Posted by Thomas1776 on June 12, 2008 at 3:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

State Attorney General Henry McMaster said displays including religious items and documents such as the Magna Carta and Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech would survive a court challenge.

He is full of himself. He is no judge or even a jury. SC is going to be drug through the court and tax payers will have to pay 100s of thousands in legal fees for these idiots like McMaster.

God save us from these idiots!

Posted by Thomas1776 on June 12, 2008 at 3:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

These legislators want all tax payers of SC to foot 80% of the cost up to $50,000.00 to install sprinklers.

Should tax payers be forced to put up the money they HAD TO WORK FOR so some rich company can install sprinklers?????????

It's BULLSH*T!

Posted by wpc3iop on June 12, 2008 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The govenor was right...the taxpayers should not have to subsidize buildings for businesses...the Charleston firefighters died because of poor equipment and tactics, not because of a lack of sprinklers. GOVERNMENT CANNOT DO AND PAY FOR EVERYTHING!

Posted by motoflyguy on June 12, 2008 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How many people have to die for the intellectually challenged Gov to get it that sprinklers are THE answer to fire deaths!!
How much more do we pay for things like
Seatbelts
Airbags
Stop lights
Airplane inspections
Food inspections
the real story is how many more have to DIE for Thomas the magpie and other ignorant and shortsighted people to understand that sprinkler save lives and property as well as money.
The cost of this one fire could have funded plenty of systems that will free us from the most expensive of all methods "dependence on the local fire department response"
The bill is not an 80% but rather a match for a total of 50% made up of local(25%) and a state match of (25%) If the local goverment doesnt allow the credit then the state will not approve the match.
Thomas needs to try to at least get the facts before he make such eloquent arguments as "BULLSH*T.
Every expert in the field of fire prevention agree that there is no alternetive that is more effective than sprinklers and we are mocking the fire service professional including the Charleston Nine. Be assured that every one of the firemen who stand on the wall every day for us are pro fire sprinklers. It is the backward few who have blood on thier hands.

Posted by motoflyguy on June 12, 2008 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas better pray GOD SAVE US FROM THE IDIOTS ...like me

Posted by kma71 on June 12, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas should pray for some brains!! He is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed!!!

Posted by theronce on June 12, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I thnk that I should be exempt from a portion of my taxes for this while I am saving to buy my own.

Posted by majorjohnson on June 12, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't say I've ever agreed with Thomas before, but it sure sounds to me like the pots calling the kettle black here. Hey motoflyguy. How about you come out to my house and fork over your hard earned money to pay for some sprinklers for my house since you don't think finances should even be a consideration. While sprinklers may have saved the building, it was bad decisions on many levels that cost the firefighters their lives.

As far as the ten commandments bill...I can't believe the governor didn't veto it or at least let it pass without signing it. It's quite obviously a dishonest ruse to get the ten commandments into government buildings. Our legislators obviously paid a lot of attention to the wolf in sheep's clothing verses in the bible and decided they would be a good blueprint for disguising their religious agenda as a secular one. Some Christians seem to be quite ingenious, albeit very obvious, in their absolute dishonesty. Few things make me angrier than someone who will lie to me, know that I know they are lying to me, and still insist with a straight face that they are being honest...especially while at the same time professing a sincere religious adherence to the golden rule and the absolute moral superiority of their religion.

Posted by msplacedinsc on June 12, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Since religious items can be displayed at public buildings, does that exclude buddha and any other religious items from other religions as well?

Posted by cnast777 on June 12, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear frequest commentors of this site,

There's your beloved governor for ya'. Try to justify that one since you all think he walks on water. Then look at his record of cuts and vetoes and really let them all sink in.

Sanford is a bad and vainglorious person.

Posted by zoomru on June 12, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sanford..... the correct action. Sprinkler heads should be stocked at Lowes and HD for individual needs also; instead of specialty dealers

Posted by ColdBeer on June 12, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank You Gov. Sanford for holding businesses responsible for their own... well... business.

I decided last night not to comment on any more religious topics, so I'll leave that part alone.

Posted by oldglory on June 12, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Do we even know the language contained in this bill? Would be nice for dummies like me for P&C add a link to that bill.

Posted by Newt on June 12, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not think the tax payers should be responsible for footing the bill; however it should be a requirement for every business. Cut the CPW fee, make it part of the business permit requirement; normal business start-up costs.
The religious shicrap is just that….SHICRAP!

Posted by carolinamommyof4 on June 12, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think he is right for veto-ing the bill. It doesnt mean he is against sprinklers in businesses, it means that the bill placed in front of him was not in the best interest of South Carolina citizens.

