Nghi's APGOPOLAR ...
Follow
4 views | +0 today
Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
onto Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 1st of 4 -- Snake Handling: Law vs. First Amendment rights

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 1st of 4 -- Snake Handling: Law vs. First Amendment rights | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
A LaFollette pastor headed to court next week for having dozens of poisonous snakes at his church said the laws he allegedly violated in Tennessee infringe on his freedom of religion.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Religious or not. Law or not. Who cares?! If people's lives are clearly at risk, why are such practices disputable? It's apparent that if people are not professional at handling dangerous animals, do not do so. Period. Why is the government dragged into this? and why is this stupid minister leading a blind crowd?

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:35 PM

This is an article about a raher strange court case that the justices had to deal with, where the pastor of a church in Tennessee brought in poisonous snakes to the church. He was taken to court the very next for it. But he tried to argue the fact that not allowing him to keep the snakes would b a violation og the first amendment because it would forbid him and his church members from their worship ritual, where handling snakes is an important part of the service to show God's power, the court ruled that the pastor pay the fine of $50 and was sent to jail for 30 days for the possession of wildlife and for public nuisance. 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 12:55 PM

This article talks about a Pastor who has to go to court because he had poisonous snakes at his church during service; however some may say that this violates one's freedon of practicing religion. In court he justifies his act with the 1st Amendment. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 11:18 PM

I think that if you bring a poisonous snake into your church it will probably not help bring people back. So on the pastors part that was just a weird and irrational demonstration that he could have gotten his point across in a different way. Although you do have freedom of expression and speech i do not think that is how it should be used. 

Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/21 -- America's Free Speech is Perplexing to the Rest of the World

BY 11/21 -- America's Free Speech is Perplexing to the Rest of the World | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
While even highly offensive speech is protected in the U.S., that level of freedom is quite unique.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

No protections for those that shrieks obscenities and the clause to discern speeches that invokes clear and present danger are there. This just lacks bold enforcement. Governments are scared of crazy Americans' revolts and teachers fear students. Of course the rest of the world looks down on us. We lack culture, sophistication and moderation.

 

more...
Samuel Garcia's curator insight, December 19, 2013 3:49 PM

People obviously don't know what true freedom is around the world. And although freedom has a marginally high level of positive connotation, freedom should be seen negatively as well. It means people are allowed to do whatever they want. The only barriers we have are the endangerment of lives. And I feel that it's fine to leave it that way, nobody is being complicit with anybody unless they firmly believe what they are saying. In my opinion, we are doing just fine and people who don't like things that are being said should do something to get rid of the mindset rather than the freedom of free speech.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:52 PM

Although many nations around the world are democracies, the U.S is unique because it gives its people more personal freedom. The U.S. isn't conscerned with other people getting offended, as long as each person has the right to expression it is okay. The only ban that we have on this is clear and present danger. There are certain guidlines that have developed in order to rule an action potentially dangerous or not. Other countries are astounded by this practice.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 10:32 PM

This article talks about how France prohibited people from talking about prophet mohammad and how although they are a democratic country free speech is not as open as it is in the US over there are stricter rules. I think one of the great things about America is the freedom to make your own choices and speak up and how you are aloud to say what you want. People who have problems with the government are aloud to voice there opinions here it would be against the 1st amendment to limit free speech. Obviously there are offensive things people should not say but we are aloud to voice our opinions when and how we want. 

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (2 of 3) -- Your Obamacare questions, answered

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (2 of 3) -- Your Obamacare questions, answered | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
Still left wondering about Obamacare? Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff and PostTV’s “In Play” have the Kliff Notes version for you.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

So requirements for obtaining Obamacare is basically asking us to be a bit...poor? Having national healthcare is the same as not having one because only the basics are paid. Honestly, my insurance company can do just about the same thing and I don't mind the bills if they can cover for EVERYBODY part I injured.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 9:09 PM

This article answers the basic frequently asked questions about Obamacare. Everyone will need have health insurance in 2014, and those who don't will be charged with a fine because they have to have it. I support Obamacare but I don't see why everyone is mandatory to have one. I understand that Obama had no choice but to compromise with the insurance companies on this aspect of the legislation. This is probably why some people dislike Obamacare.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 10:43 PM

This article talks about Obama Care and how everyone will have to have health insurce eventually. It also talks about how Insurance companies cannot deny anyone from buying their healthcare because of pre-existing conditions. This could be beneficial  because there's many sick people who cannot afford heath care when they really need it, and no one will get screwed over.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 10:44 PM
This article includes FAQs concerning ObamaCare. All the questions asked and answered include a quick explanation of ObamaCare, all the existing insurance difficulties, process of enrollment and the legality of remaining without health insurance. The health cares lunch was very big and messy for Obama so it is interesting that it has taken this long for an article like this to come out.
Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (1 of 3) -- Administration: 106,000 enrolled in health insurance in first month of HealthCare.gov

