Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged Kindness

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Mallory Huggins

Hobby Lobby: The First Martyr Under Obamacare? - 0 views

blog.christianitytoday.com/...st-martyr-under-obamacare.html

shared by Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    Someone posted this, but it wasn't possible to comment
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    First point: I fail to see how denying a single cell the chance to go through mitosis is abortion. It's no more aware than bacteria. Also, the author is referencing the morning-after pill. For some reason there's a lot of confusion about how the morning after pill actually works. It prevents the egg from joining the sperm, or depending on where the woman is in her cycle, prevents the ovaries from releasing eggs. Contrary to what pro-life proponents apparently believe, conception does not happen immediately after having sex. If using the morning-after pill is abortion, we may as well call abstinence abortion. Secondly, "the mandate requires private citizens who are also employers to purchase private goods (health insurance services) with private money from non-government companies." This is clearly written by a sensationalist. What it really means is that a company has to use its own money to provide healthcare. (And everyone seems to be forgetting that employees don't just receive healthcare plans for free). There is a difference between being a private citizen and being an employer. Owning a public company and employing people is about as far from private as you can get. "Requiring private citizens to pay for abortifacients is more akin to requiring the Amish to use their own money to purchase weapons from a private gun dealer or be forced into bankruptcy. Or kind of like forcing anti-pornography legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon to buy pornography for her law students." This is simply ludicrous and shows that the author clearly doesn't understand what a business is. It's a corporation, it employees people, it isn't a private citizen. I will admit that if Hobby Lobby employed only people who were in complete agreement with the beliefs of the owners I would support them in their case. However, the reality is that many of Hobby Lobby's employees don't share the exact same beliefs as the owner. And it would in fact be illegal for Hobby Lobby to choose their employ
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    ees because of their beliefs. And the last time I checked, in America we don't make people follow certain religions or beliefs. In fact, the law isn't supposed to be based in religion. I know it sounds shocking, but it actually isn't okay to force a religion on people, or to make everyone live in accordance with one belief system, which is exactly what Hobby Lobby, and everyone who argues against this provision in the new health care law, is trying to do. Lastly, the author says repeatedly that this law essentially discriminates against Christians, which is a complete lie. Christians is a broad term. There are Christians who believe in all kinds of birth control and then there are those who think all birth control should be outlawed. There are even Christians who get abortions. So, and this is a message to anyone who writes articles of this kind, stop saying just saying Christians. Tell the truth and call yourself a Fundamentalist. Saying Christians make it seem like the majority of people who believe in Jesus Christ agree with you, and they don't. You're a minority, and you need to accept that. And maybe read a little about how our government works. It's a majority rules system.
mya_doty

90-year-old Florida man charged for feeding homeless people - 28 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by mya_doty on 05 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • mya_doty on 05 Nov 14
     
    (CNN) -- Arnold Abbott handed out four plates of food to homeless people in a South Florida park. Then police stopped the 90-year-old from serving up another bite. "An officer said, 'Drop that plate right now -- like I had a weapon,'" Abbott said.
  • ...24 more comments...
  • efigueroa871 on 05 Nov 14
     
    Whats wrong with that.
  • michaelaheilesen on 10 Nov 14
     
    I think that's awful and definitely shouldn't be against the law. Providing the homeless with a meal doesn't necessarily keep them on the street, rather them starving and not having any energy to even try to turn their lives around is.
  • jchristensen043 on 10 Nov 14
     
    Instead of it be against the law, they should be encouraging more people to feed them. If we just let them sit there and starve they will die, I would rather have homeless people living, then a bunch of dead bodies laying around the city. Maybe all they need to get the motivation to get up and get a job, is by other people showing that care about them, and want them to live a healthy a life.
  • amcclain946 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think this is absolutely ridiculous. How could the government of Fort Lauderdale be so ignorant and selfish? Granted, some people are homeless because they've made bad decisions to get to that point but some are homeless because they honestly can't help it. Who knows? But I think it should be okay for people to feed the homeless. It should be comforting knowing that people have caring hearts and are willing to give the less-unfortunate people food. I hope the banning of giving food to the homeless never becomes illegal in the state of Iowa because I have given homeless people food countless of times and I will not stop.
  • fwyldes753 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I don't think it should be against the law, its just help. Just because someone fed one person doesn't mean everyones going to go and be homeless.
  • pkleppe761 on 04 Dec 14
     
    Reading this story upsets me because no one should be charged for feeding the homeless. That is the same as arresting and charging a man/woman for donating to charity. I do believe that some people are homeless because they got themselves there from their life decisions and choices, however others have no other way out. For example, a veteran could be very ill after coming back home and maybe having PTSD and feel helpless and lost. They do not know where to go or who to ask for help. Helping the homeless lets them know that someone cares and wants to help, and I feel this act of kindness might just be the motivation they need to get themselves together and fix their life. This helps them know they are not alone. Florida is ridiculous for charging that man. Instead of it being a bad thing, let us encourage it.
  • djones036 on 04 Dec 14
     
    People should be able to help whoever they please. I think the man shouldn't get in trouble because he is helping them by giving them meals. This could also help them save money and eventually buy/ rent a house in the future.
  • kschwindt on 04 Dec 14
     
    Every town has some sort of poverty and not feeding the homeless isn't going to get rid of them.
  • matuszeski on 04 Dec 14
     
    Feeding the homeless should not be a crime. It is helping someone in need which is what citizens of a community should be doing is helping people in need and getting the back on there feet.
  • kquinlan591 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I don't believe that Abott should be arrested just because he was doing a good deed. I understand the views of the policeman and how they're just doing their job but it's not fair to Abott that he was just trying to be a good person. There is no reason why he should be arrested and think it's crazy that people are getting upset for helping the homeless. They should just leave him alone because it doesn't affect their lives in a big way.
  • bllandon on 04 Dec 14
     
    I do think that feeding them food -may- keep them in that cycle. MAY. I highly doubt it does though, because those homeless people probably have nowhere else to go at this point. And how are they suppose to "break" the cycle if they have nowhere to go? No job? If Florida isn't letting these people feed homeless people, then how about THEY do something about it rather than just giving everyone fines and acting without thinking.
  • John Scheffler on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think the city had made this a law in order to give the homeless an incentive to get a job. Which I personally believe is a terrible idea. No one likes living homeless, everyone needs a helping hand sometimes. I would think the officers of the city would have enough morals and ethics to not enforce this law. To be ignored and simply done away with in a few months. It's a sad day when helping becomes illegal.
  • jjohnson749 on 04 Dec 14
     
    i don't get why feeding the homeless is against the law, whats wrong with it? your helping a person maybe even saving their life.
  • malr2528 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think the law against public food sharing is ridiculous. These kind of rules don't encourage the homeless to start getting back on their feet. Yes, they rely on the food given to them but all the law is doing is pushing the homeless out of Fort Lauderdale, to other areas. Rather then enforcing this new law they should come up with program that provide the homeless with job training and experience so they can really start off productively on their own.
  • ravenmaine on 04 Dec 14
     
    To put it lightly the banning of public food sharing is a stupid, stupid law. Credit, however, to Seiler for saying, "Providing them with a meal and keeping them in that cycle on the street is not productive." He made a valid point, yes, but a homeless person is just the same as a person who owns four houses, they just don't have as much luxury. I think homeless shelters, or even what Arnold Abbot does, feeding the people in need on a beach, that's their luxury. How are you going to take away something like that, for most, it might keep them hopeful. It shouldn't be up to the law who we as people want to help.
  • justin988 on 04 Dec 14
     
    this is a joke, how can you not feed another human being??
  • mhart079 on 04 Dec 14
     
