Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged into

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
jsachs097

Should the U.S. lock down again to stop the coronavirus? | AllSides - 29 views

www.allsides.com/...ck-down-again-stop-coronavirus

shared by jsachs097 on 17 Nov 20 - No Cached
bflores247 liked it
  • lennxbrown on 11 Jan 21
     
    I feel like we can't go on a full lockdown. This will make the economy even worse than it currently is.
  • ...39 more comments...
  • meganolson04 on 12 Jan 21
     
    I feel like there should be more regulation and rules but we should not go on full lockdown because it could cause many businesses to crash and close down.
  • carmellahargens on 13 Jan 21
     
    even though many feel as though we should go into full lock down, I don't think it would be the best idea. especially because we had tried it in the beginning and people were still wandering around and two, we can't keep digging a hole for the economy
  • thomaschau on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think if we go into a full lockdown, our economy won't be in the best place for the country and I don't think we are mentally strong enough to deal with a full lockdown.
  • samhovey on 27 Jan 21
     
    This is why I believe that stimulus checks are necessary. Yes, many Americans would be left without an income if a lockdown was put in place, but that's why a stimulus check would be helpful. Money provided to those who need it during a lockdown would ultimately help enforce a lockdown long enough to see Covid-19 numbers go down.
  • bklopp601 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I believe that if we go into a lockdown, our economy wouldn't be the same anymore and would get worst over time.
  • morganbryan on 29 Jan 21
     
    I think that if we go into full lock down, people will freak out even more than they already are. Everyone would stock up on everything and we all know how that went with the toilet paper last time we tried to be on lock down.
  • brandonwch on 01 Feb 21
     
    We absolutely need to go into full lock-down. Concerns about the economy, in my opinion, are entirely bunk. It's saying that it's okay for people to risk their lives unnecessarily so that a line can go up on a graph. I'd hope people have learned something, and would know that they don't need to hyperstock on certain things.
  • zoedeveney on 01 Feb 21
     
    I think if we would have just gone on a nationwide full lockdown for 2 or 3 weeks at the beginning of this, we would be much better off. I think it would be a good idea, but with how far the pandemic has progressed, I'm not sure it would help as much as it would have a long time ago.
  • vperez191 on 01 Feb 21
     
    It could have been better if we did something right away when Covid first started and not waited to do something. We could probably have stopped it from being so dangerous,
  • owenjacobs on 01 Feb 21
     
    In my opinion a nation wide lock-down will not do anything but harm. There are still millions of Americans that have not been able to recover form the first wave of lock-down, as stated in the story up above. And i know that a huge counter argument is that the government can just pay us more during a lock-down. While that is true that would put us further and further into debt that we are struggling to get out of. A Lot of it comes down to the people, by that i mean that people have to take others into consideration, wearing a mask, social distance. That way Americans can still go to work and provide for their family's without the help of the government.
  • thepriceisright on 01 Feb 21
     
    I agree with you Zoe, but in order for that to work, every country would have had to do a lockdown. and sadly we didn't know the severity back then so people still had an excuse to be ignorant.
  • abbidominguez on 01 Feb 21
     
    I believe a full lockdown is necessary if people ever want to go back to living their lives as "normal" again. There are plenty of other countries living covid free as they did a strict lockdown in the beginning, as we should have done. A few weeks of a strict lockdown isn't going to kill us just as it didn't kill anyone in the other countries where strict lockdowns occurred.
  • ericschmidtberge on 01 Feb 21
     
    I feel like another lockdown would help if not eliminate the virus but like last time not everyone cooperated and if history shows that it won't be worth locking down again then there's not really a point. Another impact of locking down like some comments and brought up is the economy getting severely worse than it already is. In a perfect fantasy land bills would freeze, everyone would get stimulus checks that wouldn't run out and the virus would go away but that is all super unlikely if another lockdown occurs.
  • bflores247 on 01 Feb 21
     
    while we cant go on a full lockdown, there needs to be tighter restrictions on people, or heavier responses to keep infections down
  • tkoesters274 on 01 Feb 21
     
    I think that going into lockdown or some kind of restriction would help slow the spread of the virus, but not stop it. People would not cooperate to stop the spread of the virus completely. Other countries that had strict Covid restrictions are doing much better than the United States, and some have even eliminated covid completely. If the US could do that it might work, but the economy would still get worse during the lockdown.
  • mcaamal on 01 Feb 21
     
    If the outbreak is getting worse I think that we should do some sort of lock down. Maybe some restriction so that less people are in large groups so that we can control the virus.
  • greenleighd on 01 Feb 21
     
    Since we can't go into a full lockdown I think they should make the restrictions more known if people aren't wearing a mask in public I think they should be fined but, I think the amount of money should be high so people will think twice.
  • mgerman776 on 01 Feb 21
     
    I'm not real sure on what to do in this siutation. If we shut down our country, our economy will go down. If wes stay open, more covid cases. I dont know which one is worse.
  • cadenoles on 01 Feb 21
     
    I don't think the US can handle another lockdown. The economy tanked the first time and I cant imagine how bad it'll get if we lockdown again
  • ahayden204 on 01 Feb 21
     
    we should not lock down again it will hurt the economy
  • nick_rice on 01 Feb 21
     
    I think we should have more restrictions but I don't think we should go into full lockdown or else people will lose jobs and businesses
  • saraivargas on 08 Feb 21
     
    I feel like we haven't been on a full lock down, in some states they are more serious about COVID, in others there's not even a mask mandate.
  • bigslide on 08 Feb 21
     
    I thinnk people dont realize how big corona is in the US because of ignorance, lack of respect and decency, and or just they don't know. If we need to lock down, we need to lockdown. No uts no butts no coconuts. Fighting this is what got us here in the first place. We could be like other countries where they have respect for each other and themselves, and corona is almost gone or very low.
  • laceyperry067 on 08 Feb 21
     
    There are definitely a lot of things to consider, like our economy, if we were to go into lock down. I just don't thing it's possible right now but we should still have restrictions.
  • ianduffey on 08 Feb 21
     
    I feel like we should but are not able to go on another lock down
  • gbrochu915 on 08 Feb 21
     
    No we should not go on lockdown again because no matter how much we do that it will slow it down but it wont stop it and it also will just go right back up one the lockdown is over.
  • arosas733 on 08 Feb 21
     
    things are starting to calm down more than before and were just learning to live with it as we do any other virus. With the vaccine now people are going to feel safer and hopefully, it actually will be saving lives. If it gets worse a shutdown may be the best option, but right now learning to live with it is the better option.
  • vperez191 on 08 Feb 21
     
    I think we could go on lockdown again but there is no point anymore because we should of done that right away when it first started and people are getting the vaccines already so it doesn't really matter if we do or don't.
  • bflores247 on 08 Feb 21
     
    I don't think we need a full-scale hardcore lockdown, we do need tighter enforcement of mandates and stricter punishments for not following public safety, I get people don't want to, but that one person who didn't wear their mask could end up getting your loved ones sick, if everyone just followed guidelines we would get out of this funk sooner
  • lamador794 on 08 Feb 21
     
    The country is divided over the false binary of financial and health security. Reopening is not enough to ensure economic prosperity, but setting a lockdown is also not enough to contain the virus and prevent needless death.
  • joeypo10 on 08 Feb 21
     
