Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged Act

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Bryan Pregon

Biden calls to restore Voting Rights Act, signs order to expand access - 29 views

www.cnbc.com/...ns-order-to-expand-access.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 08 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Mar 21
     
    "President Joe Biden on Sunday signed an executive order aimed at helping to ensure all Americans have the right to vote by increasing access to voter registration services and information."
  • ...22 more comments...
  • saraivargas on 08 Mar 21
     
    This is important to ensure the right to vote is extended towards everyone,and it gets more people out there to vote. These are important thing when we pick a new leader to represent the country as a whole.
  • vperez191 on 08 Mar 21
     
    Most people don't think that voting is important but it is and it is good that the president signed an executive order to see if more people will vote
  • lamador794 on 08 Mar 21
     
    In my opinion, this new executive order is amazing. According to the article, "Every eligible voter should be able to vote and have that vote counted. If you have the best ideas, you have nothing to hide. Let the people vote."(konish) I totally agree with it because it's time for new beneficial changes and reformations.
  • thepriceisright on 08 Mar 21
     
    One of the peoples greatest defenses against corruption in our government is our ability to vote.
  • jdogan on 10 Mar 21
     
    Extension of the right to vote to everyone who possibly can is the most important thing in maintaining democracy so this is a very good thing
  • milo_nordman on 11 Mar 21
     
    It's good that Biden has put in place this new executive order. It's important that everyone who is eligible to vote should have the opportunity too.
  • zeaksorensen on 15 Mar 21
     
    i agree that if we did not have our right to vote then we would lose our best defense against corruption.
  • abbidominguez on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think giving more people the ability to vote is great. Hopefully this attempt to bring the voter count up works and more people can voice their opinion on who they think is the best fit for our country.
  • gbrochu915 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think this is good because, everyone should have a right to vote, if we were not able to that would not give us a choice to anything.
  • rosellyrosas on 20 Apr 21
     
    Biden says that if we allow everyone to vote, it will repair and also strengthen the democracy party. I think it is a pretty good idea, it would mean everyone will have more benefitions.
  • peytongrenoble on 20 Apr 21
     
    This is a good thing because I think that having more people experiencing the "American" life will have good input on who to vote for.
  • carsonschaa on 26 Apr 21
     
    This is a good thing for Biden because congress will restore the voting rights for Americans, and I think by doing that he will have more people experiencing life, and maybe the people will have good input on him so they will vote for him for the next presidential election again.
  • ataylor074 on 26 Apr 21
     
    I think this executive order is amazing for our country. All people should have the right to vote, and this executive order is making it easier for them.
  • kinziekat02 on 26 Apr 21
     
    this is good because they can't pull any more tricks or try to get people not to vote anymore, which equals fair elections in the future.
  • hannahliwai on 26 Apr 21
     
    it's important and good that biden signed this act because it makes sure everyone votes and the voting count raises.
  • jtaulborg103 on 10 May 21
     
    I think that Biden signing this bill helps ensure that Americans can exercise their right to vote and that it will help the voting count to increase.
  • carsonschaa on 17 May 21
     
    It's really important that Biden signed this act because it makes sure everyone votes and the voting count raises.
  • milo_nordman on 17 May 21
     
    I think it's good that Biden signed this bill because it will give more people the opportunity to vote.
  • kinziekat02 on 17 May 21
     
    I think this will be beneficial considering all the sneaky tactics that they've been using to get people not to vote, so this will help make voting fairer and give more opportunities to people.
  • nick_rice on 17 May 21
     
    I do believe that it does so happen to be a good thing that Mr. President Joe Biden has signed this act so that more people will have the chance to vote.
  • allisonwalker on 17 May 21
     
    I think this is a good idea, we need more people voting if they can.
  • eballenger on 17 May 21
     
    I like how voting is continuing to be a bigger issue people are bringing up because people living in America should get a say in who controls the government, regardless of who they are.
  • mgerman776 on 24 May 21
     
    I think this was a really good move and America should be grateful he's doing something beneficial.
  • jcontreras201 on 25 May 21
     
    I think it is good Biden is doing something to make voting better for everyone, especially for us since were going to be able to vote next election
Bryan Pregon

