Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged house

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
karlie704

Officials: Fence jumper made it into East Room of White House - 5 views

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

shared by karlie704 on 01 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • michaelaheilesen on 01 Oct 14
     
    Washington (CNN) -- The man who jumped the White House fence earlier this month and breached the mansion's doors actually made it farther than originally thought, officials said Monday. White House fence jumper has PTSD, former stepson says Secret Service questioned over breach Armed man ran through White House Did Secret Service mishandle shooting?
  • karlie704 on 01 Oct 14
     
    Washington (CNN) -- The man who jumped the White House fence earlier this month and breached the mansion's doors actually made it farther than originally thought, officials said Monday. White House fence jumper has PTSD, former stepson says Secret Service questioned over breach Armed man ran through White House Did Secret Service mishandle shooting?
Bryan Pregon

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

usnews.nbcnews.com/...shold-for-white-house-response

petition texas

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • caseyyard on 15 Nov 12
     
    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...
  • patrick boian on 15 Nov 12
     
    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
  • joecarbis on 15 Nov 12
     
    I think this is just a way of Texans and those other states to show their frustration with the government
  • Jeremy Vogel on 15 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • jacob whalen on 15 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • jordan bywater on 15 Nov 12
     
    i think the white house will respond with a no
  • bvasquez13 on 15 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 15 Nov 12
     
    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?
  • gharvey949 on 15 Nov 12
     
    I think that this will never happen. Although they might not believe that being apart of the U.S. benefits them, It truly does.
  • garrett lee on 15 Nov 12
     
    it would never happen but it will be interesting to see if any changes happen in response to this
  • jessicavaldez on 15 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • Melissa Christensen on 15 Nov 12
     
    I believe that Texas would do well in its own government, but it would be better to keep the 50 states.
  • aaron valdivia on 15 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 16 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • Kirstina Michl on 16 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 16 Nov 12
     
    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."
  • Payton Whiteaker on 16 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • Sidnie Lewis on 19 Nov 12
     
    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

Entire U.S. Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing | Reuters - 0 views

www.reuters.com/...clear-usa-senate-idUSKBN17Q1LR

shared by Bryan Pregon on 25 Apr 17 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 25 Apr 17
     
    "All 100 senators have been asked to the White House for the briefing by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said White House spokesman Sean Spicer on Monday."
bigslide

House Republican introduces anti-trans legislation that could lead to genital exams for... - 36 views

www.lgbtqnation.com/...ead-genital-exams-school-girls

shared by bigslide on 01 Feb 21 - No Cached
  • bigslide on 01 Feb 21
     
    so it says "House Republican introduces anti-trans legislation that could lead to genital exams for school girls"
  • ...21 more comments...
  • bigslide on 01 Feb 21
     
    Im angry about this be because it's already been moving to pass in Mississippi, Connecticut, and Tennessee. It's sad to see so many people retaliate against the trans-community. They see us as disgusting monsters. They don't feel bad when they take away the rights of trans youth because of their lack of understanding of what being transgender actually is. I'm not speaking for all trans people, but I would have rather never been born than to be trans. for many reasons because most are too personal to say. and when old 1900s people take away our basic rights, and others seem to never care, it angers me.
  • thepriceisright on 01 Feb 21
     
    This is simply disgusting. Have people really become this ignorant and transphobic? Maybe they should... hear me out here... mind.their.business
  • thomaschau on 01 Feb 21
     
    I personally agree that transgender women should be banned from women sports because biologically they are still male and for all of human history males have been proven to physically superior to females and when you put a transgender women whos been a male for most of their life vs a women whos been a woman all of her life it's gonna be pretty obvious whos gonna win I would hate to be a girl in a wrestling team and get destroyed by a transgender women whos been a male for the longest time ever.
  • lamador794 on 01 Feb 21
     
    I disagree with the House of Republicans introducing anti-trans legislation that could lead to genital exams for females. America is a free nation where everyone has the right to choose and be identified based on their gender decision. As a female and one day future mother, I suggest not allowing this legislation because it will only spread narcissism and homophobia. Females should never be forced to go through an "examination" to prove their gender. The First Amendment guarantees our right to free expression and we should maintain it active no matter what.
  • ataylor074 on 01 Feb 21
     
