Group items tagged

Almost $465m of outside money has been spent on the US presidential election campaign so far, including $365m that can be attributed to the supreme court's landmark Citizens United ruling, according to a report released on Monday.

Why don't we use this money to pay debt instead? This is just outrageous. 1 Nationwide debate and be done. We are in to much debt to afford this kind of foolish spending right now.

a specific law that has passed both the Senate and the House, and is presently in a conference committee, where lawmakers reconcile the two versions. Observers once worried that the law would permit the indefinite detention of American citizens, or at least force them to rely on uncertain court challenges if unjustly imprisoned.

Personally I believe that the NDAA for 2012 should never have been signed. I also think that it is a little late to try and fix this because people in Congress have already agreed that they want to permanently detain American citizens without trial and now are just trying to save face by "opposing" it. After all the author of that amendment, Senator Feinstein, voted for the NDAA for 2012. What really confuses, and kind of angers me, is that Obama said when he signed the NDAA for 2012 he didn't want that part in the law but he was signing it anyway (I don't have a quote but I'll find one). Now he is trying to defend indefinite detention of citizens in court after a federal judge found it unconstitutional. Another interesting article about this is this one. It shows that even people who generally would work together disagree about this bill: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/ndaa-indefinite-detention_n_2326225.html

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.

"Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which eliminated restrictions on corporate campaign spending."

The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling, which allowed corporations, unions and individuals to pour unlimited amounts of money into elections through super PACs, has elicited a strong responses from McCain in the past.

I agree with McCain on this, it seems like a bad decision. Almost all of this money will undoubtedly go to the Democratic or Republican party, and it will be even more difficult for third party candidates to be competitive.

Citizens United, the conservative group that successfully sued to enable wealthy corporations to buy elections, also has it in for same-sex couples.

It's interesting to note that all of the people who wrote the brief and submitted it are men.

"In a few weeks, some 6,000 inmates will be released from federal prison because of sweeping changes in U.S. sentencing guidelines for nonviolent drug offenses, approved last year. It's part of a move to overhaul the American criminal justice system, which incarcerates more citizens than any other nation in the world."

I agree with what is going on because then they can become productive tax paying citizens, rather than being given everything in prison. If they are put into the real world they will have to shape up to some extent. If they have already done time, chances are the drugs are out of their system now, and hopefully broke the habit.

I agree with Tia it will help out the government and then we will have more people working throughout the country.

While the article is about South Africa, many of it's points ring true for America. Education, when you think about it in the deepest manner, is not really about Education; it's about proving you'd be a good worker, and not much else. But I'm curious to see what others think.

I agree with the article about how schools should focus on building democratic citizens, instead of just good workers. Young people need to know their rights and how they can impact the country, and some places don't do a good job teaching children those things. I've personally learned a lot about my rights in government class, so I think our school is doing a good job.

I believe that the education system in America is mainly about passing more than it is about learning. I feel like I'm working a job and the assignments that I finish are just to get the job done. However, I believe that when students actual learn, understand, and are amazed by different topics, that is the true point of education. In all, while this article was about South Africa, it shows how we shouldn't be focusing on being a good worker but how we should be focusing on becoming better citizens.

"40 Best Signs From The "Restore The Fourth" Rallies More than 100 rallies were held across America to protest the NSA's surveillance of ordinary citizens."

"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"

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.

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.

"The top holder by far is U.S. citizens and American entities, such as state and local governments, pension funds, mutual funds, and the Federal Reserve. Together they own the vast majority -- 67.5% -- of the debt. Foreign nations only hold 32.5% of the total."

Best case scenario is trump alleviates a small fraction of our debt but destroys our foreign relations along the way. I wouldn't want someone who has had 4 companies go bankrupt gambling with the entire united states economy anyway.

The best way this could go is he suttels some of the debt but runs our reputation in the process and nobody will buy bonds anymore so it would become worse in the long run

Donald Trump is doing what he promised, but is that a good thing?

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.

I guess the question that comes up with this part of the NDAA is whether or not our government can limit the right of due process of citizens in the name of National Security. I personally don't believe that it is okay to "indefinitely" detain a citizen just for being suspected of being affiliated with terrorists.

"A group of legislators in Maryland has introduced legislation that would deny state support to federal agencies engaged in warrantless electronic surveillance in a move aimed at curtailing the National Security Agency's power to monitor and track citizens"

I think the majority of us can say that we aren't too much for government spying on everyone. Glad to hear people are actually trying to change stuff instead of simply talking about it.

Recent cases like these bring up issues of POWER and govt authority. Are these examples concerning? Which side (police/suspect) do you tend to sympathize with most?

The cop has a right to detain anyone that is breaking the law, but he should not have put him in a choke hold. He has numerous tools he could of used while detaining someone like his taser, handcuffs, or pepper spray.

The cop has no reason to put him in a choke hold and for so long. The guy was saying he couldn't breathe. This is very wrong and he could of detained him a few other ways.

"Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a state eavesdropping law that made it a crime for citizens to record conversations with police or anyone else without the other person's permission. "

I understand why people would want to ban allowing police to record someone's private conversation. Although it has helped with a lot of cases involving drugs there should be a limit on how far police can go. They shouldn't be able to listen to innocent people's conversations. It wrong and they wouldn't be able to unhear anything.

I understand why people would want to ban allowing police to record someone's private conversation. Although it has helped with a lot of cases involving drugs there should be a limit on how far police can go. They shouldn't be able to listen to innocent people's conversations. It wrong and they wouldn't be able to unhear anything.

"This Nov. 8, Slate will publish real-time projections based on voter turnout, so citizens will finally know as much as the campaigns do about who is winning and why."

How do you all feel about items/weapons like these being readily available and advertised?

As long as he is following all the rules that come along with manufacturing and selling weapons I feel like he should be able to do it. Yes a flamethrower is a little on the extreme side but as long he is staying within the realm of the law I feel like it should be allowed.

Flamethrowers are like guns so if the person buying the flamethrower is able to buy a gun then they should be able to purchase this as well.