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (1 of 3) -- Administration: 106,000 enrolled in health insurance in first month of HealthCare.gov | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
Of the 106,000 enrollees, only about 27,000 were able to sign up through the federal health-insurance site.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

The figures are not up to what was predicted because the people lose trust in such a brittle plan. Its new, disorganized and made with haste, those who signed up stopped midway because they were informed of its problems or because they thought about how the elites' not getting proper pay might trickle down to their jobs.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:58 PM

It seems that the news about the Affordable Care Act is repetitive. People are having issues signing up or are uniterested in signing up. However, The Obama administration has promised and speent so much time on this act I feel like it would be too much of wasted effort to have them just walk away now. I would like to hear some success stories that champion Obamacare. It would be nice to have than perspective as well. 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 10:26 PM

This article talks about the 106,000 people that enrolled inObama's health insurance in just the first month. That number was way lower than the predictions they had made. It also talks about attempts to pass laws that allow people to keep their old health polices. Its honestly not that shocking that people wouldn't jump to join the new healthcare plan.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 10:22 PM
I think that obviously Obama and his administration had i hopes and expectations for the health care and it was not as successful as they would have liked it to be in the beginning. I think that the website having difficulties and congress not complying is making it a lot harder and not going over as smoothly as planned.
Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 4th or 4 -- Texas and 5 Other States Resist Processing Benefits for Gay Couples

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 4th or 4 -- Texas and 5 Other States Resist Processing Benefits for Gay Couples | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
Some states are citing a conflict with state laws to defy the defense secretary’s order that gay spouses of National Guard members be given the same federal marriage benefits as heterosexual spouses.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Some States deny the confirming of marriage benefits for homosexual couples. Personally, I find this a little funny, because the article notes that these States want to "uphold their integrity". Uhm, what sort of integrity? That homosexual marriages are not....marriages- that is, believed by the people and conservative state legislators? I can't figure out this lame excuse of "integrity", because really, refusing to accept other people's decisions are no sort of integrity. (Feeling neutral about gay marriages does not mean I fervently support it).

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:46 PM

This reminds me of almost the Civil war times. These states are willfully disobeying a federal order. They should be following federal orders. Most states do not allow same-sex marriage, but they are not defying the federal government. It comes as no surprise that Texas also has a petition to secede circulating. 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 1:09 PM

This article talks about Texas and other states refusing giving the same marriage benefits to gay couples as man/woman couples in the national guard. Defense Secretary Hagel had ordered that gay spouses of the National guard be given the same rights, but Texas and others aren't budging. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 10:58 PM

I think that gay people should have the same rights as other marriages. I think that especially same sex military couples should get the same benefits as everyone else. It doesn't affect anyone but them so it is obnoxious and annoying not to give it to them. Yes the states that are resisting to give the gay couples the benefits are very conservative it does not mean that we should not give everyone the same military couple benefits no matter who they are it is there right they risk there lives to serve our country and can't get couple benefits all because they are gay. That is absurd and ridiculous. 

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 1st of 4 -- Snake Handling: Law vs. First Amendment rights

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 1st of 4 -- Snake Handling: Law vs. First Amendment rights | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
A LaFollette pastor headed to court next week for having dozens of poisonous snakes at his church said the laws he allegedly violated in Tennessee infringe on his freedom of religion.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Religious or not. Law or not. Who cares?! If people's lives are clearly at risk, why are such practices disputable? It's apparent that if people are not professional at handling dangerous animals, do not do so. Period. Why is the government dragged into this? and why is this stupid minister leading a blind crowd?

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:35 PM

This is an article about a raher strange court case that the justices had to deal with, where the pastor of a church in Tennessee brought in poisonous snakes to the church. He was taken to court the very next for it. But he tried to argue the fact that not allowing him to keep the snakes would b a violation og the first amendment because it would forbid him and his church members from their worship ritual, where handling snakes is an important part of the service to show God's power, the court ruled that the pastor pay the fine of $50 and was sent to jail for 30 days for the possession of wildlife and for public nuisance. 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 12:55 PM

This article talks about a Pastor who has to go to court because he had poisonous snakes at his church during service; however some may say that this violates one's freedon of practicing religion. In court he justifies his act with the 1st Amendment. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 11:18 PM

I think that if you bring a poisonous snake into your church it will probably not help bring people back. So on the pastors part that was just a weird and irrational demonstration that he could have gotten his point across in a different way. Although you do have freedom of expression and speech i do not think that is how it should be used. 

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (2 or 4 total) -- Video: 'This Week': Twitter Transforms Politics

The roundtable debates the role of social media in politics following Twitter's IPO.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Almost 100% of politicians are involved in the practice of twittering. It's another way to rant, complain and tattle tale through personal media. There's no way for policies to restrain politicians from interracting with the public through media. Politics can now reach out to the lazy, young generations and plus they can control the news they want to put out individually.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 9:08 PM

Twitter has become more popular and powerful than anyone would have thought. I agree that Twitter is a faster way to spread news and updates, which can definitely help American become more politically up-to-date. I don't agree that Twitter would reduce spinning because I think people would only look at the tweets, or the news for that matter, of sources that conform to their beliefs. Conservatives would follow conservatives, and liberals would follow liberals. There is hardly a need to look at the other side's point of view anymore. There should be a way to view each sides' viewpoints.