    To me this is not just and feeding the homeless isn't against the law. My assumption is that the cop had hard feelings against the homeless guy and was enforcing illegally.
  • Erin Wolff on 05 Dec 14
     
    I don't think that this should be an actual law, what's the harm in feeding the poorest of the poor people? Cops are cracking down way too hard on the wrong "laws". There are criminals out there killing people, dealing drugs, stealing, and we're giving them jail time with possible probation, but feeding a homeless man is a serious crime? Think again.
  • brooklynschroede on 05 Dec 14
     
    I think this is ridiculous. We give our police too much power. Feeding the homeless is not a crime and it never should be. We have soup kitchens and things for them. How is it any different? The cops are pretty much taking away our rights and telling us not to be nice? Totally wrong.
  • tcomulada881 on 05 Dec 14
     
    I think Abbott has a right to feed the homeless. They don't have anything so we don't just want them to die in the street for starvation that's inhumane. They're just homeless people that are trying to eat the police should have their attention on things that are more important crimes. Besides feeding homeless people isn't a crime.
  • chrislindqvist on 05 Dec 14
     
    This sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.
  • davyana on 09 Dec 14
     
    I don't understand what is so wrong with feeding the homeless. I'd do the same exact thing if I could. Police officers are suppose to protect and that means everyone, even the homeless. If a police officer became homeless, losing his job, house, family, etc. I'm sure his friends and past co-workers would feed him too. So what makes him any different than the "random homeless guy on the street." ? I don't think Abbott should get charged.
  • justin988 on 09 Dec 14
     
    his sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.
  • estuckey767 on 09 Dec 14
     
    I don't see what is wrong with feeding the homeless. These people are at the lowest point in their lives and need all the help they can get and they fact that the city just want's to look the other way while these people suffer and hope that they go away is heartbreaking. People should help the homeless, help them get back on track and get their lives in order not treat them like a rat. There are actually criminals that get to go free and an old man who was helping the homeless gets put in jail? That's ridiculous.
  • deanaroth on 10 Dec 14
     
    There is nothing wrong with feeding those who don't have food. But I also believe at some point these people should have done something to prevent themselves from getting to the point that they can't afford food. Everybody gets a chance to try to find a place where they can support themselves. But I also believe it is wrong to prevent someone from trying to help them along, all they are trying to do is make their lives a little bit easier. There is no reason this man should be put in jail, he has done no wrong.
  • jordan fichter on 12 Dec 14
     
    I don't see anything wrong with giving to the homeless, but instead of giving an giving I would try and get them a job or help them
ladasia

Family with epileptic son touched after stranger pays for dinner, sends kind note - 0 views

news.yahoo.com/family-epilepsy-131659087.html

news One Act of Random Kindness (ARK)

shared by ladasia on 04 Sep 13 - No Cached
  • ladasia on 04 Sep 13
     
    Stranger pays for family's dinner leaving kind note : "God only gives special children to special people."
Bryan Pregon

White House proposes arming teachers, backpedals on raising age to buy guns - CNNPolitics - 33 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Mar 18
     
    What are your thoughts on the gun control debate. It will be 1 month tomorrow that Parkland FL school shooter killed 17 and seriously wounded 17 others. Has the outrage become "yesterdays news"? How do the POLITICS of this issue make solutions difficult to reach?
  • ...26 more comments...
  • amberhatcher943 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I personally think that arming teacher would be a huge risk but yet could be a life-saving moment. Just think about it if a student would happen to go crazy in our school they would know that every teacher is armed with a gun so they'll do anything to get a gun from a teacher but yet if they tried anything a teacher could end up saving kids lives. I'm kind of in the middle. Also not selling guns to teenagers I mean that's crazy look what happened in Florida!!! I wouldn't want that to happen in our school. Checking their background and mental state I agree on, I just don't understand why this world and this generation needs to be holding guns to protect themselves I mean that's sad.
  • jess_townsend on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think that arming teachers would be a great idea, but schools shouldn't feel this unsafe. I believe that this outrage has kind of became yesterdays news the first couple of weeks there were a lot of controversy but has died down for the past 2 weeks. Solutions are hard to reach because not everyone agrees on one solution so whatever the government decides to do not everyone will be happy with the end result. I think that everyone should just be happy that the government is trying to solve this problem and they shouldn't freak out until they see a change.
  • taylorknickerson on 13 Mar 18
     
    I believe there needs to be more limitations to those that obtain guns. Guns have become an unnecessary evil that many have taken advantage of greatly. The outrage has not yet become "yesterday's news" because many are still fighting and protesting for more effective gun laws. Many survivors from the Parkland shooting are coming forward and sharing their stories about the actions that took place inside their school and how horrifying the event was. They are still coming forward and still fighting to show everyone what it is like from their perspective. The politics of this issue make solutions difficult to reach because they many times propose an idea to prevent conflict in the future, but they do not follow through with the potential idea.
  • ecundiff150 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think that even if we try to have teachers have guns in school it will be a major problem. I think some teachers will be against it and students will be scared to come to school knowing their teachers have guns. I think the only thing schools can do to prevent this from happening is better security like more officers at the schools. The Parkland shooting won't be yesterdays news because many people are affected by this.
  • klasale432 on 13 Mar 18
     
    Its very easy to get a gun. Guns should be legal just stricter tests and background checks.
  • noahlybarger on 13 Mar 18
     
    I feel that increasing the minimum age to buy firearms isn't really gonna make a change in what is happening because I feel that people are still going to find a way to get this firearm. i feel that politics are making this difficult because everyone has there own opinion on what to do and how it should be done. but this isn't something that should become "yesterday's news" we should be figuring out ways to make the school the safest it can be
  • valtodd on 13 Mar 18
     
    Honestly, I don't think we need teachers with guns, that is taking it a little too far, like that if they hit the wrong person or get angry at a kid and lose it and kill or injure a kid. I think we just need to have better protection in schools, and also we need to be aware of signs before things happen. Most times when there is a shooter they end up posting about it before it happens or will show signs that they might do it, and we just brush it off when we should be focused and do investigations if someone is on facebook bragging saying they are going to do it. We also need to have better plans for when a shooter does come, instead of sitting in a corner and hoping they don't come to you, we should figure out how to get out or something else instead of being sitting ducks.
  • angeljrsanchez on 13 Mar 18
     
    I don't really have a side that I'm 100% for I think no matter what happens there is always going to be someone who isn't happy which is going to lead to more conflicts.
  • ethansnead on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think there should be some way to check mental health before buying a gun and stronger background checks. Maybe arm a few teachers that are capable that way its almost as if you have another cop in the school. I belive they need to find a compromise to make everyone happy and stay safe.
  • madelineburns on 13 Mar 18
     
    I do think that students and their families shouldn't feel unsafe while going to school so I think that schools should either have more armed security or teachers should have guns. I do think this is kind of dying down and it isn't being talked about as much as it was 2 weeks ago.
  • rtanner112 on 13 Mar 18
     
    So... solve the problems of gun violence... with more guns? This is the White House's big plan. Because we have a Conservative cabinet, they do not support putting more restrictions on guns. This is why there is such a big debate. Others want more restrictions so this does not happen.
  • donavan772 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I believe that there are many causes of a school shooting and because there are so many aspects to it, it then becomes difficult to fix. Sure you can make the buying age older but, then they will resort to other weapons which would just put a band-aid on the problem. Maybe more security would work? In the Flordia school shooting, there was a police officer there, there was protection but, somehow it still happened. I 100% believe that something needs to be done but, it's going to need to be more than just 1 thing that changes.
  • jjuarez101 on 13 Mar 18
     
