100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
I knew some people that only voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black. They didn't know what he stood for or anything. They either wanted to support him because of his race or to be a part of history. So what does that make them? A US Citizen,,lol prior to now, voters commonly didnt know what the candidate 'stood for' and voted on their looks, their image, their perceived personal virtue,,etc,,,, prior to now? how did the bushes get elected then? i think you meant "as of now", beginning with obamma. a black man that speaks good...and in an election where just about anyone that was democrat coulda won. seriously? Bush got elected with money and 'family values' speech that was his 'image' , and what put him in front, just as much if not more than what he actually 'stood for' politically and OBama is a black man who speaks WELL,,,,as was Jesse Jackson , shirley chisholm, and Alan Keyes,,,,who didnt even get the nomination so I guess, if we overlook the need to win the nomination, we can believe that Obama won 'just because' he is black but if we take into consideration the significance of being nominated in the first place , we have to consider it was more than his color that won him the race,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expresses the sense of the Congress that the President did not comply with the War Powers Act when he ordered the April 14, 1986, attack on Libya. Urges the President to comply with such Act in the future. war powers act is not about 'blatant disregard' it is about consulting with congress before ordering military action which Reagan did not do when HE ordered air strikes over Libya either,,, he met with 'members' of congress,, as did OBama but he never got 'congressional approval' in the formal sense of the ambiguous term Well.. I was going to stay out of this discussion, but I changed my mind.. A little history.. In 1981 Libya launched an airstrike against US ships in international waters. An act of war? Possibly.. Again, in 1986 Libya launched surface to air missiles at our Jets flying over the same international waters.. An act of war? Possibly.. After this confrontation, Libya ordered retaliatory actions against US military bases in Europe. Libya actually declared war on the US.. A week after this the bomb went off in the Berlin disco killing a US soldier.. War Powers Act Section 2 (C) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp/ There is clearly a difference between the reasons Reagan bombed Libya and Obama bombing Libya.. Reagan had clear authority to use the War Powers Act because of the Libyan attacks against US military personnel. there is no 'clear' record of Libya having declared a war against the US there was a SINGULAR terrorist assault at a nightclub for which Libya was ASSUMED responsible... the War Powers Act was not relevant when he sent the troops,,,, you seemed to leave out the attacks on US naval forces in international waters carried out by the Libyan military forces.. are you saying they didn't happen either? Im saying at the time there Reagan gave the order, he was responding not to any attack by any government on the US,, he was responding to an ISOLATED incident by individuals against us military in another country,,,, not covered as 'declaration of war' by Libya, and therefore prone to approval by Congress,,, If the US military attacks a Canadian ship off the coast of Maryland, but in international waters you are saying that is an attack carried out by individuals and not the US? So using the War Powers Act to surgically strike a country that had its military attack you in international waters does not meet YOUR standard.. Where in God's name did Obama get the authority to attack with absolutely NO provocation? if a US ship attacks, that is a US strike, if US citizens organize to attack that is a TERRORIST strike in 1986, when Raegan sent troops, there had been a TERRORIST strike in April which killed three american troops and injured 60 american citizens and 140 non americans in retaliation, on April 15, Raegan sent in troops Libya attacked US military personnel in international waters in May 1981 and again in March 1986.. LIBYAN MILITARY PLANES.. LIBYAN MILITARY SURFACE TO AIR MISSILES.. NOT INDIVIDUALS >>>>> LIBYAN MILITARY PERSONNEL... You didnt answer my question of where Obama got the authority to attack without provocation.. by precedent....other PRESIDENTS had the authority before him can you give me the name(s) of the ship(s) that was attacked, or the numbers of americans injured or killed in this 'march 1986' aggression towards us military personnel...? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree did you order Bell's book? unfortunately, Im having other financial priorities, but its on my list of stuff to do,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me, when is getting the government involved in anything a good idea? Now, they'll have your health records and don't think for a second they won't misuse this information. People can't be stupid enough to think the government actually cares about them? I dont know. I think civil rights laws were a good idea. I think medicare was a good idea. I think welfare is a good idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