Maddie Callen's curator insight, December 20, 2013 11:39 AM

twitter has greatly changed politics for better or for worse. consituents can communicate with representatives even easier. some politicans are thought more of as celebrities now especially during election time when they will be on the cover of magaizines and on tabloids. politicains can sometimes seem unproffesional on twitter using slang and abreviations but i think they should try to sound more proper.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 10:06 PM

This video talks about how twitter is changin politics and the information communicated through it, using twitter makes it that much faster and easier to get information out there. Twitter has such a large ammount of users interested in politics, that it made sense for politians to create accounts. It's cool seeing politians, old and young, adapt to these new trends!

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

Study for tomorrow's exam! Scoops not due until Thursday, 11/7

Study for tomorrow's exam! Scoops not due until Thursday, 11/7 | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it

Via Teresa Herrin
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Booker Brings Dash Of Diversity To Still Old, White Senate -- Demographics of Current Congress

BY 11/3 -- Booker Brings Dash Of Diversity To Still Old, White Senate -- Demographics of Current Congress | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
Cory Booker becomes ninth African-American to serve in the Senate, replacing Frank Lautenberg.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Booker becomes a Senator (not a Representative in which the House is significantly more diverse). He doesn't have much of a political past but he did graduate from Yale and he's black and he's young. Great publicity really. But the matter at hand is minority groups in America have gradually risen. :)

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:30 PM

The electio of Senator Cory Booker will add some diversity to the Senate because he is a a relatively young African American. Most of the Senate consists of old white people. This trend is starting to change a little, especially the Democratic side. A more diverse Congress will be able to better address the concerns of different groups of people.This is reflecting the nation a little bit more, the diversity of this nation.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 4:07 PM

This article talks about the young and new african-american senator and the diversity in the senate. With our country being as diverse as it is, so should our government. That would lead to a better represented population.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 8:05 PM
I think it is good for congress e to be diverse and have different ethinicities, different genders, different ages, and different parties. When passing bills and making decisions you will get a diverse group of opinions making it better for the people
Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Is email ever private? Take a tour of the path traveled by your email

BY 11/3 -- Is email ever private? Take a tour of the path traveled by your email | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: Critical questions are being raised about data safety in light of hacking reports and news about NSA data collection. NBC’s Stephanie Gosk explains what happens after you hit ‘send’ on an email message.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Insights on how an email is processed. With major search engines like Yahoo and Google, who knows if they're monitoring our emails. They claim our emails are stored in a "cloud" but we don't know that. But honestly, who in the world cares? Unless a person is doing something illegal, people shouldn't be worried of their emails being read. What would they read our emails for anyway?

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:07 PM

This video enlightens us in depth of the workings of email and how it is possible for others to view and who could possibly be watching where it goes. Suprisingly the data doesnt stay in the states but actually travels over seas. This video just re stated all that we know and gave more detail about the whole situation.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 25, 6:43 PM

This video shows us that it true when they say anything you put on the internet will be there forever, and many of us blow that off. I feel that we all need to be a little more mindful of what we say and do online, and we should keep a lot more private.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 11:53 PM

Lately there has been a lot of controversy over the government reading peoples phone txts emails social media phone calls ect. I think that the people have the right to privacy as stated in the constitution. 

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- Jim DeMint: We Won't Back Down on ObamaCare

BY 10/20 -- Jim DeMint: We Won't Back Down on ObamaCare | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
In The Wall Street Journal, president of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint writes that fighting a law that is unfair, unworkable and unaffordable is reasonable and necessary.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

DeMint believes that ObamaCare does more good than bad and supporters don't seem to understand the consequences it will carry. They want benefits for them and for others from low income households and yet they have no idea what kind of benefits they will receive. Because this new system is designed to accomodate all U.S citizens, it is obviously a cheap system. The wealthy are still able to afford better health care, as a result this gap in the social status and quality necessities money can buy is unending.

Despite this...I am still unsatisfied with rejections to the new system. I can't put off what Obama said about "health care reform needs to happen now, it cannot wait." We have lived through several depressions and we've overcome it all. Surely this cannot kill our status as the number one economically efficient nation in the world. Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan all have national healthcare - not to mention 3 of them are of the "Four Tigers of Asia". They must be doing something right...if they can do this, so can we.

more...
Sachi Kamble's curator insight, October 24, 2013 1:59 AM

Demint is obviously biased because he is the president of the leading conservative think tank in America. He claims that he has met people who complained that their converages have been renounced, their work hours cut and their jobs eliminated, but he doesn't have any direct quotes from these people, so it's all just paraphrased. The premiums have increased in 45 states. Young adult's premiums will be a lot higher than those of elderly, which will be hard on us since the baby boomers are all retiring now. The author claims that the only way Obamacare will lead to single-payer health-care system is by employers droping health-care for their low-wage workers. He also claims that health care will deteriorate in America as access to doctors will decrease. 

Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 5:58 PM

Jim Dewint is  republican who believed that the recent government shutdown was both necessary and proper. According to him, it was the only option in fighting against an unfair law. However, he does not mention the effect of the shutdown- the government services that went to a halt, the workers who went unpaid, and those citizens adversely affected. In my opinion, DeWint, and those like him, make America the laughingstock of the global community. 

Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 5:50 PM

President of the Heritage Foundation Jim Demint states that he and many others are not stopping until they have gotten rid of Obamacare. Some main points against Obamacare is that it causes employment issues and citizens can not, financially, withstand the pressure that comes with the arrival of the ACA. While this guy tries to fight against a cause that no one has succeeded in passing for almost 50 years, Obamacare is still alive. Has he done his job in stopping Obamacare.

 

No. Obamacare is still up and running. 40+ times has it been challenged and 40+ times has it succeeded in staying alive and constitutional. Maybe they should stop trying. "Three times, the charm" is the phrase, not "40+ times, the charm."

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- What Obama and the tea party have in common

BY 10/20 -- What Obama and the tea party have in common | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
They both disdain governing the way Madison intended.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

The complexity of the Madisonian architecture purposes that the game of politics is complicated, intricate and "deprived any of them of the power to impose its will on the others". Yet this exists as the factor that ties the Tea Party and Obama together. Both so headstrong in their perception, neither agree to settle for a joint compromise. Obama wants a health care that is absent of the Madisonian politics "unblemished by any messy legislation". The Tea Party, also, refuses to practice politics.

more...
Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 7:10 PM

Both are similar in that they are really hard to compromise with. The framers of the government have aimed for the structure of the govt. to balnce out the power. I don't see any similarities between the two other than their characteristics when it comes to compromise.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:26 PM

I strongly agree  that politicians these days are so blinded by their parties' goals that they are unable to make necessary compromises that are better for the country. I like the way that the writer compares the Tea Party with Obama. He also says that because of this unwillingness to compromise, Obama has too much power.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 5:02 PM

The article says that both Obama and the Tea Party don't want to go through the process of compromising that Madison had planned out. They're both impatient and arent willing to work together. I think an issue like this should be compromised, They need to come up with a solution together and figure out what to do. Obama does want the legislative branch to touch Obamacare. In my opinion, thats not very democratic or fair. The legislative branch represents the US citizens. we elect representatives in the legislative branch so we can have a voice. With Obama saying he doesn''t want congess to touch it seems like he doesn't really care about our opinion.

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 --CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin explains the debt ceiling

BY 10/15  --CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin explains the debt ceiling | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: NBC’s Kate Snow spoke with CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin  about the debt ceiling and what happens if Congress fails to raise that limit so the government can borrow more money to pay its bills...

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Why does our national debt ceiling affect our relationship with global economy? Because every country out there has a treasury that are linked to one another, if they suspect that we may not have the necessities to pay them back, it will result in a weakened confidence they have with us and a weakened confidence we have of ourselves. We can't keep borrowing money if we are unable to pay it back. The treasury department receives billions every month but it comes in unclear amounts and at unusual times. If such money affects the government, it will affect us. Some politicians convince us that they can "prioritize spending" but the treasury dept doubts it. The Republican-citizens want to believe that the treasury has enough for the nation to get by, says the treasury is buying. If the States default on its debt, our investors will make us pay higher interest rates. If the States have to pay more, we will have to pay more taxes or the States will give out less services/funds. Treasury claims that they don't have any money left. If we pass our debt deadline, our benefits will be cut off. Some advise that we should make paying our investors back our first priority and not paying Social Security.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, December 1, 2013 9:30 PM

I am honestly befuddled by this entire predicament. Even after gathering an understanding of the debt ceiling and its impending deadline, I fail to understand why our country's elected officials, this country's highest legal authority, cannot come together and do what is best for those they represent, those who gave them their seats. 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:21 PM

It seems that America has very little options, with all of them most likel going to spiral downhill. One question I would like answered is what does the government need to do to get to a point where it doesn't need to borrow money? I think that paying foreign nations back in small amounts would be best; borrowing more and raising the debt ceiling is what placed the goverment in this situation anyway. There are many other ways but I think that that would be the best way.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 12:43 PM

If we do not raise the debt ceiling, American citizens will experience an extreme loss of goods and services provided by the federal government. Then the government would have to decide if they want to pay back foriegn debtors (like China) and let Americans suffer, or supply goods and services to Americans and let the debt to countries increase until we do not have money yet. The states may have to step up and provide the services that the federal government can't.

Scooped by Nghi Bui
Scoop.it!

