Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items matching "for" 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
12More

Mom is ticketed for letting her two year old son pee on the street - 0 views

video.msnbc.msn.com/...49019180 news
shared by Victoria Holcomb on 13 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • alex widick on 14 Sep 12
     
    you gota go you gota go
  • ...9 more comments...
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 18 Sep 12
     
    That is crazy. I get that peeing on a street, is nasty... But it was a little kid, they can't hold it forever....
  • Katelyn Owen on 18 Sep 12
     
    I mean I would understand that if it was an older child to ticket her but it was a little boy and yeah it is gross but he's still little he didn't know better.
  • Charlene Zimmerman on 18 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Eric, except for the fact that she could have found a place to go in for her son to go to the bathroom. The police should have been a little bit more understanding with the age of the child.
  • Jake Warnke on 18 Sep 12
     
    wow..... i agree with eric
  • Cameron Pick on 19 Sep 12
     
    It doesn't matter if you're 2 or 20 it violates the law. Its called indecent exposure and it violates the law.
  • Alex Snipes on 19 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Cameron. If I was walking on the street I definitely wouldn't want to see that no matter who it was. She could have taken her son into a near by business and asked to use their restroom.
  • Hope Philbrick on 19 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Charlie I think the police overreacted
  • dalton schaaf on 19 Sep 12
     
    I agree with charlie also. I think that the mom should have been warned instead of given a ticket.
  • Rainie mccubbin on 19 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Alex a parent is suppose to teach their child healthy things to do and to pee in places where you shouldn't isn't a healthy thing to do.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 21 Sep 12
     
    Wow, just wow. I bluntly support the mother in this situation. First, it may be against the law, but can you hold a 2 year old accountable for understanding every law? Those that will say, the mother should have stopped him, it's either, in the grass in his pants, and they were out, so should that kid have to walk around smelling like Urine all day, and probably contract some sort of rash from it? Second, the officer lectured the mother. Since when does anyone have any say as to how a parent raises her child? Every person they news crew interviewed agreed with her. So, obviously, the mother has quiet a bit of support. Third, a sanitation issue? Let's take a look at the average dog. The kid does this once, 50 dollar fine. I bet you can have any dog walker have there dog go, and they won't receive a 50 dollar fine. I know I am comparing a human child to a dog, but still, the kid is 2. Just like a dog going in public, he does not know any better. for everyone that calls that a sanitation issue, there is likely to have been at least 1 dog to have pee'd there as well, probably more. Lastly, indecent exposure. By definition, indecent exposure is the deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of his or her body, in circumstances where the exposure is contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behavior. Let's go back to the dog reference. Since, by definition, this is not just applicable to humans, should every dog walker receive a 50 dollar fine every time they let there dog outside? Having 4 dogs, I would receive a 200 dollar ticket every 1-2 hours a day anyone in my house is home. Over a 24 hour period, I would probably receive about $3200 in fines. To add on, the term deliberate, as used in this form, would require the careful consideration of actions. This 2 year old did not consider anything other then probably, "I gotta go!!!" The definition of indecent exposure itself should override the tic
  • Kirstina Michl on 21 Sep 12
     
    For me personally, if I were a parent, I'd try to get my child to a bathroom, but that woman didn't deserve to be ticketed For that. If she were the one doing the peeing, I'd understand the ticket because she's an adult. But the little kid is only two, and knows nothing about indecency or sexuality or all that. (Or, at least, I hope he doesn't . . .) But it's also like Payton said about the whole dog deal. Dogs also know nothing about indecency. They obviously know about mating as they get older, but dogs aren't humans, so they don't know how to or not to be decent. And while the little kid is human, he obviously still knows nothing about either subject at that age; he hasn't lived long enough.
17More

"I can't breathe!" N.Y. chokehold decision - CNN.com - 24 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 04 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 04 Dec 14
     
    Recent cases like these bring up issues of POWER and govt authority. Are these examples concerning? Which side (police/suspect) do you tend to sympathize with most?
  • ...14 more comments...
  • taylorcrinklaw13 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I don't think it's concerning. The government is there for a reason, and they need power to do their jobs. I tend to sympathize with cops because it only shows the bad police that are in the system, a video of an officer doing something good rarely goes viral.
  • chrislindqvist on 04 Dec 14
     
    I sympathize with the cop. He is here to protect us from people that can cause bad things, Michael Brown actually attacked him and the cop did what he had to do to survive. You have to show respect to cops and he didn't do only because he was black or that he wanted to kill someone, he did it becuase the felt threaten for his life
  • Mia Wheeler on 04 Dec 14
     
    I usually don't see death as an answer to anything unless that person is causing harm to other people. I don't think the officer should have actually killed him but instead used a different method to getting him to do what he wanted him to do.
  • Erin Wolff on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think these examples are very concerning. I sympathize with the suspect, Eric Garner, after watching the short 2 minute clip of the incident. The suspect was unarmed, and was only verbally refusing arrest, there is no probable cause for putting the suspect in a choke hold, and very well killing him. The grand jury that decided that officer, Daniel Pantaleo, did the right thing started peaceful protest in the Garner family. This is like the case in Ferguson, Missouri, except these protest do not include, looting, setting businesses on fire, or tear gas.
  • aharding484 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think there could have been a better way to control the situation other than a choke hold. It would be understandable if it was for a few seconds to calm Garner down, but the police should have known when to stop. He should have been charged for excessive force.
  • jgroenjes on 04 Dec 14
     
    I strongly sympathize with Eric Garner and his family in this case. Police are stepping over the line in instances like these, and no penalties are given to them. The fact that death is necessary for the resistance of a single unarmed citizen is horrific. Resisting arrest or not resisting arrest, if there is no threat of fatal harm to the police officer, no arrest should ever resort to murder.
  • fwyldes753 on 05 Dec 14
     
    I understand that the police thought they had to stop him, but putting him in a choke hold was not the right way. They are going to far with the power they think they have.
  • jjohnson749 on 08 Dec 14
     
    i didn't see any reason why the officer put Eric Garner in a choke hold for what he did, the officer was abusing his power, a choke hold was not the right answer.
  • austin807 on 09 Dec 14
     
    They are going to far with the power they think they have, a choke hold was not right way to go
  • samanthaahern on 09 Dec 14
     
    yes especially the part when the officer put eric in the choke. the officer thinks he can do whatever he wants just cause hes a cop and had some power of us but he took it to far
  • darianhubbard on 09 Dec 14
     
