Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged Last

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
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.
ahopkins571

Obama to Hold His Last News Conference as President - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...s-conference-as-president.html

Obama's Last News Conference

shared by ahopkins571 on 18 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • ahopkins571 on 18 Jan 17
     
    WASHINGTON - President Obama will submit to one last questioning by the White House press corps on Wednesday, stepping behind the presidential lectern for a final news conference as president as his offices in the West Wing are being packed up before his departure on Friday.
maceep

CNN Poll: JFK tops presidential rankings for last 50 years - 1 views

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...ial-rankings-for-last-50-years

Politics

shared by maceep on 22 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • maceep on 22 Nov 13
     
    John F. Kennedy is the most popular president of the last half century, according to a new national poll
  • ...3 more comments...
  • jsteenbock23 on 22 Nov 13
     
    JFK was very popular in the eyes of the people. He also seemed to trying to do great things as President, it's a shame that he died so early in his Presidency.
  • Jakson Cole on 25 Nov 13
     
    I think that this is a neat article and a great way to honor JFK. But every president is different. Every term that they serve has different circumstances and situations. There is no way to accurately measure who was the "best" president. This poll is just a matter of opinion or a "popularity contest".
  • nlarsen15 on 25 Nov 13
     
    Interesting... I could understand why JFK's the most popular. But for some reason, I had a feeling Reagan would be the topper. Nice article :)
  • jkeller068 on 25 Nov 13
     
    That was a really cool article..lets you have more on the mind than just school related things..nice job!(:
  • McKenzie O'Brien on 25 Nov 13
     
    The article was neat. JFK was a great president. It's just sad that he had die in his early presidency.
Bryan Pregon

Primary election 2016: What to watch on March 15 - CNNPolitics.com - 39 views

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

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 Mar 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 15 Mar 16
     
    "Voters go to the polls in Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio on Tuesday. Here's what to watch in those contests:"
  • ...30 more comments...
  • ltorneten065 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I bet Sanders wins a few Midwest States. Momentum is definitely on his side after he took Michigan over Hillary. Also I feel that both Rubio and Kasich will both be knocked out of the race. I feel that Donald Trump will keep winning. I bet Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will be the ones campaigning for president in the end.
  • Bryan Pregon on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that if Rubio does not win Florida today, he will drop out and support Ted Cruz. Clinton will win Florida, but Sanders will take the other states.
  • egessert on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that Sanders will close the gap in between him and Clinton. I also think like Donald Trump will win most of the votes in the other states.
  • nickwarneke on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that ted Cruz will win Florida, and will win slightly over trump in the other states, Clinton will lose Florida and will lose the other states to sanders.
  • kadenroen on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that sander will have the advantage in the Midwest, and Hillary and Trump will have advantages in other states. Also I think Trump and Clinton will be the last ones for election.
  • tyjeff22 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict the Trump will win and face off against Hillary
  • selena99 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think Donald Trump will beat Rubio and ted Cruz, if Rubio does not win the votes over in Florida. If sanders cannot make a come back and get the super delegates to vote for him then Hillary will win the race and go against Trump.
  • kfloerchinger on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think as of right now Trump will win for the Republicans even though Cruz is close behind, more people are still predicted to vote for Trump today. Even if Kasich thinks he can win some delegates this week he still won't gain enough to compete and will end up dropping out. When it comes to Hillary vs Sanders I think it will be a close race, I predict HIllary will win Florida because she's had a pattern of winning the southern states, but Sanders has a better chance of winning the other states left.
  • calebsnead on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that Hillary and Sanders will split, but Hillary will stay ahead because of her lead. I also think that Trump will add onto his lead and be campaigning in the end.
  • ivanhessche on 15 Mar 16
     