    Another lock down would just cause more discomfort and an economic fall. With people not being able to work it would be very difficult to keep the economy great and balanced. If another lock down was to occur more people would be bothered because they just want to go back to normal life.
  • hannahliwai on 08 Feb 21
     
    I personally don't think we need to go on full lockdown again especially since the new covid vaccine. i think that it's okay to lift some rules and regulations on public places, but we still need to wear masks and stay safe until the pandemic is completely over
  • zeaksorensen on 09 Feb 21
     
    I don't think we should go into another full lockdown with closing down non-essential stores because too many businesses had to shutdown or almost had to after the first lockdown.
  • redrose99875 on 10 Feb 21
     
    I don't think we should have to lock down again, we're in the process of releasing the vaccine, and less people are dying
  • thomaschau on 11 Feb 21
     
    I don't think we should go back t=into another lockdown because I don't think our economy will do very good and I think some peoples mental health won't be in the best place if we do another lockdown
  • lhunter952 on 22 Feb 21
     
    If we went into a lockdown our economy would suffer tremendously and there is no point. If we go into lockdown then I don't really see the point of all of the vaccinations and all of the other mandates we have.
  • joeypo10 on 22 Feb 21
     
    Having another lock down would just put the United States into a far worse situation. More people would lose jobs, more people would go into debt, and our economic status would fall tremendously. I agree with luke in the fact that going into lockdown would just make the vaccine pointless because nobody would be going out anymore.
  • ahayden204 on 22 Feb 21
     
    no we will lose alot of money
  • eballenger on 22 Feb 21
     
    I dont think we should go into lockdown because if we expose our bodies to the virus steadily and take vitamins and antibodies our immune system will be stronger and get closer to fighting off the virus.
  • bklopp601 on 22 Feb 21
     
    I don't think we should go into lockdown again but if people keep lifting up their masks, we're probably gonna have to go into lockdown again.
  • tsilva588 on 22 Feb 21
     
    I feel that the issue is passed on now and we no longer need the lockdown or quarantine. Most people have already passed this issue on in their heads.
ataylor074

Volunteers provide oxygen as India's COVID-19 cases near 20 million | Reuters - 16 views

www.reuters.com/...n-peak-seen-nearing-2021-05-03

shared by ataylor074 on 03 May 21 - No Cached
  • ataylor074 on 03 May 21
     
    Do you guys think they should go into a lockdown? Do you think we should join the UK in sending aid to them?
  • ...14 more comments...
  • jackiegonzalez on 03 May 21
     
    I think India should seriously considering going into a lock down, even for a few days or weeks. That way it can contain the spread of the virus outbreak. Last year, we learned about the dangers of not containing this virus. I also think the U.S. should join the UK in helping them. I know our country has it's own problems, but if we can -- even just a little bit -- we should help others in the world during these tough times.
  • hannahliwai on 03 May 21
     
    i think that india should go into lockdown. cases are rising and if they don't quarantine, it will continue to rise
  • kredding147 on 03 May 21
     
    They should consider a lockdown. So many people are getting sick, it's the best way to go. If they don't, who knows what could happen?
  • vperez191 on 04 May 21
     
    they should definitely go on lockdown because it will just get worse and worse if they do not do anything right now when they should.
  • rosellyrosas on 05 May 21
     
    I strongly feel that India should go on a breathly lockdown. The virus could spread more than it already is. With caution and responsibility, I feel like the numbers would go down by a lot. Now that covid has been going on for more than a year, we should think and do more research of how we should help others.
  • jdogan on 05 May 21
     
    I think for a country like India it's more complicated then just going into a lockdown. They have a population much higher than countries that have been able to successfully have lockdowns which makes it inherently much harder. On top of this India socioeconomic makeup make up is substantially poorer than countries that have had lockdowns as well. For a lot of India's population a lockdown just isn't viable, and you can see this in what happened in America as well where poorer people worked through lockdowns and because of this in poorer areas COVID spread easily. However this is a large portion of India's population, so this is an area where America needs to start exporting our extra vaccines since we have already had major success in our vaccine roll out and this is a grave situation
  • jtaulborg103 on 10 May 21
     
    I think India needs to go on a heavy lockdown. It's important that they take a lot of precautions because the virus could spread more than it already is and prevent another world lockdown from happening and keep other people safe. It would also help their numbers go down and to keep the threat of it spreading contained.
  • vperez191 on 11 May 21
     
    India should go on lockdown right now when they can before it gets even worse for the people/
  • abbidominguez on 14 May 21
     
    With the severity of COVID in India, I think they need to come up with a strategic plan to control the virus. Whether that means a heavy lockdown or something else it's important they do something now before it gets even worse. They are in a terrible place right now with the amount of COVID cases and I don't think anyone wants to know what it will be like if it continues to get any worse.
  • sydneykolln on 21 May 21
     
    India definitely needs a lockdown right now. With COVID cases rising so drastically, this is the best possible thing for them to do to hopefully slow the spread of the virus.
  • masonmascarenas on 24 May 21
     
    Understandably the severity of COVID-19 is extremely high, but India is also a third world country that relies heavily on their work force to bring in any kind of revenue for their government. In a country like India the governments respect for the residents is slim so while they should go into lock down I don't believe they will.
  • mgerman776 on 24 May 21
     
    They definitley need a lockdown as soon as possible. That could be a huge mess for India if covid isn't solved. I do think the US could provide aid I don't see why we couldn't?
  • allisonwalker on 24 May 21
     
    They should go on lockdown, it'd benefit them so things don't get worse. They are suffering and need as much help as possible so we should help them.
  • nick_rice on 24 May 21
     
    I do believe they need to go into lockdown very soon so they can try to help keep themselves safe.
  • eballenger on 24 May 21
     
    I think they should go into lockdown to make sure everyone is safe.
  • jcontreras201 on 25 May 21
     
    I think they should go to lockdown since covid is very bad there.
Payton Whiteaker

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

dailycaller.com/...trolled-for-anti-trolling-bill

Government Anti-Troll Law Arizona

shared by Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    This is possibly one of the funniest laws I have ever seen. Man I am glad I do not live in Arizona, internet trolling is fun, as long as you are not mean about. I really want to see what others think about this.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 01 Sep 12
     
    "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 04 Sep 12
     
    I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.
  • Alex beck on 04 Sep 12
     
    the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction
  • Rainie mccubbin on 04 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think
  • Jeremy Vogel on 04 Sep 12
     
    I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Sep 12
     
    Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?
  • Kirstina Michl on 05 Sep 12
     
    I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 06 Sep 12
     
    I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V
  • Payton Whiteaker on 06 Sep 12
     
    Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 06 Sep 12
     
    Of course you would put this up Payton....
  • Jazmine Orellana on 07 Sep 12
     
    I don't see why they have to ban it. I mean this happens in every state. Some states have it worse then AZ. I think we need to take care of physical problems before we get to the internet.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    Well said Jazmine.
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

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

www.justsecurity.org/...ful-nsas-upstream-surveillance

shared by Bryan Pregon on 30 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 30 Sep 16
     
    "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...
  • emilbrath on 03 Oct 16
     
    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
  • Jacob Jensen on 04 Oct 16
     
    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,
  • Matt Collins on 04 Oct 16
     