    There were better methods of restraint to get Eric Garner into handcuffs. A choke hold was definitely not necessary, and the cop was definitely abusing his power. No attempted arrest should end in the death of someone, cop or citizen.
  • bdiaz971 on 09 Dec 14
     
    The cop has a right to detain anyone that is breaking the law, but he should not have put him in a choke hold. He has numerous tools capable of detaining someone such as; handcuffs, pepper spray, and a taser.
  • kschwindt on 09 Dec 14
     
    I don't believe that anyone should have any chances of death when being put in handcuffs, but I also don't know the full story of the incidents of the victims, maybe they weren't cooperating and the cops felt that the only way to control them was the chokehold. I believe that the cops should find another way to hold down their victims when handcuffing
  • escheffler on 10 Dec 14
     
    I think that this case is similar to the Ferguson case which could cause more people to start protesting more and even worse then they already are. Things could get really bad if it ever happened again.
  • djones036 on 10 Dec 14
     
    The cop has a right to detain anyone that is breaking the law, but he should not have put him in a choke hold. He has numerous tools he could of used while detaining someone like his taser, handcuffs, or pepper spray.
  • brooklynschroede on 12 Dec 14
     
    The cop has no reason to put him in a choke hold and for so long. The guy was saying he couldn't breathe. This is very wrong and he could of detained him a few other ways.
12More

Red-leaning states say yes to a higher minimum wage - 12 views

money.cnn.com/...er-minimum-wage-2014-elections
shared by michaelaheilesen on 05 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • michaelaheilesen on 05 Nov 14
     
    Based on the results tallied by 1:15 a.m. EST, voters in Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota -- all red-leaning states -- had approved proposals to raise their state-level minimum wages over the next few years. Arkansas: The minimum wage will rise from $6.25 an hour now to $8.50 by 2017.
  • ...9 more comments...
  • audrey23 on 05 Nov 14
     
    I say go for it, it's about time the minimum gets raised while employees actually work hard
  • amcclain946 on 12 Dec 14
     
    YES! I think raising the minimum wage is a GREAT idea. Once some states do it, more tend to follow. I think raising the minimum wage will really benefit part time workers because many work part-time hours but only make enough to pay bills. This raise may allow many to not live paycheck-to-paycheck.
  • djones036 on 12 Dec 14
     
    I think the minimum wage should be raised because the minimum wage we have now doesn't get you as far as it used to and people need more money to meet standards of living.
  • Erin Wolff on 15 Dec 14
     
    I think this is a wonderful idea. Raising the minimum wage will allow people that work part-time hours that have bills and needs that need to be met, will have money to support themselves and have a little extra support money instead of them wondering if their next paycheck is gonna cover everything.
  • fwyldes753 on 15 Dec 14
     
    I don't know if raising the minimum wage would be to good of an idea. Although yes most high schoolers and some adult would really enjoy it. But because that raises the businesses have to pay more, which means they will raise there prices, and we will be back in this situation of people wanting it raised. And we can't just raise it every year.
  • austenclaar on 15 Dec 14
     
    Raising the minimum wage to 9 or 10$ would be great if everything stayed the same. But according to our government that's not possible. Prices would go up and places would stop hiring. Even making 10$ an hour most likely still isn't enough for someone to live off of. Either way it's almost impossible for things to change for the better.
  • Mia Wheeler on 15 Dec 14
     
    I agree that the minimum wage should be higher because it allows us to pay for things by ourselves and a lot of part-time workers are college students and they have a lot of bills that they have to pay for school so I think that would help them out a lot.
  • kquinlan591 on 15 Dec 14
     
    I don't think minimum wage should be raised because that would only make the prices of everything go up to. Including the price of living. I think that if people want to make more money they should work hard for it and get a better education.
  • bllandon on 15 Dec 14
     
    I don't agree with raising the minimum wage at all. Once minimum wage gets raised nationally, prices will go up and workers will be layed off. The people who would still be at the store would have to have more hours as well since they wouldn't have as many people there often.
  • bdiaz971 on 15 Dec 14
     
    Minimum wage should be raised, but with the increase of money gained prices will also go up. If people start making a lot more money then businesses will respond by raising prices to make more profit. People should be able to live off minimum wage but that is not the case right now, they earn way too little.
  • mhart079 on 15 Dec 14
     
    They should not raise minimum wage for the fact that everything else will also go up. If I can go work at a restaurant and make good money, why would I go get a college degree?
15More

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

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 03 Dec 15 - No Cached
agilbert921 liked it
  • Bryan Pregon on 03 Dec 15
     
    "Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a complaint in federal court against the United States, State Department and the International Rescue Committee, seeking a stay of federal plans to settle any Syrian refugees in his state."
  • ...12 more comments...
  • agilbert921 on 04 Dec 15
     
    Texas should let more refuges into their state because its not their decision, its the american goverenments
  • baddison758 on 04 Dec 15
     
    I think we should help these refuges because we have procedures in our immigration process that, if done correctly, we will be protected against the very few ISIS terrorists that hide withing those refuges. Also it is a stand against ISIS if we continue letting them in because we will show that we are not afraid of them and fear is all terrorists have against the world.
  • ncasson324 on 04 Dec 15
     
    I think since Texas wasn't informed that the refugees were coming, they have a reason to be mad. Suing may be a little extreme, but it is a huge worry if they are threats to the safety of the Texas people, especially since it was confirmed they cannot do accurate background checks on them
  • lcarman980 on 04 Dec 15
     
    I think that the US should be doing what we can to help but I don't think anymore refugees should be allowed into the country. We should not be held accountable for taking care of them. If our nation will be put in danger by possible terrorists posing as refugees, we shouldn't allow anymore. A lot of the refugees that have already come to America have been complaining because we aren't giving them more things. We gave them food, shelter and protection but they complain about not being given TVs. Why should they get free things if half of our nations populous is under poverty line and expected to fend for themselves? I completely understand that they need help but we should not have to put our country in harms way to do it. There is no way to know if they are terrorists or refugees so we shouldn't take the risk.
  • haveltherock on 04 Dec 15
     
    We should let them in but only with very high monitoring to track out the terrorists hiding in the crowds. It might be a evil way to do it but we will be able to stop the terrorists dead in their tracks without just ignoring their please for help. (ZAC OLSON)
  • chowe892 on 04 Dec 15
     
    Texas should let them in but they should take certain steps to make sure that they are not terrorists. It isnt their choice to keep them out its the governments.
  • masoncutting on 04 Dec 15
     