    i predict that if rubio does not win in Florida trump would have a easier win when the time comes. If sander can get a jump on Clinton in the other state will give him more ammunition when the voting comes.
  • gage barton on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that if trump wins Florida he will have a smooth road ahead and leave the other candidates behind. I think if sanders doesn't get enough votes to sway the super delegates Clinton will go on and face trump.
  • bwest01 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I believe that, nearing the middle of the race, it has begun to be more focused on stopping the "big-wig's" Trump and Hillary. Bernie Sanders' momentum in the race is picking up and if he wins Florida and Ohio it very well could end up in his favor. Also at this time I agree with Mr. Pregon's above comment, if Rubio does not win his home state he may drop out and push his fellow runner, Cruz, forward. The same goes for Kasich in Ohio.
  • zander0823 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Rubio will win Florida and it will put him closer in the race but he will still not be able to make a big enough jump to get in the head to head race.
  • elijah57 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think Rubio will win Florida, Kasich will lose in Ohio and support Cruz. Clinton will win Florida but Sanders will win everywhere else.
  • kcaskey940 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict Rubio will win Florida putting him closer to Cruz but not enough to give him the win.
  • christianthecub on 15 Mar 16
     
    Trump will likely sweep the board, or come very close to it. His numbers will more than likely convince other republican candidates to drop out and support either himself or Cruz. For the rest of the country its rather concerning deeming Trump has been instigating and promoting American Citizens inner Nazi as of late. On the democratic side of things, Hillary will likely win Florida, but given the financial situation of most of the other states, I am strongly convinced Bernie will win most of them.
  • kyleighsev on 15 Mar 16
     
    I believe that when they get farther west that Bernie will be able to catch up to Hillary and there;s a good change because the article even said that she was starting to get nervous about the debate.
  • morgandooty on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Trump will win the majority on the Republican side. I think he will be way ahead of Cruz by the end of the day. Rubio might stay a little longer, even though he will not win Florida. Kasich will probably drop out today, and he will support Trump. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will be pretty close. I think Clinton will win slightly more delegates than Sanders.
  • abbygroepper on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think the gap will close between Bernie and Hilary. Donald Trump will probably win the republican side
  • mjones776 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Bernie Sanders may just win Florida and he could just pass up Hillary. I think if Rubio ends up not being able to even win his own state, then he may just drop out and support.
  • cmorgal on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Trump will win his side and face off against Sanders.
  • bclayton731 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict sanders will win Florida and upset Clinton like he did in Michigan. He should also be able to win all the other states except for North Carolina which favors Clinton more. If Rubio and Kasich do not win there rich delegate home states they will more then likely drop out of the race. I also believe Ted Cruz can get ahead of Donald Trump today in the race for president.
  • tannerrocha426 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I believe that trump will win the republican nominee. Cruz has no chance in beating him. Either Rubio. FOr the democratic side Bernie has no chance. He will not beat a Clinton. She has already had her marks in politics weather bad or good. For president its said to say but Hillary will become the next president Of The United States.
  • alyssaserrano on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that Trump will win for the republicans and end up being one of the candidates in the end, and if Sanders doesn't win the Midwest and get some of the super delegates Clinton will be up against Trump.
  • wamichael on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Sander's momentum will be able to make him tie with or be ahead of Clinton just barely. And judging by the super delegates being in the hands of Clinton at this moment, when Sanders gets his momentum and is able to at least tie with Clinton by the time the convention comes it will take Sanders his all to get the super delegates to favor him more than Clinton.
  • mariosaldana on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that the last two candidates from both the democrats side and republicans side will be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
  • kyleboldt on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that Trump will win on the republican side beating Cruz closely. I think Clinton will win on the other side barely beating Sander while she takes the most votes.
  • msap832 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that trump stays in the lead for the republican side. Kasich drops out. And for the Democratic side Hillary keeps the lead but not by much as Sanders slowly is closing the gap between him and Hillary.
  • epond857 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that cruz isnt going to get his home town and Kasich will get his home town and when cruz doesnt get his home town he will drop out and support donald trump. And the last 2 in the finals will be hillary clinton and donald trump
  • epond857 on 16 Mar 16
     
    I was somwhat right he cruz didnt get his home town and he droped out but I dont know if hes going to support trump or not?
  • ltorneten065 on 17 Mar 16
     
    I feel that Donald Trump and Hillary will be the winners of their respective parties. I feel that Cruz will drop out of the race and support Trump for the rest of the campaign.
  • kgod152 on 21 Mar 16
     
    Sanders will probably win a few in the midwest but I think Hillary will stay in front, trump as well. Cruz might drop out.
Bryan Pregon

