Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items matching "Based" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
18More

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!
4More

Protestors call on Obama to reject Keystone XL pipeline - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html Politics protest
shared by Josh Seyboth on 19 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Josh Seyboth on 19 Nov 12
     
    Less than two weeks after Barack Obama won his re-election campaign, protesters gathered Sunday to call on the president and his administration to reject the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, and to act on climate change.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Megan Frush on 20 Nov 12
     
    I believe that it is totally okay for these people to protest. They are protesting based upon their beliefs and feelings, so they have a right to protest. They feel that expansion in the fossil fuel is going to impact our climate. This is a perfect example of where people are lobbying the Obama Administration through peaceful protest to effect a desired result and outcome of government action.
  • patrick boian on 20 Nov 12
     
    as long as the pipe doesn't contaminate any water supplies I don't see a problem with it
  • Melissa Christensen on 20 Nov 12
     
    I find that there are two different sides to this story and for the most part both is good but one is better. The global temperature will be constantly going up no matter how green and organic America will be. There are other countries that are not able to contribute to going green. I find that the Keystone pipeline would be a good mission to strive for because of the state of America. We are not going to be the top of the line forever and maybe just maybe this project will keep us on the top longer.
36More

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.
4More

harrassers claim hoax in newtown shooting - 0 views

ac360.blogs.cnn.com/...rassed-by-conspiracy-theorists
shared by blakewilladsen on 17 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • blakewilladsen on 17 Jan 13
     
    interesting back and forth regarding free speech
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Mallory Huggins on 17 Jan 13
     
    Wow... sure, there are inconsistencies in the coverage of the Newtown massacre, but there are inconsistencies in any news story that is reported on by more than one individual. To claim that the massacre may not have happened at all - and the professor is the only person who says this - is extremely disrespectful.
  • Hayley Hochstetler on 18 Jan 13
     
    I would blame the media for starting this "conspiracy" in the first place. Once one person makes an assumption based on an event they didn't even witness, and they share it with some sort of media, it explodes into a big "conspiracy" against the government? I really do feel bad for the families who lost their children in such a tragic incident, and I feel even worse that they have to put up with these nonsense hate messages and such from people. It's very disrespectful.
  • blakewilladsen on 18 Jan 13
     
    I think the intensity of media coverage of an event such as this can be both good and harmful. When you over expose every detail and interview every last person related to the issue at hand there is bound to be inconsistencies in reporting. However when the media is able to really tell the story of such a tragedy it enlightens the public to some very serious issues. it makes it much easier for legislation to be brought to the table.
1More

Troops worry about defense, job cuts - 0 views

news.msn.com/...s-worry-about-defense-job-cuts Politics
shared by Megan Frush on 18 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Megan Frush on 18 Jan 13
     
    "The soldiers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team have gone to war five times since 9/11, and 84 have been killed - including 13 during their current deployment to Afghanistan. How would the impending budget cuts affect civilians at their post? And what will it all mean for their spouses and family members who work on the base?"
7More

The impact of $9 minimum wage, Is it Good or Bad? - 2 views

money.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by nelsontad on 05 Apr 13 - No Cached
  • olinde on 05 Apr 13
     
    good because some people dont get payed enough for how hard they work which is not always fair and right
  • ...4 more comments...
  • lesvia on 05 Apr 13
     
    I think it is good because there are places that people get paid $7 something which is less then $9.
  • Alex Barrett on 08 Apr 13
     
    Increasing the minimum wage would just make companies fire people because they'd feel some workers aren't worth paying a few extra dollars. I'd love to be paid 9 dollars, but this is told to help reduce poverty, I think it'll just increase unemployment.
  • gageanotor on 08 Apr 13
     
    sounds good to me becuase i feel like im getting screwed with the minimum wage... i know they have the money to do that but that could lead to be less jobs becuse they dont want to spend more money.
  • anadler380 on 11 Apr 13
     