    The American Government should let the state make their own decision. If the state doesn't want to help, then let it be.
  • molson922 on 04 Dec 15
     
    I really don't know what I think the government should do at this point. I'm pretty neutral on the subject, because I fear for our safety while I also fear for the refugees. I do strongly believe though that these refugees do need a place to go where they can be safe, but it's hard to know whose good or bad.
  • trocha340 on 04 Dec 15
     
    i wouldnt the refugees in because you dont know which ones are a threat i believe it would be to much of a risk
  • jwondercheck947 on 04 Dec 15
     
    I think that the way things are now, with the US not being able to individually make the decision whether or not refugees are allowed into a specific state, is the best for us right now because having one decision for the whole country is more organized and orderly than having every state with a different policy on refugees. Personally, I feel for the Syrian refugees because most of them are women and children. But at the same time, with the risk of letting terrorists in, it is a tough decision. If we did thorough background checks on every single person that came into the US from Syria then maybe I would think this would be okay. Because I don't think it's fair to stop women and children from living a good life here because there MAY be a terrorist among them.
  • rwilson761 on 04 Dec 15
     
    I believe that we shouldn't let just anyone in maybe do a background check before they enter our country just in case something is likely to happen, Not being stereotypical but with all the things that ISIS has done so far they could possibly plan something if we were to not accept any Syrians at all because we're "afraid".
  • garrettross420 on 04 Dec 15
     
    They do and they dont know whats all going down but they should let them in because its choice of the government to let the refuges in
  • tbonaparte on 04 Dec 15
     
    I think that we should take refugees in because they're trying to get out of that environment and the U.S could be a lot of help to them, but I also think we should keep our eyes opened because we don't know who is a threat and who isn't. It's a tough decision to be honest.
  • natehathaway on 04 Dec 15
     
    I think that it's up to the government and not the individual states to decide whether to let the immigrants in or not
42More

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

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

What a Joe Biden presidency means for taxes, health care, housing, student debt - and a... - 7 views

www.allsides.com/...-care-housing-student-debt-and
shared by Michael Keller on 09 Nov 20 - No Cached
  • Michael Keller on 09 Nov 20
     
    I've heard many things about Biden being president, most predominantly gas going up and Kamala Harris taking over for Biden which I kinda see happening. I feel like they'll say Biden's mentally unfit or bring up the Hunter Biden stuff and Harris will take over.
  • ...8 more comments...
  • hharker376 on 09 Nov 20
     
    Hopefully, this new president will give America a chance to turn over a new leaf and repair the damages that had been previously done.
  • makosa23 on 09 Nov 20
     
    Hopefully he make us wear mask everyday then corona is gonna over.
  • jcollins438 on 09 Nov 20
     
    I think a lot of people are going to struggle with the price inflation and it's going to be a little rocky.
  • jcooley186 on 09 Nov 20
     
    I'm hoping that we'll be able to see more progress and actions towards covid, climate change, and more from this new president.
  • xxchrysxx on 09 Nov 20
     
    I personally was hoping for Biden to win, but after hearing some things and doing more research it's unclear. No one is perfect, but I can say all we can do is hope for the best. I just hope for my generation he will help us in the long run for our future.
  • bayliegirres on 14 Nov 20
     
    I agree with Michael, that Kamala Harris is going to take over for Biden. I also think that raising taxes for the people who make over $400,000 a year is not fair.
  • scarney230 on 16 Nov 20
     
    i am glad that biden is going to broadened health care coverage and student loan forgiveness i think this will help many poeple
  • laurenhansen168 on 16 Nov 20
     
    I think health care is going to help many people, but the fact that people that make a certain amount of money, have to pay higher taxes, is not fair.
  • livmorrow on 16 Nov 20
     
    I also think that a lot of people are going to struggle with the prices inflating. But I just hope that with Biden being president more people can be tolerant with each other since no one was doing then when Trump was in office.
  • trinitytallman on 16 Nov 20
     
    I think that people who make a certain amount of money shouldn't have to pay more taxes, it's not fair.
5More

North Korea says 'prepare for war' - 1 views

www.telegraph.co.uk/...lowing-fresh-UN-sanctions.html north korea Government
shared by Bryan Pregon on 08 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Mar 13
     
    "China expresses concern and appeals for calm as North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un tells troops to prepare for "all-out war"."
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Chris Lavy on 08 Mar 13
     
    I'm hoping that all this is just a bunch of saber rattling as they say, and not the start of WWIII.
  • cbonar311 on 08 Mar 13
     
    Koreans success with nuclear missiles is really scary fir the United Nations, China needs to go against them and help the rest of the United Nations cut off their resources.
  • Brandon Colpitts on 08 Mar 13
     
    I think that North Korea is bluffing because they dont have enough resources to fight a war. It would be suicide for them to attempt to attack the U.S or other countries in the United Nations.
  • Joe Vrenick on 14 Mar 13
     
    I hope North Korea is bluffing, With their success in Nuclear Weaponry, you can only take them seriously because we're scared of WWIII or any other type of Nuclear Holocaust. They have the upper hand.
8More

Giffords, Kelly launch gun control initiative - 1 views

news.msn.com/...-launch-gun-control-initiative News
shared by Megan Frush on 08 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Megan Frush on 08 Jan 13
     
    I think it is good that Giffords is pushing for gun control because I believe that we need it.
  • ...5 more comments...
  • blakewilladsen on 08 Jan 13
     
    ya its nice that she has taken such a tragic event and used it to try and prevent more shootings in the future
  • Bryan Pregon on 10 Jan 13
     
    Should we focus on gun control or preventing violence in general? This is a pretty interesting follow up: "US suffers far more violent deaths than any other wealthy nation, says a new study" http://news.msn.com/us/more-violent-deaths-in-us-than-other-wealthy-nations-report-shows
  • patrick boian on 14 Jan 13
     
    i am all for freedom but when it comes to gun control people in general should know that if their children or themselves know they have a mental health disorder that they shouldn't have guns in their house or in cases they have children with mental disorders keep them in a gun cabinet and hold on to the key
  • Megan Frush on 16 Jan 13
     
    Gun cabinets are just as easy for kids to break into even if the kids do not have the key. I don't think you should not include people with disabilities from being able to have firearms in their homes, it may not be the safest thing but it is still a right that they have. Most people who have firearms in their homes have them to protect themselves and their families, not to harm other people. I think we need stricter gun laws for everyone, not just certain people.
  • gharvey949 on 16 Jan 13
     
