Republicans favor giving poor families subsidies to afford private schools. Obama opposed.
Posted By: because is undermines the public school system. on 2009-01-06
In Reply to:
Yet Obama sends his daughters to a private school, 29,000 for EACH KID. Hypocrisy, here we come. Geesh, not even in office yet.
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
Taking from the poor, giving to the rich
US House of Representatives approves $50 billion in social cuts
By Joseph Kay
19 November 2005
In the early hours of Friday morning, the House of Representatives
passed a budget reconciliation bill that includes cuts of nearly $50
billion over five years, primarily in social programs for the poor.
At the same time, Congress is considering extending tax cuts that
overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy in the amount of $60 billion-$70
billion over the same period.
The budget reconciliation bill modifies requirements for mandatory
spending programs, in particular, entitlement programs such as
Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps and Medicare. Unlike the rest
of government outlays, known as discretionary spending, which are
allocated each year in appropriation bills, spending for these
mandatory programs is determined by legal requirements. If the
reconciliation bill is signed into law, it will mark the first time
since 1997 that entitlement programs have been slashed.
The House passed the bill 217-215 after Republican leaders kept the
vote open 25 minutes to drum up sufficient support. It will now go
to a House-Senate conference committee, where negotiators from the
two chambers will work out a compromise between the House bill and a
Senate bill passed earlier this month.
The Senate version includes cuts amounting to $35 billion over five
years. While leaving out some of the most egregious cuts in the
House version, the Senate bill includes one major provision left out
by the House: the opening up of the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) for oil exploration.
The compromise will then be subject to a final vote in both chambers
before going to President Bush to be signed into law.
Major cuts in the House bill include:
* Cutting Medicaid spending by $11.8 billion. The bill would place
new restrictions on the ability of elderly people to transfer assets
to relatives so as to become eligible for Medicaid, and would allow
states to charge higher premiums and co-payments for emergency room
visits and some drugs. It would give states greater discretion to
cut services for low-income recipients who earn more than the
poverty level, including such services as eye and ear care.
* A $14.3 billion reduction in spending on financial assistance for
college students. The bill repeals a previous 6.8 percent cap on
interest rates for federal student loans, increasing it to 8.25
percent. One estimate calculates that this would lead to an increase
of $5,800 in payments for a college student graduating with a debt
load of $17,500. The bill includes other increases in taxes and
interest on a variety of loans, as well as a provision to reduce
subsidies to lenders.
* Cuts in the Food Stamp program totaling $700 million. The bill
would end a provision that automatically enrolls welfare recipients
in Food Stamps, denying eligibility to approximately 165,000 people,
mainly among the working poor. It would deny Food Stamps to
approximately 70,000 legal immigrants by extending the waiting
period for eligibility from five to seven years. Since eligibility
for Food Stamps automatically gives children access to free school
lunches, thousands of students may be stripped of this benefit. This
cut will worsen an already growing problem of hunger in the US. An
article in the Boston Globe of October 29 noted, The number of
people who are hungry because they cannot afford to buy enough food
rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of 7 million in five
years. The number represents nearly 12 percent of US households.
* Other measures include nearly $5 billion in cuts associated with
child support enforcement; $577 million in cuts for child welfare
programs; a reduction of $732 million in social security income
payments, including payments to some disabled people; and more
stringent work requirements for welfare eligibility.
House passage of these draconian measures demonstrates the
determination of the ruling elite to continue its assault on social
programs. Hurricane Katrina, which laid bare the persistence of
poverty and the growth of social inequality, as well as the
devastating consequences of decades of neglect of the social
infrastructure, is being used as an excuse to accelerate the very
policies that compounded the disaster.
The position of the Bush administration and the Republican-
controlled Congress is that the tens of billions appropriated for
immediate hurricane relief and reconstruction in New Orleans and
other Gulf Coast areas must be offset by a more determined assault
on entitlement programs for working people and the poor. At the same
time, there is to be no retreat in providing tax windfalls for big
business and the rich.
This was spelled out in a summary of an earlier version of the bill
published by the House Budget Committee, which stated that the bill
was intended to provide a down-payment toward hurricane recovery
and reconstruction costs and begin a longer-term effort at slowing
the growth of entitlement spending and stimulate reform of
entitlement programs, many of which are outdated, inefficient, and
excessively costly.