Surprise! Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigation... - 1 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...ly-used-in-drug-investigations

shared by Bryan Pregon on 31 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 31 Oct 14
     
    "Surprise! Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations"
Bryan Pregon

Gun Rights Activists Sued Over Trump's Bump Stocks Ban - 0 views

www.buzzfeednews.com/...s-lawsuit-trump-bump-stock-ban

shared by Bryan Pregon on 19 Dec 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 19 Dec 18
     
    "The suit from three gun rights groups on Tuesday points out that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - a division of the Justice Department known as ATF - has repeatedly found that the devices cannot be banned by the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act."
Bryan Pregon

Responsibility Deflected, the CLOUD Act Passes | Electronic Frontier Foundation - 0 views

www.eff.org/...ity-deflected-cloud-act-passes

shared by Bryan Pregon on 28 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 28 Mar 18
     
    "This bill is the CLOUD Act. It was never reviewed or marked up by any committee in either the House or the Senate. It never received a hearing. It was robbed of a stand-alone floor vote because Congressional leadership decided, behind closed doors, to attach this un-vetted, unrelated data bill to the $1.3 trillion government spending bill."
jessicavaldez

US: NKorea missile launch is 'provocative act' - 0 views

news.yahoo.com/provocative-act-051816027.html

shared by jessicavaldez on 12 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • patrick boian on 13 Dec 12
     
    its only a provocative act if they tried to lauch a missle to see how far they could get it to go like they previously did but if its just a sateite it should be ok as lomg as its not used as a weapon or used to hack into other countries mainframes or other stuff
Bryan Pregon

6 outrageous things Philippines president has said - 32 views

www.usatoday.com/...89901216

shared by Bryan Pregon on 07 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 07 Sep 16
     
    "Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is known for his outspoken comments and controversial governing style."
  • ...12 more comments...
  • gclaar868 on 07 Sep 16
     
    This is not a very professional thing to say especially about the president
  • Jacob Jensen on 07 Sep 16
     
    This "leader" is insane, he's making threats to our people and taking simple manners of politics to a new level of crazy. For example on the controversy about illegal logging he said "cut the trees and I cut your heads." Like who says this publicly about another country. This was just one of many things this man has proclaimed about Obama.
  • kalebhun1 on 07 Sep 16
     
    I think that the Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is sort of exaggerating his points to look tougher than he is, especially when he backs away from his statement about the president.
  • kylee406 on 07 Sep 16
     
    What was said by President Rodrigo Duterte was very unprofessional. It calls his ability to maintain the Philippines into question. He says very inappropriate things, and does things that shouldn't and/or aren't legal.
  • jdavis1998 on 07 Sep 16
     
    Honestly he shouldn't even be president if this is the crap he's going to pull! Rape and drug cartels are illegal and it won't get stopped cause when you are involved in that you make bank. A lot of his comments remind me of Trump all the sexual remarks especially.. Makes me sick.
  • stacy martinez on 07 Sep 16
     
    He shouldn't have talked about the president like that especially in an interview. It looked very unprofessional for someone big like him to say that.
  • schumann49 on 07 Sep 16
     
    This guy should not be president. He is immature and childish. All his comments on important topics are crazy and not professional.
  • agruppioni793 on 07 Sep 16
     
    I think that the comments of the President Rodrigo Duterte are very inappropriate, because he's a leader and he should be an example for the other people, but he is acting like a baby, insulting people without any sense.
  • ahulett564 on 07 Sep 16
     
    Obviously this guy is a crazy cannibal and should not be in a leader position if he can't be an adult and level headed about things. He seems to get angry very quickly and that's not a good characteristic of a good leader.
  • Lanny Mcalexander on 07 Sep 16
     
    The comments by the President are outrageous. A government official should not be saying that to news media knowing that this will get out. He acts like a little baby. He is asking to get shwacked.
  • cvanhessche237 on 07 Sep 16
     
    Just like Trump he uses his words to try and gain power but instead Duterte used choice words that insulted the president and because the cancellation of their meeting the president of the Philippines had somethings to say that he would have done and he put his words into scenarios that made him disrespectful and should not be a president if he acts like that.
  • ravynanderson on 07 Sep 16
     
    this dude is a savage. He is a crazy little guy and i would be scared to visit or live in the philippines
  • mckennareese12 on 07 Sep 16
     
