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

Civics Test.....see what you score. sm

Posted By: m on 2008-11-23
In Reply to:

The average score for americans taking this test is 49%.  I scored a 76%. 


http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx





LINK/URL: Civics Test


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

And the score is.....
In 2002 Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act. It would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. As a note, in February 2004, Michelle Obama sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls. This was then followed with her asking for $150 donations.

GW supported that every child whether they are born or unborn should be protected.

Bush - 1
Obama - 0

Protection of privacy of sex-abuse victims. Obama was the only member not to support the bill.

Bush - 2
Obama - 0

Nobody seems to care and I just don't get it. People don't know who he is, they don't care who he is. They don't know how he voted, and they don't care how he voted. They don't care that he doesn't have any experience.

It's just sad that the man who gives a great speech (that is written for him of course) is not the same man we hoped for. It's just an illusion.

People just want the rich guy to pay. They actually truly believe that they are going to get a break and the rich guys will finally pay. Unfortunately that is not what will happen. Under his administration the rich will continue to get richer while the middle and poor will pay more taxes all the while he will pull a Clinton and tell everyone he feels our pain and everyone will say it's okay, it's Bush's fault.
Sunday's Score @6:08 pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13181.html
You need to brush up on your civics/history.......... sm
And for the record about 5% is not a large margin.

The electoral college has overturned the popular vote 4 times in history and some of the "politicking" that went on in those days rivals what we have today.

http://www.america.gov/st/elections08-english/2008/September/20080905143744ebyessedo0.8026239.html
Undecided voter score of 98% in favor of
x
A civics lesson in the Constitution of the United States
Our country's highest governing document, The Constitution, has been our guiding light throughout most of this country's history and has provided protection and equal treatment of the citizens of this country for over 200 years.  Now, some people are saying that it needs to be changed, amended or done away with because it is "old-fashioned" and out of date.  What I think these people want done away with is just the parts that they don't find fits their particular needs or desires at the moment, in particular, it would seem, the 14th Amendment and its definition of who is a natural citizen of this country and eligible to run for the office of President of the United States. 

Let's look at the constitutional requirements for President of the United States, the 14th Amendment which further defines a natural citizen and the law which fills in the gaps and makes the explanation whole and more easily understood. 


Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?


The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.


Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"



  • Anyone born inside the United States
  • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  • A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.


Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.


The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.


Some have theorized that because John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html


If one group of people who want to see Obama in office manage to do away with the 14th Amendment, then what is to keep another faction of people from doing away with any of the other constitutions?  The Constitutions, its Amendments and Articles were put in place not to oppress the American people but to protect them and their rights and freedoms.  What if all the men in the country decided they wanted to do away with the 19th Amendment?  I bet we would see some really mad women in this country.  Or how about doing away with the 22nd Amendment which limits the number of terms that a President  can serve?  Can we say "dictatorship?" 


I suggest you take a civics class. This country has checks and balances. SM
nm
Took the test
Disagreed with Obama 98% of the time. Know if there's any test out there like this one for McCain - just out of curiosity?
I want a DNA test!!!...(sm)
There was more to this footage.  Prior to what they showed on this clip she pardoned one turkey.  However, the one she pardoned suspiciously looked alot like that first one in the background.  I demand justice for the turkey!!!!!
This was a test....
...this was only a test.  Just wanted to see how many literary types there were out there.  TWO?
Well this worries me...could this be his first test...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_medvedev


 



MOSCOW – Russia will deploy short-range missiles near Poland to counter U.S. military plans in Eastern Europe, President Dmitry Medvedev warned Wednesday, setting a combative tone that clashed with global goodwill over Barack Obama's election.


In his first state of the nation speech, Medvedev blamed Washington for the war in Georgia and the world financial crisis and suggested it was up to Washington to mend badly damaged ties.


Medvedev also proposed increasing the Russian presidential term to six years from four — a change that could deepen Western concern over democracy in Russia and play into the hands of his mentor, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has not ruled out a return to the Kremlin.


Extending the presidential term could mean a possible 12 more years in the top office for the popular Putin.


Echoing Putin, who made criticism of Washington and the West a hallmark of his two-term, eight-year presidency, Medvedev used the speech in an ornate Kremlin reception hall to cast Russia as a nation threatened by encroaching American military might.


"From what we have seen in recent years — the creation of a missile defense system, the encirclement of Russia with military bases, the relentless expansion of NATO — we have gotten the clear impression that they are testing our strength," Medvedev said.


He signaled Moscow would not give in to Western calls to pull troops from Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or rescind its recognition of their independence following the August war.


"We will not retreat in the Caucasus," he said, winning one of many rounds of applause during the televised 85-minute address.


Talking tough, he fleshed out long-promised military measures in response to U.S. plans for missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, former Soviet satellites now in NATO. The Kremlin claims the system is meant to weaken Russia, not defend against Iran, as Washington insists.


Medvedev said Iskander missiles would be deployed to Russia's western enclave of Kaliningrad, sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania, "to neutralize, if necessary, a missile defense system."


The Iskander has a range of about 280 kilometers (175 miles), which would allow it to reach targets in Poland but not in the Czech Republic — but officials have said its range could be increased. Medvedev did not say whether the missiles would be fitted with nuclear warheads.


Russia will also deploy electronic jamming equipment, Medvedev said.


