Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items matching "sites" 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
11More

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

religion.blogs.cnn.com/...trade-center-cross-at-memorial Government liberties religion 9.11
shared by Bryan Pregon on 11 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 11 Sep 12
     
    As we discuss how our government balances the needs of society with protecting our civil liberties I would invite your respectful comments on both sides of this article. There is a HUGE comment thread on the CNN site, please add your thoughts to our Diigo.
  • ...8 more comments...
  • Jazmine Orellana on 11 Sep 12
     
    I think having a cross at the museum is acceptable. The meaning of a cross varies from person to person. Yes many victims might not have been Christians but people affected from 9/11 should also have the right to display any religious symbol here as well.
  • Dennis Owens on 11 Sep 12
     
    it is a nation under god so they shouldnt have a problem with the cross "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, (one Nation under God), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
  • Holly Jensen on 12 Sep 12
     
    If it's okay to put up a cross then it should be okay to put up any symbol of any religion. As long as they do that then I think it's okay.
  • Alex Snipes on 12 Sep 12
     
    I agree with you Jazmine and Dennis, this is a nation under God. We live in a free country that was started by Christians and to this day, they should be honored. With the honor of those who died in 9/11, should be remembered with a cross and it should not be taken down because of those who don't believe in God. Even if someone doesn't believe, it doesn't mean the ones who do have to cater to them by taking the cross down. If it doesn't effect you, don't worry about it, because those who it does effect, want it there and they should be respected as well
  • Jaacob Tatta on 12 Sep 12
     
    i agree people have the right to believe in whatever they want so if that means putting up a cross at ground zero then that's fine. It also says in the pledge that we are a nation under god, and i believe that there many more christian people in the United States than Atheists so i believe that it was the right thing to do.
  • Rainie mccubbin on 12 Sep 12
     
    I"m Atheist and I don't see the reason why there shouldn't be a cross put up. It's a sign of 9/11 not a sign promoting God. It's not like people are going there to worship God they are going there to remember those who died in 9/11.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 13 Sep 12
     
    The article points out that there are other publicly funded museums have religious art work in them because religious artwork has both cultural and artistic value. However, in my opinion using the argument that we are a country under god is a subjective and highly personal belief. If there is an atheist that lives in Happyland, Connecticut and they don't believe in god how can they, in their view, live in a nation under god. The First Amendment is to prevent the government from establishing and/or favoring one religion over another or religion altogether over no religion at all. I don't feel that the cross alone violates this part of the First Amendment if placed in a museum because I don't see it as the government promoting or favoring a religion that uses a cross as their religious symbol. The way I see it the government is allowing an artifact from a disaster the affected the entire population and has become a cultural and possibly artistic representation of the 9/11 attacks in to the museum. In my view it would be different if they added something about Christianity or religion to the display along with the cross, but if they were to just put an information card that says, "The 'World Trade Center Cross' was discovered in the rubble of the World Trade Center," or something similar then it wouldn't cross the line.
  • Hope Philbrick on 13 Sep 12
     
    I really like that fact that the cross was found in the rubble. Its not like some artist decided to make it from the rubble. I'm sure if there was a different symbol of any religion found it would have been put on display just like the cross was.
  • Jake Warnke on 13 Sep 12
     
    I think that the cross should go in the museum because it was part of the twin towers and it was a world wide icon after the attacks
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Sep 12
     
    I like the fact that the cross is being displayed. It gives a symbol of hope for the Christians, and in all reality, to the outside world, and inside our borders, we are commonly seen as a mostly christian people. Atheists, Jews, Muslims, and members of many other faiths did die, and weer affected by this tragedy. But the fact that the cross was made from rubble, and was made by the falling of the towers, is a symbol to those that are Christians, and whatever our personal beliefs on the matter is, a symbol of faith and hope to countless people that has good reason, and good context should be allowed inside the museum. We would not disallow Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and countless other faiths from putting pieces of there faiths that give them hope. So neither should Christians.
1More