    I think that the government should force people to own a gun safe big enough for all of the guns they own. We can't just take away guns! One way or another people are going to go out of their way to kill people.
  • Sidnie Lewis on 17 Jan 13
     
    I agree with you, Grayson. The government should make people own a gun safe to store all of their weapons. It is dangerous for guns to be located somewhere where anyone can get their hands on them. Despite that fact, the second amendment gives you the right to own weapons. Although there have been many gun crimes in the United States, lately, you cannot take away that right. Just because some people handle weapons irresponsibly, all people should not be punished for it.
  • garrett lee on 18 Jan 13
     
    i do like my guns and i dont want the government telling me i cant have them. taking guns away wont stop murders it will just make them happen in a different way
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."
16More

Why not legalize pot? - 4 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Andrew Jensen on 31 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Andrew Jensen on 31 Oct 12
     
    Now that we know Nixon was wrong about marijuana when he made it illegal, why isn't it legalized and sold today?
  • ...13 more comments...
  • Nathanial Belt on 01 Nov 12
     
    Exactly. I'm not a pot smoker but I see the silver-lining. We would make a profit just off taxes alone. Its a gold mine, in other words.
  • Rainie mccubbin on 01 Nov 12
     
    I agree with everything they are saying. The government can make a lot of money on the taxes from selling pot and on top of t hat is it really that bad? We are accept alcohol and it is far more dangerous. How many violence issues, accidents, deaths, and overdoses have you heard of from pot compared to alcohol or any other drug. Pot is looking pretty well now compared to them.
  • Mallory Huggins on 02 Nov 12
     
    I agree that legalizing marijuana is a good idea. After all, alcohol is a far more dangerous and more addictive drug and our society practically expects people to drink. The only problem I have with this article is that it implies legalizing marijuana will end the "war on drugs." Legalizing marijuana won't stop people from using other, more dangerous, drugs.
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Nov 12
     
    In my opinion the biggest obstacle to widespread legalization is the lack of a quick, real-time test which allows us to determine the level of impairment. I certainly don't want people driving drunk and there are many tests that we can administer to determine if the person is under the influence right now. Tests for marijuana can show use in some cases for weeks past. There are plenty of activities that people should not do while high or drunk, but how can we be certain of misuse without a more reliable way of testing?
  • Alex Snipes on 05 Nov 12
     
    I understand that marijuana is not addictive or has as bad of an effect as drinking, but there is no quick test or "legal limit" like there is with alcohol, so how could we make it somewhat safe? Being high impairs your reflexes and ability to function normally, as does being drunk. I for one, wouldn't want to be anywhere and have someone just start smoking a joint and have to breathe in the smoke and worry about getting contact high. Smoking marijuana would have to obey the smoking cigarettes law of not being able to do it in businesses. And what would the age limit be, 18, 21? Smoking pot around children would need to be against the law because they wouldn't be of age to breathe it in. And what about the people like me who don't want to be around it? I could understand if you do it in the privacy of your own home, because that doesn't bother anyone. Also, would you be able to drive while high? Does every user know the effects it has on their body like cigarette smokers do because its on each packet? There are many situations that would have to be considered in the legalization of marijuana. I see no problem with it if it's in your own home or a place, like a bar that is for smoking pot, because isn't that what bars are for, drinking alcohol? So keep all possible situations in mind when forming an opinion on the legalization of marijuana.
  • Bryan Pregon on 07 Nov 12
  • Emili Davis on 15 Nov 12
     
    Legal or not people will continue to smoke pot when they please no matter what the age.
  • Natalie Wilson on 19 Nov 12
     
    What are the states who legalized it going to do when out of state people come and smoke their pot there?
  • Kirstina Michl on 20 Nov 12
     
    I can understand maybe being prescribed marijuana for medical purposes, because I know that does happen, but I'm not too keen on making it legal in other ways. Even if it has no addictive effects, it smells really bad. And there's also the getting high part.
  • bvasquez13 on 29 Nov 12
     
    weed is from nature. it wasn't made by humans is dose not harm you.
  • Joshua Hannan on 30 Nov 12
     
    A great number of things from nature are extremely harmful.
  • Mallory Huggins on 30 Nov 12
     
    If stuff from nature isn't harmful that means I can finally try eating belladonna and hemlock! And get the pet cobra I've always wanted. (They ARE from nature)
  • Ryan Loye on 03 Dec 12
     
    I believe pot should be legal because its grown in nature and it does less damage to your body than cigarettes and alcohol.
  • Dylan Garner on 04 Dec 12
     
    My mother said that mary jo aunna is the devils daughter.....
  • jacob whalen on 04 Dec 12
     
    so that government can tax it and create more money for them.
6More

Iowa Lawmaker Still Seeking Medical Marijuana Law - 2 views

www.wowt.com/...l-Marijuana-Law-233987061.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 01 Dec 13 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 01 Dec 13
     
    "Legalizing medical marijuana will again be debated in the upcoming legislative session, though Iowa lawmakers have so far been loath to embrace a policy that is finding acceptance elsewhere."
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Kelsie Gubbels on 02 Dec 13
     
    I don't think this will happen..
  • ashleyrhodes97 on 02 Dec 13
     
    If it's gonna happen then their should be strict "laws" to follow for it. Although it probably wont happen.
  • Jordan Freeaman on 02 Dec 13
     
    I think that if it does not happen now it is inevitable for the legalization of marijuana. The government has noticed that when it was illegal the money made a year in the "business" is in the billions. The government does not want to miss out on that much money to conclude.
  • maceep on 02 Dec 13
     
    I think they should go for it, just because it eases some symptoms for some diseases and that's good for the people suffering from those disease. So why not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • jsteenbock23 on 03 Dec 13
     
    I think it would be better for the government to legalize marijuana because we have spent millions trying to stop the distribution of the drug with nothing to show for it. The government should legalize it so instead of wasting money trying to stop it we can make money, or spend the money on more pressing matters.
7More

Iranian Women's Soccer Captain Will Miss Asian Cup After Husband Takes Passport | Bleac... - 12 views

bleacherreport.com/...p-after-husband-takes-passport
shared by Bryan Pregon on 17 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 17 Sep 15
     
    "Iranian women's soccer captain Niloufar Ardalan will not be present at the Asian Cup, as her husband has decided to invoke his legal, husbandly right to withhold her passport."
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Julia Gibler on 17 Sep 15
     
    It's sad that there are still countries that give men power over their wives. Legally, a woman should be able to go where she wants without her husband's approval. There are rights for husbands but none for the wives which is unfair.
  • bharold850 on 17 Sep 15
     
