Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged sites

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
jessicasolorio

Can people bring guns to voting sites? You might be surprised - Los Angeles Times - 27 views

www.latimes.com/...guns-in-polling-places

shared by jessicasolorio on 26 Oct 20 - No Cached
  • jessicasolorio on 26 Oct 20
     
    What's your guys' opinion on this?
  • ...28 more comments...
  • gozzello162 on 26 Oct 20
     
    People should not be allowed to bring guns to the polling stations. These can be used as a form of voter intimidation which is a crime, though at it's core I have respect for people's right to carry, guns should never be used to scare or intimidate voters
  • hharker376 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This should not be allowed. This could cause many harmful things including intimidation and crimes against a particular group of people.
  • josephinelamb on 26 Oct 20
     
    No, people should not be allowed to bring guns to polling stations.
  • emilysmith200 on 26 Oct 20
     
    No, people shouldn't be allowed to bring guns to voting sites. I feel like this will create more problems than solutions.
  • jcollins438 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This should not be allowed
  • olijohnson on 26 Oct 20
     
    I dont think people should be able to bring guns to a voting site
  • makosa23 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This should not be able to allowed
  • bayliegirres on 26 Oct 20
     
    I don't think there is a reason they should even feel the need to bring a gun to a voting site. But no they shouldn't bring a gun.
  • mmailey052 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This should not be allowed I think that this could cause major issues with other people and safety.
  • trinitytallman on 26 Oct 20
     
    People should not be allowed to do this. What would the purpose of having a gun be? Something bad could happen if this was allowed.
  • saralong057 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This shouldn't be allowed. It's unnecessary and could cause an even bigger issue than there would have been if a gun hadn't been brought.
  • scarney230 on 26 Oct 20
     
    i feel having fire arms there would not be okay and it would not be safe many things could haoppen it could cause chaos
  • Bryan Pregon on 26 Oct 20
     
    Thanks for posting this Jessica! A good amount of responses so far. I will post a wikipedia link for state-by-state carry rules. If that isn't tricky enough, some states have laws differentiating "carrying" a firearm and "brandishing" (holding it pointed toward someone). I suspect we will be hearing more about this over the next week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#Iowa
  • cmacias539 on 26 Oct 20
     
    No people shouldn't be allowed to bring a gun because agreeing with someone else's comment, it would only cause more problems than solutions, therefore it is unnecessary.
  • laurenhansen168 on 30 Oct 20
     
    I don't think people should bring guns to the voting site because it may cause others not to come and may scare people. It would not be safe and there could be many things to go wrong.
  • jcooley186 on 02 Nov 20
     
    I think bringing guns is super unnecessary to bring to a polling site, it could scare people away and possibly be the cause of an injury or death.
  • carmellahargens on 13 Jan 21
     
    i think that unless you have your concealed carry licence, you should be able to bring it. yes, there is a chance of people being afraid, but there is nothing you can do about that. it isn't going to harm the election in any way and there are rules that have to be followed in order to be given the privilege of the license in the first place
  • bigslide on 27 Jan 21
     
    why would you bring a gun, something for self-defense, killing, hurting... to voting sites? ummmmmmm
  • thepriceisright on 27 Jan 21
     
    I simply do not see the point. I mean sure you can bring them if you are licensed but that doesn't mean I'm not going to judge you because clearly, the purpose is to make a statement, and not for self-defense. It's not like a grandma is going to point a gun at your head and make you vote Biden.
  • ataylor074 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I personally think that you shouldn't be able to bring guns to voting sites. People are already intimidated going to these places to vote, and adding weapons would just cause more harm than good.
  • nadialove on 27 Jan 21
     
    I personally don't believe there is any reason to bring a weapon to voting sites at all. There should be no weapons in a building during a government event.
  • gavync_alhs on 27 Jan 21
     
    If the gun holder has a licensed weapon and has years of experience with guns, then I think it wouldn't be a problem. A problem I noticed in the USA is everyone is very paranoid about guns, but not the person holding the gun. If the person has had little to no mental health issues and had years of experience with guns, then It shouldn't be a problem.
  • matts999 on 27 Jan 21
     
