Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged government

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Jeremy Vogel

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters - 0 views

  •  
    During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama.
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    Personally (no one take this offensively) I agree with Romney. It is those types of people that want Obama to win, now I'm not saying that is all of them, but that is most definitely majority. Stereotypes such as this one are based off of majority and are almost always true. Yes, Mitt Romney should not have stereotyped these people, but don't we all do it at some point? No one should get mad about this because he was making a point (that so happens to be true). No one in this country has the right to health care, food or housing. There is no part of the constitution that states that. "He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them." I believe that this quote sums up those types of people perfectly. These people are the ones who are burdens to our society and will vote him to be president and will eventually change the country for the worst. Now, I realize that this is a strong point, but it is my opinion. I do not intend to offend anyone because you could disagree with me and I would accept that. But, people need to take care of themselves and not depend on anyone, not even the government to take care of them. People like this claim to be for equality, then be equal and pay taxes and take care of your self on your OWN just like the rest of us. To me, that makes a better person. (I know I went on a rant, but this again is my opinion.)
  •  
    Not everyone the NEEDS help from the government wants it. It doesn't mean they are freeloaders. They have to do what they have to do to support their family. If I was of age I would vote for Obama not because I want to freeload off the government but because I don't want someone like Romney that I feel to be ignorant and unfit to be the president. My parents voted for Obama and will vote for him this election not because they freeload off the government but because they agree with the things Obama is wanting to do and not what Romney wants to do. I think that's what the majority of people who vote for Obama are thinking. Just my opinion.
  •  
    I don't think anyone needs help from the government, because they're the ones who got themselves in that mess to need so much "help" anyways. The government, tax payers and citizens of America don't owe anything to those people who got themselves into those situations. I think the government needs to be in as little of people's lives as possible. I know what I'm saying is kind of harsh and is tough for those people who are in tight situations that I know I've never had to experience and I am thankful for that. But I know if I was brought up in a life of welfare (just an example no offense) or a government funded program or made a bad choice to get into a bad situation in the future, I would be ashamed and embarrassed and would do everything in my power to get my butt off the couch and do something about it. There are options in life that will lead to a better outcome of success, but people are choosing to take the easy way out and use the government for these things because they are just plain lazy and don't want to take the challenge that is required to become successful.
  •  
    My question to you is then what about the people with disabilities? That can't go out and work. The people who are mentally or physically handicapped because of nothing in their power. What happens to them? No one is there for them? They NEED the governments help to live. Not all of them can go out and get jobs to support themselves.What about those girls that are 20 and were raped and now have a kid? Maybe they NEED help from the government. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I think that too many people are abusing the governments help but saying that no one needs government help is wrong some select few people/groups do need the help of our government.
  •  
    So say that someone is in a car accident. They are hit by a drunk driver who is completely at fault. Because of the accident the victim becomes a paraplegic. This is a permanent condition. Don't they deserve help from the government?
  •  
    Like Rainie and Jeremy said, not everybody has the ability to get off their butt and go work. But people that have the ability need to quit taking advantage of the government.
  •  
    Yes, that is a type of situation where someone would be in need of help. But again, is that their problem? And I agree, he would need help and in his condition, it is provable but what about the people who take advantage of the government and I thought I made it clear that those are the ones who I was talking about. Didn't I say the lazy ones? Not the permanently injured.
  •  
    I agree, people should have to prove that they need help and don't have any other options. Too many people take advantage of the system. I've actually had someone come into the deli where I work and ask if we were hiring, and when I told him I could check, he said he was just asking about jobs so that he could continue receiving unemployment. I think that attitude is way too prevalent in our country.
  •  
    The idea of people needing government aid is very broad. I can tell you now, everyone who has ever gone to school was on public aide, some more then others. The government aides the school you go to, for every student, they receive appx. $6000 per student. Now, if we as students were not on government aid, I can tell you now I would not be at school. My parents could not afford $6000 a year for me to go to school. Not to mention another $6000 for my brother. The average student that stops at high school is there for anywhere from 13-14 years, that's over $78000 just to get every student a high school diploma, all of which is funded by the government. I know that the average income of a household is 63k a year. Now take that down to 50k from house payments, which most people do not complete until at least 60. Assuming the average household has 2 children, you are now down to 38k. Assuming your parents both have to make car payments, that is 12k a year for the average american. 26k left. The middle lower class is now spend, on average they make 40k, and have about 6k left. Now, what about income taxes, regular taxes, gas money, food, water, electricity, injury, insurance, and other daily expenses. The middle class can barely get by. As for people people not being able to make that kind of money, the middle class is primarily college graduates, with a bachelors degree. You would be surprised as to how many people do not have that. As for, they could have made it happen. I would disagree, some people are simply not smart enough to get EVERY scholarship out there. I know I am not one of those that can. It's not fair when someone has potential, and cannot go to college when someone with half the potential can just because they already have money. The more potential student should receive that aide.
Bryan Pregon