    I don't think your decision on this matter should be whether you want more money or not. Of course everyone would like to get paid more; you have to look on the effects it would create. If raising the amount should happen, I think it should be raised more gradually- not just jumping to $9 automatically.
  • Kirsten Gallaher on 11 Apr 13
     
    Minimum wage is based on cost of living. No one can virtually live off of minimum wage. I know of several people who have two minimum wage jobs and work all the time but still are barely getting by. I understand this is what welfare is for but I also believe that if we raised the min wage to $9 more people would be off welfare and this would be an economy booster. Also the Minimum wage should be adjusted due to the fact that it hasn't been changed for a while.
  • Austin Parrott on 12 Apr 13
     
    i think it is a good thing to bump it up to 9 because there is no way you can live off of minimum wage i mean think what if you go to the hospital no way you can pay the bills for that and suppply food for your house no way to live
15More

Georgia high school to host first integrated prom - 4 views

www.kvue.com/201427871.html prom high school georgia
shared by Bryan Pregon on 05 Apr 13 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Apr 13
     
    "Students at one south Georgia high school share classrooms and sports fields; but, they don't share the same prom." Welcome to 2013. How far have we come in fighting segregation... not far enough.
  • ...12 more comments...
  • melissamartinez on 05 Apr 13
     
    This is just wrong. The students are being segregated because of their race and color. Shouldn't racism be illegal? especially in schools!
  • Jamie Cash on 05 Apr 13
     
    I think having separate dances based on color is just wrong. If they can attend the same school, games and classes, then they should also be allowed to attend the dances with their friends, no matter their color.
  • Colton Tracy on 05 Apr 13
     
    I can't believe to this day that there are people separating blacks from whites in some kind of activity. They share the same class rooms and everything else. Why can't they attend the same prom together? It amazes me how people think that they need to separate prom by the color of their skin.
  • Cara Ireland on 05 Apr 13
     
    I can't believe there is a school that integrated but yet they separate dances for the students? I think what the girls are trying to do is a good idea cause there isn't a good enough reason for the school to have separate dances.
  • Ericka Davis on 05 Apr 13
     
    I didn´t know segregation still was a problem.. This is annoying they have seperate proms for the races. It blows my mind how one can dislike and discourage people of a different color and race. We are all human beings.
  • michaelduquette on 05 Apr 13
     
    I think the fact that there is still segregation at all means the government isn't doing its job. They need to crack down on stuff like this.
  • Carlos Villarreal on 05 Apr 13
     
    Even now there's still a problem segregation. Having two different proms for whites and colored kids is crazy.
  • anadler380 on 05 Apr 13
     
    I didn't know schools were still allowed to do this. I don't understand why they can play sports together but not go to dances together.
  • courtney wilson on 05 Apr 13
     
    I thought segregation was no more but guess I was wrong. It doesn't make sense that they can play sports and attend other activities but they cant attend prom together. This isn't right!
  • jalitz336 on 05 Apr 13
     
    They shouldn't be able to do that. Th government ordered desegregation for schools in the 50's with the rights movement.
  • Delaney Bolton on 05 Apr 13
     
    Oh gosh, I'm pretty sure it feels like a slap in the face to the people who can't go to the "white" prom because they are black. I didn't even know they still did that. Or the fact that they were allowed too. It doesn't make any sense to me that they can have sports together but not dances?! Boggles my mind.
  • Amanda Ringberg on 05 Apr 13
     
    Its sad how their are still people out their that believe this is the right thing to do. I mean come on its a school dance they have these students do everything else together whats the point in separating them for a dance.
  • joshpowell on 05 Apr 13
     
    I can't believe this stuff still exist. The football team is segregated but the prom isn't? What took so long?
  • Ericka Davis on 08 Apr 13
     
    Is this even legal?
1More

White House allies produce preschool-for-all plan - 0 views

news.msn.com/...produce-preschool-for-all-plan Politics
shared by Megan Frush on 07 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • Megan Frush on 07 Feb 13
     