    Arming teachers is not a good idea, people who have witness school shootings do NOT want to see more guns in their school. Kids want to feel save in school.
  • magdafrancisco on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think we just need better protection in schools and we must also be aware of the signs before things happen.
  • desyredewberry on 13 Mar 18
     
    I agree with limiting the ability to have guns. the parkland shooting will never be yesterdays news, its important to know about it so there can be prevention from this happening again. There are way more shootings going on around the world everyday that not as big as the mass shooting, but to just know that people are getting shot back to back because of the unnecessary presents of guns, that frightening and shows that we need a change. I also think teachers should NOT have access to guns. People may think they have the ability to carry guns, and believe that they can be smart with them, but i disagree.
  • holson211 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think arming teacher would be a great idea, but like most people are commenting kids and teachers should not feel this unsafe in a school building. I think more security on schools is required to make teens and children safer. Yes, raising the gun purchase would help, but there is always still a way for people to get their hands on a weapon if they wanted to do harm to others. In the end, there are too many crazy and unsafe people out there and I think if they wanted to damage they could find a way I think the ultimate solutions are taking more precautions at schools.
  • kierawegner on 13 Mar 18
     
    I agree with Taylor Nickerson, guns should be more restricted since they have become more dangerous than they should be. Nobody should feel unsafe going to school, or anywhere really. You're supposed to feel safe at school, with others. Guns and weapons as deadly as these shouldn't be so accessible, or easy to get. They should have a higher age restriction and make sure that they're going to use them properly and not going to harm others.
  • taylormade33 on 13 Mar 18
     
    i think the government shoulf take care of these things before it get out of hand and people get hurt. to them it take people dying or having a tragic thing happens for them to take initiative to do something about it. for example like sucide theres no posters up right now it there but then a week later someone commitis and then thats what is covering the walls poster after poster about bullying can lead to death. sucied pervention. stop things early
  • gagenosekabel on 13 Mar 18
     
    I honestly think it would be a huge risk to arm teachers with guns but it could also be a good thing. The reason i think it would be bad is because i personally have been in a class where a teacher can't control themselves and freak out on students. Now if you armed teachers and they have a little "break down" they have easy access to and weapon and all those children in the class are in major danger. But there are positive things about arming teachers like if there was a person in the building trying to kill kids, the teacher could easily go and kill the shooter before he kills innocent kids. So there are good things and bad things about but i still don't know if i personally would feel safe knowing teachers have guns and easy access to them.
  • chirsj on 13 Mar 18
     
    i belive that what trump is saying "That we should arm teachers with gums and have them trained" evan if it's for the selfish reson of wanting to protect your self, is something good that could happen to all the schools in the US and it would stop school shooters a lot quicker
  • ailenncastillo on 13 Mar 18
     
    I believe that It could be a good or bad thing because student can fear going to school knowing teachers have them but it can also be good if someone is in the school and protect students.
  • danielcarson on 13 Mar 18
     
    I agree with Noah Lybarger with what he's saying that people will still find a way to get them. I personally believe that politics are making it hard because everyone has their own opinion and there are a lot of ideas on how to fix it, some that might work and some that won't, but they are completely different from each other. I feel they should raise the age and do a more thorough background check before the sale of firearms. Also a good idea to protect schools themselves is raising the security and maybe having more police officers around, making it a place where everyone feels safe. On the other side if it was made illegal to have a weapon, but just likes drugs and even all the way back to when alcohol was illegal, people that want to do harm like that they would find a gun somehow (just like people find drugs) would be able to find it and making it illegal to get a weapon would make the person that found one even more dangerous because people would be more defenseless than we are now.
  • anonymous on 13 Mar 18
     
    I do not believe that teachers should have guns because I think that that would just cause more problems and violence. I think that we need to add more restrictions for guns and I think we need to ban semi automatics to the public because there is no reason for it. I believe that honestly there would be more violence and deaths if teachers were to have firearms in school.
  • Connor McHood on 13 Mar 18
     
    I don't think that arming teachers would be a good idea, because I don't think there is a single teacher I have had that would have the willpower to shoot a person. Many school shootings are done by young people, and it would take a lot out of someone to shoot them, is this really what we want to do to our teachers?
  • marrissa_842 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I believe that teachers having guns isn't going to improve safety for a school by much. What happens when a kid doesn't listen in class so the teacher pulls the gun on the student threatening them? Or worse, what if a student got a hold of one of these guns? We need to add more restrictions to guns and when they can be solicited to you because getting a hold of weapons at the mere age of 19 only seems to more endangering. There would be so much less violence if there were more restrictions to guns.
  • nathan2000 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I believe that arming teachers with a gun,would be a good idea. Because that could make the school much safer.
  • Connor McHood on 14 Mar 18
     
    Marissa: I agree with the idea that there may be students who could get their hands on the firearm, and it is a point I hadn't thought of before.
  • Bryan Pregon on 27 Aug 18
qanderson136

The liberal Dr. Seuss probably would have thought 'cancel culture' was bunk - Chicago T... - 25 views

www.chicagotribune.com/...sebcxhnjhhgrhajwmtq-story.html

shared by qanderson136 on 08 Mar 21 - No Cached
qanderson136 liked it
  • qanderson136 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I think that the Dr. Seuss banning in schools was uncalled for because the pictures in his books from the 1950s were just the way it was back then and I do not believe he went out to be racist. Does anyone else have any opinions?
  • ...16 more comments...
  • gbrochu915 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I do not think that they should be banning Dr. Seuss in schools and I do not think that he came out to be racist with his books. when he started wringing that was how people did and things were back then and today's society is so sensitive to everything. so many kids grew reading his books that I just think it is wrong.
  • lhunter952 on 08 Mar 21
     
    Dr. Suess being canceled is just going too far. He wrote children's books in the 1950s, back then things like pictures in a children's book were not viewed as something that could be racist and I believe that that is not what he intended at all. These books were made for the entertainment of children.
  • laceyperry067 on 09 Mar 21
     
    I don't feel Dr. Seuss books were published to spread hate on certain races. I could be wrong but if it was, they would be canceled far before now. I think these books should not be banned due to the fact, if they were racist, we could learn from the past. We all know the 1950s had minstrel shows which promoted things such as black face. We do not ban those videos or other past history evidence because we learn from those things. It's all history and we can not change what happened. All we can do is learn to be better.
  • nadialove on 09 Mar 21
     
    I agree with laceyperry067 I don't believe that there was ill intent behind the books it was just what was "acceptable" at the time. I don't think it would be right the erase the work of a good writer, but as a person of color we should neither condone nor promote those kinds of images in children's books. Books like this, with dated ideas, should be handled differently in order to teach right from wrong. We have to learn from the ugly truth in order to grow and move past it.
  • redrose99875 on 09 Mar 21
     
    I think it's utterly ridiculous that they're banning his books! Maybe he was racist, maybe he wasn't. But he wouldn't put that kind of thing in a children's book!
  • sydneykolln on 13 Mar 21
     