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

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

New wrinkle in pot debate: stoned driving - 23 views

  •  
    This women is given a medical drug. When she drive's when she's is still high? So if she is getting medical weed and they make a law stating that you can not be "high" or drugged up before driving. Then why doesn't the government give them transportation, sure buses work if you live in the city, or taxi's. But why should she have to pay when the hospitals are giving it to her.
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    Or maybe instead they should just not drive. if smoking marijuana impairs you to the point to where your incapable of driving then don't drive, its not the governments responsibility to provide transportation to someone who chooses that as a medicine. and yeah the hospital gave it to her, but the hospital gives people a lot of other drugs that have warning labels stating not to drive and use heavy machinery. so why should the government have to provide transportation when people know that using that medicine might not allow them to be able to drive?
  •  
    Why Shouldn't they? there handing it out? Right? So if the government made the decision to give out marijuana to those who would like to have because of health problems then they should take Responsibility for the people there giving it to . Plus people wouldn't listen any ways, people drive under the influence all the time. No matter what its going to happen, that's why I think that the government should keep tabs on people who have medical drugs and make sure there safe, and make sure there not hurting someone else.
  •  
    if people wouldn't listen, then there is no point for the government to pay to transport someone around who would just abuse it in the first place. and keeping tabs on all of the people who use medical marijuana or any drug that could impair you would take a ridiculous amount of time and money that our government probably isn't willing to do. if someone wants or needs that medical drug then they should be responsible for their actions while using it not the government.
  •  
    Then why make a laws and expect people to follow this one. It's pretty evident that nobody listen's anyways. So enforcing the law by keeping tabs might save people's lives and save them from injury? So how would that be a waste of time? And yes the thought is unrealistic but, I was just throwing out an idea.
  •  
    i think its ok to be given the drug for a medical problem and to be able to drive, but if its worse then being drunk and then driving afterwards then you shouldn't be able to drive and be under an influence of a medical use of drugs. they should have special ways of transportation.
  •  
    I believe it's impossible to be too dough'd to drive!
  •  
    I think that yes government should provide the transportation if your under medication that you should not be driving or using heavy machinery. Then there is also the thought of who is to say that some one won't just get high and say its hospital medication? It will always be a battle no matter what happens. you could have the government provide the transportation but the only way you can use it is by providing proof by like wearing a I.d. bracelet or having to keep the container with you. Then there are still ways that people will get around like taking other peoples bracelets or containers or them expiring. So there is almost no way to decide and make it possible! Not everyone is going to follow the laws or ever will!
  •  
    i dont think it really matters wether they make it legal or not, people will still abuse it just like alcohol. they can set an age limit on it, but you still see 9 yearolds getting their hands on cigaretts even though ur supposed to be 18. and as far as transportation goes, i dont believe the government will provide transportation. if you choose to smoke pot, then its ur problem wether to drive or not. i dont think its a big deal if you smoke a bowl or two and then drive to the store, but can the police actualy tell or test you for thc? argue all you want i say let people be free and smoke whatever plant they want wether its tobacco or marijuana, its a natural god given plant.
  •  
    There's no reason that the government should use the money, that we don't have, to provide transportation to someone who doesn't need it. Does she need marijuana? Clearly, she may however, that does not constitute the necessity to have someone pay for her to get around. Maybe, she should try taking the bus.
  •  
    I believe she should not be driving while under the influence. Even if she is prescribed the drug, there should be warnings and other precautions taken to prevent accidents.
  •  
    Maybe she should try cocaine I heard that works too.
Bryan Pregon

Unprecedented and Unlawful: The NSA's "Upstream" Surveillance | Just Security - 4 views

  •  
    "First disclosed as part of the Snowden revelations, Upstream surveillance involves the NSA's bulk interception and searching of Americans' international Internet communications - including emails, chats, and web-browsing traffic"
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    The government is looking into all of our emails, letters and phone calls, the Constitution doesn't think that's very fair or right, that seem to not do that without good reason. The government explains how they do it, but not why they do it, well, only a little; to look for terrorists. Maybe the government does look too much into our mails and phone calls, what if there's something private, or not private but more people know about it than nessesary
  •  
    Supposedly the government is looking into private emails, and listening to phone calls to increase the security of the nation by monitoring things for terrorism. However this is the only insight given by the NSA. If it was just about terrorism that could be justifiable, but if the government is just looking through things to look for anything illegal, then the government is breaking the 4th amendment in which they do not have warrant, consent, or probable cause to look through your emails,
  •  
    I don't think the government should look into our private communications unless they have a lead on someone as a terrorist because there is a lot of innocent people who the government are looking at their private communications.
Joey Ruckman