Occupy Wall Street and the 99% - 2 views

www.forbes.com/...-street-and-the-myth-of-the-99
shared by Michaela Kennedy on 19 Dec 11 - No Cached
1More

Iran Nuke Work at Bunker Is Confirmed - 1 views

abcnews.go.com/...se-strait-oil-blocked-15315787
shared by theresa schwenk on 09 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • theresa schwenk on 09 Jan 12
     
    Diplomats on Monday confirmed a report that Iran has begun uranium enrichment at an underground bunker and said the news is particularly worrying because the site is being used to make material that can be upgraded more quickly for use in a nuclear weapon than the nation's main enriched stockpile.
1More

Official: Hackers tried repeatedly to attack Obamacare website - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 14 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 14 Nov 13
     
    Hackers have attempted more than a dozen cyber attacks against the Obamacare website, according to a top Homeland Security Department official.
1More

Wikileaks Releases The TPP Documents! - 1 views

sourcefed.com/kileaks-releases-tpp-documents
shared by Abaigh Plummer on 25 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • Abaigh Plummer on 25 Nov 13
     
    The Trans-Pacific Partnership proposals from this August, which were supposed to remain behind closed doors, are available on the secret-leaking site and have revealed a series of provisions that have only been sent to a small group of lobbyists and heads of state.
7More

14-year-old accused of killing beloved Danvers, Massachusetts, teacher - CNN.com - 3 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by jasminemarie16 on 24 Oct 13 - No Cached
  • jasminemarie16 on 24 Oct 13
     
    Danvers, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Students will get back to reading, writing and arithmetic on Thursday at schools all over this small Massachusetts town. Except for one. Danvers High School. Students and their parents there will talk to grief counselors. They and police investigators are asking why their much loved math teacher was killed.
  • ...4 more comments...
  • spencer schmitz on 24 Oct 13
     
    teachers need guns to protect them selfs and students from any dangrous people.
  • Rachel Cottone-Dungan on 24 Oct 13
     
    Its a terrifying to think about what may run through some people's heads.
  • amber1996 on 24 Oct 13
     
    what has our society came to? what would a person have to do to deserve that? no one does. it's sad.
  • Bryan Pregon on 25 Oct 13
     
    Re: Spencer. I'm not sure having teachers carrying guns would make students FEEL safer, nor am I convinced that having teachers with guns would actually reduce school violence. I do believe that having a on site police officer or dedicated security person is a good idea.
  • Maddie christensen on 25 Oct 13
     
    i just know when i was 12 and 14 i didn't think about killing my teacher...
  • sarah smith on 30 Oct 13
     
    Times have changed now,when i was 14 i didn't go around thinking about killing people.
43More

Teachers with Guns - 31 views

www.cnn.com/...teachers.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 14
     
    AFTER viewing the story/video, which side would you take? Teachers with guns could be first responders or do more guns create more gun violence in society?
  • ...40 more comments...
  • tcomulada881 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that the teacher should be able to have the gun but very protected from anybody except themselves. The teachers should always should check them everyday so they know if its still there.
  • austenclaar on 03 Dec 14
     
    In my opinion teachers with guns is a good idea, although I don't want some teachers thinking that gives them a sense of bigger authority.
  • fwyldes753 on 03 Dec 14
     
    It is a good idea for them to have guns, it would help with safety.
  • lwilcoxen309 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't agree with the right of just teachers being able to carry a gun if someone takes a 4 hour class to know to take the gun out and use it in the right way, someone that is professionally trained should be hired because nobody knows if a teacher is going to be able to take a life of someone else.
  • darianhubbard on 03 Dec 14
     
    In my opinion, teachers having the right to carry a weapon is okay. For protection and safety purposes, I completely agree. I think it would give us a sense of reassurance, knowing that we would have a fighting chance, if a person(s) with a weapon entered the school.
  • Erin Wolff on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that teachers should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to school, if the case is that the first responders would arrive to the scene too late.
  • Emma Leisinger on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that its dangerous that the teachers have guns but in this situation I think its okay. The best thing about this situation is that the students don't know where the guns are and how to access them. Also another reason that the guardian plan is so necessary for this town in Texas is because the response time is so long and I would definatley agree that the teachers should be able to have guns.
  • deanaroth on 03 Dec 14
     
