“Which is why unions are necessary to balance the dictatorial nature of a corporate workplace.”

I worked for a school district: a government workplace. I had to bow to the dictatorial nature of socialism in the form of a government required union payment. There was no balance.

We disagree. I have explained and you keep coming back with the same leftist answers.

The Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell

Report comment to moderator

“In order to get the food they need they must listen every week to a brief sermon preached by a Muslim Imam somewhat hostile to Christianity… Is this acceptable to you?”

Certainly! I would welcome it. I am not obligated to go to a Muslim charity. But if I choose to do so then I would fully expect that they would exercise their freedom of speech and tell me whatever they like.

If you know me at all you would realize that I would relish such an opportunity to have an open and frank discussion about Islam. I would enjoy nothing more. Of course, afterward my family would be forced to enter a witness protection program.

All Americans have a right to freedom of speech. For some reason, modern liberals utterly detest hearing things they don’t like and see no problem using the strong arm of government to censor religious speech.

Report comment to moderator

___________________________________________

The Washington Post

For Obama and McCain, the Bitter and the Sweet

By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, April 15, 2008; A03

So much for the liberal media.

John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation’s newspaper editors yesterday. The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist.

For Obama and McCain, the Bitter and the Sweet

___________________________________________

Report comment to moderator

Which is why unions are necessary to balance the dictatorial nature of a corporate workplace.

The people who fought the Revolution would be astonished, shocked and appalled at how the liberals today BEG to be under the power of the government, which is what they fought to get away from!

NJL — “No taxiation without represenation” The American governing class fought the British because they wanted their own representative gov’t to have the power of taxiation. They didn’t revolt for the elimination of gov’t. The Whiskey Rebellion was a genuine attempt to overthrow the power of the gov’t to tax and it was quickly put down by the winners of the Revolution.

Report comment to moderator

The principle of limited gov’t is embodied in a country who has balanced its budget for the last 15 years and maintains the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the G7; that is not America. I agree wholeheartedly that a country needs to produce enough wealth for a government to exist. If there is an imbalance, you need to cut spending, raise income or both. I suggest America look for efficiencies, investigate best practices elsewhere in departments where they spend more than others (health care) and look at where there is obvious overspending. The US military spends more than the rest of the world combined. Surely they are not getting their money worth.

That’s not representative of the people, that’s paternalistic and enslaving.

Enslaving is working without a representative to discuss your compensations. Paternalism is a boss who determines your working conditions. If the people want universal health care and their elected representatives create universal health care than it’s representative of the people.

Where the people live off of the gov’t, the gov’t is the boss. The people are not free.

Where people live off a corporation, the corporation is the boss. The people are not free.

please send me $500.00.

Well no. I’m not the gov’t with whom with my tax dollars I trust to fulfill this responsibilities. However, if I meet you in the streets I might give some spare change but not too much since I don’t want to ruin your initiative.

Report comment to moderator

I have no doubt that Obama opposes a theocracy. I have no doubt that Obama is competing for votes. But when he uses the word “kingdom,” it is meant to bring forth a certain image in the mind of a Christian — that of Christ’s Kingdom. A Christian knows better to suggest that there can be a such a kingdom achieved politically. It is insulting, certainly to this Christian.

I agree wholeheartedly with Bob Buckles’ criticsm of HRW in post 39. They never fought the Revolution there in old Canada, but we did here! HRW forgets that — everyday. So do the American liberals here. The people who fought the Revolution would be astonished, shocked and appalled at how the liberals today BEG to be under the power of the government, which is what they fought to get away from!

Report comment to moderator

What? No response? Is the Trinity racism blatent enough that even you can see it through your Obama colored glasses?

Report comment to moderator

“The Rand formula in Ontario stipulates a closed shop which means you automatically join the union as a condition of employment…”

This is the problem of Liberals. unionists, socialists, and Democrats: they use the state to force people to do things that good men and women can honestly differ on. They use the power of the state to coerce all to follow their ways of doing things. No differences are tolerated. There is only one way of doing things, the right way, their way.

How can HRW, Scroop Moth, STEVEG and others advocate these positions? Don’t they see the error of their ways?

John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton: “absolute power corrupts absolutely”

The only exception to this rule is the triune God.

“Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.” Charles Krauthammer

Report comment to moderator

UTTER nonsense. In fact, you seem to think that the government is a big utter and our job is just to suck. Is this because you think of the ‘people’, the helpless masses, as a bunch of babies?

In the USA, HRW, we actually have grown ups; real men and real women who take responsibility for themselves and their families and by so doing, they make this country great.

Have you ever heard of the principle of limited government, HRW? Government CANNOT be for the people, by the people or of the people unless and until the people work hard enough to produce the wealth that government lives on.

Sure I accept that the government should represent the people who pay the taxes that government takes from us, but not coddle them, pamper them, nurse them, nanny them, or patronize them. That’s why I oppose the nanny state, or the “Big Brother” state. That’s not representative of the people, that’s paternalistic and enslaving. The government could do nothing for anyone were it not for a strong private sector doing the work and producing the wealth that government lives off of.

Where the people live off of the gov’t, the gov’t is the boss. The people are not free. Where the people sufficiently support themselves and support a limited gov’t to boot, the people are free and the gov’t serves the people.

HRW, please send me $500.00. Or do you not even believe that you are your brother’s keeper?

Report comment to moderator

You just don’t accept the government as representative of the people, and thus the state can escape responsibility.

Report comment to moderator