Well...well...well...apparently the pressure was on to get endorsements. In fairness, Hogan got the Governor's endorsement, Brown was endorsed by Dolores Weaver etc., so I can understand the pressure to score legitimate political endorsements. This is Kimberly Daniels' idea of a legitimate political endorsement;
http://youtu.be/NxtNOYY258M
NO SHE DIDN'T
STOP! Danielstime!
:D
I guess they don't mind that they're running an illegal ad. It has the magic words ("vote for") instead of being an issue ad. And it's not paid for or approved by the Daniels campaign, at least according to the disclosure. This gem comes from something called Next Generation Leaders.
I didn't intentionally miss the point of the thread. I'm just too legit to quit pointing out lawbreakers.
I saw this ad yesterday.... could not believe it. Worst political ad of all time.
I HAD to... :)
http://www.youtube.com/v/WIHAkqCls4A
What were you expecting, C+C Music Factory? LOL!
Quote from: Jaxson on May 13, 2011, 08:38:40 AM
What were you expecting, C+C Music Factory? LOL!
Who's next? Vanilla Ice?
Ow. That hurt my brain.
This is just..bizarre.
Don't forget Color Me Badd! LOL!!!
Noooo!!!!!! I can't get youtube videos at work. So it was an MC Hammer endorsement???
I hope I can watch it later before somebody with some sense takes it down.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on May 13, 2011, 09:32:37 AM
Noooo!!!!!! I can't get youtube videos at work. So it was an MC Hammer endorsement???
I hope I can watch it later before somebody with some sense takes it down.
Don't worry, after the second time that happened during this election season, I started getting my video camera out and recording the commercials and posting them to my own youtube account so they can't 'disappear.' It'll be there when you get home.
And yes, it is everything you think it is and worse.
she got the endorsement from Hammer while he was here this past weekend for Funk Fest
Well gosh I know M.C. Hammer's endorsement swings my vote! ::)
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 13, 2011, 10:27:59 AM
Well gosh I know M.C. Hammer's endorsement swings my vote! ::)
REALLY ..... Now I would get it if Milli Vanilli endorsed her, but the HAMMA??????
Can we please get Nickelback to endorse Hogan???? That would potentially be the best thing i've ever seen. Unfortunately it might actually get him some votes in this town.
Quote from: Timkin on May 13, 2011, 11:14:07 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 13, 2011, 10:27:59 AM
Well gosh I know M.C. Hammer's endorsement swings my vote! ::)
REALLY ..... Now I would get it if Milli Vanilli endorsed her, but the HAMMA??????
She would have to settle for half of Milli Vanilli...one died a few years ago...
Looks like Daniels is getting some help from people who aren't MC Hammer.
I'm more than a little baffled by the names on this piece of paper.
http://jaxledger.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/2011-quick-picks.pdf
why does this surprise you?
I was under the impression that our elected officials were aware of some of the least savory aspects of Daniels character and public persona. I would like to believe that they've been misled or are uninformed.
Quote from: Jimmy on May 13, 2011, 02:08:09 PM
http://jaxledger.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/2011-quick-picks.pdf
Huh? Is it intentionally called "quick picks" to sound like a lottery ticket?
Quote from: fsujax on May 13, 2011, 02:16:23 PM
why does this surprise you?
+1
What did anyone expect from Gaffney?
Quote from: hooplady on May 13, 2011, 02:33:22 PM
Quote from: Jimmy on May 13, 2011, 02:08:09 PM
http://jaxledger.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/2011-quick-picks.pdf
Huh? Is it intentionally called "quick picks" to sound like a lottery ticket?
I can see the connection...much like a lotto ticket, you're guaranteed to lose with Daniels...
What about Paula Abdul?
I think the quikc picks are especially interesting because this group of Dems don't endorse Kravitz or Robinson...the more liberal candidates in their races.
Clearly, we were all duped when at first Glorious Johnson was mentioned as supporting Daniels, and were more or less lead to believe that Glorious wasn't aware of what Daniels is really about....but it's become more than clear that Glorious is supporting her....this from another thread, in which I just posted
QuoteQuote from: Diane MelendezI just got off the phone with Glorious. She was unaware of the video and the leanings expressed within and many of the writings. She is in the process of removing a number of related postings. Hatred in any form is not tolerable. She was approached with the issue of budget and rebuilding of core communities in an effort to gain her support and that is what she responded to. Suffice it to say Glorious now understands what is happening at all levels.