Best content in ALHS Gov | Diigo - Groups - 1 views

  •  
    Studying Government in the textbook is fine to get the basic ideas, but to really understand what is happening around us takes more work. Use this forum to share interesting content that you find. I ask that we try and keep our links related to government topics and stay within the code of conduct.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    Studying Government in the textbook is fine to get the basic ideas, but to really understand what is happening around us takes more work. Use this forum to share interesting content that you find. I ask that we try and keep our links related to government topics and stay within the code of conduct.
  •  
    Studying Government in the textbook is fine to get the basic ideas, but to really understand what is happening around us takes more work. Use this forum to share interesting content that you find. I ask that we try and keep our links related to government topics and stay within the code of conduct.
  •  
    Studying Government in the textbook is fine to get the basic ideas, but to really understand what is happening around us takes more work. Use this forum to share interesting content that you find. I ask that we try and keep our links related to government topics and stay within the code of conduct.
Bryan Pregon

Paul rips big government in farewell - The Hill's Video - 0 views

  •  
    "Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) delivered a blistering farewell speech on the House floor in which he ripped the drastic tilt of the U.S. toward expanded government, a devalued currency, persistent wars and the constant erosion of personal freedoms."
  •  
    If Ron Paul knew when to shut up he would have been president. Instead he makes a completely good point then keeps talking and it makes him sound crazy.
  •  
    I think that a 16 page speech is a little much, even for a farewell speech. I do not think that it was very smart of him to bash on the government so much. The government is not at its best point but he is making it sound like it is the worst. Casey is right, Ron Paul did make a good point though.
Bryan Pregon

Atheists continue battle against World Trade Center cross at memorial - 2 views

  •  
    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.
  • ...8 more comments...
  •  
    I think having a cross at the museum is acceptable. The meaning of a cross varies from person to person. Yes many victims might not have been Christians but people affected from 9/11 should also have the right to display any religious symbol here as well.
  •  
    it is a nation under god so they shouldnt have a problem with the cross "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, (one Nation under God), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
  •  
    If it's okay to put up a cross then it should be okay to put up any symbol of any religion. As long as they do that then I think it's okay.
  •  
    I agree with you Jazmine and Dennis, this is a nation under God. We live in a free country that was started by Christians and to this day, they should be honored. With the honor of those who died in 9/11, should be remembered with a cross and it should not be taken down because of those who don't believe in God. Even if someone doesn't believe, it doesn't mean the ones who do have to cater to them by taking the cross down. If it doesn't effect you, don't worry about it, because those who it does effect, want it there and they should be respected as well
  •  
    i agree people have the right to believe in whatever they want so if that means putting up a cross at ground zero then that's fine. It also says in the pledge that we are a nation under god, and i believe that there many more christian people in the United States than Atheists so i believe that it was the right thing to do.
  •  
    I"m Atheist and I don't see the reason why there shouldn't be a cross put up. It's a sign of 9/11 not a sign promoting God. It's not like people are going there to worship God they are going there to remember those who died in 9/11.
  •  
    The article points out that there are other publicly funded museums have religious art work in them because religious artwork has both cultural and artistic value. However, in my opinion using the argument that we are a country under god is a subjective and highly personal belief. If there is an atheist that lives in Happyland, Connecticut and they don't believe in god how can they, in their view, live in a nation under god. The First Amendment is to prevent the government from establishing and/or favoring one religion over another or religion altogether over no religion at all. I don't feel that the cross alone violates this part of the First Amendment if placed in a museum because I don't see it as the government promoting or favoring a religion that uses a cross as their religious symbol. The way I see it the government is allowing an artifact from a disaster the affected the entire population and has become a cultural and possibly artistic representation of the 9/11 attacks in to the museum. In my view it would be different if they added something about Christianity or religion to the display along with the cross, but if they were to just put an information card that says, "The 'World Trade Center Cross' was discovered in the rubble of the World Trade Center," or something similar then it wouldn't cross the line.
  •  
    I really like that fact that the cross was found in the rubble. Its not like some artist decided to make it from the rubble. I'm sure if there was a different symbol of any religion found it would have been put on display just like the cross was.
  •  
    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.
awest520

ranter who doesn't know that we are already a federal system of government - 2 views

  •  
    we learned today that the federal system is where local and national government share power. This person apparently never learned this. He seems to think Obama is a demon for believing the federal government has power. GASP, a government with power whatever shall we do!?!?!?
hphillips147

Government shutdown fight may again shake up GOP presidential race - 1 views

  •  
    With the big news out of Congress today the warm welcome received by Pope Francis, one might forget that our nation's august legislature is headed for yet another government shutdown, this time over Republican demands that the government cut off all funding for Planned Parenthood, most of which comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursements for women's health care.
Bryan Pregon