    "A proposal by the Center for American Progress outlines a plan for the introduction of pre-kindergarten programs for all 3- and 4-year-olds... Children aged 3 and 4 would be eligible to attend preschool for free if they come from a family of four earning $46,100 or less. For families making more than that, the rates would be adjusted based on income."
10More

Preacher Phil Snider gives gay rights speach - 0 views

www.youtube.com/watch Government Politics News gay rights
shared by Holly Jensen on 21 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Holly Jensen on 21 Oct 12
     
    This is totally great. I think it made a great comparison between racism and being against gay marriage. I highly recommend watching this.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Kenna McKeighan on 22 Oct 12
     
    I watched this and I really liked it. I give him credit for being a preacher and going against all other preachers by speaking on behalf of gay marriage.
  • Holly Jensen on 23 Oct 12
     
    It just goes to show that you can't let one person represent an entire religion.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 26 Oct 12
     
    Religion though, should not influence the policies of government upon gay marriage. Just a side note, I laugh at images of people going to his protest, and raising a sign that says, "god hates signs," or "He's gay"
  • Holly Jensen on 26 Oct 12
     
    Exactly. Our country isn't ruled by religion its ruled by the people and their choices.
  • Kenna McKeighan on 26 Oct 12
     
    I agree also, religion should stay out of politics, the only reason people think being homosexual is wrong is because it says so in the bible. Gay couples who get married aren't hurting anyone or anything, I really think that this even being an issue is absurd.
  • Payton Dawdy on 31 Oct 12
     
    I agree that one person can not represent an entire religion. One can represent their own easy because it is their personal belief on said subject. I give him props for being a willing person to speaking his views on gay marriage. The bible does not exactly say that it is not okay to be homosexual. It says its not okay to lay with someone of the same sex if I remember right. So I feel the physical part is viewed as not ok, wile the mental area should be taken in mind as well.
  • Alexis Theos on 31 Oct 12
     
    Every time someone "interprets" the bible it's like they are trying to "play God". They all try to say this is what God thinks and this is what He believes is wrong. I mean we should all be able to interpret it our own way and not try to make others believe in our interpretation, especially if it portrays God as "against" his own creations.
  • Holly Jensen on 01 Nov 12
     
    Religion is based off of your own personal faith and beliefs and with so many different versions and beliefs you can't let one person say what it means and stereotype that religion. You also have to consider the fact that things change with time, people evolve and so do thoughts. Like Snider showed in the video, we once thought that racism was right and accepting other nationalities was against their religion.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 02 Nov 12
     
    As I have said before, religion should have no influence when it comes to government policy. As for the bible, I could point out many things wrong with the bible, and the idea that Christianity not supporting gay relationships. I will not, simply out of the urge as to not ruin peoples views on religion. What I will say, is that the bible should also have no say on our government as well. Religion should, and is, also limited in the US, contrary to popular belief. Religion has been limited to 1st, no human sacrifice. (We don't need them crazy beheading Aztec's coming in and just start slicing peoples heads off right?) Second, separation of church and state. That right there means religion is not allowed to say, "You can't be gay, ban gay marriage." (And oddly, it still managed to happen.) I'm really looking forward to the supreme courts ruling on this, as long as they decide to take the case.
17More

Virginia high school students suspended for wearing Confederate flag apparel - The Wash... - 33 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...aring-confederate-flag-apparel
shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Apr 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Apr 16
     
    "Virginia high school students suspended for wearing Confederate flag apparel"
  • ...14 more comments...
  • selena99 on 12 Apr 16
     
    I feel like they band the flag for racism not due to religion, which I understand. But what I also understand is wanting to be able to have the freedom to your religion. And in this case their flag represents that.
  • lizretikis on 12 Apr 16
     
    I honestly believe that it is an infringement on the first amendment and these students should have the right to wear what they want.
  • kadenroen on 12 Apr 16
     
    I think that they should have been able to wear the flag because it's their freedom and they were not doing it to be racist they just wanted to be able to wear what they want because its their right.
  • epond857 on 12 Apr 16
     
    thats so dumb they have the right to wear what ever they want as long as its appropriate to the school policy
  • morgandooty on 12 Apr 16
     
