as long as you don't repeat bullshit.

If you think the Feds dont have "jack shit" to do with police and fire, then you've obviously never worked as either. Local PD/FD get a LOT of funding, training, aid from the state and federal levels. From 2009-2011 lots of PD's kept cops employed through stimulus money. Tea Partiers call that a handout: The kids of those cops and firemen call it keeping food on the table.

They are not employed by federal government. The stimulus was supposed to stimulate the economy... the reason why this country is still struggling as badly as it is is because the stimulus was pissed away protecting union jobs rather than stimulating the economy. That's a hand out. That money was supposed to provide money to stimulate the actual economy... which then could have provided private sector jobs, which would increase tax revenue, which would then provide more money for public sector jobs. I personally support police and fire jobs as something that I am happy to pay for. The problem is not them... it is the rest of the clusterfuck of 'essentials' provided by government.

I suggest you get your facts straight before you rant.

Oh really, thanks for educating me. Because the Charleston County Sheriff's Office (Charleston, SC) used stimulus money to help keep a few dozen deputies employed from 2009-2011. OH.....they're non-union, and their starting pay is about 34K a year. Those deputies took that money....and spent every dime on some private sector good or service.

My facts are straight from experience, not a hunch, or what Newt Gingrich said on TV.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many firefighters are employed by the federal government?

Progressives are a bottomless pit of lies and distortion. The only thing they're honest about is their hatred of American founding principals.

You accused me of lying when I said the Feds are in fact involved with local PD's and FD's, in funding, training, aid, etc.

Can you prove it? Because I worked for a large PD, and know it for a fact.

You are a lying scumbag of the first order. Are you Jake Starkey's handler?

PD and fire are local issues. Local. Local. Look it up.

The Federal government has no business whatsoever involving itself in these matters no matter how badly you twist the Commerce Clause.

That you used that as an excuse to flip to an Obama Fluffer just means you are a Progressive Compulsive Liar

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If you think the Feds dont have "jack shit" to do with police and fire, then you've obviously never worked as either. Local PD/FD get a LOT of funding, training, aid from the state and federal levels. From 2009-2011 lots of PD's kept cops employed through stimulus money. Tea Partiers call that a handout: The kids of those cops and firemen call it keeping food on the table.

They are not employed by federal government. The stimulus was supposed to stimulate the economy... the reason why this country is still struggling as badly as it is is because the stimulus was pissed away protecting union jobs rather than stimulating the economy. That's a hand out. That money was supposed to provide money to stimulate the actual economy... which then could have provided private sector jobs, which would increase tax revenue, which would then provide more money for public sector jobs. I personally support police and fire jobs as something that I am happy to pay for. The problem is not them... it is the rest of the clusterfuck of 'essentials' provided by government.

I suggest you get your facts straight before you rant.

Oh really, thanks for educating me. Because the Charleston County Sheriff's Office (Charleston, SC) used stimulus money to help keep a few dozen deputies employed from 2009-2011. OH.....they're non-union, and their starting pay is about 34K a year. Those deputies took that money....and spent every dime on some private sector good or service.

My facts are straight from experience, not a hunch, or what Newt Gingrich said on TV.

Since when are police budgets released to their hired janitors?

 

[bucs90]

Not surprisingly, your position makes no logical sense. The rate of fires has been decreasing dramatically over the years, as has the rate of injury due to fire. There are fewer fires and fewer dangers from fires, but you want to keep the number of firefighters locked. If you owned a firefighting business, is that how you would run it?



No one "deserves" a salary, one EARNS a salary. What Marxist bullshit are you spreading here?



Clearly.



A wild ass guess. Those militia were STATE militia. States are free to send their citizen's money to other states for the purposes of hiring firefighters...even if they're not needed. The federal government has NO such authority...unless I missed that in the enumerated powers.

1) Why do you think the level of fires has dropped? (Hint: Good firemen) Should we change that now and risk it going back?

It has nothing to do with firefighters. It has everything to do with construction materials, interior furnishings, and automobiles being made from material that is less prone to combustion and when it does burn, less prone to produce toxins. Hint: You're wrong.



First, that was pre-Constitution. Second, he sent STATE militia, not federal resources, which the Constitution does not allow.

So risking one's life to defend strangers in his city isn't "deserving" of a decent salary?