Quote from: Diane MelendezGlorious is in the process of responding to what she is learning. She will do what is right. I have known her for years and while she is full of spunk and the unexpected, she does not embrace hateful rhetoric. Again I would remind everyone that they do not know first hand the round the clock medical issues of her mother which is where her attention has been focused as well as her current council duties. When a person is maxed out a misstep or two can happen.
Quote from: Diane MelendezThe Daniels ad was in place and paid for before recent revelations made to Councilwoman Johnson. Councilwoman has said the following. "I do not embrace rhetoric of hate or bigoty toward any group. I will endeavor to use this situation to help me to open closed minds and engender understanding and acceptance. I see that I must work to change the hearts and minds of some and I am up to the challenge".
Well....so much for Glorious knowing the truth about Daniels....and hopes that she wasn't really endorsing her....but take a look at her facebook page...she's endorsing Daniels a lot!!
QuoteGlorious Johnson
Tell your family and friends to get out and vote. Early voting ends on Sunday, May 15th. You can also VOTE on Tuesday, May 17th. VOTE for KIMBERLY DANIELS!! Candidate for City Council, at Large, Group1.
http://www.facebook.com/gloriousj1 (http://www.facebook.com/gloriousj1)
This just absolutely turns my stomach...and boy does it feel bad when someone you've admired, stood by and truly care for, can turn around and show support for someone who is downright hateful, like Daniels.
We were definitely misled about Glorious and her support for Daniels. And I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: Timkin on May 13, 2011, 11:14:07 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 13, 2011, 10:27:59 AM
Well gosh I know M.C. Hammer's endorsement swings my vote! ::)
REALLY ..... Now I would get it if Milli Vanilli endorsed her, but the HAMMA??????
Can't touch this........
....and I thought Y2K was gonna be a disaster.
Shortly after all the publicity Kim Daniels received she scrubbed much of the controversial stuff from her ministries website and replaced it with blank pages saying "coming soon." Luckily the web is regularly archived, so you can view still view her page called the "War Room" here:
http://replay.web.archive.org/20090517124434/http://kimberlydaniels.com/WarRoom.php
Note: After clicking above it may help to click "impatient" while the page is loading.
Enjoy! ;D
Because I was quoted on two threads, I am listing my post in both threads to make sure the the complete conversation I had about Daniels is clarified. My comments in the two quotes below were over 2 month's ago on March 11th and 13th.
The rest of my statements following those Joan posted above on this and one other thread are included below. I shared the statements Joan quoted as they were given to me the way they were stated in discussions and interactions I had regarding this issue with Glorious up until the last post. I washed my hands of the Daniels issue at that point.
Quote
Timkin, there are so many things going on in that video that complete analysis would invite a ton of debate which I don't have the energy for right now. LOL But let me say this much. I have always viewed the Creator as a loving God. I also believe to the core of my being that God loves all his children equally. I don't think there is a single path to faith and know for a fact that the often quoted Bible of today is one that has been edited and interpreted by human beings for centuries. Infact the Catholic church is currently in the process of changing some verbage to meet their own chosen interpretation of "the word". All the various interpretations are evident in the variety of churches and groups that consider themselves Christian but expouse very different views. There are approximately 15 lines in the Bible that are directly attributed to Jesus. None of those lines condemn homosexuals. I have always understood that homosexuality is not a choice but is how some people are biologically programed to be. Only recently has Science caught up with the biology of homosexuality and can now say that there are definite biological differences, inborn to humans that impact sexual preference.
As much as it pains me to see the rhetoric in that video, the laws of our country allow all to voice their views. I just don't happen to agree with them or the notion that God demands that gays get out of the church or off the pulpit. Each of these people need to worry about their own eternal souls and how they are received by God. Any declaration made by a person claiming to prophesy anything that embraces ugly views, anger or persecution is suspect in my mind. I long ago learned that matters of religious belief and how those beliefs are expressed are as different as the changing sands. One thing I know for certain is that God doesn't choose
and finished with these words.