Upon looking at the budget v/s deficit, you will see that we are spending more than we have coming in based on revenue.

To make it short, we are borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. It will eventually catch up and RAISE all of our taxes a ridiculous amount.

Businesses should be responsible for their own sprinklers. Why should I pay for them? I believe every business should be required to have sprinklers before applying for or renewing their business license. For those who dont, issue fines. Then with the money from fines, offer incentives the next year.

Posted by ptmama73 on June 12, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with Newt. The AVERAGE tax payer is lucky to bring home an annual salary that equals what some of these businesses net in a month. Why make us pay for it? Start up costs, permit requirements, a one year tax REDUCTION, or some other type of incentive should be used instead.

As for the mentality that we need the government to babysit us and hold our hands - take responsibility for yourself and your family! Why do you need the government to tell you how to be safe? Common sense people! If this sprinkler issue is so high up on your priority list check out any business you go to; if you don't see a sprinkler - LEAVE. It's that easy. No one forces you to shop or do business there.

Posted by LowcountryMoose on June 12, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Insurance companies sure don't have a problem sending out letters telling homeowners that their insurance is being dropped because they live too close to the coast. They should send out letters to businesses that say their insurance is going to be dropped if they don't install sprinklers. Doesn't private business always have the right solution to a problem?

Posted by chris50 on June 12, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good! businesses need to pay for their own damn sprinklers. Last time i checked, this is not a communist country. It's not the government's job to take care of you. it's your job!

Posted by crankyyankee on June 12, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Between the idiots that think the tax payers should foot the bill for sprinklers and the voters who voted for all the incumbents in Tuesdays election it staggers the imagination to think how uneducated and backward this State is. Good god we are dumb!

Posted by Thomas1776 on June 12, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Government should not be paying into this kind of stuff. It's morons with the mentalitiy and attitude like motorflyguy that help destroy our Nation. And that's a hard cold fact.

God save us from people like "motorflyguy."

Posted by Thomas1776 on June 12, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kma71 is another multiple name user. LMAO!

Posted by Thomas1776 on June 12, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we have seen the "Nanny" lovers posting on this board who still live with their mommies. They want government and our own taxes we have to work for to provide their diapers.

Can we call them "diaper butts"? I think so ~

LMAO!

Posted by Thomas1776 on June 12, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The General Assembly has passed a fire sprinkler incentives bill, but it's a weak one that's not likely to expand the use of this valuable lifesaving equipment in buildings where they're not required. This bill is yet another failure by the state Legislature in the area of fire safety. It needs to do better.

The bill does include one worthwhile component: Water utilities no longer would be able to charge exorbitant fees for connecting a fire sprinkler to the water system. Such fees were a problem in some parts of the state and could have prevented some business owners from installing a fire sprinkler system if they wanted one.

Sanford is the best thing that has ever happened to South Carolina!!! If not for him, The State of SC would be bankrupt.

Posted by Newt on June 12, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas - I wouldn't go too far with Sanford's the best thing to happen to South Carolina! But he did get the sprinkler thing correct.

Posted by Charles_Town on June 12, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Taxpayer should not foot the bill for a businesses expenses. Installation of Sprinklers should be choice of the business, kind of like whether to allow its patrons to smoke or not. I wonder how many people out there think the government should not pass anti-smoking laws for the workplace, but want the same government to force business to install sprinkler systems and then help them foot the bill?

As far as the displaying of the 10 commandments,they should be displayed proudly and prominently.

Posted by Newt on June 12, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What about displaying the Toran, Koran, Hindu's Karma Sutra, Buddists texts......these religions are all older than the Christian faith, therefore should be placed in a historical context as well.

Posted by Newt on June 12, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EVERY business should have sprinklers and they business should be requires to install them at their costs. Our buildings are very close together downtown and one business owner who decides not to install a sprinkler system could spell disaster for all other businesses around him.

Posted by Charles_Town on June 12, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)

Newt, I could be wrong but do not recall reading about any of those other religious texts being popular in America at the time the government and legal system was founded.

Sprinklers should be a choice of a business the same as allowing patrons to smoke.

Posted by Newt on June 12, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We are not in the past and many Americans do believe in these texts today! All or NONE, it is the only way to represent all citizens.

Posted by Charles_Town on June 12, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Newt, I completely disagree, but I do see your point.

Posted by Newt on June 12, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is all one can ask:)

Posted by Eyes_N_Skies on June 12, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wanttttttttttttttt a law dat seysssssssssssssssssss everybody hasssssssssssssssss to pay 50% of the costtttttttttttt to buy a gunnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

Now thatsssssssssssssss safety!!!!!!!!