Texas files suit in federal court over Syrian refugees - CNNPolitics.com - 29 views

shared by Bryan Pregon on 03 Dec 15 - No Cached
agilbert921 liked it
  •  
    "Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a complaint in federal court against the United States, State Department and the International Rescue Committee, seeking a stay of federal plans to settle any Syrian refugees in his state."
  • ...12 more comments...
  •  
    Texas should let more refuges into their state because its not their decision, its the american goverenments
  •  
    I think we should help these refuges because we have procedures in our immigration process that, if done correctly, we will be protected against the very few ISIS terrorists that hide withing those refuges. Also it is a stand against ISIS if we continue letting them in because we will show that we are not afraid of them and fear is all terrorists have against the world.
  •  
    I think since Texas wasn't informed that the refugees were coming, they have a reason to be mad. Suing may be a little extreme, but it is a huge worry if they are threats to the safety of the Texas people, especially since it was confirmed they cannot do accurate background checks on them
  •  
    I think that the US should be doing what we can to help but I don't think anymore refugees should be allowed into the country. We should not be held accountable for taking care of them. If our nation will be put in danger by possible terrorists posing as refugees, we shouldn't allow anymore. A lot of the refugees that have already come to America have been complaining because we aren't giving them more things. We gave them food, shelter and protection but they complain about not being given TVs. Why should they get free things if half of our nations populous is under poverty line and expected to fend for themselves? I completely understand that they need help but we should not have to put our country in harms way to do it. There is no way to know if they are terrorists or refugees so we shouldn't take the risk.
  •  
    We should let them in but only with very high monitoring to track out the terrorists hiding in the crowds. It might be a evil way to do it but we will be able to stop the terrorists dead in their tracks without just ignoring their please for help. (ZAC OLSON)
  •  
    Texas should let them in but they should take certain steps to make sure that they are not terrorists. It isnt their choice to keep them out its the governments.
  •  
    The American Government should let the state make their own decision. If the state doesn't want to help, then let it be.
  •  
    I really don't know what I think the government should do at this point. I'm pretty neutral on the subject, because I fear for our safety while I also fear for the refugees. I do strongly believe though that these refugees do need a place to go where they can be safe, but it's hard to know whose good or bad.
  •  
    i wouldnt the refugees in because you dont know which ones are a threat i believe it would be to much of a risk
  •  
    I think that the way things are now, with the US not being able to individually make the decision whether or not refugees are allowed into a specific state, is the best for us right now because having one decision for the whole country is more organized and orderly than having every state with a different policy on refugees. Personally, I feel for the Syrian refugees because most of them are women and children. But at the same time, with the risk of letting terrorists in, it is a tough decision. If we did thorough background checks on every single person that came into the US from Syria then maybe I would think this would be okay. Because I don't think it's fair to stop women and children from living a good life here because there MAY be a terrorist among them.
  •  
    I believe that we shouldn't let just anyone in maybe do a background check before they enter our country just in case something is likely to happen, Not being stereotypical but with all the things that ISIS has done so far they could possibly plan something if we were to not accept any Syrians at all because we're "afraid".
  •  
    They do and they dont know whats all going down but they should let them in because its choice of the government to let the refuges in
  •  
    I think that we should take refugees in because they're trying to get out of that environment and the U.S could be a lot of help to them, but I also think we should keep our eyes opened because we don't know who is a threat and who isn't. It's a tough decision to be honest.
  •  
    I think that it's up to the government and not the individual states to decide whether to let the immigrants in or not
Bryan Pregon

Know Your Rights: Photography in Public - 3 views

  •  
    I like knowing that the police and the owner can't take it unless they have a court order.
  • ...5 more comments...
  •  
    I really like this article. I found it true and very knowledgeable. But some of the content, i found absolutely absurd. The fact that we can't take pictures in Court houses and places like that makes me think that the Government is hiding something from us that we aren't aloud to see. My opinion on that is as an American Citizen, they shouldn't be keeping secrets from us. They should tell us the truth whether it is good or bad. We have a right to know. But the whole Trespassing thing is just wow too because what if there is a place that is not clearly marked off.? You can get in so much trouble with out even knowing.
  •  
    this issue has come up recently in some cities passing laws against recording police specifically. I thought some of the comments on the original article were thought provoking as well.
  •  
    I agree with Eric I think the Government should let the public take pictures in those government buildings because we as people pay for those government buildings and I just think that's fair. I do also understand the law because somethings need to be private.
  •  
    I don't want to call anyone out or attack someones beliefs, but I believe that the government needs to keep secrets. If we release every detail, there would be major national security implications to deal with. While some secrets are ludicrous, sometimes a secret is better off not being shared.
  •  
    But if they shared everything with us, maybe we wouldn't be in such a crisis. Like if they told us where the heck all of our money is going... I just think it is completely absurd that they keep secrets from us.. this is supposed to be the land of they free. is it really free if they aren't telling us information that we want to know? I think not.
  •  
    i agree with alex i believe if they told us everything we would have more to worry about then knowing nothing
  •  
    Well have you ever thought that maybe that would be better for our Country? To Actually think.....?
Jeremy Vogel