Quote
Other than touching base with regard to the video and other literature, I have not spoken with Glorious about this issue further and do not intend to. I know she has not been reading forums or TU feedback so my suggestion is that any further inquiries, comments or advice about Daniels be referred to her directly for response perhaps via a private message on her FB page. Campaign issues cannot be dealt with through her city office. I have made my own views clear enough above I do believe. Her personal course of political action is completely in her hands at this point.
My advice to Glorious prior to this last post was to distance herself from Daniels and withdraw any support. She chose to do otherwise, which she has every right as an individual to do, even if I don't agree with it. I do not support Daniels or her viewpoints. This issue was and remains one of the few points of disagreement between myself and Glorious over the years. I find Daniels views extreme in many ways and do not support her agenda. I do know that Peter Rummels wife had a good bit of influence with this endorsement as she attends Daniels church on occasion and supports Kimberly's run for office. Both she and Mr. Rummel who is also supporting Alvin Brown, have given money and support to Kimberly Daniels. Daniels also shares the following supporters with Alvin Brown. Hon. Mia Jones, Hon. Reggie Fullwood, Hon. Johnny Gaffney and Hon. Reginald Brown. http://jaxledger.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/2011-quick-picks.pdf
For the record, I also do not support David Taylor either whose questionable business practices are not acceptable and should he be elected, I hope he is quickly removed.
Thank you for clarifying that Diane. :) I will be glad when this nightmare of an election is over, however it turns out.
Glad to know you share the sentiment that you do not agree with her choices. I do not agree with either ,but for the record, I will ,as I have stated to you before, always befriend you .. what I do not get is ... back in the day when Glorious was (I assume ) actually seeking the position as mayor , YOU would have had nothing to do with endorsing Mike Hogan..and your postings at JOL indicated such. Is it as simple as my position, that these were the two final choices, and you had to choose one or the other? or were you in support of Hogan all along? This is what I just do not get. You know I have stated all along.. my first choice was Glorious.. and it would have been even if she were running now.. Then it would have been Audrey. But Hogan? Tuesday I cast my vote.. convince me of ONE GOOD reason I should choose Mike Hogan over Alvin Brown.. For one thing ,, Mike Hogan has blown my mailbox up..and his advertisements, citing the courthouse and the Skyway as somehow being Brown's mistakes ?????? His advertisements are frankly RIDICULOUS and are blaming Brown for situations he had no control over. If you really believe that either of these guys can promise no new taxes and stand by that YOU ARE KIDDING YOURSELF. So please.. help me understand Diane.. What is it that you stand up for?? I love you to pieces.. but I totally DO NOT GET AT ALL your message. Alot of us are confused Diane.. and I cannot speak for them .. only myself.. What is in this for you? For me , it is a matter of choosing what I personally think is best for Jacksonville and its future.. for the best chance of having a vibrant downtown OR NOT HAVING ONE. Mike Hogans message does not leave me with the feeling that he cares at all about downtown.. his message mainly is the same worn out message that Peyton promised 8 years ago and did not deliver on.. No taxes..total BS . I don't CARE if I have to pay more taxes..... I want to see our downtown revive. I want to see our historic landmarks , including my very favorite one , Annie Lytle NOT end up in a landfill. My gut feeling is , Hogan will continue where Peyton left off and all of these places will end up bulldozed , we will pay more taxes, and our downtown will be finished off . Please show me differently, since it is that you think he is the right choice.
Same comercial ran tonight with a verbatum voice over by gospel singer CiCi Winans
Timkin
I will gladly discuss all of this with you over coffee one day but just share a few thoughts now. I am not even going to attempt to convince you or anyone else who is in support of Alvin to change their vote. Most already have their minds made up and many have already voted. What I will say is that Glorious was in the race for real and I was her paid campaign consultant, at her request. As discussed on several threads, it became apparent to me after the November elections and the losses of Dems Alex Sink and Deborah Gianolis that a Democrat woman would not win the election for Mayor. With Glory's mom becoming terminally ill and some of my own health issues, seeing the campaign through was no longer an option. What most don't know is another of Glory's immediate family members is also dying and in hospice. The politics, the terminal illnesses of family members and the pressures of negotiating the political minefield that is Black politics has left her exhausted and conflicted with people pushing at her with their agenda's from all directions. Once I was no longer her political advisor, I could only give her suggestions as a friend. Her choices as they have always been are ultimately her own.