    I grew up reading Dr. Seuss books and enjoyed reading them. It's insane to think that they are now being canceled. Granted, I feel like all we can do is move past this and learn from it. However, I do not think that erasing his literature is a good idea.
  • zeaksorensen on 15 Mar 21
     
    it feels strange that they are not going to be sold
  • brandonwch on 15 Mar 21
     
    A few things. First off, as a response to Zeak as far as my knowledge is concerned, the books are still going to be sold. (Unless a business decides not to sell them.) What's happened is that they aren't going to be printed anymore, new copies aren't going to be made. Second, as a general thing does everyone actually know the books that aren't being printed? None of them are particularly famous, except for maybe "And to Think that I saw it on Mulberry Street." As well, it's not some outside force making the Seuss estate stop publishing these books, they willingly decided to do so. No-one is being "Cancelled," here. As well, it's things like this (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/03/05/books/03DRSEUSS5/merlin_184489674_86a1b9c7-d76d-45d0-b52c-0976d003a730-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg) (https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/If-I-Ran-the-Zoo.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=400) that are the reasons the books are being pulled from shelves, which have fairly racist and stereotyped depictions of Chinese people.
  • mcaamal on 15 Mar 21
     
    I do not think that if dr seuss was that liberal he wouldn't have intentionally tried to portray them badly, i feel like a lot of people are taking a lot of things to far they just try to nick pick everything out to find something wrong with someone and come after to just to great drama.
  • nick_rice on 22 Mar 21
     
    I do not think that his books should be banned because his books were more of its time. The books were for children to read and enjoy not for them to read and be racist.
  • allisonwalker on 22 Mar 21
     
    I don't think that we should cancel Dr.Suess. His books were fine before and then suddenly everyone hates them? If you are offended by his books for some reason, then just don't read them, it's as simple as that. You shouldn't go as far as banning them.
  • joeypo10 on 22 Mar 21
     
    I think its weird to stop producing a kids picture book because kids really don't take books that deeply. Plus at such a young age the kids don't understand much of today's society so it makes no sense to stop producing books that were made in the 50's.
  • hannahliwai on 29 Mar 21
     
    i think cancel culture is absurd. yes, there are offensive things everywhere, but cancelling them won't rid the world of it. i think it's good that people are recognizing certain things as... insulting, but banning childrens' books?
  • samhovey on 29 Mar 21
     
    Children are very impressionable at a young age, and supplying them with books with such messages may put racial stereotypes into their heads.
  • eballenger on 29 Mar 21
     
    I read these books as a kid and it didn't influence me to believe stereotypes, I just read them for fun like a little kid would and it had no effect on my future.
  • tkoesters274 on 25 May 21
     
    I think that children shouldn't be reading things that may affect their opinions on people, which I understand how these books potentially could. However, I was not negatively affected by any of these books and can also see how people may just see them as children's books. I see other people commenting about how things were different in the 1950s and that is why it should be allowed, but things are different now. We don't need racist children's books from the past, and if that's Dr. Suess then I feel like he was banned for a good reason.
  • hschimmer540 on 25 May 21
     
    When I was a kid I used to love Dr. Seuss's books and as a kid, you don't think about the so-called "racist" part of the books kids just see bright colors and fun characters. I think canceling Dr. Seuss's books was uncalled for and kind of ridiculous.
  • bigslide on 25 May 21
     
    I actually don't really care. The books that they removed were like 5.
Bryan Pregon

In light of UNMC study, teachers' union wants PCR tests in all schools - 7 views

www.wowt.com/...wants-pcr-tests-in-all-schools

shared by Bryan Pregon on 23 Apr 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 23 Apr 21
     
    "after a first-of-its-kind study by UNMC and Omaha Public Schools found infection rates were six times higher in students than what was being reported in the community."
  • ...5 more comments...
  • milo_nordman on 23 Apr 21
     
    I think it's crazy just how large the rates actually were compared to what was being reported. My mom is a teacher in Omaha, so it makes me kind of worried that the rates are that high. I definitely think that they should be working on adding more protection for students and staff.
  • arosas733 on 26 Apr 21
     
    I think it's good they are going through these measures to protect students and its crazy how high the rates are and something should be done about it
  • jackiegonzalez on 03 May 21
     
    I'm glad that schools are pushing for more testing. I think that students who are asymptomatic are more likely to think they are immune to Covid-19 and start disobeying Covid-19 safety measures. It's problematic because these students can spread Covid-19 to someone who will truly suffer from it. So, more testing is a good way to prevent this from happening.
  • jdogan on 05 May 21
     
    A lack of testing always gives the illusion that things are better than they are, so it's good that they got this done and found out these numbers because I think it's very important to realize this number especially since it was six times what was previously observed.
  • hannahliwai on 10 May 21
     
    it's good that they want to test kids more regularly. some kids will just brush it off and say "it's a cold". this way, the kids who are tested pos. won't be affecting others as well as the asymptomatic students.
  • peytongrenoble on 18 May 21
     
    It is smart to be continuously testing students to know how the spread is going and in order to make sure that the students are being properly taken care of to prevent future cases.
  • sydneykolln on 21 May 21
     
    It's a good idea that schools are wanting to do more testing. It's crazy how these rates are getting and it's better that we do something about it now.
Bryan Pregon

Amanda Gorman's inauguration poem, 'The Hill We Climb' - The Washington Post - 17 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...man-poet-laureate-inauguration

shared by Bryan Pregon on 27 Jan 21 - No Cached
gbrochu915 liked it
  • Bryan Pregon on 27 Jan 21
     
    This was the best speech from the inauguration 2021. Now she's hinting at a run for President. 2036 is right around the corner ?!?
  • ...8 more comments...
  • saraivargas on 27 Jan 21
     
    The speech was well thought out and very well written. I think it's interesting how inspiring she's been to people due to the speech.
  • zoedeveney on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think her speech was amazing. I never really listen to those kinds of things or pay attention, but I'm glad I did. However, I'm not sure going from giving a speech, to being president is very realistic. More power to her though for thinking ahead like 15 years.
  • sydneykolln on 27 Jan 21
     
    I was lucky enough to be able to watch the inauguration in my classes. I was enthralled by Amanda Gorman's speech. I feel like her words were well said and represented Americans of all ages and backgrounds. I believe that her speech has influenced younger generations to have a voice. While she has quite a ways to go, I do believe that she could be president someday.
  • jtaulborg103 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think her speech can reach all different people of different race, gender, etc. I think she can talk to different generations, especially the younger ones who one day will be the voices of our society. I think it was well thought out and a very good speech.
  • milo_nordman on 28 Jan 21
     
    I thought her speech was amazing. I like how she worked to make sure it could reach all kinds of people. I also thought it was really inspiring reading about her speech impediment and how she didn't let it prevent her from writing and performing her poems.
  • jackiegonzalez on 01 Feb 21
     
    Amanda's poem was amazing. Her words were so inspirational. I think Americans needed to hear something about hope, especially after last year's crazy events. And I'm sure that if she was able to overcome her speech impediment to speak in front of so many people, she can do anything she sets her mind to, even becoming a future president. I can't wait to see what other things she achieves!
  • arosas733 on 01 Feb 21
     
    I think that she had a really good speech. I liked the way she would word things and reached all different kinds of people. It was a very inspirational speech and i feel like she has a good future in front of her.
  • alyne47 on 01 Feb 21
     
    I understand how unique this poem is and how well it is said and written, but honestly after listening and understand each individual sentence and word ( including definitions of words ) it just sounds like what other people have been saying for the past 365 days without the high-level words. She talks about how much America is broken after everything that happened in 2020, how many steps we need to take so everything is not back to the way it was before, but where we want it to be and where we want it to go. Congrats to her by all means, but hearing the same things being said over and over again just makes her poem less impactful. Of course, these problems need solving but most people just the problem not how to fix them.
  • jledesma397 on 01 Feb 21
     
