Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

And to think, the head of the KKK at the start

Posted By: was a democrat! nm on 2008-11-12
In Reply to: The KKK is alive an well in the US...sm - oldtimer

nm


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

You need the *right* religion to work for Head Start

My biggest fear is coming true right before my eyes.  America is becoming a theocracy.


First Bush nominates Harriet Miers for a lifetime appointment simply because she shares his faith and not because she's a qualified lawyer. Now, they're targeting Head Start.  This is a clear signal that America no longer has tolerance for freedom of religion, and if you don't believe in the *right* one, you WILL be discriminated against, you won't get federal assistance, and you may lose your job. What's next?


Tens of thousands of already at-risk children could lose their teachers. And Head Start could lose thousands of parent volunteers essential to the success of the program merely because those parents do not share the religious beliefs of the host federally funded religious organization, the group said in a statement on their Web site. From http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/120566/1/


Head Start Can Make Hiring Decisions Based on Religion, Says U.S. House



Niko Kyriakou
OneWorld US



Mon., Oct. 17, 2005


SAN FRANCICSO, Oct 16 (OneWorld) - An amendment to the new funding bill for Head Start promotes discrimination on religious grounds and would deal a devastating blow to some one million low-income children and their parents who are dependent on the program, according to a large and varied coalition of U.S. organizations.


Late last month, the Republican-led House of Representatives voted 231-184 in favor of the so-called School Readiness Act, which renews funding for the anti-poverty preschool program Head Start.


Wide bipartisan support for the bill's reauthorization through 2011 melted down after the attachment of politically charged amendment, introduced by Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr., (R-Louisiana), and Rep. John A. Boehner, (R-Ohio).


The added provision allows federally funded Head Start centers with religious affiliations to hire and fire workers and parent volunteers based on religious grounds. A similar bill approaching a Senate vote does not yet include any such amendment.


In 2004, Head Start served about 900,000 children on a budget of $6.775 billion.


Teachers and staff working at Head Start programs housed in religious organizations could immediately be fired because of their religion, said the democratic values advocacy group People for the American Way.


Tens of thousands of already at-risk children could lose their teachers. And Head Start could lose thousands of parent volunteers essential to the success of the program merely because those parents do not share the religious beliefs of the host federally funded religious organization, the group said in a statement on their Web site.


The yes vote marks the first time that the House of Representatives has voted to repeal civil rights protections in a floor amendment without committee hearings, debate, and testimony from experts.


Representative Boehner, chairman of the House education committee, explained the amendment, saying that he wants to ensure faith-based organizations can compete for federal Head Start grants without surrendering their constitutionally protected right to take religion into account in their hiring practices.


President Bush also argued in support of the bill.


Such provisions should be applied to all federally funded social service programs, so that faith-based organizations may operate on an equal level with secular organizations in competing to provide services that are funded by Head Start, said a White House statement, released just before the bill came before the House.


But hundreds of civil rights, labor, women, and religious rights advocacy groups say religious institutions already have equal access to funding as secular organizations, and disagree that the constitution protects the right to consider religion when hiring for federally funded programs.


Current law requires Head Start providers to comply with federal policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, political affiliation or beliefs, according to the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.


The Boehner Amendment would create an exception for religious organizations, the group said in a statement opposing the bill released after the House vote last month.


Our concern is that if such a provision were passed into law, the same opportunities to participate in the lives of their children and their children's education would not be available to parents of minority religions, the coalition of some 1,050 congregations said.


Under current law, religious organizations and houses of worship, which administer more than five percent of all Head Start programs, are only allowed to consider religion as a hiring factor when using their own private money.


The original non-discrimination requirements were signed into law by President Richard Nixon back in 1972, and President Ronald Reagan approved the current anti-discrimination language in 1981.


For many groups, the program's 33-year history of bipartisan support makes the Boustany/Boehner amendment a particularly unfortunate addition.


Head Start should be about putting qualified teachers in the classrooms, and not about using public money to require people to pass a religious litmus test, said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in their Washington Legislative Office.


The success of Head Start is based on its commitment to helping underprivileged students and not pushing a political agenda, she said.


Head Start provides children from low-income families and under the age of five with academic preparation, socialization, nutrition, health, parental involvement, and family support, and currently serves about 60 percent of eligible 3-to-5-year-olds. It is not part of the federal welfare program.


