Seed Newsvine
So I guess the ALDHS would classify Thomas Jefferson as a terrorist! Such rhetoric must stem from the complete lack of understanding of limited constitutional government. In any case, such labeling and name calling has no place in the American democracy.
The article went on to say:
If I’m not mistaken, the idea that government, if not kept in check, will become corrupt and abusive was first made popular in this country by our founding fathers, not a bunch of terrorist anarchist groups. This was the very reason for the implementation of the United States Constitution! In fact even Section 35 of the Alabama Constitution warns of this danger is it declares, “the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.”
The Alabama.gov site continues, “Most of these groups operate around larger urban areas and colleges/universities… Some are focused on issues such as World Trade, International Debt, and military involvement in foreign cultures… The theme is always the same. Big [government] is bad. Rich are using the poor to stay rich. Our government in particular is using its power immorally.”
In short, if you oppose gun control, taxes, military intervention, most of our national debt being held by foreign nations, or just a large federal government, you might be a terrorist!
The very idea that those who value their personal rights and liberties are being labeled terrorists by the State of Alabama is not only absurd and egregiously offensive, it completely contradicts the ideals our federal and state governments were founded on! The people of Alabama should be outraged!
These Alabama.gov pages can be reached by visiting the Alabama Homeland Security TAP Course, clicking on “Domestic Terrorists”, and then on “Anti-Government Groups”.
|
Such rhetoric must stem from the complete lack of understanding of limited constitutional government.
So you support limited gov’t?
In any case, such labeling and name calling has no place in the American democracy.
Didn’t you just call some people the American Taliban a few short hours ago?
In short, if you oppose gun control, taxes, military intervention, most of our national debt being held by foreign nations, or just a large federal government, you might be a terrorist!
Dang it I could be on a watch list!
What I don’t understand is how a gun friendly state such as Alabama would say that if you oppose gun control you’re a terrorist. Most of the things that they mention are principals of the GOP. Who ever did this needs to be fired.
So you support limited gov’t?
Not to the same extent as you. What I really support is a vigorous constitutional government; one with co-equal branches that share power and act accordingly–something that is lost when one branch of the government becomes too powerful and the appropriate checks and balances are not exercised by either or both of the other co-equal branches of the government. Can we agree on that at least?
Didn’t you just call some people the American Taliban a few short hours ago?
Dang it I could be on a watch list!
Thought you might like this one! I am simply appalled by this kind of abject stupidity. And in Alabama no less. The NRA will have to write them off of their call list. LOL
Absolutely, and I’ll continue to do so. But then I am merely a blogger and not one making government policy. This is not a fine distinction. Further, the American Taliban would take your rights and trash them in order to benefit their agenda–there is no reasoning with the one that has already made up his mind and knows he is right beyond any doubt.
Oops, my American Taliban comment was cut out somehow…
I did but then I am just a blogger not a policy maker with the ALDHS and this is not a meaningless distinction.
I am angered by people that choose not to be bothered by facts because their minds are already made up. I am frustrated by people that cannot reason their way out of a wet paper bag because they believe, have faith or something equivalent to that. I can’t tolerate those that would choose to force upon me their beliefs and values when I don’t hold the same values. I worry about this kind of person taking the reins of power in this country. They are the American Taliban.
It is absolutely without merit to officially label a legitimate political belief to be outside the appropriate politics. That is something akin to totalitarianism and should never stand. It is a HATE CRIME if you will, similar to labeling someone a homosexual and then acting upon that label.
Not to the same extent as you.
I’ll keep working on ya. You’ll eventually give in…LOL
Can we agree on that at least?
Oh yeah. The Dems were in power for decades until 1994. Then the GOP had a little bit of the power b/c Clinton was president. When Bush got in office, they were like a kid in a candy store. They couldn’t stop spending OUR money!
I can’t tolerate those that would choose to force upon me their beliefs and values when I don’t hold the same values.
Like forcing “collective bargaining” upon employers? Be consistent!
Like forcing “collective bargaining” upon employers?