    Her speech was very inspirational. The way she read it was really good
  • redrose99875 on 01 Feb 21
     
    I could hardly tell that Amanda had a speech impediment! She delivered her speech so well
Cara Ireland

5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister - 3 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Cara Ireland on 02 May 13 - No Cached
  • Cara Ireland on 02 May 13
     
    (CNN) -- A Kentucky mother stepped outside of her home just for a few minutes, but it was long enough for her 5-year-old son to accidentally shoot his 2-year-old sister with the .22-caliber rifle he got for his birthday, state officials said.
  • ...18 more comments...
  • Austin Parrott on 10 May 13
     
    Im stuck on why the 5 year old got a gun and was able to get to it easily
  • olinde on 10 May 13
     
    why would you even have guns in your house to where a little kid could be able to get a hold of the gun and shoot his little sister.
  • Victoria Kirk on 28 Aug 13
     
    The mother should be the one being punished for this accident.
  • Zach Standard on 29 Aug 13
     
    Who leaves a gun out in the direct access of children?
  • Sara Borgaila on 29 Aug 13
     
    I agree that this was an accident but the article also says the 5 year old boy was playing with it. 5 year old's are smart enough to know/ be taught not to play with guns. They obviously didn't know enough to keep a gun out of a 5 year old's reach.
  • spencer schmitz on 29 Aug 13
     
    why whould a gun be out any way let alone in reach of a child....
  • Sara Dunn on 29 Aug 13
     
    If you give a 5 year old child a gun for his birthday and leave it in reach for him to get a hold of it, it is the parents fault that this happened.
  • Hayli Erickson on 29 Aug 13
     
    Why would you give your 5-year old son a .22-caliber rifle for his birthday? That is asking for trouble. The mother should be blamed for the incident. You should never leave your kids unattended, not even for a minute, when they are that little. Let alone, never leave a child unattended when there is a gun in the house and it is loaded?!?!
  • Andrew Ryan on 29 Aug 13
     
    I've had guns since a young age and I always knew not use them on people no excuse
  • Ryan Edmondson on 29 Aug 13
     
    Why does a 5 year old have a rifle in the first? I do agree with Victoria, that the mother should be punished.
  • tristan wheeldon on 29 Aug 13
     
    what kind of person leaves a 5 year olds gun loaded
  • destany mass on 29 Aug 13
     
    I think think it was an accident, but the mother should be held responsible for being the one who gave the little boy a gun. I don't think young kids should be allowed to have any kinds of weapons at a young age. I mean I know they may be old enough to understand that it's bad, but how many 5 year old kids do you know that will actually listen and do stuff theyre not supposed to. I think it's fine to own a gun if you want to, but not for kids and they need to be under lock and key.
  • Maddie christensen on 29 Aug 13
     
    if the gun had child safety on it why was it easy for it to go off? and why was it easy for the child to reach?
  • Rachel Cottone-Dungan on 29 Aug 13
     
    Its the mother's fault, I've had guns around my whole life, I was taught how to use them, and that I shouldn't touch them unless my parents were there. They shouldn't have had the gun out in the open. Multiple Mistakes.
  • Mikaela Bowen on 30 Aug 13
     
    I agree with Rachel. Guns should never be out in the open, whether or not there are kids in the house.
  • jefferyduncan on 30 Aug 13
     
    i just think its crazy that a 5 year old would get a .22 cal for his birthday
  • Jessi Gallagher on 03 Sep 13
     
    Who gives their kid a loaded gun or has one around where they could get to it.
  • jasminemarie16 on 03 Sep 13
     
    This is crazy! Who would give a gun to a five year old for his birthday ! That is just bad parenting.
  • sarah smith on 10 Sep 13
     
    who in the world gives a five year old a .22 caliber for his birthday!?
  • Hannah Hennings on 16 Sep 13
     
    Who would give there child a gun for their 5th birthday? Thats not ok
Payton Whiteaker

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

dailycaller.com/...trolled-for-anti-trolling-bill

Government Anti-Troll Law Arizona

shared by Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    This is possibly one of the funniest laws I have ever seen. Man I am glad I do not live in Arizona, internet trolling is fun, as long as you are not mean about. I really want to see what others think about this.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 01 Sep 12
     
    "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 04 Sep 12
     
    I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.
  • Alex beck on 04 Sep 12
     
    the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction
  • Rainie mccubbin on 04 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think
  • Jeremy Vogel on 04 Sep 12
     
    I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Sep 12
     
    Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?
  • Kirstina Michl on 05 Sep 12
     
    I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 06 Sep 12
     
    I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V
  • Payton Whiteaker on 06 Sep 12
     
    Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 06 Sep 12
     
    Of course you would put this up Payton....
  • Jazmine Orellana on 07 Sep 12
     
    I don't see why they have to ban it. I mean this happens in every state. Some states have it worse then AZ. I think we need to take care of physical problems before we get to the internet.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    Well said Jazmine.
Jeremy Vogel

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters - 0 views

www.motherjones.com/...ideo-romney-private-fundraiser

Government President Candidate News 2012

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 18 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 18 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Alex Snipes on 18 Sep 12
     
    Personally (no one take this offensively) I agree with Romney. It is those types of people that want Obama to win, now I'm not saying that is all of them, but that is most definitely majority. Stereotypes such as this one are based off of majority and are almost always true. Yes, Mitt Romney should not have stereotyped these people, but don't we all do it at some point? No one should get mad about this because he was making a point (that so happens to be true). No one in this country has the right to health care, food or housing. There is no part of the constitution that states that. "He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them." I believe that this quote sums up those types of people perfectly. These people are the ones who are burdens to our society and will vote him to be president and will eventually change the country for the worst. Now, I realize that this is a strong point, but it is my opinion. I do not intend to offend anyone because you could disagree with me and I would accept that. But, people need to take care of themselves and not depend on anyone, not even the government to take care of them. People like this claim to be for equality, then be equal and pay taxes and take care of your self on your OWN just like the rest of us. To me, that makes a better person. (I know I went on a rant, but this again is my opinion.)
  • Rainie mccubbin on 18 Sep 12
     
    Not everyone the NEEDS help from the government wants it. It doesn't mean they are freeloaders. They have to do what they have to do to support their family. If I was of age I would vote for Obama not because I want to freeload off the government but because I don't want someone like Romney that I feel to be ignorant and unfit to be the president. My parents voted for Obama and will vote for him this election not because they freeload off the government but because they agree with the things Obama is wanting to do and not what Romney wants to do. I think that's what the majority of people who vote for Obama are thinking. Just my opinion.
  • Alex Snipes on 19 Sep 12
     
    I don't think anyone needs help from the government, because they're the ones who got themselves in that mess to need so much "help" anyways. The government, tax payers and citizens of America don't owe anything to those people who got themselves into those situations. I think the government needs to be in as little of people's lives as possible. I know what I'm saying is kind of harsh and is tough for those people who are in tight situations that I know I've never had to experience and I am thankful for that. But I know if I was brought up in a life of welfare (just an example no offense) or a government funded program or made a bad choice to get into a bad situation in the future, I would be ashamed and embarrassed and would do everything in my power to get my butt off the couch and do something about it. There are options in life that will lead to a better outcome of success, but people are choosing to take the easy way out and use the government for these things because they are just plain lazy and don't want to take the challenge that is required to become successful.
  • Rainie mccubbin on 19 Sep 12
     
