Group items tagged

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.

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.

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.

(CNN) -- Punxsutawney Phil lied. That's what a prosecutor in Ohio says. He has filed a criminal "indictment" against the famed groundhog, who, year for year on February 2, emerges from his burrow at Gobbler's Knob to predict whether spring will come early or winter will linger.

Hey guys, it was a joke. They can't kill the groundhog for predicting the weather incorrectly.

This article is a joke nobody is suing the groundhog. I was just posting this because it was funny.

Someone posted this, but it wasn't possible to comment

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

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.

the government shuld not have to provide free birth control for women if their not going to use methods of not getting pregnant

I think this page will help you boys understand a little more about what birth control actually is: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill Personally, I think that it should be covered by insurance. Besides being a popular contraceptive, it control many different hormones in a woman's body. It's used to cure things like ovarian cysts, and irregular periods. It can relieve those pesky cramps that you get on your period, or just at random points of the month. It will clear your acne, and even help prevent cancers. And, the hormones being consumed by taking the pill, can balance our emotions, possibly making us more tolerance of ignorance towards women's health. The church aspect of this story is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Them refusing to cover a product that would help their employees be healthier, prettier, nicer, and more likely to remain cancer free, is unreasonable. Just because the typical use is frowned upon by their religions, doesn't mean it's right to make their employees spend their hard earned money on measures to maintain a healthy body, that could be covered by their companies insurance.

I don't see why taking measures to prevent a pregnancy is so bad. People are always saying that teenagers are getting pregnant at a young age when the truth is, maybe these girls can't afford it. No, they should not be having sex so young but sometimes you have to face the fact that girls are having sex at a young age and instead of turning a blind eye, they should take measures to prevent the pregnancy from happening. Just like Kirsten said, it does more than just preventing pregnancies. Some girls need it and can't afford it.

"By most accounts, Republican challenger Mitt Romney was the clear winner of Wednesday's first debate with President Barack Obama. Romney engaged the incumbent while Obama looked down at his lectern. The challenger was a more forceful debater while Obama appeared less than engaged." Here are five things we learned on Wednesday"

I have watched other things like speeches and looked online. But this post is strictly just about the debate and to me Mitt Romney won. Now, I understand there is no actual winner and I'm not saying you guys are wrong, but going by just this debate, Romney without a doubt won.

Alex, if there is no actual winner than how did he win? that's contradicting yourself. I agree that Romney presented himself better at the debate but outside of the debate I believe Obama has and you believe Romney has we are just going to have to agree to disagree

This article explains a lot, and points out flaws in Romney's plans.

I love this article. It points out exactly what I've been trying to tell people. Romney never fully answers the question. He has good ideas but never can tell us what will happen and how he will actually do it!

Mitt Romney is so vague he never does answer directly answer the questions. I agree with Rainie it bluntly shows that

"Virginia high school students suspended for wearing Confederate flag apparel"

It is important for schools to want and try to create a safe and learning environment for their students, and different students had different beliefs and ideas based on their own color and race.

I think that the school taking away this could of had an affect on how the kids reacted. If you think about it when someone tells you not to do something you have a slight urge to go against what they are saying. These kids probably wanted to do the same thing, maybe just because they wanted to get under their skin, not because they were standing up for what they believe in.

"President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong"

I agree with Lauren because Obama had Pardoned people in the past even though they to hadn't been on trial, so his motives don't make since, I believe that his judgement is what is causing this. I don't believe he wants to pardon him, if he did, than this wouldn't be an issue, it already would be done.

I agree with Lauren because the president has enough authority to make those decisions.

Donald Trump has been blasted as a 'diplomatic rookie' who must learn not to cross Beijing by Chinese state media, which warned the U.S. could pay dearly for his naivety. The president-elect was attacked by Chinese newspapers this week, just days after he created potential diplomatic controversy by calling Taiwan and criticizing China's government.

"Iowa bill would let women sue doctor after abortion"

i think that a women should not be able to sue a doctor for her choice of having an abortion

I agree with Sydney, Lauren, and Landon. You made the choice of getting the abortion, and the doctor just did what you wanted. YOU should have made sure that it was the choice you wanted.