    It doesn't make sense for people to be able to open carry firearms because votes could feel intimidated by the weapons into voting for a candidate they don't actually like.
  • hannahliwai on 01 Feb 21
     
    i can't think of a reason of why people can bring guns into voting places. yes, they have a right to own one, but i don't think you need to carry a gun with you to vote
  • eballenger on 01 Feb 21
     
    I think it's okay for someone with a license to carry to bring one in because that's the entire purpose of a license, but I think it should be kept to only small firearms in the event that someone were to attempt to attack a voting site.
  • pcloyd_flanagan on 01 Feb 21
     
    I do not think people should bring guns to voting sites there is absolutely no reason. It only takes one person to get mad or get their feelings hurt and then start shooting then people are hurt or even dead. Especially when the world and the people are like the way they are right now.
  • tkoesters274 on 25 May 21
     
    I don't think that people should bring guns to voting sites because it would be easy for them to just decide to shoot it up if people don't agree with them.
  • hschimmer540 on 25 May 21
     
    I don't think it's a good idea to bring guns to voting sites because there is no point to. You wouldn't be in danger more than likely so there is no reason to take a gun with you to vote. And it may make other people uncomfortable and feel less safe while voting.
  • bigslide on 25 May 21
     
    It's a bad idea. Why would someone need to bring a gun to a voting site? Just vote and then leave. leave your gun at home for this.
  • jcontreras201 on 25 May 21
     
    I think it's a bad idea to let people bring guns to voting sites because theirs literally no reason to, there going to vote, and if anything letting people take guns will just make it worse.
Bryan Pregon

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

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

shared by Bryan Pregon on 10 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • joecarbis on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think life in prison would be worse than the death penalty to begin with
  • ...33 more comments...
  • Natalie Wilson on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think the death penalty is pointless. In my opinion all it does is give horrible criminals an easy way out. If I did something horrible enough to get the death penalty, I'd rather die than serve life in prison.
  • caseyyard on 10 Dec 12
     
    Yup we are for sure with out a doubt falling back into a dark age.
  • garrett lee on 10 Dec 12
     
    i think we should have the death penalty
  • gharvey949 on 10 Dec 12
     
    Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back.
  • Ryan Loye on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think that the death penalty is wrong because they are trying to stop a murderer by murdering him themselves so really it's not much better then what the killer was doing himself.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 10 Dec 12
     
    What would happen if the person was innocent after all?
  • Molly Wyant on 10 Dec 12
     
    Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out
  • blakewilladsen on 10 Dec 12
     
    It will be interesting to hear Sorenson's argument as to why to changes things. Prisons are getting crowded but this is still Iowa. We still have a small population
  • jessicavaldez on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think the death penalty is not a bad idea nor I think it is a good idea. They will suffer in jail or suffer in hell. My opinion is put them in jail. If it is not their time to die yet then it is not. If they did something as bad as kill someone then they do deserve to go to jail and suffer for life.
  • Melissa Christensen on 10 Dec 12
     
    I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions.
  • aaron valdivia on 10 Dec 12
     
    Its not weather which one is worse, its that killing a person for killing another person is not only hypocritical but inhumane to today's society.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 11 Dec 12
     
    I disagree with bringing the death penalty back to Iowa. We've taken it away twice, once in 1872 and the second time in 1965, so I feel that shows that we, as a state, don't want it. Also the death penalty isn't really a deterrent for crime. There is a really interesting website that shows so facts about murder rates and comparing states that do and don't have the death penalty. They have a ton of information and I would recommend that you go through the site a little if you're interested in this topic. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
  • joecarbis on 11 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Aaron, but i also think that justice should be served
  • Dylan Garner on 11 Dec 12
     
    Aaron giving someone the death penalty is acceptable. Having life in prison is worse anyway and it just puts more people in danger if that person is still alive.
  • bvasquez13 on 11 Dec 12
     
    better for the death penalty then life in prison.
  • gharvey949 on 11 Dec 12
     
    Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.
  • aaron valdivia on 11 Dec 12
     
