Government Diigo

Washington (CNN) - If it wasn't already clear that Mitt's Romney and his allies are trying to lower expectations heading into next Wednesday's debate against President Obama in Denver, the campaign is now making it official.

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.

Almost $465m of outside money has been spent on the US presidential election campaign so far, including $365m that can be attributed to the supreme court's landmark Citizens United ruling, according to a report released on Monday.

Why don't we use this money to pay debt instead? This is just outrageous. 1 Nationwide debate and be done. We are in to much debt to afford this kind of foolish spending right now.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust is up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004.

This is a little frightening that eleven years after 9/11 we are still trying to crack down on tarriest attacks.

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama.

I agree, people should have to prove that they need help and don't have any other options. Too many people take advantage of the system. I've actually had someone come into the deli where I work and ask if we were hiring, and when I told him I could check, he said he was just asking about jobs so that he could continue receiving unemployment. I think that attitude is way too prevalent in our country.

The idea of people needing government aid is very broad. I can tell you now, everyone who has ever gone to school was on public aide, some more then others. The government aides the school you go to, for every student, they receive appx. $6000 per student. Now, if we as students were not on government aid, I can tell you now I would not be at school. My parents could not afford $6000 a year for me to go to school. Not to mention another $6000 for my brother. The average student that stops at high school is there for anywhere from 13-14 years, that's over $78000 just to get every student a high school diploma, all of which is funded by the government. I know that the average income of a household is 63k a year. Now take that down to 50k from house payments, which most people do not complete until at least 60. Assuming the average household has 2 children, you are now down to 38k. Assuming your parents both have to make car payments, that is 12k a year for the average american. 26k left. The middle lower class is now spend, on average they make 40k, and have about 6k left. Now, what about income taxes, regular taxes, gas money, food, water, electricity, injury, insurance, and other daily expenses. The middle class can barely get by. As for people people not being able to make that kind of money, the middle class is primarily college graduates, with a bachelors degree. You would be surprised as to how many people do not have that. As for, they could have made it happen. I would disagree, some people are simply not smart enough to get EVERY scholarship out there. I know I am not one of those that can. It's not fair when someone has potential, and cannot go to college when someone with half the potential can just because they already have money. The more potential student should receive that aide.

you gota go you gota go

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

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.

In May, the Lenoir City High School faculty was threatened with a criminal investigation for publishing a yearbook story titled, "It's OK To Be Gay."

^ Michaela it has to do with gay bullying, i believe it is relevant.

Michaela, homosexuality is a part of almost every high school. GSA, (gay straight alliance) a club at our school. That alone means it has to do with school. A yearbook article on that would be just as relevant on a article about chess club, or mock trial, or a sport. If you honestly, and truly disagree with me, then how is it not as important as any of those things?

Interesting article out of Great Britain... especially considering all our laws on "drugs", are we forgetting that alcohol is a drug as well. For many, it is socially acceptable to get "drunk" while getting "high" is bad. Do you think if alcohol were discovered today, would we allow people to use it legally?

I really doubt that we would be able to limit it legally to the point of no use. I do think we would better restrict it though. It would likely turn into something like limiting a persons legal purchase amount in a week or a month or something, with some sort of item that would be required to purchase alcohol that one could only receive so many of in a month period.

they tried to stop it with prohibiton when they first discovered it. but that only brought on moonshiners and illegal saloons (i can't think of the name right now) and now it would be almost impossible to make alcohol illegal. It would most likely turn into something like a huge illegal operation like a cartel or something worse.

Oops. I didn't see that Jeremy had already posted the original article on here. This isn't meant as a rebuttal to his article.

Even if this was a rebuttal to what I posted I think that's a good thing that you put this up. I tend to post news stories that my friends/family send me so I may not always find stories that show views from the other side. It's important to look at issues from all sides to form a proper opinion on things.

An 8-year-old Colorado boy was ordered to remove his Peyton Manning Broncos jersey at school because of its perceived street gang affiliation.

I believe that schools should not be so strict about gang related clothing because a lot of people don't know that certain things you see on clothing are gang related.

I find this ridiculous that they're making a elementary student remove his jersey just because of a number that represents a gang. If it was a problem before hand, they should of let the parents and students know a head of time. And a 8 year doesn't even know what a gang is so I don't see what the big deal is anyways. They're just being paranoid.

A Virginia sheriff's deputy has been fired for liking his boss's political opponent -- on Facebook.

A person has the right to like whoever they want on Facebook.

I feel like the deputy should be able to "like" whatever he wants, on facebook or not. I don't think it is right for him to be fired just for liking it.

From what I have heard, the security at the embassy that the ambassador was killed in may or may not have been lacking, which would have been a major oversight.

I guess the question that comes up with this part of the NDAA is whether or not our government can limit the right of due process of citizens in the name of National Security. I personally don't believe that it is okay to "indefinitely" detain a citizen just for being suspected of being affiliated with terrorists.

With nearly 1 billion users, Facebook has clearly become a feature of many people's lives worldwide. A new study suggests that the social network has the potential to get hundreds of thousands of people to engage in a single behavior - namely, voting.

Super interesting article. I am curious if anyone will comment here about whether they think their decisions are influenced much by social media. This article has an equally provocative link on Obesity and STD's gained from social networks http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/24/tech.networks.connected/index.html

As we discuss how our government balances the needs of society with protecting our civil liberties I would invite your respectful comments on both sides of this article. There is a HUGE comment thread on the CNN site, please add your thoughts to our Diigo.

I think that the cross should go in the museum because it was part of the twin towers and it was a world wide icon after the attacks

I like the fact that the cross is being displayed. It gives a symbol of hope for the Christians, and in all reality, to the outside world, and inside our borders, we are commonly seen as a mostly christian people. Atheists, Jews, Muslims, and members of many other faiths did die, and weer affected by this tragedy. But the fact that the cross was made from rubble, and was made by the falling of the towers, is a symbol to those that are Christians, and whatever our personal beliefs on the matter is, a symbol of faith and hope to countless people that has good reason, and good context should be allowed inside the museum. We would not disallow Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and countless other faiths from putting pieces of there faiths that give them hope. So neither should Christians.

I think that this article, although biased, gives a good overview of how divided the conversation of the Second Amendment really is in the united States.

Interesting article. Another issue this causes which wasn't discussed in the article is how this will affect ranchers in SD. It's too late for them to cut back on breeding, and this could give some ranchers difficulties in selling their cattle. With how high the price of feed has gone this year, this could mean that SD cattle ranchers may see a serious drop in profit this year.

I think this is scary for not getting more attention.

I think that this is very dangerous and everyone should be aware of it.