'Dictatorships often start in the face of a threat': UN privacy chief warns against lon... - 0 views

www.independent.co.uk/...-nations-privacy-a9438561.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 01 Apr 20 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 01 Apr 20
     
    "'Dictatorships often start in the face of a threat': UN privacy chief warns against long-lasting theft of freedoms amid coronavirus surveillance"
mcaamal

Second Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine Has Stronger Side Effects - 22 views

www.healthline.com/...ely-have-stronger-side-effects

shared by mcaamal on 22 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • jackiegonzalez on 22 Mar 21
     
    I think that even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, all of us should consider taking it. At this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.
  • ...24 more comments...
  • kredding147 on 22 Mar 21
     
    The second dose really does have stronger side effects. My mom got her vaccine because she works with law enforcement and she was sick for a few days after she got hers and she said when she woke up the morning after her shot that it felt like someone hit her in the arm with a baseball bat.
  • hannahliwai on 22 Mar 21
     
    yes, the second dose does have side effects, but the same thing happens with the flu vaccine. the only difference is that this vaccine doesn't actually inject you with the virus. it just sends antibodies to teach your body to fight it.
  • rosellyrosas on 23 Mar 21
     
    This article talks more in-depth about what coronavirus vaccines do to your body. For example, it talks about how the first vaccine teaches your body how to react to the virus. With the second vaccine, you will more than likely be getting more side effects. According to the article, no matter how many side effects people will get, the vaccine will still be working in your body. What are your guy's thoughts about the vaccine?
  • carsonschaa on 23 Mar 21
     
    I think that even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, we should all consider taking it. At this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.
  • milo_nordman on 25 Mar 21
     
    I think that even though it has stronger side effects people should still consider getting the vaccine. The stronger side effects may be rough, but I'm sure getting Covid is worse.
  • sydneykolln on 26 Mar 21
     
    The article discusses how the second Covid shot will most likely hit harder than the first. It talks about how that's actually a good thing because these common symptoms are typically signs that the vaccine is working. While I have had friends that have suffered from the second shot, I would still get the shot because it's better than getting Covid.
  • masonmascarenas on 29 Mar 21
     
    I think that because the side effects are stronger we should allow the vaccine more time for development, but we should still consider getting it.
  • carsonschaa on 29 Mar 21
     
    Even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, I think all of us should consider taking it at this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.
  • gbrochu915 on 29 Mar 21
     
    I think that even with the second shot having more side effects we should still get it because it is our only option at this point but I do also think that there needed to be more time for the vaccine to develop and for us to know if it could really effect us in the future.
  • bflores247 on 29 Mar 21
     
    I completely trust the Maderna vaccine as my dad was part of the trial for it and he had no problems with it (he didn't have the placebo, he had the actual vaccine), and that's good enough for me, if he was fine, ill most likely be fine.
  • abbidominguez on 13 Apr 21
     
    I think although the second dose has stronger side effects it shouldn't stop you from not getting the vaccine at all. I think the vaccine is our only chance of getting rid of COVID and it will only work if the majority of Americans get it. At the end of the day, I think the side effects of the vaccine can't be as bad as the long-lasting effects COVID can have on you.
  • vperez191 on 13 Apr 21
     
    The COVID shot reminds me of the flu shot because when you get the flu shot it is normal to get sick afterwards or have pain but it will prevent you later from getting the flu. Even though the covid shot has side effects it is still good to get it because it will prevent you from getting COVID
  • ericschmidtberge on 14 Apr 21
     
    Even though the second dose has strong side effects I think that it's vital that everyone gets vaccinated if we ever want to return to normal life. I got my first dose last week and besides a sore arm and being a little thirsty I was fine. It affects people in different ways so I could get no side effects when I get my second dose or I could get a ton of negative ones. It's only for 48 hours according to the article and I´m willing to endure the risk of being sick if it means making the world hopefully safe and normal again.
  • arosas733 on 14 Apr 21
     
    I think its really your choice. I personally believe I do not need to be getting a newly made vaccine that no one knows the possible future effects from it. If I get Covid I get it and I feel it's more important for older people to get the vaccine if they like, you do you. But as well as the J & J vaccine, I feel it is unneeded things being put into your body where there has already been multiple of horrible results from people getting the vaccine. You won't be seeing me vaccinated.
  • lhunter952 on 19 Apr 21
     