U.S. government insists 2012 apocalypse is a myth - 2 views

  •  
    One of government's greatest trusts is ensuring the safety of its people. But sometimes you have to protect people from themselves. The U.S. government's latest effort on that front is a blog post patiently explaining that, no, the world will not end this December.
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    I think this is a good move by the government to keep people from panicking in the next few weeks about the end of the world.
  •  
    It going to be scary/interesting to see all the things that people are going to do because they think the world is going to end. and i wonder when will the next world end date be
  •  
    Well sounds like they are going to handle it better than 1999 doomsday.
  •  
    people are crazy
  •  
    If the world ends im going to be pissed.
  •  
    Media blows things way out of proportion, starting with making the movie "2012." There is no scientific evidence of any apocalyptic events that will happen between now and December 21st, so I don't see what the big hysteria is. People will believe anything the news or the internet says and the internet is only correct a very small fraction of the time.
  •  
    people need to realize their are these things called lies and/or rumors which can be started easily just buy going on the internet and making something up and it clearly says most astronomers around the world would tell the public somehow if an unknown planet was going to collide with us
  •  
    "the emergence of a hidden planet known as Nibiru which will crash into Earth." What I want to know is how people believe a planet could be hidden. They're a little large...
  •  
    The following is a mass of sarcasm and poking fun at the people who believe in Nibiru. Do not attempt to recreate these actions because it's pretty much just me calling some people absolutely foolish. (Do not try this at him warning wannabe.) Read at your own risk. Mallory, they obviously have a cloaking device that prevents us from seeing this planet. When the day comes, the planet is going to ram into us and the world will end, because science has not found a way to flaw this theory, because gravity does not exist, because if gravity existed, this planet would have hit us a long time ago. Obviously.
  •  
    Foolish Payton, Doctor Who has already conclusively proven that all you need to prevent a planet ramming into us is the Doctor and a time lock. Or, alternately, the Doctor and his TARDIS, which can haul the other planet away. Seriously, though, it's extraordinarily sad that people insist on believing this. Something is very wrong when children become sick and suicidal because they believe in the end of the world. For that to happen the parents/guardians must either be encouraging the belief that the world will end, or at least not doing anything to dispel that belief. Very sad.
  •  
    As far as the Mayan calendar part is concerned, they probably got bored with doing it and wanted to do something else. But I don't remember anyone saying anything about how the Mayans specifically wrote on the calendar, "This is the day the world will end." Also, the day of Doomsday was later changed to sometime in the spring of 2011, or that's when the Rapture was supposed to happen or something. But nothing happened whatsoever. So it's a little surprising to see people still freaking out about how Doomsday is supposedly on December 21st, when nothing happened on that day in 2011. So nothing's going to happen. It's also really sad that some people want to commit suicide because they think the world is going to end.
Holly Jensen

Preacher Phil Snider gives gay rights speach - 0 views

  •  
    This is totally great. I think it made a great comparison between racism and being against gay marriage. I highly recommend watching this.
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    I watched this and I really liked it. I give him credit for being a preacher and going against all other preachers by speaking on behalf of gay marriage.
  •  
    It just goes to show that you can't let one person represent an entire religion.
  •  
    Religion though, should not influence the policies of government upon gay marriage. Just a side note, I laugh at images of people going to his protest, and raising a sign that says, "god hates signs," or "He's gay"
  •  
    Exactly. Our country isn't ruled by religion its ruled by the people and their choices.
  •  
    I agree also, religion should stay out of politics, the only reason people think being homosexual is wrong is because it says so in the bible. Gay couples who get married aren't hurting anyone or anything, I really think that this even being an issue is absurd.
  •  
    I agree that one person can not represent an entire religion. One can represent their own easy because it is their personal belief on said subject. I give him props for being a willing person to speaking his views on gay marriage. The bible does not exactly say that it is not okay to be homosexual. It says its not okay to lay with someone of the same sex if I remember right. So I feel the physical part is viewed as not ok, wile the mental area should be taken in mind as well.
  •  
    Every time someone "interprets" the bible it's like they are trying to "play God". They all try to say this is what God thinks and this is what He believes is wrong. I mean we should all be able to interpret it our own way and not try to make others believe in our interpretation, especially if it portrays God as "against" his own creations.
  •  
    Religion is based off of your own personal faith and beliefs and with so many different versions and beliefs you can't let one person say what it means and stereotype that religion. You also have to consider the fact that things change with time, people evolve and so do thoughts. Like Snider showed in the video, we once thought that racism was right and accepting other nationalities was against their religion.
  •  
    As I have said before, religion should have no influence when it comes to government policy. As for the bible, I could point out many things wrong with the bible, and the idea that Christianity not supporting gay relationships. I will not, simply out of the urge as to not ruin peoples views on religion. What I will say, is that the bible should also have no say on our government as well. Religion should, and is, also limited in the US, contrary to popular belief. Religion has been limited to 1st, no human sacrifice. (We don't need them crazy beheading Aztec's coming in and just start slicing peoples heads off right?) Second, separation of church and state. That right there means religion is not allowed to say, "You can't be gay, ban gay marriage." (And oddly, it still managed to happen.) I'm really looking forward to the supreme courts ruling on this, as long as they decide to take the case.
Bryan Pregon