Of course it is, but when job is no longer necessary, there is no obligation to continue to provide that salary. Are you really this thick...or are you just being obtuse on purpose?

I suppose you'd argue that cops should only get paid when a crime is occurring then right? Otherwise, what are they doing to "earn" their salary?

No, I would not argue that. When a local community employs a police force, they are of course obligated to pay them. That does not mean other communities are obligated to pay for their police force.

So the US president George Washington had the authority to order STATE militia to aid Charleston? Since when did Constitutionalists believe the US president has the power to order STATE militias around?


You're going in circles. In one sentence you say "when it's not longer necessary" to employ a govt worker they shouldn't keep getting a salary. But then you say that you would NOT agree with only paying cops when there is no crime going on, because we "are of course obligated to pay them".

So which is it? Are you obligated or not to pay cops/firemen regardless of the presence of fire and crime? You can't have it both ways ya know.

 

[WillowTree]

The Real Message Behind Mitt Romney’s Anti-Police And Firefighters ‘Gaffe’ | Mediaite

All the right wingers of the political world who are in power (mayors, govs, councils) seem to share the same idea: It's open season on cops and firemen. Lump them into the evil "government worker" label, and start slashing away.

This story didn't get reported much at all. Why? Well, maybe because I used to watch mostly FoxNews, and they just didn't spend a lot of time on it. I'm sure CNN, NBC, etc, didn't either.

And the above article sums it up so well. Romney and the right wing TP need votes from the right wing and independents. Which are mostly middle and upper class, many live in suburbs, and many are white. Which is fine. But the article explains, perfectly, that THOSE voting groups aren't as dependent on cops and firemen as, say, those in inner city ghettos. It says in those places, reductions in cops wont cause "someone to die" as a result. Thus, the voters accept it and dont really care. Again....just government workers, which are BAD.

Which is why I personally think "they" dont get it. Many on the right and in the TP live in the suburbs or in safe rural areas. They see a cop here and there. Probably live in fairly safe areas, with the biggest problems being speeding, DUI, some minor thefts. To them, "more cops" not only makes no sense, but they see TOO MANY cops. (Note: Often the case in cities the cops have helped make safe, the locals feel they are no longer necessary). Same with firemen. No one needs a fireman until their house is on fire.

What they dont realize is most FD's also have certified paramedics on the truck. And respond to ALL medical calls. So a person having a minor medical problem has a paramedic show up. If he/she can treat it there, guess what? It's free. You dont pay for an ambulance ride. You dont pay for an ER visit. Which means healthcare costs never happen. Good for everyone involved.

Unless you're the rich TP'er who sees the fire truck stopped at Subway for lunch and think "what a waste of my tax dollars to have so many fire trucks".

You'll made a good bitch ass liberal.. know why? because you don't understand what "we're broke" means. so stfu about it already.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Busc90 you should seriously think about a new screen name and not tell anyone its you, maybe Joe Starkey?

You have zero credibility, none. The days when you and Starkey could fool anyone are so long over that's its absurd you're still trying. It's the Internet equivalent of wooden teeth and buggy whips.

You're not gaining any follower, nobody takes you seriously, nobody pays any attention to you.

 

[eflatminor]

1) Why do you think the level of fires has dropped? (Hint: Good firemen) Should we change that now and risk it going back?

It has nothing to do with firefighters. It has everything to do with construction materials, interior furnishings, and automobiles being made from material that is less prone to combustion and when it does burn, less prone to produce toxins. Hint: You're wrong.



First, that was pre-Constitution. Second, he sent STATE militia, not federal resources, which the Constitution does not allow.



Of course it is, but when job is no longer necessary, there is no obligation to continue to provide that salary. Are you really this thick...or are you just being obtuse on purpose?

I suppose you'd argue that cops should only get paid when a crime is occurring then right? Otherwise, what are they doing to "earn" their salary?

No, I would not argue that. When a local community employs a police force, they are of course obligated to pay them. That does not mean other communities are obligated to pay for their police force.

So the US president George Washington had the authority to order STATE militia to aid Charleston? Since when did Constitutionalists believe the US president has the power to order STATE militias around?


You're going in circles. In one sentence you say "when it's not longer necessary" to employ a govt worker they shouldn't keep getting a salary. But then you say that you would NOT agree with only paying cops when there is no crime going on, because we "are of course obligated to pay them".