New restrictions on NSA surveillance of Americans introduced in Congress

New restrictions on NSA surveillance of Americans introduced in Congress | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
WASHINGTON -- Democratic and Republican U.S.
Nghi Bui's insight:

I don't mind. If this will help my familes, peers, communities from getting bombed upon, I give them permission to spy on us. If we don't know the surveillance staffs are giggling or criticizing us as they listen then ignorance is bliss (the only time I will ever say that).

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (3 of 3) -- Democrats Threaten to Abandon Obama on Health Law Provision

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (3 of 3) -- Democrats Threaten to Abandon Obama on Health Law Provision | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
Congressional Democrats are increasingly expressing support for allowing Americans to retain the insurance coverage they are losing because of the Affordable Care Act.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Enrollment is low for the Affordable Healthcare and Demos are planning to ditch Obama. His top aides suggested cancellation but maybe Obama is saving face, he doesn't think the plan will dry up...oh but it might just will.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:56 PM

This article talks about the cons of Obamacare, the website that doesn't work that well is the main concern. I think that this doesnt necessarily mean they need to change the law. I do like however the idea of allowing Americans to keep their current insurance. They've been trying to get Obamacare running but it just isn't working.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 10:53 PM

This article talks about how Obamacare is doing lots of things it said it wouldn't, like getting rid of American's insurance coverage when the president said they would keep it. Democrats and republican's are agreeing with each other on not making american's keep the obamacare.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 10:30 PM
This article talks about how some democrats have been threatening to abandon Obama on Health Law Provision. It says that the Democrats in congress have been more supportive of the idea that Americans should be allowed to keep the insurance coverage they are losing because of the Affordable Care Act after Obama already stated that they could keep their existing insurance. Obama is just digging himself a deeper hole.
Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 3rd or 4 -- Pastor loses bus driving job for praying with students

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 3rd or 4 -- Pastor loses bus driving job for praying with students | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
A bus driver for the Burnsville school district was fired last week for leading kids in Christian prayers on his bus, even after he was warned to stop — a move he considers a violation of his freedom of speech...

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Did not say anything about the pastor forcing anything on the kids. However, as much as I oppose inhibition of rights to practice religions, this pastor could obviously not keep his intentions to himself.

more...
Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 10:36 PM

This article talks about a bus driver who lost his job because, even after a few warnings, he chose to pray to students on his bus. He believes that him getting fired violates the first amndment, right to religion. I can see his point on this, but I feel like if you're doing something like this is public and offending others then youre in face in a sense violating their right to religion, so it's a lose-lose situation, and he was bound to lose his job.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 10:43 PM

I think that although i am a christian it  can be very uncomfortable when people get a religion forced  on them. Praying on a public school bus can probably be uncomfortable for some kids and although it was in good intentions it is probably not the best. It's good for people to share their religion but on their own time not during school. If it were a private christian school then that would be completely acceptable. 

Ashley O.'s curator insight, March 7, 9:45 PM

That is unfair, he has every right to express his faith, just like those who are not religious and express their personal views. 

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 2nd or 4 -- Supreme Court hears argument on prayer at government meetings [UPDATE]

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 2nd or 4 -- Supreme Court hears argument on prayer at government meetings [UPDATE] | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument Wednesday on the constitutionality of opening government meetings with prayer, but the justices seemed unsure how to rule.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

I can't understand this government's "endorsement of religion". Does the free excercise clause only pertain to prohibition of enacting a single religion? Does it exclude the right to be proud of having a religion? Would it be distasteful if a teacher wear a rosary? As long as a religion is not enforced upon the unsastisfied individual, then let the government and its civil servants be humans with religions (practice as they so choose to).

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:38 PM

This article talks about the argument of having a prayer at the beginning of a government meeting. It is very difficult to make a decision because it has been a tradition but it also is against the consitution. There should be silent prayer but never prayers that promote or demote a certain religion.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:45 PM

The case won't be settled anytime soon due to that covers  controversial issues between the First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and speech, and the separation of church and state. It will be interesting to see where Anthony Kennedy's vote goes toward on this case.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 1:29 PM

This article talks about prayers being said in a court room. I don't see why this is such a controversy, let people be and pray if they want to. Yes I get the separation of church and state thing, but this really doesnt affect the "state".

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (1 or 4 total) -- Did A Supreme Court Justice Just Admit To Being An Atheist?