personaly I think things are improveing was at Red Lobster last night place was packed. My Gf and I even had a conversation along the lines of that when we noticed how many people were out eating at the high end restaraunt. Granted many people are not doing well but many are. I suspect the riseing gas prices will dampen the recovery being a depression or recession will be the only chance the republicans have to haveing any political relevence. The oil industry has traditionly been republican dominated and you do not have to be a aluminum foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist to blame the right wing for the riseing gas prices. That and all the chickenhawk war talk over Iran. The biggest mistake anyone can make is to vote republican and then complain when the economy goes down the tubes after all we did cut taxes to stimulate the economy as prescribed by the neocons and those tax cuts remain largely in effect all we have are reduced services to those in need and a huge defecit. Lets be intelectualy honest for a change every time we elect republicans to office the rich get richer and the common folks get poorer and it takes a two term democrat to turn it around. obama isnt perfect but ya know what he is far better than the Mcain/Palin he ran against and he is far better than any of the clowns the republicans are running. Ummmm, Red Lobster is not a high end Restaurant......It is the McDonald's of Seafood actually!!! Obama is setting up another depression by instituting a healthcare plan paid for by the government right now sinking this country further into debt for the future.......every added socialistic program sets this country up for a bigger fall with the false economy bubble he is making right now!!! yea, obamacare is designed to make everyone a hypochondriac, by giving everyone a free pass to go to the emergency room for colds and things of that nature. it will break the government, no matter what kind of price we have to pay. there will be no free pass people are already assured treatment in the emergency room and cant be turned away this bill doesnt change emergency room procedures, this bill ensures that the most EXTREME of circumstances doesnt keep people from care it doesnt do anything to increase or decrease the incidence of hypochondriacs who wish to see doctors for their symptoms,,, no, the difference is now the government pays the 1000-10000's of dollars the hospitals charge. multiply that by 250 million and what do you have? wrong again, there are according to most estimates 50 million who dont have insurance now of those fifty million, some will opt to purchase insurance with the new bill, like so many opted to do when vehicle insurance became a mandate of those who are left, (unknown number, but less than 50 mill), there will be an exchange which offers insurance coverage, still from private insurers who will be able to offer lower rates because they would be in a larger 'risk pool' its not about the government paying for hundreds of millions of patients at all,,, its just about getting insurance for the uninsured,,,,and at more affordable rates for those who in the past couldnt afford it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
I think it is an assumption that evidence will be found to 'prove' men descended from primates We send people to the electric chair based on 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt', rather than an actual, true logical 'proof'. If you require absolute definite proof, you can't accept anything as true. Those who wish to deny reality, yet be 'logical', can always hide behind an insane standard of 'definite proof'. It has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans descended from other primates, for everyone who has taken the time to learn and honestly investigate the question. and even then, that would not disprove or negate the possibility of there having been an Adam and Eve who were created by God, it would only open a new possibility that IF there were Adam and Eve, they may have had the form of a primate , still created by God and able to communicate with Him Um.... I thought that some bible literalists who believed that humans pre-existed the creation of adam and eve, given that there (apparently) were other humans outside of the garden for cain to go kick it with and have kids with. Am I totally confused about genesis? I haven't read it in a long time. the bible doesnt cover every moment of the life of every person in existence since time began,,, there is no clear wording in the bible that 'humans' (a human scientific label) existed before adam and eve,, particularly in the details that science goes into there is also no clear wording on WHOM cain had kids with, except that adam and eve were told to be fruitful and incest was not yet against the law (old testament) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