    I disagree, I think people have a right to be who they want and have a right to participate in the things that they want. Just because you fear what you don't understand doesn't mean you can force HUMANS to go through these traumatizing experiences so you can tell them they can't do something. They have a right to play sports if they want to and people shouldn't stand in their way.
  • kredding147 on 01 Feb 21
     
    I completely disagree with this. This is teaching young girls that it's okay for people to expect you to show them their genitals, this is teaching young girls that they don't have the choice to say no, this is teaching young girls to let old white men control our lives and the way that we handle our bodies. This is only adding to the rape culture of the present day by teaching girls that we don't have control over our bodies.
  • allisonwalker on 01 Feb 21
     
    I disagree with this whole thing. Females have privacy and should keep it. I don't even see the big deal in allowing someone who identifies as female to play a sport that is only for girls. People should be able to be who they identify as without facing discrimination. I thought we've moved on already.
  • noahsandbothe on 01 Feb 21
     
    I disagree with the legislation. No one should have to have their genitals checked just to play sports in general. Also, people in the trans community already face enough humiliation and bullying, the old white men writing the legislation should stop worrying about what sports trans people play and instead work on attempting to end the global pandemic at hand.
  • jacobknauss on 01 Feb 21
     
    how do you not see the problem with trans people playing sports? Men are scientifically stronger than females creating an unfair advantage. These trans people will just take opportunities away from women, like scholarships. If you are say a female wrestler, would you want to wrestle a male? No, because it's unfair.
  • jtaulborg103 on 01 Feb 21
     
    I disagree with this completely. We should not have to show our genitals or get them checked in order to play sports. The trans community gets so much hate and suffers enough as it is. The people writing the legislation need to quit being so concerned with the trans community and what sports they're playing and also quit trying to pass laws that could invade young womens privacy. It's disgusting that this is even being considered.
  • aburianek421 on 01 Feb 21
     
    Personally I think people should be allowed to do what they want, transgenders playing sports included. Politicians spend too much time creating conflict and fighting among themselves, which creates division among the people too
  • bigslide on 01 Feb 21
     
    I also feel like most don't really care about the highschool sport. They just don't want trans people participating. I think when they imagine a trans woman, they think of a pedo looking dude, or very masculine. When in reality, many trans women look very much like women. I understand a physical sport, like wrestling, but that's basically it. Maybe weight lifting, but everything else is just based on the fact that some people don't understand the transgender mind and body and how they work. Who cares about high school or middle school volleyball that much to be so concerned to want to check any women's genitals? invasion of privacy and just embarrassing.
  • milo_nordman on 01 Feb 21
     
    I 100% disagree with this. First off girls shouldn't have to show their genitals in order to play sports, it's an invasion of privacy and just disgusting. And secondly, this legislation perpetuates the idea that trans women aren't women, which simply isn't true. If a trans woman, or just a trans person in general, wants to play a sport on the team that aligns with their gender identity they should be able to.
  • jacobknauss on 02 Feb 21
     
    I completely disagree with the statement "I also feel like most don't really care about the highschool sport". These high school athletes put in many hours of their week into participating in their sport. These people care a lot. For some kids, this could be their only way out of a bad situation they are in. Also, it's not only wrestling that this would create an unfair advantage. Basketball, Soccer, Softball, Volleyball, Swiming. The list just goes on. If you say that "Most people don't care" you must not be involved in any type of sport seriously.
  • bigslide on 03 Feb 21
     