Your Government Wants to Militarize Social Media to Influence Your Beliefs | Motherboard - 0 views

  •  
    "A global conference of senior military and intelligence officials taking place in London this week reveals how governments increasingly view social media as "a new front in warfare" and a tool for the Armed Forces."
Bryan Pregon

President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong | Techdirt - 17 views

  •  
    "President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong"
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    Obama is claiming he can't and wont pardon Edward Snowden, also known as the most famous whistleblower in our governments history, solely because he hasn't stood before a court. The president CAN pardon him, but decides not to. Snowden would appear before a court if he knew it'd be a fair trial, but he knows that wont happen. He knows how tyrannous the government is and wont even attempt to have a fair trial.
  •  
    I agree with Deven because as soon as Snowden steps foot on United States soil he's getting thrown into federal prison and then going to go on trial and not win because it wouldn't be a fair trial
  •  
    Deven is correct on this one. The thing I find interesting is that Obama said that if Trump pardons Snowden then he will pardon Clinton, the problem with that is Clinton wasn't convicted of anything.
  •  
    Zayne brought up the Clinton situation, I agree with that because you can't pardon somebody who wasn't convicted of anything, so how would he pardon him?
  •  
    Snowden shouldn't be pardoned because what he did was against the government policy, even though he was trying to tell america what our government was doing he still violated the law.
  •  
    In this article, one paragraph says that Obama pardoned three Iranian Americans before they stood trial. So in a way I think Obama is just using his opinion and not giving Snowden a chance. It's truly unfair that if he steps on US soil he will be thrown in jail, when really he just wants a chance to explain himself
  •  
    I agree with the president on forgiving him because we deserve to know this information.
  •  
    I think Obama could have pardoned him but is choosing not to. The fact that he's saying that he's not able to is ridiculous. Though what he did was considered against the law, sometimes we need people to go against in order to uncover hidden truths.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    On the idea of pardoning Snowden, I agree with Nate because although the information he had should have been told to the public, just in a different way, he broke major laws, so there must be consequences. And going off of Devin's idea of no fair trial is inevitable.
  •  
    I agree with Lauren because the president has enough authority to make those decisions.
Janeth Cano