I think it is an assumption that evidence will be found to 'prove' men descended from primates We send people to the electric chair based on 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt', rather than an actual, true logical 'proof'. If you require absolute definite proof, you can't accept anything as true. Those who wish to deny reality, yet be 'logical', can always hide behind an insane standard of 'definite proof'. It has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans descended from other primates, for everyone who has taken the time to learn and honestly investigate the question. and even then, that would not disprove or negate the possibility of there having been an Adam and Eve who were created by God, it would only open a new possibility that IF there were Adam and Eve, they may have had the form of a primate , still created by God and able to communicate with Him Um.... I thought that some bible literalists who believed that humans pre-existed the creation of adam and eve, given that there (apparently) were other humans outside of the garden for cain to go kick it with and have kids with. Am I totally confused about genesis? I haven't read it in a long time. reasonable doubt is subjective, that is why jurors are CHOSEN and dont all serve,,,,,because those who pick jurys can profile what type of 'doubts' some are more likely to have than others,,, and I oppose the electric chair for just that reason,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
personaly I think things are improveing was at Red Lobster last night place was packed. My Gf and I even had a conversation along the lines of that when we noticed how many people were out eating at the high end restaraunt. Granted many people are not doing well but many are. I suspect the riseing gas prices will dampen the recovery being a depression or recession will be the only chance the republicans have to haveing any political relevence. The oil industry has traditionly been republican dominated and you do not have to be a aluminum foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist to blame the right wing for the riseing gas prices. That and all the chickenhawk war talk over Iran. The biggest mistake anyone can make is to vote republican and then complain when the economy goes down the tubes after all we did cut taxes to stimulate the economy as prescribed by the neocons and those tax cuts remain largely in effect all we have are reduced services to those in need and a huge defecit. Lets be intelectualy honest for a change every time we elect republicans to office the rich get richer and the common folks get poorer and it takes a two term democrat to turn it around. obama isnt perfect but ya know what he is far better than the Mcain/Palin he ran against and he is far better than any of the clowns the republicans are running. Ummmm, Red Lobster is not a high end Restaurant......It is the McDonald's of Seafood actually!!! Obama is setting up another depression by instituting a healthcare plan paid for by the government right now sinking this country further into debt for the future.......every added socialistic program sets this country up for a bigger fall with the false economy bubble he is making right now!!! yea, obamacare is designed to make everyone a hypochondriac, by giving everyone a free pass to go to the emergency room for colds and things of that nature. it will break the government, no matter what kind of price we have to pay. there will be no free pass people are already assured treatment in the emergency room and cant be turned away this bill doesnt change emergency room procedures, this bill ensures that the most EXTREME of circumstances doesnt keep people from care it doesnt do anything to increase or decrease the incidence of hypochondriacs who wish to see doctors for their symptoms,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expresses the sense of the Congress that the President did not comply with the War Powers Act when he ordered the April 14, 1986, attack on Libya. Urges the President to comply with such Act in the future. war powers act is not about 'blatant disregard' it is about consulting with congress before ordering military action which Reagan did not do when HE ordered air strikes over Libya either,,, he met with 'members' of congress,, as did OBama but he never got 'congressional approval' in the formal sense of the ambiguous term Well.. I was going to stay out of this discussion, but I changed my mind.. A little history.. In 1981 Libya launched an airstrike against US ships in international waters. An act of war? Possibly.. Again, in 1986 Libya launched surface to air missiles at our Jets flying over the same international waters.. An act of war? Possibly.. After this confrontation, Libya ordered retaliatory actions against US military bases in Europe. Libya actually declared war on the US.. A week after this the bomb went off in the Berlin disco killing a US soldier.. War Powers Act Section 2 (C) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp/ There is clearly a difference between the reasons Reagan bombed Libya and Obama bombing Libya.. Reagan had clear authority to use the War Powers Act because of the Libyan attacks against US military personnel. there is no 'clear' record of Libya having declared a war against the US there was a SINGULAR terrorist assault at a nightclub for which Libya was ASSUMED responsible... the War Powers Act was not relevant when he sent the troops,,,, you seemed to leave out the attacks on US naval forces in international waters carried out by the Libyan military forces.. are you saying they didn't happen either? Im saying at the time there Reagan gave the order, he was responding not to any attack by any government on the US,, he was responding to an ISOLATED incident by individuals against us military in another country,,,, not covered as 'declaration of war' by