Speaking before the right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation,
Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader who was forced to step
down after being indicted on corruption charges, made clear that the
budget was intended to spearhead a permanent rollback of social
programs. He said the budget would not only provide the nation
immediate fiscal relief, but also institute permanent reforms of the
way our government spends money and solves problems.
Last month, Bush urged Republican congressmen to push the envelope
when it comes to cutting spending. On Friday, he welcomed the House
bill and called for Congress to quickly pass a final version for him
to sign into law.
The ultimate bill as agreed by the conference committee will likely
include many of the cuts in the House bill. Senate leaders,
moreover, have vowed to reject any bill that does not include the
opening up of the ANWR, which has been a major goal of the energy
industry and the Bush administration.
At the same time that Congress is negotiating these cuts in social
spending, it is preparing the passage of a separate tax cut
reconciliation bill. The two bills were deliberately separated in an
effort to obscure the connection between tax cuts for the wealthy
and cuts in social programs.
Early on Friday, the Senate passed a bill that would cut taxes by
$60 billion over five years. This includes $30 billion in cuts
resulting from an extension in exemptions to the alternative minimum
tax. It also includes $7 billion in tax cuts for corporations as
part of Bush's so-called Gulf Opportunity Zone—a scheme to use the
hurricane as an opportunity to give handouts to businesses. The
Senate rejected any windfall tax on record oil company profits;
however, it did include an accounting rule change that is expected
to increase taxes for oil companies by about $4.3 billion over five
years.
The House is considering a companion bill. However, its version
would focus on extending tax cuts on dividends and capital gains
that are not due to expire until 2008. These taxes are paid
overwhelmingly by the wealthy. Once the House version is passed, the
two bills will go to a conference committee. Bush has vowed to veto
any bill that includes the accounting change for oil companies.
There is some nervousness within the political establishment over
the budget process. House Republican leaders were forced to delay
their budget bill for a week as they sought to win enough support
within their own party to push the bill through, and the final
version slightly pared down some of the cuts in Food Stamps and
other programs.
The two measures—the one cutting social programs for the poor, and
the other providing tax cuts for the rich—constitute such a blatant
redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top that several
Republicans have opposed the measures. Congressional elections are
only a year away, and the mounting popular opposition to the Bush
administration has caused Republican representatives to fear losing
their seats.
On Thursday, the House voted down the appropriations bill for the
departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services, after
the defection of a number of Republicans. The bill, which includes
cuts in various pet projects for representatives as well as in
social programs such as rural health care, may have to be modified
or attached to the defense appropriations bill in order to push it
through.
In spite of this nervousness, the consensus within the ruling elite
is that social programs must be cut one way or another. Democratic
opposition to the size of the current cuts notwithstanding, both
parties agree on this basic policy, which has been ongoing for more
than a quarter century.
The Democrats are themselves proposing no significant measures—
whether for jobs, housing, health care or education—to deal with the
acute social crisis exposed by the Hurricane Katrina disaster,
underscoring their abandonment of any policy of social reform.
The current budget reconciliation process is in many ways a
continuation and deepening of cuts initiated by the Clinton
administration, which ended welfare as a federal entitlement. The
1996 budget act, moreover, permanently barred legal immigrants from
receiving Food Stamps. In 2001, the Bush administration modified
this provision to allow legal immigrants to receive Food Stamps
after a five-year waiting period. The House is now proposing to
extend the waiting period to seven years.
The bulk of the tax cuts for the wealthy enacted under Bush were
voted in with the support of the Democratic Party leadership, while
at the state level Democratic governors are overseeing massive cuts
in Medicaid and education programs.
The new budget bill places in sharp relief the fact that the entire
political system is an instrument of big business, dedicated to
increasing the wealth of a financial aristocracy at the expense of
the working class. It is one more _expression of the crisis and rot
of the profit system.