    true, I don't participate in sports. I guess I didn't think about how big and important even middle school sports can be, and I'm sorry bout that. What I was trying to say before is that most of the people passing these laws don't care about the sport. They just don't. They see Biden allow trans people back into the military, and they got mad. Another thing is that for the people saying it's a disadvantage, idk what to say to ya'll. Yall All could ban mentally disabled girls because it could "bring the team down". yall could ban stronger girls with muscle because they are "too strong compared to the other girls and its unfair". Anyone can make excuses to discriminate against a group they don't understand or care about and make it sound like they have the best of intentions. And maybe they do, but the fact they think they can stop the freedom of that individual because its unfair to them, shows the lack of understanding they have on that issue. I'm a trans person, and I personally live through small micro-aggressions and just blatant transphobia in my own house every day. So when I see discrimination with no consiterate thought on how to solve an issue (instead of finding a solution, they just ban people from playing all together) that's when I have an issue. I'm sorry this is long btw (:
  • greenleighd on 08 Feb 21
     
    the fact that they could say "I also feel like most don't really care about their highschool sport" is wrong the people who participate in their high school sports aren't just doing it for fun that may be one of the only ways they can start a career they want or it may be their only way to get out of a bad situation they also take hours out of their weeks to perfect their skills I personally think most people just don't understand the time & dedication.
  • peytongrenoble on 08 Feb 21
     
    I don't think that it should truly matter as long as they are doing what they need. The girls who are putting time and dedication into the sport should get to play, that is all that matters.
  • nick_rice on 08 Feb 21
     
    I agree with the ban because I feel it would always result in an unfair advantage however if there are ways to make it fairer then I suppose I would have no real problem with it
  • tkoesters274 on 11 Feb 21
     
    I disagree with this because it could allow children to think that other people looking at their genitals and that's just disgusting. Also, I feel like someone who is transgender is going to be taking certain hormones to change their body and while they are transitioning they shouldn't have the possibility of being looked at in this way because trans people already struggle with body dysphoria and this may just worsen it.
  • lhunter952 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I feel like if you were born a male then it is fair to switch to a female or do whatever makes you happy but, it is definitely unfair for someone with the genetic make-up of a man to be competing against women in sports. Man are known to generally be stronger and more athletic than women and I feel like if they were competing in a physical activity it would never be fair.
  • noahsandbothe on 27 Apr 21
     
    This is a disgusting bill that has begun passing in some conservative states. The people writing these don't understand that Transgender (Male to Female) start hormone therapy that degrades their muscle building and strength overall so people would not have that much of an advantage. Also, no one is upset if it was a Transgender female to male.
  • jdogan on 27 Apr 21
     
    Whether you think transgender athletes should be able to participate in sports or not I think this bills is unacceptable and unethical because it allows for a challenge where an examination of the students genitals is required. In high school sports a place known a lot of times for coaches sexually assaulting young athletes and taking advantage of them I don't think under any circumstance a proposition like this should be acceptable.
  • tsilva588 on 27 Apr 21
     
    I do believe that this bill violates citizens' rights and is unethical. People should be allowed to be trans and should be allowed to identify as one. However, when it comes to sports they still should be separated because even if I was a woman it is still conflicting with nature. If the woman/woman is ok with the competition then it's fine to me.
morgandooty

House GOP Conference chair backs Trump, isolating Paul Ryan - 2 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...acks-trump-isolating-paul-ryan

shared by morgandooty on 20 May 16 - No Cached
  • morgandooty on 20 May 16
     
    Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, announced her support for Donald Trump's presidential campaign late Wednesday, leaving House Speaker Paul D. Ryan as the last major GOP leader on Capitol Hill not to back Trump. I think she is right. Trump has one people over for speaking his mind, but now he has to show that he has the "temperament for the job."
  • kittyterhune on 25 May 16
     
    One of the most important jobs of the president is to form diplomatic relationships with other countries. Given Trump's plans for solving the debt crisis and building his infamous wall, it seems unlikely that he would be able to work well with other countries. I believe that it is foolish to back Trump for president because he is all over the board and has yet to prove he is capable of such a position.
  • elijah57 on 25 May 16
     
    I think she refused to debate because she knew she would lose
Anna Gahm

Arraignment set for man accused of shooting at White House - CNN.com - 1 views

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

shared by Anna Gahm on 24 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • Anna Gahm on 24 Jan 12
     