Some 50 groups known as long-time supporters of the Head Start program have also come out against the bill, including the National Head Start Association (NHSA), the advocacy organization that supports and conducts trainings for Head Start providers.


In a statement released September 23, NHSA president and CEO Sarah Green praised many of the bill's provisions but said her group opposed the bill due to the Boustany/Boehner amendment because children shouldn't be taught that discrimination is a good thing--just because Congress favors it.


Many of these groups worry that the amendment associates the government with promotion of a religious mission, and removes safeguards that protect the program's beneficiaries from unwanted proselytizing. It also de-emphasizes the quality of care, according to Americans United, a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington.


Publicly funded programs ought to hire the best qualified applicant, says Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the group.


Why on earth would we encourage discrimination in a tax-funded program? It's simply unacceptable, he said.


Lynn pointed out that since Head Start does not teach religion, there is no need for religious groups to engage in discriminatory hiring practices.


Many of the groups opposing the bill, such as the National Education Association (NEA), a 2.7-million-member organization, actually supported much of the legislation.


For example, groups like NEA were pleased that the School Readiness Act does not allow for block granting of Head Start funds to states.


Many were also happy that the bill would align Head Start curricula with K-12 education while preserving the non-academic services provided by the program.


The new bill forces Head Start centers to compete for grants as well, and addresses concerns over cases of financial waste in the program that have surfaced nationwide by requiring greater disclosure of how money is spent.


But many groups took issue with aspects of the Readiness Act besides the Boustany/Boehner amendment.


For example, the NEA voiced concern that the bill would require teachers to have higher academic degrees, without providing for a substantial increase in funding either for professional development or compensation.


HR 2123 also does not suspend the National Reporting System, which the Government Accountability Office recently identified as unacceptable given its focus on math, literacy and language testing but not social and emotional development.


Charges that the introduction of the Boustany/Boehner amendment was politically motivated take credence from an unlikely source.


David Kuo, former Deputy Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, testified before the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources last June, stating: [M]any members of the president's own party expressed equal parts apathy and antipathy towards this agenda. Money for the poor? Why, it will just get wasted, they said. We just need to cut the funds and let the private sector take over. We don't need more funds, all we really need to do is make sure that we have a huge political fight over religious charities' right to hire and fire based on their own faith. That way, as I have heard time and time again, Republicans will be seen as fighting for religions and Democrats will be seen as fighting against it.
 


 


I wish he would start! nm

Yes, why don't we start with them?

You are definitely the chosen people:  Chosen to be banned from heaven.  This is what the people who pretend to support you really believe.  And it must be true, because according to them, you and I will be spending eternity together, and no doubt that will be hell for us both.


Jerry Falwell: Jews and Muslims Can't Go to Heaven



Jerry Falwell gets further and further out there. His latest knucklehead theory is that Jews and Muslims can't go to heaven.



While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and dearly love the Jewish people and believe them to be the chosen people of God, I continue to stand on the foundational biblical principle that all people -- Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. -- must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven. -Jerry Falwell


March 14, 2006


Wow...where to start....
Yes, I do agree about those entering our country to a point. I believe that they need to have respect for our laws or not be here. Yes, we are a government of the people BY the people. There is no clause that says "unless we don't find that convenient right now."

Respect for those in office...not so much unless it is earned. Respect for their office itself, yes.

Now, I'm not so sure about the rest of your post or where that came from about me believing I have a final word on everything and my way is the only way and that I am a one person catalyst to change. That was really out there, especially for the very little I have posted. I don't care for the daily Kos. I have never said where I get my news. I do not believe everything everyone tells me...actually very little that anyone tells me. My research is very accurate, however. Though I have never posted any of it on this board and have never needed to as I tend to stay out of these little spats because of the level to which they quickly degenerate. I don't mix emotion with politics. That's the wrong road for me and it is my belief that it's a big problem with politics today. People take hot button emotional issues and try to legislate with them and politicize them. BS as far as I'm concerned, and I don't really care what anyone else's opinion is of that.