    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.
Bryan Pregon

Is this high school dress code sexist? - CNN Video - 45 views

www.cnn.com/...kg-high-school-dress-code.kcci

shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Mar 15
     
    "Some people are calling an assembly dress code at an Iowa high school sexist. CNN affiliate KCCI reports."
  • ...57 more comments...
  • kylecrowl on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think they may have gone overboard explaining everything the girls need to wear in full detail. I thought some of the comments were disrespectful to girls and I can easily see how they were offended by this.
  • alexander4434 on 16 Mar 15
     
    i beleve that it is true that there are more options for women to look less than formal clothing so it is not sexiest
  • kdankiw188 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this dress code, while definitely explaining what the girls can and cannot wear, has gone too far in some of the wording they use. "Choose and outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman, but covered enough to show you are a lady" is not an ok thing to say to a group of high school girls, especially if they are honors students. Yes I do think it is sexist.
  • Cecilia Saldana on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that this dress code letter had good intent, but it just came off the wrong way. I think if they would have just given a list on what not to wear rather then using saying, "you are a woman and should be covered enough to show you are a lady. With that statement I believe that it is sexist. Your clothes, and how you present your self shouldn't determine on whether you're a lady or not.
  • shandahansen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the letter is showing the outlook they see girls wear on a daily occurrence. At some points in a girls perspective we feel as if they are more strict on what we wear, They could of been a little easier and worded it differently so it didn't come out so wrong. But I don't think it sexist at all because it asking girls to wear whats appropriate to been seen in public.
  • dawsonmantich on 16 Mar 15
     
    If the school wishes for such a strict dress code then they should hand out the clothes they feel that are "pretty" enough for their girls to wear. I believe that the dress code is moderately sexist, even considering that there are more options regarding clothing for women. It is appropriate to keep their students looking classy, but not to the point of having no freedom when picking an outfit.
  • montanagarbez999 on 16 Mar 15
     
    It think the dress code it not sexist but it does go a little overboard. It kind of seems like it is going straight for the ladies, and could calm down on all the detail.
  • claireboes on 16 Mar 15
     
    I do believe that this dress code is sexist. There are lines in the requirements of the female code hat suggest they should be more modest than that of the males, not drawing attention to certain parts of the body and containing a level of ladylike stature that outdoes the gentlemanly requirements of the males. The four paragraphs "needed" for the girls. The two lines that strike me as the most opposite "Be classy." for the boys and "Think modesty." for the girls. It implies that they are letting the boys have more free reign with their opinion of classy and tightening the hold on the girls' idea of modesty, giving them fewer options.
  • peytonjs on 16 Mar 15
     
    This is very upsetting to the whole deal of what is appropriate and what is not. The school is berating the girls on how they choose to dress in a letter. This "dress code" should not be allowed to come trough, as it is limiting how girls want to dress, sure they should dress in something revealing as they should know better, but given them four paragraphs on how they should dress to one event is ridiculous. If the school feels embarrass to the point of giving a dress code to the girls then they should hold an event. It is completely sexist because not every girl owns skimpy outfits, or dresses badly. Every girl is a lady in the first place and should not be limited because someone else believes they dress in revealing clothing. Guys can dress in revealing clothing just as much as girls can.
  • desiree13 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I do not believe it is sexist because they are specifically making men wear a outfit. They are giving girls freedom within guidelines . On the other hand the way they address the first paragraph is a little sexist because they do make it like you have to be pretty to go.
  • jay_hubbard on 16 Mar 15
     
    The dress code letter my be considered sexist in the eyes of some people, but women tend to push the boundary's of the code to a far more extreme so it is only fair that the school be more strict and draw more attention to the matter of proper dress apparel with females. Men in school get in trouble if they are wearing clothes that are profane and clothes that are not appropriate for school, yet when females get into trouble, it is automatically sexist. It would not be this way if females did wear such revealing clothes to a school and then did not proceeded to after being told and warned by staff and administration. In some cases, schools have to give such strict guidelines to the female population of a school, even if it does not apply to every student.
  • noahseyboth on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the generation that were in right now would require a dress code. I personally don't think its sexist because i feel some women under dress, i also feel that it makes the school look more professional.
  • jborwick on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this is sexist because there was no need to have four paragraphs explaining every article of clothing that these girls could wear to this event. But, in another way it is not sexist because there are many styles girls are able to wear, some being more informal and/or more revealing than others. All this letter really would have needed was length of skirts/ dresses and the spaghetti straps, no need for the first and last paragraph.
  • Christopher Daniels on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that women do tend to show more revealing outfits than men, but it's no exuse to single them out. Men and women both should have fair dress code rules that can give eacother both the same amount of rules, yet reasonable. Certain rules apply to certain genders, but the line was crossed in this sexist act.
  • bchurch743 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that it is sexist because it gives the girls more and it list little for the guys. It tells the boys to look classy and tells the girls to look pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show they are a lady.
  • diegomartinez97 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think they're making a big deal out of this, This should not be done because students don't deserve to have this dress code.
  • danielaespinoza on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that the letter was sexist because it made it look like girls had more possibilities to breaking the guidelines.
  • rylanrichards on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think this is sexist because of the difference between the guys and the girls. It told the girls that in order to be a woman they had to be pretty. They told the guys to be classy. It's a Catholic school, those girls know what to wear and what not to wear.
  • jimmymc731 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel this video and letter is some what sexist. I believe that you should be able to wear what you want, but appropriately. If you are told to wear something and have to wear something do it. I agree that schools should have some sort of uniform, because if you dress nicely everyday you feel better about themselves. The reason i feel like this is sexist is because men have two things to wear and while girls have so much to worry about and pay attention to.
  • abbyotten on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe it is sexist. The writer of this letter automatically assumed stereotype about what girls would wear or draw attention to on their bodies. This letter obviously favors men and is much more strict on women.
  • jordan_love on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the letter was sexist. The letter only said one or two things about how boys should dress and then gave almost a whole essay on how girls should dress.
  • meganferleman on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe it is sexist to both of them honestly. They went over board on how girls should look and what they should look like. They want them to show off, but they are saying this to high school girls. Than again they are telling the boys they need to shave.
  • leomendez on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this is indeed sexist. They pretty much told the guys, "Hey, wear pants, dress shoes, shave and take out the earrings and you're good." but they they told the girls, "Where this, don't wear that, you can wear this but not that. try not to look like the women of the night. thanks!" i think that that is messed up
  • Kevin Branigan on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that it somewhat sexist. Telling to dress modestly and respectfully as they did with the guys would've been enough I think. I don't believe they needed to go that far into it if they didn't for the guys
  • rduncan264 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel this letter is just wrong. I believe that you should be able to choose what you want to wear but by being appropriate. It is a private school so if they assign a school uniform you have to wear it, but the way they are saying and telling you what to wear is not so much sexist but just wrong. Telling students they must dress according to their achievements and to look pretty as if they aren't already isn't right.
  • lcapel742 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I wouldn't say this is extremely sexist, it's more like it's just really ridiculous. I understand wanting everyone to look classy and professional, but you do not need that many sentences to basically just say, no flaunting what your momma gave ya.
  • zachmurray on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like they went a little over board with this. They may have been a little sexist just because they had so much more information for the girls on what they can and cant wear than they had for the boys on what they can wear. I personally think that there should be no dress codes at all. just because it lets kids express themselves, but in an appropriate way.
  • jesse_lorenzen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that these guidelines are similar to our school guidelines according to dress code, but I don't think it was right to just blatantly put it out there. Now if this is a huge problem I could understand this but The reactions from students make this seem like dress code violations are not a huge problem at their school, I think the teachers should have trusted the girls at the school to dress appropriately.
  • britthutch12 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that this letter is sexist. I think that the school could have easily got their point across on what to wear for girls in a sentence, not four paragraphs. Girls know what is tasteful, and what isn't and if they choose to follow the dress code is a choice not because they were unsure on how to dress.
  • swilder988 on 16 Mar 15
     