Libya, and therefore prone to approval by Congress,,, If the US military attacks a Canadian ship off the coast of Maryland, but in international waters you are saying that is an attack carried out by individuals and not the US? So using the War Powers Act to surgically strike a country that had its military attack you in international waters does not meet YOUR standard.. Where in God's name did Obama get the authority to attack with absolutely NO provocation? if a US ship attacks, that is a US strike, if US citizens organize to attack that is a TERRORIST strike in 1986, when Raegan sent troops, there had been a TERRORIST strike in April which killed three american troops and injured 60 american citizens and 140 non americans in retaliation, on April 15, Raegan sent in troops |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People need to just MYOB truly, I am amazed that a 'cross' shaped jewel could offend people, its a piece of material that doesnt even mean the same thing to everyone who wears it,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Those two sides of the argument haven't been settled for thousands of years, so I bet we're not going to do it either. Brava, I love your posts. With regard to 'randomness' and 'causality' - I do want to point out that these arguments have gone on for thousands of years only because we, as a species, lacked a coherent and accurate understanding of the truth. I think within a few generations we will no longer be debating these points, and that all intelligent people with an interest in learning will easily come to the same conclusions. Honestly, I don't see how there can ever be "truth" in this debate. We humans are never going to know everything! And in that space of what we don't know, our human nature is always going to have us arguing the possibilities. Even intelligent people with an interest in learning are brought up differently, in different circumstances, and do not easily agree. To me, the value of learning is that it encourages you to be tolerant of other points of view and humble about your own. One of the greatest sentences a person can say in any language is, "You may be right." I suppose it depends on the domain of the debate. We don't need to know everything that there is to know - we just need to recognize when we have a sufficiently mature understanding of some particular domain. For example, our ignorance of human psychology doesn't stop us from being exceptionally (and justifiably) confident of our predictions of orbital mechanics. "You may be right" is sometimes dishonest and ignorant thing to say, when you know enough to know that (barring solipsism) there is no chance they may be right. Consider the domain of evolution: There are intellectually honest anti-evolutionists out there who have been gradually acknowledging the truth of evolution for decades. They draw a line in the sand and say: "You can't justifiably assert anything beyond that line!" and they are right. But a decade later our understanding is more complete, more mature, and better evidenced, so they draw a new line and repeat the claim. Eventually, essentially all intelligent, honest, investigation-inclined people will recognize that humans are descended from other primates, and that the basic ideas of current evolutionary theories play a central role in that process that brought that about. I think it is an assumption that evidence will be found to 'prove' men descended from primates and even then, that would not disprove or negate the possibility of there having been an Adam and Eve who were created by God, it would only open a new possibility that IF there were Adam and Eve, they may have had the form of a primate , still created by God and able to communicate with Him |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 03/17/12 01:03 PM
|
|
So because the Bible says God is perfect you believe it? If Godly perfect is different than what we humans think perfect should be then how can we judge what is perfect or imperfect? in my opinion, we cant, without accepting help from Jesus to do so,,,,listening to the inner voice that I believe to be his guidance,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expresses the sense of the Congress that the President did not comply with the War Powers Act when he ordered the April 14, 1986, attack on Libya. Urges the President to comply with such Act in the future. war powers act is not about 'blatant disregard' it is about consulting with congress before ordering military action which Reagan did not do when HE ordered air strikes over Libya either,,, he met with 'members' of congress,, as did OBama but he never got 'congressional approval' in the formal sense of the ambiguous term Well.. I was going to stay out of this discussion, but I changed my mind.. A little history.. In 1981 Libya launched an airstrike against US ships in international waters. An act of war? Possibly.. Again, in 1986 Libya launched surface to air missiles at our Jets flying over the same international waters.. An act of war? Possibly.. After this confrontation, Libya ordered retaliatory actions against US military bases in Europe. Libya actually declared war on the US.. A week after this the bomb went off in the Berlin disco killing a US soldier.. War Powers Act Section 2 (C) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp/ There is clearly a