    It was a very unprofessional thing to say, especially about a fellow leader. Even if you disagree with someone that was taken out of hand.
  • emilbrath on 08 Sep 16
     
    That Philippines President Duterte needs to loosen up, he has bad thoughts about everyone, and says them out loud, whether they're a common citizen or a leader, and he's proving himself to be dangerous to others. He said, "You drug pushers, hold-up men and do-nothings, you better go out. Because I'd kill you." He also raped a woman of her dignity after she was dead saying, "What a pity...they raped her, they all lined up. I was mad she was raped, but she was so beautiful. I thought, the mayor should have been first." He called both President Obama and the Pope something inappropriate.
Payton Whiteaker

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

dailycaller.com/...trolled-for-anti-trolling-bill

Government Anti-Troll Law Arizona

shared by Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    This is possibly one of the funniest laws I have ever seen. Man I am glad I do not live in Arizona, internet trolling is fun, as long as you are not mean about. I really want to see what others think about this.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 01 Sep 12
     
    "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 04 Sep 12
     
    I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.
  • Alex beck on 04 Sep 12
     
    the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction
  • Rainie mccubbin on 04 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think
  • Jeremy Vogel on 04 Sep 12
     
    I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Sep 12
     
    Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?
  • Kirstina Michl on 05 Sep 12
     
    I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 06 Sep 12
     
    I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V
  • Payton Whiteaker on 06 Sep 12
     
    Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 06 Sep 12
     
    Of course you would put this up Payton....
  • Jazmine Orellana on 07 Sep 12
     
    I don't see why they have to ban it. I mean this happens in every state. Some states have it worse then AZ. I think we need to take care of physical problems before we get to the internet.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    Well said Jazmine.
Sydney Wilson

Michael Brown's stepfather sorry for outburst - 20 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

Government news cnn protest

shared by Sydney Wilson on 04 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • Sydney Wilson on 04 Dec 14
     
    (CNN) -- Michael Brown's stepfather says he's sorry for his emotional outburst to demonstrators after learning a police officer wouldn't be indicted in the teen's death. But he says he's unfairly taking heat for the rioting that followed.
  • ...5 more comments...
  • fwyldes753 on 09 Dec 14
     
    While i disagree with everything that is going on in Ferguson, I think it is very nice that he apologized, i really understand his anger not because of the courts decision but just the main fact him stepson is dead. I can't say i could react any other way.
  • tcomulada881 on 09 Dec 14
     
    I think that if Michael Brown's stepfather could say that he's sorry for saying those things because he cares a lot about Ferguson that he doesn't want it to go down in flames then they could stop having this uncivilized riots it won't do anything except get yourselves in trouble.
  • Erin Wolff on 09 Dec 14
     
    I understand the reasoning behind his apology, and why he shouldn't have acted the way he did. I don't think anybody would've acted any different if their stepson had died. Now granted they did take things a little too far, but it was only out of anger and "raw emotion" as Louis Head stated.
  • djones036 on 09 Dec 14
     
    He shouldn't have said what he did, even though he was emotional for the decision about the indictment of officer Wilson, and he realizes that, but people do things on their own he didn't physically make them set fires. So, he shouldn't be blamed for what others did.
  • John Scheffler on 09 Dec 14
     
    I think the apology was appropriate as well as needed. I believe in him coming out and saying this will be the beginning of the decrease in Ferguson.
  • darianhubbard on 12 Dec 14
     
    The emotional outburst is understandable, but to have such an outburst that it can be threatening, is too far. I'm glad he apologized, but he should of never said those threats in the first place.
  • escheffler on 15 Dec 14
     
    I think that is was good to apologize. Everyone does speak out of anger and in this situation I'm sure a lot of people are speaking out of anger. Almost everyone is acting out of anger right now.
Bryan Pregon

Transcript: President Obama's address to the nation on the San Bernardino terror attack... - 27 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 07 Dec 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 07 Dec 15
     
    "Transcript: President Obama's address to the nation on the San Bernardino terror attack and the war on ISIS"
  • ...7 more comments...
  • tbonaparte on 07 Dec 15
     