    With no context this letter may seem like they care more about what girls look like. This is probably not true, with a guy there is a a lot less you can mess up and look not modest. With guys it's just a shirt and pants, what can really besides them not wearing a nice shirt and pants. It is not unreasonable for a private school to want their kids to dress modestly. I'm also willing to bet at that school and probably every private school there are at least four times as many dress code violations for girls than boys, thus warranting four paragraphs to the boys one.
  • mmuffley163 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like this letter is sexist. The reason being is because I feel like girls should be able to wear what the want whiten reason. Dress code should be appropriate. However it shouldn't separate between boys and girls.
  • zack gray on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe this to be very sexist because of the length and repetition they use. I do agree with Ron Burgundy(anchor man movie), stay classy but this is to extensive. In repeating don't show off and telling them exactly what to wear. They could have left it at dress classy and lady like.
  • dillonpalen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I agree with alexander4434 that women have more types of clothes then men do and that it is not sexist. And men don't have much different types of clothes and women have more to choose from and need to cover up and not show so much.
  • cschnackel824 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like this letter is sexist. Seeing only two sentences for men and four paragraphs for women that would be sexist. I think the school could have worded it better for the women. I also think it is kind of rude to make men shave. I don't see how that matters in high school.
  • angel fernandez on 16 Mar 15
     
    I fell like the article is not sexist because some girls don't dress like a lady would, so that would help them look more presentable. The guys didn't have a lot of instructions because they don't have a lot of styles to choose from like the girls do. The school shouldn't tell someone how to dress but if they see something that someone would not wear to a fancy place they should correct them.
  • sarahh_821 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think it's a good dress code but had way more expectations for women than it did men. They could have made it just as simple as the mens with less detail as to what they can and can't wear. The men did't have anything listed that they weren't allowed to wear. Something in particular was the shoes comment saying they had to wear dress shoes, then going into detail saying if there shoes they wear to the beach, then they cant wear them to school, also no high heels. But with the mens all they said was "dress shoes" no elaboration or what they can't wear as they did with the women. I can see how people would think it sexist, it has way more expectations and standards for girls which isn't fair. But i also can see where they're coming from because girls express themselves through clothes i think more than men do.. So maybe they needed to be clear on what not to wear, whereas its pretty self explanatory for men.
  • ccannon666 on 16 Mar 15
     
    This letter is not "sexist". It may be degrading or offensive, but it's not sexist. In this day and age, it is common knowledge to know girls don't dress to standard. Look around and you will see many examples of this at almost every turn. Short skirts/shorts, tank tops, low cut shirts, and many other revealing articles. The school is trying to be official and you are to abide by their rules and if you are offended by the letter, you might be one of the girls who need to change the way they dress. The only reason the guys did not have as long or in-depth of a letter because they simply don't need it. More often than not, guys are not violating dress code.
  • donaldc802 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that the letter is sexist. They drag out the girls section which could have been summed up, like the boys was. Most of the time the dress code is followed, sometimes its stretched a bit short. I think that it was like they were being sarcastic almost, in the girls section.
  • dianaschrader on 18 Mar 15
     
    This is not a sexist letter. I think many people may find it extreme because they can't wear legging to school , and no leggings are NOT pants. I think the facial hair part for guys is a little much but it's only for the school get over it. The part for ladies I agree had to be a bit more explanatory because people will push any and all boundaries, especially if they are not specified.
  • Bryan Pregon on 03 Sep 15
     
    As we discuss OUR school dress code, do you think Dowling has created a sexist policy for students?
  • jroberson300 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like its a little sexist towards women. They have a lot more rules to follow than the boys do.
  • anthony309 on 03 Sep 15
     
    No its not it just needs more explanation for girls because the different things they can wear. The students are making a bigger deal then it is.
  • baddison753 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel its kinda sexist that the women have to be explained what to wear in complete detail compared to the men but then again they just want their school to look nice for the ceremony
  • guillermosolorio on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this dress code is fine.Staff just want students to be dressed appropriate.
  • jjacobs079 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think they went overboard. I think it's sexist for them to say "you are a woman and covered enough to show your a lady". They have a lot more rules for girls then guys. Yes I think it's very sexist.
  • gabbymorley on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this is sexist because, it is telling guys to just be classy but girls have to dress a certain way we either feel pretty or show our achievements. We should be able to wear what we want that makes us feel comfortable in our own skin.
  • seanveazie on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this is not a sexist letter. The part where it says dress modest enough to be a lady but pretty enough to be a woman. Many girls do dress that should not be so skimpy. But these people are honors students. The code should have just said dress formally and follow the dress code.
  • austindueling1 on 03 Sep 15
     
    It's wrong that they treated women like that sexist it very detailed for the women and the men just says be classy so yes it's sexist
  • rallman915 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think it is sexist because the girls have a lot more rules than the boys do.
  • ernieclements on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like the policy was not written equally between Boys and girls. The four paragraphs written for girls seems very excessive. The boys and girls should just be told- "Dress formally"
  • johnschmidthuber on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like it is sexist, mostly because of the detail it goes into about the woman's dress code. It would have been much simpler to just say dress nice like they did for the guys, but they blew it out of proportion.
  • Renee Borgaila on 03 Sep 15
     
    I believe its sexist, it does have some lines that are sexist, like the line "Choose an outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show yo are a lady." And it's very detailed, especially when it comes to the skirt.
  • tiaross on 03 Sep 15
     
    I wouldn't say it is necessarily sexist, but I wouldn't agree with some of the things that were said in the letter. These women know how to dress appropriately for formal events. They didn't need to read a whole book to know how to dress.
  • Sunshine Wink on 03 Sep 15
     
    This dress code letter had good intentions but the way that they gave the boys 2 sentences and the girls 4 paragraphs was not fair to the girls, making them feel like it was sexist.
  • sophiataylor001 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I believe that it intended well, but definitely could have been worded better. That could have easily been summed up as dress professionally. If they are inviting students because of their smarts, surely the students would be able to figure out what that meant. The paragraphs were too excessive.
  • katiepetersen005 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think that it should be for both genders not just girls. I don't want to see any one's butt or chest.
  • christopher721 on 03 Sep 15
     
    There is no doubt about it being sexist, but that is only because of the excessive "putting down," saying such and such should attract attention to this, and not this. If they would have stopped at a basic "be classy, keep it modest, and make it conservative." Then all would have been fine.
  • ryanlegg on 08 Sep 15
     
    There should be standards for both men and women but the remarks in the letter was plain sexist.
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 15
     
    Is this relevant for a discussion of our dress code or are private schools a different story?
Bryan Pregon

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

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

shared by Bryan Pregon on 03 Dec 15 - No Cached
agilbert921 liked it
  • Bryan Pregon on 03 Dec 15
     
    "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...
  • agilbert921 on 04 Dec 15
     