    Mr. Garner, it would cost more money to give somebody the death penalty then to have them spend life in prison. We live in a different type of world then when people had there heads chopped off and dragons happened to be there to save "johns" life. To me that's not what God intended us to do with people that made a mistake and yes a big one but everybody has a reason to something or there could be something seriously wrong with there head to commit a murder but its not always there fault.
  • blakewilladsen on 11 Dec 12
     
    For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1 For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9 For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8 For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
  • jacob whalen on 12 Dec 12
     
    It seems like if the act of violence is bad enough to get the death penalty most of the people kill themselves before the law can.
  • joecarbis on 13 Dec 12
     
    Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!
  • Dylan Garner on 13 Dec 12
     
    Mr. Valdivia how would it cost more to give the death penalty then to keep them in prison for life? That's right, IT WOULDN'T. And I'm not saying give the death penalty for 1 murder. Based on depravity and body counts they should be sentenced to death.
  • dalton burk on 13 Dec 12
     
    unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people
  • Jeremy Vogel on 13 Dec 12
     
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf Dylan pages 20 and 21 of the PDF I linked above, explain why the death penalty costs more to administer than life in prison with out parole. More specifically on page 20 under the heading Time on Death Row it says, "In California, a legislative commission concluded that it costs the state an extra $90,000 for each death row inmate per year compared to the costs of the same inmate housed in general population. With over 670 inmates on death row, that amounts to an additional yearly cost of $60 million solely attributable to the death penalty."
  • joecarbis on 14 Dec 12
     
    Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.
  • Dylan Garner on 14 Dec 12
     
    Well then we can change the process to a quick and easy death without all that court BS. And plus I'm a prison warden so you guys both don't know what you are talking about. Aaron. And Jeremy.
  • joecarbis on 14 Dec 12
     
    FALSE. There is NO WAY you're a prison warden. The minimum age for a Warden is 21, plus you have to have lots of training. So someone of your prestige and experience, (not to mention your practically a 5 year old) would never be able to be a warden. Kthnxbye
  • Dylan Garner on 14 Dec 12
     
    I am prison
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Dec 12
     
    Dylan and Joe, The reason that the death penalty is more expensive (and always will be) is the courts have to make sure that the criminal that is convicted is 100 percent guilty. There can't be any room for doubt. This means that the state has to supply better (More expensive) lawyers for the suspected party, and the trial has to be more in depth, therefor much longer. We can't make this time shorter than it is, because as a country, we are will do everything we can to keep an Innocent man from dying. And to just keep the perpetrators in jail is much cheaper, as there is already a well set system in place, and one more person will not increase the cost of that system to go up in large amounts as much as the singled out attention a person on death row will.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 14 Dec 12
     
    @ Dylan and Joe, if you both still think that the death penalty is cheaper, you are wrong, look at the 20th page Jeremy posted. @ Jared, ethically speaking, shouldn't any person who is accused of murder have an outrageously expensive lawyer anyways? If someone is going to be imprisoned for life, or going to be executed for a crime, should the one being executed receive a better lawyer?
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Dec 12
     
    I think they should, but the person being put to jail for life has the chance to have new evidence pop up, and potentially let them eventually get out, they have the chance to get out on parole, they have the potential for choices. The man that is getting the death penalty have to be 100 percent sure. They don't have room to make mistakes. Ethically, I believe that people getting put away for life should have the same standards of 100 percent, but as I said, they have choices later on down the road. The dead don't.
  • Dylan Garner on 18 Dec 12
     
    @ Payton. It is cheaper. I know for a fact. I AM A PRISON WARDEN.
  • Emili Davis on 18 Dec 12
     
    I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty.
  • joecarbis on 19 Dec 12
     
    @Peyton Are you trying to tell me its more expensive to keep someone alive in prison? this means that dude lives off our tax money. You will literally pay for his food, housing, and heck, that dude can even go lift for 3 hours a day and run his block! THink about that. State Champ.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 19 Dec 12
     