If you look at the political landscape in this contest for Mayor you will see that people have had to adjust who they supported as the field of candidates changed. It has been morphing and changing now for nearly two years. As things changed and information became available people began to adjust their own views of candidates accordingly. After March elections, the candidates for Mayor were cut down to two people. Moran's people choosing a different candidate, Mullaneys people readjusting and picking sides and so it went on down the line.
Mike Hogans platform when it comes to our budget and how funding would be expended is identical to the one Glorious had. Infact, alot of his platform was the same and while some of our political views may be different I had to look at each person in the race, using my own information and experience, much of it not available to the public and I knew for me Hogan was the candidate with the experience and understanding to get us through this financial mess we are all facing. I had questions to be answered and I went to Mike with them. I found him to be a man very different than what was being portrayed and far more open and accepting than many make him out to be. In short, he is a good man who wants to do right for Jacksonville. Of course what has happened and always happens in politics is that their is the truth and there is the spin and unavoidable conflicts that political contests evoke. Saying Mike is a good man is one thing, but finding out that he is also a very capable and informed man was the clencher for me. He has an indepth and accurate understanding of how this city operates.
There are many levels to this chess game and every candidate, every single one has got to play their turn as well as they can. The reality in politics at this level is that there are teams behind the candidates who set schedules, decide on mailers, ads and promo material. The candidate hires them to use their expertise to appeal to their own voting base first and then campaign tactics change to meet each new event and day.
I am supporting Mike Hogan because he really has a solid plan for the city. All the side noise about religion and church that was so compelling for some at the beginning of this race has now settled down because Alvin has also spoken about and focused on his church and faith.
You may remember for awhile there was this talk about the GOB's controlling Jacksonville. Because Hogans family has been in Jacksonville since its origin, he was well known and it was easy for people to cast him as a GOB. What folks were not realizing at the time and still don't is that some of the most influential players of the GOB establishment were entrenched behind, Moran and Mullaney. For those who had embraced Moran as a moderate republican, the focus of some of them went to Alvin as new blood and a new direction that was free of GOB and republican interests. However, as the field of powerbrokers took up sides and deals were brokered or refused, folks like Rummel and Haskell put their efforts behind Brown. The result being that the presence of the GOB republicans and their money is what began to move Alvin forward. At that point Alvin moved center and started to put distance between himself and his strong democrat connections to appeal to the middle and hopefully with Rummel, get more Republicans to his side. So that put him on a par with everyone else when it came to GOB connections and effectively removed this notion that a Brown administration would be light years away from the old ways of doing business. Brown has plans for his administration to include some of the nifty fifty (civic council folks) as well as some of Peytons current adminstration.
This city saw the effect of putting a mayor into office that claimed he would run the city like a business yet had no real experience in city government when John Peyton was elected. Major mistakes were made as a result of that choice. Jacksonvilles current and economic future must be brought into balance and much of this city's functions retooled. Someone new, inspite of charisma and good intentions but lacking boots on the ground experience in elected or local office is not the choice I was willing to make for our future. I know the next four years are going to be very, very hard for the next Mayor and for me the person who should step into that office must know the ropes of local government in and out to get us through the next four years and on the way to a better future.
I sincerely appreciate your prompt response , Diane. I would really like to have that coffee with you. Glorious asked me to have lunch, and I intend to do that as well.
Whoever turns out to be the next Mayor has a full plate and either will go into office with intent of doing a good job from day one, or be very apparent, that they were not cut out for the job. I still beg to differ on Hogan's ability to take the ball and run with it. I will respect you and Glorious' choice. I cannot embrace Daniels. There is no sugar-coating that candidate and making it taste right. Her words were plain. I would never endorse such a hateful person, who claims to be a minister of God's word.
