Interesting so our President is protected under this also? Q. Are alcoholics covered by the ADA? A. Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in addition to the ADA, "[m]any people with past and current alcohol problems and past drug use disorders" are also protected by The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, The Fair Housing Act (FHA) and The Workforce Investment Act (WIA). HHS notes that "[i]n general," an employer "[m]ay not deny a job to or fire a person because he or she is in treatment or in recovery from a substance use disorder, unless the person's disorder would prevent safe and competent job performance."

Interesting so our President is protected under this also?

Q. Are alcoholics covered by the ADA? A. Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in addition to the ADA, "[m]any people with past and current alcohol problems and past drug use disorders" are also protected by The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, The Fair Housing Act (FHA) and The Workforce Investment Act (WIA). HHS notes that "[i]n general," an employer "[m]ay not deny a job to or fire a person because he or she is in treatment or in recovery from a substance use disorder, unless the person's disorder would prevent safe and competent job performance."

Sorry for the repost

So ACORn should not hire recovering alcoholics, but it's fine to have one sitting in the oval office. Are they trying to tell us that a recovering alcoholic can't work to register new voters but they can become president?

WTF is wrong with these people? 

Which ones? The ones with their hands over their ears, going LA LA LA LA?

Sometimes you just have to scratch your head at some of these MMFA threads?  What is the beef with Griffin?  He just repeated what the deputy city commissioner told him, he didn't suggest anything as this thread insists; of course the ACORN official is going to skirt his question and say "That is not the point", ahh, yes that is the point.

MMFA makes the silliest attempts at times to defend these left wing organizations, even when there is no media misinformation in the least.

Good report Mr. Griffin.

Nice WITH variation. Maybe you missed the "recovering" part of "recovering alcolholics? A recovering alcoholic is someone who is fighting their disease, presumably for the rest of their life. How much sobriety does someone need to qualify as compotent for you?

It wasn't a WITH variation at all, it was a downright WITH.  Perhaps you had better read the entire thread again since obviously you missed it, and my point.

Please speak more slowly, most of us seem to be missing your points.

Once again the GOP pulls the strings and makes the CNN news reporter dance. I bet Ted Turner regrets selling CNN to Time-Warner. It's a shadow of the network he started.

I wonder how many recovering alcoholics work at CNN......

Interesting.  Taken as a whole, Griffin did not "suggest" that ACORN should not hire recovering alcoholics or homeless people.  Anyone who watches the video will know that this article by MMFA is inflated.  Ironic when the groups that claim they are opposed to misinformation start spreading misinformation themselves.

Of course he didn't.  He was simply getting the ACORN officials reaction to what the deputy city commissioner said.  And it was promptly sidestepped by the ACORN director in Philadelphia.

MMFA should be complaining that Ms. Marcano didn't address Griffin's concern, instead of criticizing Griffin for asking her a straight up question. Or is MMFA just being "uncritical"?

The bottom line is that this website, unfortunately, is not really interested in misinformation anymore (if they ever were).  Day after day it is the same thing: bottom of the barrel "reports" about people like Savage, Dick Morris and occasionally Rush Limbaugh.  When it comes to the main stream media, they have to inflate the most mediocre of alleged inappropriate behavior.  The titles of these stories are misleading.  The title makes it seem as though Griffin came right out and said, "ACORN SHOULD NOT HIRE RECOVERING ALCOHOLICS"  Then, the video is completely different than expected.  All credibility begins to be lost.  

As much as I think all the threads about stupid rightwing talk show hosts and all the crap they spew out every day is just red meat for the brethren here, this particular thread is a major misleading WITH. 

This is where conservative misinformation monitoring ends, and left wing advocacy begins.

You got it!  I wish there was an absolutely, non-partisan watchdog that could report bias on both sides of the party line in an honest way.

awww, don't like the truth? I notice you always avoid the bottom line - why should recovering alcoholics or homeless people be denied jobs?

