Coalition

Workers from unions affiliated with the Florida AFL-CIO joined a broad coalition of area organizations including the healthcare workers union SEIU, Jobs with Justice, ACORN, the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans and the health care advocacy organization HCAN (Health Care for America Now) in a rally at Senator Nelsons office urging him to support meaningful health care reform.

Health care reform must give American the choice of a strong and competitive publically administered health insurance option. This is the lynchpin of all health care reform and is the best way to lower costs, ensure the availability of coverage and give people a real choice for their health insurance.

· Health insurance benefits currently provided by employers must not be taxed. Real wages in America have stagnated and people are earning less than they did decades ago. Taxing these benefits will continue this decline and will only hurt the struggling economy.

· Employers must pay their fair share for health care. If employers continue to deny decent health care coverage to their workers, they must pay into the system to provide coverage for the uninsured. The taxpayers should not be required to pay for workers who should have coverage from their workplaces.

· Health care reform must ensure affordable coverage for pre-Medicare retirees. Employers that offer coverage to their pre-65 retirees incur enormous expense, but without that coverage, retirees have no affordable options for finding coverage on their own.

Duration : 0:2:48

Read the rest of this entry »

He started out as a "capitalism is evil" type of guy……..the endgame being a racial utopia. Then after a while he realized the capitalists were the ones with the money required to actually push the changes he wanted to achieve. So by the late 90s he had turned into an "eco-friendly capitalist" (kinda like Al Gore).

Interestingly enough the only way for an "eco-friendly capitalist" to make money is for the govt. to subsidize the green products to make them more affordable or heavily tax any competition to the green products.

Which brings us to Mr. Jones other statement:

"I’ll work with anybody, I’ll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. … I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends"

So do you think Obama appointees are former radicals who retain the same goals but have simply refined the means to achieve them??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

Jones started his career as a staunch critic of capitalism; his outrage over the Rodney King verdict radicalized him to the point where he declared himself a communist (he has since renounced these views) and actively began protesting police brutality.[18] He later got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a collective which "dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia". According to former employer Eva Patterson, Jones later "jettisoned his youthful notions and moved on to seek more effective and attainable solutions."[19] Frustrated keeping coalitions together to make positive social change, Jones "discarded the hostility and antagonism with which he had previously greeted the world, which he said was part of the ego-driven romance of being seen as a revolutionary." "Before, we would fight anybody, any time," Jones says of his transformation. "No concession was good enough; we never said ‘Thank you.’ Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I’ll work with anybody, I’ll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. … I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends".[18] Jones ended his involvement with STORM (and STORM officially dissolved in December 2002).[20]

By the late 1990s, Jones began promoting capitalism as he transformed into an environmentally friendly capitalist[citation needed]. He emerged as one of the foremost champions of green business, entrepreneurship and market-based solutions. In his 2008 best seller The Green Collar Economy, Jones contended that invention and investment will take us out of a pollution-based grey economy and into a healthy new green economy.[21] Jones wrote:

[W]e are entering an era during which our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization. Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need. On that score, neither government nor the nonprofit and voluntary sectors can compete, not even remotely.

So in the end, our success and survival as a species are largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs — and the success and survival of their enterprises. Since almost all of the needed eco-technologies are likely to come from the private sector, civic leaders and voters should do all that can be done to help green business leaders succeed. That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them. We cannot realistically proceed without a strong alliance between the best of the business world —and everyone else.

"You are known by the company you keep". a interesting quote. Just look who Obama surrounds himself with. Oh, and if you really dig, you can find alot of Obama cronies were also Hillary buddies.

Associated Press Writer= POSTVILLE, Iowa (AP) — For immigrant advocates, the raid on a meatpacking plant in Postville last May was evidence of all that is wrong with large-scale arrests of illegal workers.

Families were hurt, and empty shops and lines at the food bank show that the town was, too. One rental agency says nearly 70 percent of its properties are vacant. The City Council even sought a federal disaster designation because of the lingering effects of the raid on the Agriprocessors kosher slaughterhouse.

"At what point do we acknowledge that the system is so broken that we’re no longer willing to participate?" wondered Maryn Olson, a coordinator with Postville Response Coalition, a group established after the raid.

But as the Obama administration considers a new policy on immigration raids, another Iowa town less than 100 miles away has emerged from a raid on its largest employer with a different perspective.

People in Marshalltown acknowledge that scars remain from the December 2006 raid at the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant there, but the city of 25,000 has moved on.