Soon enough we will know where the land lies. If Hogan wants to add me to his bad-guy list, so be it.
You asked Timkin and I was happy to respond. Your choices are your own to make and that is how it should be. I can tell you that Mike does not keep a list of bad guys. One of his best qualities is his openess to people, even if they don't happen to agree with him about an issue. Now I am over and out for now. Three days more and we will all know what the next step for Jacksonville is. :)
I think you can spin the troubles this town is in in a variety of ways. I've come to see it as a city that's been in single-party lockdown for going on twenty years. That kind of unchecked power leads to the corruption that has eaten away at our budget process and turned our treasury into a political payback machine for wealthy cronies. They're lining up at Hogan's trough, just as they did at Peyton's. Toney Sleiman is first in line, many more to follow.
What we need in this town is some balance. We need a check on the Republican City Council. That's not going to come from a Republican former Councilman. Hogan's part of the problem that led us to this mess. There's got to be a better way forward.
I think Kim Daniels points us toward another set of problems that have been able to fester too long in Jacksonville. She is all about division and attack. With Republican money in her campaign account... well, I just think Jacksonville is best served by her electoral defeat on Tuesday.
Thank you , Diane. For the record, whether he keeps a list actually , or not, I am not a bad guy. Some might disagree and that is fine. I do not know either candidate personally, and so this cannot be personal. I , (and I hope I am not alone on this ) simply want to see Jacksonville move FORWARD. To want anything other than that , IMO is to not love and care about the city and the people I share a home with. I HOPE AND PRAY that WHOEVER becomes our next mayor , will do the job to the best of their ability. This, to me is not about who is a good ole boy or who I like personally or not. It is about who will do this very difficult job and LISTEN, FOR ONCE to the voice of the people , many of which , even on this site have wonderful ideas and indeed have the best interest of Jacksonville , at heart.
Agree completely Jimmy, especially where Daniels is concerned. She shot herself in the foot as far as I am concerned and she can talk all she wants. Her message is HATRED, and I personally have no place for it . :)
Quote from: Diane Melendez on May 14, 2011, 12:34:14 AM
You asked Timkin and I was happy to respond. Your choices are your own to make and that is how it should be. I can tell you that Mike does not keep a list of bad guys. One of his best qualities is his openess to people, even if they don't happen to agree with him about an issue. Now I am over and out for now. Three days more and we will all know what the next step for Jacksonville is. :)
Well, of course Mike doesn't keep a list of "dislikes" since he'd be at the top of his own list. That kind of self-loathing can't be good for a politician's ego. If you look at everything he is complaining about, the courthouse etc., he was in office with his buddy Peyton when those boondoggles were hatched. Brown had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Quote from: Jimmy on May 14, 2011, 12:37:35 AM
I think you can spin the troubles this town is in in a variety of ways. I've come to see it as a city that's been in single-party lockdown for going on twenty years. That kind of unchecked power leads to the corruption that has eaten away at our budget process and turned our treasury into a political payback machine for wealthy cronies. They're lining up at Hogan's trough, just as they did at Peyton's. Toney Sleiman is first in line, many more to follow.
What we need in this town is some balance. We need a check on the Republican City Council. That's not going to come from a Republican former Councilman. Hogan's part of the problem that led us to this mess. There's got to be a better way forward.
Yup, it's all about those checks and balances that cause accountability to flourish.
One party rule never does nor ever will.
Mixing religious intolerance and hatred with politics is a bad recipe no matter what party you are from.
Keep religion out of politics and government!!
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 14, 2011, 09:36:39 AM
Quote from: Diane Melendez on May 14, 2011, 12:34:14 AM
You asked Timkin and I was happy to respond. Your choices are your own to make and that is how it should be. I can tell you that Mike does not keep a list of bad guys. One of his best qualities is his openess to people, even if they don't happen to agree with him about an issue. Now I am over and out for now. Three days more and we will all know what the next step for Jacksonville is. :)
Well, of course Mike doesn't keep a list of "dislikes" since he'd be at the top of his own list. That kind of self-loathing can't be good for a politician's ego. If you look at everything he is complaining about, the courthouse etc., he was in office with his buddy Peyton when those boondoggles were hatched. Brown had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
AGREED , Chris.. The Advertisement Hogan has been passing around showing Alvin with a backdrop of the Skyway and Peyton's slightly overpriced courthouse and somehow trying to peg Brown to that , is ... I don't have a word for it.