    I feel like Obama is actually trying to help us because America has done a lot of snooping and getting in other's business these past few years. The bombs in different cities are a huge problem and he's trying to resolve it, but not in war. America is trying to make peace with everyone, but we really can't when there's so much fighting and hate in the world.
  • rwilson761 on 07 Dec 15
     
    I agree with what president Obama said, I think that since the attack its finally opening his eyes and realizing that were in danger to snd they need to take action and do something about it.
  • baddison758 on 07 Dec 15
     
    I think that Obama is taking very good steps in the fight against ISIS by showing the international community that we are willing to help and that we need the help of other countries to be able to defeat a force that affects everyone. I think he is doing the right thing with our defense against ISIS getting agents in our country with focusing the fight online and in our immigration process.
  • haveltherock on 08 Dec 15
     
    I agree that Obama should at least act on the threat because of the attack. Its bring violence to his doors that he needs to act upon before its to late that terrorists are running up and down our streets. ( ZAC OLSON )
  • molson922 on 08 Dec 15
     
    I think that Obama is doing a good job to comfort the concerns of the U.S., and I also think why so many people think the government is doing nothing is because they have to keep some of it secret for our own safety and so ISIS does'nt known our plan.
  • trocha340 on 08 Dec 15
     
    i think obama should act on the threat
  • ross_fisher on 08 Dec 15
     
    I believe President Obama has the right idea in taking on terrorists this way because he's not just having us as one country going after ISIS. He's having us as a group of countries go after this group that continues to terrorize for no other reason than for public awareness and publicity on their organization. He also has a good view about the "gun control" with automatic rifles, he is just saying that it's better to make sure that no one who isn't a professional can't use the weapon.
  • nwailes919 on 17 Dec 15
     
    In my opinion Obama should take action the way he plans to. How long before these plans come into action?
  • garrettross420 on 17 Dec 15
     
    doing whats best for it whatever it takes and come out
Bryan Pregon

The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality - The Verge - 0 views

www.theverge.com/...act-cra-resolution-vote-senate

shared by Bryan Pregon on 09 May 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 09 May 18
     
    "Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and 32 other Democrats have submitted a new discharge petition under the Congressional Review Act, setting the stage for a full congressional vote to restore net neutrality. Because of the unique CRA process, the petition has the power to force a Senate vote on the resolution, which leaders say is expected next week."
ataylor074

The Violence Against Women Act Faces A Rocky Road For Reauthorization | HuffPost - 2 views

www.huffpost.com/...ans_n_606b57bcc5b68872efe99c1c

shared by ataylor074 on 12 Apr 21 - No Cached
  • ataylor074 on 12 Apr 21
     
    How do you guys feel about this act? Do you think they should pass this bill again?
Melissa Diaz-Aguilera

Juvenile Justice: Too young for Life in Prison? - 10 views

abcnews.go.com/...story

Politics News Juvenile Prison

shared by Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 29 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Natalie Wilson on 30 Nov 12
     
    I feel like you should be able to charge juveniles as adults. I think it would be absurd to just let kids away with committing crimes, especially the one this kid did. If an adult did something like this no one would even think twice about arresting them, why is it different in this case? I think that he needs to be put behind bars and he needs some sort of counseling because obviously something is not right with him. It might also help to know what kind of background the kid has, to see why he did it. There has to be a reason.
  • ...27 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 30 Nov 12
     
    If we as a society won't allow juveniles, sixteen year olds in particular, to vote or to sign their name to a legal contract and the justification for that restriction is because they aren't "mature enough" or that they "don't/won't understand" the lasting consequences then how can we expect them to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime? If sixteen year olds are old enough and mature enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime then shouldn't they also understand the lasting consequences to the things I mentioned above?
  • Jared Holcomb on 30 Nov 12
     
    I agree with Jermey, we need to not set a double standard. We need to rehabilitate young offenders, because if you are not a hard criminal before you go to prison for 20 years of one of the most impressionable times of your life, you will come out of it as one. These are kids that probably grew up in broken homes, and this was the only path they were going to take, because it was the only one they saw. So lets rehabilitate, and give them productive lives, not ones that are going to keep the cycle going.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Nov 12
     