Can I gettttttttttttttttttt money from YOU ALL to pay for newwwwwwwwwwww doors and locks and securityyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy lighting too??????????????????????????????????????

Get your thumbssssssssssssssssssss outcha mouthsssssssssssssssss ya whinning babiesssssssssssssssssssss. Readerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr must wearrrrrrrrrrrrr dependzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Eyes_N_Skies on June 12, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You BIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG BABIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE are pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You want a NANNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!

I am not payingggggggggggggggggggggggggg tax-asssesssssss for you diaper wearinggggggggggggggggggggggggg adult wankersssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You want a sprinkler, go to wal-martttttttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Charles_Town on June 12, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is wrong with him

Posted by beth1070 on June 12, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're right, other religious documents and books should be displayed as well as the 10 Commandments, it's the only fair thing to do. So, my suggestion is to place the koran in public bathrooms...good reading material. Then when you're done, if you disagree with what you read in it, just use it for toilet paper. That kills 2 birds with one stone in government buildings....you satisfy everybody's desire to be catered to while at the same time saving tax money for toilet paper. Problem solved.

Posted by beth1070 on June 12, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding the sprinkler issue....Gov Sanford did the right thing for the right reason. I agree that sprinklers would make buildings a lot safer, but shouldn't it be the resposibility of the business owner to flip that bill? Why should the taxpayers pay for even a portion of that? I would think that insurance companies should require it. That is NOT a government issue. Less government people...NOT more!

Posted by jameschucktown on June 12, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am horrified to write that I agree with Thomas' first comment. But then his medicine wore off for the other rants. He still needs sleep and help in other ways.

Posted by eatmorecollards on June 12, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

motoflyguy, a sprinkler system could never take the place of a fire department response. In a building or complex thats burning and is covered by a sprinkler system the first in pumpers should tie into the sprinkler system to boost the fire main pressure on that system. This is especially true in high rise buildings that don't have thier own booster pumps. Proper sprinkler systems are terribly expensive and I can't see the tax payer footing a portion of the bill for large interprises that have the money, although it may be a incentive to bring big bussiness into the state. I would rather see more money spent upgrading the existing water distribution system with larger fire mains and more water towers in strtegic locations as well as more hydrants spaced closer together. The best sprinkler systems, fire department or equipment isn't going to be effective unless it can get a adequate water supply in the first place.

Posted by redman1959 on June 12, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good business is good business. Sprinklers are a part of every new building over X square feet or X number of units. Just because a building is old does that meen it should be exempt from safety features? No, but bymaking it a mandate then the public should foot the bill.

The problem with the bill Gov. Sanford vetoed was not the Bill itself. I was the amount of money going back to the business or property owner for as a "reward" for doing what they should do anyway, protect their employees, customers, and tenants. I believe that you already get deductions on Federal Taxes for making capital improvements. The Bill was asking the rest of the tax payers to subsidise the sprinkler installation by reducing property taxes on the improved building. So, I'm paying for it in a way. The money has to come from somewhere.

Posted by jifdeng3 on June 12, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about this!

Forget the sprinkler bill and pass a law that all new buisness' applying for a license must have them installed and that all high hazard occupancies install them before a renewal is granted. THEN. Get rid of all these damned fire department in the county and merge us into one county fire system so we can have one cheif, one way of training, one radio system, and staff our trucks correctly. I cannot understand the south east when it come to fire departments. NCFD has needed to put up a station on ladson rd for YEARS but there is none yet. And they want Watson Hill? And we all know where the City is on things. (I must say they are catching up and are going to pass most depts. in training) Rich ass Mt. Pleasant wont give the FD enough money to staff ladder trucks correctly, then you have several little departments trying to hang on for dear life with constant turn over and crappy budgets! Fire protection here is a joke. We do the best we can but it could be sooooooo much better.

Posted by motoflyguy on June 12, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those who think the businesses should not be encouraged to install sprinklers (the bill is only applicable for those who do not already require sprinklers)Why should any one pay to reduce the cost to the local provider of fire protection which is exactly what the sprinklers do? You are paying for it any way so in the long run it boils down to which is best technology to save money and lives ant that my friends is sprinklers!
The systems are nearly flawless in saving lives so just be glad thomas isnt providing the ideas to protect your family!
BTW every high rise building is required to have a pump and it does not depend on the pumper truck to control the fire.
THE FACT REMAINS THAT THOSE FIRE FIGHTERS WHO DIED IN THE SSS WOULD NOT HAVE DIED IF THE BUILDING WAS SPRINKLERED AND IT WASNT BECAUSE OF THE FEES CHARGED BY CWS.