I am a recovering alcoholic so no I don't think we should be denied jobs.  As for homeless people I think they should be given any opportunity anyone else is given.  My point was that I don't think Griffin was making the assertion MMFA claims.

If I went overboard, I apologize. But my opinion is that by posing questions all that Griffin is doing is "suggesting" that is not a proper thing to do. A suggestion may as well be a declaration when discussing what the "news" does these days.

You don't need to apologize.  I understand where you are coming from.  :)

If I may be so bold, I'd like to know how you moved to the recovering column. I could use a little help in that department.

That's quitter talk, Snoop!

No, the only credibility is Media Matters, you spewing your crap everyday doesn't count for anything except whining. At least you have a buddy in good old (why is this posted?) Tommy.

Taken as a whole, Griffin did not "suggest" that ACORN should not hire recovering alcoholics or homeless people.--Z

>>>You start off on the right foot but quickly stumble.  Yes he doesn't explicitly say that, but taken as a whole he does in fact SUGGEST it.  "Suggest", as used here, means to imply by the logic of the situation as he puts it forward.  Whether you agree with his suggestion, or whether his point is objectively correct or not has no bearing on the correctness of MMFA's description of what HE, the reporter Griffin, said.

Anyone who watches the video will know that this article by MMFA is inflated.--Z

>>>What does that mean, "inflated"?  Say what you mean.  Do you mean you agree with Griffin's suggestion?  If so, then plainly say that.

Ironic when the groups that claim they are opposed to misinformation start spreading misinformation themselves.--Z

It would be not only be ironic but stupid--if true.  Anyone can read it for themselves.  Not the method of operation of a liar.

glenn beck.

MARCANO: We have run -- we have done that, because if we have been able to register 85,000 -- above 85,000 good registrants, compared to 5,000 suspect cards, we have done a good job.
GRIFFIN: The actual number here, Wolf, city officials tell us close to 8,000 -- 8,000 of those ACORN registrations could be fraudulent.

Holy crap! You mean 8.6% of the registrations could be fake instead of 5.5%? Well, then I've made up my mind. ACORN is evil!

Repugs created this so-called ACORN controversy, let's talk about how repugs stole the elections in 2000 and 2004, now that's voting fraud.

There's a union in downtown Indianapolis that hires homeless people (drunks and losers) to stand in picket lines.  Sounds just like ACORN!

You endorse the checks, don't you?

Aren't you the one who can't get over his abortion envy?  Did your sex change not help?

It didn't hurt. NO, wait, it did hurt. A lot.

Here's what I don't understand - no one seems to be denying that the ACORN voter fraud is happening, even though they do differ on how large it is. I have had people tell me that it doens't matter because these are just registrations and not votes - well, putting aside the fact that a lot of the people in the states that allow it registered and then were allowed to vote right away that day, is there a way that anyone can explain to me how you turn a fake voter registration into a vote in states that don't? Can you keep a list of them and then have someone show up without ID to prove who they are and vote under those names?

I ask this because I have seen video of an Ohio governement body yelling at an ACORN representative for having done this type of shoddy control of voter registration for years, and asking why when this body had asked them before they hadn't changed their ways? The only answer that I can come up with would be that it's because ACORN gets what it wants from doing things this way.

I saw the ACORN rep on TV deny that they paid for registrations by quota, so either that's a lie or there is some other reason that workers fake registrations. I am told that the more that ACORN brings in, the more government money they qualify for. OK, that makes sense - but then you have Obama givinig them sizable amounts of money.

If I put that together with the typical "who has the strongest motive" thing that is done when there is a crime to figure out who did it, I would say that Obama has a lot stronger motive for voter fraud than ACORN does - especiall y when there is a money trail that points toward him. My question to everyone is: "how come there isn't any fingers point directly at him as being behind it - and why doesn't this qualify - if true - as being one of the biggest crimes against the American people of all times?