    I agree with you for the most part Natalie. Although if it's a really small crime and the juvenile is unarmed, then they should go to juvenile court. But for crimes bigger than that example, they need to be charged as an adult would be charged. There's actually this reality TV show (that I can't remember the name of) where, in each episode, a group of kids who are on the streets and in gangs, etc. are taken into a jail as a form of rehabilitation, and they go through a day of being in jail and they also hear stories from people who are in jail at that time, and they always say that one doesn't want to end up in jail. I think there was one particular episode where a girl went with her mother to watch her mother plan a funeral for her. It's pretty interesting, and it does seem to help a lot.
  • Natalie Wilson on 30 Nov 12
     
    Jared, I understand what you mean by some kids growing up in broken homes and having bad lives growing up BUT you always have the option to not go down that road. You have the option to try to better yourself and make something of yourself. Although most people don't do that, they don't always pull a gun on a cop. That is a serious offense and I feel like you guys are so focused on the fact that he's our age that you're blinded by what he did. Jeremy, I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me so if you could maybe clarify that would be great. Thanks. Kirstina, I do get what you're saying. Most kids need to see what can happen but this kid is plenty old enough to know right from wrong.
  • Jared Holcomb on 30 Nov 12
     
    I realize that, but the people that are the most likely to pull a gun are the ones that have the most messed up life beforehand in most cases. We should try them as children, and try to rehabilitate them. Before your 18, and move, a large part of what you do, and know is influenced by your parents, and other senor figures in your life, and even friends Until you reach adulthood, its hard to be your own person, especially in the environment that generates this type of person. There is the odd person in there that is just a bad person, and it is all there fault, but we need to try to rehabilitate them as a child, not as an adult.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Nov 12
     
    Jeremy, there's a major difference between crime and legal contracts. They don't have anything to do with each other. Sentencing teens like adults is important because it protects us. It's a safety issue. Plus it tells other kids, "You break the law, you get in huge trouble." And they don't allow people under 18 to sign contracts without parental consent to protect them from making stupid decisions.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 03 Dec 12
     
    Natalie I'm sorry for the confusion. I was replying more to the article then directly to your post. To clarify I disagree with your position about putting juveniles into adult court that commit violent crimes. At least with the current system we have in place. Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting. As long as our society wants to say that sixteen and seventeen year olds aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of something like voting then how can we expect them to understand these violent crimes that they commit. I'm all for placing older teens in adult court when they commit an adult crime but only if they aren't subjected to an unfounded and unreasonable double standard. Either sixteen year olds are on the same maturity level as adults or they aren't.
  • jacob whalen on 03 Dec 12
     
    i think it is totally understandable because it shows that this kid is planning on doing crimes in the future.
  • garrett lee on 03 Dec 12
     
    i think that they did the right thing by arresting him if you are 16 then you are old enough to realize that shooting a cop isn't a good idea and you will have a punishment for it
  • jessicavaldez on 03 Dec 12
     
    Natalie i agree with your point of view on this article. If he is 16 he already knows what he is doing. We are all in high school and know well the consequences if we did that. I also agree with what you said about his background. It seems like this is a record and he already knows the consequences. So in my opinion he should be charged for adult crime.
  • KImberlee Keller on 03 Dec 12
     
    I believe this kid should get charged as an adult because like they said in the article. He is a threat to society and to himself.
  • mandyvorthmann on 03 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Natalie, everyone in the right mind should know shooting at someone; especially a police officer is wrong. And know their will be consequences to follow. So yes, juveniles should be charged as an adult depending on the circumstances.
  • Melissa Christensen on 03 Dec 12
     
    I agree with charging juveniles as adults. People should know the right from wrongs at an early age and receive the consequences though an understanding of what they did wrong.
  • joecarbis on 04 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Melissa, people should know the difference from right and wrong, they definitely know the incentives for doing wrong as well.
  • Natalie Wilson on 04 Dec 12
     
    Jeremy, I don't quite understand where you stand on the issue. You said that you realize there's a difference but then you said, and I quote, "Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting." You're contradicting yourself there and in your original comment.
  • Hayley Hochstetler on 04 Dec 12
     