    This woman is obviously very successful to be the captain of the travelling team that will be participating in the Asian Cup and for her husband to withhold her passport is hindering her success. It's very shocking and saddening to see this kind of misogyny still present within this world today.
  • amcintosh485 on 17 Sep 15
     
    I think that this is completely wrong. I believe that a woman should have free rights to do things she wants to do and go where she wants to go. This is a big thing for her and for her husband to withhold her passport is in no way okay.
  • denniseram on 29 Sep 15
     
    That woman should have the right to join her team. She seems very successful. I don't think men should have control over the women and have no rights of their own.
  • sophiataylor001 on 29 Sep 15
     
    I think it's terrible that he would do that. If it's something she enjoys she should be able to go out and do it. Especially something this important.
  • ryanlegg on 07 Oct 15
     
    this is totally legal but not ethical, I feel bad for the soccer captain but I'm not entirely on either one side in this particular predicament. I feel if she wants to go badly then she should talk to the husband about it because nobody else can do anything for her right now.
12More

Egypt student gets 3-year jail term for atheism - 18 views

news.yahoo.com/il-term-atheism-152045172.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Jan 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Jan 15
     
    " "
  • ...9 more comments...
  • pkleppe761 on 12 Jan 15
     
    Reading this article makes me feel very grateful that I live in American where I can speak freely about whatever I want and believe in any religion I choose. It's sad that because some one has different beliefs than others, they are charged and put into jail.
  • djones036 on 12 Jan 15
     
    I think the kid shouldn't be put in jail for this because he is just expressing himself through his beliefs. I'm glad I live in a place where I can have my own thoughts. I can't imagine being put in jail for my view of religion.
  • amcclain946 on 13 Jan 15
     
    It honestly makes me cringe when I read that this student was put in jail for expressing himself through his own beliefs. I understand that it's against Egypt's constitution, but I think that they should be able to express their own beliefs....in every country! I'm thankful to live in America because I'm able to express my own beliefs and be apart of any religion I choose to be without being put in jail. I'm grateful.
  • deanaroth on 13 Jan 15
     
    As an American, we know what freedom is. It is sad to see that other countries truly don't get the ooportunities that we do. It's sad that a child cannot ever truly express himself.
  • darianhubbard on 13 Jan 15
     
    Reading this makes me quite sad to be honest. And also makes me very grateful to live in a country where its founders believed that everyone should have a right to have whatever religion they wish. A 3 year jail sentence is used for more extreme things here in America, but in Egypt it is obviously a major offense.
  • chrislindqvist on 13 Jan 15
     
    I think this is wrong in so many ways and I feel very happy that I live in a country where I can say,write and think what I want without getting in trouble with the government. These countries limiting the capacity of a human which makes them to almost robots
  • samanthaahern on 13 Jan 15
     
    I think this is wrong but I do think they should be able to express their religion
  • austin807 on 20 Jan 15
     
    They should be able to express their religion
  • estuckey767 on 20 Jan 15
     
    I think that people should be able to have their own beliefes and should not be forced to believe in something. I think making him go to jail is a bit exteme. This makes me gratful that I live in a country where I can express my beliefes and not be punished because they may be different than someone elses.
  • Sydney Wilson on 29 Jan 15
     
    I think it's awful that these people aren't able to express openly what religion they are and get put in jail when they do.
  • tcomulada881 on 16 Feb 15
     
    They shouldn't of put him to jail for 3 years. I know they don't have the freedom to express their religions if they aren't the main religions but 3 years is way to long for something so small.
14More

Mississippi bans abortions at 15 weeks - CNN - 19 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 18
     
    "With a swipe of a pen Monday, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law a bill that prevents women from getting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. His state, effective immediately, now holds the distinction of having the earliest abortion ban in the nation."
  • ...11 more comments...
  • taylorknickerson on 21 Mar 18
     
    If you are not a woman, you should not have a say in what women can and cannot do with their body. This is an unconstitutional law and it greatly endangers women's health care all across Mississippi. Every day, women are raped and become impregnated, but many may not know they are pregnant until after 15 weeks. How does the Mississippi government expect that woman to carry out the pregnancy under the circumstances that had caused her to be pregnant in the first place? It is clear the Mississippi government has not fully taken every circumstance into consideration when creating this law.
  • chaseburns on 21 Mar 18
     
    I think that the only constitutional ban we could put onto abortions is when the fetus can feel pain. At that point, you shouldn't be allowed to get one. Possible exemptions being if the women was raped, forced to have a child, or if having the child could hurt or kill the mother.
  • Connor McHood on 21 Mar 18
     
    I can see why people would want to ban abortions after a certain time frame, even though I disagree with where they put the cap. However, I really don't like how there's no exceptions for rape, and I especially hate how there's now exceptions for incest. Inbred children tend to be incredibly unhealthy, and if the mother doesn't want to carry them to term, they shouldn't be forced to.
  • Haley Costello on 31 Aug 18
     
    I agree that there should be a certain time frame for when you can have an abortion, but 15 weeks is to early to decide. I also think that if the mother doesn't want to her have the baby then she shouldn't be forced to, depending on what the reason is. Like if she was raped or could harm herself, then she shouldn't be forced to have the child, but say she just doesn't want to because she isn't ready then maybe she can think of others options like adoption because their are many people who can't have a baby that do want one.
  • pfrederiksen on 31 Aug 18
     
    I agree that there should be a time frame but also I believe that women should be able to do what they want with their bodies. There could be many different reasons for abortion like rape, self harm or just to young. But people should also think before they take action. I say this because people know what could happen when they have sexual intercourse. They know the consequences. But there are other options other then abortion, like adoption. There are plenty families that want kids but cant have them so instead of abortion they could end up helping a family.
  • sydmccorkle on 31 Aug 18
     
    I agree with this law. 15 weeks is plenty of time for someone to decide if they would like a child in their life. People do make mistakes and rather than the child not having a good life they decide to not have the child.
  • jakesimons on 31 Aug 18
     
    I would normally disagree with abortion, but I believe that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else. Someone could say the same thing about drug use. As long as you don't hurt anyone, it is okay. Why would someone try to control someone else's body/life?
  • ehoodmuffin on 26 Sep 18
     
    I feel as the argument over abortions comes down to if you consider the egg as living or not during early pregnancy. As abortions are the woman's choice this still gives them that opportunity to make that decision if it feels just, but after so long the egg does start to develop where then you could be ending a life. Then that is where they draw the line and are basically saying that it is past the point of being harmless, so I can agree with this bill.
  • Brooke Wohlers on 26 Sep 18
     