    My question to you is then what about the people with disabilities? That can't go out and work. The people who are mentally or physically handicapped because of nothing in their power. What happens to them? No one is there for them? They NEED the governments help to live. Not all of them can go out and get jobs to support themselves.What about those girls that are 20 and were raped and now have a kid? Maybe they NEED help from the government. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I think that too many people are abusing the governments help but saying that no one needs government help is wrong some select few people/groups do need the help of our government.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 19 Sep 12
     
    So say that someone is in a car accident. They are hit by a drunk driver who is completely at fault. Because of the accident the victim becomes a paraplegic. This is a permanent condition. Don't they deserve help from the government?
  • Cameron Pick on 19 Sep 12
     
    Like Rainie and Jeremy said, not everybody has the ability to get off their butt and go work. But people that have the ability need to quit taking advantage of the government.
  • Alex Snipes on 19 Sep 12
     
    Yes, that is a type of situation where someone would be in need of help. But again, is that their problem? And I agree, he would need help and in his condition, it is provable but what about the people who take advantage of the government and I thought I made it clear that those are the ones who I was talking about. Didn't I say the lazy ones? Not the permanently injured.
  • Mallory Huggins on 21 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 21 Sep 12
     
    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.
Bryan Pregon

School bullying's chilling new front - CNN.com - 2 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 06 Sep 13 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 06 Sep 13
     
    "(CNN) -- Can cruel words really kill? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. "
  • ...3 more comments...
  • ladasia on 06 Sep 13
     
    It really annoys me that school's say zero tolerance, but most teachers laugh at the nasty comments kids make, or totally ignore them altogether. it's revolting
  • sarah smith on 10 Sep 13
     
    why do people feel like they are better than everyone else because they aren't,it's said how people will committ suicide over cruel words.
  • jasminemarie16 on 13 Sep 13
     
    This kind of thing bothers me. Bullying isn't right, and when people hurt themselves because of it makes it worse. No one should ever have to feel like this. Bullies are horrible, they think it makes them look cool but in reality they look stupid and pathetic. What if someone bullied them ? They wouldn't like it , they would feel the same as the other person they bullied.
  • Mikaela Bowen on 16 Sep 13
     
    To be honest, I see that many people at our own school don't take much or any effort to put an end to bullying. Fights are often being encouraged instead of someone trying to stop it, and it's not hard to come across a post that is negatively directed at another student here. People need to start realizing the impact words and actions make, whether it's verbal or over a text.
  • Victoria Kirk on 16 Sep 13
     
    No one should ever feel like suicide is there way out. Though bullying is so wrong in many ways how will the bullies be charged? These kind of things are tricky to go about because of people exercising their "freedom to speak." Something has to be done soon before any more lives are taken.
Bryan Pregon

Is this high school dress code sexist? - CNN Video - 45 views

www.cnn.com/...kg-high-school-dress-code.kcci

shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Mar 15
     
    "Some people are calling an assembly dress code at an Iowa high school sexist. CNN affiliate KCCI reports."
  • ...57 more comments...
  • kylecrowl on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think they may have gone overboard explaining everything the girls need to wear in full detail. I thought some of the comments were disrespectful to girls and I can easily see how they were offended by this.
  • alexander4434 on 16 Mar 15
     
    i beleve that it is true that there are more options for women to look less than formal clothing so it is not sexiest
  • kdankiw188 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this dress code, while definitely explaining what the girls can and cannot wear, has gone too far in some of the wording they use. "Choose and outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman, but covered enough to show you are a lady" is not an ok thing to say to a group of high school girls, especially if they are honors students. Yes I do think it is sexist.
  • Cecilia Saldana on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that this dress code letter had good intent, but it just came off the wrong way. I think if they would have just given a list on what not to wear rather then using saying, "you are a woman and should be covered enough to show you are a lady. With that statement I believe that it is sexist. Your clothes, and how you present your self shouldn't determine on whether you're a lady or not.
  • shandahansen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the letter is showing the outlook they see girls wear on a daily occurrence. At some points in a girls perspective we feel as if they are more strict on what we wear, They could of been a little easier and worded it differently so it didn't come out so wrong. But I don't think it sexist at all because it asking girls to wear whats appropriate to been seen in public.
  • dawsonmantich on 16 Mar 15
     
    If the school wishes for such a strict dress code then they should hand out the clothes they feel that are "pretty" enough for their girls to wear. I believe that the dress code is moderately sexist, even considering that there are more options regarding clothing for women. It is appropriate to keep their students looking classy, but not to the point of having no freedom when picking an outfit.
  • montanagarbez999 on 16 Mar 15
     
    It think the dress code it not sexist but it does go a little overboard. It kind of seems like it is going straight for the ladies, and could calm down on all the detail.
  • claireboes on 16 Mar 15
     
    I do believe that this dress code is sexist. There are lines in the requirements of the female code hat suggest they should be more modest than that of the males, not drawing attention to certain parts of the body and containing a level of ladylike stature that outdoes the gentlemanly requirements of the males. The four paragraphs "needed" for the girls. The two lines that strike me as the most opposite "Be classy." for the boys and "Think modesty." for the girls. It implies that they are letting the boys have more free reign with their opinion of classy and tightening the hold on the girls' idea of modesty, giving them fewer options.
  • peytonjs on 16 Mar 15
     
    This is very upsetting to the whole deal of what is appropriate and what is not. The school is berating the girls on how they choose to dress in a letter. This "dress code" should not be allowed to come trough, as it is limiting how girls want to dress, sure they should dress in something revealing as they should know better, but given them four paragraphs on how they should dress to one event is ridiculous. If the school feels embarrass to the point of giving a dress code to the girls then they should hold an event. It is completely sexist because not every girl owns skimpy outfits, or dresses badly. Every girl is a lady in the first place and should not be limited because someone else believes they dress in revealing clothing. Guys can dress in revealing clothing just as much as girls can.
  • desiree13 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I do not believe it is sexist because they are specifically making men wear a outfit. They are giving girls freedom within guidelines . On the other hand the way they address the first paragraph is a little sexist because they do make it like you have to be pretty to go.
  • jay_hubbard on 16 Mar 15
     