After the speech, the Kremlin announced Medvedev had congratulated Obama for winning the U.S. presidency, saying in a telegram he was "counting on a constructive dialogue with you on the basis of trust and taking each other's interests into account."


In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack emphasized that the planned missile defenses were not aimed at Russia.


"The steps that the Russian government announced today are disappointing," McCormack said. "But, again, this is not directed at them. Hopefully one day they'll realize that."


Medvedev appeared to be trying to improve Russia's bargaining position in potential talks with the Obama administration on missile defense. His wording suggested Russia would reverse the decision if the U.S. scraps its missile defense plans.


"Moscow isn't interested in confrontation, and if Obama makes some conciliatory gestures it will respond correspondingly," said Alexander Pikayev, an analyst at Moscow's Institute for World Economy and International Relations.


But independent military analyst Alexander Golts said Medvedev's "confrontational tone" could further harm relations with the United States, which plunged to a post-Cold War low over the war in Georgia.

"Russia itself is cutting off the route toward better ties," he said.

Regional leaders criticized Medvedev's missile warning. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said it was "certainly the wrong signal at the wrong time" and urged the U.S. and Russia to see change in the White House as an "opportunity for a new beginning."

Medvedev suggested the U.S. must make the first move to break the chill. The Kremlin hopes the incoming administration "will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia," he said.

In addition to calling for a six-year presidential term, he said parliament's term should be extended to five years instead of four and its power over the executive branch increased.

Both changes could strengthen the hand of Putin, who can run for president again in 2012 and now heads the dominant United Russia party.


This was a test and I got my answers, so thanks. NM
nm
The real test
will be an actual TEST, some immediate international incident or something domestic like 9/11.  Then we'll get to see what he's really made of, when he can't assign 'breakout groups' to come back tomorrow with recommendations.  The buck truly will stop there, and I sincerely hope (for all our sakes) that he is up to the task.
This test actually did help me to figure some things out...

http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html


I think there are other tests because this seems to be sponsored by the VA I think, but it is still great to determine issues.  I scored only 22 percent with McCain, which I kind of figured anyway, but it helps me when so many people like to cloud the issues and confuse people, especially women. 


I used to see that in the union when I was just a medical record clerk (which was a union job) and then went to transcription (nonunion job) - when the administration was trying to break the union they would always stir the women up with issues that were sort of minor, or confusing, and sit back and watch everyone fighting about such petty things, and meanwhile emotions would get so high people did not even know the issues anymore. 


It was weird to watch, but they do the same thing where my partner works while they try continually to break the union - they use the women to do it - sad but true, and it almost works every time. 


Take the Barak Obama test....sm
http://www.barackobamatest.com/


definition of a litmus test
A litmus test is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would choose to proceed with the appointment or nomination. (The expression is a metaphor based on the litmus test in chemistry.) Those who must approve a nominee, such as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, may also be said to apply a litmus test to determine whether the nominee will receive their vote. In these contexts, the phrase comes up most often with respect to nominations to the judiciary..


I only posted about the urine test concerning those who
Absolutely did I mean NO disrespect to those in real need. You know as well as I know there are those who are taking advantage of the system and this may simply be one way of catching some of them.

I just added that about the handicapped and mentally ill working as an after thought and again no disrespect was intended in that comment either.

I am just a passerby here and just posted about the email I got- sorry to offend.
And Bush failed that first test.

Political litmus test for our top educators? No thanks.
1997 Chicago Citizen of the year who holds and EdD in curriculum and instruction,
advocates for social justice, urban educational reform, kids in trouble with the law, school reform activist, authors books on education theory, policy and practice, write grants to fund school reform programs and has served on the board of directors for 10 years of an anti-poverty philanthropic foundation.

Dr. Ayers religious and political beliefs, ethnicity or country of origin do not belong on his resume. Like any other citizen, he is entitled to his privacy in this regard. His past behaviors obviously have been mitigated over the past 40 long years by his accompishments in terms of the valuable contributions he has made and is yet to make.

Like any other independent, democrat, republican, progressive, socialist, communist, Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Buddist, black, white, American, European, Middle Eastern, Asian etc. educator, as long as his does his job and keeps his personal beliefs to himself, I have no problem with this accomplished man being part of the educational system.
how about legal!!/common sense test...
x
People should have to pass an intelligence test
.
Saved by the test. Undecided has seen the light.
with sense of clarity and purpose. What a relief. Lord, what a glorious day.
did ya get the email about requiring a urine test to
have their employees urine teseted to keep their jobs and get a check. Now there is an idea. If they had to provide urine and drug screens to collect a check, they might be forced to actually get a job.

And another though, is that a lot of handicapped and mentally ill persons can do some sort of work.
Care to address the issue of the litmus test
nm
Air Force chief: Test weapons on US citizens before using on enemies.





Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs




WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.


The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.


If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation, said Wynne. (Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.


The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.


Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.


On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer. He said a draft request for bids will be put out next month, and there are two qualified bidders: the Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.


The contract is expected to be worth at least $20 billion (&euro15.75 billion).


Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatment.


Wynne also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserves jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8 billion (&euro1.4 billion) from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings.


He said he can't cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft.


We're finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts, said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to take some appetite suppressant pills. He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices.


The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24 percent.












 
 







 
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html