    Texas should let more refuges into their state because its not their decision, its the american goverenments
  • baddison758 on 04 Dec 15
     
    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.
  • ncasson324 on 04 Dec 15
     
    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
  • lcarman980 on 04 Dec 15
     
    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.
  • haveltherock on 04 Dec 15
     
    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)
  • chowe892 on 04 Dec 15
     
    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.
  • masoncutting on 04 Dec 15
     
    The American Government should let the state make their own decision. If the state doesn't want to help, then let it be.
  • molson922 on 04 Dec 15
     
    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.
  • trocha340 on 04 Dec 15
     
    i wouldnt the refugees in because you dont know which ones are a threat i believe it would be to much of a risk
  • jwondercheck947 on 04 Dec 15
     
    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.
  • rwilson761 on 04 Dec 15
     
    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".
  • garrettross420 on 04 Dec 15
     
    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
  • tbonaparte on 04 Dec 15
     
    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.
  • natehathaway on 04 Dec 15
     
    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

Mississippi bans abortions at 15 weeks - CNN - 19 views

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

shared by Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 18
     
    "With a swipe of a pen Monday, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law a bill that prevents women from getting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. His state, effective immediately, now holds the distinction of having the earliest abortion ban in the nation."
  • ...11 more comments...
  • taylorknickerson on 21 Mar 18
     
    If you are not a woman, you should not have a say in what women can and cannot do with their body. This is an unconstitutional law and it greatly endangers women's health care all across Mississippi. Every day, women are raped and become impregnated, but many may not know they are pregnant until after 15 weeks. How does the Mississippi government expect that woman to carry out the pregnancy under the circumstances that had caused her to be pregnant in the first place? It is clear the Mississippi government has not fully taken every circumstance into consideration when creating this law.
  • chaseburns on 21 Mar 18
     
    I think that the only constitutional ban we could put onto abortions is when the fetus can feel pain. At that point, you shouldn't be allowed to get one. Possible exemptions being if the women was raped, forced to have a child, or if having the child could hurt or kill the mother.
  • Connor McHood on 21 Mar 18
     
    I can see why people would want to ban abortions after a certain time frame, even though I disagree with where they put the cap. However, I really don't like how there's no exceptions for rape, and I especially hate how there's now exceptions for incest. Inbred children tend to be incredibly unhealthy, and if the mother doesn't want to carry them to term, they shouldn't be forced to.
  • Haley Costello on 31 Aug 18
     
    I agree that there should be a certain time frame for when you can have an abortion, but 15 weeks is to early to decide. I also think that if the mother doesn't want to her have the baby then she shouldn't be forced to, depending on what the reason is. Like if she was raped or could harm herself, then she shouldn't be forced to have the child, but say she just doesn't want to because she isn't ready then maybe she can think of others options like adoption because their are many people who can't have a baby that do want one.
  • pfrederiksen on 31 Aug 18
     
    I agree that there should be a time frame but also I believe that women should be able to do what they want with their bodies. There could be many different reasons for abortion like rape, self harm or just to young. But people should also think before they take action. I say this because people know what could happen when they have sexual intercourse. They know the consequences. But there are other options other then abortion, like adoption. There are plenty families that want kids but cant have them so instead of abortion they could end up helping a family.
  • sydmccorkle on 31 Aug 18
     
    I agree with this law. 15 weeks is plenty of time for someone to decide if they would like a child in their life. People do make mistakes and rather than the child not having a good life they decide to not have the child.
  • jakesimons on 31 Aug 18
     
    I would normally disagree with abortion, but I believe that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else. Someone could say the same thing about drug use. As long as you don't hurt anyone, it is okay. Why would someone try to control someone else's body/life?
  • ehoodmuffin on 26 Sep 18
     
    I feel as the argument over abortions comes down to if you consider the egg as living or not during early pregnancy. As abortions are the woman's choice this still gives them that opportunity to make that decision if it feels just, but after so long the egg does start to develop where then you could be ending a life. Then that is where they draw the line and are basically saying that it is past the point of being harmless, so I can agree with this bill.
  • Brooke Wohlers on 26 Sep 18
     
    I agree that there should be some time frame for when you can and cannot have an abortion. 15 weeks to me seems like enough time for the women to decide if they want to keep the child or not. People do make mistakes. I think that it would be better to not have the child if its going to be born into a bad life. But I think that decision is ultimately up to the mother of the child.
  • rochsam on 26 Sep 18
     
    I think that its good that they made it 15 weeks because at that time the baby is still not too big and it gives the mother some type of time to make a decision
  • camrynkinser on 26 Sep 18
     
    i agree with the law too because they are well developed at 15 weeks
  • kojelly on 26 Sep 18
     
    I feel that is still too late.
  • bret758 on 06 Dec 18
     
    i believe this is fair because in some states the law is 6 weeks and most women do not know that they are pregnant at 6 weeks. 15 weeks most women would know that they are pregnant and would have time to make a decision.
xolson974

Shia LaBeouf Arrested After Allegedly Attacking 25-Year-Old During Anti-Trump Protest - 33 views

people.com/...hia-labeouf-handcuffed-protest

shared by xolson974 on 26 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • xolson974 on 26 Jan 17
     
    Shia LaBeouf was arrested in New York early Thursday during a protest against President Donald Trump after he allegedly attacked a 25-year-old man - and video of the entire incident was posted online. The 30-year-old actor was taken into custody around 12:30 a.m.
  • ...27 more comments...
  • Matthew E on 26 Jan 17
     
    Not only did Shia have the courage to do this, but he kept going which was his mistake, and all outside the museum with his art in it. This could lead to multiple up riots, maybe even more violence. But Shia got off about scott free.
  • Deven Przybylski on 26 Jan 17
     
    If you don't know the background of Shia, you wouldn't understand why he went off like that. First off, the man he was yelling at was a neo nazi. He had said 1488 which is a reference to Hitler and the holocaust. Shia is Jewish, his name literally means praise god in Hebrew. Shia may have gone too far if it were just a common mistake, but when your ancestors have been killed in WW2, you're not going to be happy. He shouldn't have been arrested, the white supremacist should've for representing hate.
  • mwheeler21 on 30 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Deven the man was just picking a fight and he got exactly what he wanted, nothing against Shia.
  • agrosas on 30 Jan 17
     
    I think it was wrong for that person to say that to Shia LaBeouf, that guy just want to see how mad he would get, most did it on purpose.
  • jwells549 on 31 Jan 17
     
    I think that the guy got what he deserved. Maybe Shia shouldn't be so aggressive towards opposing sides of politics, like supporters, protesters, ect, but you can't fix or control somebody else's behavior and beliefs. So, since the man was pushing Shia's rage on and on, Shia snapped, and I believe the man got what he deserved.
  • delaniehubbard on 07 Feb 17
     
    Everyone has there opinions and beliefs obviously and everyone is not going to get along, when you act out and hurt people for expressing there opinions you cant expect to not get punished. Especially when your around lots of people, you can't expect to not do or say anything.
  • sydney matheny on 07 Feb 17
     
    Shia could've used less violence but in a way I don't blame him because the man was saying things that were really bad and offended shia.
  • lauren rambo on 07 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Deven and Sydney. The man was representing hate and picking a fight. Shia wasn't all innocent but I don't blame him for his actions
  • jcolburn544 on 07 Feb 17
     
