Group items tagged
1More
1More
World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, says Oxfam | Business | The Guardian - 0 views
-
"The growing concentration of the world's wealth has been highlighted by a report showing that the 26 richest billionaires own as many assets as the 3.8 billion people who make up the poorest half of the planet's population."
1More
Congressional negotiators reach deal on government funding - CNNPolitics.com - 2 views
-
"The plan would add billions for the Pentagon and border security but would not provide any money for President Donald Trump's promised border wall with Mexico,"
14More
Biden's COVID stimulus bill passes Senate, legislation heads to House - 15 views
-
"The Democratic-controlled Senate Saturday overcame Republican roadblocks and a debate that lasted beyond 24 hours to pass President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package which would provide millions of Americans with $1,400 direct payments, billions of dollars for vaccine distribution, and funds to help reopen schools and colleges."
- ...11 more comments...
-
The stimulus bill sounds like a good deal for Americans. COVID-19 negatively impacted many people, so it's good that the government is trying to help get the country going after COVID-19. -
I think this stimulus bill is necessary and will be a step forward in the right direction. Although things seem to be slowly moving in the right direction there are still a lot of people without a job and in need of assistance so I think this will help those people out tremendously. -
This could go both way's as in good and bad. Good:So people can get some help from the government to help pay off debts or just put food on the table. Bad: some people can become to reliant on the government for money. -
this stimulus check is going to help a lot of families especially the ones who already struggle. -
I feel like the stimulus is a good thing for a lot of families that have been struggling throughout the pandemic. It is also bad in the way of tax inflation and things of that nature. Although I feel like it was needed for some, it might be damaging in the future. -
technically we could get 12,000 for a stimulus check but the government is not willing to do that. -
I feel like this is a relatively good amount for a stimulus check because the amount of inflation it will create will be far less than if the check was bigger. -
i think the check is a step in the right direction. it's giving families coverage and more cushion to their budget. -
I think this is a good check cause it will help people in the mere future and possibly in the present. -
So depending on who you are it could be a good thing or an iffy thing I believe that most people around our area would all agree that it's a good thing and I think so too. -
-
I think this is good because it gives people who lost money during covid a chance to buy some extra things for themselves or their families. -
I think the stimulus check was good for a lot of people that really did need it since they didn't have a job due to covid.
1More
Trump Admits to Massive Tax Write Offs, Calling It 'Sport' | Time - 4 views
-
"President Donald Trump on Wednesday acknowledged taking massive tax write offs for real estate losses topping $1 billion from the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, calling it "sport" among developers like himself during that period."
1More
SCOTUS takes another crack at gray market resales - 0 views
-
April 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to take a second crack at reconciling two apparently contradictory provisions in the Copyright Act: one that permits buyers to resell goods without worrying about permission from U.S. copyright holders, and another that controls the importation of copyrighted material into the United States. It may sound arcane, but this is a hugely-consequential issue. The case in which the Supreme Court granted certiorari involves a Thai grad student reselling used foreign-manufactured books on eBay, but the high court's ultimate ruling will profoundly affect the approximately $63 billion "gray market" business.
36More
Iowa Lawmaker Wants To Bring Back The Death Penalty - 1 views
-
- ...33 more comments...
