The right to an education for children of illegal immigrant
The right for teachers to unionize
The abolition of tenure
The abolition of affirmative action in college admissions
The abolition of welfare, food stamps and WIC
The abolition of Medicaid
The privatization of all non-essential governmental services
The right for women to vote
The abolition of birth control
Censorship of the internet
Posted by Anonymous to The Utah Amicus at 4:32 PM
9 comments:
Who is this nut?
Your a baby killing, socialist fag loving, union promoting dick Rob.
And that's me being nice.
I wonder what the second anonymous thinks of teachers.
He probably thinks that in Utah we're all nation-hating, communistic,baby-killing, anti-war, feminazis.
Geez, wish I knew one that was.
Though with comments like that, it makes you wonder why some teachers are not Republicans.
Did you mean, You're a baby-killing, socialist, fag-loving, union-promoting dick?
I thought so.
Cheers!
This is exactly why I don't allow anonymous comments on any blog I run. It's a magnet for trolls and flamebait.
classy!
I know the comment is a troll. His arguments have no logical connection to each other and are based on ad hominem attacks.
Having said that, I stupidly feel compelled to attack the idiocy of the comment.
The children of illegal immigrants (if they are born in the US) are American citizens (see 14th Amendment). Even if they are not citizens or legal residents, they still fall under the Utah Constitution Art. X, Sec. 1's requirement that Utah's schools "shall be open to all children of the state."
The right of teachers to unionize would require removing "right of the people peaceably to assemble" from the First Amendment to the US Constitution and similar language in Art. I, Sec. I of the Utah Constitution.
Tenure is merely a contractual obligation. I do not believe that there is any legal requirement for employers and employees to enter into a tenured relationship. However, you seem to advocate such a significant alteration in the free enterprise system of contractual employment.
Affirmative action is not a law, but merely a policy that encourages employers to eliminate bias in hiring decisions. Colleges have tried to adopt that policy, but they are not legally required to do so. If you don't like a college that has a stricter affirmative action policy, you are free to CHOOSE another university.
Welfare, food stamps, and WIC can be argued, but you should also then be totally in favor of abortion. Without those programs, new mothers without jobs, health insurance, or helpful families would have a nearly impossible task ahead of them when the child is born.
If you are in favor of abolishing Medicaid, I am sure you will be happy to pay higher health insurance costs. Without Medicaid reimbursements, those who need health care would have to be covered by the generosity of the insurance co.'s; since that is unlikely, costs will most likely shift to those who do pay. If you would prefer that low-income individuals not receive health care, be prepared for an increase in crime. People get desperate when they or their loved ones are sick.
I am probably asking for it, but what is a "non-essential govt. service?" Border patrol? Road care? The military? FBI? Health care? Welfare? Military and veterans services?
The right of women to vote is guaranteed in the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution and Art. IV, Sec. I of the Utah Constitution.
In advocating the abolition of birth control, do you also advocate the frequently-cited "best form of birth control": complete celibacy? If celibacy is birth control, and you want to abolish it, why do you want to force people to have sex? I think it is better that I am free to choose with whom, where, and when I have sex. That's also covered by the First Amendment, as well as the 14th Amendment's right to privacy.
Some would say the very nature of the internet precludes it from censorship, no matter what government tries to do. If you don't want it censored, feel free to get a wireless signal in international waters.
As I said, this is my crazy rant, and I am asking for a trollish rant in return. I just wanted to point out, with actual evidence and reasoning how stupid the comment was in the first place. The commenter is free to advocate such things, but he is not free to experience complete repudiation of his remarks.
I'm tyring to figure out what the connections between these things are -- what does birth control and the right of women to vote, for example, have to do with vouchers? Those two are about the equal rights of women. Vouchers are about promoting unequal rights for rich people and crippling public education which is meant to (although not perfect) ensure an equal education for all.
I can't see any kind of comparison. Those are just the two most glaring points that I picked up on. Looks like your commenter has a bad case of sour grapes and wants to punish all because he/she feels threatened on this issue.
Post a Comment