    Idaho man charged with firing a rifle at the White House in an attempt at assassinating the president.
candyheyer

White House Computer Networks Hacked - 4 views

time.com/...white-house-hackers-breached

shared by candyheyer on 29 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • candyheyer on 29 Oct 14
     
    Hackers believed to be employed by the Russian government breached White House computer networks in recent weeks, temporarily disrupting services. Citing unnamed sources, the Washington Post reported there was no evidence that hackers had breached classified networks or that any of the systems were damaged.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • taylormorris on 29 Oct 14
     
    It's alarming that the White House can be hacked just like other people can, I hope this doesn't mean that Russia has a specific reason to be angry with the US or that they just want to advance over us in some aspect.
  • dylan_root1 on 29 Oct 14
     
    I heard that all the programs are out there available to everyone to use but if you used them in the US you would probably get caught red handed. Anything the government uses anyone can use.
  • iandreessen on 29 Oct 14
     
    No one likes Russia.
  • oelliff884 on 04 Nov 14
     
    I kinda like Russia.
  • audrey23 on 04 Nov 14
     
    It's just a hoax no worries :)
Bryan Pregon

Democrats Approve Contempt for Barr After Trump Claims Privilege Over Full Mueller Repo... - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...-privilege-mueller-report.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 08 May 19 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 May 19
     
    "The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to recommend the House hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over Robert S. Mueller III's unredacted report, hours after President Trump asserted executive privilege to shield the full report and underlying evidence from public view."
Bryan Pregon

The House has the power to arrest people who defy its orders - The Washington Post - 1 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...est-people-who-defy-its-orders

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 May 19 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 15 May 19
     
    "Imagine instead that the House draws inspiration from a parallel clash in the 1920s, during the scandal-ridden administration of Warren G. Harding. As the Teapot Dome affair unfolded, members of Congress suspected that Attorney General Harry Daugherty was personally corrupt and was shielding other members of the administration from justice."
emmawendland

Key House Panel Narrowly Advances GOP Obama Care Overhaul Plan, with 3 Conservative Opp... - 0 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html

shared by emmawendland on 16 Mar 17 - No Cached
  • emmawendland on 16 Mar 17
     
    "The House Budget Committee on Thursday narrowly voted to advance to the House floor a Republican bill to overhaul the Affordable Care Act on a 19-17 vote, as some conservatives registered their opposition."
Jeremy Vogel

Texas petition to secede from the union awaiting comment from White House - 1 views

blog.zap2it.com/...-comment-from-white-house.html

Government Texas Secede

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 13 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 13 Nov 12
     
    What year is this, 1860? That was certainly my first thought when I heard that 32 states -- yes, more than two thirds of our beloved union -- are currently petitioning the White House with requests to secede from the United States." Here is a link to the actual petition (not sure if there was one in the article): https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-texas-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/BmdWCP8B
Bryan Pregon

Iowa Lawmaker Wants To Bring Back The Death Penalty - 1 views

www.wowt.com/...e-Death-Penalty-182678981.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 10 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • joecarbis on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think life in prison would be worse than the death penalty to begin with
  • ...33 more comments...
  • Natalie Wilson on 10 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • caseyyard on 10 Dec 12
     
    Yup we are for sure with out a doubt falling back into a dark age.
  • garrett lee on 10 Dec 12
     
    i think we should have the death penalty
  • gharvey949 on 10 Dec 12
     
    Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back.
  • Ryan Loye on 10 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 10 Dec 12
     
    What would happen if the person was innocent after all?
  • Molly Wyant on 10 Dec 12
     
    Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out
  • blakewilladsen on 10 Dec 12
     
    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
  • jessicavaldez on 10 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Melissa Christensen on 10 Dec 12
     
    I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions.
  • aaron valdivia on 10 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 11 Dec 12
     
    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
  • joecarbis on 11 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Aaron, but i also think that justice should be served
  • Dylan Garner on 11 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • bvasquez13 on 11 Dec 12
     
    better for the death penalty then life in prison.
  • gharvey949 on 11 Dec 12
     
    Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.
  • aaron valdivia on 11 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • blakewilladsen on 11 Dec 12
     