    Obviously there is something wrong with society if we have mere teenagers pulling out weapons and assaulting people to the point of felony. I think that the punishment is completely fair for such a sick individual. Criminal behaviors are not taught, but learned so he had to have learned this from someone he knew or a parent with a criminal record. Either way, what he did was wrong and he deserves to be behind bars.
  • gabby valdez on 04 Dec 12
     
    I agree with charging minors as adults because this article is one of many where the felon was a minor. I did research over this in another class and i found many articles where they were charging a minor with adult charges because of how brutal the murders they committed where. Like i argued in my other paper "is your loved one's life any less valuable just because they got murdered by a minor"
  • Natalie Wilson on 04 Dec 12
     
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/sport/football/dutch-linesman-killed-football/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Here's another case of teenagers committing violent crimes. They beat this man to death. There were two 15 year-olds and a 16 year-old.
  • bvasquez13 on 04 Dec 12
     
    they should charge minors as adults because they will be out in the streets again and doing more crimies. its there own fault that they get charged thats why they should face charges alone.
  • gharvey949 on 04 Dec 12
     
    I think if you do the crime, you pay the time whenever the government wants you to.
  • jordan bywater on 04 Dec 12
     
    i say same charge for everyone no matter what
  • Emili Davis on 04 Dec 12
     
    if you're willing to make the decision to break the law and commit a serious crime with the consequences of an adult then you should definitely suffer the same consequences no matter your age.
  • Lydia Navarrette on 04 Dec 12
     
    if anyone commits a crime they should be charged the same no matter what age
  • Sidnie Lewis on 05 Dec 12
     
    I agree with the idea that no matter your age, if you commit a serious crime, you should suffer the consequences. Say a teenager decides to murder someone... Just because they're a minor, should they be charged with a lesser offense than an adult would have? NO. If you are willing, capable, and have the mental capacity and audacity to commit such crimes, you deserve prison and whatever other punishment you receive.
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Dec 12
     
    Great discussion guys! Here is some more food for thought. People who do bad things need punishment, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that teenage brains are in a state of development that doesn't excuse bad acts, but can help explain it. http://goo.gl/MXEAd Ask yourself if you are the "same person" you were when you were 5 years old? I can tell you, you will make decisions differently when you are 25, and probably 65.
  • Jared Holcomb on 05 Dec 12
     
    This is a good point i have to say. That's why I think we need to do our best to reform kids, not just punish them. Make it clear that their will be consequences, but try them as hardened, adult criminals is not the way to do it.
  • blakewilladsen on 05 Dec 12
     
    This is an extremely touchy subject. It's hard to lay out things like this without stepping on toes of other controversial subjects like voting age and military eligability
  • KImberlee Keller on 05 Dec 12
     
    You both make a good point, but when a kid gets charged with a felony, he obviously has done wrong. Sometimes you do bad things, but its not as bad compared to other things. Though when you get older, you can continue to do bad things, and the bad things can turn into crimes, etc. Sometimes charging teens as adults is the way to go, even if it doesn't seem fare. Maybe not fore life, but two years, or even one, wont do any harm.
  • Hyejin Park on 14 Dec 12
     
    I think if someone did crime, they should be punished no matter their age. so make them realize how bad it is.
Bryan Pregon

Petition for Texas to secede from US reaches threshold for White House response - U.S. ... - 5 views

usnews.nbcnews.com/...shold-for-white-house-response

petition texas

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • caseyyard on 15 Nov 12
     
    We should all know this is not going to happen. This is more of a state tantrum about wanting their state rights back. Personally I agree completely with the states that are doing this because the federal government is way past the boundary. The federal government is in place to protect us from others not are self's.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • patrick boian on 15 Nov 12
     
    it says clearly that andrew johnson made it so no state for any reason could secede from the union,their will be another election in 4 years o if everybody would just relax and chill everything will be fine
  • joecarbis on 15 Nov 12
     
    I think this is just a way of Texans and those other states to show their frustration with the government
  • Jeremy Vogel on 15 Nov 12
     
