Government Diigo

For more information on Obama's speech you can check USA Today http://goo.gl/oTNj9 If you look at this page, you may want to check out the "Presidential Approval Tracker" ... seems like a pattern to me.

obama is a good man, and is trying to be a hero for the middle and lower class. If it wasnt for the republicans blocking every move democrats try to make and making our nation more inefficient than a classroom filled with apes, maybe by now our economy would actually be fixed, but no people cant come together for more than a week for the good of a whole country.

The cartoon seems to imply that the "middle class" people have more to lose than they could gain/ can hold on to. While the wealthy are continuing to prosper significantly.

I believe this gap is closing and most likely will work because theres enough people that want to close the "gap" and there will nolonger be a huge money gap anymore

The "fuzzy math" section of the article is interesting because the statistics happen to be true. However, incorporating more ideals aligned with Socialistic ideology may not be the worst thing that could happen to this country.

I believe that if we try to fix the "gap" in our country, the "gap" will increasingly become farther apart...

"The richer are get richer" I believe that taxing the people who get higher income wont solve anything, I think that everyone should be equal. If the government starts taxing the wealthy then many middle class wont try as hard to get a higher income because of the higher taxes they will have to pay.

I think the middle class are more likely to break than make.

When has any of Obama's plans actually worked? I think the middle class is in big trouble.

If we try to fix the "gap" of our country then the "gap" will continue to grow, if everyone came together for everything we would live in a perfect world, it wouldn't be fair if we had higher taxes for the rich, because some of them have worked hard for their money and it's not fair to tax them because of that.

I also feel that the rich should be paying higher taxes, and the poor should get a little bit lower taxes

I strongly disagree with Obama that the wealthy should get taxed more. What happened to "fair, open and honest?" It's not fair to those who succeed in life to have to pay more taxes for someone who failed or dropped out of high school.

the tax situation is a good point but instead of paying said amount we should pay a certain percentage of our wage. so everyone no matter how much they make will put forth the same "share" of their wage and everyone will be happy. i mean seriously, does that multi-millionare really need any more money? heck ill be happy with just one million.

I disagree with obama i feel everyone should be taxed the same why should the wealthy be punished for how succesful they are

I think that Obama is trying his best to help out his country, but he needs to make more effective decisions.

I agree with broxton, if taxes were based on a percentage of the income of a person, it would be fare and easy, no one could complain because you're only paying according to what you earn and not according to what is expected.

I think the cartoons implying that Obama uses the middle-class and everything he's "going" to do for them as a bridge to stay president and win America over, when in fact he's making matters worse for the group he is supposedly "helping".

if you in the middle class lower class or higher class you have to pay you taxes and we should all be taxed equaly

I think that he is trying but he should make some diff. decision.

i have to agree with broxton it makes sence to have a precent of ur wages be taken out. so some one working a part time job is paying a little bit and a person like warren buffet is paying alot abit but the wealthy well always find a way to wigil there way out of paying. always hav always will.

I agree with Brock. I think there should be a percentage coming out of our income because it wouldn't be fair if we tax the rich more and the poor less just because they are more successful. Most people were raised differently and they have had more (or less) connections to get them to where they are now. It doesn't seem fair at all.

I agree with what is being said on most of these comments.I do not believe the rich should have to pay higher taxes because they worked hard to get were they are now and just because we have a gap in our income does not mean that they have to pay for it.

Our middle class is beginning to diminish because we are either rich or we are poor. In the role of gender, men have more opportunities to have more pay. Taxes are different based on pay, the more you make the more they take.

A flat tax percentage may seem to favor the wealthy, but it's the only fair way to do things. Everyone is supposed to be equal in this country.

I agree with Ziada. We are getting to the point were it's either the poor or the rich. The middle-class is starting to disappear.

The middle class is all but gone. We don't even see them any different than that of the lower class. we are rich or we are poor, never in the middle.everyone thinks that the other makes to much or not enough

I feel like Obama just talks about the stuff that people want to hear, yet he does nothing actually about the problems. Who cares if you can talk for almost an hour about a situation but don't do anything about it. Like many people said I don't believe people who are more successful should suffer to pay more taxes than people who do not have as much money because they did not prosper as much as someone who does work harder.

I Also agree with ziada ,This is getting out of hand , what will happen if we break ? were do us, our society in the middle class go ?