At this point I would rather have ANYONE in the Mayor's office who has not served on council, has not been a tax collector, dog catcher, street sweeper , or held any other position in Jacksonville's City government... Its called NEW BLOOD and it is long past overdue...for the sake of our city , ESPECIALLY Downtown .
Yo MC HAMMER would not Support a Deadbeat, or would he, does it take one to know one?
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 16, 2011, 06:26:08 PM
Yo MC HAMMER would not Support a Deadbeat, or would he, does it take one to know one?
Alvin Brown is a deadbeat? You kind of lost me there...
QuoteAlvin Brown is a deadbeat? You kind of lost me there...
Chris, who in this campaign is MC Hammer supporting? Take a wild and crazy guess, no its not Papa Hogan, no its not Clay Yarborough, although that is a good guess, its the lovely and vivacious Ms. Daniels, who looks amazing for having 6, yes count them 6 children!
Oh gotcha now. I forgot what thread I was in for a minute, I thought this was the mayoral one.
My apologies, that was a serious brain fart. Especially considering I started this thread. Sheesh I need carbs or something.
Didn't MC Hammer have some tax issues with the IRS.... Nothing like an endorsement from a fiscally responsible celeb. Oh wait a minute he is a pastor or something now... All is forgiven. Who's next Wolsey Snipes??
I really didn't want to revive an old thread, but its title said it all... This was reported in the T-U today
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/steve-patterson/2012-06-07/jacksonville-city-councilwoman-kimberly-daniels-files
Quote"Make a note of this wording:
"The free exercise of religion is hereby recognized in the City of Jacksonville. Consistent with the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Florida, there shall be imposed no burden whatsoever upon the religious beliefs of people of faith including, but not limited to places of public accommodation, in religious worship or in the use of religious facilities, in matters of employment and in the rental of real property."
That's the text, without preamble, for a bill (2012-377) that Councilwoman Kimberly Daniels, a minister, is introducing at Tuesday's council meeting.
It's the latest installment in a back-and-forth about protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation and also protecting rights of people of faith who aren't comfortable with some of those orientations.
Although religious institutions are exempted from another bill (2012-296) banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, the references to employment and real estate rental echo fears of groups who oppose the orientation bill.
There is, of course, some overlap between the protection the bill covers and the First Amendment, which has been protecting rights of the faithful for quite some time.
But the preamble of the local bill, which quotes everyone from Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to late Supreme Court justices Joseph Story and Potter Stewart, gets a little defensive about outsiders messing with the ministry for malicious ends.
A "Whereas" section of the bill includes a pledge that "ministers, ministries and places of worship shall be protected from false attempts to stage private or public ministry requests (i.e. Undermining or misleading requests for prayer or ministry) to defraud or deceive with the intent to entrap, defame or sabotage through ridicule or opinionated judgment. It shall not be acceptable to infiltrate, bear false witness, record or video any part of a counseling session or worship service for the purpose of propaganda or negative media ploys..."
It's not clear what would happen to someone who did any of this.
The next paragraph says that "places of worship and the property thereof shall be protected from acts of verbal or physical harassment or protests. These acts shall not hinder the peace of the worship service or be in any way offensive to the congregation in nature."
By the way, another paragraph about the term "separation of church and state" appears to contain a short, uncredited passage by Daniel L. Dreisbach, an American University professor who authored Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (New York University Press, 2002)."
No stranger than Redman, they will probably end up as Council Presidents though.
With all these ordinances being bantered about that protect the rights of various individuals, perhaps it is time to get someone to propose one that protects the residents of Jacksonville from people running and getting voted into office that have a pronounced lack of common sense and a general lack of functioning brain cells.
Can te citizens have her removed for abuse to the public and abuse of the public trust? She is a complete embarrssement to the seat wich she sits..same with Redman....they both behave like complete idiots and we should all remember...the world is watching them and they will judge us based on these few behaving like complete idiots...