    I think the school was blowing it out of proportion. The students should have been able to wear the confederate flag. The confederate flag has historical significance. I think the school was biased. They were more concerned with the politics surrounding the flag, because it was a pretty debated subject for awhile.
  • bclayton731 on 12 Apr 16
     
    I feel like they shouldn't be able to wear confederate flag apparel mainly because it makes black students feel threatened and reminds them of slavery.
  • elijah57 on 12 Apr 16
     
    Students should be able to wear the flag because they have the right of freedom of expression. Like he said in the article just because he flies the flag doesn't mean he discriminates against race.
  • msap832 on 12 Apr 16
     
    I think they are wrong wearing something like that to school and they shouldn't be able too. The school is right for suspending them. Even if they have the freedom to wear what they want there is also school rules and dress codes and that is not school appropriate.
  • alyssaserrano on 12 Apr 16
     
    In the article the students say they are not trying to be racist but the just want to be able to wear what they want to wear, and i think they should be able to. Not every person who wears a confederate flag is racist or supports slavery or the war that was fought to keep slavery. Many people who live in the south have grown up with this flag as a part of their lives weather the true meaning was explained to them or not it was a big part in many peoples lives and you cant expect them to change how they feel about the flag because at one time not many people saw this flag as a big deal because people have a right to support what they believe in. also the flag was not just about slavery it was the symbol of the rebellion and many people who wear the flag had family members that were part of the rebellion and they support their family personally.
  • kgod152 on 12 Apr 16
     
    Very controversial, since the flag was a Representative for the south in the war, founded on hate. Though this is clothing so I guess they shouldn't have been suspended and from what the students say it's not about hate but rather than representing themselves, I suppose? Though I still think they should follow the dress code.
  • Bryan Pregon on 22 Sep 16
     
    Discuss this case from last year...
  • Jacob Jensen on 22 Sep 16
     
    It's so controversial, with whether it's about slavery or true pride of where you are from. As for me I see where the kids are coming from as to want to show their pride in where they're from, for example I will always have pride in the midwest. However if you are wearing the symbol to depersonalize another person, then yes the school had the right to take action.
  • mstiles522 on 22 Sep 16
     
    I believe they had a right to suspend them because it can be taken offensive to certain people but it also is a freedom of speech and what they believe. I think it causes conflict so they shouldn't be allowed and the school did the right thing.
  • Tanner Morriss on 22 Sep 16
     
    I think the school did have a right to suspend them, since the school has a history of the confederate flag causing fights between the students
  • emilbrath on 23 Sep 16
     
    It is important for schools to want and try to create a safe and learning environment for their students, and different students had different beliefs and ideas based on their own color and race.
  • mckennareese12 on 23 Sep 16
     
    I think that the school taking away this could of had an affect on how the kids reacted. If you think about it when someone tells you not to do something you have a slight urge to go against what they are saying. These kids probably wanted to do the same thing, maybe just because they wanted to get under their skin, not because they were standing up for what they believe in.
1More

World's growing inequality is 'ticking time bomb': Nobel laureate - 0 views

www.cnbc.com/...bomb-nobel-laureate-yunus.html
shared by Landon Mohr on 02 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • Landon Mohr on 02 Dec 16
     
    To break free from an unequal financial system that disadvantages the poor, people should use their creative energy to become entrepreneurs themselves and spread wealth among a broader base of citizens, said Yunus.
14More

Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers soared in Washington since pot was legalized -... - 18 views

money.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 11 May 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 11 May 16
     
    "Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers have soared in the state of Washington since marijuana was legalized there, according to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. But it's difficult to determine whether a high-on-pot driver is too impaired to drive, according to a separate study from the same group."
  • ...11 more comments...
  • lizretikis on 11 May 16
     
    I believe that this is null and void, just because someone has the drug in their system at the time of driving does not mean that it was the reason for their impairment.
  • calebsnead on 11 May 16
     