    @ Dylan, you are not a prison warden, keep the topics on this page relevant to the conversation, and have some potential form of evidence to back up what you say. @ Joe, it is much less expensive to keep someone alive then execute them. The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated. Example State: California How much they could save: With life in prison as the maximum punishment for 1st degree murder, they would save over 1 billion dollars a year. Money that could be saved per year for taxpayers: 90,000 dollars a year. Taxpayers save money if they do not use the death penalty. http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 Besides, many murder victims PREFER the idea of Life without Parole. If you do not believe this, check out this site made by the victims families: https://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/death_penalty/Voices_from_California_Crime_Victims_for_Alternatives_to_the_Death_Penalty.pdf I have the feeling that nobody will even look at these links, but they are blunt evidence that it is cheaper, and makes more people happy, then when we use the death penalty. Oh.... By the way, 2nd degree murders (who cannot receive the death penalty) can do all that which you stated before Joe. Why should first degree murders be any different?
  • Molly Wyant on 19 Dec 12
     
    The death penalty is dumb you should just let that sever his/or hers time in prison.
xolson974

Watch as world's largest mobile structure slides into place over site of Chernobyl nucl... - 0 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...-of-chernobyl-nuclear-disaster

shared by xolson974 on 02 Dec 16 - No Cached
xolson974 liked it
  • xolson974 on 02 Dec 16
     
    In the aftermath of the accident at Chernobyl's nuclear power plant in 1986, Soviet workers erected a concrete and steel sarcophagus over the damaged reactor. The cover shielded 200 metric tons of uranium fuel, smothered with acid and sand, to stanch further contamination.
awest520

what is sopa? - 1 views

www.businessinsurance.org/ns-for-business-and-innovation

shared by awest520 on 17 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • awest520 on 17 Jan 12
     
    diagram with SOPA info
  • awest520 on 17 Jan 12
  • awest520 on 17 Jan 12
     
    http://www.contactingthecongress.org/cgi-bin/newseek.cgi?site=ctc2011&state=ia "...it's recommended that folks who live in Texas, Michigan, Vermont, or IOWA go the route of calling." also has fax and online contact.
awest520

google against SOPA - 0 views

www.google.com/...takeaction

sopa

shared by awest520 on 18 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • awest520 on 18 Jan 12
     
    google has its logo "censered" today does anyone else know of any other sites?
  • awest520 on 18 Jan 12
     
    craigslist too http://omaha.craigslist.org/ XD
  • awest520 on 18 Jan 12
     
    google news about SOPA protest Why is Wikipedia staging a blackout and what is SOPA?, from the National Post Wikipedia joins blackout protest at US anti-piracy moves, from the British Broadcasting Corporation Wikipedia blackout over US anti-piracy bills and FEATURE: Websites blackout over 'SOPA censorship', from Al Jazeera Wikipedia, Craigslist, other sites go black in SOPA protest, from the Los Angeles Times Google Rallies Opposition to Murdoch-Backed Anti-Piracy Bill, from BusinessWeek SOPA protest: The Net strikes back, from Politico Wikipedia blackout a 'gimmick', MPAA boss claims, from the Guardian Wikipedia 24-hour blackout: a reader and Why we're taking Wikipedia down for a day, from the New Statesman Internet-wide protests against SOPA/PIPA are kicking up a storm, by the Hindustan Times SOPA, PIPA: What you need to know, from CBS News Protest on Web Uses Shutdown to Take On Two Piracy Bills, from the New York Times Protesting SOPA: how to make your voice heard, from Ars Technica Why We've Censored Wired.com, from Wired
nlarsen15

Obamacare Website Fixed? - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...obamacare-website

shared by nlarsen15 on 03 Dec 13 - No Cached
  • nlarsen15 on 03 Dec 13
     
    They say the Obamacare website is now free of bugs that have been plaguing it since the beginning of the site. Some critics still say there are plenty of bugs; but only time will tell to see how fixed this site really is...
  • deahnna on 04 Dec 13
     
    I don't believe they've really fixed it, but if they don't get it set up soon, people will have to start paying large fines for the care that they may or may not need at the fault of the government.
bananaking

Web Domains Held Hostage? - 0 views

In this article, people seem to be making sites that are about Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, however, he only has one real site. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/politics/ted-cruz-president-announc...