    I would take the side that I think guns would be an okay idea. I think that before a teacher is handed a gun they should be trained on how to use it. I also think that the guns should be put in a safe, somewhere out of the reach of the children. But on the other hand I believe that their should be an officer in every school, I think this would prevent a lot of violence.
  • Sydney Wilson on 03 Dec 14
     
    Although it might be risk to have teachers carry guns at school, it could also potentially save lives because they could be the ones to stop a shooting or whatever else may happen in the school. I think that as long as the teachers keep them hidden and everyone is on board, then it should be okay.
  • taylorcrinklaw13 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I believe that some teachers, who have gun permits and all the legal things, should be able to carry guns. But I think they should be hidden so that students cannot get to them.
  • amcclain946 on 03 Dec 14
     
    After viewing the video and reading the article, I am for the fact that the teachers at this school should be able to have guns because they're in a rural area. It takes the first responder 30 minutes to get to the emergency site. A lot of "bad" can happen in 30 minutes. Although I previously stated I was for the carrying of guns, I also am against because I think that if the teachers are going to be carrying guns, they need to be properly trained. If they're not properly trained, bad things can happen too. So all in all, I am for it if the teachers and school board members receive proper training.
  • jordan fichter on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't think teachers should have guns, because the gun violence will increase. More kids will think they could start to carry weapons, and most schools already have an officer.
  • anthonymoreno on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers should be able to have guns in safes in their class room for safety reasons.
  • kaitlynflenker on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't think teachers should have guns because I think gun violence might increase and we already have a cop that has a gun so I don't think it's necessary for all teachers to have them
  • samanthaahern on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that teachers should be able to have guns. they would be protected and i dont think that them having guns would cause more violence because they would be using it for safety of them and the children at there school so there teaching student to be responsible and how to act it that kind of situation.
  • melissabenkis on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers having guns would be a good idea as long as they keep them put away until needed.
  • escheffler on 03 Dec 14
     
    I do not think that teachers should have guns because some teachers get mad easily and we don't know what they would do with them. Also students could be looking through a cabinet and find it and tell other students who might take it and possibly use it against the school.
  • austin807 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers should have guns to protect themselves and others but they should check the gun everyday.
  • chrislindqvist on 03 Dec 14
     
    Teachers are teachers and there is other people that should take care of violence and shooting at schools. I wouldn't feel more safe if more people start carrying guns I would feel more threaten. If something should it be more difficult to get a gun in some of the states.
  • davyana on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that it's a good idea to an extent. There are some teachers who, under the circumstances, probably would be to afraid, or just in shock to act in the situation. Over all though, I think it is a good idea.
  • Alexandria Bates on 03 Dec 14
     
    Being in a rural town it is easier to approve guns and I beileve is ok, in small towns everybody knoes everybody. Many people "Pass through" small towns where there isnt much authority and public safety in the town but there is in the town miles down the highway. Therefore in rural schools I think it is right to be able to carry guns for the students saftey. In urban areas there is public safety patroling the town on a regular basis, there is police inside schools with guns and weapons to protect studnets and staff. In Urban areas I do not think it should not be allowed for teachers to carry guns inside schools.
  • djones036 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers should be able to carry concealed guns, but I also think they should have background checks to make sure they are good people to have guns. I would feel safer knowing that a good person has a way to protect us.
  • bllandon on 03 Dec 14
     