    Fatal accidents involving the use of marijuana have risen ever since it was legalized. Sparking the debate, which is worse? Driving drunk or stoned? This is a hard thing to prove which one is worse, so the answer is unclear. Either way just because the drug is legal does not mean you are totally safe to be operating a vehicle.
  • egessert on 11 May 16
     
    I think that they should try and invent things to help test and see if it impairs their judgment.
  • zander0823 on 11 May 16
     
    If it is harder to tell whether marijuana has something to do with impairment or no then they need to do more studies on it. Once they have done more studies and figured out what effects marijuana have then they can decide on laws or regulations that they need to have.
  • tyjeff22 on 11 May 16
     
    I believe that it could have happened if they weren't using the drug
  • ivanhessche on 11 May 16
     
    But coming up with a test to get impaired drivers off the road will be far more difficult than the blood alcohol tests used to test for drunk drivers, according to the group. While tests show the ability to drive gets worse as blood alcohol rises, laboratory studies show the same is not necessarily true with increased levels of THC,
  • kyleighsev on 11 May 16
     
    If they are going to legalize marijuana they should come up with a test like a breathalyzer test so they can actually tell if the incidents were the cause of being stoned.
  • morgandooty on 11 May 16
     
    I think it is a possibility that people who are stoned are at an increased risk of crashing their car. The article said, "One driver with high levels of THC might not be impaired, while another driver with very low levels can be impaired." I think that researches should base regulations off of the people that are impaired by low levels. They should also look at how levels of THC decrease over time to see how long it would take to get down to the lowest level that would affect people.
  • mjones776 on 11 May 16
     
    I believe more research needs to be done. Like alcohol, there should be limits and rules with the marijuana. Because it is a drug, there should be a law about driving because it impairs your thinking just like alcohol.
  • emmaseilstad on 11 May 16
     
    I think that in order to decide what they are going to use to test the amount, more research needs to be conducted on how marijuana affects the brain. It seems to be proven that marijuana can have a negative affect on driving and can impair people who are using it and I think that's reason enough to do more research. I also think that before a state legalizes marijuana they need to find solutions to all of the precautionaries, such as driving, first.
  • msap832 on 11 May 16
     
    There is currently no way of testing if someone was "high" at the time of an accident and having THC in your system at the time of the accident means nothing, you could have smoked a week or even a month prior to the accident and had it in your system! I think they should keep doing studies and try and come up with a way of telling just like they have for alcohol testing for drunk driving but "All this report really shows is that more people in Washington State are likely consuming cannabis, and thus might have some THC in their systems at the time of an accident. But since having THC in your system tells us nothing about your potential impairment, it would be like a report showing how many people involved in accidents had drunk a beer in the last week" is all that needs to be said
  • epond857 on 12 May 16
     
    there is a way but its not like a brethalizer or anything like that for alcohol and other stuff.they can give u a piss test and it will tell weather u are on weed,pills and a bunch of other stuff so there is a way but i dont think that they think about it at the time.
  • bclayton731 on 12 May 16
     
    I think they need to do at least 10 to 20 years of research to confidently say marijuana is bad and causes this to happen so it should be illegal or its not so bad and can stay legal. I think its highly likely the deaths will go up for stoned driving for the first couple years then go down.
1More

Why Clinton isn't pushing Sanders to exit race - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by kfloerchinger on 05 May 16 - No Cached
  • kfloerchinger on 05 May 16
     
    Clinton won't pressure the Vermont senator to leave. That reluctance is based on fear inside the Democratic establishment that such a move would make it more difficult to unite the party later this year.
1More

What's largely and glaringly missing from Trump's list of terrorist attacks: non-Wester... - 0 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...st-attacks-non-western-victims
shared by xolson974 on 07 Feb 17 - No Cached
  • xolson974 on 07 Feb 17
     
    Monday in Florida - the same state devastated by the Pulse nightclub massacre last year - President Trump told members of the military that news media werepurposely not covering terrorist attacks. "You've seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe, it's happening," he said at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa.
1More