19 Republicans vote in favor of amnesty for those who kill our soldiers.
In the Senate today, 19 Senators voted that it was okay for the Iraqi government to give amnesty to anyone known to have attacked, killed or injured American soldiers, and every single one of them was a Republican. I guess this is an example of how Republicans *support* the troops. The only one that truly surprises me is McCain. He must have lost his mind since he began pandering to those who believe they are Bush's *base.*
Vote Summary:
Question: On the Amendment (Nelson (FL) Amdt. No. 4265 )
Vote Number: 178 Vote Date: June 20, 2006, 03:27 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number:S.Amdt. 4265 to S. 2766 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 )
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Vote Counts: YEAs 79
NAYs: 19
Not Voting: 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped By Vote Position
NAYs ---19
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Warner (R-VA)
Not Voting--- 2
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Shelby (R-AL)
YEAs ---79
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/20/19-gop-senators-vote-agai_n_23445.html
You are giving the Republicans WAY too much credit.. sm
Clinton was the one who started the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fiasco by "helping" folks who couldn't afford a house to have one. Bush called for reforming FM/FM, but the Democrats fought him down on that one, with Barney Frank leading the charge saying that they were not in trouble.
Now with Obama leading the way to financial disaster for the US with his frantic spending, you just can't lay this all at the door of the Republicans.
Personally, I think both parties are flawed and there needs to be a thorough housecleaning, starting at the top, but I don't know if there is anyone left in this country, even T. Boone Pickens or H. Ross Perot, who could straighten this mess out.
as opposed to the vast wasteland of one (Obama) demigod in 2012...
Obama and Ayers forced radicalism in schools...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
Wow, this is explosive stuff!
Also, James Johnson, who headed Obama's VP vetting committee...one of the Fannie CEOs who walked away with a several million golden parachute. Obama is on the Fannie list of donation recipients...#2 on that list, topped only by Chris Dodd. Wow...that is explosive stuff. Another advisor...Franklin Raines...another fired corrupt CEO from Fannie...walked away with a golden parachute in the multimillions...wow...explosive stuff.
95 percent of WORKING families, not welfare families sm
Working families will get the tax break, not welfare families. The money will come from removing the tax breaks for the rich. Obama is going back to the exact tax structure Clinton had. That is when we were in the black. Bush came into office and gave the rich a break. Very simple to understand, but I guess not for Fox news watchers.
Obama and USS Cole families
"It has been reported that the mother of one of the men killed on the USS Cole regrets that she voted for Obama, so there is at least 1 person who does not support him. "
Obama met with the families of the USS Cole, talked to them and listened to their concerns. That shows a lot of class and compassion. He explained that those who are responsible and need to be detained will be, and those who are not guilty will not be held. The one who just had the charges dropped will be recharged. They are trying to resolve the illegality/nebulous state of affairs at Guantanamo - not release dangerous terrorists into our midst. These, despite Rush's insistence, are not mutually inclusive terms.
if they can't afford their house, they should find one they can afford
and move out. End of story.
Poor, poor Obama......sm
and I bet you don't think that huge press conference, surrounded by the adoring media masses, pandering to poor me (O) being taken advantage of....you don't believe that was political grandstanding?
Tsk tsk.
Obama has already said he is in favor of draft - see link inside
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s13_prn.shtml
The liberal media is biased in favor of Obama.....
Half this country believe in this so called savior, and I hold the media 90% responsible, and the ill-informed people will and are following blindly.
God help us.
Every state in this country gets subsidies...
not only Alaska. You act as if Alaska is the only state who does this. It's not. The Congress doles out sibsidies all the time.
Want to talk about Obama's earmarks?
Barack Obama touts himself as the only presidential candidate not corrupted by Washington politics but his earmark record contradicts that because he tried steering millions of federal dollars to his wife’s employer and the company of a top campaign donor.
Recently released earmarks reveal that the Democratic presidential candidate requested $1 million for the hospital that employs his wife Michelle and $8 million for a military contractor with a board member who has given hefty sums to his campaign.
The $1 million was requested in 2006 to build a new pavilion at the University of Chicago Hospitals, where Michelle Obama was vice president of community affairs. Michelle had already benefited from her husband’s flourishing political career with a huge salary increase that went from $121,910 in 2004 before he was elected to the Senate to $316,962 in 2005 just after he took office.
Obama requested the $8 million for weapons technology manufactured by a big defense contractor (General Dynamics) with very close ties to a major fundraiser named James Crown, a billionaire who also serves on the company’s board. Crown is also on Obama’s national finance committee.