    This is an example of growing tension between groups. nation seems divided by pro and anti trump people. the fact that people are speaking their mind is a positive, the fact that our president is causing so much negative uproar so early into his term is a negative.
  • brettday on 07 Feb 17
     
    him using violence only builds support towards the opposite cause.
  • dallastomasello on 07 Feb 17
     
    The young man was representing hate and picking a fight. Shia wasn't innocent but I don't blame him for what he did.
  • Bradley Daugherty on 07 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Jake, this fight shows the nation being further separated between pro-trump people and anti-trump people.
  • mckenzie spanjer on 07 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Lauren that the man was picking a fight and I also don't blame Shia for his actions either.
  • Alex Thacker on 07 Feb 17
     
    I don't think it was right for Shia to do what he did but I don't blame him and I see why he did what he did.
  • ahopkins571 on 07 Feb 17
     
    I think this is kind of stupid, Shia should have had the self control not to get into that type of interaction especially because he's a well known person it kind of puts a shadow over him in some ways
  • nick perry on 07 Feb 17
     
    Shia should of had some self control, but I see why he did it and don't blame him as well.
  • Landon Mohr on 16 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Deven. The Neo Nazi was just trying to pick a fight because he knew Shia's background. I understand why Shia did what he did but maybe he does deserve some type of consequence for his actions. Even though the man was trying to pick a fight Shia could've easily just been the bigger person and should've had the self control to walk away.
  • ncollier786 on 16 Mar 17
     
    The man he attacked shouldn't have said what he said so I think Shia was justified to do what he did. The man was asking for it.
  • marly mcmullen on 16 Mar 17
     
    I don't blame Shia for fighting this man. Shia could have taken care of it in a different manner but it was out of reaction and the man was pushing his limits. Shia should have not been taken into custody for this.
  • megan sinclair on 16 Mar 17
     
    I think he did nothing wrong, he was defending what he stood for and the Neo Nazi was saying unfair things.
  • abomba12 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I think maybe hitting him was going far but he was telling this man to knock it off by what he did to him which is because ti disrupts the social environment. That wasn't the place for someone to talk about hitler and i think it was fine that he taught that man a lesson.
  • lexus2 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I don't think Shia is wrong for fighting the man, but she could of did something different then fighting him.
  • mhennings622 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I agree with most of the comments above, The man that Shia attacked should have not said anything to him because the guy just wanted a reaction from him. Also Shia was in the wrong for attacking the man, he could have just walked away and not put his hands on the man.
  • caileyhartenhoff on 16 Mar 17
     
    I believe that the comments of the man who claimed victim were wrong. However, everything comes down to perspective. The whole debate is whether or not Shia being arrested for assault was right or wrong. Both sides are at fault. Shia should have had more control especially due to his celebrity standing. Everything a celebrity does is under close inspection and is able to be blown way out of proportion. The man was obviously saying the things he was to get under Shia's skin. However, assaulting someone with physical scrathches being documented is immature. Be the bigger person and walk away.
  • morgann1 on 16 Mar 17
     
    Shia LaBeouf attacked a 25-year old man for saying "Hitler did nothing wrong" outsid eo ghis museum. I believe he could have handled the situation better than the way he did, i understand he was sticking up for what he believes in but he could have approached the guy a different way.
  • Emalie Bowman on 16 Mar 17
     
    With all due respect, I don't believe that most people saying that he should react differently would handle the situation peacefully. You'd be outraged if there was a genocide of Christians that had happened not even a century ago, and a random stranger (knowing you are of that religion) said something similar to "Hitler did nothing wrong", you'd be livid. It is essentially implying "they deserved it." Yes, he has a right to share his opinion. But opinions are more along the lines of "I prefer coffee over tea", not "I think that Jews are less than human, therefore Hitler did nothing wrong because they deserve to die." But it's not simply that, it goes beyond the Holocaust. Jews were the world's scapegoat for CENTURIES before the Holocaust. They've been targeted for centuries, and if I were religious and devoted to my religion and somebody said that to me. I'd more than likely react the same way. Yes, Shia deserved to be punished, he assaulted the dude. But the other guy had it coming for egging him on at what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.
  • rwilladsen586 on 17 Mar 17
     
    I think the man was trying to pull a publicity stunt on the actor because he's aware of some of his past actions and he purposely tried to get a rise out of him. Was it legal? Yes. Was it Right? No
  • ahayden800 on 20 Mar 17
     
    I agree with Reed, the person did this to get a rise out of the actor.
  • Jorden Crinklaw on 20 Mar 17
     
    The protester was clearly trying to upset Shia enough for him to attack him. Because once that happened, he was arrested and it was put all over the news, making him look like he attacked an innocent person for absolutely no reason.
saralong057

Trump Will Announce Supreme Court Nominee on Friday or Saturday | AllSides - 12 views

www.allsides.com/...urt-nominee-friday-or-saturday

Government news politics

shared by saralong057 on 21 Sep 20 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 22 Sep 20
     
    This is BIG news. We will discuss the implications of this in class. Here is a good article that explains how likely it is the the Republicans will get their way on this issue: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-trump-supreme-court.html
  • ...11 more comments...
  • emilysmith200 on 23 Sep 20
     
    I think President Trump should wait for the next election to vote on a new Supreme Court Nominee, so the new president has a choice on who they would like.
  • eoneal271 on 28 Sep 20
     
    I do not think that Donald Trump should be able to appoint a judge right now. The election is not even 3 months away, and Obama wasn't able to appoint a judge when he was in office and the election was not as close as it is now. I think it would be really unfair if they allowed him to do so. It is very important right now who gets into office and picks a new judge so I think that htye should wait.
  • gozzello162 on 28 Sep 20
     
    I think there is a massive double standard here. This same argument was made with Obama when he was in office on an election year and he was blocked from a nomination and now Trump is being allowed to nominate a judge.The senate will push it through because it is republican dominated. It makes me sad to think that this is what our country has come to
  • margaretgrover on 28 Sep 20
     
    The double standard here is obvious because the Senate is Republican-controlled they are going to go back on what they said during the last election just to appease Trump. It is not right and brings into question their credibility, how can we trust them to support us and do what they say they will do if they can't even follow their own rules?
  • abbyparks on 28 Sep 20
     
    I agree with the double standard thought. It is unfair to allow one president to nominate a judge while another has to wait. I believe that they should wait to bring in a new court justice.
  • shanarief on 28 Sep 20
     
    I do not think Trump should´ve been able to appoint a new judge, I believe it should have been the next presidents responsibility.
  • laurenhansen168 on 28 Sep 20
     
    I agree with Shana, I don't think trump should be able to pick someone, it should be up to the next president
  • bradenlasale on 29 Sep 20
     
    I think that after the election this year, that person elected should appoint a new judge.
  • bayliegirres on 01 Oct 20
     
    I think we should wait until the new president is elected to appoint a new judge so it's fair because that is what Obama had to do.
  • ethompson038 on 02 Oct 20
     
    The 2016 election was 9 months after the death of a judge and Republicans made Obama wait. We're days before and they're telling Trump to nominate now. I think that's wrong and that they should wait until after the election.
  • hharker376 on 05 Oct 20
     
    I think we should wait to add a new person into the spot. Thats what RBG would have wanted and thats what had happened in the past.
  • jcooley186 on 05 Oct 20
     