So! If you want me to answer to all that, you'll have to actually explain what planet or universe it's coming from first because I am at a loss.
Why don't you start? How much do YOU think?
0%, 10%, 20%? Flat tax? Only some types of income? No taxes at all, and we pay as we go for everything, like school, toll roads, police, fire, federal sales tax?
here's a start
Eliminating Wasteful Spending

Stop Earmarks, Pork-Barrel Spending, And Waste: John McCain will veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous. As President, he will seek the line-item veto to reduce waste and eliminate earmarks that have led to corruption. Earmarks restrict America's ability to address genuine national priorities and interfere with fair, competitive markets.

Leadership, Courage And Choices: Reducing spending means making choices. John McCain will provide the courageous leadership necessary to control spending, including:

Eliminate broken government programs. The federal government itself admits that one in five programs do not perform.


Reform our civil service system to promote accountability and good performance in our federal workforce.


Reform procurement programs and cut wasteful spending in defense and non-defense programs.

Gee....where to start??....
I would close the borders. Nobody in unless comes through the LEGAL channels.

Then I would get rid of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, and others who ride their coat tails.

And then I would give myself the power of line item veto.

I could probably list more, but you only wanted 3. LOL.
i should start using a name on here
i was the one who asked about the father's rights and i agreed to your comment.
It may be a start.......... sm
but like I said, I think energy costs and environmental conservation will be the last thing on folks minds in a few short years.
Then I would start with....
taking away the right for christians to assemble.  What you guys don't seem to realize is that when you start taking away rights, it sets a precedence for others to follow.
LOL....that's a start...(sm)

I would mess with you about the foot channel, but since you took the time to agree with me, I'll let it go this time. 


MEOW


But why start
at the bottom?  Why not set an example and tell congress, sorry you are NOT getting your raise?
I think we should all start asking

to speak to an American when we get phone calls or call a place and get an ESL on the line.  Maybe if we refuse to speak to them....they might realize they need to hire some Americans.


 


Are we really going to start this again?
Let it go, already.
Me too! They always start my day off
And we keep some of her posts behind the desk in the Emergency Room, too. They've proven to be reliable emetics in poisoning cases.
I don't know where to start...
Lead him down the right path? and you do that by calling people dysfunctional, disgusting, etc, and all the other things I have seen you post. Patty, I won't argue this with you as I am afraid I may say something pretty unChristian. I am out of here.
Head. nm

You are in way over your head.
extremely complex. It changes voice and tense constantly, even in the middle of a single passage. It is also replete with metaphor. You, my dear, would not know a metaphor if it walked up with a sign across its chest and kicked you in the face.

If you go looking for hate, you will find it. But it is a sad commentary on this election and on your flavor of Christianity when you try to turn a Holy Book into a hate machine for political gain.

I have spent decades in the midst of Moslems and their culture. I can say categorically, you are full of all sorts of baloney and do not know what you are talking about. You are a pitiable anachronistic narrow-minded bigot. By the way, the last time I checked, Christians are way not above killing the infidel (and I am NOT speaking metaphorically here). Can you say Crusades? Get off your high horse and get with the program. Your hate speech will doom you candidate to defeat.
Right on, you hit that one on the head!!

She is such a media "prostitute".  Why no one can see through her transparent self-promotion antics is beyond me, but if the pubs are looking to her for leadership, boy are they in major trouble!  



Ah, come on Mrs. M..........use your head
use it as a noun.........you know, as in the unteachable ignorant.
Very little is over my head.
What's your point?
Does this all come out of your head or are you
just copying and pasting?
Wow - right over your head.
Some people will believe anything. That's my point.

It was a direct result of your remark, "...it is provocative and thought provoking and very interesting in all the "coincidences" that seem to be wrapped around these events and bears more than just a glancing interest by anyone who is concerned about the state of our country today."

What a dupe. (Is that word in your dictionary?) Do you believe in Bigfoot, and UFOs, and BlackOps Helicopters, and people stealing kidneys in the middle of the night too? 'Cause, all those rubes use the phrase "the truth is out there" too. Gee, ya think that's why The X-Files used that as its cathphrase?

And, nice try to psychoanalyze me but I'm afraid your 'nanny-nanny-boo-boo' comments make you look like a total tard.

Let me guess - you were the fat, ugly girl who sat alone in the sandbox at recess. Maybe that's why you're so stuck on the bully/bullied thing. Oh, wait, I think I know. You were neither a bully NOR bullied. You were just ignored. And now you have emotional scars.