Politics

started by bananaking on 24 Mar 15 no follow-up yet
blakewilladsen

white house proposes contraceptives compromise - 2 views

www.nytimes.com/...on-contraception-coverage.html

healthcare religion nytimes

shared by blakewilladsen on 01 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • patrick boian on 04 Feb 13
     
    the government shuld not have to provide free birth control for women if their not going to use methods of not getting pregnant
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Feb 13
     
    re:patrick -- perhaps I misunderstood your comment, but outside of abstinence what "other methods of not getting pregnant" are there besides medical birth control options? Like other articles posted here, I was as interested in reading many of the comments on the NYTimes site after the article, there were very compelling arguments on each side. I found myself siding with many who said that employers should not get the choice to opt out of providing this coverage. This was one such post: "Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. Does anyone believe for one second that we would be debating whether a Jehovah's Witness-owned company should cover blood transfusions for its employees? I seriously doubt it--which means that the debate we are having is not actually about religious freedom at all. It's about whether contraception is an essential part of women's health care, just like blood transfusions."
  • Ryan Loye on 05 Feb 13
     
    i agree with Patrick if women don't wont to get pregnant they should stay to the precautionary treatments to not become pregnant
  • kdarrington342 on 07 Feb 13
     
    I think this page will help you boys understand a little more about what birth control actually is: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill Personally, I think that it should be covered by insurance. Besides being a popular contraceptive, it control many different hormones in a woman's body. It's used to cure things like ovarian cysts, and irregular periods. It can relieve those pesky cramps that you get on your period, or just at random points of the month. It will clear your acne, and even help prevent cancers. And, the hormones being consumed by taking the pill, can balance our emotions, possibly making us more tolerance of ignorance towards women's health. The church aspect of this story is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Them refusing to cover a product that would help their employees be healthier, prettier, nicer, and more likely to remain cancer free, is unreasonable. Just because the typical use is frowned upon by their religions, doesn't mean it's right to make their employees spend their hard earned money on measures to maintain a healthy body, that could be covered by their companies insurance.
  • Natalie Wilson on 08 Feb 13
     
    I don't see why taking measures to prevent a pregnancy is so bad. People are always saying that teenagers are getting pregnant at a young age when the truth is, maybe these girls can't afford it. No, they should not be having sex so young but sometimes you have to face the fact that girls are having sex at a young age and instead of turning a blind eye, they should take measures to prevent the pregnancy from happening. Just like Kirsten said, it does more than just preventing pregnancies. Some girls need it and can't afford it.
Jeremy Vogel

Iowa Supreme Court gives speech protections to online publishing firms _ but not indivi... - 0 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html

Government Politics Iowa

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 22 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 22 Jan 13
     
    University of Iowa journalism professor Lyombe Eko said the court "has given protection to people who are bullied on the Internet, the victims of smears or lies or accusations posted on Facebook and Twitter." People will be able to sue the attacker, but not the company that hosts the site where the statements are posted, he said.
  • caseyyard on 23 Jan 13
     
    So now you can get sue for saying something rude about some (everyone dose) ? If you don't want people saying mean things to you don't get on that website and don't involve your self with those people ...
  • Mallory Huggins on 23 Jan 13
     
    I honestly really like this decision. The rights of individual people haven't changed at all. Nontraditional publishers are just granted the same protections as traditional publishers, and this is an important and necessary decision considering the huge rise in popularity of nontraditional publishers. Beth Weier's lawyer said that ASI [the publisher] shouldn't qualify for protection because it "simply did cover art and bound the book and put it on a website." However, e-publishing is now an important part of the publishing industry, and if we accept his reasoning NO publishers qualify for protection, because none of them write the material they publish.
Bryan Pregon