    There are now three other states; Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana, that have reached the required 25,000 signatures on We the People to prompt a response from the White House. I am just waiting to see how the White House will respond to any of the four petitions.
  • jacob whalen on 15 Nov 12
     
    they must think that they can do it better then the normal government. so if they think they can and if the fail they fail if not then good for them.
  • jordan bywater on 15 Nov 12
     
    i think the white house will respond with a no
  • bvasquez13 on 15 Nov 12
     
    i think there only trying to do this because there mad that Obama won , and that he will lead the state in to bigger dept.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 15 Nov 12
     
    If the proclamation says the states can't separate they would need to rewrite it and make a new set of laws, also what would happen if they fail at a new government? would they just want the US of america to take them back?
  • gharvey949 on 15 Nov 12
     
    I think that this will never happen. Although they might not believe that being apart of the U.S. benefits them, It truly does.
  • garrett lee on 15 Nov 12
     
    it would never happen but it will be interesting to see if any changes happen in response to this
  • jessicavaldez on 15 Nov 12
     
    I don't think this is going to happen but it is still pretty scary that people are that mad at the government. I think that people always blame the government when they are not happy. If we didn't have the government we would be in more trouble than we are in now. Yes our economy is getting hard and we need more jobs. But some people are lazy and should not make the government pay for everything.
  • Melissa Christensen on 15 Nov 12
     
    I believe that Texas would do well in its own government, but it would be better to keep the 50 states.
  • aaron valdivia on 15 Nov 12
     
    Texas is probably just upset with the turn out of the election therefore just trying to create their own government to get what they think deserve.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 16 Nov 12
     
    I'm not sure if the point of the article is, "Why Texas wants to Secede." I'm moreover focused as to, if it will happen, and if it is a right of the state to leave the Union. Personally, I would say it is the right of a state to decide if they want to secede. Let us look at the tenth amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The state has over 80k people who signed a petition asking for a secession. If this is the majority, our 10Th amendment would likely give the state the right to secede, as long as 50.1% of the population wished to secede. (Doubt that they actually have a majority that wishes to secede.) In English: The 10Th amendment grants the states the right to secede if the majority of its population sees fit. This is caused by the lack of detail in the constitution. The lacking detail being whether or not the states have the right to secede. (Founding father: Let's put state secession here next to gay marriage and abortion!) Anyways, as long as the majority of Texans wish to secede, I doubt there is any way that the United States could actually tell them they could not, at least not without some sort of conflict.
  • Kirstina Michl on 16 Nov 12
     
    I have to be . . . not serious here. Just a word of advice to the states who want to secede, based on what happened in the Civil War: If you secede, you won't succeed.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 16 Nov 12
     
    Payton I think the Supreme Court has already decided in Texas v White that States can't unilaterally secede from the government. They have the right to secede through revolution or by asking the other States and getting their permission. At least that's how I read the ruling. Unless there is a newer ruling on secession then Texas v. White. "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
  • Payton Whiteaker on 16 Nov 12
     
    Jeremy, what am I trying to state, is that states do have a right to secede, because we are not in a perpetual agreement to join the union. It was perpetual during the Articles of Confederation, the supreme court ruled that they have do not know if the constitution. "It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words." English: The Articles of Confederation declared it to be a perpetual union. The Articles of Confederation no longer exist. The supreme court literally state that they are going by ground of the Articles of Confederation, a.k.a. not a valid ground to take a stance upon. Now, if we look in history. plessy v. ferguson was a supreme court case that was overturned. This case can be overturned. Also, Jeremy, your understanding is correct on most of it. But from what the case as a whole states, under the Articles of Confederation, what you states is Valid. The Court ruled this with the usage of the Articles of Confederation. (Personally, do not think you should be able to do that, and that the courts ruling is a mistake.) Finally, I am simply stating the states have a right to secede if they want to, this is because the constitution, and not the articles of confederation, is vague about the idea of secession, applying the 10th amendment, the states should have a right to secede if they have a majority of people, unless we plan to be a hypocritical society that has already forced others to use the policy in which most people want to deny.
  • Sidnie Lewis on 19 Nov 12
     
    I think this in an interesting topic. The idea of states attempting to secede from the union is mind blowing. We know our government is faulty and far from flawless... but in comparison to others, we find it to be the strongest. We defend such a government, yet there are states that want to withdraw from it! I would actually like to look into this topic a little more, so I can understand all factors in the state's decisions!
Jeremy Vogel

