Login to Change.org
Create an Account
N H
Oboy, TN
Recent Activity
-
N commented on the article |In fact, we could even enter into the curriculum the current pay of a certain trade, and teach people how to recognize bad contracts so that they know fully what they are getting themselves into before they sign the contract.
If a business starts to suffer because workers refuse to work, eventually, they'll reach a compromise. But that idea doesn't work in a liberal state because liberals are so pro-illegal-immigration. You see how it is. Liberals want to be able to have everything perfect without having to sacrifice anything to get it that way. Well, you want things perfect, you need to prioritize for what's best and what takes priority over other things.
That's just how life is. You want to eat, you have to kill something to eat it. You can't eat something without killing it. You want to fish, might have to touch worm guts. You want to eat barbecue, then your hands are going to get messy. Wear gloves, they'll get messy too, and you'll have to clean them as well. You want biodeisal, in some areas, you're going to have to make it yourself. You want to use less electricity, you might have to risk increased mercury in the water supply. You want solar power, you have to buy the setup and then set it up. You want the perfect house, you're going to have to build it or pay someone else too. You want wood, you have to cut down a tree. You want power, you have make it. You want an education, you have to study. You want time to do things, you have to make it and preserve it, i.e. don't get pregnant before you're ready too. You don't want STD's, then don't have sex with a bunch of people.
it's not hard to understand prioritization, but it seems to allude liberals because they always seem to think that it's not life, that others are being selfish or stupid, when in reality, it all has to do with us, what we are willing to prioritize, what we take responsibility for, what we will make for ourselves.
-
N commented on the article |
It's sad yes, but what are you going to do? You can't force businesses to pay more than they can afford too, and if you force them to pay too much, they'll shrink and put people out of jobs. Making some but not enough, or making nothing because you're laid-off, which is better?
The government could attempt to foot the bill, but too much of that happens, and the government won't have enough, then we'll be right back where we started. The best thing is to ensure businesses have enough to pay by increasing the benefits of managing a business well.
If it's seen that a business is just being greedy, then the workers need to seek employment elsewhere, stop accepting bad contracts, or start meeting in group meetings to organize.
You know, unions are not exclusively the only place workers can discuss things and organize, people can just simply meet somewhere to discuss issues, that's covered in the constitution under peaceably assembling.
The problem with unions is they become special interest groups with more bullying power over the common worker than anything. What about those people that disagree with a union's opinions? Do they not have the right to work somewhere anyway, despite the union's current take on it. Not in some states they don't. They, by state law, must join that union, despite their opinions if they wish to work their trade. That violates the spirit of the law, yet liberals love to enforce things like that. And then the union becomes yet another form of control, a shackle, if you will that big government forces upon the common worker. You think with big money, big government has no influence upon the unions and the final union policy, don't be so naive.
That's how it is. They form for the good reasons, but eventually become a big government controlling factor much more than they are ever a freeing factor.
-
N commented on the petition |Abortion is as much a legal debate as the murder of a born child is, and it will continue to be until the day comes that an unborn child can survive without the mother's whom, and thus abortion is not a death sentence for the child.
However, the term abortion today has only ever ensured the premature murder of the child even when the child would have otherwise survived.
You don't believe me, educate yourself on the lack of difference between partial birth abortions and premee babies.
And as our medical Neo-natal care improves, that time frame will get closer and closer to the moment of conception.
-
N signed the petition |
-
N commented on the article |Quote: "If passed, it would mean more resources for victims, more cash to prosecute people who sell kids, and stricter reporting requirements for missing children. To the tune of 45 million bucks."
That's nothing. What do Democrats think, that if they make things legally harder on people who see something that they think might be bad, but don't call it in, that it's going to help? That's stupid because then that's going to stress families and people, making them even more scared to discipline their children, be seen out in public, or to call it in. In the long run, it's going to result in less people saying something when it really matters because they are going to be afraid of ruining someones life over a suspicion or gut feeling, which have been shown to be largely innaccurate, despite how many liberals are absolutely convinced, without proof, that gut feelings are the most reliable and accurate source.
Also it's going to make it harder on the people reporting the possible crime and the victim's parents in an already maxed-out stressful situation where people may become afraid to call the police because they don't have the "stricter reporting requirements" available to give them, and they don't want to be prosecuted or sued. Therefore, if nobody knows you saw anything, this may make it easier to say nothing. Really, Democrats are just too stupid to be in office.
Also, throwing cash at prosecutors isn't going to make a difference. Police already know to make sure they have the evidence needed. The only thing that throwing cash at this would help is paying people off under-the-table for a conviction on a man or woman that police are convinced is guilty, but don't have enough evidence to convict, which would then lead to innocent people getting convicted.