-
I think the death penalty is pointless. In my opinion all it does is give horrible criminals an easy way out. If I did something horrible enough to get the death penalty, I'd rather die than serve life in prison. -
-
-
Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back. -
I think that the death penalty is wrong because they are trying to stop a murderer by murdering him themselves so really it's not much better then what the killer was doing himself. -
-
Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out -
It will be interesting to hear Sorenson's argument as to why to changes things. Prisons are getting crowded but this is still Iowa. We still have a small population -
I think the death penalty is not a bad idea nor I think it is a good idea. They will suffer in jail or suffer in hell. My opinion is put them in jail. If it is not their time to die yet then it is not. If they did something as bad as kill someone then they do deserve to go to jail and suffer for life. -
I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions. -
Its not weather which one is worse, its that killing a person for killing another person is not only hypocritical but inhumane to today's society. -
I disagree with bringing the death penalty back to Iowa. We've taken it away twice, once in 1872 and the second time in 1965, so I feel that shows that we, as a state, don't want it. Also the death penalty isn't really a deterrent for crime. There is a really interesting website that shows so facts about murder rates and comparing states that do and don't have the death penalty. They have a ton of information and I would recommend that you go through the site a little if you're interested in this topic. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
-
-
Aaron giving someone the death penalty is acceptable. Having life in prison is worse anyway and it just puts more people in danger if that person is still alive. -
-
-
Mr. Garner, it would cost more money to give somebody the death penalty then to have them spend life in prison. We live in a different type of world then when people had there heads chopped off and dragons happened to be there to save "johns" life. To me that's not what God intended us to do with people that made a mistake and yes a big one but everybody has a reason to something or there could be something seriously wrong with there head to commit a murder but its not always there fault.
-
For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1 For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9 For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8 For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
-
It seems like if the act of violence is bad enough to get the death penalty most of the people kill themselves before the law can. -
Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!
-
Mr. Valdivia how would it cost more to give the death penalty then to keep them in prison for life? That's right, IT WOULDN'T. And I'm not saying give the death penalty for 1 murder. Based on depravity and body counts they should be sentenced to death.
-
unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people -
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf Dylan pages 20 and 21 of the PDF I linked above, explain why the death penalty costs more to administer than life in prison with out parole. More specifically on page 20 under the heading Time on Death Row it says, "In California, a legislative commission concluded that it costs the state an extra $90,000 for each death row inmate per year compared to the costs of the same inmate housed in general population. With over 670 inmates on death row, that amounts to an additional yearly cost of $60 million solely attributable to the death penalty."
-
Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.
-
Well then we can change the process to a quick and easy death without all that court BS. And plus I'm a prison warden so you guys both don't know what you are talking about. Aaron. And Jeremy.
-
FALSE. There is NO WAY you're a prison warden. The minimum age for a Warden is 21, plus you have to have lots of training. So someone of your prestige and experience, (not to mention your practically a 5 year old) would never be able to be a warden. Kthnxbye
-
-
Dylan and Joe, The reason that the death penalty is more expensive (and always will be) is the courts have to make sure that the criminal that is convicted is 100 percent guilty. There can't be any room for doubt. This means that the state has to supply better (More expensive) lawyers for the suspected party, and the trial has to be more in depth, therefor much longer. We can't make this time shorter than it is, because as a country, we are will do everything we can to keep an Innocent man from dying. And to just keep the perpetrators in jail is much cheaper, as there is already a well set system in place, and one more person will not increase the cost of that system to go up in large amounts as much as the singled out attention a person on death row will. -
@ Dylan and Joe, if you both still think that the death penalty is cheaper, you are wrong, look at the 20th page Jeremy posted. @ Jared, ethically speaking, shouldn't any person who is accused of murder have an outrageously expensive lawyer anyways? If someone is going to be imprisoned for life, or going to be executed for a crime, should the one being executed receive a better lawyer? -
I think they should, but the person being put to jail for life has the chance to have new evidence pop up, and potentially let them eventually get out, they have the chance to get out on parole, they have the potential for choices. The man that is getting the death penalty have to be 100 percent sure. They don't have room to make mistakes. Ethically, I believe that people getting put away for life should have the same standards of 100 percent, but as I said, they have choices later on down the road. The dead don't.
-
-
I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty. -
@Peyton Are you trying to tell me its more expensive to keep someone alive in prison? this means that dude lives off our tax money. You will literally pay for his food, housing, and heck, that dude can even go lift for 3 hours a day and run his block! THink about that. State Champ.