Posted by Eyes_N_Skies on June 12, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

State Babieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Look at em' .... they wet their pamperssssssssssssssssssssssssssss and want more freebiessssssssssss at everyonesssss expense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Waahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :-(

To those who support the free diapers at everyones expense, I say SCREWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!

Now kindly gooooooooooooo cry to your mommiesssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!

I want tax credits for the gunssssssssssssssssssssssss I buy for SAFTEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by jifdeng3 on June 12, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The fact is the those firefighters would not have died had they been under an educated chief.

Posted by ptmama73 on June 12, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who said businesses should not be encouraged to install sprinklers? They absolutely should. But my tax dollars should not be given to a self-sustaining business. I would much rather see my tax dollars invested in our education system.

Posted by bkeelin on June 12, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We shouldn't even need a law that "allows" us to post the ten commandments on the walls of public buildings. The US Supreme court has Moses holding the ten commandments on the top of its buidling as the CENTER PIECE. The doors leading into the court chambers have the ten commandments on them and they are depicted behind the bench the justices sit at, not to mention they open the court proceedings with God save this honorable court, which it hasn't been very honorable for some time now.
Time and time again the US Supreme Court has ruled that the ten commandments can be displayed with other significant literature from American history. We shouldn't need a state law because federal case law had settled the matter a long time ago, notice the ACLU didn't even have a comment on it because they know it's a losing battle. The koran and other books of false religions had no part in the history of this country despite what the revisionists want you to believe. I'm not sure if anyone realizes this but up until 1930's the primary reading book for public schools was called "The New England Primer" and it full of biblical truths. This is what our founding fathers learned to read with, and now we have forgotten this and look at the cess pool we are living in now.

Posted by majorjohnson on June 12, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Moses is on the eastern side of the supreme court building, which is the BACK of the building, not the front. He is there with Confusius and Solon as well as many other figures.

The ten commandments are NOT engraved on the doors (front or back) of the building.

The ten commandments are NOT on the frieze behind the bench of the justices. It is a tablet with only roman numerals I through X, which the creator of the frieze stated stand for the first 10 amendments to the constitution. This is the exact same tablet that is engraved on the front doors.

All of the friezes in and on the building contain a wide variety of figures, including Napoleon and Mohammed, are a SECULAR representative of lawgivers.

The one frieze with Moses holding a tablet contains only commandments 6 through 10 (in hebrew and the hebrew version, not the christian version) specifically because they are the only secular commandments.

The building itself was not even built until 1935.

The bible and the new england primer were the only widely available books that could be used for teaching reading. No other books were available in massive numbers so as to supply each student with the same book. It's difficult to teach reading when each student has a different book.

James Madison (you might look him up...he wrote the constitution) objected to both the oath and to the paid chaplain, stating that "the constitution forbids everything like the establishment of a national religion."

As a matter of fact, the only thing Madison feared more than the establishment of a democracy (we aren't supposed to be one, but he saw that it would happen eventually) was the mixing of religion and government, stating that such a thing would only succeed in destroying both.

In other words, what bkeeling said is 100% crap.

Posted by Carolina_Politics on June 12, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with Sanford's veto. This bill would have the taxpayers funding the bulk of the money being used by businesses to install the sprinklers. We shouldn't be footing the bill for private enterprise.

http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com

Posted by ploughmud on June 12, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry....did I miss something? When did the government ever pay/subsidize the expense of adding an airbag and side impact airbags in my car...what about my antilock brakes? Had the government helped out there perhaps I could have gotten a bigger car :)

You jokers need to step back and remember that HE IS THE GOVERNOR and that he was elected STATEWIDE and that it was a HUGE MAJORITY. The government gets so big with laws like this one that they can't keep it all together. This is why its so hard to get anything through the beauracracies. You guys are crying like you belong in the State House....here's a tissue.

Posted by YankeeLiberal on June 12, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

beth1070, how about listing the bible as "good bathroom reading" if you are going to portray the koran as such?
point is, government does not belong in the business of endorsing any religion over the other...narrowmindedness at work...

Posted by upstatefirefighter29651 on June 14, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

GOD some of you are stupid!! Go to walmart for a springker? WTF? You seriously dont know what your talking about, were not wattering the yard were putting out a fire. As for the rest the govt does require business to install sprinkers if there building is over a certain square footage. The bill is an incitve for smaller business to install them so more of my fellow firefighters dont get killed by fools like you.