difference between the reasons Reagan bombed Libya and Obama bombing Libya.. Reagan had clear authority to use the War Powers Act because of the Libyan attacks against US military personnel. there is no 'clear' record of Libya having declared a war against the US there was a SINGULAR terrorist assault at a nightclub for which Libya was ASSUMED responsible... the War Powers Act was not relevant when he sent the troops,,,, you seemed to leave out the attacks on US naval forces in international waters carried out by the Libyan military forces.. are you saying they didn't happen either? Im saying at the time there Reagan gave the order, he was responding not to any attack by any government on the US,, he was responding to an ISOLATED incident by individuals against us military in another country,,,, not covered as 'declaration of war' by Libya, and therefore prone to approval by Congress,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. So I am a eugenicist becuase I think you should handle your own problems. I am going to ignore that becuase it has nothing to do with my position. I think its a bit of projection from the evolution thread, but whatever . . . In the OP, she had been assaulted by this guy. She should have armed herself, learned to use a firearm, AND continued to press charges. In that scenario you have a person taking personal responsibility for there actions, for there own safety, and to seek justice for ACTUAL harms committed against her person and her rights. In SOPA, I am also for personal responsibility. The person who owns the property, IP, copyrights is responsible for policing there own content, determining that the IP rights have been violated and then seek redress through the system by suing the person they allege is violating there copy rights. In both cases the opposition to my position wants someone else to be responsible. In the case of the stalker laws, its the government being responsible for protection from poeple who harrass you, threaten you, and generally wont leave you alone. In SOPA is it the IP holders who want the responsibility of policing rights violations to be on content sites and not themselves. The punishments are designed to be severe and as such would remove the desire for the content sites to engage in both legal, and illegal uses of copyrighted materials. Consistent through and through without any vague notions of "weight" of possible scenarios, whatever that means . . . you have still not made that clear. I am not anti law, I am pro simple clear law. Im not sure what survival of the fittest has to do with eugenics,,,so I Will skip past that one... I dont want to be responsible for someone elses actions or decisions which harm or lead to harming me or mine that is true I can be responsible for being vigilant and careful but I Also want a system that backs me up by prosecuting those who violate my ability to function without threat of harm,,, Well if you you get robbed, raped and killed I don't think you will care much about what happens to the guy who did it. You'll be dead. thats true on either side of the debate about felonies,, dead is dead even in the case of accidents , dead is dead and in my living years, I hope that I will not be the reason anyone else life is taken, even if they have taken mine,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
When you think about large and small and infinity... and the possibilities, how do we know there is no creator? Good question, very good question. I don't know if there is no creator, and I don't know if there is a creator. I just beleive there is no creator. I won't argue with those who believe there is a creator. Their claim I can't touch. It's a matter of faith. What you asked was right. Small and large infinities give us no indication if a creator exists and is responsible for the world. A few things we can know, however, if we assume the creator exists. For instance, we know the creator is not perfect. We know that because we also know that perfection can't produce imperfection (and Spider said that is so, he supported this with saying that the world was perfect after creation was finished); and also because we know that the world is not perfect now. So the creator was not perfect, and the bible's teaching that the world was just exactly perfect at the time of creation is a necessarily false claim. If it was perfect, it could not have lost its perfection. What does being "perfect" have to do with being a creator??? Perfection and imperfection seems to me is a matter of opinion. What does a person know about judging what is perfect or imperfect? It seems to me that this universe and its laws is perfect enough to evolve into intelligent life. You claim that perfection cannot create imperfection, right? Then how would something unconscious become conscious? How could something non-intelligent evolve into many different intelligent life forms? Why does everyone insist that a creator has to be perfect? That's ridiculous. And what is "perfect" anyway? We evolved didn't we? We became self aware didn't we? We live don't we? The laws of cause and effect work pretty damn good don't they? Who in the world do we think we are to criticize this universe? Could we create such a thing that evolves and grows life and becomes self aware and intelligent? There has to be some intelligence somewhere from whence we came if we claim to be intelligent at all. doesn't the bible say he's perfect? yes, he is Godly perfect, a different standard then human perfect we are to be perfect even as God is perfect, is a comparative statement saying we are to be like God,, not that He is supposed to be like us.