    I agree with waiting to add a new person into the spot, there's a lot at risk here when finding a fit person for RBG, the person who Trump nominated goes against all things RBG was for, so I think it would've been best to wait.
  • bguevara787 on 05 Oct 20
     
    I think we should hold President Trump to the same regulations that Obama was held to when he was in this same position.
Jeremy Vogel

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

www.cbsnews.com/...ists-2012-apocalypse-is-a-myth

Government News CBS

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 05 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 05 Dec 12
     
    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...
  • Sean Powers on 06 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • garrett lee on 06 Dec 12
     
    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
  • caseyyard on 07 Dec 12
     
    Well sounds like they are going to handle it better than 1999 doomsday.
  • joecarbis on 07 Dec 12
     
    people are crazy
  • Dylan Garner on 07 Dec 12
     
    If the world ends im going to be pissed.
  • Hayley Hochstetler on 07 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • patrick boian on 07 Dec 12
     
    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
  • Mallory Huggins on 07 Dec 12
     
    "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...
  • Payton Whiteaker on 07 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Mallory Huggins on 07 Dec 12
     
    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.
  • Kirstina Michl on 07 Dec 12
     
    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.
Bryan Pregon

Ohio's 'heartbeat' abortion bill awaits Gov. Kasich's signature - CNNPolitics.com - 11 views

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

shared by Bryan Pregon on 07 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 07 Dec 16
     
    "Ohio state lawmakers have passed a controversial "Heartbeat Bill" that would ban abortions from the moment the heartbeat of a fetus can be detected -- which usually occurs about six weeks into a pregnancy."
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Faith Otten on 07 Dec 16
     
    There have two different attempts at this in Arkansas and North Dakota, were found unconstitutional in court when they tried to make it a law. It hasn't been said if the 'heartbeat' abortion bill will apply to victim's of rape or in the case of incest. There are too many variables involved to make a clear cut decision.
  • sydney matheny on 07 Dec 16
     
    I feel like this bill will cause women to do abortions illegally and go back to old methods. In one of the paragraph it said they wont do abortions even if its rape or incest. it gives me a little hope that he said he is pro-life when it come to rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
  • Mallori Wagoner on 07 Dec 16
     
    I think that if someone was raped they should be able to have an abortion because that could affect their life in a lot of bad ways if they had a baby from someone that raped them.
  • mwheeler21 on 07 Dec 16
     
    I can see both the pros and cons of this bill. I hate the thought of ending a life before it has barely begun, but if a woman had the reason of abortion because she was a rape victim 6 weeks might not be a long enough time to reveal that she is pregnant. Women are scarred from these experiences and by telling her she has to keep proof of the memory may be worse than abortion. A new life is suppose to be celebrated not forced into someone's body. I don't like abortion, but I can see why some women would.
  • gracie1bradley on 12 Dec 16
     
    Everything that Macy said, I agree with. I don't agree with abortion but the reasoning behind it of rape makes sense and is an exception. Keeping something that'll remind the mother is torturing herself, again celebration not force.
  • mckenzie spanjer on 12 Dec 16
     
    I agree with Macy. I also think that abortion is a bad thing and you shouldn't be able to end someones life just because you weren't responsible enough, but what if someone was rapped and had to live with that because they didn't realize they were pregnant until after 20 something weeks. I think it's unfair in those situations.
  • dallastomasello on 12 Dec 16
     
    I agree with everything Macy said. 6 weeks may not be enough time to fine out you're pregnant. If it was rape women should be able to abort the child. No woman should have to have a that mans baby. Would scar her for life.
  • lmcdowell956 on 12 Dec 16
     
    I think that having an abortion is your choice so you should be able to make it. If you are raped you should be allowed to get an abortion because having the kid would make you remember getting rapped and people don't want to remember things like that.
  • savannah131999 on 12 Dec 16
     
    I would say it should be the state's choice if it's majority agrees and votes on it then I believe that it should be passed. My own opinion out of it, I think that 6 weeks is far enough time to make the choice, with other things that you can do.
Faith Otten

Donald Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do - 22 views

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

shared by Faith Otten on 26 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • Faith Otten on 26 Jan 17
     
    Donald Trump is doing what he promised, but is that a good thing?
  • ...18 more comments...
  • mckenzie spanjer on 26 Jan 17
     
    With Mexico refusing to pay for the wall, I don't think the wall will even go up. So we should worry less about walls and more about the important things.
  • emma spidle on 26 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Makenzie, don't worry about the wall but worry about what's important
  • ogomez1025 on 26 Jan 17
     
    If he does what he always said in a way that benefits each of the citizens we work and live in a good way always striving for what we have is a good idea but if it is to harm people and thus humiliate them I am not made a good idea
  • delaniehubbard on 30 Jan 17
     
    I agree with McKenzie, even though the wall has been a topic for a few months now... people are realizing this is getting close to happening... I don't blame Mexico for not wanting to help pay for the wall. It's probably not even gonna happen anyways. Trump needs to work on making people happy and "making America great again".
  • kim bagshaw on 30 Jan 17
     
    It seems like Trump is trying to get to much accomplished at one time, he's not focusing on one problem, so nothing is going to get done. My problem with the wall is that it doesn't solve the problem people will always find a way in so unless we are putting a wall up around the whole US we will still deal with people trying to get in.
  • anonymous on 30 Jan 17
     
    Even though trump said he's going to build a wall people are still going to get over it. Unless he is planning on putting a wall all around. I think he's just gonna make it worst for us, he should do the little things first and work his way up with the big things, because what is he changes his mind about what he's doing.
  • tbrockman469 on 31 Jan 17
     
    I agree with kim, he is doing everything so fast hes not really focusing or thinging about anything as long as it gets done.
  • amiahdoty on 07 Feb 17
     
    Donald has been doing everything he said he was going to but i dont think he is seeing what he is doing because he is doing everything so fast. i also dont think he will put the wall up because mexico wont pay. people are going to find a way around the wall too
  • daulton wilcoxen on 07 Feb 17
     
    He is a man of his word, the word most people voted for, so that means he is going to do what he says and listen to the people.
  • Landon Mohr on 16 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Justice because people are just going to find another way over or around the wall. Illegals are still going to jump the border and some of them will still make it into the United States. I don't understand why he is trying to do everything so fast. He does know that he has four years right? Maybe someone should inform him of that. The wall is a pointless thing especially if he's trying to get Mexico to pay for it.
  • trump16 on 20 Feb 17
     
    the wall is not a pointless thing. He will get mexico to pay for it. He is a man that keeps to his word. He is not bought and paid for by lobbyist, and super PACS. The wall is a great idea. Just remember would you want to take in some homeless person into your house? thats what a front door is for. that is why we need a wall.
  • azyla646 on 13 Mar 17
     
    Mexico will not pay for the wall he's insane for thinking that they're going to help stay out. All he's doing is humiliating immigrants and kind of bullying them. If he plans on bullying people all four years he has then he's not going to do anything for us and that should worry people.
  • marly mcmullen on 13 Mar 17
     
    I agree with Landon. Mexico is most likely not going to be willing to pay for the way so therefore its pointless. People are still going to try and do what they want, a wall is not going to stop them.
  • daniel hetrick on 13 Mar 17
     
    Mexico might not pay. But Abby, you say he is humiliating immigrants, he is welcoming to other foreigners he just dislikes illegal immigrants, it's like somebody broke into your house and is living in your attic without you knowing. He is blocking immigration from the middle east not because he hates all muslims but because most terrorism is from that general area.
  • rwilladsen586 on 13 Mar 17
     