Marshalltown Mayor Gene Beach said the raid hurt efforts to integrate Latinos into the larger community but that most residents have little sympathy for the 92 illegal immigrants arrested in Marshalltown during a sweep at Swift plants in six states.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "has the right to come in, give adequate due process and treat them in a humane way," Beach said. "The current law is that people are to be legal, and ICE has the responsibility to enforce the law."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8475315

The people who are hurt are the citizens who are out of work because the illegal aliens have their jobs.

But Obama’s homoland security forced the arresting officers to complete paperwork for the illegal aliens and gave them work permits.

A supernatural witness points to Muhammad’s prophethood
When he was three years old, two angels came and took out his heart from his chest, cleaned it with ice water, put it back and left. In doing so they supposedly prepared him for his mission on earth.

Another story which comes via Muslim Tradition mentions that after the death of his grandfather Abdu-Mutalib, Muhammad went to visit a Catholic monk with his uncle Abu-Talib. It is reported that the monk saw a cloud specifically protect Muhammad from the sun. It was then that he knew that he would be someone special.
. At the age of twenty-five he married Khadijah, a widow fifteen years his senior, who was in fact his employer. The marriage was a happy one, and two boys and four girls were born to them, though the two boys did not live to a mature age. Khadija died after twenty-five years of marriage to Muhammad. During that time Muhammad never took another wife.

Another proof of his prophethood, according to Muslims, stems from the fact that Muhammad prophesied events in the future, which then came to pass later on. Only a prophet of God could know what was going to happen in the future, and therefore Muhammad must be a prophet. Yet, the only ‘real’ prophecy recorded, which Muslims attribute to Muhammad is that found in Sura 30:1-4, where it is written:

A.L.M. The Roman Empire has been defeated. In a land close by; but they (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious. Within a few years. With Allah is the decision, in the past and in the future: on that day shall the Believers rejoice.
This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusran Parvis (in A.D. 615), six years before the Hijra.

The defeat of the Persians should take place soon- "in a small number of years." In light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf that this prediction would be fulfilled within three years. But he was corrected by Muhammad, who stated that the "small number" is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi).

Muslims tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. However, the fact is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in AD 628 (Al-Baizawi’s commentary). That was twelve years after the prediction of Muhammad. Consequently, this passage does not qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between the prophecy and fulfilment was far too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable. The odds were only 50/50.

The other ‘prophecies’ which Muslims point to refer to Muhammad’s victories and those relating to the Qur’an itself. It is nearly impossible to establish whether these prophecies were said before their fulfilment. Besides, like the previous example, they were either easily predictable, or just war- propaganda. In this event George Bush might be called a prophet too, for he predicted that the Gulf-coalition would win the war with Iraq.

IS MUHAMED A PROPHET????????????

yes there is no doubt that prophet muhammed is the final prophet of god and he is the seal of prophets for christians to see and believe prophet muhammed Deuteronomy chapter 33 verse 2 indicate of coming of prophet muhammed in PARAN which means ancient name of MEKKE according toChristiann McKenziee j dictionary

The world of Iris has become a war zone. This once peaceful world is now thrown into complete chaos as military, militia, mercenary, and bandit units alike are blowing each other former ally or enemy alike apart in attempts to take control. Many wish to just see Iris free and allowed to heal, these forces are small but are binding together to form an Alliance. Many want to rule with an iron fist, or sell their world to a bigger power for money, these forces are beginning to get together to crush the alliance, if they succeed they will just further the damage after the alliance dies they will slaughter each other.

You are a former mercenary turned hero, the alliance was more then willing to pay you for your units but after being betrayed by your employers who are Coalition members, you only asked for the money to rearm your unit, the rest, you will do for the payment of vengeance! You have been given access to the best tech available on Iris in order to bring control to this place, your goals are simple, both powers have established makeshift bases in this expansive area, your goal is to destroy all coalition forces and take the base in order to secure the alliance foothold here

Tactical Notices: The alliance is very weak and mostly consisted of mix-matched units that have no long-term survivability if the base is ambushed without your support

Tactical Warnings: The unit size and abilities are UNKNOWN do not go charging in unprepared!

Duration : 0:7:22

Read the rest of this entry »

I know that I have asked this already, I am posting it again to get more replies from more people.