    Personally, I would not get the vaccine because nobody knows what it is going to do to you later. If there are no long-term effects and it truly does protect you from the virus then I completely understand why you would get it. The thing is, no one 100% knows so I would be very hesitant to get it.
  • nick_rice on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think you should get the vaccine but you should not be forced to get it. If someone is worried that the vaccine is not safe then they should not have to get it if they do not want it.
  • kredding147 on 19 Apr 21
     
    Even though it has stronger effects I still think everyone should consider getting vaccinated. Of course, there should be no forcing anyone to get vaccinated, it's just important that everyone weighs their options. I was really really sick with Covid earlier this year and it was awful. If I can do my part to protect myself and everyone else I'm going to do it.
  • allisonwalker on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think that it's a good thing since as the article said, it means it's working. If there is a chance for people to be able to not get the harsh effects of COVID-19 then maybe they should get the shot so they can be prepared for it. Idk.
  • saraivargas on 19 Apr 21
     
    It's still in the works so of course it's going to have different/stronger effects.
  • bklopp601 on 19 Apr 21
     
    I believe that we all should take the second dose because it will help with Covid and in fact it's definitely stronger than the first one.
  • eballenger on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think that people should be able to decide if they want the second dose or not, but I hope they do.
  • jtaulborg103 on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think more Americans should get the vaccine despite the side effects the vaccine has on them. It's our best chance of not catching or spreading the virus meaning that we can return to our normal lives. A couple of days of the side effects the vaccine has on them outweighs the long-term effects of not getting the vaccine including the fact that if you get COVID, there's a possibility your symptoms from the virus will last even after you're free of spreading the virus.
  • kinziekat02 on 19 Apr 21
     
    I agree with everyone's comments, even though the second dose has worse effects i think people should try to get it because other wise we'll never "go back to normal"
  • redrose99875 on 20 Apr 21
     
    I think we should stick to the vaccine that we KNOW works best
  • peytongrenoble on 18 May 21
     
    I think that since it is common for everyone to have these worse effects, it is going to be known as not affecting certain people. If the effects are only covid symptoms that aren't super deadly, then I think it should be okay? I think that the people who are getting it are being vulnerable and helpful for those who are nervous and reluctant to get the vaccine.
  • mgerman776 on 24 May 21
     
    Side effects of a vaccine are totally normal, it's like when you get the flu vaccine some people do get sick. Either way, it's your best hope is not getting covid. What else are you gonna do besides harm others more prone to the disease?
Bryan Pregon

'Since Democrats took control of the Senate in 2006, Republicans Have Mounted 380 Filib... - 1 views

www.politicususa.com/lican-filibuster-strategy.html

democrats senate filibuster republicans

shared by Bryan Pregon on 10 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 10 Dec 12
     
    Although the article has a liberal bias, the information provided (including the charts at the end) are fairly interesting about the frequency of filibusters for the last 20 years.
  • blakewilladsen on 12 Dec 12
     
    This is nuts. The headline says it all. There has to be some more comprimise in the coming years or the trouble we have will multiply tenfold.
  • Sean Powers on 14 Dec 12
     
    I agree with you Blake. The reason why this country is going down hill is because Democrats and Republicans fight over how to fix it, and nothing ever gets done.
Bryan Pregon

Pushback on Obama's plan to stem gun violence - CNN.com - 0 views

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

obama violence gun shooting plan cnn

shared by Bryan Pregon on 17 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 17 Jan 13
     
    "President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed background checks on all gun sales and bans on military style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as part of a package of steps to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school massacre last month."
  • patrick boian on 24 Jan 13
     
    if its for the sake of students going to school and being able to be educated in a safe environment then i agree with his plan
  • gharvey949 on 24 Jan 13
     
    No matter what you do to regulate guns, the person that wants to rampage a bunch of people is going to do whatever they can to get a hold of a gun.
Mallory Huggins

