liberty and tyranny

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,106
Location
Somewhere Nice
We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny.President Lincoln 1864

Today it is clear the left is for tyranny and conservatives are for liberty. Why do the useful idiots not see this?

It is as clear as the nose on your face.
 
Werbung:
It is clear that Lincoln was talking about slavery.

Could not this statement also apply to the current state of affairs with the collusion between government, unions, and corporations?

"With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. "

Just as an example. The corporation determines that it does not want to pay the higher wage that the American worker demands whether it be a union, or just a worker. So, the corporation wants cheaper labor, and it is their idea to hire them from overseas. However, in order to do so those hired from overseas have to be trained in spite of the requirement under law that the foreign worker be highly qualified. The corporation then forces the American worker to train his replacement under threat of loss of severence pay. Then the American worker is fired.

Is that not tyranny?
 
Could not this statement also apply to the current state of affairs with the collusion between government, unions, and corporations?

"With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. "

Just as an example. The corporation determines that it does not want to pay the higher wage that the American worker demands whether it be a union, or just a worker. So, the corporation wants cheaper labor, and it is their idea to hire them from overseas. However, in order to do so those hired from overseas have to be trained in spite of the requirement under law that the foreign worker be highly qualified. The corporation then forces the American worker to train his replacement under threat of loss of severence pay. Then the American worker is fired.

Is that not tyranny?

A case could be made that it is. The American worker has the choice of working for a pittance, or not working at all.

On the other hand, is it tyranny to insist that the corporation hire the more expensive worker, even if it means that they might not be able to compete in the world market?

Is there any simple solution to that problem?
 
A case could be made that it is. The American worker has the choice of working for a pittance, or not working at all.

On the other hand, is it tyranny to insist that the corporation hire the more expensive worker, even if it means that they might not be able to compete in the world market?

Is there any simple solution to that problem?


Sure there is. Repeal NAFTA/GATT WTO, and end the HB1, HV1, L1, and some 20 other visa's programs that allow corporations to import cheap labor.

Then too, it is a requirement of the "guest worker" programs that the one seeking employment in the US be better qualified then the one he/she is replacing. Again, it is a matter of enforcing the law, and not allowing corporations to get away with violating it.

As I have said before, CEO salaries are now 200 to 300 times that of the average worker. They can easily afford it.
 
It is clear that Lincoln was talking about slavery.

BS. Lincoln cared little about slavery. "We all declare for liberty..." the WE did not include the slave. Plus most slaves were uneducated and knew nothing of liberty, but they did know about tyranny promoted by the Dem party. Not much has changed.

His statement is very applicable today. He is clearly pointing out the difference between us. You want government to take care of you and take all our liberties. I want government limited to the Constitution and all my liberties.

And why is pocketpool so angry? Rhetorical...
 
Sure there is. Repeal NAFTA/GATT WTO, and end the HB1, HV1, L1, and some 20 other visa's programs that allow corporations to import cheap labor.

Then too, it is a requirement of the "guest worker" programs that the one seeking employment in the US be better qualified then the one he/she is replacing. Again, it is a matter of enforcing the law, and not allowing corporations to get away with violating it.

As I have said before, CEO salaries are now 200 to 300 times that of the average worker. They can easily afford it.


The CEOs can no doubt afford it. If they had to pay the workers too much, then they might not be able to compete in the international market. The solution to that would be tariffs, but what might the fallout of that be?

It's really too bad that CEO salaries aren't tied somehow to worker salaries. If they got paid, say, 20 times the rate of the lowest paid, then you can bet that the lowest paid would make more than they do currently.
 
BS. Lincoln cared little about slavery. "We all declare for liberty..." the WE did not include the slave. Plus most slaves were uneducated and knew nothing of liberty, but they did know about tyranny promoted by the Dem party. Not much has changed.

His statement is very applicable today. He is clearly pointing out the difference between us. You want government to take care of you and take all our liberties. I want government limited to the Constitution and all my liberties.

And why is pocketpool so angry? Rhetorical...

Blow me Gipper you little troll...I figure since your going to just stick with the name calling, I may as well debate you on your own level.

and now back to ignore
 
Blow me Gipper you little troll...I figure since your going to just stick with the name calling, I may as well debate you on your own level.

and now back to ignore

Not nice pockets. Why can't you debate the issues instead of using vulgarity and name calling??? ...again sorry for the rhetorical question.

Is anyone monitoring the board to prevent these abhorrent posts?
 
Werbung:
Back
Top