Interesting article out of Great Britain... especially considering all our laws on "drugs", are we forgetting that alcohol is a drug as well. For many, it is socially acceptable to get "drunk" while getting "high" is bad. Do you think if alcohol were discovered today, would we allow people to use it legally?

I really doubt that we would be able to limit it legally to the point of no use. I do think we would better restrict it though. It would likely turn into something like limiting a persons legal purchase amount in a week or a month or something, with some sort of item that would be required to purchase alcohol that one could only receive so many of in a month period.

they tried to stop it with prohibiton when they first discovered it. but that only brought on moonshiners and illegal saloons (i can't think of the name right now) and now it would be almost impossible to make alcohol illegal. It would most likely turn into something like a huge illegal operation like a cartel or something worse.

As we discuss how our government balances the needs of society with protecting our civil liberties I would invite your respectful comments on both sides of this article. There is a HUGE comment thread on the CNN site, please add your thoughts to our Diigo.

I think that the cross should go in the museum because it was part of the twin towers and it was a world wide icon after the attacks

I like the fact that the cross is being displayed. It gives a symbol of hope for the Christians, and in all reality, to the outside world, and inside our borders, we are commonly seen as a mostly christian people. Atheists, Jews, Muslims, and members of many other faiths did die, and weer affected by this tragedy. But the fact that the cross was made from rubble, and was made by the falling of the towers, is a symbol to those that are Christians, and whatever our personal beliefs on the matter is, a symbol of faith and hope to countless people that has good reason, and good context should be allowed inside the museum. We would not disallow Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and countless other faiths from putting pieces of there faiths that give them hope. So neither should Christians.

With nearly 1 billion users, Facebook has clearly become a feature of many people's lives worldwide. A new study suggests that the social network has the potential to get hundreds of thousands of people to engage in a single behavior - namely, voting.

Super interesting article. I am curious if anyone will comment here about whether they think their decisions are influenced much by social media. This article has an equally provocative link on Obesity and STD's gained from social networks http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/24/tech.networks.connected/index.html

Interesting article, the pressure from website blackouts seemed to have sent a message to many representatives in Congress. Wait and see what the votes look like next week.

June 12, 1994 | MARTIN MILLER, SPECIAL TO THE TIMES To 9-year-old Noemi Rodriquez, Disneyland wasn't such a small world after all. Barely 4 feet tall, the elementary school student from Janitzio, Mexico, remembered staring up at the 147-foot-high Matterhorn on a recent sunny afternoon.

Oops. I didn't see that Jeremy had already posted the original article on here. This isn't meant as a rebuttal to his article.

Even if this was a rebuttal to what I posted I think that's a good thing that you put this up. I tend to post news stories that my friends/family send me so I may not always find stories that show views from the other side. It's important to look at issues from all sides to form a proper opinion on things.

it will blow your mind Supposedly

Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds seemed like one of those ten songs, but regardless, interesting article

One of a kind article.

Police officer in South Carolina pulled over a man on Saturday for a traffic violation, and left the courtroom yesterday charged with murder.

Crazy to think that this may have happened many other times, yet there are not witnesses to say so. Also, it makes me wonder if there was something that triggered the officer to react in the manner that he did.

I think these types of articles need to stop being publicized because rogue cops are being exposed. People focus on the bad instead of the good and things like this is making a lot of people dislike cops for unjustified and unfair reasons because although this article may be true, a lot aren't.

An Omaha World Herald article from 2 years ago about the economic impact of immigrant workers in the metro area.

AFTER viewing the story/video, which side would you take? Teachers with guns could be first responders or do more guns create more gun violence in society?

I think it's a good idea. Obviously they are going to have to take a class and get a back ground check. The guns would be kept in a safe secured place away from the students. They don't have a police officer like we do so they don't have someone that is there to protect them.

I believe that teachers with guns has its pros and cons. For example, I believe that guns do not kill people, but the people behind them do. You can do background checks on anyone, but at any time someone with a gun can become angry and upset and shoot a person. Guns for teachers can be useful in smaller, rural areas where medical attention or police could take longer. But for teachers in urban areas should be more limited. I feel as long as they take a class to learn to shoot, to carry it, and as long as it is locked up in the classroom or only allowed to be out when needed can be very beneficial.