"A flat tax percentage may seem to favor the wealthy, but it's the only fair way to do things. Everyone is supposed to be equal in this country." I don"t think so, After all can you really say it's fair for someone with more means then responsibilities to pay a much lower overall percentage then someone with more responsibilities then means? I think that there is no way to make this kind of thing 100% fair but it is fairer to look at this kind of thing as percentages then as flat numbers.

The rich shouldnt have to pay more because of their success they took their opportunities and made the best of them. of course many might have had the same opportunities but just didnt take them. or some simply didnt have the opportunity at all. the middle class will have a few struggles here and there, but in the end i think everything will be alright.maybe.i hope.

This seems like a moment in American history where choices have to be made that everyone may not agree on. People are forced to use their money on others even if they don't want to. I hate the idea of being forced to use my money, but, the idea that people would rather the poor die and move out of the way is worse. No matter what, the choices are really difficult and can harm more than help. In the future we'll all look back on the results and hope they were for the better.

Good story

I wouldn't apologize either, i think she's doing the right thing.

Personally, I don't think he should be forced to apologize. Yes, his comments were hurtful, but as a public political figure you have to expect these kinds of negative comments. Plus, like the last line of the article said "the governor of Kansas has more important thing to worry about."

very intristing

It wasn't meant for anybody but her friends, it was simply an accident. They shouldn't be so worried about it but she is right about freedom of speech. I wonder what's going to be done about it.

I think she should at least apologize. Although free speech is an unalienable right, everyone should still share opinions in a respectful manner.

Interesting story.

I like the story, its very interesting that the governor took the twitter post from the teenager to heart and requires an apology letter to be productive and move on, he should be focused on more important things.

Not gonna lie, I've seen far worse things on Twitter.

I find this story very interesting, I do agree that we have freedom of speech. However lying is not in our Constitution. There are multiple worse things that are posted on Facebook, and Twitter.

When it takes a apology letter is needed to work with the gov then they need some one new to take that office. If it was his own kid then it is understandable. but when he does not know them then they shouldn't bother him as much as they have. and it is true that twitter holds many things that are far worse that deal with the gov't.

Lots of comments on this story... looks like the Governor ended up making the apology... here is a followup article http://goo.gl/0IlO1

The girl was at no fault, even though she did not actually do the things she said in the tweet. Hundreds of millions of posts about politicians are posted every. If all of the politicians took the things said to heart the government would be in ever deeper trouble than they are now.

She should be able to say what she wants. Freedom of speech

yeah, she should have used her words more wisely, but freedom of speech is a very important law as long as it is not abused. I'm glad everything worked out, and the gov. corrected himself.

that girl was a meanie bo-beanie

She should have the freedom to voice her opinion however she wants

Teenagers these days have no respect for adults and Authority.

thats crazy. who wouldnt buckle there kid up? and why was she trying to run over someone?

The mom eeds to go to jail cause she is a retard for trying to do sucha stupid thing to a mna trying to kill him and had her baby in risk of dieing.

Not only did she miss the man she was trying to hit, she injured her own child in the meantime... some people just should not have a driver's license..

I can't believe they say were too young to understand. Just because were in high school we too young. its not right.

I am proud of Emily for standing up for what she wanted. Not many people would be brave enough to do something like that..

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.

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.

I like what Brice said, "we are just uninformed."

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.

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.

This student's name is Zach Wahls and this was a very powerful speech. Here is another link for the story with some more details http://goo.gl/LfiKK . I also know that he did a reddit AMA recently but I can't find a link right now.

"marriage- ... 3) an intimate or close union" i think that if you asked a random person on the street what they thought marriage was this would be close to what they said, so why WOULD we be against it?

If they are together the same as a man and a women are, why shouldn't they get the same benefits? I mean their relationships generally last longer then "legitimate" marriages so why shouldn't they be treated the same? By not allowing them to get married, are you doing anything? Besides denying them the benefits of that little piece of paper...such as lower insurance rates, higher health benefits, what happens if their partner dies? Then simply because they weren't ALLOWED to be married, the living partner does not get their belongings unless it is in the written will, they wont get any of the insurance money because that only goes to family, so if they are just "dating" they don't get any money to help them through the hard times...I think they should allow same sex marriage simply because if they are going to be together whether or not you allow them to get married, they should get the same benefits as everyone else.

I don't mean to start a fight or anything like that, I just don't think it's right in the biblical sense. I am very close minded about this topic, and can't seem to change and I don't plan on it. I can see where people come from, but I bet some of those people don't believe in God, or the bible. It even states it in the bible that is wrong.