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (1 or 4 total) -- Did A Supreme Court Justice Just Admit To Being An Atheist? | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case about the constitutionality of a New York town's practice of beginning local legislative meetings with mostly Christian prayers.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

I can see how this irritates people but not enough to ....offend them. Seriously? Who cares if people are praying, "beginning legislative meetings with Christian prayers" is a practice done by Christians (if they're so fervent, FOR CHRISTIANS. If you are not a part of that group, then shut them out and look bored. 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion, so are judges and politicans not the people? Getting upset over such trivial matter, beliefs inherent in a faith BELIEVED by THE PEOPLE --is in itself a discrimination. I refuse to pity those that feel "outcasted", if you're so bold on nonconforming, you're expected to be 'strong' when people practice their religions. Not weak and complaining all the time.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 9:06 PM

This article talks about how Justice Breyer might be atheist. I don't think that it is a big deal whether he is or not.  I think that people shouldn't judge someone on their religious affiliations. We believe in the separation of church and the state so it is perfectly fine to have an atheist justice. It might actually benefit the Supreme Court because it will give us another view at cases. 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 1:02 PM

This article talks about Justice Breyer and how he admitted to being an atheist. I don't really think that this should be of much importance, even as a christian myself, because our nation is based on separtion or church and state, right? If a justice chooses to be an atheist, then let them.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 11:12 PM

I think that the supreme court has made it a point to be very neutral when it comes to religion topics and that in public situations no religions should be favored. But all of the supreme court members have always been religious so it is interesting that he may be athiest and it would be interesting to see how the country would perceive that. 

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (3 or 4 total) -- Video: 'This Week': Rick Perry in Iowa

ABC's Jeff Zeleny goes one-on-one with Gov. Rick Perry on his first trip to Iowa since 2012.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

With one year left in office, Perry is planning on running for the 2016 Election as is predicted in his trip to Iowa.

more...
james adair's curator insight, December 18, 2013 11:16 PM

This video really gives the veiwer an idea of what Rick Perry is really like. Hopefully, Rick is successful as govenor this year.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:33 PM

This video is a discussion with Rick Perry, talking about issues like Obamacare. He is very bold and is not very afraid to say that he is against the act. He obviously is unhappy with the current situation in the White House, and wants to make a change in 2016 by running for the presidency himself. I am interested to see how the 2016 election turns out for him.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 8:28 PM

This video talks about Rick Perry and his plans to run for president in 2016, Perry discusses his views on Ted Cruz and his agreements/disagreements with this tactics. He also says that Christie may not be a true conservative.

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (4 of 4 total)-- How Obama Blew the Entire Last Year (Be sure to include the graphic in your analysis!)

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (4 of 4 total)-- How Obama Blew the Entire Last Year (Be sure to include the graphic in your analysis!) | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
In the 12 months since his reelection, the president has achieved far less than he expected and suffered one mishap after another.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Kind of a biased article. Catalogued how Obama managed to screw up his second term by promising to have more actions and less talk (as they've always done) but he ended up swallowing his words. Wasting huge national sums on....gun control (because a crazy dude killed 20 elementary kids)...really how hard is gun control that you have to spend so much on it. In his second reelection, he stated that he wanted to focus more on immigration laws. Wait, I haven't heard anything significant about such matters. Ah well, I guess he's trying to save the economy. No, not happening either, because he came up with a very smart plan, the National Healthcare (no really, its a very merciful plan but it needs MORE planning yeah?) and that basically screw up another large chunk of dough. Oh boy, I guess he still has his Congress to help him out. NOPE they're full of Republican babies. Then Obama wanted to help out with Syria, asking Putin to withdraw their rejection but Snowden is stuck in Russia, revealing unwanted, embarassing government documents. Obama is at a standstill.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:31 PM

This article talks about the unfortunate events that has seem to be defining Obama’s second term. The government shutdown, Snowden’s unveiling of NSA spying, and the disapproval of his Obamacare are all events that he has little control over but he has to deal with. Unfortunately, presidents are blamed for the misfortunes that happen during their presidency. These misfortunes are decreasing Obama’s presidential approval ratings. On the bright side, Obama has a couple more years to salvage his approval ratings.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 7:57 PM

This article talks about Obama's struggles as president throughout both terms, and his struggle with dealing with the republicans. At the moment, our presidents approval ratings are at their lowest because it seems as though Obama's getting nothing done in office. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 8:09 PM
I think that Obama was not expecting all these setbacks. He set high goals for himself and he was determined to carry them out. Things have not gone as planned for Obama and his polls have gone down. In the video the guy said "the obamacare website is one month old and still like all one month old it is still shitting its pants" so that speaks for itself and how obama is doing.
Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY Friday, 11/8 --ONLY ONE Scoop -- Nate Silver on 'This Week' (See the instructions for your Scoop)

ESPN's Nate Silver, the roundtable analyze the political picture for the 2014 election.


Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Congressional approval rating is down to 12% approved due to the Repubs' demand for a shutdown and the Demos' disorganized healthcare bill. Guesses for the coming House election has Demos and Repubs on an equal stand, Demos leading by only 8%. Who's to say states are getting ready to shift colors. 8% is nothing to give the wins to Demos. The healthcare bill doesn't seem to work itself out anytime soon, and as laid offs increase, the anger for govt shutdown decreases over time. I don't see any faction in the lead, the 48 to 40 percent will equal out quite soon.

more...
Samuel Garcia's curator insight, December 19, 2013 3:21 PM

I feel like they have a good point with comic political shows having a lot of leeway. Althought they're only jokes, they're also being stored subconsciously in peoples' minds when they make desicions or judgments. For example, a simple joke becomes a stereotype (gun-toting Republicans, insanely liberal Democrats) and it just puts people in a bad stance, especially for those upcoming elections.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:29 PM

This video discussed the chances of Republicans or Democrats winning the House in the upcoming midterm elections. Many of the issues that seem to be swaying voters one way or another are social issues, so if they want to win, they need to choose the social issues that appeal to the largest amount of voters.. Voters want to vote for a candidate that they think is most like themselves. 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 7:18 PM

This video talks about how Nate Silver predicted 2012's election outcome. Later the midterm election is talked about. Apparently the rating fot democrats and republicans are low because of  the government shut down and problems with  Obamacare.It's evedently clear that the minority opinion is becoming stonger and stronger.