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expresses the sense of the Congress that the President did not comply with the War Powers Act when he ordered the April 14, 1986, attack on Libya. Urges the President to comply with such Act in the future. war powers act is not about 'blatant disregard' it is about consulting with congress before ordering military action which Reagan did not do when HE ordered air strikes over Libya either,,, he met with 'members' of congress,, as did OBama but he never got 'congressional approval' in the formal sense of the ambiguous term Well.. I was going to stay out of this discussion, but I changed my mind.. A little history.. In 1981 Libya launched an airstrike against US ships in international waters. An act of war? Possibly.. Again, in 1986 Libya launched surface to air missiles at our Jets flying over the same international waters.. An act of war? Possibly.. After this confrontation, Libya ordered retaliatory actions against US military bases in Europe. Libya actually declared war on the US.. A week after this the bomb went off in the Berlin disco killing a US soldier.. War Powers Act Section 2 (C) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp/ There is clearly a difference between the reasons Reagan bombed Libya and Obama bombing Libya.. Reagan had clear authority to use the War Powers Act because of the Libyan attacks against US military personnel. there is no 'clear' record of Libya having declared a war against the US there was a SINGULAR terrorist assault at a nightclub for which Libya was ASSUMED responsible... the War Powers Act was not relevant when he sent the troops,,,, You're wrong! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe-6EsSqDb4&feature=player_embedded the right to defend the country does not apply other presidents have been wrong ,,,seems I am right then, until NOW, other presidents werent impeached until NOW, there was no clear legal precedent to conclude those actions were 'wrong' until NOW, it was apparently not an impeachable offense,,,, According to the Library of Congress other Presidents didn't break that law. According to the Library of Congress, other Presidents didnt break the law.....exactly my point the precedent set would imply this one didnt either,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 03/17/12 12:01 PM
|
|
What a bunch of crappity crap crap. I work for the go ernment and never heard of such a policy. I have a tattoo of a cross does that mean I have to cut if off? Oh no I also has a tattoo of the American flag and military units and schools I went to. Do I have to get them cu off also because I offend someone? Guess the government made a mistake when they hired me. Come to think of it women wearing bras and loose fitting shirts offend me. From now on all women need to not wear bras and can only wear tight white shirts!!! You hear that Obama? Get on it make it law!!!! this is the issue. Employers set mandates and requirements all the time that are not related to any laws 'congress' has passed but based upon their personal preferences for their workers. There used to be a time when an employee would have an actual 'job description' of duties they were specifically responsible for. This way, they could have something concrete to use to argue decisions against their continued employment by proving they performed their duties. Now , employers add that nice little 'other duties as assigned' to leave the door open so they can let someone go for any reason without actual documentation it was ever their job responsibility. Their used to be a time when employers had to have valid documented reasons for terminating employment, now contracts actually have the phrase 'can be terminated at any time' to avoid having to have any real reason to let employees go. Employers get away with alot of BS in this culture, and the masses insist government stays out of it, so we continue to just get screwed over and over again when we are trying to live 'the american dream' by being productive workers. And people are so desperate to work, and society belittles those without jobs so badly, that people feel obliged to accept all the bs thrown at them just to 'have a job'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 03/17/12 03:21 AM
|
|
problem is
in AMericas founding and history, race is so deeply intertwined with social and political status, that racism 'could' always be an underlying issue to opinions and actions,,,, some seem more obvious and some are covert, but its a toss up, a hard thing to discuss, and an even harder thing to aknowledge and face,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I knew some people that only voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black. They didn't know what he stood for or anything. They either wanted to support him because of his race or to be a part of history. So what does that make them? A US Citizen,,lol prior to now, voters commonly didnt know what the candidate 'stood for' and voted on their looks, their image, their perceived personal virtue,,etc,,,, |
|
|
|
|
Previous