I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments. Discussion groups like these can easily turn into arguments with little information on either side. Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/BFKIo

I don't think that religion can play a part in what marriage is in today's world. Marriage now in the eyes of our government is a way for 2 people to share benefits that the government gives them.

casue it sthe same sex it shold not be

this is a hard question to answer. I believe very strongly that gays have the right to be together and form a union, so i think that marriage is all well and good, but there is another issue. No matter what the dictionary says what the definition of marriage is, it doesn't take superiority over the bibles definition, which clearly states marriage is only to be formed between a man and a woman. Some say that the bible was not very clear on that, and that it is up for debate, but if one looks at leviticus 18:22 it states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I don't think it is abominations, but the concept of christianity, and judaism does, which is where it gets tricky. Does the government have the right to force the church to do things against their belief such as allowing gays and lesbians to marry? quite frankly i don't think so. Its not like the pope can just say, hey gays are ok now. It would be blasphemous. the only way gays would be allowed is if God himself came down from heaven and made it publicly known that he has changed his mind on the concept. If i was lets say jewish and had my own resteraunt, and i didn't serve pork due to my belief that pork was a dirty meat, would you go to the mayor and convince him to force me to change my rule even though its against my religion, and causes the lord to look down on me with disdain? I dont think you would because its preposterous. So i believe we need to meet in the middle. Make a union that gives gays all the same rights and privileges as regular marriage, but make it a different term than marriage, or at least make it known that the church is not ordaining it. The trick is not to force people to do things against their will, but to find new methods to do things so that we can all co exist without such petty argument.

I just think people come up with poor excuses for gay marriage not to eligible..

they do, but many people are scared of change. its going to change i believe, but its going to take time.

I think that if a gay couple want to be want to be married, why can't they? There isn't a negative effect of a gay marriage, and you can see from the young man in this video that they can be just the same as a straight marriage. Infact I think that man was in more successful than any of us coming from opposite sex parents would be at that age. I also think that they provide a better family life for their children as well. His family seemed alot closer than most families today. So theres no reason a gay couple can't be married. Sure you can say that its wrong because its against Gods will and all, but being gay isnt a choice. Its who you are. God created man, and if being gay is really as terrible as they say it is, then God wouldnt have made them gay. And to the guy who says people that are for gay marriage aren't christian or don't belive in God, guess what? I go to church, believe in God, and I am for gay marriage. Who's to say that gay people can't have the same rights as straight people? The only difference is the gender we prefer. Why should gay marriage be outlawed and ridiculed? Where has prejudice ever gotten us?

I do not think religion has anything to do with marriage. After all atheists can get married can't they? Also if you have read the entire bible there are more things that god has said is wrong then gays, and i guarantee everybody has done something god has said is a sin. It is up to the people getting married whether they want their marriage to be religious or not. If we let religion be a part of our everyday lives we would go insane with all of the "rules" the bible states. Who is to say that gays shouldn't have the right to get married? If that is the case then maybe we should limit what straights can do.

Dakota, If you look at Americas past there has always been prejudice. And in the end it united America. Look at the way people treated colored folk, or women for that example. There has always been prejudice in the past and there will always be in the future. People are going to voice their opinions no matter how ignorant or naive they are.

I am against gay marraige but I also think that people have the right to chose what they want. they can make their own choices and I will make mine. I have friends that are gay and I have no problems with them or the way they act. I may not like it but im not going to hate them for it.

i actually have read the whole bible, and i spent 7 years of my life in a private christian school. it doesn't matter if you stole an orange or killed a man, a sin is a sin. what you dont understand is that god weighs all sins the same, and quite frankly if i really should tell the truth gay people are going to burn in a pit, just as that guy with the orange will if they dont change their ways and repent. The church is like a private club, and they say gays cant marry. end of story. they dont care if your not christian, they care about anatomy. anything else people want to ask questions about so i can answer them? or how about making false statements i can shoot down? listen unless we find an alternate to marriage, we should not and i will not stand up for gay marriage. perhaps if it was termed differently and done done in the name of god, i would just say more power to them. no matter how much you want to, you cant change the laws in the bible and call them legitimate.

"broxton anderson " so your saying that the homosexuals need their own form of union instead of marriage? I thought that most marriages were now legal constructs with religious ceremonies being a personal choice? Does anyone else think this touches on separation of church and government? Should there be a true separation between the phrases "civil union" and "marriage" or is there already and some of us just can't see it yet?