-
@ Dylan, you are not a prison warden, keep the topics on this page relevant to the conversation, and have some potential form of evidence to back up what you say. @ Joe, it is much less expensive to keep someone alive then execute them. The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated. Example State: California How much they could save: With life in prison as the maximum punishment for 1st degree murder, they would save over 1 billion dollars a year. Money that could be saved per year for taxpayers: 90,000 dollars a year. Taxpayers save money if they do not use the death penalty. http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 Besides, many murder victims PREFER the idea of Life without Parole. If you do not believe this, check out this site made by the victims families: https://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/death_penalty/Voices_from_California_Crime_Victims_for_Alternatives_to_the_Death_Penalty.pdf I have the feeling that nobody will even look at these links, but they are blunt evidence that it is cheaper, and makes more people happy, then when we use the death penalty. Oh.... By the way, 2nd degree murders (who cannot receive the death penalty) can do all that which you stated before Joe. Why should first degree murders be any different?
-
The death penalty is dumb you should just let that sever his/or hers time in prison.
2More
Should the U.S. allow gambling on elections? - CNNPolitics.com - 1 views
-
For years, Vaccaro has watched billions of dollars pour into Nevada for sports betting. And he dreams of extending casino gambling to political elections. -
I don't think they should allow gambling on elections because then the elections would be much more money focused than politics and people would could cause crime or go to extreme measures to make sure one person won for gambling's sake. However, this might also help people get more involved in voting and politics.
17More
Council Bluffs Schools blocking Facebook - 3 views
-
I am curious if you agree or disagree with the decision. Here are excerpts from three documents the school district has sent me about the decision.
- ...14 more comments...
-
i think blocking it was 50/50, good for the kids that are addicted to changing their status, but bad for people who are on it during free time or lunch. -
I agree with Andrew because there are a lot of people that abuse he privilege, but then there are the ones that only get on when told that they can or in free time. -
I think that our school system is going way Wacko with this, with Facebook, yeah block it, but you should block it on the school's wifi not the chromes. you should be able to get on at you house. What is the harm there...? Its not like you are getting distracted from a teacher talking..... With the cell phones. Yeah, thats whatever... I understand that you aren't supposed to have them out during class, but only being aloud to have them during lunch and before or after school, it makes me feel like we are back in Jr. High, that was their policy. I even remember i went to work Kirn's show and i forgot that there was that rule and so i was walking down the hallway texting, i looked right at the teacher and said that i was in high school, she laughed and said sorry and gave it back. But i think with this rule the students will feel like that are being treated as jr high students again and i know that would make me frustrated. But not having a relaxed rule on cell phones students will just get super mad and well, teacher's and Administrators,, You're gonna have a bad time... -
I agree with Eric, it should just be blocked on the wifi, not the Chromes themselves because now the people who brought their own computers can get on facebook, or the people with internet on their phones can access it that way. So the school didn't block the students %100, they just made an obstacle for the students to get through, because I think we all know someone is going to find a way around it soon, like they did last year. -
I agree with Eric and Alex as well, just block it on their wifi during the school day. -
It does feel like we are still in Junior High. but how do most Students? certainly not like they are in high school. If people would act their age then you could use this statement. take a look around the hallways and you know what i am talking about. And when you are on facebook or any other website it is a distraction because you are zoned out of everything that is going on around you and ten minutes can easily turn into an hour or a couple of hours -
a good 3/4 of the conversations during class periods... maybe not everyone's but at least mine has been about getting around the the Facebook block. They say Facebook is distracting well it is for certain people that get on it constantly but what really is distracting is people constantly talking about how they are trying to get back on Facebook through the chromes. That's not distracting a select few it's distracting us all. -
I feel like if the school has such a big problem with Facebook they need to realize that although blocking Facebook from chromes will stop many students from getting on it the majority of us do have smart phones. Meaning we can still get on Facebook. I think that if a student doesn't know how to control their use on facebook during school they will have to deal with the consequences and that it wasn't necessary to block the site, it's called responsibility and if someone doesn't know how to be responsible then that's their problem. Also I don't understand why students aren't able to get on Facebook outside of school? -
I don't feel like blocking Facebook was very beneficial. High school is supposed to be preparing us for college or a career, in which we will have access to anything we want. How are we supposed to know how to limit distractions if we don't have the opportunity to do so now? On another note, the students who aren't doing their work now with Facebook unblocked still aren't generally going to do it even without that particular distraction. -
I agree with Rainie, Jaidlyn, and Olivia. The school board and the administrators don't know what we are thinking in class, yes they might see that a good portion of our students are on Facebook, but also, a good majority is paying attention and actually learning, I personally find Facebook a good tool for school, because there has been multiple times where I have no clue what so ever on what is going on so I go and ask some of my friends that are in college and ask them, and also my friends explain it so much better than Teacher's do, I feel as though most of the times teacher's just speak it so they can get paid, they don't go in depth to it. So I feel also that if they were teaching more hands on there would be less Facebook usage, well, at least there would be if it was unblocked.