Collective bargaining is not forced on anyone. The concept turns on the notion of bargaining which implies choice, compromise, and a reasoned meeting of the minds. Force occurs when the bosses refuse to allow workers to organize often in complicity with politicians who are deeply indebted to the bosses themselves. Force? If you believe that collective bargaining is forced on anyone then you don’t understand either the history or purpose of labor organizing in this country. Solidarity forever, the union makes us strong!
Collective bargaining is not forced on anyone.
How is it not? When a company is unionized EVERY employee must pay the union dues, even the ones that don’t want to be in it. That’s force. An employer MUST give in to the demands or face a strike. How is that not force?
Do I need to give my student unionization speech again?
If you believe that collective bargaining is forced on anyone then you don’t understand either the history or purpose of labor organizing in this country.
I guess that I don’t understand history, because I do believe that it is force.
Solidarity forever, the union makes us strong!
That’s funny.
Think about this. An elderly lady gets a SS check that’s enough to cover her bills, buy food, and have a LITTLE left over for her knitting hobby. All of a sudden a bunch of businesses and industries unionize and the employees get more pay. Now 9 times out of 10 more pay leads to higher prices, so the cost of food, electricity, water, etc goes up. Now this little old lady has to give up her knitting hobby and struggle to pay her bills because some politician in the legislature thinks that the cashiers at the supermarket need to unionize. Now is this “fair” to the lady around the corner. Is this fair to the others that aren’t unionized? I’m just asking.
Collective bargaining is not forced on anyone.
How is it not? When a company is unionized EVERY employee must pay the union dues, even the ones that don’t want to be in it.
Well, I think I’ll just turn your own logic back on you. If you don’t want to be a part of an employee union but the place of business is a closed shop then you always have the option to go elsewhere where you can be subject to the whims of the bosses, the private deals made, the ass kissing necessary to keep one’s job. The choice is always yours.
Well, I think I’ll just turn your own logic back on you. If you don’t want to be a part of an employee union but the place of business is a closed shop then you always have the option to go elsewhere where you can be subject to the whims of the bosses, the private deals made, the ass kissing necessary to keep one’s job. The choice is always yours.
You’re right, but what if you’re a current employee that forced to join the union. Yeah you can leave that job and find another one w/o a union, but doesn’t that same logic apply to those who are trying to unionize?
You’re right, but what if you’re a current employee that forced to join the union. Yeah you can leave that job and find another one w/o a union, but doesn’t that same logic apply to those who are trying to unionize?
Okay, there are two points here that are not related. The first addresses a new employee joining a union shop. The way the law now stands, if that person accepts a job he or she either joins the union or pays a fair share contribution to the union which amounts to union dues less the amount the union sets aside for PAC contributions. Here the employee has a dual choice: a) join the company and pay the dues or b) seek a non-union job. Either is a choice. There is no coercion.
Your second example addresses organization of the workplace by unions. In this case, a clearly delineated procedure is in place in which both the union and the bosses have a chance to present their case to the union and then the issue is put to a vote–a democratic vote. Surely you cannot be against the force of democracy at play in matters such as these! If the union is approved by the workers then the bosses must enter into fair and reasonable collective bargaining with the work force. Again, a choice. No coercion, rather a democratic election.
Surely, you can see the benefits to democracy where we all have a voice and we are all entitled to be heard.
Either is a choice. There is no coercion.
But what I am saying is that if you don’t like the pay and benefits that you are getting, you can choose to leave and find employment somewhere else.
Surely you cannot be against the force of democracy at play in matters such as these!
Democracy in the workplace? Yeah I can support If it’s the will of the employer.
Let’s revisit my student unionization example. In the example, the student have the power to “control” the classroom in the same way that workers get to “control” their wages and salaries. I am sure that you can support democracy in your classroom. I am sure that you can support students unionizing and voting on test taking, grades, and things like that. I am sure that you can support those things. Oh even better. What about parents deciding on what you teach in YOUR classroom and how you grade their kids’s tests.
I think that I need to email and call my elected officials so they can use the commerce clause and the dept. or education to help unionize students and have them control the classroom.