From a biblical point of view God made women for man and man for women, not man for man and women for women! #RealTalk

yes it should be a "true separation" that way it removes itself from religion which leaves religions no room to complain. I feel that a civil union should give ALL the same benefits as marriage to. must people truly complain so much over two words? its the same thing, just a different name, and can prevent millions of wasted arguments.

for those of you that say it is wrong according to the Bible, what happens if you were gay? It's not like you can change how you feel...and if "God" created all people "equal" why shouldn't they actually be treated equal? And i honestly think that simply because gays are the minority, they are being picked on...it's wrong...so why would "God create" people just to send to the deep south? ...just a thought

Broxton Anderson- You have read the bible, yet you chose to use the most uncredible source in the bible. Using Leviticus is ridiculous. Leviticus also states that it is okay to own slaves and that if one performs the act of beastiality, that person is to be murdered and so shall the animal. It also states that you may not speak to a women on her menstrual cycle and it is also forbidden to touch pig skin and for men to cut their hair. You are completely fine with ignoring these very radical notions, but when it comes to gay marriage you instantly are against it? Seems to me like there is a lot of hypocrisy in your ways. I am a Catholic, but I fully accept the institution of gay marriage. I myself am not gay, nor do I plan on becoming gay. Leviticus is outdated and does not apply to our modern lives. Do not pick apart the bible and try to sound as if you know the way people should be. Anyone can misquote the bible. If you have a problem with homosexuals, keep it to yourself. They have just as much rights as everyone else in this world and should not be denied rights such as being married. A few men who disliked gay people have started this constant circle of quoting Leviticus in order to make their way sound just. If anything, they are doing more wrong by corrupting the bible to use it to justify their personal views.

Same goes to Jay Cook. Talking on something you do not understand, or even researched, makes you arrogant and naive. If you are so fine with not allowing gays to be married, then you should be put back into slavery. Fair trade, yes? From a biblical view?

I compltely agree with you^ Most people that are against gay marriage claim to say they are against it mostly because its against the bible while over half of them have no idea what they are talking about and likly havent read the bible. I think people should be able to marry who they wish the gender should not matter.

It's too bad the bible is a bunch of tall tales exaggerated, can't trust religion for anything, it's a petty excuse for any argument.

From an evolutionary stand point homosexual relations don't have an impact other then thinning the human gene pool. Not that I'm against gay rights, but since everyone dismisses religion I thought it would be important to note that in the commonly held belief of evolution, unless a person has offspring, it's as if never existed. Just some food for thought...

Obviously what he is saying that from the stand point of evolution. He wasn't saying the homosexuals provide nothing to their societies.

If you think about it the bible states go forth and populate, and that's the premise of evolution....

Yeah thats a good point but maybe thinning the human population isnt all a bad thing. Also have you even considered how many children gay people adopted from other countris and places were they probably would have not had a good chance in living a good long heaalthy life. I dont understand how people can be so one minded about things. What if you were gay and wanted to marry a person you loved and you couldnt because judgmental people didnt approve?

I'm cool with gays as long as they don't try and make a move on me.

I agree with Brittany, everyone as a human being has their rights

i totally agree with riley its peoples life and they have their own rights

hurrah! we are famous!

not everyone is famous, Brock you don't get to be famous, yet:)

I don't know how well everyone having a computer will work, and how well students will take care of it.

I have heard of this before. Poor kid though it would stink to go through this, however by the time that he would become older he would get to eat more foods.

how is a child born with this disease? i would hate to be like that. i feel bad for the little kid.

There was a story about a kid like this on true life as you get older you get to eat more.

That must be really hard dang i feel bad

I bet he makes some of the most creative dishes.

poor kid. the thought of only being able to eat certain foods must be brutal.

I think that would suck bad. i wonder how he feels.

This is just awful. I hope he grows out of it.

That's his fault

Or maybe instead they should just not drive. if smoking marijuana impairs you to the point to where your incapable of driving then don't drive, its not the governments responsibility to provide transportation to someone who chooses that as a medicine. and yeah the hospital gave it to her, but the hospital gives people a lot of other drugs that have warning labels stating not to drive and use heavy machinery. so why should the government have to provide transportation when people know that using that medicine might not allow them to be able to drive?