Council Bluffs Schools blocking Facebook - 3 views

goo.gl/q4Sc8

shared by Bryan Pregon on 04 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 04 Oct 12
     
    I am curious if you agree or disagree with the decision. Here are excerpts from three documents the school district has sent me about the decision.
  • ...14 more comments...
  • Andrew Jensen on 04 Oct 12
     
    i think blocking it was 50/50, good for the kids that are addicted to changing their status, but bad for people who are on it during free time or lunch.
  • Ashtyne Madsen on 04 Oct 12
     
    I agree with Andrew because there are a lot of people that abuse he privilege, but then there are the ones that only get on when told that they can or in free time.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 04 Oct 12
     
    I think that our school system is going way Wacko with this, with Facebook, yeah block it, but you should block it on the school's wifi not the chromes. you should be able to get on at you house. What is the harm there...? Its not like you are getting distracted from a teacher talking..... With the cell phones. Yeah, thats whatever... I understand that you aren't supposed to have them out during class, but only being aloud to have them during lunch and before or after school, it makes me feel like we are back in Jr. High, that was their policy. I even remember i went to work Kirn's show and i forgot that there was that rule and so i was walking down the hallway texting, i looked right at the teacher and said that i was in high school, she laughed and said sorry and gave it back. But i think with this rule the students will feel like that are being treated as jr high students again and i know that would make me frustrated. But not having a relaxed rule on cell phones students will just get super mad and well, teacher's and Administrators,, You're gonna have a bad time...
  • Alex Snipes on 04 Oct 12
     
    I agree with Eric, it should just be blocked on the wifi, not the Chromes themselves because now the people who brought their own computers can get on facebook, or the people with internet on their phones can access it that way. So the school didn't block the students %100, they just made an obstacle for the students to get through, because I think we all know someone is going to find a way around it soon, like they did last year.
  • Michaela Koopmeiners on 04 Oct 12
     
    I agree with Eric and Alex as well, just block it on their wifi during the school day.
  • christa bennett on 04 Oct 12
     
    It does feel like we are still in Junior High. but how do most Students? certainly not like they are in high school. If people would act their age then you could use this statement. take a look around the hallways and you know what i am talking about. And when you are on facebook or any other website it is a distraction because you are zoned out of everything that is going on around you and ten minutes can easily turn into an hour or a couple of hours
  • Rainie mccubbin on 04 Oct 12
     
    a good 3/4 of the conversations during class periods... maybe not everyone's but at least mine has been about getting around the the Facebook block. They say Facebook is distracting well it is for certain people that get on it constantly but what really is distracting is people constantly talking about how they are trying to get back on Facebook through the chromes. That's not distracting a select few it's distracting us all.
  • Jaidlyn Bookout on 04 Oct 12
     
    I feel like if the school has such a big problem with Facebook they need to realize that although blocking Facebook from chromes will stop many students from getting on it the majority of us do have smart phones. Meaning we can still get on Facebook. I think that if a student doesn't know how to control their use on facebook during school they will have to deal with the consequences and that it wasn't necessary to block the site, it's called responsibility and if someone doesn't know how to be responsible then that's their problem. Also I don't understand why students aren't able to get on Facebook outside of school?
  • Olivia Burgher on 04 Oct 12
     
    I don't feel like blocking Facebook was very beneficial. High school is supposed to be preparing us for college or a career, in which we will have access to anything we want. How are we supposed to know how to limit distractions if we don't have the opportunity to do so now? On another note, the students who aren't doing their work now with Facebook unblocked still aren't generally going to do it even without that particular distraction.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 04 Oct 12
     
    I agree with Rainie, Jaidlyn, and Olivia. The school board and the administrators don't know what we are thinking in class, yes they might see that a good portion of our students are on Facebook, but also, a good majority is paying attention and actually learning, I personally find Facebook a good tool for school, because there has been multiple times where I have no clue what so ever on what is going on so I go and ask some of my friends that are in college and ask them, and also my friends explain it so much better than Teacher's do, I feel as though most of the times teacher's just speak it so they can get paid, they don't go in depth to it. So I feel also that if they were teaching more hands on there would be less Facebook usage, well, at least there would be if it was unblocked.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 04 Oct 12
     