    To Sydney - I agree. I think that it should be an optional thing and if you do carry a gun as a teacher you must take a class/course in order for to be able to permit it in the school building.
  • aharding484 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think giving licensed teachers guns in rural areas would be beneficial. It may be simpler to have one or two police officer in the school, but have the teachers have guns would also be okay as long as they were trained with a gun and could handle an intense situation. As some were saying about how students might find the gun, the school would probably have a locked up location for the gun, therefore the students would not be able to access it.
  • Jensyn Hanson on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't think teachers having guns is a good idea because they aren't trained properly in that area. That's why we have a school cop who should be the first to handle situations like that. I'm sure if something like that happened here there wouldn't be an issue with the amount of time it would take the police to get here.
  • daniwoolsoncroft on 03 Dec 14
     
    I agree that teachers should be allowed to have guns, but check on the gun everyday to make sure students don't mess with the gun
  • bdiaz971 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't think every teacher needs to carry a gun but the district should designates certain teachers to allow them to carry guns. They should also be properly trained and be monitored. In the time it takes police to arrive to a call for a school shooting countless students could already be dead, but with the designated teachers there they could put a stop to the shooter.
  • hunterhale31 on 03 Dec 14
     
    bllandon- I agree. I believe that certain courses and classes should be taken in order to be an armed teacher. If i had to trust my life to a teacher in a dire situation like a school shooting, I'd prefer it to be in then hands of a calm under pressure, capable shooter.
  • kquinlan591 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I believe that teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons but as long as they have some type of professional training. It wouldn't do any use to carry a gun of you can't use it and use it safely. Also the gun should be used as a last resort in an extreme situation. I agree with Emily when she's says some students might try and take it but it should definitely be in a safe place where no one but the teacher would have access to it.
  • John Scheffler on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think it is a good idea. The only concern I have is the teacher viewing him/herself to have more authority over others. The students should not know which teacher carry's a weapon. Though the teacher should have to go through many training courses in order to do so. It's one thing to carry a gun, it's another to kill a person and be in a firefight. Not everyone can handle it.
  • matuszeski on 03 Dec 14
     
    I Think Teachers should be allowed to Concealed Carry as long as they pass certain requirements, like in the video the administrator says they have to be accurate up to a certain point in order to be able to carry said gun. As well as the do training he mentioned that the teachers have been trained in hostage situations. In my opinion with the correct training and practice it would be a great idea.
  • tonybonner on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers should not be aloud to carry guns we don't live in a small town in Texas where it would take 30 mins. for people to respond .Plus most school already have a trained officers in their schools we don't need untrained teachers to carry weapons.
  • mhart079 on 03 Dec 14
     
    In regards to what fwyldes753 said, I believe that teachers shouldn't be able to carry guns because we don't live in a rural area and cops are in a close distance. I wouldn't trust teachers to carry a weapon. We also have a school cop that would respond immediately.
  • jjohnson749 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think schools teachers should be able to have concealed weapons on them as long as they go through a gun safety course and if they are too far away to be able to wait for police.
  • jgroenjes on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that teachers should be allowed to carry guns, but under very strict circumstances. The gun should be on the teacher at all times (never put in a cabinet or a safe, as kids could more easily find a way to get to it), the teachers should go through gun safety and training (which they apparently do), only teachers with gun permits should be allowed to have them, and they should be completely concealed at all times. Although I think this idea is most likely going to stay in rural schools (they have less students, and are farther away from law enforcement), I could see it traveling into city schools in the future. So yeah, all in all I don't think this is a bad thing at all. It could save a lot of lives in the event of a school shooting.
  • kschwindt on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that there intentions are great and in a rural town with not many armed forces around to help it might work. But what if a kid were to get ahold of it? I believe that they'd have to be in a safe where the students don't realize what it is or can't see it. But with that they won't have the whole quick to help plan they are hoping for. It would be faster then the cops getting there though.
  • justin988 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that if the location of that school is very dangerous then teachers should be able to carry guns but out of sight from students at all times. because if students can see the gun, it would make them too uncomfortable to even learn.
  • malr2528 on 03 Dec 14
     