    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
  • jacob whalen on 12 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • joecarbis on 13 Dec 12
     
    Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!
  • Dylan Garner on 13 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • dalton burk on 13 Dec 12
     
    unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people
  • Jeremy Vogel on 13 Dec 12
     
    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."
  • joecarbis on 14 Dec 12
     
    Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.
  • Dylan Garner on 14 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • joecarbis on 14 Dec 12
     
    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 Garner on 14 Dec 12
     
    I am prison
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 14 Dec 12
     
    @ 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?
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Dylan Garner on 18 Dec 12
     
    @ Payton. It is cheaper. I know for a fact. I AM A PRISON WARDEN.
  • Emili Davis on 18 Dec 12
     
    I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty.
  • joecarbis on 19 Dec 12
     
    @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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 19 Dec 12
     
    @ 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?
  • Molly Wyant on 19 Dec 12
     
    The death penalty is dumb you should just let that sever his/or hers time in prison.
Cara Ireland

5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister - 3 views

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

shared by Cara Ireland on 02 May 13 - No Cached
  • Cara Ireland on 02 May 13
     
    (CNN) -- A Kentucky mother stepped outside of her home just for a few minutes, but it was long enough for her 5-year-old son to accidentally shoot his 2-year-old sister with the .22-caliber rifle he got for his birthday, state officials said.
  • ...18 more comments...
  • Austin Parrott on 10 May 13
     
    Im stuck on why the 5 year old got a gun and was able to get to it easily
  • olinde on 10 May 13
     
    why would you even have guns in your house to where a little kid could be able to get a hold of the gun and shoot his little sister.
  • Victoria Kirk on 28 Aug 13
     
    The mother should be the one being punished for this accident.
  • Zach Standard on 29 Aug 13
     
    Who leaves a gun out in the direct access of children?
  • Sara Borgaila on 29 Aug 13
     
    I agree that this was an accident but the article also says the 5 year old boy was playing with it. 5 year old's are smart enough to know/ be taught not to play with guns. They obviously didn't know enough to keep a gun out of a 5 year old's reach.
  • spencer schmitz on 29 Aug 13
     
    why whould a gun be out any way let alone in reach of a child....
  • Sara Dunn on 29 Aug 13
     
    If you give a 5 year old child a gun for his birthday and leave it in reach for him to get a hold of it, it is the parents fault that this happened.
  • Hayli Erickson on 29 Aug 13
     
    Why would you give your 5-year old son a .22-caliber rifle for his birthday? That is asking for trouble. The mother should be blamed for the incident. You should never leave your kids unattended, not even for a minute, when they are that little. Let alone, never leave a child unattended when there is a gun in the house and it is loaded?!?!
  • Andrew Ryan on 29 Aug 13
     
    I've had guns since a young age and I always knew not use them on people no excuse
  • Ryan Edmondson on 29 Aug 13
     
    Why does a 5 year old have a rifle in the first? I do agree with Victoria, that the mother should be punished.
  • tristan wheeldon on 29 Aug 13
     
    what kind of person leaves a 5 year olds gun loaded
  • destany mass on 29 Aug 13
     
    I think think it was an accident, but the mother should be held responsible for being the one who gave the little boy a gun. I don't think young kids should be allowed to have any kinds of weapons at a young age. I mean I know they may be old enough to understand that it's bad, but how many 5 year old kids do you know that will actually listen and do stuff theyre not supposed to. I think it's fine to own a gun if you want to, but not for kids and they need to be under lock and key.
  • Maddie christensen on 29 Aug 13
     
    if the gun had child safety on it why was it easy for it to go off? and why was it easy for the child to reach?
  • Rachel Cottone-Dungan on 29 Aug 13
     
    Its the mother's fault, I've had guns around my whole life, I was taught how to use them, and that I shouldn't touch them unless my parents were there. They shouldn't have had the gun out in the open. Multiple Mistakes.
  • Mikaela Bowen on 30 Aug 13
     
