Posted on 06/20/2011 11:17:41 AM PDT by CNSNews
That’s the idea. They want to identify those who won’t “get with the program.”
Look up “delphi technique” for group settings, school board meetings, it’s used in academia, city council meetings, etc. They usually trot out a so-called neutral “facilitator”.
In this type of situation they may just harangue everyone and check the block, tough to say. Can’t be anything good. Precursor to disciplinary action, performance review, lawsuits - list is endless.
The only sensitivity training I would recommend, would be sensitivity to what people could care less about. I could care less about what anyone does in their private time, and genuinely so. I would be willing to bet, however, that if discretion were so well-practiced, and well-encouraged, that the majority of the liberal propaganda would be out of business, and that’s why they wouldn’t go by my suggestion for “sensitivity training”.
A little discretion goes a long way. In fact, I would say that years ago, people had few, if any problems with homosexuality because it was done discretely, and not shoved in everyone else’s face. But now, pretty much all justification for “gay rights” hangs on the typical consequences of shoving it in just about everyone’s face.
Just another name for the old soviet re-education camps. Next will be gulags for those that resist...
Their (the USDA's) purpose is the public health and safety. Which is not within the purview of a government concerned with the affairs of a federation of independent states. Its Constitution does not contain that power within the enumeration of powers accorded the Federal Government save the barring of dangers to the public health and safety that might emanate from foreign sources (the introduction, for instance, of contagious diseases brought in by immigrants). The public health and safety is otherwise the responsibility of the states.
The given reason, of course, departs markedly from the real reason.
Placemark.
http://www.ocfo.usda.gov/usdasp/sp2005/sp2005.pdf
Much of it seems to overlap other federal bureaucracies. There is so much redundancy in federal departments. No wonder we are drowning in debt.
Your point?
I stated my point.
Your correct, it’s this scream in my face everyday I am weary of. I could care less what they do in private just keep their mouth shut and I could get along like I used to.
What?
That the USDA is rife with redundancies?
that we are drowning in debt?
that we have overlapping federal bureaucracies?
Earlier, you seemed to think we ought to simply eliminate the USDA. I expressed agreement, giving constitutional reasons. You responded by presenting a bill of particulars, (USDA “objectives”) against the USDA. Were you merely putting forth a proposition for discussion?
Just saying we would be better off without a lot of these federal agencies that are redundant or just not necessary, the USDA being one.
OK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.