Government Diigo

I can only hope that he does drop out of the race. I don't believe that anyone as ignorant as he seems to be is fit to be a Senator. I would have hoped that if someone were a pro-life advocate they could at least take the time to understand the reproductive system. Not to mention that "legitimate rape" is possibly one of the most offensive things you could say when discussing this issue. Is he trying to imply that there is non-legitimate rape or does he just not realize what he's saying?

From reading the article I feel as tho they did not get the most current and correct medical information about this subject. I also think candidate Romney is trying to back peddle and correct what he said in a earlier interview and he is not actually legitimately concern with this controversy.

i agree with Mallory I really would not want someone that ignorant being in power of anything

I don't think anyone ignorant and has no respect what so ever should have any power.

I really like this article. I found it true and very knowledgeable. But some of the content, i found absolutely absurd. The fact that we can't take pictures in Court houses and places like that makes me think that the Government is hiding something from us that we aren't aloud to see. My opinion on that is as an American Citizen, they shouldn't be keeping secrets from us. They should tell us the truth whether it is good or bad. We have a right to know. But the whole Trespassing thing is just wow too because what if there is a place that is not clearly marked off.? You can get in so much trouble with out even knowing.

this issue has come up recently in some cities passing laws against recording police specifically. I thought some of the comments on the original article were thought provoking as well.

I agree with Eric I think the Government should let the public take pictures in those government buildings because we as people pay for those government buildings and I just think that's fair. I do also understand the law because somethings need to be private.

I don't want to call anyone out or attack someones beliefs, but I believe that the government needs to keep secrets. If we release every detail, there would be major national security implications to deal with. While some secrets are ludicrous, sometimes a secret is better off not being shared.

But if they shared everything with us, maybe we wouldn't be in such a crisis. Like if they told us where the heck all of our money is going... I just think it is completely absurd that they keep secrets from us.. this is supposed to be the land of they free. is it really free if they aren't telling us information that we want to know? I think not.

I think that they made a good point to keep religion out of their decisions they make for the US because there are so many people of different religions in our country. But they came across really offense and offended people of those religions. They had a good idea just not a good way of going about it.

I hope Romney wins the election. I believe Obama is destroying our country and if he gets reelected the United States is going to fall apart to the point where it is going to take decades to repair (if it's not to that point already).

I like how there is an incentive for athletes to win medals, but i don't think that it is right because these athletes are already competing against the best athletes in the world and if they medal in their event they are one of the best in the world. And in my mind that is all that i need as an athlete is to be known as one of the best in the world at what i do.

With the way this is set up, i think its a well though out article. at first, i thought more people, more power, but its really to let the little guy have a voice, which i think is the biggest problem with the government today. A lack of connection.. Anybody agree with that?

George Washington warned us in his farewell address to avoid political parties. Now look at where they have gotten us. A House and Senate gridlocked in a partisan conflict in which none of the average people they are supposed to represent are even acknowledged.

I agree with the general idea of this. I think a Congress of 3,000 people is extreme, but I definitely agree that Congress should be expanded. We have a populations of over 300 million and only 435 people in the House, and that proportion is pretty ridiculous. There is definitely a lack of connection between representatives, because it is impossible to connect with nearly a million people.

The problem with this is that at this point it may be too late to get a smooth, efficient transition to any other form than the one we have, and the few ways there are to acheive this goal either involve massive chaos, which most find undesireable, or change so slow that we will never be satisfied with the transition's results, whether they achieve our preferred outcomes. Also, the shift could cause exploitation of congress that would be even worse for the people than our current predicament. So really, we are almost as well off just starting from the roots and reconstructing in the new way, despite the many downsides.... At least as far as I can tell. I can't say I have given the topic much thought.

I agree with the article and these comments because the House is supposed to represent "normal" Americans and and they wouldn't be able to do that with so few representatives.

Alex I have to disagree that the few ways to do this would cause chaos or move slowly. With the current setup we redraw districts and move them from one state to another based on population data received from the census every ten years. So lets say that today we decide to double the number of representatives to 870 starting in 2020 (the next census year). That would mean we would have 8 years to figure out the math, which can't be all that difficult in my opinion if they are able to do it every ten years when they redistrict, to find out how many congressional districts each state gets. Then when the new state district maps are drawn in 2020 after the census instead of drawing 435 districts we would draw 870. This way could work because we already move districts from state to state with population changes so states have experienced additional congressional districts being added to their district maps. I hope this made sense, it did in my head.