    I agree that there should be some time frame for when you can and cannot have an abortion. 15 weeks to me seems like enough time for the women to decide if they want to keep the child or not. People do make mistakes. I think that it would be better to not have the child if its going to be born into a bad life. But I think that decision is ultimately up to the mother of the child.
  • rochsam on 26 Sep 18
     
    I think that its good that they made it 15 weeks because at that time the baby is still not too big and it gives the mother some type of time to make a decision
  • camrynkinser on 26 Sep 18
     
    i agree with the law too because they are well developed at 15 weeks
  • kojelly on 26 Sep 18
     
    I feel that is still too late.
  • bret758 on 06 Dec 18
     
    i believe this is fair because in some states the law is 6 weeks and most women do not know that they are pregnant at 6 weeks. 15 weeks most women would know that they are pregnant and would have time to make a decision.
5More

It's not just Facebook. Thousands of companies are spying on you (opinion) - CNN - 4 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 29 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 29 Mar 18
     
    "But for every article about Facebook's creepy stalker behavior, thousands of other companies are breathing a collective sigh of relief that it's Facebook and not them in the spotlight. Because while Facebook is one of the biggest players in this space, there are thousands of other companies that spy on and manipulate us for profit."
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Connor McHood on 11 Apr 18
     
    Fun fact: on Facebook, there's a place in the settings where you can actually see what it believes your interests to be, including what it thinks your stance is on American politics.
  • Mackenzie Frush on 11 Apr 18
     
    I spoke to a friend who said that she woke up to an email saying her facebook information had been accessed and seen by a large number of other sources, outside of facebook. She said the cause of this was one of her facebook friends downloaded an app and all the friends of this person had gotten the same email about their information. It is just wrong how so many different companies are taking their users for advantage.
  • saratruong on 01 May 18
     
    I found this new information within the article to be very disturbing, and yet, there are some aspects that I'm not surprised about. I have already comprehended the fact that Google can track all of your searches and that causes ads to be related to your own interests but for media to constantly monitor my actions just from my phone? That's disturbing once you think and look into it.
  • amberhatcher943 on 02 May 18
     
    I was watching a video actually on Facebook and this couple heard about facebook stalking people so they decided to talk about cat food for 3 days with facebook open and offline then they opened it one day to cat food adds on their facebook which is really creepy to me.
32More

Is Pocahontas a Racial Slur? Native Americans Say They're Insulted by Trump's Remarks - 47 views

www.newsweek.com/beth-warren-racial-slur-723858
shared by Bryan Pregon on 28 Nov 17 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 28 Nov 17
     
    "The White House is trying to argue that the nickname "Pocahontas" is "not a racial slur" against Native Americans after President Donald Trump used it Monday as an insult during a ceremony honoring the Navajo code talkers. Native Americans do not agree. "
  • ...29 more comments...
  • nathanaelhale on 28 Nov 17
     
    I don't think his comment wasn't necessary for him to say
  • ellemalone on 28 Nov 17
     
    He made this statement in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson, as stated in the article, who signed the Indian Removal Act. Coincidence?
  • arodriguez333 on 28 Nov 17
     
    President Trump's behavior is naturally insensitive and inappropriate. So it doesn't surprise me that he'd make a comment such as that. I do agree that using that word directly insulted their heritage as well as the achievements they've made during the war.
  • creatures0ver on 28 Nov 17
     
    what trump said was mega wrong and it saddens me that he felt the need to throw petty snaps at elizabeth during this night of honoring the navajo code talkers.
  • alexisnjones on 28 Nov 17
     
    I don't think the word itself is insulting but the way it was used made it become that way.
  • ctaylor147 on 28 Nov 17
     
    donald did insult the senator because the senator isn't exactly one of his supporters but either way he had no right for insulting her even if she wasn't one of his supporters so in other words he doesn't like the fact that there is a woman indian heritage senator for the united states.
  • mborgaila831 on 28 Nov 17
     
    It is a problem that this happened, but the media is "making a mountain out of a mole hill" so to speak.
  • emedina132 on 28 Nov 17
     
    I think they're trying to make it bigger deal they act like they don't know what type of president the country voted for. Long before he became president he was having issues will racial names and opinions, Being president hasn't changed the situation. You'll just have to put up with it.
  • alarkin on 28 Nov 17
     
    It may not have been the word itself that was the root of the problem, but it was the way he used it to try to discredit Warren before, so for him to use it again in this scenario was bad on his part.
  • jacobjensen113 on 28 Nov 17
     
    trump was in the wrong
  • bschiller303 on 28 Nov 17
     
    His comment wasn't necessary at all, he had no reason to call her that and I think he just dug himself a deeper hole by doing that
  • faithwittwer on 28 Nov 17
     
    I believe it is a racist slur. this isn't the first time President Trump has been racist towards someone. I don't think people realized what kind of person Donald Trump is. He thinks that just because he is president he can say and do whatever he wants, and doesn't care who he hurts or offends.
  • connor garges on 28 Nov 17
     
    I think that this should be a big deal because this is just one example of our president being insensitive, and discriminatory. I don't think that these people have a right to say that this slur wasn't offensive, when they aren't native american. A white person can't look at a racial minority group and dictate what is and isnt offensive to that group. If a minority group says something is offensive, its offensive.
  • lynx_2019 on 28 Nov 17
     
    I think he was in the wrong for saying that out of petty but others are also making it a bigger deal then it actually is.
  • shunjitabata on 28 Nov 17
     
    I don't understand what president trump wants to do in the future.
  • edewey022 on 28 Nov 17
     
    Trump's remark was insensitive and childish. He was at this event for the sole purpose of honoring these heroes, but he felt the need to mock Senator Warren. It's not difficult to understand that the name he is using is offensive, especially when he has actual Native people telling him so, yet he continues to behave in this disrespectful manner.
  • slindsey503 on 28 Nov 17
     
    this is why Trump shouldn't be president. He's the worst possible president ever.
  • aruss77 on 28 Nov 17
     
    I think that Donald Trump needs to be more careful about what he says. He does not need to bring more fights to himself by saying stuff like that, but he shouldn't not defend himself when others bash him. He needs to be more respectful as a President and think before he speaks, because he is representing the United States of America.
  • jeremyzuehlke on 28 Nov 17
     