-
Sorry.. I realized that I didn't finish.. With what Rainie said, that is so true you can't sit through a whole class period with out hearing, "This is peeveing me off!" or "There has to be a way around it, that will be my project this weekend, to figure out what how to get around this dumb thing!"
-
Personally, if the schools are trying to prepare us for the future, then why limit what we can do, and not do with the chromes? How does limiting us teach us good decision making skills? I mean, in the future, if you are at work and spend 4 hours of your time at work on facebook, you are gonna get fired. We should have it just to learn that we do not need it. Plus, students are just going to move onto the next thing. Like there are not a billion other things we are going to get on?
-
I completely agree with Payton. There are so many things that aren't blocked and we can move right on to the next thing.
-
I totally agree with both Eric and Payton, also what about using our phones, Ipods, and personal computers to get on FB at school. An I know most of the people on FB use it to waste time, what about the students using it during free time for good things like making a FB page for a club or a FB event for a soccer game? -
In response to Payton W: If an employee would get fired for wasting company time on Facebook, what is a logical penalty for teachers/administrators to administer to those who refuse to work? It is hardly a solution to take the computer away, since there is so much effort placed on getting kids to use them for class work. Of course we cannot "fire" our students like an employee. Following your logic, shouldn't "moving on to the next thing" also get you the same penalty? Isn't the real issue students wasting time (whatever it might be)?
-
Mr. Pregon, the personal issue with this is, we can't go around blocking things all the time, that does not teach good choice-making skills. I know that one solution, that may only work in some situations, is that, make them do it by hand. I've seen teachers use this before, and noticed quiet a bit improvement on students taking it upon themselves to avoid facebook. Mr. Nelson, in Algebra 2 made someone solve a 3 variable question using Matrices by hand, which can take about 10 minutes for a single problem. That student has not been on facebook in his class, or at least caught, since. As for penalties, students do have privileged that teachers may take away, such as going to the bathroom during class. Although, that is unlikely to affect most students, it is hard to say whether or not that will have much affect. Perhaps a major punishment such as Monday school if caught so many times? I have no direct answer as to how this should work though.
2More
Donald Trump walked off a 1990 CNN interview when asked tough questions about his casino - 6 views
-
It's something Trump has done before. In a 1990 CNN interview reviewed by CNN's KFile, Trump walked off an interview when reporter Charles Feldman pressed him on questions over the financial stability of his Atlantic City casinos. The interview took place in March 1990, just days before Trump's billion dollar Atlantic City casino, the Trump Taj Mahal, was set to open. -
Donald Trump walking off when he was pressed to answer questions about his casino make me want to know why he really walked off instead of just saying an excuse. Is he hiding something? Trump lashed out and said "You aren't going to talk about positive people. You'll talk about the negative. You want to talk about the negative." I understand that you should say positive things about people, but you should also be able to hear about the negative too because it is good to know.