The good senator also got nearly $1 million federal dollars for the renovation of a space center named after Crown’s grandfather, Henry, at Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry. A complete list of Obama’s earmark record has been posted on his web site.
Why are you being so mean to everyone giving the O in Obama a bad name!
nm
Well, giving Obama an 80% approval before
nm
If you elect Obama....you are giving the power to the party...
who are largely responsible for the "mess" we currently find ourselves in.
Gene Robinson: Gay Bishop Giving Obama Inauguration Prayer
Well, even though that Saddleback jerks is there too...
from the Huffington Post 1/12/09
New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, a vocal gay rights leader, will open President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration with a prayer on Sunday's kick-off event at the Lincoln Memorial.
"I am writing to tell you that President-Elect Obama and the Inaugural Committee have invited me to give the invocation at the opening event of the Inaugural Week activities, We are One, to be held at the Lincoln Memorial," Robinson wrote in an email to friends.
The announcement comes after weeks of outcry from the gay community over Obama's choice of evangelical, anti-gay pastor Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation.
"It's important for any minority to see themselves represented in some way," Robinson said in an interview with the Concord Monitor. "Whether it be a racial minority, an ethnic minority or, in our case, a sexual minority. Just seeing someone like you up front matters."
Robinson is the first openly gay diocesan bishop in the Anglican Communion. "God never gets it wrong. The church often takes a long time to get it right. It is a human institution, but one capable of self-correction," Robinson told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "I believe in my heart that the church got it wrong about homosexuality. There is great excitement in my heart to be living in a time when the church is starting to get it right."
Robinson said he would love to sit down with Rick Warren but believed that the California pastor has "perpetrated lies about the gay, lesbian and bisexual community."
Awww...poor Obama.
Let's all just give him a free pass and not hold him accountable for the stupid crap he signs while in office because he is black. boohoo! Cry me a river. You can't criticize him because that is racist. You can't disagree with him because that is racist.
Personally....I think this whole "stimulus" package is stupid and therefore anyone who wrote it, voted for it, or signed the bill, IMO, is as dumb as monkey. That is my take on the cartoon. obama's stupidity has nothing to do with the fact he is black. It is the fact that once again our government is spending billions of dollars that we don't have for something that will not work. Doesn't take a lot of brains to fling poo like monkeys do and as far as I"m concerned this bill is nothing but the government flinging poo at us.
Poor thing....... wonder where Obama's little tax
SS
Palin, the candidate that just keeps giving and giving...
x
Michelle Obama shunning poor patients!!
Tons of info on this........ for those that care more about this country than the Obama fest...........
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1122691,CST-NWS-hosp23.article
Poor, poor MT. She can't pick a fight with anyone on her own board tonight and must come here to
Isn't that the law he opposed?..sm
as the Jill Stanek thing happened before 2002?
Republicans have a lot of nerve calling Obama an elitist! (nm)
:O
For the last time, Obama was on a board with Ayers REPUBLICANS ARE STILL and
Obama's involvement was minimal and Ayers is NOT a threat to the US. After 911 were they looking at him? no.
Obama's poor judgement...Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Tony Rezco..
Jeremiah Wright, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac big bucks. We could both go on and on. All politicians are crooked to some extent. Face it, neither one is a great candidate, we have louse options on both sides this time. Fortunately, whoever does win will only serve one term.
opposed people would be
encouraged and heartened to see that Americans truly have freedom of speech and can freely dissent from their government's positions. They might use that in their videos to encourage democracy.
As opposed to a living human being
raped, murdered, beaten,and tortured. I'm sorry, I find that much more atrocious.
Republicans will rise from the ashes of the Obama years....waiting patiently.
As opposed to being "in a home" like you, sweetie? SM
Do the staff know that you got loose and are playing on the computer?
And if you think the schools are bad now, just wait
Obama can't even get his own state straightened out, but he's gonna straighten out the country!
We’ve already seen how Barack manages large programs, under the Annenberg Challenge with Bill Ayers he gave away a total of 150 million to gaggle of community activist groups to improve schools. Some of those groups were radical, but putting that aside a moment you can see that the vague “feel good” instead of results-oriented direction under Obama just created monumental waste with zero results. The other cities given these grants saw improvement, Chicago stands alone with zero improvement.