Hobby Lobby: The First Martyr Under Obamacare? - 0 views

blog.christianitytoday.com/...st-martyr-under-obamacare.html

shared by Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    Someone posted this, but it wasn't possible to comment
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    First point: I fail to see how denying a single cell the chance to go through mitosis is abortion. It's no more aware than bacteria. Also, the author is referencing the morning-after pill. For some reason there's a lot of confusion about how the morning after pill actually works. It prevents the egg from joining the sperm, or depending on where the woman is in her cycle, prevents the ovaries from releasing eggs. Contrary to what pro-life proponents apparently believe, conception does not happen immediately after having sex. If using the morning-after pill is abortion, we may as well call abstinence abortion. Secondly, "the mandate requires private citizens who are also employers to purchase private goods (health insurance services) with private money from non-government companies." This is clearly written by a sensationalist. What it really means is that a company has to use its own money to provide healthcare. (And everyone seems to be forgetting that employees don't just receive healthcare plans for free). There is a difference between being a private citizen and being an employer. Owning a public company and employing people is about as far from private as you can get. "Requiring private citizens to pay for abortifacients is more akin to requiring the Amish to use their own money to purchase weapons from a private gun dealer or be forced into bankruptcy. Or kind of like forcing anti-pornography legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon to buy pornography for her law students." This is simply ludicrous and shows that the author clearly doesn't understand what a business is. It's a corporation, it employees people, it isn't a private citizen. I will admit that if Hobby Lobby employed only people who were in complete agreement with the beliefs of the owners I would support them in their case. However, the reality is that many of Hobby Lobby's employees don't share the exact same beliefs as the owner. And it would in fact be illegal for Hobby Lobby to choose their employ
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    ees because of their beliefs. And the last time I checked, in America we don't make people follow certain religions or beliefs. In fact, the law isn't supposed to be based in religion. I know it sounds shocking, but it actually isn't okay to force a religion on people, or to make everyone live in accordance with one belief system, which is exactly what Hobby Lobby, and everyone who argues against this provision in the new health care law, is trying to do. Lastly, the author says repeatedly that this law essentially discriminates against Christians, which is a complete lie. Christians is a broad term. There are Christians who believe in all kinds of birth control and then there are those who think all birth control should be outlawed. There are even Christians who get abortions. So, and this is a message to anyone who writes articles of this kind, stop saying just saying Christians. Tell the truth and call yourself a Fundamentalist. Saying Christians make it seem like the majority of people who believe in Jesus Christ agree with you, and they don't. You're a minority, and you need to accept that. And maybe read a little about how our government works. It's a majority rules system.
russellboi

Unemployment Rate Drops To 4.6 Percent, Lowest Level Since 2007 - 1 views

www.npr.org/...ercent-lowest-level-since-2007

GOVERNMENT Politics economy

shared by russellboi on 02 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • russellboi on 02 Dec 16
     
    Unemployment dropped by 0.3 percentage points, to 4.6 percent, last month - the lowest rate since 2007 - according to the monthly jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The report says the U.S. added 178,000 new jobs in November. That's about what economists had expected.
  • russellboi on 02 Dec 16
     
    This is definitely beneficial to the economy that there are more people in the country working, though the decrease in wages seems bad, the overall benefit is much greater. And plus its still greater than it was last year so it's all good
Bryan Pregon

A Saudi woman tweeted a photo of herself without a hijab. Police have arrested her. - T... - 19 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...b-police-have-now-arrested-her

shared by Bryan Pregon on 14 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 14 Dec 16
     
    "Late last month, she tweeted a photo of her outfit, and the post circulated through Saudi Arabia, drawing death threats and demands to imprison or even execute the woman. On Monday, police in the country's capital of Riyadh said they had arrested the woman"
  • ...19 more comments...
  • Landon Mohr on 15 Dec 16
     
    I know it is their culture to where a hijab but the woman should get freedom. They shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab all the time in public. It's a disgrace towards women. What she did was her belief and I think other women in Saudi Arabia don't want to wear their hijab all the time but they are too afraid of what will happen to them. Now that she has done it maybe other women will follow in her footsteps.
  • kelsi836 on 04 Jan 17
     
    I understand that wearing the hijab is important to this religion and this country, but isn't it going a little far by arresting her? What they are trying to prove is that the country has a power of fear over it's citizens, mostly it's women citizens. This shows the importance of how religion and state should be separate because if it was, she wouldn't have gotten arrested.
  • emma spidle on 04 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Landon now that she took off her hijab maybe other women will follow in her footsteps
  • lmcdowell956 on 04 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Landon because, the woman shouldn't have to wear something they don't want to wear all the time.
  • lauren rambo on 18 Jan 17
     