2More
North Dakota Pipeline: Protesters vow to stand ground - 0 views
-
Since late summer, protesters have stood beside members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota who believe the $3.7 billion pipeline project, which would move 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day across four states, would affect its drinking water supply and place downstream communities at risk of contamination from potential oil spills. -
I think this is ridiculous. The pipeline is off of their grounds, and is on property purchased by Energy Transfer Partners. This is out of their control and they deserve to be arrested for trespassing (which they are) and the government should be able to use force to remove them from the site (Which they are also doing).
15More
Mexican President: We will not pay for the wall - 9 views
-
How dumb can Trump be? How does he expect Mexico to pay for a wall that could potentially cost them billions? - ...12 more comments...
-
I understand why Trump wants to build a wall but why does he expect Mexico to pay for it when it's clear they don't want the wall to be built in the first place. -
Why does he think building a wall is going to accomplish anything? If they are determined to get the US than it will happen whether we want it or not. We just have to find a way to know if they are here to harm us or are at peace with us and just want a better life. -
I agree with Kim ^ the wall isn't going to do anything because if someone wants to come to America they're going to anyways -
Mexico shouldn't have to help pay for the wall to be built. Donald Trump wants the wall to be built so I think that he should pay for it. -
I agree with Mallori and Kim. Its his ideas to keep the Mexicans out of the U.S. Why would he even think their president would help build it? -
I get what Trump is doing, he does not what people to just come over to America from Mexico but making them pay, I don't think that will happen. The people in Mexico will find other whys to get in still, we just have to make hard for them to get in just like Canada is hard to get in. -
I think trump's idea of having a wall built is dumb because people from mexico will still try to get over that wall. And its not fail to all the people who got deported and there's still people here living illegally. I mean they aren't really doing anything wrong, or hurting anybody. -
I understand that Mexico should help pay for the wall it wants and proposes to do President Trump because that way it would help a lot in the control of immigrant people -
-
Mexico's president has every right to deny this wall, and Trump insisting that he pay for something against his wants is absurd. -
If you are building a fence for your house, does your neighbor pay it? I don't think so and neither should Mexico. If he wants a wall so badly, then he can take it out of the taxes of all the people who voted for him in the first place. -
I agree with Ayin, Trump can't force Mexico to pay for something he wants. -
I agree with Ayin and Lauren. Trump can't make Mexico pay for the Wall and if I was Mexico I wouldn't be paying for it anyways. It's not like they helping the illegal immigrants from jumping the border. They are trying to prevent it just as much as the United States is. If he wants the wall so badly then he can build it himself. -
Making Mexico pay for the the wall is literally going to your neighbors house with your cable bill and asking them to pay for it, they're not going to do it. It's going to cost Americans to put up this wall, and if Trump wants it to be so big and great the more it's going to cost.
21More
Donald Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do - 22 views
-
- ...18 more comments...
-
With Mexico refusing to pay for the wall, I don't think the wall will even go up. So we should worry less about walls and more about the important things. -
I agree with Makenzie, don't worry about the wall but worry about what's important -
If he does what he always said in a way that benefits each of the citizens we work and live in a good way always striving for what we have is a good idea but if it is to harm people and thus humiliate them I am not made a good idea
-
I agree with McKenzie, even though the wall has been a topic for a few months now... people are realizing this is getting close to happening... I don't blame Mexico for not wanting to help pay for the wall. It's probably not even gonna happen anyways. Trump needs to work on making people happy and "making America great again". -
It seems like Trump is trying to get to much accomplished at one time, he's not focusing on one problem, so nothing is going to get done. My problem with the wall is that it doesn't solve the problem people will always find a way in so unless we are putting a wall up around the whole US we will still deal with people trying to get in.
-
Even though trump said he's going to build a wall people are still going to get over it. Unless he is planning on putting a wall all around. I think he's just gonna make it worst for us, he should do the little things first and work his way up with the big things, because what is he changes his mind about what he's doing.
-
I agree with kim, he is doing everything so fast hes not really focusing or thinging about anything as long as it gets done.