    After viewing the video and reading this article, I feel that it is appropriate for staff and board members of a school to carry guns. As for schools located in a area where first responders are able to access the situation more quickly, I don't think it would be as necessary. Although I think school teachers carrying guns is a good idea, I believe that it only makes sense for these teachers to go through the proper training before doing so.
  • estuckey767 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that it should be allowed for some teachers in rural areas to carry guns. As long as the guns are kept in a safe place and locked away from the students. I don't think that every teacher needs a gun but because they are in a rural area and it will take longer for police to get they should have someone there who can protect them the moment a situation happens. We have a police officer at our school at all times ready to protect us, why shouldn't they have someone who can protect them. If teachers are allowed to carry guns they should have to go through a class/course before being allowed to have a gun at the school.
  • ravenmaine on 03 Dec 14
     
    I'm not sure about teachers being able to carry guns in school. You have to put into factor how it would be concealed, which teachers have access and or carry it, and things like if the students would think it was okay for them to bring some sort of protection, whatever that may be. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think people would have to be much more cautious in all senses. The barrier between feeling safe, nervous, or afraid around someone would be different for everyone. Carrying weapons might also deter some of the schools wanted achievements for the future, for example attendance averages.
  • Jaimi Shiller on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think it's a good idea. Obviously they are going to have to take a class and get a back ground check. The guns would be kept in a safe secured place away from the students. They don't have a police officer like we do so they don't have someone that is there to protect them.
  • pkleppe761 on 11 Dec 14
     
    I believe that teachers with guns has its pros and cons. For example, I believe that guns do not kill people, but the people behind them do. You can do background checks on anyone, but at any time someone with a gun can become angry and upset and shoot a person. Guns for teachers can be useful in smaller, rural areas where medical attention or police could take longer. But for teachers in urban areas should be more limited. I feel as long as they take a class to learn to shoot, to carry it, and as long as it is locked up in the classroom or only allowed to be out when needed can be very beneficial.
6More

Waxahachie Police Officer Shoots Emu To Save Elderly Man - 2 views

dfw.cbslocal.com/...shoots-emu-to-save-elderly-man
shared by mya_doty on 05 Sep 14 - No Cached
  • mya_doty on 05 Sep 14
     
    Bud Gillett Bud is the most veteran reporter at CBS 11 News with 42 years in m... From Our CBS Music Web Sites WAXAHACHIE (CBS 11 NEWS) - A blocks-long chase of a stray emu ended with police having to put the animal down for attacking a human.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • dylan_root1 on 05 Sep 14
     
    Did no one try to take the animal off the man?
  • joshrousu on 05 Sep 14
     
    "First thing I saw was that durn thing coming," LOL
  • kodymcknight on 05 Sep 14
     
    i think they did the right thing killing the animal. because it was out of control an could of killed a human .
  • efigueroa871 on 05 Sep 14
     
    They could have tranquilize the emu.
  • iandreessen on 09 Sep 14
     
    It was right to kill the animal because it was a threat to humans
2More

The Chinese government isn't happy with Hillary Clinton - 5 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by peytonjs on 08 Apr 15 - No Cached
  • peytonjs on 08 Apr 15
     
    Hillary Clinton, who has increasingly turned to Twitter as she plans her all-but-announced presidential run, upset the Chinese government on Monday with a message she posted on the social networking site.
  • abbyotten on 08 Apr 15
     
    I don't really see anything wrong with what Clinton tweeted.
9More

Mom Says Craigslist Suspect Is Innocent - 14 views

abcnews.go.com/...story
shared by Cecilia Saldana on 28 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • Michaela Kennedy on 28 Nov 11
     
    Craigslist can be very dangerous.
  • ...6 more comments...
  • Jerome Christiansen on 01 Dec 11
     
    crazy
  • bailey deboer on 01 Dec 11
     
    Reminds me of a vigilante.
  • Derek Large on 01 Dec 11
     
    People need to learn that the world is a dangerous place, and that we need to provide some protection from people like this...
  • Amanda Ringberg on 15 Mar 13
     
    its sad that people have ruin good things that are helpful to others. also i don't get why this person had the thought to just post and add just so he could kill some people they need help cause they are not all their.
  • Alivia Bascue on 20 Mar 13
     