    I think the general concept of what he's trying to accomplish is a good idea, but of course there's plenty of flaws in the system. Mexico's obviously not going to be on board for covering the funds necessary to build the wall, and neither would any country in their position. You're going to have plenty of Mexican citizens who are totally against this and might even try to wreak havoc on the project which will only stir the pot more. On the other hand, he's making an effort to keep illegal immigrants out and follow through to his word by building the wall.
  • ahayden800 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I agree with Landon, Mexico might not pay for the wall. If Mexico doesn't pay for the wall to go up what are the chances that the wall is actually going to be put up?
  • isaaclidgett on 16 Mar 17
     
    Mexico will pay for the wall if the like it or not. America will just stop sending them financial aid that we give to them every year. There is many ways to get Mexico to do what we want and we finally have a president that will stop the illegal immigration and do what he promised he was going to do. Amen!
  • Jorden Crinklaw on 16 Mar 17
     
    I think it is insane that Trump proposed the idea of building a wall, and now is trying to make Mexico pay for it. Why would they? How does that even make sense? If Mexico doesn't pay-which they wont, American tax payers will be the ones paying for it. And it is a multi billion dollar project.
  • sjordan863 on 16 Mar 17
     
    That's the reason why people voted for him, he is a man of his word that's what us the people wanted.
  • racosta116 on 24 Mar 17
     
    He's doing what he promised, if someone didn't support him it's most likely not too good in their opinion, but he won promising things. It's a good thing to have a president doing what he promised, even if someone doesn't agree with it all.
Bryan Pregon

If Alcohol Were Discovered Today, Would it be Legal? | Alternet - 1 views

www.alternet.org/overed-today-would-it-be-legal

drugs drinking alcohol

shared by Bryan Pregon on 10 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 10 Sep 12
     
    Interesting article out of Great Britain... especially considering all our laws on "drugs", are we forgetting that alcohol is a drug as well. For many, it is socially acceptable to get "drunk" while getting "high" is bad. Do you think if alcohol were discovered today, would we allow people to use it legally?
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Andrew Jensen on 10 Sep 12
     
    We probably wouldn't, and go back into the prohibition days. With all the stats they have between drunk driving and abuse, the government wouldn't think twice
  • Nathanial Belt on 10 Sep 12
     
    Well look from olden days, if we knew all deaths of drunk driving or stupid stuff people do, it never would have gotten relegalized. This is in my opinion
  • Jaacob Tatta on 10 Sep 12
     
    i think that it would be illegal because of all of the stats they have form drunk driving, domestic abuses, child protection cases, and accidents.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    I really doubt that we would be able to limit it legally to the point of no use. I do think we would better restrict it though. It would likely turn into something like limiting a persons legal purchase amount in a week or a month or something, with some sort of item that would be required to purchase alcohol that one could only receive so many of in a month period.
  • christa bennett on 20 Sep 12
     
    they tried to stop it with prohibiton when they first discovered it. but that only brought on moonshiners and illegal saloons (i can't think of the name right now) and now it would be almost impossible to make alcohol illegal. It would most likely turn into something like a huge illegal operation like a cartel or something worse.
Jordan Smith

U.S. News - Cops: Baby injured when mom tries to run over man - 16 views

usnews.msnbc.msn.com/...when-mom-tries-to-run-over-man

shared by Jordan Smith on 28 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • Jordan Smith on 28 Nov 11
     
    TAMPA, Fla. -- Police in Florida say an 18-month-old Tampa girl was injured when her mother rammed their car in into a house while trying to run over a man. Authorities say 29-year-old Tamika Lashaunda Willis did not buckle the child into a car seat when she tried to run over the man, eventually ramming the car into his house.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Joey Ruckman on 01 Dec 11
     
    thats crazy. who wouldnt buckle there kid up? and why was she trying to run over someone?
  • robert jungferman on 01 Dec 11
     
    The mom eeds to go to jail cause she is a retard for trying to do sucha stupid thing to a mna trying to kill him and had her baby in risk of dieing.
  • Lauren Rommel on 01 Dec 11
     
    Not only did she miss the man she was trying to hit, she injured her own child in the meantime... some people just should not have a driver's license..
  • Preston Robb on 01 Dec 11
     
    This is crazy! Do you think they'll let her keep her driving licence???
  • Carrie Fuest on 01 Dec 11
     
    That's ridiculous that the mother would even take their child to that kind of situation. The fact that she did was bad enough, but she didn't even secure her child, so that's a scary thought to think about. Should she be allowed to have children? I think she isn't responsible enough and seems to be unstable.
theresa schwenk

Oklahoma Mother, 18, Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home While on Phone With 911 - Ya... - 9 views

gma.yahoo.com/...n-phone-with-911-27777235.html

shared by theresa schwenk on 05 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • theresa schwenk on 05 Jan 12
     
    Wed, Jan 4, 2012 9:01 AM EST 911 operator told young mother she could not shoot until man entered her home. Multiple reports of a dozen orcas have whale watchers thrilled in Orange County. Higher gas prices will push the cost of coffee, breakfast items up across U.S.
  • Lauren Rommel on 10 Jan 12
     
    This is a very interesting situation. I feel bad for that new mother because she had just lost her husband, and then someone tried to break into her house 5 days later.. I think this is a justified shooting as well.
Jeremy Vogel

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

www.motherjones.com/...ideo-romney-private-fundraiser

Government President Candidate News 2012

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 18 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 18 Sep 12
     
    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...
  • Alex Snipes on 18 Sep 12
     
    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.)
  • Rainie mccubbin on 18 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Alex Snipes on 19 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Rainie mccubbin on 19 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 19 Sep 12
     
    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?
  • Cameron Pick on 19 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Alex Snipes on 19 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Mallory Huggins on 21 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 21 Sep 12
     
    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.
guillermosolorio

Teen Charged With Murder In Deadly Crash - 21 views

If they have evidence that it was her than she should go to prison,it sounds liken they have no evidence though. they cant just assume it was her.

news

started by Renee Borgaila on 24 Sep 15 7 follow-ups, last by guillermosolorio on 29 Sep 15
fernandocm

Inquiry Into Russian Interference Goes Public - 0 views

time.com/...trump-comey-russia-inquiry

GOVERNMENT Politics News ELECTION

shared by fernandocm on 20 Mar 17 - No Cached
  • fernandocm on 20 Mar 17
     
    (WASHINGTON) - A congressional inquiry into Russian interference in the presidential election that has so far unfolded behind closed doors moves into the open with a public hearing featuring FBI Director James Comey.
Bryan Pregon

Branstad signs laws restricting wages, workers' compensation - 2 views

www.wowt.com/...rs-compensation-417730593.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 31 Mar 17 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 31 Mar 17
     
    "Gov. Terry Branstad has signed into law a ban on local governments raising the minimum hourly wage and another law changing Iowa's workers' compensation system."
  • rwilladsen586 on 04 Apr 17
     
    I think it was reasonable for Gov. Terry Branstad to place a law on banning minimum wage increase. We have a good minimum wage that meets the circumstances of living in iowa. It's not nearly as expensive as other big cities like Chicago or San Diego. I also think it was good he took into account the workers' compensation.
1 - 20 of 201 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page