Some background first, in my city people have been fired or denied access to the restroom because they were glbt. A local advocacy group proposed a city ordinance be adopted by the council to make it illegal for businesses to evict glbt’s from their residence, deny them access to the gender appropriate lavatory, or to fire an employee in a secular position because they are glbt. A religious coalition was then formed to oppose this ordinance. That started these forums.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y’all is studies that disprove a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, biblical verses that would support my arguments that religion is not a relevant issue, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:
1. Even, for the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should we be barred from making that choice? We are allowed to get tattoos and piercings.
2. I was asked where does it stop. My answer is that freedom will stop when the minorities rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues so I will clarify that, I mean when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; within reason of course, pedophiles cannot be allowed to molest children. There is clear harm in that, emotional, physical, and mental.
3. Following that we must define what a right is. Now I am not a scholar on what a right is vs a privilege vs an ability, but I would define a right as an endowed ability or protection granted by a higher power; whatever that may be. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others.
4. The argument was made that passing this ordinance would force my beliefs on others who oppose this ordinance. My answer is simple, forcing you to do anything would involve the use of force to get the other party to commit an act against their will. In this case, I am not forcing them to hire glbt people. I am instead, preventing them from infringing upon my right to make a choice; what to do (career wise), who to love, or where to live.
5. It was said that repeating that the causes are biological does not make it true without proof. My answer: the same is true of a nurture cause.
6. I might bring up the kinsey scale, I’m not sure.
7. A few other things I hope to address: feeling comfortable in the bathroom, religion is a protected class, why glbt people are afraid of christians, people being allowed to fire people over the most mundane things, legalizing morality, and the belief that this ordinance pushes my views on others.

Any critique of the above stated issues is appreciated and particularly links or citations of credible studies (biological) and non credible studies (nurture) are also welcome.
I sure as hell hope your not watching me pee, pervert. I fail to see how you would know what genitalia I have without spying. If a male to female transexual comes into the women’s bathroom, how are you to know 1) that they are transexual 2) whether they are post or pre op?

Sorry. You have filled your jar of reasoning with P.C. gobbledygook. Sexual orientation or intermediate stages of sexual restructuring do not put this in the category of civil rights. Using cunnilingus and fellatio as planks in a political platform does not make the issue rise to the level of the struggle against Jim Crow in the 1950s and 1960s. If you are undergoing sexual reconstruction and you still have male sexual organs, you use the men’s room. And it doesn’t matter if you are wearing a ball gown. The same is true if you still have female sexual organs. You use the lady’s room, even if you are wearing bib overalls and hiking boots.
In pushing for this ordinance, you are not seeking tolerance. You are demanding acceptance. And, since your freedom ends at the point of another’s nose, demanding acceptance violates freedom.

Ladies and Gentlemenboys and girls! Step right up to witness the most amazing and wondrous sites you have ever seen. Were bringing together some of the most incredible performers and curiosities on the Midway. A variety of Circus sideshow acts and performers gathering to entertain and mystify! Its a mysterious blend of Barnum & Bailey meets the Addams Family.
Presented by SIIA along with its sponsors, OptumHealth, Coalition America, & Midwest Employers Casualty Company.

Duration : 0:8:34

Read the rest of this entry »

This is what I have. I need someone to tell me if I am on the right track or not please.

The New Deal was meant to give work to the unemployed, reform business and financial practices, and to help recover the economy during the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt’s First New Deal, in 1933, was more of a short-term recovery process. It was to help the economy and the workers get back on their feet during the Great Depression. Roosevelt’s administration promoted banking reform laws, emergency relief programs, work relief programs, industrial reform, and a federal welfare state. Little was done for small farmers and it eventually led to them losing their homes. In 1935, Roosevelt added a Second New Deal which was pointed towards restoring the economy back to its original state. This Second New Deal included labor union support, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid farmers. Unfortunately for Roosevelt, most of these ideas of relief were shut down during World War II by the Conservative Coalition while only few became permanent. In 1935, the Wagner Act, or the National Labor Relations Act, attempted to prevent employers’ use of bribing and intimidation of breaking up unions. Eventually, World War II was the cure for the Great Depression, but was the downfall for the New Deal. The New Deal had run its course and in the short run, the New Deal helped improve the lives of people who were suffering from the Great Depression. In the long run, the New Deal set an example for the government to follow by in the economy.
In my opinion, the New Deal gave hope to people who were suffering during the Depression. People needed something to look forward to and Roosevelt gave them this hope through his New Deal. It is said that the key factor to recovery during the 1930’s was expansionary monetary policy. Roosevelt’s plan was to increase money supply, get the banking system back on its feet, and restore trust in financial institutions. Since there was a massive unemployment rate, the more people that became unemployed, the less money they had to buy other goods, the more people became unemployed. Overall, I think his New Deal made things worse for the economy. Even though some of these ideas of his are still in effect today, that doesn’t mean that it made things better. The war was really the only thing that saved the economy. The government involvement with this crisis only prolonged the Depression rather than helped it. The only thing that would have saved the economy other than the war was the expansionary monetary policy. It was a good effort to get peoples’ hopes up, but looking back, I can honestly say it did not do too much to help the economy.