    Sorry.. I realized that I didn't finish.. With what Rainie said, that is so true you can't sit through a whole class period with out hearing, "This is peeveing me off!" or "There has to be a way around it, that will be my project this weekend, to figure out what how to get around this dumb thing!"
  • Payton Whiteaker on 09 Oct 12
     
    Personally, if the schools are trying to prepare us for the future, then why limit what we can do, and not do with the chromes? How does limiting us teach us good decision making skills? I mean, in the future, if you are at work and spend 4 hours of your time at work on facebook, you are gonna get fired. We should have it just to learn that we do not need it. Plus, students are just going to move onto the next thing. Like there are not a billion other things we are going to get on?
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 09 Oct 12
     
    I completely agree with Payton. There are so many things that aren't blocked and we can move right on to the next thing.
  • Alexis Theos on 09 Oct 12
     
    I totally agree with both Eric and Payton, also what about using our phones, Ipods, and personal computers to get on FB at school. An I know most of the people on FB use it to waste time, what about the students using it during free time for good things like making a FB page for a club or a FB event for a soccer game?
  • Bryan Pregon on 09 Oct 12
     
    In response to Payton W: If an employee would get fired for wasting company time on Facebook, what is a logical penalty for teachers/administrators to administer to those who refuse to work? It is hardly a solution to take the computer away, since there is so much effort placed on getting kids to use them for class work. Of course we cannot "fire" our students like an employee. Following your logic, shouldn't "moving on to the next thing" also get you the same penalty? Isn't the real issue students wasting time (whatever it might be)?
  • Payton Whiteaker on 10 Oct 12
     
    Mr. Pregon, the personal issue with this is, we can't go around blocking things all the time, that does not teach good choice-making skills. I know that one solution, that may only work in some situations, is that, make them do it by hand. I've seen teachers use this before, and noticed quiet a bit improvement on students taking it upon themselves to avoid facebook. Mr. Nelson, in Algebra 2 made someone solve a 3 variable question using Matrices by hand, which can take about 10 minutes for a single problem. That student has not been on facebook in his class, or at least caught, since. As for penalties, students do have privileged that teachers may take away, such as going to the bathroom during class. Although, that is unlikely to affect most students, it is hard to say whether or not that will have much affect. Perhaps a major punishment such as Monday school if caught so many times? I have no direct answer as to how this should work though.
Kirstina Michl

Romney's Tax Plan - 1 views

www.romneytaxplan.com

Government Politics Romney Tax Plan

shared by Kirstina Michl on 18 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Kirstina Michl on 18 Oct 12
     
    I'm sorry if I offend any Romney fans, but this is too funny. I don't want to spoil anything, so you'll just have to click on the link.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 19 Oct 12
     
    Funny, very much so. I think it's worth 20 seconds of your life to view this site.
dbratcher097

North Dakota Pipeline: Protesters vow to stand ground - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...dakota-pipeline-protests

shared by dbratcher097 on 30 Nov 16 - No Cached
  • dbratcher097 on 30 Nov 16
     
    Since late summer, protesters have stood beside members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota who believe the $3.7 billion pipeline project, which would move 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day across four states, would affect its drinking water supply and place downstream communities at risk of contamination from potential oil spills.
  • dbratcher097 on 30 Nov 16
     
    I think this is ridiculous. The pipeline is off of their grounds, and is on property purchased by Energy Transfer Partners. This is out of their control and they deserve to be arrested for trespassing (which they are) and the government should be able to use force to remove them from the site (Which they are also doing).
Bryan Pregon