Awe - almost makes me feel sorry for you.

FOYUSOS.
That's start of the war in *2003* nm

Again, what if? That was my question to start with.
I'm not accusing anyone, I merely asked *what if*? I can't say with complete certainty that this happened anymore than you can say with complete certainty that it didn't. Minority status is fine with me, given the evidence and pervasive secrecy and lying of this administration. Have a nice day.
Very good start...sm
Thanks for the info LVMT.
What I wanted to know to start with...
is how can I know that Democrats/liberals/the left, WHOEVER, will keep this country safe, when half of them deny there is a threat and the other half have no idea how to deal with it? What I said it was not political, I meant it. Both sides should be trying to protect this country, but frankly I only see one who seems to understand the threat. As I have said numerous times, I am not a registered Repbulican. I am not thrilled with any party in this country right now, but I have to register as SOMETHING to vote, so I am registered independent. Yes, I am conservative, I have conservative moral values and I believe if we had stuck closer to moral values we would have a lot fewer issues these days, but I digress. My concern is, Dem, that I don't think your party and many of its members grasp what a real threat radical Muslims are, and if you don't perceive the threat you don't take steps to fight it, and that is the reason I referred to Clinton, because in all honesty I do not think he perceived the threat. I do not want to think that he did and ignored it. And my point is, I don't think your party to this day perceives the enormity of the threat, and yes, that scares me. This is not rhetoric. This is the way I, me, personally, feel and has nothing to do with left or right Dems or Republicans, other than the Republicans do seem to have a better grasp on the threat than the Dems do. What I would like to see is America united against the threat, with politics out of it. That is what I would REALLY like to see.
Here's why SP need to start vetting
OK. I'll take a crack at breaking this down for you. While SP was building her candidate resume back at the hut in Wasilla, her predecessor in the governor's office teed her off after he SELECTED her (not an elected position) as Chairman of the Ethics Committee. When she started whistle-blowing on those entrenched Juneau cronies, he tended not to take her housekeeping recommendations to heart. Being such a strong and powerful woman, she launched a campaign of her own to take his seat away from him based on her ethics platform. Once in that chair, she spent a great deal of time and taxpayer's money scrapping more than 300 of his development plans in the name of fiscal responsibility and kicked out 30-some-odd of his other appointees, being the woman scorned and all.

FF back to the future. Once JM has ridden to victory on her coattails and puts her back in that token female corner where she belongs, McWayne proceeds to run the same style of corrupt, unethical administration of his mentor, the W. She takes the backseat VP position and waits for him to become incapacitated and gets bored waiting around to cast a tie-breaking vote in the senate. She falls back on the only experience she has…ethics butt-kicking.

She's not afraid to bulldoze her own party members, as her record so clearly indicates, so kick butt she does. If she can't successfully take aim at her boss man, like she did before, maybe JM will simply expire and thrust her up into the Prez chair. Failing that, riding on the crest of the hypnotic spell she has cast over the pub party and taking advantage of the leftover collective amnesia the nation finds itself suspended in the aftermath of the 2008 pub campaign, she mounts a successful pub candidacy for Prez, in which case she will need to choose a running mate. Got the picture?

Oh, REALLY? Like you guys don't start to -sm
soil your panties everytime you come across another person who doesn't think exactly like you in every way?
I know -- but everytime you start to

feel a scintilla of sympathy for them, they lunge at ya with the retracted lips and missing, yellowed teeth.


 


Not to start a race war

People can raise this question over and over again but what I would like to know is this:  Has anyone ever raised the same questions regarding white candidates in this and/or past elections and why people voted for them? Of course not...I wouldn't care if Obama were multicolored - people are going to vote for whomever they choose and I for one am weary of the constant references to race...


