Problem: OPTIONS:
- two months
- not enough information
- a week
- a month
Q: The Texas church where a gunman opened fire during Sunday services, killing 26 and injuring 20, may not reopen. Pastor Frank Pomeroy of the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs told leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention earlier this week that it would be too painful to continue using the church as a place of worship. Pomeroy, who lost his own 14-year-old daughter in the massacre, proposed turning the site into a memorial and building another church on a different site. The final decision on the fate of the building will be made by the denomination's top leaders, who traveled to the rural community in a show of support. But a national Southern Baptist spokesman said the pastor's wishes will be taken into consideration. Other sites of mass shootings have been torn down, including Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, where a gunman killed 20 children and six adults in December 2012. A new school was built elsewhere. A one-room Amish schoolhouse near Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was torn down in 2006, 10 days after an assailant took children hostage and shot and killed five girls ages 6 to 13. The original site of the school is now a pasture. A nearly identical schoolhouse with a security fence was erected nearby. Also Thursday, the father of the Texas gunman broke his silence to say his family is in mourning. Michael Kelley spoke to ABC News on Wednesday from his home in New Braunfels, about 55 kilometers north of Sutherland Springs. He refused to comment further, saying he does not want the "media circus'' surrounding the attack by Devin Patrick Kelley to destroy "our lives, our grandchildren's lives.'' A motive for the carnage remains unclear, but the younger Kelley appears to have targeted the church because it was attended by his wife's family. He died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound after being shot and chased by two residents as he was leaving the church. Question: How long did it take the southern baptists to make a decision? === The answer to the above question is
Answer: a month
Problem: OPTIONS:
- Commen sections shouls not be placed under blog posts
- Comment sections should always remain disabled
- not enough information
- Comment sections should always remain open
Q: Every so often I see a scenario play out that I find rather disappointing. It works like this: someone posts a topic to their blog that is critical or controversial. This person can either be a community member, commentator, employee or otherwise; it doesn't matter who the person is. Then what happens is a series of comments are posted to that blog entry from readers that are critical of the post, thus challenging the author on their views. The author then either deletes the blog entry or disables the comments based on the feedback. In other words, a viewpoint is shared, an invitation for comment is provided, but that invitation is then revoked when the author of the blog post is dissatisfied with the response from their readers. I have seen this happen countless times over the years and I don't like this. I believe we should all be accountable for our words. Our words have the ability to inspire, to entertain, to challenge, but to also hurt. Actions have consequences, and so do words. As such, when I see someone openly share their thoughts on their blog and invite their readers to provide comments, I see that as a wonderful demonstration of accountability and engagement; debate is a beautiful thing when executed with politeness and respect. To then close that door, seemingly because people disagree with you, is in my mind the equivalent of walking out of a room in the middle of a debate. The excuse when folks are criticized of this behavior is typically "it is my blog and I can run it how I like". This is true: it is your blog, and you can run it how you like, but the true measure of a person is not just in what they say, but also in the conversation and discourse that follows. Question: The author believes that: === The answer to the above question is
Answer: Comment sections should always remain open
Problem: OPTIONS:
- Because the immigration bill did not make it to floor
- Because it was named the Goodlatte Bill
- not enough information
- Because it was too expensive
Q: Renegade Republicans who are trying to force a vote on immigration reform in the House of Representatives survived an attempt by leaders of their party to block their efforts. The renegades, a group of moderate Republicans, are five signatures short of the 25 needed to bypass leadership and force floor votes on several immigration proposals through a rare procedural tactic known as a discharge petition. Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, has described the discharge petition as "futile" because it lacks any guarantee that a bill would become law in the face of a threatened presidential veto. But it was House conservatives who defeated the $867 million farm bill Friday when their own move to get an immigration bill to the House floor failed. The House Freedom Caucus a conservative voting bloc in the U.S. House had offered to vote for the farm bill in exchange for a promise that one immigration bill would be brought up for a vote. The hope was that the offer would be enough to keep some Republican House members from signing the discharge petition. The immigration bill, known as the Goodlatte Bill, is a conservative approach to immigration that would provide legal status to undocumented young people brought to the U.S. as children in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but only in addition to changes in the U.S. legal immigration system. The Goodlatte Bill is opposed by many moderate Republicans. For them, the deal offered an opportunity to negotiate on legislation that might win the support of President Donald Trump and resolve the status of DACA recipients. The deal fell through, and the farm bill failed to pass by a 193-213 vote Friday. "It's not a fatal blow it's just a reorganize," House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows told reporters shortly after the vote, "At this point, we really need to deal with immigration in an effective way." Meadows said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy negotiated in good faith on the immigration issue, but would not elaborate on why a deal was elusive. Question: Why was the Farm bill rejected? === The answer to the above question is
Answer:
Because the immigration bill did not make it to floor