    This is crazy. I agree with Amanda. They ruined something that other people use for help. It's disturbing that you can't really trust a lot of people.
  • Delaney Bolton on 25 Mar 13
     
    This story just shows that people really do hide behind social networking sites. They aren't who you thought they were. I feel bad for the kid. I would be terrified too!
  • sbecke2013 on 28 Mar 13
     
    It is sad to know how our society really is. You can't trust anybody these days, it seems like.
  • Cecilia Saldana on 01 Apr 15
     
    The mother of the teenage boy arrested in connection with what has been dubbed the "Craiglist killings" in Ohio claims that her son was manipulated by the 52-year-old pastor with whom he was arrested on suspicion of three murders.
1More

'Suspicious activity' at N. Korea nuke site - 1 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by egessert on 05 Apr 16 - No Cached
  • egessert on 05 Apr 16
     
    Plumes of exhaust steam, a byproduct of heating the main plant at the Yongbyon Radiochemical Laboratory complex, have been seen in commercial satellite images taken March 12 and over the preceding five weeks, the group says. This activity is unusual, the report by the Washington, D.C.-based project, says.
12More

Trump's lies vs Oboma's - 13 views

www.nytimes.com/...p-lies-obama-who-is-worse.html
shared by jacobjensen113 on 14 Dec 17 - No Cached
lynx_2019 liked it
  • Bryan Pregon on 14 Dec 17
     
    "Trump's Lies vs. Obama's"
  • ...9 more comments...
  • kileywalden on 19 Dec 17
     
    Obama told 18 untruths over his entire time in office while Trump has told 103 in his first 10 months. Obama's lies are usually just exaggerations and making problems he is trying to solve sound worse than they are, and he realized after a while that it was wrong so by his last year in office he told one. Yet, the things he lied about were not made to hurt anyone or to cover up the truth like Donald Trump did. Trump was different from Obama because not only does he lie way more frequently but he lies to cover up anything that might make him look bad and hide the truth from situations. This should be a sign to people to not listen to Trump, no one wants a president that they can't trust.
  • nathanaelhale on 19 Dec 17
     
    I think that if someone is president that they should never lie because it can only cause more problems
  • mborgaila831 on 19 Dec 17
     
    I think that if you lie that much in office then you are not supposed to be there
  • creatures0ver on 19 Dec 17
     
    trumps just a compulsive liar that's digging a deeper hole for himself.
  • ctaylor147 on 19 Dec 17
     
    a president who ;lies isn't a president at all, more like a corrupt leader(trump)
  • bethanyfoley on 19 Dec 17
     
    It doesn't look good if our president has already told over 103 untruths and instead of being straight up about them he tries to make it seem like others are lying.
  • alarkin on 19 Dec 17
     
    I think that the worst part of him telling so many lies is that he tries to discredit people who say that he is lying even when the truth is blatantly obvious.
  • connor garges on 19 Dec 17
     
    I don't think anyone is surprised by this. Trump is a business man. He lies to make his way in the world. He doesn't care about honesty and honor as long as he gets what he wants.
  • hannahperry on 19 Dec 17
     
    I figured that Trump wasn't that truthful, but 103 lies in the span of 10 months? That's unbelievable when compared to Obama, who told 18 lies in 8 years (year 7 wasn't even on there, so does that mean he went a whole year without telling a single lie?). I agree with kileywalden, who said that "Obama's lies are usually just exaggerations..." I think this is what truly sets Trump and Obama's lies apart from each other.
  • aruss77 on 19 Dec 17
     
    This is the New York Times, which is a Democratic and not completely truthful news site, of course they would try to make Obama seem like a great president, when he could possibly be one of the worst in American History.
  • mrief493 on 19 Dec 17
     