Monsanto Protection Act Proves Corporations More Powerful Than US Govt - 0 views

naturalsociety.com/rporations-power-us-government

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 22 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 22 Mar 13
     
    We've seen similar scenarios in the past, events in which the massive financial power of multi-national corporations is able to buy out legislators who were elected to 'represent' voters. But now, Monsanto has set the bar even higher.
Bryan Pregon

Reddit, Craigslist and 30,000 Other Websites Oppose CISPA - 1 views

mashable.com/...reddit-craigslist-cispa

shared by Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 13
     
    "Reddit, Craigslist and more than 30,000 other websites are flying the flag of opposition to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, a controversial cybersecurity bill that was recently reintroduced in Congress."
  • anadler380 on 21 Mar 13
     
    I don't think the government should be able to see that kind of information. Makes you think twice about what you put online.
nelsontad

Edith Windsor: Case against Defense of Marriage Act 'went beautifully' | The Raw Story - 0 views

www.rawstory.com/...-marriage-act-went-beautifully

shared by nelsontad on 28 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • olinde on 28 Mar 13
     
    i think that you should be able to get married no matter if your gay or not its not their life so why are they so against gay marriage
  • courtney wilson on 08 Apr 13
     
    in my opinion I think that you should have the right to be married no matter if your gay or not. Its not their life its yours i just dont understand why they are so against gay marriage. It's not like its hurting us.
  • Alivia Bascue on 11 Apr 13
     
    I'm glad that she won this case, because the law states that if your husband or wife were to die, you get the things they leave behind. I don't see why it would be different if you are gay. It just makes no sense. I don't understand why this law was passed in the first place.
xolson974

Obama to huddle with Democrats on protecting his signature health care law - 13 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html

shared by xolson974 on 04 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • xolson974 on 04 Jan 17
     
    President Obama will meet behind closed doors Wednesday morning with congressional Democrats to map out a strategy to defend the Affordable Care Act and other health care policies - the very day Republicans will begin debate on getting rid of the sweeping 2010 health-care law.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Landon Mohr on 04 Jan 17
     
    Obamacare has been sometimes helpful but it has also crashed our country.
  • sgunderson048 on 04 Jan 17
     
    What exactly did it do to "crash" our country, and how did it do so?
  • jwells549 on 04 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Landon, in many ways, Obamacare has crashed our country, but it is always to look at the solutions to our problems, our options, and most importantly, look optimistically at the ways Obamacare has helped us. I think a big one is children can now stay on their parents' insurance until age 26. It has helped 5.7 million young adults over the past five years!
  • brettday on 04 Jan 17
     
    they meet on how to defend the act and how to help it protect other forms of people.
  • jcolburn544 on 04 Jan 17
     
    "Other executive actions, including those providing new safeguards for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans and curbing greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, could also come under fire" this in addition to obamacare being repealed does not make much sense to me. Along with the anti abortion deal. It seems like this is less of a "whats best for america" situation and more of a " erase obama and his administration" kind of deal. not a fan
  • jwelch096 on 04 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Landon, and Jamie. In many ways obamOcare has helped us, but it hasn't in others.
  • mitchell_johnson on 04 Jan 17
     
    Obamacare has done nothing but ruin the country by raising the price of healthcare, Obamacare should be removed and let healthcare actually be affordable.
  • trump16 on 04 Jan 17
     
    Obamacare has done nothing for us. Prices are through the roof. its not affordable at all. You cant keep your health insurance company. They tell you who you have. Drugs are more expensive. We need a full repeal and replace!
  • Mallori Wagoner on 04 Jan 17
     
    Maybe Obamacare has ruined things in our country but there is also a lot of positive things it has done.
Bryan Pregon

Justice Department challenges North Carolina transgender law - CNN.com - 3 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 04 May 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 04 May 16
     
    "The Justice Department has sent a letter to the North Carolina governor and state university system leaders notifying them that the state's transgender law violates the U.S. Civil Rights Act, according to a Justice Department official."
  • calebsnead on 05 May 16
     
    North Carolina has set a new transgender law that prohibits people from entering a bathroom that is different from their biological sex. The Justice Department is challenging this law and how it goes with our nations rights.
1 - 20 of 94 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page