I would dare to say that Kim Daniels is in a direct violation of the separation of church and state since she is a directly a minister fiddling with a government position.
With Ms. Daniels's "cuck-a-roo" irrational ideology, I do not recognize her as a minister for ANY church including her "own".
She is a "tell it all, but doesn't do it all". Basically, she is a smokescreen with lack of proper action supporting her reputation.
I can go on all day on this, but I am not going to bore you all.
-Josh
I bet Daniels doesn't realize that her bill would also protect people with religous beliefs that are different from her own...like muslims.
Quote from: wsansewjs on June 08, 2012, 09:42:08 AM
I would dare to say that Kim Daniels is in a direct violation of the separation of church and state since she is a directly a minister fiddling with a government position.
With Ms. Daniels's "cuck-a-roo" irrational ideology, I do not recognize her as a minister for ANY church including her "own".
She is a "tell it all, but doesn't do it all". Basically, she is a smokescreen with lack of proper action supporting her reputation.
I can go on all day on this, but I am not going to bore you all.
-Josh
No, Please go on Josh! I agree. She needs to be ousted. The sooner the better.
Not to mention that she is bias. Out of one breathe she says, " I dont have a problem with gay people." but she thinks we should discriminate against them. To be honest, in the end I think the language will be worked out and the bill will pass. And she will be looking really stupid at the end. (more so than now)
Quote from: wsansewjs on June 08, 2012, 09:42:08 AM
I would dare to say that Kim Daniels is in a direct violation of the separation of church and state since she is a directly a minister fiddling with a government position.
With Ms. Daniels's "cuck-a-roo" irrational ideology, I do not recognize her as a minister for ANY church including her "own".
She is a "tell it all, but doesn't do it all". Basically, she is a smokescreen with lack of proper action supporting her reputation.
I can go on all day on this, but I am not going to bore you all.
-Josh
While I agree that Daniels is a few fries short of a Happy Meal, saying that her service as a city council member is a direct violation of separation of church and state is not at all accurate. The Constitution does not separate church from state in that manner. Otherwise one could argue that anyone with any religious beliefs should not be permitted to vote.
Quote from: carpnter on June 08, 2012, 11:14:52 AM
Quote from: wsansewjs on June 08, 2012, 09:42:08 AM
I would dare to say that Kim Daniels is in a direct violation of the separation of church and state since she is a directly a minister fiddling with a government position.
With Ms. Daniels's "cuck-a-roo" irrational ideology, I do not recognize her as a minister for ANY church including her "own".
She is a "tell it all, but doesn't do it all". Basically, she is a smokescreen with lack of proper action supporting her reputation.
I can go on all day on this, but I am not going to bore you all.
-Josh
While I agree that Daniels is a few fries short of a Happy Meal, saying that her service as a city council member is a direct violation of separation of church and state is not at all accurate. The Constitution does not separate church from state in that manner. Otherwise one could argue that anyone with any religious beliefs should not be permitted to vote.
I am not talking about anyone's religious belief while maintaining a government official. i never talked about anyone's religious belief. You just took my statement and twisted it around.
She is a pro-active minister WHILE she is a government official which in my own opinion, a direct violation of the separation of church and state.
- Josh
Quote from: wsansewjs on June 08, 2012, 11:26:39 AM
Quote from: carpnter on June 08, 2012, 11:14:52 AM
Quote from: wsansewjs on June 08, 2012, 09:42:08 AM
I would dare to say that Kim Daniels is in a direct violation of the separation of church and state since she is a directly a minister fiddling with a government position.
With Ms. Daniels's "cuck-a-roo" irrational ideology, I do not recognize her as a minister for ANY church including her "own".
She is a "tell it all, but doesn't do it all". Basically, she is a smokescreen with lack of proper action supporting her reputation.
I can go on all day on this, but I am not going to bore you all.
-Josh
While I agree that Daniels is a few fries short of a Happy Meal, saying that her service as a city council member is a direct violation of separation of church and state is not at all accurate. The Constitution does not separate church from state in that manner. Otherwise one could argue that anyone with any religious beliefs should not be permitted to vote.
I am not talking about anyone's religious belief while maintaining a government official. i never talked about anyone's religious belief. You just took my statement and twisted it around.