Do you just try to start fights?
I asked you a simple question. You got out of whack about it. Yes, I know caps is yelling. I wasn't yelling at you I was yelling because you are making me crazy with your freak out of "stop picking on me!!" Please, grow up. It is unfair for you to make statements without backup. If you can't take someone asking you questions, don't post slander on this board. End of story.
Start at the top and work you way down.
then why not remove yourself from the dialog?
Oh brother - where to start is right.
His father left his mother when he was a baby? Yet Obama was able to write a whole book based on him? He has some communication with Kenyan relatives but not all? Where did you hear this? Wait...from him? Is that his explanation? So where did you study African Tribal Family Structures and the American family strucures? I think maybe people should take a break from the Survivor TV show. If the sheeple want to be led around blindly and actually buy into the same ol retoric of oh poor Obama, he didn't know he had an aunt or a cousin or an uncle because that's the way the "tribes in Africa" are, but he knows about all these others relative (Cheney & Irish ones). Glad I'm awake through all of this. Staying away from Survivor and doing some research does the mind some good.
You could start by considering Lincoln's
and take it from there. Keep in mind, Lincoln was republican. IMHO, Obama could do worse when it comes to mentors.
That was not necessary. Let's not start bashing again
Had enough of that before the election. She voiced an opinion. Let it rest.
I DID NOT START THIS, THE LYING 'M' DID..n/m
n/m
start a phoney war

Even mr. So? cheney admitted they were going to do it whatever the results of inspections were, let people drown in Katrina, let the terrorists kill 2000 people -- but dodge that shoe, and my, my what a great leader you are.  Groan.  I am so glad the majority of citizens woke up.


 


start a phoney war

Even mr. So? cheney admitted they were going to do it whatever the results of inspections were, let people drown in Katrina, let the terrorists kill 2000 people -- but dodge that shoe, and my, my what a great leader you are.  Groan.  I am so glad the majority of citizens woke up.


 


AND, this is it. The start of government
Before you know it, no more talk shows, no more Christian radio stations, no more Christian music. Just government taking over EVERYTHING.

Dems can say horrible things about Bush, but GOD FORBID IF ANYONE DARE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT OBAMA.

American is no more. YOU ALL WANTED CHANGE, YOU SURE AS HECK GOING TO GET YOUR CHANGE.
Off to a good start? Do you have a TV?
He's is so NOT off to a good start to the point his white house (MY white house) is being overwhelmed with phone calls of the American people saying NO, NO, NO! They want his stimulus package dumped! How is that off to a good start? Nobody even wants anything so far he has to offer..............
If that's the case, why did you start this one?
x
Didn't you start this?
Aren't you the original poster?  Who were you trying to speak for?  Maybe you should follow your own advice.  There are plenty of people who didn't see this as a racial cartoon, but you sure had to put it out there. 
When you start talking about...(sm)
free healthcare, you start getting into the pockets of the drug companies and those they support, and guess who that is. 
That would be a nice start...
but don't see it happening!

Those two morons deserve each other, though. Talk about two people that can open mouth and insert foot.
They are going to HAVE to start arming
nm
He did not start that term FYI!

He was quoting what others had nicknamed the man already.  You just can't let crazy people be crazy people, can you?  Instead you have to pick some conservative leaning person to blame everything on.  The man who shot Tiller is to blame for this...no one else.


Or how about this....if Tiller had never aborted so many fetuses late term for questionable reasons, other than the mother's health, he never would have been under investigation and he would never have been publically exposed.  So whose fault is this really?  I personally feel that if Tiller had stayed within the guidelines on this, he never would have made nation wide news in the first place.


However, regardless of his actions and whether or not I find them to be disgusting, he still should not have been gunned down.  The man who killed him is a crazy wacko.  No one told him to do it.  He took it upon himself to do it.  He is to blame for his actions....not Bill O'Reilly.  So how about you stop the spin, stop the blame game, and actually make people take responsibility for their own actions.


That is a big problem with our country today.  Too many people pointing the finger at others and not enough people admitting their own faults and taking blame for what they have done.  Much easier to point the finger and blame someone else.


You really don't want to start the war of the videos, do you?
x
Then ACORN should start by getting rid of
nm
You said it...Shaking my head...nm
x
Not over the top & hit the nail on the head sm
with this paragraph.

Miss Coulter doesn't criticize Mrs. Beamer, of course, because Miss Coulter doesn't genuinely object to 9/11 widows being messengers; she selectively objects to their messages. If the women in New Jersey she so charmingly calls witches had expressed political opinions in lock-step conformance to the television-friendly slogans of Sean Hannity, Miss Coulter would have been applauding them. Instead, Miss Coulter is trying to silence them. Why? Because extreme right wing politics has always been about silencing inconvenient dissent. I'm a godly Republican -- trust me on this.