New wrinkle in pot debate: stoned driving - 23 views

hosted.ap.org/...US_DRIVING_STONED

shared by Bryan Pregon on 19 Mar 12 - No Cached
  • garrettcollier on 19 Mar 12
     
    This women is given a medical drug. When she drive's when she's is still high? So if she is getting medical weed and they make a law stating that you can not be "high" or drugged up before driving. Then why doesn't the government give them transportation, sure buses work if you live in the city, or taxi's. But why should she have to pay when the hospitals are giving it to her.
  • ...9 more comments...
  • drake prazak on 20 Mar 12
     
    Or maybe instead they should just not drive. if smoking marijuana impairs you to the point to where your incapable of driving then don't drive, its not the governments responsibility to provide transportation to someone who chooses that as a medicine. and yeah the hospital gave it to her, but the hospital gives people a lot of other drugs that have warning labels stating not to drive and use heavy machinery. so why should the government have to provide transportation when people know that using that medicine might not allow them to be able to drive?
  • garrettcollier on 20 Mar 12
     
    Why Shouldn't they? there handing it out? Right? So if the government made the decision to give out marijuana to those who would like to have because of health problems then they should take Responsibility for the people there giving it to . Plus people wouldn't listen any ways, people drive under the influence all the time. No matter what its going to happen, that's why I think that the government should keep tabs on people who have medical drugs and make sure there safe, and make sure there not hurting someone else.
  • drake prazak on 20 Mar 12
     
    if people wouldn't listen, then there is no point for the government to pay to transport someone around who would just abuse it in the first place. and keeping tabs on all of the people who use medical marijuana or any drug that could impair you would take a ridiculous amount of time and money that our government probably isn't willing to do. if someone wants or needs that medical drug then they should be responsible for their actions while using it not the government.
  • garrettcollier on 21 Mar 12
     
    Then why make a laws and expect people to follow this one. It's pretty evident that nobody listen's anyways. So enforcing the law by keeping tabs might save people's lives and save them from injury? So how would that be a waste of time? And yes the thought is unrealistic but, I was just throwing out an idea.
  • Brittney Russell on 21 Mar 12
     
    i think its ok to be given the drug for a medical problem and to be able to drive, but if its worse then being drunk and then driving afterwards then you shouldn't be able to drive and be under an influence of a medical use of drugs. they should have special ways of transportation.
  • Captain Crunk on 21 Mar 12
     
    I believe it's impossible to be too dough'd to drive!
  • Jessica Lewis on 21 Mar 12
     
    I think that yes government should provide the transportation if your under medication that you should not be driving or using heavy machinery. Then there is also the thought of who is to say that some one won't just get high and say its hospital medication? It will always be a battle no matter what happens. you could have the government provide the transportation but the only way you can use it is by providing proof by like wearing a I.d. bracelet or having to keep the container with you. Then there are still ways that people will get around like taking other peoples bracelets or containers or them expiring. So there is almost no way to decide and make it possible! Not everyone is going to follow the laws or ever will!
  • tyler woodruff on 21 Mar 12
     
    i dont think it really matters wether they make it legal or not, people will still abuse it just like alcohol. they can set an age limit on it, but you still see 9 yearolds getting their hands on cigaretts even though ur supposed to be 18. and as far as transportation goes, i dont believe the government will provide transportation. if you choose to smoke pot, then its ur problem wether to drive or not. i dont think its a big deal if you smoke a bowl or two and then drive to the store, but can the police actualy tell or test you for thc? argue all you want i say let people be free and smoke whatever plant they want wether its tobacco or marijuana, its a natural god given plant.
  • Jeff Reddish on 21 Mar 12
     
    There's no reason that the government should use the money, that we don't have, to provide transportation to someone who doesn't need it. Does she need marijuana? Clearly, she may however, that does not constitute the necessity to have someone pay for her to get around. Maybe, she should try taking the bus.
  • Riley Barton on 22 Mar 12
     
    I believe she should not be driving while under the influence. Even if she is prescribed the drug, there should be warnings and other precautions taken to prevent accidents.
  • Joel Grimm on 23 Mar 12
     
    Maybe she should try cocaine I heard that works too.
1 - 20 of 38 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page