XPost: alt.activism, alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.republican
XPost: alt.politics.conservative
From: tim.howard@suddenlink.net
On 3/16/2011 10:02 PM, Salad wrote:
> Tim Howard wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2011 2:59 AM, ray wrote:
>>
>>> In article<4d804191$0$28245$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>,
>>> Tim Howard wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/13/2011 5:19 PM, ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article<4d7d5743$0$28236$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>,
>>>>> Tim Howard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course many states are also passing or attempting to pass laws
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> make it more difficult for groups that clearly would vote democratic
>>>>>> from voting (eliminating same day voter registration, mandating
>>>>>> state-issued ID cards) under the guise of "voter fraud"--a bugaboo
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> no one has been able to show any significant evidence of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, most of these measures would, in the not-to-distant past,
>>>>>> have been
>>>>>> considered unconstitutional, but in the era of the
>>>>>> Republican-dominated
>>>>>> Supreme Court, and an administration reluctant to appoint so- called
>>>>>> "activist judges" (meaning liberal), who knows what will happen when
>>>>>> these laws are challenged and inevitably go before the High Court
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are many other examples, but this should be enough to worry all
>>>>>> Americans who believe in our concepts of a democratic republic,
>>>>>> representative democracy, or however we conceive our free nation.
>>>>>> People all over this country need to do what WI is starting to
>>>>>> do--initiate recall drives against this anti-democratic Republican
>>>>>> governors and their lackeys in state houses and senates. We must not
>>>>>> wait four years for them to run again. We may not be allowed to do
>>>>>> anything about it at that point.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The recall process is designed to remove representatives who have been
>>>>> considered suspect in certain situations or otherwise did something
>>>>> clearly illegal. It's not there to remove representatives who did
>>>>> their
>>>>> job legally and honestly, just not to the liking of some people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Democrats don't like Democracy--they never have. They don't like
>>>>> majority rule either. It's their way, or the highway.
>>>>>
>>>>> If this push is successful, then we live in tyranny of the unions and
>>>>> any other group that misuses the system. And that would be all the
>>>>> more
>>>>> reason to get rid of all unions in this country. And if successful, it
>>>>> would outrage many Americans who would support the extermination of
>>>>> unions. They've done enough damage to this country already.
>>>>>
>>>> Unions are responsible for the 40hr week, minimum wage, health and
>>>> safety rules, anti-harassment laws, pensions, employee health
>>>> insurance,
>>>> and many other great things. If that "damages" the wallets of business
>>>> owners, too damn bad.
>>>
>>>
>>> Except that unions have damaged many more wallets of employees and
>>> taxpayers as well. So are we to be eternally indebted to unions because
>>> they led the charge for work conditions that would have happened anyway
>>> under government?
>>>
>> You think all those things "happened anyway under government" by
>> themselves? They happened because of pressure from the workers and
>> because pro-worker candidates got elected. The 50s were are most
>> prosperous era, and is it a coincidence that unionism was at its
>> highest? Government employees are not slaves, when they get paid they
>> have a right to do what they want with their money, including paying
>> union dues and supporting unions and pro-union candidates.
>
> Why bother with having a union then? You are either for or against
> unions and workers having the right to collectively bargain. You side
> with the union busters and the rich people that manipulate you and the
> government.
>
Are you talking to me or the previous guy?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