    I think the media is overreacting
  • sreynolds702 on 28 Nov 17
     
    I feel like President Trump shouldn't have even mentioned anything in regards to the natives. He should have just remained on track an honored those Tribal men instead of turning the tables and sounding like he insulted their culture. Plus the media in itself shouldn't have even recorded that, because now WWII is about to happen on the media.
  • dmckiddy517 on 28 Nov 17
     
    I think that i agree with it being "culturally insensitive" as some could be offended by that, but i don't think I can fully support it being considered a racial slur at this time
  • mmccoy349 on 28 Nov 17
     
    This is wrong
  • lyricreed709 on 28 Nov 17
     
    As a Native American, I would say it's a nasty generalization. We are not all a stereotype; and I love how he referenced us all to a children's movie that scratches the surface on our culture. It was a disrespectful remark.
  • nfahrenkrog on 28 Nov 17
     
    He wasn't trying to say it to be racist he was trying to see it to make fun of her but the media of course takes it in a whole different direction
  • Joe Dillehay on 28 Nov 17
     
    I do believe it was culturally insensitive but it isn't a racial slur.
  • lynxfire on 28 Nov 17
     
    trump is discriminating against that native of american by using the Pocahontas name as an insult
  • seanlorenzen on 28 Nov 17
     
    This is culturally insensitive. He was there to honor those men, not to take a stab at someone he doesn't like.
  • blaircaskey on 28 Nov 17
     
    I think that it is rude to make that comment, but it is not a racial slur
  • ethanbuck on 28 Nov 17
     
    In my personal opinion I feel like what he said was not wrong but I definitely feel the context to the event at which it was said makes it an issue. Poking fun at someone who claims to have Native American ancestry without proof does not seem particularly wrong to me but to do it at an event meant to show respect to code talkers certainly complicates matters.
  • andrew666 on 28 Nov 17
     
    i dont think it was a racial slur but now that its getting so much press i think it may become a slur
  • destinyg010 on 28 Nov 17
     
    I do agree that it wasn't a racial slur but saying it in front of the Navajo code speakers it was wrong and insensitive
10More

ALHS students at the city council - 43 views

www.kptm.com/...story.asp government protest News petition
shared by Bryan Pregon on 13 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 13 Dec 11
     
    Regardless of where you end up on this issue, it is good to see young people taking part in government for our own community.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Preston Robb on 13 Dec 11
     
    I can't believe they say were too young to understand. Just because were in high school we too young. its not right.
  • Lauren Rommel on 13 Dec 11
     
    I am proud of Emily for standing up for what she wanted. Not many people would be brave enough to do something like that..
  • flor valdez on 13 Dec 11
     
    i think that its really brave of emily to stand up for what she wants and thinks that is the best. Not a lot of people would do it. But she is standing up for others and her opinion.
  • Brice Johnson on 13 Dec 11
     
    I understand where he is coming from saying high schoolers are too young to understand this. This topic is all about money, where it is coming from, how much money is needed, how much they will get from it. We do not know what goes on behind the scenes of this deals. Maybe instead of saying we are too young he should of said we are uninformed.
  • Michaela Kennedy on 13 Dec 11
     
    I like what Brice said, "we are just uninformed."
  • awest520 on 13 Dec 11
     
    I hate to say it but i have this intense urge to slap City Council member Matt Walsh...what because we are young we automatically don't understand? More like we have more on our minds then politics and gaining support by being popular with business owners.
  • Derek Large on 13 Dec 11
     
    we have the right to say what we need to say. People have the right to say that they should not be in a public place or anywhere.
  • Jordan Smith on 13 Dec 11
     
    I also think its good that students are trying to make good points on why they shouldnt own the MAC. There taking a part in this and trying to stop it. But will it help? We will see later on....
  • Dakota Smith on 13 Dec 11
     
    If he has enough gumption to tell Emily that he is disappointed in her for collecting signatures from uninformed student then he should have enough knowledge to know that we won't know whats going on if we aren't educated on this topic and that it is the generations above us job to educate us and pass on what they have learned to the younger generation. So if he is disappointed in Emily then he should also be disappointed in himself for not doing his job.
12More

A heavily fortified Minneapolis awaits verdict in Chauvin trial - POLITICO - 14 views

www.politico.com/...s-verdict-chauvin-trial-483043
shared by qanderson136 on 19 Apr 21 - No Cached
  • qanderson136 on 19 Apr 21
     
    Thoughts?
  • ...9 more comments...
  • masonmascarenas on 19 Apr 21
     
    Both side are going to pull their own narritive for who or what killed George Floyd however it is weird to see how the defense of the office pulled in the racial difference between the two.
  • noahsandbothe on 27 Apr 21
     
    Justice has been served in this case but if there was true justice George Floyd would still be alive. This is a good step but it's not nearly enough.
  • saraivargas on 03 May 21
     
    I don't think we should celebrate the bare minimum of putting away a murderer. While he is locked up, there are so many other's out there spreading the same harm and sharing the same narrative towards their fellow comrades. So many officers get away with a plethora of crimes, and some just stand by and watch. There can't be any"good ones" if they stand by and watch it happen without saying a word when they have the power to do so.
  • jackiegonzalez on 03 May 21
     
    I agree with Sarai. There is so much racism that takes place in the police force, the death penalty, the government, and our overall society. People have fought against racism for decades. And winning one case, while it may be a starting point, is not something to celebrate when people of color have struggled so much.
  • nick_rice on 03 May 21
     
    I think it is good that we locked him up but I also think we need to do more about this kind of stuff. This stuff seems to happen often and something needs to be done about it.
  • allisonwalker on 03 May 21
     
    Something needs to be done, so something like this doesn't happen and more lives can be kept.
  • jdogan on 05 May 21
     
    The fact that a guilty verdict for Chauvin was even a surprise is a very bad thing it's good that there's finally some progress though.
  • carsonschaa on 10 May 21
     
    It seems like no one tried to help him, but that's what I'm thinking about from reading this passage.
  • peytongrenoble on 10 May 21
     
    I personally don't understand how people thought he would be not guilty. There is so much evidence proving him guilty, yet many were still shocked. My primary issue with the case is how it took someone to be killed for light to be shed on racism. There isn't complete justice, but we are getting pushed in the right direction.
  • tsilva588 on 10 May 21
     
    It's obvious that this man needed to be punished for his actions and no one should be shocked. Watching the video of George Floyds last few minutes was awkward and seemed inhuman and could have easily had been stopped regardless of the struggle he was giving or the drugs he was on, that officer killed him. He spent the last few minutes of a precious life begging for mercy and that was it. So Chauvin is getting the treatment anyone else would get.
  • arosas733 on 24 May 21
     