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Tale Of The Tape: Comparing The Budget Committee Heads

BY 11/3 -- Tale Of The Tape: Comparing The Budget Committee Heads | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray are likely to at least set a friendly tone during budget talks.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Despite Ryan's and Murray's differences in budget planning, both are trying to work it out and have a more friendly discussion. Both have amazing stats and well developed plans but they are loyal to their parties and that is an issue in trying to get things done.

 

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:25 PM

This article compares the leaders of the House and Senate Buget Committees. It is very good to know that two people who disagree about policy issues can still get along; which is very difficult to find nowadays. In Congress nowadays, this seems to be very rare. However, this does not mean it will be easy to compromise about the budget since the two parties they represent might not be willing. Many members of Congress should look at their example and learn from it.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 3:36 PM

This article talks about Paul Ryan and Patty Murray's  different approaches of handling the budget issue. They both each have their own style which approaching the decisions, and different plans as to how to solve the issue.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 11:42 PM

Both Paul Ryan and Patty Murray are extremely different I think it should be interesting to see how they will work together it says they both come from similar backgrounds. When Paul was 16 his father passed away and when Murray was in her teens her dad developed an illness and her mom found a job and they lived off of welfare so they are both raised with common backgrounds but their ideologies now are extremely different so it should be interesting to see how they work together. 

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Secession Movement

BY 11/3 -- Secession Movement | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
Residents of rural areas feel shut out of their states' politics, so why not create their own?

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Even after the civil war, idiots are still talking about the need to secede from the union. As impossible as that sounds, it has been a recurring topic for decades. Big states with small populations feel their voices have not been heard by the government as cities gets the presidential campaigns and government monitoring. Instead of protesting or trying to increase their low popularity like normal Americans, they chose to make themselves noticeable with threats of secession.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:12 PM

This article talks about citizens, counties, and groups in general in certain states claiming that they want to secede from their state and make a new one. The main group that seems to have a problem is the Republicans living in a Democratic region. For example in Colorado, a vote is going tobe held for secession. I  think that if people have problems with beliefs and the way things work in a certain state, that they should leave. You cant change the whole state to meet all of your standards.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 3:29 PM

The article says that many counties's rural residents  are feeling the need secede and create a new state. Northern counties want to create their own state because they don't agree with the rest of colorado. While the creation of a new state seems a bit extreme, I feel like these residents need to be better represented to avoid ideas like secession. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 8:00 PM
I think this is simple if you don't like where you live move. It would be completely outrageous to secede and create another state let alone new gvt. The economy would fail and it would be a mess.
Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- It’s Not Just Political Districts. Our News Is Gerrymandered, Too.

The government shutdown reflects a political system that reinforces extremism. The news media system isn’t much different lately.

Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

The gerrymandering of districts are not our greatest concerns since we polarize our views more than the government secretly make us seem like we do. The media is one to persuade us and we tend to not challenge it. The bias nature of humans will accept what is there and the media will leech off of this vulnerableness, adapting to our likes and dislikes, providing us with informations that will bend to our inclinations. We implement selective reading on complex matters to oversimplify it, we are choosy over things we cannot understand and it's a great humiliation to have the government take avantage of this..

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 5:54 PM

Gerrymandering is the inherently unfair and immoral practice of politicians of reshaping political district so as to give a particular political party the upper hand. According to this article, news media is engaged in the same unfair practices. News is altered and changed to fir the interests of a certain political leaning. Media outlets choose what images and stories to share with the public so as to shape public opinion to fit its own cause. This is an age-old practice, with most people believing that media outlets are generally liberally slanted. 

Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 5:03 PM

The article states how the media is bias much like a gerrymandered district. The media outlets portray different idoelogies and thus, they provide totally different point of views. Having these different media outlets gives  people different sides of different stories and to an extent, it is good to have different sides because it makes people more aware of who is spilling the facts or spreading just pure bullshit, much like Fox News delivers their broadcast every night.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:27 PM

I think that this article is very accurate. People may think they are branching out or exploring new horizons when they search the web and read the news. Search engines actually change and might guide us to only articles of certain viewpoints.  In essence, people don't receive the wide scope of information they think they are receiving because the information we intake is often filtered to fit our needs. 

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 -- 32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown

BY 10/15 -- 32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it
Meet the House conservative hardliners.