She is a pro-active minister WHILE she is a government official which in my own opinion, a direct violation of the separation of church and state.
- Josh
These councilmen and councilwomen have day jobs too; what you're suggesting is discriminatory and asinine. Just because Daniels shows difficulty in separating the two, doesn't mean others would have such difficulty. Take a lap.
Quote from: wsansewjs on June 08, 2012, 11:26:39 AM
Quote from: carpnter on June 08, 2012, 11:14:52 AM
Quote from: wsansewjs on June 08, 2012, 09:42:08 AM
I would dare to say that Kim Daniels is in a direct violation of the separation of church and state since she is a directly a minister fiddling with a government position.
With Ms. Daniels's "cuck-a-roo" irrational ideology, I do not recognize her as a minister for ANY church including her "own".
She is a "tell it all, but doesn't do it all". Basically, she is a smokescreen with lack of proper action supporting her reputation.
I can go on all day on this, but I am not going to bore you all.
-Josh
While I agree that Daniels is a few fries short of a Happy Meal, saying that her service as a city council member is a direct violation of separation of church and state is not at all accurate. The Constitution does not separate church from state in that manner. Otherwise one could argue that anyone with any religious beliefs should not be permitted to vote.
I am not talking about anyone's religious belief while maintaining a government official. i never talked about anyone's religious belief. You just took my statement and twisted it around.
She is a pro-active minister WHILE she is a government official which in my own opinion, a direct violation of the separation of church and state.
- Josh
The Constitution is silent on the occupations of elected officials. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, there is a restriction on Congress when it comes to establishing a religion and prohibiting its free exercise.
Article VI prohibits any type of religious test when it comes to holding public office. This was originally intended to prohibit requiring elected officials from belonging to a specific religion or denomination, but you can also apply it to you wanting to prohibit Daniels from serving. What you propose is still a type of religious test in that a minister cannot serve as an elected official.
Article I of the state Constitution also guarantees religious freedom and prohibits penalizing those who practice their religion, this too could be applied to Daniels, you cannot penalize her and prohibit her from serving because she is a minister.
Separation of Church and State came from a letter written to a group of ministers in Connecticut (I think it was CT.) It was intended to be an assurance the US would not "endorse" or "force" a particular church on the population a'la the way the English King forced the Church of England on people, causing them to flee to the New World for religious freedom. It was not meant to completely separate them as it has been interpreted in the modern age.
That said, good points. It sounds like CM Daniels is asking to CC to say it's OK for religious persons to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.
^ Which is not at all fair from a religious aspect, or with human rights. She should not be able to use her position on CC and as a "Minister" all in the same breath. Do one or the other. Id prefer she did the latter, and get the hell out of the CC. Seriously. She is not an asset to CC. She is a major liabililty.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on June 08, 2012, 01:08:10 PM
Separation of Church and State came from a letter written to a group of ministers in Connecticut (I think it was CT.) It was intended to be an assurance the US would not "endorse" or "force" a particular church on the population a'la the way the English King forced the Church of England on people, causing them to flee to the New World for religious freedom. It was not meant to completely separate them as it has been interpreted in the modern age.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Quote from: carpnter on June 08, 2012, 11:14:52 AM
Otherwise one could argue that anyone with any religious beliefs should not be permitted to vote.
How about someone with
no religious beliefs holding office?
(http://deathandtaxesmag.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Athiests.jpg)
I'd prefer an atheist over a religious person for a leader any day...i see someone who stands on their own two feet as a better man or woman.
Quote from: Garden guy on June 08, 2012, 06:09:03 PM
I'd prefer an atheist over a religious person for a leader any day...i see someone who stands on their own two feet as a better man or woman.
I have no preference in that regard, so long as they do not try to shove their religious convictions (or lack thereof) when they are supposed to be serving the citizens . Clearly in this case, they are trying to use their religious convictions as a tool to do their job.
Do that on your own time, at your home ,in your Church , BUT NOT ON YOUR JOB! It is as simple as that.
If this were law when Mr. Ahmed were being vetted for the HRC, would Councilman Redman's comments/questions be a violation?