    I think the lies Trump tells are also just different than the kind of lies Obama told. Quite a few of Trumps lies are just him boasting about himself, such as him supposedly drawing huge crowds or being on times magazine so many times. He also takes credit for good things that are happening often and mostly just lies so much to make himself look better. The lies Obama said however were a lot more politically motivated and were meant to make you feel a certain way about an issue, compared to Trump, who's motivation is to make himself look better.
2More

Poll: Trump approval falls as majority of Americans brace for recession - POLITICO - 1 views

www.politico.com/...proval-falls-recession-1487905
shared by diegosalinas on 10 Sep 19 - No Cached
  • diegosalinas on 10 Sep 19
     
    Even if his approval rating drops at all, I don't believe people are going to stop saying he's a "great" president.
  • aidan_morgan on 16 Sep 19
     
    I think it's interesting that the article claims Americans are bracing for a recession. We have a record high DOW Jones stock, unemployment is decreasing (more than 20 million new jobs since 2010), and Americans, in general, have more money in their pockets than we did 3 years ago. https://ig.ft.com/sites/numbers/economies/us/ It also piques my interest that the article claims the Trump approval rating as a whole is falling. After the democratic debates, Donald Trump has only increased in followership, rally attendance, etc. This is the reason people keep saying he's a "great" president. You might not like him as a person, I might not like him as a person, but if he continues to put a dent in the public debt, and continues to uphold basic constitutionalist ideals, he will continue to see success in America. I think it's interesting and I predict that the 2020 election will play out very similarly to the 2016 election. The democratic party did everything in their power to stop Trump from becoming president. Both Republicans and Democrats alike turned to personal attacks and scandals. Even if all the candidates are bad, we have to pick the best one. Trump was able to win against the Democrats because they didn't have any solid plans with evidence for the policies they wanted to implement. Trump has an upper-hand because he's never changed too. Democrats have flipped like no other when it comes to policies because they are desperate to be approved of by the younger masses. Trump has always supported a smaller government, focused on the economy, and wanted stricter foreign relations. The same cannot be said about Democrats, their talking points are that of enabling a welfare state, stripping citizens of their 2nd amendment rights, and their false sense of acceptance. tl;dr: orange man bad, but doing his job well.
3More

Neo-Nazi site founder says 'troll storm' is protected speech, wants lawsuit dismissed -... - 22 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 04 Dec 17 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 04 Dec 17
     
    "Gersh says Anglin used his website as a platform to encourage his thousands of readers to contact her through email messages, social media, letters and phone calls. They all centered on two facts: She was Jewish."
  • alarkin on 04 Dec 17
     
    If people are harassing Anglin, then it should not be protected by the first amendment. The first amendment says that the government can't stop you from saying what you want, but there are still consequences for everything you say.
  • Bryan Pregon on 04 Dec 17
     
    It complicates the case that Anglin isn't the one leaving these harassing messages HIMSELF, but his followers are. Does he have to take responsibility for their behavior since he was the one that called them to action and gave up her contact information online?
8More

Ban Trump? Not so fast. Florida is about to pass a law to stop Facebook and Twitter fro... - 11 views

www.msn.com/...ar-BB1gf8hp
shared by Bryan Pregon on 03 May 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 03 May 21
     
    "Ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to… Football World Reacts To Michael Vick's Current 40 Time One of the nation's largest states is taking on Big Tech.  Pause Current Time 0:13 / Duration 7:08 Loaded: 7.04% Unmute 0 Fullscreen VP Harris speaks out in support of Newsom as he faces recall election Click to expand Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is likely to sign into law a bill that would prevent social media companies Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube from "deplatforming" politicians such as former President Donald Trump."
  • ...5 more comments...
  • jackiegonzalez on 03 May 21
     
    I disagree with the bill that prevents companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, from banning politicians. According to the bill, companies would have to notify people that their post will be removed/censored seven days before. I think that's too much time. The Capitol riot occurred within hours, not days. Also, it would also suggest that politicians are "special" and can get away with hateful posts for some time.
  • jdogan on 05 May 21
     