    Nobody should be told what to believe or how to dress. This woman was simply expressing herself but was arrested for moral disagreements.
  • nate kliegl on 18 Jan 17
     
    Landon got it right by saying she should get the freedom to wear whatever. And no woman or man should be disgraced by what they wear
  • brettday on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Lauren on that people should have the freedom to dress how they want
  • kplowman702 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Lauren. The women should express herself in anyway she wants.
  • jakecolburn on 18 Jan 17
     
    This seems nuts. Like a spoof of middle eastern living on youtube. Does not seem real that a lady would be threatened with death and imprisoned for wearing a dress and coat. this is very different from my reality. I obviously think she should wear what she wants, it think the real issue is understanding that there is a large number of people that do not feel the same way.
  • Bradley Daugherty on 18 Jan 17
     
    She should have the freedom to dress how she wants and maybe others will follow her by dressing how they want.
  • hmiller403 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think she is brave to stand up for what she believes in, many women there are too scared to throw out the head scarfs and put on something that they feel nice in. I think she should be let free and allowed to wear whatever. There is no legal dress code there it's just considered taboo which is wrong.
  • jwelch096 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Landon because this woman is now facing death all because she wanted to make a statement for women.
  • Matthew E on 18 Jan 17
     
    Unfortunately for the Arabic culture this is illegal and is shamed. With our culture this would be welcomed because people are allowed to show their skin, but with them its shamed and its not going to change.
  • jwells549 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think it is unfair, sexist, and probably uncomfortable for the women. (Besides the constant torture, rape, imprisonment, etc etc that happens in saudi) they are being punished for wanting to be equal and expressing themselves.
  • kim bagshaw on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think that the woman is trying to promote change however she did not do it in the right way. Her actions were wrong because if its just her doing it than it won't have as much of an impact as it would if 20 or more did it. However if she really wanted to not wear them than can she just move to a different place so she can. I will admit arresting her is silly and doesn't solve anything, it could promote not wearing them by arresting her if you think about it.
  • mckenzie spanjer on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Kim that she's trying to promote change, but I also understand that there are morals that the country believes women should follow. Instead of just her breaking the moral she should have gotten other women to join so there would have been more of an impact and something could have changed.
  • ebouvier878 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think that even though it does not seem right, that is what the country believes and she knew that something was going to happen.
  • Alex Thacker on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think it's her freedom to dress how she wants and she shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab
  • ogomez1025 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think that people have the right and free from what they want to wear only that it is not inappropriate to offend people depending also if they are in a place such as black people or other people of different ideologies and have some message discriminating That is a different way but for the rest, there is always freedom of expression and of being able to dress as one always wants and when one does not in a bad way.
  • bayleefox1 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I know it is their culture but the woman should get freedom, shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab all the time in public. It's a disgrace, you should be able to do/wear what you please.
  • amonge914 on 18 Jan 17
     
    It is so crazy how around the world women are held to higher or even lower expectations when it comes to, education, clothing, physically beauty and intelligence. How is it even possible to imagine a world where the clothes you wear lands you into jail? There is justice that needs to be served her to have an innocent women in jail. There has to be something that is done for the world when it comes to woman suffrage. The hard part isn't going through with a plan to do that, the hardest part is finding a plan-- to do just that.
xolson974

Tuesday is the deadline for what may be the last Obamacare enrollment period - 0 views

www.cnbc.com/...macare-insurance-coverage.html

shared by xolson974 on 30 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • xolson974 on 30 Jan 17
     
    If you haven't signed up for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, you are running out of time. You have until Tuesday, Jan. 31, to apply for 2017 coverage through state and federal marketplaces. More than 11.5 million people have signed up for insurance through the exchanges as of Jan.
egessert

$182 million: Bernie Sanders equals Clinton - 3 views

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

shared by egessert on 22 Apr 16 - No Cached
  • egessert on 22 Apr 16
     
    The Vermont senator began his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination last year with a sizable financial disadvantage compared to front-runner Hillary Clinton. By the end of last June, Sanders had raised just shy of $14 million for his campaign, less than a third of the $47.5 million Clinton had raised for hers.
  • bclayton731 on 22 Apr 16
     