    The dress code letter my be considered sexist in the eyes of some people, but women tend to push the boundary's of the code to a far more extreme so it is only fair that the school be more strict and draw more attention to the matter of proper dress apparel with females. Men in school get in trouble if they are wearing clothes that are profane and clothes that are not appropriate for school, yet when females get into trouble, it is automatically sexist. It would not be this way if females did wear such revealing clothes to a school and then did not proceeded to after being told and warned by staff and administration. In some cases, schools have to give such strict guidelines to the female population of a school, even if it does not apply to every student.
  • noahseyboth on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the generation that were in right now would require a dress code. I personally don't think its sexist because i feel some women under dress, i also feel that it makes the school look more professional.
  • jborwick on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this is sexist because there was no need to have four paragraphs explaining every article of clothing that these girls could wear to this event. But, in another way it is not sexist because there are many styles girls are able to wear, some being more informal and/or more revealing than others. All this letter really would have needed was length of skirts/ dresses and the spaghetti straps, no need for the first and last paragraph.
  • Christopher Daniels on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that women do tend to show more revealing outfits than men, but it's no exuse to single them out. Men and women both should have fair dress code rules that can give eacother both the same amount of rules, yet reasonable. Certain rules apply to certain genders, but the line was crossed in this sexist act.
  • bchurch743 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that it is sexist because it gives the girls more and it list little for the guys. It tells the boys to look classy and tells the girls to look pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show they are a lady.
  • diegomartinez97 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think they're making a big deal out of this, This should not be done because students don't deserve to have this dress code.
  • danielaespinoza on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that the letter was sexist because it made it look like girls had more possibilities to breaking the guidelines.
  • rylanrichards on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think this is sexist because of the difference between the guys and the girls. It told the girls that in order to be a woman they had to be pretty. They told the guys to be classy. It's a Catholic school, those girls know what to wear and what not to wear.
  • jimmymc731 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel this video and letter is some what sexist. I believe that you should be able to wear what you want, but appropriately. If you are told to wear something and have to wear something do it. I agree that schools should have some sort of uniform, because if you dress nicely everyday you feel better about themselves. The reason i feel like this is sexist is because men have two things to wear and while girls have so much to worry about and pay attention to.
  • abbyotten on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe it is sexist. The writer of this letter automatically assumed stereotype about what girls would wear or draw attention to on their bodies. This letter obviously favors men and is much more strict on women.
  • jordan_love on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the letter was sexist. The letter only said one or two things about how boys should dress and then gave almost a whole essay on how girls should dress.
  • meganferleman on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe it is sexist to both of them honestly. They went over board on how girls should look and what they should look like. They want them to show off, but they are saying this to high school girls. Than again they are telling the boys they need to shave.
  • leomendez on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this is indeed sexist. They pretty much told the guys, "Hey, wear pants, dress shoes, shave and take out the earrings and you're good." but they they told the girls, "Where this, don't wear that, you can wear this but not that. try not to look like the women of the night. thanks!" i think that that is messed up
  • Kevin Branigan on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that it somewhat sexist. Telling to dress modestly and respectfully as they did with the guys would've been enough I think. I don't believe they needed to go that far into it if they didn't for the guys
  • rduncan264 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel this letter is just wrong. I believe that you should be able to choose what you want to wear but by being appropriate. It is a private school so if they assign a school uniform you have to wear it, but the way they are saying and telling you what to wear is not so much sexist but just wrong. Telling students they must dress according to their achievements and to look pretty as if they aren't already isn't right.
  • lcapel742 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I wouldn't say this is extremely sexist, it's more like it's just really ridiculous. I understand wanting everyone to look classy and professional, but you do not need that many sentences to basically just say, no flaunting what your momma gave ya.
  • zachmurray on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like they went a little over board with this. They may have been a little sexist just because they had so much more information for the girls on what they can and cant wear than they had for the boys on what they can wear. I personally think that there should be no dress codes at all. just because it lets kids express themselves, but in an appropriate way.
  • jesse_lorenzen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that these guidelines are similar to our school guidelines according to dress code, but I don't think it was right to just blatantly put it out there. Now if this is a huge problem I could understand this but The reactions from students make this seem like dress code violations are not a huge problem at their school, I think the teachers should have trusted the girls at the school to dress appropriately.
  • britthutch12 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that this letter is sexist. I think that the school could have easily got their point across on what to wear for girls in a sentence, not four paragraphs. Girls know what is tasteful, and what isn't and if they choose to follow the dress code is a choice not because they were unsure on how to dress.
  • swilder988 on 16 Mar 15
     
    With no context this letter may seem like they care more about what girls look like. This is probably not true, with a guy there is a a lot less you can mess up and look not modest. With guys it's just a shirt and pants, what can really besides them not wearing a nice shirt and pants. It is not unreasonable for a private school to want their kids to dress modestly. I'm also willing to bet at that school and probably every private school there are at least four times as many dress code violations for girls than boys, thus warranting four paragraphs to the boys one.
  • mmuffley163 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like this letter is sexist. The reason being is because I feel like girls should be able to wear what the want whiten reason. Dress code should be appropriate. However it shouldn't separate between boys and girls.
  • zack gray on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe this to be very sexist because of the length and repetition they use. I do agree with Ron Burgundy(anchor man movie), stay classy but this is to extensive. In repeating don't show off and telling them exactly what to wear. They could have left it at dress classy and lady like.
  • dillonpalen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I agree with alexander4434 that women have more types of clothes then men do and that it is not sexist. And men don't have much different types of clothes and women have more to choose from and need to cover up and not show so much.
  • cschnackel824 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like this letter is sexist. Seeing only two sentences for men and four paragraphs for women that would be sexist. I think the school could have worded it better for the women. I also think it is kind of rude to make men shave. I don't see how that matters in high school.
  • angel fernandez on 16 Mar 15
     
    I fell like the article is not sexist because some girls don't dress like a lady would, so that would help them look more presentable. The guys didn't have a lot of instructions because they don't have a lot of styles to choose from like the girls do. The school shouldn't tell someone how to dress but if they see something that someone would not wear to a fancy place they should correct them.
  • sarahh_821 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think it's a good dress code but had way more expectations for women than it did men. They could have made it just as simple as the mens with less detail as to what they can and can't wear. The men did't have anything listed that they weren't allowed to wear. Something in particular was the shoes comment saying they had to wear dress shoes, then going into detail saying if there shoes they wear to the beach, then they cant wear them to school, also no high heels. But with the mens all they said was "dress shoes" no elaboration or what they can't wear as they did with the women. I can see how people would think it sexist, it has way more expectations and standards for girls which isn't fair. But i also can see where they're coming from because girls express themselves through clothes i think more than men do.. So maybe they needed to be clear on what not to wear, whereas its pretty self explanatory for men.
  • ccannon666 on 16 Mar 15
     
    This letter is not "sexist". It may be degrading or offensive, but it's not sexist. In this day and age, it is common knowledge to know girls don't dress to standard. Look around and you will see many examples of this at almost every turn. Short skirts/shorts, tank tops, low cut shirts, and many other revealing articles. The school is trying to be official and you are to abide by their rules and if you are offended by the letter, you might be one of the girls who need to change the way they dress. The only reason the guys did not have as long or in-depth of a letter because they simply don't need it. More often than not, guys are not violating dress code.
  • donaldc802 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that the letter is sexist. They drag out the girls section which could have been summed up, like the boys was. Most of the time the dress code is followed, sometimes its stretched a bit short. I think that it was like they were being sarcastic almost, in the girls section.
  • dianaschrader on 18 Mar 15
     
    This is not a sexist letter. I think many people may find it extreme because they can't wear legging to school , and no leggings are NOT pants. I think the facial hair part for guys is a little much but it's only for the school get over it. The part for ladies I agree had to be a bit more explanatory because people will push any and all boundaries, especially if they are not specified.
  • Bryan Pregon on 03 Sep 15
     
    As we discuss OUR school dress code, do you think Dowling has created a sexist policy for students?
  • jroberson300 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like its a little sexist towards women. They have a lot more rules to follow than the boys do.
  • anthony309 on 03 Sep 15
     
    No its not it just needs more explanation for girls because the different things they can wear. The students are making a bigger deal then it is.
  • baddison753 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel its kinda sexist that the women have to be explained what to wear in complete detail compared to the men but then again they just want their school to look nice for the ceremony
  • guillermosolorio on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this dress code is fine.Staff just want students to be dressed appropriate.
  • jjacobs079 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think they went overboard. I think it's sexist for them to say "you are a woman and covered enough to show your a lady". They have a lot more rules for girls then guys. Yes I think it's very sexist.
  • gabbymorley on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this is sexist because, it is telling guys to just be classy but girls have to dress a certain way we either feel pretty or show our achievements. We should be able to wear what we want that makes us feel comfortable in our own skin.
  • seanveazie on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this is not a sexist letter. The part where it says dress modest enough to be a lady but pretty enough to be a woman. Many girls do dress that should not be so skimpy. But these people are honors students. The code should have just said dress formally and follow the dress code.
  • austindueling1 on 03 Sep 15
     