I really need someone to read this and tell me if it’s good or not. This is due tomorrow and I would really appreciate your help.

What class is this for?

Roosevelt cannot make monetary policy.. only the federal reserve can do that.

Roosevelt only had control of fiscal policy.

Your second paragraph is a little back and forth. The first sentence should read that it gave hope for some, but had bad consequences overall.

What do U think they say go after the employers & what happens when they do, they say employers don’t have adequate training to determine just who has a fake ID or Social Security number ?BOISE, Idaho (AP) – A coalition of Idaho groups plan to protest proposed legislation that would punish employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants with fines and suspension of licenses.

Community organizer Leo Morales says the coalition will gather at the state capitol Monday to express legal, budgetary and moral concerns over the proposed bills this session.

His group, the Idaho Community Action Network, represents migrant-worker interests and contends that only federal legislation can solve the problem.

Morales has said the main concern is that employers don’t have adequate training to determine just who has a fake ID or Social Security number.

http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=11983633
I believe all Gov offices closed today with it being Prseidents day ?

They also say to go after the employers but when we do, they have their special interest groups whining. Go after the employers, the illegals and all who aid and abet them.

I know that I have asked this already, I am posting it again to get more replies from more people.

Some background first, in my city people have been fired or denied access to the restroom because they were glbt. A local advocacy group proposed a city ordinance be adopted by the council to make it illegal for businesses to evict glbt’s from their residence, deny them access to the gender appropriate lavatory, or to fire an employee in a secular position because they are glbt. A religious coalition was then formed to oppose this ordinance. That started these forums.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y’all is studies that disprove a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, biblical verses that would support my arguments that religion is not a relevant issue, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:
1. Even, for the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should we be barred from making that choice? We are allowed to get tattoos and piercings.
2. I was asked where does it stop. My answer is that freedom will stop when the minorities rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues so I will clarify that, I mean when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; within reason of course, pedophiles cannot be allowed to molest children. There is clear harm in that, emotional, physical, and mental.
3. Following that we must define what a right is. Now I am not a scholar on what a right is vs a privilege vs an ability, but I would define a right as an endowed ability or protection granted by a higher power; whatever that may be. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others.
4. The argument was made that passing this ordinance would force my beliefs on others who oppose this ordinance. My answer is simple, forcing you to do anything would involve the use of force to get the other party to commit an act against their will. In this case, I am not forcing them to hire glbt people. I am instead, preventing them from infringing upon my right to make a choice; what to do (career wise), who to love, or where to live.
5. It was said that repeating that the causes are biological does not make it true without proof. My answer: the same is true of a nurture cause.
6. I might bring up the kinsey scale, I’m not sure.
7. A few other things I hope to address: feeling comfortable in the bathroom, religion is a protected class, why glbt people are afraid of christians, people being allowed to fire people over the most mundane things, legalizing morality, and the belief that this ordinance pushes my views on others.

Any critique of the above stated issues is appreciated and particularly links or citations of credible studies (biological) and non credible studies (nurture) are also welcome.

I think the "piercings and tatoos" argument is weak, and while technically correct, will divert the discussion from the real issue to arguing about appearances, which will not win you any hearts and minds. It would be better to argue for freedom of conscience and basic human rights. The fact that one is G/L/B/T does not cancel out the basic right to earn a living, have a decent place to live, and freely associate. To categorize acts between consenting adults as "crimes" is a constraint of conscience and freedom of thought. To be consistent, society would either have to round up and treat/incarcerate ALL members of an undesirable minority (and we’ve had enough historical examples of how THAT works) or leave them alone. The slippery-slope argument would probably be a good one to expand on. Oh, and don’t say "legalizing morailty". You mean, "legislating morality".

Kinsey should be quoted very cautiously. It’s a joke outside the professional disciplines of psychology and statistics.

Good luck!