Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Child Nutrition Legislation


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Child Nutrition Legislation Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 6:23:48 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101201/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_school_nutrition

The legislation was temp blocked because Republicans want to have background checks on child workers.     So to me, it appears that the democrats are in favor of hiring pervs.  I think this is a part of, lets stop govt if it is a Republican idea policy of Pelosi
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 6:37:35 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		Ken,  try not to take it the wrong way- but my state already requires a background check for working in the schools.

Been there. --

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 6:50:40 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/background_checks_%28act_114%29/7493/federal_criminal_history_background_checks/601327

http://reentry.mplp.org/reentry/index.php/Know_Your_Rights:_Criminal_Background_Checks_for_Michigan%27s_School_Employees

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lgb/edu/2088675041.html

http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/541543/BOE-to-settle-background-check-policy.html?nav=5061

Republicans say the nutrition bill is too costly and an example of government overreach.

"It's not about making our children healthy and active," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee. "We all want to see our children healthy and active. This is about spending and the role of government and the size of government — a debate about whether we're listening to our constituents or not."

So lets allow the children to go hungry and give the millionaires the tax cuts they so richly deserve.



_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 6:52:36 AM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline 		Tazzy, that is one of the biggest reasons I do not understand how anyone middle class or, of lesser income can, with informed intelligent intent, support the Republican party. It just baffles me.

< Message edited by LaTigresse -- 12/2/2010 6:54:23 AM >

_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 6:52:51 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Ken,  try not to take it the wrong way- but my state already requires a background check for working in the schools.

Been there. --



me too   Cali requires it of all mandated reporters.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 6:54:33 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Maybe it's partisan.

Maybe six cents per head only adds up to $18 million if everyone in the US is eligible.

Maybe they're thinking the People don't want another $4.5 billion down the tubes.

Maybe they know the official food pyramid is a total joke.

Maybe I like the situation just because nothing happened. Everything they do costs 1,000 times what it should and is usually inneffective. I would love to see the government in total gridlock, because they are so proficient in screwing things up we would all be better off if they did less.

War on drugs=more drugs. War on poverty=more poverty. War on malnutrition= ? You do the math.

Background checks ? ROFL. On this much we can agree - that is NOT the real reason.

T

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 6:56:45 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Those with no control over the decisions related to our government, or its roll in our lives, sometimes pay the biggest price.

Palin is simply sickening.

WASHINGTON – House Republicans have temporarily blocked legislation to feed school meals to thousands more hungry children. Republicans used a procedural maneuver Wednesday to try to amend the $4.5 billion bill, which would give more needy children the opportunity to eat free lunches at school and make those lunches healthier. First lady Michelle Obama has lobbied for the bill as part of her "Let's Move" campaign to combat childhood obesity.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has also taken a swipe at the first lady's campaign, bringing cookies to a speech at a Pennsylvania school last month and calling the campaign a "school cookie ban debate" and "nanny state run amok" on her Twitter feed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101201/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_school_nutrition

Im sorry, as a soccer mom, and a woman insisting she is all about family values, she is making a joke out of herself.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to LaTigresse)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 7:13:01 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		Republicans are pro life untill they are born. After that....FUKUM.

Seriously, most every state already requires background checks on those who work with kids. For some reason, churches are exempt here. THAT makes a lot of sense neh?

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 7:16:23 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Funny they cry less government interference, and here is an issue they are filibustering that the states have already taken care of. Makes ya wonder what our elected officials really know about what is going on with the laws.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 7:43:19 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgh88ueqsQ

Or just not let them talk or submit what appears to be a reasonable objection even if no one is listening.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 8:11:40 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Ken,  try not to take it the wrong way- but my state already requires a background check for working in the schools.

Been there. --



me too   Cali requires it of all mandated reporters.



In the group homes I needed an act 33, and act 34 check.   I do not recall if it was the same for cleaning the schools- but there was some sort of checks.

What do the feds think the states are stupid?

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 8:24:38 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Not all of them think the states are stupid, pa.

This was an excuse for the party of no to say no yet again.

But, gotta tell ya, when Elizabeth Hasselbeck comes out against Palin, you know this is a bad turn.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 8:25:50 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		Tazz,  I am in no hurry for austerity.  

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 8:27:28 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Then take this figure into account. Giving the tax cuts to those who earn over a million dollars a year means 104,000 dollars out of the treasury, per person.

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 12/2/2010 8:28:08 AM >

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 8:28:04 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgh88ueqsQ

Or just not let them talk or submit what appears to be a reasonable objection even if no one is listening.



A reasonable objection?

This is just the same obstructionism that Republicans have been using to try and block any legislation sponsored by Democrats.

Whether it is worthy or not Republicans don't seem to care, as long as it scores them political points.





< Message edited by rulemylife -- 12/2/2010 8:31:43 AM >

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 8:28:54 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		I think, on this, it will end up being a loss in points

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 8:33:42 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Then take this figure into account. Giving the tax cuts to those who earn over a million dollars a year means 104,000 dollars out of the treasury, per person.



I would rather use the million $ number then the 200k- 250k.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 8:35:12 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Ken,  try not to take it the wrong way- but my state already requires a background check for working in the schools.

Been there. --



me too   Cali requires it of all mandated reporters.



In the group homes I needed an act 33, and act 34 check.   I do not recall if it was the same for cleaning the schools- but there was some sort of checks.

What do the feds think the states are stupid?



Yes

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 8:36:37 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Republicans are pro life untill they are born. After that....FUKUM.

Seriously, most every state already requires background checks on those who work with kids. For some reason, churches are exempt here. THAT makes a lot of sense neh?

It's a lot worse than just trying to stop parents feeding the kids crap, to be fair. If you do a venn diagram of politicians who are opposed to birth control and/or abortion on demand, and politicians who are opposed to welfare spending on the permanent underclass, it's pretty close to an exact match, isn't it?

If the cunts want people who can't afford to raise kids to have them, they can fucking well pay for them to be fed, housed and educated as well. Otherwise, they can stick their fundamentalist moralising up their arses.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Child Nutrition Legislation - 12/2/2010 8:38:15 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgh88ueqsQ

Or just not let them talk or submit what appears to be a reasonable objection even if no one is listening.



A reasonable objection?

This is just the same obstructionism that Republicans have been using to try and block any legislation sponsored by Democrats.

Whether it is worthy or not Republicans don't seem to care, as long as it scores them political points.






If it didn't go thru the process then the objection is reasonable.  If someone wants to speak on it they should be allowed.   The purpose of a chair is not to dictate but to rule on parlimentary procedure (whichever one is being used).   The parlimentarian isn't the one to rule but he advises the chair. 

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Child Nutrition Legislation Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078