Why be against same sex marriage? - 37 views

  •  
    A student from ISU stands up for same sex marriage as he tells his story. Very powerful!
  • ...30 more comments...
  •  
    This student's name is Zach Wahls and this was a very powerful speech. Here is another link for the story with some more details http://goo.gl/LfiKK . I also know that he did a reddit AMA recently but I can't find a link right now.
  •  
    "marriage- ... 3) an intimate or close union" i think that if you asked a random person on the street what they thought marriage was this would be close to what they said, so why WOULD we be against it?
  •  
    If they are together the same as a man and a women are, why shouldn't they get the same benefits? I mean their relationships generally last longer then "legitimate" marriages so why shouldn't they be treated the same? By not allowing them to get married, are you doing anything? Besides denying them the benefits of that little piece of paper...such as lower insurance rates, higher health benefits, what happens if their partner dies? Then simply because they weren't ALLOWED to be married, the living partner does not get their belongings unless it is in the written will, they wont get any of the insurance money because that only goes to family, so if they are just "dating" they don't get any money to help them through the hard times...I think they should allow same sex marriage simply because if they are going to be together whether or not you allow them to get married, they should get the same benefits as everyone else.
  •  
    I don't mean to start a fight or anything like that, I just don't think it's right in the biblical sense. I am very close minded about this topic, and can't seem to change and I don't plan on it. I can see where people come from, but I bet some of those people don't believe in God, or the bible. It even states it in the bible that is wrong.
  •  
    I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments. Discussion groups like these can easily turn into arguments with little information on either side. Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/BFKIo
  •  
    I don't think that religion can play a part in what marriage is in today's world. Marriage now in the eyes of our government is a way for 2 people to share benefits that the government gives them.
  •  
    casue it sthe same sex it shold not be
  •  
    this is a hard question to answer. I believe very strongly that gays have the right to be together and form a union, so i think that marriage is all well and good, but there is another issue. No matter what the dictionary says what the definition of marriage is, it doesn't take superiority over the bibles definition, which clearly states marriage is only to be formed between a man and a woman. Some say that the bible was not very clear on that, and that it is up for debate, but if one looks at leviticus 18:22 it states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I don't think it is abominations, but the concept of christianity, and judaism does, which is where it gets tricky. Does the government have the right to force the church to do things against their belief such as allowing gays and lesbians to marry? quite frankly i don't think so. Its not like the pope can just say, hey gays are ok now. It would be blasphemous. the only way gays would be allowed is if God himself came down from heaven and made it publicly known that he has changed his mind on the concept. If i was lets say jewish and had my own resteraunt, and i didn't serve pork due to my belief that pork was a dirty meat, would you go to the mayor and convince him to force me to change my rule even though its against my religion, and causes the lord to look down on me with disdain? I dont think you would because its preposterous. So i believe we need to meet in the middle. Make a union that gives gays all the same rights and privileges as regular marriage, but make it a different term than marriage, or at least make it known that the church is not ordaining it. The trick is not to force people to do things against their will, but to find new methods to do things so that we can all co exist without such petty argument.
  •  
    I just think people come up with poor excuses for gay marriage not to eligible..
  •  
    they do, but many people are scared of change. its going to change i believe, but its going to take time.
  •  
    I think that if a gay couple want to be want to be married, why can't they? There isn't a negative effect of a gay marriage, and you can see from the young man in this video that they can be just the same as a straight marriage. Infact I think that man was in more successful than any of us coming from opposite sex parents would be at that age. I also think that they provide a better family life for their children as well. His family seemed alot closer than most families today. So theres no reason a gay couple can't be married. Sure you can say that its wrong because its against Gods will and all, but being gay isnt a choice. Its who you are. God created man, and if being gay is really as terrible as they say it is, then God wouldnt have made them gay. And to the guy who says people that are for gay marriage aren't christian or don't belive in God, guess what? I go to church, believe in God, and I am for gay marriage. Who's to say that gay people can't have the same rights as straight people? The only difference is the gender we prefer. Why should gay marriage be outlawed and ridiculed? Where has prejudice ever gotten us?
  •  
    I do not think religion has anything to do with marriage. After all atheists can get married can't they? Also if you have read the entire bible there are more things that god has said is wrong then gays, and i guarantee everybody has done something god has said is a sin. It is up to the people getting married whether they want their marriage to be religious or not. If we let religion be a part of our everyday lives we would go insane with all of the "rules" the bible states. Who is to say that gays shouldn't have the right to get married? If that is the case then maybe we should limit what straights can do.
  •  
    Dakota, If you look at Americas past there has always been prejudice. And in the end it united America. Look at the way people treated colored folk, or women for that example. There has always been prejudice in the past and there will always be in the future. People are going to voice their opinions no matter how ignorant or naive they are.
  •  
    I am against gay marraige but I also think that people have the right to chose what they want. they can make their own choices and I will make mine. I have friends that are gay and I have no problems with them or the way they act. I may not like it but im not going to hate them for it.
  •  
    i actually have read the whole bible, and i spent 7 years of my life in a private christian school. it doesn't matter if you stole an orange or killed a man, a sin is a sin. what you dont understand is that god weighs all sins the same, and quite frankly if i really should tell the truth gay people are going to burn in a pit, just as that guy with the orange will if they dont change their ways and repent. The church is like a private club, and they say gays cant marry. end of story. they dont care if your not christian, they care about anatomy. anything else people want to ask questions about so i can answer them? or how about making false statements i can shoot down? listen unless we find an alternate to marriage, we should not and i will not stand up for gay marriage. perhaps if it was termed differently and done done in the name of god, i would just say more power to them. no matter how much you want to, you cant change the laws in the bible and call them legitimate.
  •  
    "broxton anderson " so your saying that the homosexuals need their own form of union instead of marriage? I thought that most marriages were now legal constructs with religious ceremonies being a personal choice? Does anyone else think this touches on separation of church and government? Should there be a true separation between the phrases "civil union" and "marriage" or is there already and some of us just can't see it yet?
  •  
    From a biblical point of view God made women for man and man for women, not man for man and women for women! #RealTalk
  •  
    yes it should be a "true separation" that way it removes itself from religion which leaves religions no room to complain. I feel that a civil union should give ALL the same benefits as marriage to. must people truly complain so much over two words? its the same thing, just a different name, and can prevent millions of wasted arguments.
  •  
    for those of you that say it is wrong according to the Bible, what happens if you were gay? It's not like you can change how you feel...and if "God" created all people "equal" why shouldn't they actually be treated equal? And i honestly think that simply because gays are the minority, they are being picked on...it's wrong...so why would "God create" people just to send to the deep south? ...just a thought
  •  
    Broxton Anderson- You have read the bible, yet you chose to use the most uncredible source in the bible. Using Leviticus is ridiculous. Leviticus also states that it is okay to own slaves and that if one performs the act of beastiality, that person is to be murdered and so shall the animal. It also states that you may not speak to a women on her menstrual cycle and it is also forbidden to touch pig skin and for men to cut their hair. You are completely fine with ignoring these very radical notions, but when it comes to gay marriage you instantly are against it? Seems to me like there is a lot of hypocrisy in your ways. I am a Catholic, but I fully accept the institution of gay marriage. I myself am not gay, nor do I plan on becoming gay. Leviticus is outdated and does not apply to our modern lives. Do not pick apart the bible and try to sound as if you know the way people should be. Anyone can misquote the bible. If you have a problem with homosexuals, keep it to yourself. They have just as much rights as everyone else in this world and should not be denied rights such as being married. A few men who disliked gay people have started this constant circle of quoting Leviticus in order to make their way sound just. If anything, they are doing more wrong by corrupting the bible to use it to justify their personal views.
  •  
    Same goes to Jay Cook. Talking on something you do not understand, or even researched, makes you arrogant and naive. If you are so fine with not allowing gays to be married, then you should be put back into slavery. Fair trade, yes? From a biblical view?
  •  
    I compltely agree with you^ Most people that are against gay marriage claim to say they are against it mostly because its against the bible while over half of them have no idea what they are talking about and likly havent read the bible. I think people should be able to marry who they wish the gender should not matter.
  •  
    It's too bad the bible is a bunch of tall tales exaggerated, can't trust religion for anything, it's a petty excuse for any argument.
  •  
    From an evolutionary stand point homosexual relations don't have an impact other then thinning the human gene pool. Not that I'm against gay rights, but since everyone dismisses religion I thought it would be important to note that in the commonly held belief of evolution, unless a person has offspring, it's as if never existed. Just some food for thought...
  •  
    Obviously what he is saying that from the stand point of evolution. He wasn't saying the homosexuals provide nothing to their societies.
  •  
    If you think about it the bible states go forth and populate, and that's the premise of evolution....
  •  
    Yeah thats a good point but maybe thinning the human population isnt all a bad thing. Also have you even considered how many children gay people adopted from other countris and places were they probably would have not had a good chance in living a good long heaalthy life. I dont understand how people can be so one minded about things. What if you were gay and wanted to marry a person you loved and you couldnt because judgmental people didnt approve?
  •  
    I'm cool with gays as long as they don't try and make a move on me.
  •  
    I agree with Brittany, everyone as a human being has their rights
  •  
    i totally agree with riley its peoples life and they have their own rights
  •  
    Thinning the gene pool is a bad thing. Genes that don't get passed are lost, and it could have devastating effects. Also I never said they don't contribute through adopting. I said that in the eyes of evolution ANYONE who fails to pass on genes is nonexistent.
  •  
    I believe Brittany said the human population, not pointing out simply the gene pool. The human population rate needs to slow down. It's increasing at a ridiculous rate and with adoptions instead of births it will decrease slightly. However, more people need to understand that everyone has a right as an individual and if a man-man or woman-woman couple wants to get married or adopt children or have their own, I say let them.
Bryan Pregon