 

Rescoop, read, include a list of those from Texas

 


Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

Speaker John Boehner is uneasy on the thoughts of government shutdown but the Republicans are refusing to budge. They would not stand the passage of ObamaCare and the Republican Conservatives demand a few days of withdrawal. To be sure, after this is a debacle among the people who will take this into their own hands and respond to the childish government by voting yes on ObamaCare which I feel should be fine with revisions. We are sure to pay higher taxes and experience loss of employments for a couple of years but...free medical benefits are forever.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 6:16 PM

This article details a list of Congressional members responsible for this month's government shutdown. A shocking (or perhaps not so shocking) number of these legislators hailed from Texas- these include John Culberson, John Carter, Ted Cruz, and Louis Gohmery. Not at all shockingly, nearly all of those considered responsible for the shutdown are members of the Republican party. Nominally, these "hardliners" ars fighting against an unjust law, but fail to consider those whose lives they ruin with their ideological struggle. 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:01 PM

The small group of 32 Republicans shut down the government, refusing to support any resolution to fund the government that didn't defund Obamacare. Also, the article lists the 32 Republicans and quotes them about the government shutdown. I think that the republicans should be a little more open-minded and more willing to compromise. Those from Texas are John Carter, Randy Neugebauer, John Culberson, Steve Stockman, Louie Gohmert, and Randy Weber. 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 1:17 PM

This article sheds light on the 32 conservatives who are blamed for the shutdown simply because they didn't support the funding of a government that didn't defund Obamacare. Instead of informing us about the actual crisis, they biasedly stick quotes from each conservative and place blame on Republicans for the shut down.

Rescooped by Nghi Bui from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Deadline (inactive during summer)
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government?

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? | Nghi's APGOPOLAR BEAR | Scoop.it

Video on msnbc.com: The age-old practice of politicians re-drawing Congressional districts to find friendly voters, or, gerrymandering, has allowed members of the House of Representatives from both sides of the aisle to stay in power regardless of...


Via Teresa Herrin
Nghi Bui's insight:

The first practice of corruptionally reddistricting originated from founding father Elbridge Gerry in 1812, when he attempted to win votes for his party. Because the shape of the district looked like a salamander, the term Gerrymandering was created. Districts from then on take on unsually shapes-distorted images for distorted representatives. The Democratic authority was suddenly switched to Republic power in the 20th century and although Republicans are famous for Gerrymandering, Democrats are also at fault. "Politicians choose their constituents more than their constituents choose them". It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court will eventually let cases like this slide when district shapes are beyond ordinary, it is obvious that Supreme Judges may also be bias in such matters.

 

more...
Mason Paul Lyman's curator insight, April 2, 9:41 PM

1. The House redraws the congressional districts every 10 years on the census in an attempr to make the districts lend their support to whoever the current party majority is.

2. Gerrymandering allows incumbents to get reelected multiple times. 

3. Have a computerized, neutral program that would create districts based on geography and demography. A program such as this would make it more difficult for incumbents to get reelected.

4. Yes, there are. One party could earn more votes than another but still lose the election.

5. No because it is an unhonorable way to earn the respective benefits.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 12, 2:09 PM

gerymandering is the act of redrawing a district and its has gotten its name from Albridge Garry who redrew a district in the beginning of our country in order for him to win a vote. The redrawing of the districts almost guarantees a win in voting because it allows the politicians to choose their voters. In the video, suggested possible solutions to gerrymandering would be to redraw district lines according to geography, demographics, and population density but it would cause a disruption in the current system and would make it very difficult for a representative to be reelected to a district that doesn't have the same advantages. Gerrymandering can be compared to the electoral college because these systems don't work in the favor of the public, or the majority vote because with the representatives picking the districts containing people they know will vote for them along with the electoral college being able to override the public vote, it has caused question in the democratic system of the United States.

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 17, 9:47 PM

The term gerrymandering comes from an 1810 law that was created by Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, which repositioned and defined congressional districts based on population changes. After the law was passed, newspaper articles came out with pictures of the re-drawn districts in concerning shapes, such as a salamander. They linked the two words “salamander” and “Gerry” and called it gerrymandering. As time has gone on, gerrymandering has been manipulated by both the Republican and Democratic parties by them re-drawing districts specifically to change the possible outcome of their “political cartoon” if you will. House seats are being re-apportioned every presidential election year. The video suggested that these means of politics have made it so that “the politicians are choosing their voters, rather than the voters choosing their politicians”. This is causing major distrust in candidates and decrease in voter participation. Gerrymandering has been beneficial to incumbents because they change their districts to work in favor of their election. Both the Electoral College and gerrymandering can be seen as unfair or corrupt government practices because they can sometimes both not accurately depict the peoples' votes by changing their districts. With the Electoral College, they could win a majority of the electoral votes, but not the majority vote. With gerrymandering, a politician would be elected just because of the re-drawn, manipulated districts, which is ridiculous.