White House says media failed in its coverage of these 78 terror attacks - 0 views

www.usatoday.com/...97582018
shared by haleyborgaila on 07 Feb 17 - No Cached
  • haleyborgaila on 07 Feb 17
     
    President Trump speaks to members of military during his first visit to the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., on Feb. 6, 2017.
18More

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.
2More

Can the government ban the the selling of violent video games to children? - 5 views

www.outsidethebeltway.com/olent-video-games-for-children
shared by Cameron Pick on 30 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Alex beck on 30 Aug 12
     
    I find it interesting that laws are being made to protect children from certain content, as protection, more specifically the need therein, is based on perception, which roots in morality that really takes roots in religion, and by separation of church and state that means that you can't make a law in order to protect someone from a specific type of content. Violence really isn't something I see a need to protect children from, however the article did reference coitus-related interactions, which leads to an alternative related to child pornography (I believe a minor possessing pornographic materials falls under this catagory)
  • Andrew Jensen on 07 Sep 12
     
    I don't think that they can, but if they do then videogames become just like tobacco, with older kids buying it for the minors.
6More

Virginia deputy fights his firing over a Facebook 'like' - 3 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html Facebook CNN Politics
shared by Jeremy Vogel on 10 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 10 Sep 12
     
    A Virginia sheriff's deputy has been fired for liking his boss's political opponent -- on Facebook.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Katelyn Owen on 10 Sep 12
     
    I think that facebook is becoming a problem. Its beginning to take over peoples lives and now its affecting peoples jobs just because of liking something your boss doesn't approve of. Something needs to change about that.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    That judge is wrong. Freedom of expression is allowed to be shown through a political campaign, and in no way should he be fired because he is stating an opinion on facebook, something that is protected in our first amendment.
  • Bryan Pregon on 11 Sep 12
     
    This case is complicated because working as a deputy is a government job, but to me this case is more about work law than freedom of speech. Here an excerpt of an article on the Iowa Dept of Labor Q/A page: Q. Can my employer fire me without a reason? A. Yes. Iowa is an "employment-at-will" state, meaning that an employer or employee may terminate the relationship at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. You may have grounds for legal action if the employer fires you: 1. based on sex, race, color, national origin, religion, age, pregnancy or physical or mental disability; 2. for certain "whistle blower" actions such as filing OSHA complaints. 3. contrary to an applicable employment contract; 4. for attempting to comply with applicable government regulations, such as health codes in restaurants This case is in Virginia (not sure about their laws) but in Iowa I feel like the deputy would be out of a job.
  • Jaacob Tatta on 18 Sep 12
     
    A person has the right to like whoever they want on Facebook.
  • Jaidlyn Bookout on 18 Sep 12
     
    I feel like the deputy should be able to "like" whatever he wants, on facebook or not. I don't think it is right for him to be fired just for liking it.
2More

Iran Imposes Death Sentence on Alleged U.S. Spy - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...entence-on-alleged-us-spy.html government politics News
shared by Dustin Gibson on 09 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • Dustin Gibson on 09 Jan 12
     
    LONDON - 's Revolutionary Court has sentenced to death a former United States Marine of Iranian descent for spying for the , the semiofficial Fars news agency reported on Monday. He was named as Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, 28. Prosecutors charged that he received espionage training at American bases in Afghanistan and Iraq before infiltrating Iran.
  • broxton anderson on 10 Jan 12
     
    i dont think a death sentence is appropriate and could cause relations to strain
1More

Romney defeats Santorum by 8 votes in Iowa - CNN.com - 2 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html cnn politics government elections caucus iowa
shared by Bryan Pregon on 04 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • Brice Johnson on 05 Jan 12
     
    For the Republican nomination it is going to come down to if the true conservatives come out and support or not. The nomination will be for Romney if they do not come out and Santorum will win if they do. Gingrich, Bachman, and Huntsman have no chance in my opinion. Paul on the other hand will be an interesting story. He is appealing to the younger voters, so his success will be based upon if the <25 population comes out to vote.
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 58 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page