-
Donald has been doing everything he said he was going to but i dont think he is seeing what he is doing because he is doing everything so fast. i also dont think he will put the wall up because mexico wont pay. people are going to find a way around the wall too -
He is a man of his word, the word most people voted for, so that means he is going to do what he says and listen to the people. -
I agree with Justice because people are just going to find another way over or around the wall. Illegals are still going to jump the border and some of them will still make it into the United States. I don't understand why he is trying to do everything so fast. He does know that he has four years right? Maybe someone should inform him of that. The wall is a pointless thing especially if he's trying to get Mexico to pay for it.
-
the wall is not a pointless thing. He will get mexico to pay for it. He is a man that keeps to his word. He is not bought and paid for by lobbyist, and super PACS. The wall is a great idea. Just remember would you want to take in some homeless person into your house? thats what a front door is for. that is why we need a wall. -
Mexico will not pay for the wall he's insane for thinking that they're going to help stay out. All he's doing is humiliating immigrants and kind of bullying them. If he plans on bullying people all four years he has then he's not going to do anything for us and that should worry people. -
I agree with Landon. Mexico is most likely not going to be willing to pay for the way so therefore its pointless. People are still going to try and do what they want, a wall is not going to stop them. -
Mexico might not pay. But Abby, you say he is humiliating immigrants, he is welcoming to other foreigners he just dislikes illegal immigrants, it's like somebody broke into your house and is living in your attic without you knowing. He is blocking immigration from the middle east not because he hates all muslims but because most terrorism is from that general area. -
I think the general concept of what he's trying to accomplish is a good idea, but of course there's plenty of flaws in the system. Mexico's obviously not going to be on board for covering the funds necessary to build the wall, and neither would any country in their position. You're going to have plenty of Mexican citizens who are totally against this and might even try to wreak havoc on the project which will only stir the pot more. On the other hand, he's making an effort to keep illegal immigrants out and follow through to his word by building the wall. -
I agree with Landon, Mexico might not pay for the wall. If Mexico doesn't pay for the wall to go up what are the chances that the wall is actually going to be put up? -
Mexico will pay for the wall if the like it or not. America will just stop sending them financial aid that we give to them every year. There is many ways to get Mexico to do what we want and we finally have a president that will stop the illegal immigration and do what he promised he was going to do. Amen! -
I think it is insane that Trump proposed the idea of building a wall, and now is trying to make Mexico pay for it. Why would they? How does that even make sense? If Mexico doesn't pay-which they wont, American tax payers will be the ones paying for it. And it is a multi billion dollar project. -
That's the reason why people voted for him, he is a man of his word that's what us the people wanted. -
He's doing what he promised, if someone didn't support him it's most likely not too good in their opinion, but he won promising things. It's a good thing to have a president doing what he promised, even if someone doesn't agree with it all.
2More
Illegal immigrants could reap more than $7B in tax credits this year, senator says - 1 views
-
Illegal immigrants could receive more than $7 billion this year in federal tax credits, according to one estimate, thanks to a loophole in the law that allows them to reap the government payments with no questions asked. Sen. -
Though illegal immigrants are prohibited from receiving similar tax credits, a quirk in the law allows them to qualify for the child tax credit. And it's a "refundable" credit, meaning recipients can reap the money -- with average checks totaling about $1,800 -- even if they've paid no taxes
10More
Massachusetts judge rules for inmate's sex-change surgery - 3 views
-
A federal court judge on Tuesday ordered Massachusetts officials to provide sex-reassignment surgery for a transsexual prison inmate, after determining that it was the only adequate treatment for the inmate's mental illness.
- ...7 more comments...