Poor Poor Rush. Hey, how is AIR AMERICA
nm
Roberts opposed legislation for womens rights
Roberts resisted women’s rights
1982-86 memos detail court nominee’s skepticism
var cssList = new Array(); getCSS("3216310")
By Amy Goldstein, R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker
![The](http://media.msnbc.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/postLogo_msnbc.gif")
Updated: 11:48 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2005 Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."
In internal memos, Roberts urged President Reagan to refrain from embracing any form of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment pending in Congress; he concluded that some state initiatives to curb workplace discrimination against women relied on legal tools that were "highly objectionable"; and he said that a controversial legal theory then in vogue -- of directing employers to pay women equally to men for jobs of "comparable worth" -- was "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist."
Roberts's thoughts on what he called "perceived problems" of gender bias are contained in a vast batch of documents, released yesterday, that provide the clearest, most detailed mosaic so far of his political views on dozens of social and legal issues. Senators have said they plan to mine his past views on such topics, which could come before the high court, when his confirmation hearings begin the day after Labor Day.
Covering a period from 1982 to 1986 -- during his tenure as associate counsel to President Reagan -- the memos, letters and other writings show that Roberts endorsed a speech attacking "four decades of misguided" Supreme Court decisions on the role of religion in public life, urged the president to hold off saying AIDS could not be transmitted through casual contact until more research was done, and argued that promotions and firings in the workplace should be based entirely on merit, not affirmative action programs.
In October 1983, Roberts said that he favored creation of a national identity card to prove American citizenship, even though the White House counsel's office was officially opposed to the idea. He wrote that such measures were needed in response to the "real threat to our social fabric posed by uncontrolled immigration."
He also, the documents illustrate, played a bit role in the Reagan administration's efforts in Nicaragua to funnel assistance to CIA-supported "contras" who were trying overthrow the Marxist Sandinista government.
In one instance, Roberts had a direct disagreement with the senator who now wields great influence over his confirmation prospects, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). In a 1983 memo, Roberts was dismissive of a "white paper" on violent crime that had been drafted by one of Specter's aides. Noting that the paper proposed new expenditures of $8 billion to $10 billion a year, Roberts wrote: "The proposals are the epitome of the 'throw the money at the problem' approach repeatedly rejected by Administration spokesmen."
President Bush nominated Roberts, now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, four weeks ago.
Yesterday's deluge of more than 38,000 pages of documents has particular political significance -- because of their content and their timing. The papers, held in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, are likely to be the last major set of written material from Roberts's past to become public before his confirmation hearings.
Extensive insight
Senate Democrats have been pressing the Bush administration to release Roberts's files from the highest-ranking position he has held in the executive branch, as the Justice Department's deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush. But administration officials have asserted that those records should remain private on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
Previously released documents, from slightly earlier in the Reagan era, when Roberts was a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, have established that the young attorney was immersed in civil rights issues of the time, including school desegregation, voting rights and bias in hiring and housing. The new batch provides the most extensive insight into Roberts's views of efforts to expand opportunity for women in the workplace and higher education.
Get on the net and search. Apparently there are a lot of schools...
who ban such things.
I know plenty of kids in our schools who would
@
Oh, you mean as opposed to bigger tax cuts for the upper 1/3 of the nation? Really, still waiting f
nm
we already have schools and programs to feed our hungry
x
Kendra, you need to read up on Muslim schools in
They teach outright hatred for Christians and Jews. One 11th grade class has textbooks that teach 'the day of judgement can't come until Jesus Christ returns to earth, breaks the cross, and converts everyone to Islam, and until Muslim starts attacking Jews.
There are many accredited Islamic schools that put world maps on the walls in their classrooms with Israel left out the map entirely. Islamic hate teaching is right here in this country. Ask yourself, if you can't judge a religion by this, the downright hate of Christians and Jews right in your own back yard, then what do you base anything on?
As they said, the next generation of Muslims coming of age in THIS country, not overseas, is being taught these things in the very country they will grow up and live. There is definitely no tolerance, freedom or patriotism being taught in these schools.
They are teaching hate, plain and simple. This has nothing to do with bad people in a good church; it has to do with schools who teach hate of anyone that is not Muslim.