» NYT Admits Every Major News Organization Allows News To Be Censored By Gove... - 0 views

  •  
    I think that there should be no problem with what they say getting out into the public. Why should they be censored when we are trying to know what kind of a person they are?
  •  
    I agree, this degree of censoring isn't just. Where's our First Amendment? And if a government official changes a quote later, then that just means they are not being genuine all the time.
  •  
    I also agree, when it comes to government officials telling the public their viewpoint, nothing should be censored or revised. The people want to know the truth, no matter what side their on. Politicians are well known as liars and crooks, why does it have to be that way?
Bryan Pregon

A government shutdown: What could it look like? - U.S. News - 0 views

  •  
    "While the most essential government services will basically continue business as usual, the lack of funding for many others will be a minor headache for some Americans, and a serious concern for others."
Bryan Pregon

Iowa Lawmaker Still Seeking Medical Marijuana Law - 2 views

  •  
    "Legalizing medical marijuana will again be debated in the upcoming legislative session, though Iowa lawmakers have so far been loath to embrace a policy that is finding acceptance elsewhere."
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    I don't think this will happen..
  •  
    If it's gonna happen then their should be strict "laws" to follow for it. Although it probably wont happen.
  •  
    I think that if it does not happen now it is inevitable for the legalization of marijuana. The government has noticed that when it was illegal the money made a year in the "business" is in the billions. The government does not want to miss out on that much money to conclude.
  •  
    I think they should go for it, just because it eases some symptoms for some diseases and that's good for the people suffering from those disease. So why not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  •  
    I think it would be better for the government to legalize marijuana because we have spent millions trying to stop the distribution of the drug with nothing to show for it. The government should legalize it so instead of wasting money trying to stop it we can make money, or spend the money on more pressing matters.
1 - 20 of 515 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page