Why Shouldn't they? there handing it out? Right? So if the government made the decision to give out marijuana to those who would like to have because of health problems then they should take Responsibility for the people there giving it to . Plus people wouldn't listen any ways, people drive under the influence all the time. No matter what its going to happen, that's why I think that the government should keep tabs on people who have medical drugs and make sure there safe, and make sure there not hurting someone else.

if people wouldn't listen, then there is no point for the government to pay to transport someone around who would just abuse it in the first place. and keeping tabs on all of the people who use medical marijuana or any drug that could impair you would take a ridiculous amount of time and money that our government probably isn't willing to do. if someone wants or needs that medical drug then they should be responsible for their actions while using it not the government.

Then why make a laws and expect people to follow this one. It's pretty evident that nobody listen's anyways. So enforcing the law by keeping tabs might save people's lives and save them from injury? So how would that be a waste of time? And yes the thought is unrealistic but, I was just throwing out an idea.

i think its ok to be given the drug for a medical problem and to be able to drive, but if its worse then being drunk and then driving afterwards then you shouldn't be able to drive and be under an influence of a medical use of drugs. they should have special ways of transportation.

I believe it's impossible to be too dough'd to drive!

I think that yes government should provide the transportation if your under medication that you should not be driving or using heavy machinery. Then there is also the thought of who is to say that some one won't just get high and say its hospital medication? It will always be a battle no matter what happens. you could have the government provide the transportation but the only way you can use it is by providing proof by like wearing a I.d. bracelet or having to keep the container with you. Then there are still ways that people will get around like taking other peoples bracelets or containers or them expiring. So there is almost no way to decide and make it possible! Not everyone is going to follow the laws or ever will!

i dont think it really matters wether they make it legal or not, people will still abuse it just like alcohol. they can set an age limit on it, but you still see 9 yearolds getting their hands on cigaretts even though ur supposed to be 18. and as far as transportation goes, i dont believe the government will provide transportation. if you choose to smoke pot, then its ur problem wether to drive or not. i dont think its a big deal if you smoke a bowl or two and then drive to the store, but can the police actualy tell or test you for thc? argue all you want i say let people be free and smoke whatever plant they want wether its tobacco or marijuana, its a natural god given plant.

There's no reason that the government should use the money, that we don't have, to provide transportation to someone who doesn't need it. Does she need marijuana? Clearly, she may however, that does not constitute the necessity to have someone pay for her to get around. Maybe, she should try taking the bus.

I saw this last friday, its kinda sad. Why would a dad do that? Put some clothes on him then itll be fine

welll, at the time it might seem messed up, but when this kid never gets sick, he will be thankful!

no parent should do that to their child. it was wrong and down right cruel.

This is awful! Poor kid! :(

this kid is training to be the next ninja warrior!

it does not matter that he was training to be the next ninja warrior. its dumb and the kid should of had at least something on.

When training, I think you should have more than just underwear. You should at least have a pair of pants.

Nahh, ninja warrior is some serious sheeet. I would ride a unicycle through fire naked while juggling blow fish and eating glass in order obtain adequate training for that show.

If he's training to be on Ninja Warrior, it is neccassary to run through snow in underwear. He may actually have TOO much clothing on for this exercise.

it's a form of abuse no matter how you look at it.

i can see that the parent was trying to make his son different from others but there would be a lot of different ways to do that. i think it is a form of abuse.

Its abuse and the kid should be taken away from his dad that's upsetting! >.<

Well what is abuse? Is limiting and stifling a child of it's full potential abuse? I think so. Children need to grow strong mentally AND physically. If that means making my child must run through the snow, by golly, that kid isn't running in the snow. He's sprinting.

xhotxsoccerbabe, do you have no morals? A child needs a well rounded exercise routine. You can't just make him run sprints in the snow! what about upper body exercise such as push ups in the snow or strength training by carrying very heavy objects? Or a what about a proper regiment of metabolic steroids and human growth hormone?

Rats are both smart and cute. I think it would be pretty cool if rats could detect bombs... They're the second smartest rodent in the world; they could make a hole in someones wall, and leave it alone for about an hour and then return to that hole, unlike mice who would get confused and make a different hole in the wall. Rats would be pretty easy to train to detect bombs, then give humans signs. I think this would be great.

I like the idea of them using a smaller animal and one that is also intelligent because that is less money and less of a worry of putting larger animals in a more risky situation.

If only all rats were trained to detect bombs. New York would be set...

crazy

Reminds me of a vigilante.

People need to learn that the world is a dangerous place, and that we need to provide some protection from people like this...

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.

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.

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!

too bad she got caught.... she could have gotten $7,000....