These are schools right outside Washington DC. Everyone turns a blind eye to this "hate teaching" but Obama wants to sign a bill into law for "hate crimes"?
What sense does that make? Is he going to enforce the hate teachings going on in these Islamic schools? Somehow I doubt that.
So, yes, lying about his faith makes all the difference in the world. This man is Muslim through and through and does not care that "hate teachings" is going on right in his own backyard.
Gay cirriculum forced on elementary schools
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521209,00.html
Talk about your double standards here. You can't pray in school, pass out Bibles in school, or talk about God at all but hey....talk to them about being gay. Once again, if you want me to keep my beliefs out of public school, stop forcing homosexuality upon my kids. They are wanting to teach this to kids as young as 5 years old.
Why can't they just talk to the kids about not being mean and making fun of others without bringing the whole subject of homosexuality into it?
It should be the parent's job to talk to their kids about homosexuality....not public schools.
Public schools are NO place for pushing the
--
I agree. No one should be pushing their ideals in public schools.SM
Just the regular math, science, drama, choir, social studies works for me.
Parents are responsible for educating on religion, sex (though a little sex ed is not a bad thing), politics, etc.
But what is this PRIVATE
forum doing on an MT site?? Anyway, I have researched and contacted someone at ForuMatrix. I just want to know why a privately owned conservative board is on an open MT board masquerading as a **politics** board, all inclusive. I have never paid much attention to how these things were run but if the politics board is really the conservative board, then it needs to go somewhere else or there should be another board for the rest of us, moderated and administrated by a liberal, a green, an independent. Not many people of any stripe come here anymore and that is because the board has gotten so heavy handed conservatively. It does not matter what we say, we get the same rhetoric back from you. We're idiots, we ooze hate and loathing, we hate democracy, we love the terrorists, we are socialists (at least I get that a lot), we hate capitalism...The board has gone downhill progressively since 2004. The only opinions that matter are yours and Brunson/Nan's.
P.S. Why makes you think I am crying. I am inquiring and I intend to find out what I want to know.
Public or Private?
This is a direct quote from the TOS, accessed through the above link provided by Goldbird: *All posted articles and replies are PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE on the Web*
...yet in one of the MQ threads, Goldbird stated this board was PRIVATE and financial discussions, real or speculative, were not allowed.
So is MTStars a PUBLIC board or a PRIVATE board? Choose one -- Can't be both at the same time.
PP comes out of our taxes. NOT a private org.
Why do you think so many taxpayers are sick of it? When does the "tax us til it bleeds stop?"
Okay, I get it. You are for a private citizen....
being subjected to a background check for asking a question. That says more about you than what you say about Joe.
The difference between you and me is...I would be as outraged by this if had been done to someone who asked Obama and a question and was subjected to this. But of course, we know that isn't going to happen, now don't we?
So much for liberals championing civil rights. What a joke that has become!!
It shouldn't be. It's a private decision, not one to
.
Private insurance and SCHIPS not the same.
SCHIPS is for CHILDREN, not parents. Federal mandates that seek to raise the age of allowable coverage for natural children of parents with PRIVATE insurance makes perfect sense. Parents (not the govt) pay premium on young adults who would otherwise not be able to afford insurance. What's the problem here?
Hello. They are referring to PRIVATE insurance.
Do you have kids? Would you like to see them go to college? Graduate school? Law school? Medical school? Would you or would you not like to have the option to carry YOUR OWN CHILDREN on your insurance beyond age 17? I think that parents who want to cover their kids (and other members of their family, for that matter, like parents, in-laws, sisters, brothers, etc) should have that choice under a group rate that would be cheaper than individual policies that some of them otherwise would not be able to afford. It's called medical care reform and the aim is to INSURE people, not exclude them. got it?
I actually went to a private CHRISTIAN school.....
Throughout high school. I'm not saying I would never put my children there, but at this point they have a good school and I am happy with it. BTW, at their school they actually pray still, say the blessing, pledge the flag, etc. Not sure how they get away with it, but yea they do it.
Tell that to the families of the 100,000
Bet they might beg to differ.
I am sorry for their families.
x
Capitalism is when private owners run businesses
xx
|