-
I think that from the physiological stand point this court case makes seance. How ever I think that our tax dollars should not be used to make this medical procedure happen. -
This is a very odd case to say the least. This prison inmate is at 13x the risk of a sexual assault as the average inmate. So, the question is, is the protection of a near-insane murder worth tax payer dollars? I don't think so, but something has to be done about the inmates safety, perhaps being placed alone, or with people of the preferred gender of the inmate? In the event of tax payers paying, is it really that much? The government comes up with about $2,650 billion yearly from income tax alone. To add on, it is really not that often that this expensive of a situation arises. Is it really that big of a deal for something that almost never happens, but may help someone in the near future?
-
This may be what's "best" for the inmate, but he/she (no offense intended, I just don't know what to call them) murdered someone. Don't you think that a murderer should in some way "pay" for what they've done. They don't deserve the best, but they also don't deserve to be sexually assaulted. Also, tax payer dollars should not go towards things like this, that money is for the betterment of the community and/or the country. To fix the sexual harassment problem, the inmate should be put somewhere alone. Yet, another question rises, what about all the other inmates (male or female) who are sexually assaulted? We can't worry about them all, plus they're in there for a reason, they don't deserve tax money to go towards protecting them whenever they put others in danger that led them to be in prison. So, the answer is no, it's not worth it. It's not tax payer's problem.
-
if this person wanted to become a women then wouldn't they prefer men? which means that if they are 13 times the risk, wouldn't that be a good thing since they like guys? well if it was a rape then i understand but there are sometimes in prison when it isn't a rape or sexual assault, both want to do it. in that case that person should consider themselves lucky to be around guys all the time. -
haha what if this dude was just really straight and thought that if he gets a sex change that he will be placed with da lady's so he wouldn't be around all da dudes n stuff . -
I agree with Payton just place her alone if its for her safety. If its for her mental condition send her to a prison mental health facility.
-
I just don't understand how a PRISON INMATE is allowed that luxury of sex change surgery. Especially considering the price and how much it really is causing taxpayers
-
I personally think that this was a great decision. I believe that a person's mental health is the most important aspect in the road to any sort of recovery. Even though the transgender inmate did commit a murder, she deserves to have the resources to stabilize her well-being. Should the rest of America have to pay for it? Perhaps not, but I don't mind helping out someone who desperately needs it. Although, I guess that depends on your belief on the importance of mental health.
-
Jenny, this is really not a matter of sexual interests. If this person wants a sex change, it may be because of this sexual interest, but then again, it may not. They may simply want to be a female. The funding should come from the inmate, but the inmate cannot earn funds while behind bars, perhaps the inmate should be allowed to work up to being allowed to have a sex change operation.
2More
340,000 votes may have come from Facebook message - 0 views
-
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
6More
The War on marijuana and who's winning - 10 views
-
This would for sure help our debt if they did end up legalizing it and taxing it! - ...3 more comments...
-
Also if it was legal the government could regulate it, like they do alcohol. It'd make marijuana a lot safer. -
At the moment we are being told that we are winning the war by the gov't. But the truth is hiding behind the government. They wont tell us the truth because it would show a weakness. We are losing. -
how is cannabis not safe? more people die from alcohol related incidents a year than weed for sure, and weed cant poison people. so i vote yes! legalize it. -
I am actually surprised that the govt hasn't legalized it yet because the govt loves money and marijuana sales makes on average 1.5 billion dollars a year so in about 10 years (maybe) the USA could actually not be in debt. -
i dont see why marijuana is not legal anymore its actually funny how our first president grew marijuana as a cash crop
1More
New Defense Plan To Slim Down Military, Shift U.S. Security Focus To Asia | Fox News - 5 views
-
I think this will be a good thing for the U.S. I am pretty sure that there are enough people who want to fight for our country's freedom so why do we need to keep paying more and more for the military? I don't think they are going to take all of the money the military has.
1More
US govt struck deal with Mexican drug cartel in exchange for info - 0 views
-
Reuters / Susana Vera Between 2000 and 2012, the US government had a deal with Mexican drug cartel Sinaloa that allowed the group to smuggle billion of dollars of drugs in return for information on its rival cartels, according to court documents published by El Universal.