    I agree with Rachel. Guns should never be out in the open, whether or not there are kids in the house.
  • jefferyduncan on 30 Aug 13
     
    i just think its crazy that a 5 year old would get a .22 cal for his birthday
  • Jessi Gallagher on 03 Sep 13
     
    Who gives their kid a loaded gun or has one around where they could get to it.
  • jasminemarie16 on 03 Sep 13
     
    This is crazy! Who would give a gun to a five year old for his birthday ! That is just bad parenting.
  • sarah smith on 10 Sep 13
     
    who in the world gives a five year old a .22 caliber for his birthday!?
  • Hannah Hennings on 16 Sep 13
     
    Who would give there child a gun for their 5th birthday? Thats not ok
Bryan Pregon

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

thehill.com/...-government-in-farewell-speech

Government Politics congress paul farewell hill

shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Dec 12
     
    "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."
  • caseyyard on 13 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Megan Frush on 13 Dec 12
     
    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.
haleyborgaila

White House Official, in Reversal, Says Green Card Holders Won't Be Barred - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...rd-holders-wont-be-barred.html

shared by haleyborgaila on 30 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • haleyborgaila on 30 Jan 17
     
    WASHINGTON - A top White House official appeared to reverse a key part of President Trump's immigration order on Sunday, saying that people who hold green cards will not be prevented from returning to the United States.
  • daulton wilcoxen on 30 Jan 17
     
    I feel green card holders deserve to stay, but expired visas and illegal immigrants should not
  • jcolburn544 on 30 Jan 17
     
    I figure you gotta let people come and stay. embrace the immigrants. need em,
zach parker

Car on roof: Stolen vehicle lands on Fresno house, proof is in the picture - 12 views

www.cbsnews.com/...-house-proof-is-in-the-picture

News

shared by zach parker on 05 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • zach parker on 05 Jan 12
     
    (CBS/AP) FRESNO, Calif. - Police say a man wanted for assault was driving too fast, and hit a landscaping rock, sending the vehicle flying onto a rooftop early Wednesday morning.The airborne driver broke his leg when he jumped from the house.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Jordan Smith on 05 Jan 12
     
    I saw this last night! This is crazy
  • Zac Brown on 05 Jan 12
     
    http://www.abc17news.com/news.php?id=4727 On December 29 a car crashes into garage, pushing the car in the garage into the home.
  • Katelynn Hunter on 09 Jan 12
     
    now he can say..."I do all my own stunts!!!!"
  • Samantha Myers on 10 Jan 12
     
    That is crazy! The things people do to try and run.
William Connelly

Arraignment set for man accused of shooting at White House - CNN.com - 2 views

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

shared by William Connelly on 24 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • William Connelly on 24 Jan 12
     
    updated 2:16 AM EST, Tue January 24, 2012 Washington (CNN) -- A formal arraignment is scheduled for Tuesday for an Idaho man charged with firing a rifle at the White House in an attempt at assassinating the president. Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez is expected to enter a plea on the 17 charges he faces Tuesday afternoon in federal court in Washington.
Bryan Pregon

White House Issues Veto Threat For 'Keep Your Health Plan' Bill - 1 views

www.huffingtonpost.com/...-your-plan-veto_n_4278117.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 15 Nov 13
     
    "The White House released a statement Thursday evening saying President Barack Obama would veto a bill introduced by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich) which would allow individuals to keep their health plans that had been canceled under the Affordable Care Act."
Rachel Cottone-Dungan

House Republicans open two-front war on ObamaCare - 0 views

www.foxnews.com/...pen-two-front-war-on-obamacare

shared by Rachel Cottone-Dungan on 26 Sep 13 - No Cached
  • Rachel Cottone-Dungan on 26 Sep 13
     
    House Republicans are poised to open a two-front war on ObamaCare, pushing for a vote this weekend on a bill that would delay the health care law in exchange for raising the debt ceiling -- a week after handing the Senate a separate bill that would defund the law.
1 - 20 of 179 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page