    It is crazy how some people do not see Chauvin in the wrong. This was complete discrimination against him and this should not have happened. Punishments are necessary for him and he took a life from a family that could never be given back or forgiven, when he could've handled the situation in a more fair, civil way.
5More

Iowa Legislature passes, Reynolds signs bill banning mask mandates in schools | News | ... - 3 views

www.kmaland.com/...74-11eb-9f8e-9b7349429f36.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 20 May 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 21 May 21
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Bryan Pregon on 21 May 21
     
    Many students asked my view on this law.... I will simply say that I have felt grateful that 99% of my students followed my classroom policies 99% of the time with regards to seating charts, sanitizing, masks, etc. They respected my classroom all year long even if they personally disagreed with that. Now because of this new law (which is based more on partisanship than science) I am in the opposite role and I will trust and respect the choices students make in the last week of school whether or not I personally agree with their view. I know how to make changes in government when I feel a need for change. As always, if you have an opinion on this topic, I would love for you to respectfully share it here.
  • saraivargas on 21 May 21
     
    I do not believe the mandate should be lifted seeing as a lot of people are un-vaccinated, susceptible to COVID, and the herd immunity process is barely beginning. There's no way that we're going to eradicate COVID if we can't do the bare minimum of wearing masks. Most people don't even wash their hands for 20 seconds,and wear their masks under their nose. If we can't wear a mask correctly, can't wash our hands, and refuse to get vaccinated, I sincerely believe we might have to deal with COVID as we do with the flu by taking yearly shots and such.
  • sydneykolln on 24 May 21
     
    I personally believe that the mask mandate should not have been lifted. Yes, some people are vaccinated but there are not enough people vaccinated for herd immunity to work well. I also believe that she should have just waited to lift the mask mandate. We have gone through this whole school year wearing masks and for that to change overnight is just confusing to understand. She should have just waited until schools got out for summer and then lifted it if she really wanted to.
  • mgerman776 on 24 May 21
     
    I think the maks mandate should have been kept for a little longer, at least until more people are vaccinated
19More

Ted Cruz's Cancun Trip: Family Texts Detail His Political Blunder - 18 views

www.nytimes.com/...ted-cruz-storm-cancun.html
shared by sydneykolln on 21 Feb 21 - No Cached
  • sydneykolln on 21 Feb 21
     
    Personally, I feel like it was wrong for Ted Cruz to go to Cancun when Texas is freezing and having a power outage. What are your thoughts on this?
  • ...16 more comments...
  • saraivargas on 22 Feb 21
     
    While people in Texas are struggling for power, on top of a global pandemic happening Ted Cruz should not be leaving for Cancun.
  • thepriceisright on 22 Feb 21
     
    This is especially sad as well because up until now he denied climate change, and when he was proven wrong, instead of helping, he just left.
  • gbrochu915 on 22 Feb 21
     
    I think that him and his family are wrong because he didn't believe in climate change and not that he knows that iyts real hes not going to do anything to help, hes just going to leave.
  • vperez191 on 22 Feb 21
     
    I don't think what Ted Cruz did was okay. It shows that he doesn't care about what the people in Texas are going through and just makes him look bad in general.
  • lhunter952 on 22 Feb 21
     
    I feel like if you are someone who is viewed as a leader, you should not run away from the problems at hand. He is a congressman in Texas and I feel like he should've stayed home with his people and not go stay in Cancun while his state is under duress
  • abbidominguez on 22 Feb 21
     
    I think Ted Cruz leaving to go on a trip to Cancun with his family was extremely immature and inconsiderate. He is a well known politician with a large following that leaves a lot of people looking up to him. As soon as things got bad he decided to leave when instead he should have been helping and thinking of recovery plans for the people in Texas.
  • haileejoy on 22 Feb 21
     
    I think that Ted Cruz leaving was really dumb on his part. Peoples houses are literally falling apart and flooding and people are dying and he is doing nothing about it. So unless he's out there making plans on how to save everybody, he doesnt deserve the title he has.
  • arosas733 on 23 Feb 21
     
    I feel like this was not right of him to do. Ted Cruz is an important figure there in Texas and if he can't be there to help during the bad times, he shouldn't deserve to be there for the good.
  • ericschmidtberge on 23 Feb 21
     
    I understand that even if he had stayed most likely it wouldn't have had that much of an effect on the situation but it's basically a slap in the face to all the people who didn't have the fund's in Texas to even heat their homes if that was an option and could only dream on going on a vacation to Cancun. He at a minimum could have donated the money the family spent on the trip to help some of the people freezing to death and losing their homes.
  • nick_rice on 23 Feb 21
     
    I believe he did not do the right thing in that situation and he should have stayed and helped Texas instead of running away like a little baby.
  • kredding147 on 26 Feb 21
     
    This made me so mad. I know that he was just trying to be a good dad, but he's not just any dad. He's a senator. And there's a crisis going on and he's flying to Mexico while people are literally dying.
  • alejandro4 on 04 Mar 21
     
    He should've stayed in Texas to help the texans in crisis instead of going to cancun for warmth.
  • masonmascarenas on 05 Mar 21
     
    Personally, I don't think Ted Cruz should have left Texas because it was a time that people needed help from the government most and he wasn't anywhere to be seen.
  • owenjacobs on 08 Mar 21
     
    Ted Cruz should not have left but there was not much that he could do being a senator in DC. The most he could have done much like Dan Crenshaw was hand out water, or food. And that is better than nothing but he had no control over what was going on or had no way to actually help bring the power back.
  • noahsandbothe on 27 Apr 21
     
    I think it's ironic to say that Joe Biden was hiding during the campaign trail in the 2020 election. Then proceeds to "Hide" in Cancun when his state was in a crisis.
  • jdogan on 05 May 21
     
    This especially makes me mad since most of my family lives in Texas and they had no power and no running water and he just left them alone there to go to Cancun. This is a situation involving his own state and he doesn't even show the decency to pretend to care about the people there as their senator
  • mgerman776 on 24 May 21
     
    Why would you abandon your state when they need you most? Sounds selfish and morally just wrong.
  • jcontreras201 on 25 May 21
     
    I think that Ted Cruz was dumb for this because he is a senator and should be trying to do something about their outages but instead he became selfish and fled to Mexico.
« First ‹ Previous 61 - 80 of 961 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page