OMG!!! Suzanne? Too bad she got caught.?.. Sad story!

Adoption

is that a felony or a misdemeanor?

It's not really like adoption because you don't paid for giving up your child. I suppose it could be closer to surrogacy because you pay someone a lot of money to carry a baby for you and they give it to you in return.

What a crazy lady. She should've just given it up for adoption, at least.

People need to be more responsible with their children.. This is absolutely ridiculous! Don't have children if you don't want to take care of them!

I've always wanted a pet child...

Wow, this is horrible! Just imagine the affects that this will have on the child when hes old enough to understand that his own mother tried to sell him when he was just a baby!

i think that wall street is bringing attention to the middle class and the media doesnt like it

The occupy wall street protest is bringing more attention to the middle class, and it's shocking the media. The illustrator is trying to show how it's all tied together in one way or another.

I think that with all the "action" going on between wall street and the middle class, the media is shocked and is in disbelief.

The Occupy movement is like the middle-class' prince charming, exactly what we want. The 1% on the other hand is trying to poison the middle class with lies and deception from the media which is made up of the 1%.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is trying to revive the middle class in order increase their supporters to the full 99% it once was, but the 1% aka the media is like the wicked witch in Snow White that gave her the poisoned apple so she would be out of the way...and the media is upset that attention is being drawn back to them

I think it's that occupy wall street has now involved the middle class and the media is appalled by it.

I think it means that occupy wall street is trying to save the middle class and the media doesnt want to have it back.

Fox news also broke the speech down in smaller videos if you are curious to see only a certain part. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/24/watch-video-highlights-from-president-obama%E2%80%99s-2012-state-of-the-union-address/

Obama's tax reform would be a good idea if it were implemented. It will be interesting to see what kind of resistance the "Buffet Rule" is met with from conservatives such as Donald Trump.

A lot of this is great proposals, but sadly I think most of it is just empty words and will not take action, or solve any problems.

These plans sounds good, it will solve many problems if it succeeds.

i totally agree. he should be treated the way he treated and what he did to james thimm and what he did to the little boy. the little boy was only 5 years old thats just dumb.

How could you kill a person, let alone beat a five year old to death? What did the kid ever do to him...?

I think he should be sentenced to death what he did was wrong and completely inhumane

I think all people should be punished for crimes like that because if you don't other will just do the same

Treat others the way you would want to be treated so he should be killed

Great thinking Koontz lol

link seems broken... try this http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-309/

I think its a good law, people should be able to know who you are. If you really wanna protest, you shouldn't care.

I believe that if you truly believe in the cause, then you should have to face the consequences, even if that means losing your job or your reputation and status.

This bill makes sense. Public safety is at the forefront of this bill, if a protest gets violent or other harmful/unlawful acts occur the persons the are held responsible will be able to be identified. But looking at it from the other side, people might want to conceal their identity at protests, or the masks are part of their protest(example Anonymous). If this bill passes people will be made, if it doesn't pass other people will be mad. Who is the Canadian government ok will making mad?

This bill should be passed because if you're risking yourself by already being there, you should have to show your face. Also, if the situation ever turned violent, that person wouldn't get away with it because their face wasn't exposed so they could be identified.

I think that this bill should be passed because the police should have the right to identify anyone who is protesting. If you want to protest, protecting your identity shouldn't be a major concern because you would want people to know who you are, and what you are speaking out against.

I think if you are going to protest, you are there for a reason, that you strongly believe in, so you should not want to hide who you really are

It should be considered that this is a trade for security by means of liberty. Sacrificing freedom for a small degree of protection. If this bill passes, it could easily snowball to other things (this may be a bit of a reach) such as controlling what you can wear altogether just so that you can be identified at all times just in case you might be possibly considering intending to commit a crime.

As said in earlier comments, I think that if you want to protest IN PUBLIC then the public has the right to know who you are. If you want you can protest in your house and no one needs to know who you are. But out side of you cant hide from the public if your are going to stand outside with a big sign and yell out things in front of people.

I think this should be a bill that becomes a law.

I see it as your there or your protesting for a reason so why hide it. If your protesting you believe something is ether wrong or right so why hide your believes. If you don't want to be seen or noticed here's an easy answer don't go!

I think that you should be able to wear a mask, because if you're protesting something that you believe in, or don't believe in, than it is a personal matter and you should be able to conceal your identity from the public.

Caleb, you know nothing of politics..... read a book.

I think should get someone else in office instead of Obama because he hasn't been doing so well.