    I don't think they understand the first amendment only covers government institutions. They always site freedom of speech for things like this but companies have no reason to hold up that standard, they can censor any content they want because they aren't government institutions.
  • milo_nordman on 07 May 21
     
    I don't think this bill should be put in place. Like Jackie said, it makes it seem like politicians are special cases, and that they don't have to follow the online guidelines that we all follow.
  • masonmascarenas on 10 May 21
     
    Florida shouldn't be able to control media outlets at all because they are all private entities that aren't affiliated with politics.
  • ataylor074 on 10 May 21
     
    I don't think that Flordia should be able to do this. They shouldn't be able to regulate what a privately own company does when a person using their product violates their rules.
  • arosas733 on 24 May 21
     
    I completely agree with this idea. Social media cannot stop the president/ politicians from spreading their ideas and opinions as they shouldn't be able to for anyone else. They should get treated the same and if anything is better for us as people to see what they post and get better/ easier insights on their personal views. We have the right to know our president's views and they have the right to express them. Especially since so many people are on social media it helps educate people better than just reading what the news say that they say.
  • mgerman776 on 24 May 21
     
    I dont agree with this becuase it's dumb why would a state be able to control what a private owned company does or doesn't do.
9More

McConnell Votes To Dismiss Trump Impeachment Trial As Only Five Senate Republicans Side... - 10 views

www.forbes.com/...epublicans-side-with-democrats
shared by Bryan Pregon on 27 Jan 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 27 Jan 21
     
    This process took too long to complete before Trump left office. Now some feel that finishing the Senate trial is a waste of time. What do you think?
  • ...6 more comments...
  • brandonwch on 27 Jan 21
     
    McConnell is an utter ghoul. Trump, even in the long tradition of criminal presidents, is in a whole 'nother league, and absolutely should be tried for his many, many crimes. The idea that just because he's out of office shouldn't be a factor. That would be like saying a hitman shouldn't be tried for murder just because they quit.
  • owenjacobs on 27 Jan 21
     
    impeaching trump is only going to hurt the Biden admin, the first 100 days are they most important but now with the senate trial people are going to be more focused on that then the thing Biden is doing
  • ndvorak on 27 Jan 21
     
    If you label Trump as a criminal then you would have to label every other politician as one as well. The fact that he's not in office not only makes him a civilian but trying him at the federal level, just to block him from running again in 2024 is pointless and a waste of congressional time. As well as the American government needs to put the focus on other things than an ex-politician, let's start worrying about getting money to the American people and getting vaccines out.
  • noahsandbothe on 27 Jan 21
     
    If the Senate does not vote to impeach Donald Trump it will prove that a President has the power to do whatever he wants as long as his/her party is in the majority. Also, I know that if President Biden was to do the same thing and literally incite a riot on the Capitol then house republicans and republican voters would be calling for impeachment. No matter what party you are, doing what Former President Trump did is disgusting and justice has to be served.
  • cadenoles on 27 Jan 21
     
    Just like the last impeachment, this one is a waste of time. We need to focus on the US and not Impeaching Trump. Given the current situation, we do not have the time to impeach Trump. If we impeach him it's going to be another 3 months of wasted time just like the last impeachment.
  • joeypo10 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I feel like people tend to judge Trump on how he acts rather than what he has done. Yeah he acts childish but if he's done good things why cant he be credited for it.
  • eballenger on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think they should not try impeaching again because now that Trump is out of office they don't have to worry about whatever he does. America has several other huge problems and needs to focus all of its attention on getting life back to normal before worrying about a man that's not in any federal position.
  • brandonwch on 01 Feb 21
     
    Commenting of what ndvorak said here. I do, in fact, believe most politicians are criminals. Every politician that has not tried to use their powers to quell deaths during Covid, or tried to stop our shipments of weapons to Saudi Arabia, or tried to stop our use of drone warfare, they have blood on their hands.
‹ Previous 21 - 38 of 38
Showing 20▼ items per page