jbg Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 It's not as cut and dried as it appears here. According to the Amnesty International page, this person wasn't given due process and was tried by a military court. I'm sure it looks better on the pages of the Sun than it does on this board, though. Are you saying he didn't do it? Or was justified? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
dre Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Are you saying he didn't do it? Or was justified? Its really clear what he was saying.... It's not as cut and dried as it appears here. According to the Amnesty International page, this person wasn't given due process and was tried by a military court. Its english. All those little groups of characters separated by spaces are words! Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Unions are abusive to the workers... Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Are you saying he didn't do it? Or was justified? He didn't say either. He's just saying it's not a simple matter, as some have made it out to be. Quote
Merlin Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 He didn't say either. He's just saying it's not a simple matter, as some have made it out to be. Spending union dues to go to an event such as this isn't a simple matter? Sure seems simple. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Spending union dues to go to an event such as this isn't a simple matter? Sure seems simple. You might want to go back and read what you're responding to again. Quote
Merlin Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 You might want to go back and read what you're responding to again. Spending union dues to listen and support terror groups and the release of convicted terrorists is wrong. This is a simple matter. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 The unionized worker pays to the union... The union spends the money as they see fit or justified... Regardless of what the worker wants.... Coal mine example... Bleeding the man dry.. Shamefully and sickening. Transparency in the unions is what is called for. Quote
Bonam Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 I think there needs to be a law that specifically limits the range of union activities to only include bargaining for the workers contracts/benefits/rights/conditions in the workplace. There is simply no reason for unions to be involving themselves in unrelated political activism, especially that related to events in other nations around the world. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Spending union dues to listen and support terror groups and the release of convicted terrorists is wrong. This is a simple matter. Maybe have someone read it to you because you seem to still be having trouble. Quote
The_Squid Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 I think there needs to be a law that specifically limits the range of union activities to only include bargaining for the workers contracts/benefits/rights/conditions in the workplace. There is simply no reason for unions to be involving themselves in unrelated political activism, especially that related to events in other nations around the world. Limiting freedoms of an organization is silly. Let's limit businesses only to business then... No more political donations. No more funding lobby organizations.... No more oil companies funding anti-GW science, etc, etc. Quote
Bonam Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Limiting freedoms of an organization is silly. Let's limit businesses only to business then... No more political donations. No more funding lobby organizations.... No more oil companies funding anti-GW science, etc, etc. I'm no proponent of limitless political speech by corporations, either. The difference is that the shareholders of a corporation are entirely voluntary, and can disinvest themselves at any time without real consequence if they think the company's resources are being misused, such as on advocating for political causes unrelated to the company's business. On the other hand, union members are trapped within a union, forced to pay dues, and their only out is to quit their job, which can have significant repercussions on their lives if they cannot find a new job quickly. Quote
The_Squid Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 And employers can't always pick up and leave a company.... Same difference. Quote
Bonam Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Employees are being paid BY the company, not paying money TO the company as they would be to a union. To clarify once again, the thing I specifically don't like is being required to give money to an organization that, besides its primary purpose, advocates on behalf of unrelated political causes. Quote
login Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Spending union dues to go to an event such as this isn't a simple matter? Sure seems simple. Its their union not yours. Quote
login Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) Spending union dues to listen and support terror groups and the release of convicted terrorists is wrong. This is a simple matter. Was not convicted in Canada, was only "suspected" in Israel. Suspect does not equal "convict" (except in Israel and other countries (re: most countries) where the justice system is a sham orchestrated against political rivals. I'm sure Israel could throw a mound of papers (probably in Hebrew) on my desk demonstrating evidence that linked him to aiding and abedding criminal acts. I do need to remind people though there are two types of justice determination, that based on the act and that based on the outcome of the act. The outcome desired from the act (such as feeding your poor starving family from the loaf of bread from the bakery that was stolden) as opposed to selfish acts like B&E to fund a cocaine habit (although addition may be mitigating in that) None the less it is likely that if he did abet suicide bombings it was about more than just blowing up people, it was about showing that they are not depleted of power, and that they will wage Jihad for liberation even in self martyrdom, and they are still something that needs to be respected and dealt with rather than subjugated under rascist law that Israel forces on its Arab subjects. The marriage law is just a drop in the bucket that would make the KKK look like small frys no wonder the Harper Government supports Israel so much. http://www.telegraph...enship-law.html I have to note I'm not anti Israeli, I actually strongly identify with Jews, and have found most if not all Israeli's I have ever personally met to be 'good people'. I can say likewise of all Palestinians I have met. So this isn't about the people. it is about how they treat each other as entities such as Israel, I think if an Israeli honestly looked at their laws they would agree with my statements, but they would also if they were hardline say they were necesary due to the danger Israel faces to its very existence. Edited December 4, 2012 by login Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.