So which is it? Are you obligated or not to pay cops/firemen regardless of the presence of fire and crime? You can't have it both ways ya know.

Disingeniousness lying sack of shit. That is NOT what I said or implied. You damn well know it.

The authority came from the Articles of Confederation, which no longer apply. Constitutionalist believe in the Constitution, not the Articles. George Washington was NOT the President during the time you referenced! My God man, have you no idea of American history? Read a book why don't you.

Local communities pay local cops and firefighters as needed. When they're no longer needed (maybe because fires are far less frequent), the obligation to pay ends. The firefighter is free to get another job, just like anyone who's services are no longer required.

What a lying fuck you are...my goodness.

 

[bucs90]

They are not employed by federal government. The stimulus was supposed to stimulate the economy... the reason why this country is still struggling as badly as it is is because the stimulus was pissed away protecting union jobs rather than stimulating the economy. That's a hand out. That money was supposed to provide money to stimulate the actual economy... which then could have provided private sector jobs, which would increase tax revenue, which would then provide more money for public sector jobs. I personally support police and fire jobs as something that I am happy to pay for. The problem is not them... it is the rest of the clusterfuck of 'essentials' provided by government.

I suggest you get your facts straight before you rant.

Oh really, thanks for educating me. Because the Charleston County Sheriff's Office (Charleston, SC) used stimulus money to help keep a few dozen deputies employed from 2009-2011. OH.....they're non-union, and their starting pay is about 34K a year. Those deputies took that money....and spent every dime on some private sector good or service.

My facts are straight from experience, not a hunch, or what Newt Gingrich said on TV.

Since when are police budgets released to their hired janitors?

My neighbor is a deputy. Im a former cop from GA. You know...the whole blue brotherhood thing and how we are all friends? Not rocket science. But really....its fairly common knowledge that PD's get help from the Feds in tough times. George Washington sent help to Charleston in 1779 to help defend the city (Continentals, not state militia Charleston History)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Well, maybe because I used to watch mostly FoxNews, and they just didn't spend a lot of time on it..."

LOL

Did you write that yourself or did David Plouffe write if for you? It's so phony it's funny

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Real Message Behind Mitt Romney’s Anti-Police And Firefighters ‘Gaffe’ | Mediaite

All the right wingers of the political world who are in power (mayors, govs, councils) seem to share the same idea: It's open season on cops and firemen. Lump them into the evil "government worker" label, and start slashing away.

This story didn't get reported much at all. Why? Well, maybe because I used to watch mostly FoxNews, and they just didn't spend a lot of time on it. I'm sure CNN, NBC, etc, didn't either.

And the above article sums it up so well. Romney and the right wing TP need votes from the right wing and independents. Which are mostly middle and upper class, many live in suburbs, and many are white. Which is fine. But the article explains, perfectly, that THOSE voting groups aren't as dependent on cops and firemen as, say, those in inner city ghettos. It says in those places, reductions in cops wont cause "someone to die" as a result. Thus, the voters accept it and dont really care. Again....just government workers, which are BAD.

Which is why I personally think "they" dont get it. Many on the right and in the TP live in the suburbs or in safe rural areas. They see a cop here and there. Probably live in fairly safe areas, with the biggest problems being speeding, DUI, some minor thefts. To them, "more cops" not only makes no sense, but they see TOO MANY cops. (Note: Often the case in cities the cops have helped make safe, the locals feel they are no longer necessary). Same with firemen. No one needs a fireman until their house is on fire.

What they dont realize is most FD's also have certified paramedics on the truck. And respond to ALL medical calls. So a person having a minor medical problem has a paramedic show up. If he/she can treat it there, guess what? It's free. You dont pay for an ambulance ride. You dont pay for an ER visit. Which means healthcare costs never happen. Good for everyone involved.

Unless you're the rich TP'er who sees the fire truck stopped at Subway for lunch and think "what a waste of my tax dollars to have so many fire trucks".

You'll made a good bitch ass liberal.. know why? because you don't understand what "we're broke" means. so stfu about it already.

Bucs Starkey is funny

 

[bucs90]

You're not gaining any follower, nobody takes you seriously, nobody pays any attention to you.

Ok. Then I assume with that post you will now stop reading/responding to me. Goodbye.