    It's crazy how much he has raised. Considering most of his money just comes from average citizens like you and me, and not big corporations.
  • epond857 on 22 Apr 16
     
    she would have never got caught if she wasnt being stupid and tailgating. I bet if she wasnt tailgating she would have never got introuble in the first place!!!
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.
Jeremy Vogel

Should the world's last smallpox virus be destroyed? - 1 views

thechart.blogs.cnn.com/...st-smallpox-virus-be-destroyed

Government CNN Health Smallpox

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 28 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 28 Sep 12
     
    Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.
Bryan Pregon

This Country Just Abolished College Tuition Fees | ThinkProgress - 1 views

thinkprogress.org/...germany-free-college-tuition

shared by Bryan Pregon on 02 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Oct 14
     
    " Higher education is now free throughout the country, even for international students. Yesterday, Lower Saxony became the last of seven German states to abolish tuition fees, which were already extremely low compared to those paid in the United States."
  • michaelaheilesen on 02 Oct 14
     
    I think it'd be wonderful if the US was able to do this. It'd open up so many more opportunities to students. Maybe not completely free, but if America could reduce the general cost of college it'd be wonderful.
Bryan Pregon

World's Last Male Northern White Rhino Placed Under 24-Hour Armed Guard In Kenya - 5 views

www.huffingtonpost.com/...med-guard-kenya_n_7059682.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 Apr 15 - No Cached
  • jimmymc731 on 16 Apr 15
     
    Its the worlds last white rhino and they have been on the earth for 50 million years in 1960 there where over 20,000 of them by 1984 there where 15. Today they put armed guards to protect this animals from poachers.
  • jesse_lorenzen on 22 Apr 15
     
    Why are they not trying to breed these? instead they decide oh lets just put armed guards around them and not put them in a controlled breeding ground.
  • claireboes on 27 Apr 15
     
    Instead of watching them try and naturally breed, why are they not trying to collect materials so save these animals? (as stated by person above) They have the opportunity to obtain things necessary for artificial insemination and they don't seem to be taking advantage of that. Maybe instead of saying that there were attempts are breeding, but failed, they should do something about this danger of extinction.
Bryan Pregon

Saudi Teenager Ali Mohammed al-Nimr Has Been Sentenced to Death by Crucifixion - 9 views

mic.com/...ntenced-to-dead-by-crucifixion

shared by Bryan Pregon on 21 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 21 Sep 15
     
    "Saudi Arabia is one of the world's last absolute monarchies, and its legal system has long been criticized as arbitrary and unjust. While most nations have moved away from capital punishment, Saudi Arabia had done the opposite. Under new king Salman, executions are up, with dozens carried out this year. "
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Bryan Pregon on 21 Sep 15
     
    Since we have been discussing how different types of government use power. Here is a pretty clear example of someone your age who speaks out against the government and the consequences it has. The freedoms that Americans take for granted are certainly not protected everywhere.
  • austindueling1 on 21 Sep 15
     
    Who knows he could have had guns but if he did that's no way to treat someone they tortured him and made him say a forced confession they she'd have treated him that way.
  • katiepetersen005 on 21 Sep 15
     
    It's kind of sad that he was charged with possessing a gun although there was no evidence. Also because there was no way to not have been accused.
  • seanveazie on 24 Sep 15
     
    This is textbook racial profiling.
anonymous

American Airlines accidentally flew the wrong plane from L.A. to Hawaii last month - 2 views

www.msn.com/...ar-AAeftsR

news

shared by anonymous on 14 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • anonymous on 14 Sep 15
     
    The Washington Post 23 hrs ago Abby Phillip In late August, American Airlines accidentally flew the wrong plane from Los Angeles to Hawaii, a mix-up that violated Federal Aviation Administration regulations. The mistake, first reported by aviation blogger Brian Sumers, occurred on Aug.
  • katiepetersen005 on 14 Sep 15
     
    If that was the wrong plane to fly then why was it there? You'd also think that they would realize that it's the wrong plane before take off or shortly after take off.
1 - 20 of 132 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page