What needs to be done is to fine tune and hone in on proper techniques, and maybe a few innovative ideas that really dig in and get to these victimizers, hopefully before they have a chance to hurt someone. Then when a technique or idea is proven useful and effective, throw money at that so that the police force can get the program off the ground and moving.
-
N commented on the article |This is the first thing that Change.org has written that makes any sense.
While I agree whole-heartedly that the porn industry needs to be better controlled/ completely prohibited from our nation, but I know that if this project is done by liberals and Democrats, it won't really do anything to help the situation, but will definately hurt and restrict law-abiding citizens from the freedom of the internet and/or other things because undoubtedly, Democrats will design a non-sensical system of controlling all you can see and do online, but that won't actually effectively put out the victimization of women or children.
They may, however, catch a lot of recreational free-porn consumers, who really don't do much in encouraging the porn industry because they don't pay into it, but they won't actually catch very many of the people paying and/or distributing and creating the porn. In otherwords, the victimization will continue like normal, but we just won't see it as much because everything we do online will be monitored by the government. And the news will definitely make it sound like everything's working even though they haven't really done anything except put tighter control onto the common man.
-
N commented on the article |There is a reason we wear clothes despite our obvious attraction to seeing the opposite sex bare naked. This is reality. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a policy that is meant to remove discrimination while at the same time recognizing the very real fact that people need to have alone time and when that is impossible such as it is in war, then people need to have times where they can feel comfortable and at ease with those around them. To know someone is gay would be very similar to having women and men next to eachother at all times without any separation. It would add to the unneccessary drama and uncomfort in an already maxed out stressful environment and will result in hindrance of the mission readiness that we all must maintain.
We don't see the reality of this because we haven't really been there, and we've grown complacent in our comforts and blessings, but I guarantee you, there are opposing militarys out there who won't be as complacent. This is not a fairy tale world, this is a very real world with very real consequences. We are not invincible, and readiness to defend needs to alway be a top priority, taking precedence over most other priorities.
With that said, the real problem here is that she was never properly informed of her rights by her chain of command, as is very very common among enlisted members of the Armed Forces. In fact, if one does not look up the regulations and read them for themselves, it is likely one will never be informed enough to actually do something.
The reality of the matter is, it's a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, "not a don't ask, don't accuse" policy. This is not the result of a failed policy, this is the result of poor leadership that didn't take the time to inform their juniors.
Poor leadership is the issue. That's what needs to be addressed. Her leadership that didn't inform their juniors and somehow allowed their juniors to believe that they could get away with doing such an atrocious act is what needs to be addressed.
-
N commented on the article |
Why don't we tell the truth here . . . Change.org?
If she didn't "tell," then no one has the right to bring up charges under the UCMJ. However, if those male colleagues "asked" she does have the right to bring up charges against them.
She cannot get in trouble merely because someone decides to accuse her of being gay because being gay is not wrong under the UCMJ, only talking about yourself being gay or somebody asking you if you are gay is wrong. And nobody knows if she said she was gay accept herself and those she told, if she told, that is.
And it's wrong to say you are gay for a reason, because despite the best liberal speeches, the reality of the matter is, war is for real, death is for real, you can really get yourself and your fellow soldiers killed if you are not on top of your game. The fact of the matter is, it can really be uncomfortable (i.e. add to the stress) to know someone who is sharing your room or showers with you, sleeps in the same area as you next to you is gay.
-
N commented on the article |
They can't support homosexuality because they believe in Christ. I mean if they did support homosexuality, then they wouldn't be Christian anymore, they'd just be a charity organization under the facade of being Christian.
The Christian bible says that homosexuality is an abomination, to go against that is to go against their own religion. They'd cease to be a church that believes in the bible that teaches us about Christ and His resurection, the cornerstone of Christian faith. In other words they'd cease to be a Christian church and become a church that believes what it wants to believe regardless of what the bible they claim to believe in says.
-
N commented on the article |What I mean by majority rules thing in what I wrote on my previous post is that because our constitution forbids laws being made in favor of any religion, it means on religious issues like what marraige is, and homosexuality tends to be, should be decided by majority rules. That's what a Democracy is about. Majority decision superceedes any one or a few's desire or decision. So unless the majority of citizens want homosexual marriages to count, they shouldn't count. If you personally want to see yourself as married, then by all means, that's your right. But when it comes to tax payer funds and laws being made by government in your favor in recognition of marriage, it's majority rules then because majority rules is what a Democracy is. If you don't like that, then move to an autocratic nation, or wait about 20 years in this nation, and the government will control it's citizens enough to be called a dictatorship or some other autocratic government where only one small group of people holds all the power and decision making authority throughout the entire nation.
Impact
1 Action
0 Recruits
Top Causes
|
1 Action
|