    It's wrong that they treated women like that sexist it very detailed for the women and the men just says be classy so yes it's sexist
  • rallman915 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think it is sexist because the girls have a lot more rules than the boys do.
  • ernieclements on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like the policy was not written equally between Boys and girls. The four paragraphs written for girls seems very excessive. The boys and girls should just be told- "Dress formally"
  • johnschmidthuber on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like it is sexist, mostly because of the detail it goes into about the woman's dress code. It would have been much simpler to just say dress nice like they did for the guys, but they blew it out of proportion.
  • Renee Borgaila on 03 Sep 15
     
    I believe its sexist, it does have some lines that are sexist, like the line "Choose an outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show yo are a lady." And it's very detailed, especially when it comes to the skirt.
  • tiaross on 03 Sep 15
     
    I wouldn't say it is necessarily sexist, but I wouldn't agree with some of the things that were said in the letter. These women know how to dress appropriately for formal events. They didn't need to read a whole book to know how to dress.
  • Sunshine Wink on 03 Sep 15
     
    This dress code letter had good intentions but the way that they gave the boys 2 sentences and the girls 4 paragraphs was not fair to the girls, making them feel like it was sexist.
  • sophiataylor001 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I believe that it intended well, but definitely could have been worded better. That could have easily been summed up as dress professionally. If they are inviting students because of their smarts, surely the students would be able to figure out what that meant. The paragraphs were too excessive.
  • katiepetersen005 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think that it should be for both genders not just girls. I don't want to see any one's butt or chest.
  • christopher721 on 03 Sep 15
     
    There is no doubt about it being sexist, but that is only because of the excessive "putting down," saying such and such should attract attention to this, and not this. If they would have stopped at a basic "be classy, keep it modest, and make it conservative." Then all would have been fine.
  • ryanlegg on 08 Sep 15
     
    There should be standards for both men and women but the remarks in the letter was plain sexist.
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 15
     
    Is this relevant for a discussion of our dress code or are private schools a different story?
xolson974

Shia LaBeouf Arrested After Allegedly Attacking 25-Year-Old During Anti-Trump Protest - 33 views

people.com/...hia-labeouf-handcuffed-protest

shared by xolson974 on 26 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • xolson974 on 26 Jan 17
     
    Shia LaBeouf was arrested in New York early Thursday during a protest against President Donald Trump after he allegedly attacked a 25-year-old man - and video of the entire incident was posted online. The 30-year-old actor was taken into custody around 12:30 a.m.
  • ...27 more comments...
  • Matthew E on 26 Jan 17
     
    Not only did Shia have the courage to do this, but he kept going which was his mistake, and all outside the museum with his art in it. This could lead to multiple up riots, maybe even more violence. But Shia got off about scott free.
  • Deven Przybylski on 26 Jan 17
     
    If you don't know the background of Shia, you wouldn't understand why he went off like that. First off, the man he was yelling at was a neo nazi. He had said 1488 which is a reference to Hitler and the holocaust. Shia is Jewish, his name literally means praise god in Hebrew. Shia may have gone too far if it were just a common mistake, but when your ancestors have been killed in WW2, you're not going to be happy. He shouldn't have been arrested, the white supremacist should've for representing hate.
  • mwheeler21 on 30 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Deven the man was just picking a fight and he got exactly what he wanted, nothing against Shia.
  • agrosas on 30 Jan 17
     
    I think it was wrong for that person to say that to Shia LaBeouf, that guy just want to see how mad he would get, most did it on purpose.
  • jwells549 on 31 Jan 17
     
    I think that the guy got what he deserved. Maybe Shia shouldn't be so aggressive towards opposing sides of politics, like supporters, protesters, ect, but you can't fix or control somebody else's behavior and beliefs. So, since the man was pushing Shia's rage on and on, Shia snapped, and I believe the man got what he deserved.
  • delaniehubbard on 07 Feb 17
     
    Everyone has there opinions and beliefs obviously and everyone is not going to get along, when you act out and hurt people for expressing there opinions you cant expect to not get punished. Especially when your around lots of people, you can't expect to not do or say anything.
  • sydney matheny on 07 Feb 17
     
    Shia could've used less violence but in a way I don't blame him because the man was saying things that were really bad and offended shia.
  • lauren rambo on 07 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Deven and Sydney. The man was representing hate and picking a fight. Shia wasn't all innocent but I don't blame him for his actions
  • jcolburn544 on 07 Feb 17
     
    This is an example of growing tension between groups. nation seems divided by pro and anti trump people. the fact that people are speaking their mind is a positive, the fact that our president is causing so much negative uproar so early into his term is a negative.
  • brettday on 07 Feb 17
     
    him using violence only builds support towards the opposite cause.
  • dallastomasello on 07 Feb 17
     
    The young man was representing hate and picking a fight. Shia wasn't innocent but I don't blame him for what he did.
  • Bradley Daugherty on 07 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Jake, this fight shows the nation being further separated between pro-trump people and anti-trump people.
  • mckenzie spanjer on 07 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Lauren that the man was picking a fight and I also don't blame Shia for his actions either.
  • Alex Thacker on 07 Feb 17
     
    I don't think it was right for Shia to do what he did but I don't blame him and I see why he did what he did.
  • ahopkins571 on 07 Feb 17
     
    I think this is kind of stupid, Shia should have had the self control not to get into that type of interaction especially because he's a well known person it kind of puts a shadow over him in some ways
  • nick perry on 07 Feb 17
     
    Shia should of had some self control, but I see why he did it and don't blame him as well.
  • Landon Mohr on 16 Feb 17
     
    I agree with Deven. The Neo Nazi was just trying to pick a fight because he knew Shia's background. I understand why Shia did what he did but maybe he does deserve some type of consequence for his actions. Even though the man was trying to pick a fight Shia could've easily just been the bigger person and should've had the self control to walk away.
  • ncollier786 on 16 Mar 17
     
    The man he attacked shouldn't have said what he said so I think Shia was justified to do what he did. The man was asking for it.
  • marly mcmullen on 16 Mar 17
     
    I don't blame Shia for fighting this man. Shia could have taken care of it in a different manner but it was out of reaction and the man was pushing his limits. Shia should have not been taken into custody for this.
  • megan sinclair on 16 Mar 17
     
    I think he did nothing wrong, he was defending what he stood for and the Neo Nazi was saying unfair things.
  • abomba12 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I think maybe hitting him was going far but he was telling this man to knock it off by what he did to him which is because ti disrupts the social environment. That wasn't the place for someone to talk about hitler and i think it was fine that he taught that man a lesson.
  • lexus2 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I don't think Shia is wrong for fighting the man, but she could of did something different then fighting him.
  • mhennings622 on 16 Mar 17
     
    I agree with most of the comments above, The man that Shia attacked should have not said anything to him because the guy just wanted a reaction from him. Also Shia was in the wrong for attacking the man, he could have just walked away and not put his hands on the man.
  • caileyhartenhoff on 16 Mar 17
     
    I believe that the comments of the man who claimed victim were wrong. However, everything comes down to perspective. The whole debate is whether or not Shia being arrested for assault was right or wrong. Both sides are at fault. Shia should have had more control especially due to his celebrity standing. Everything a celebrity does is under close inspection and is able to be blown way out of proportion. The man was obviously saying the things he was to get under Shia's skin. However, assaulting someone with physical scrathches being documented is immature. Be the bigger person and walk away.
  • morgann1 on 16 Mar 17
     
    Shia LaBeouf attacked a 25-year old man for saying "Hitler did nothing wrong" outsid eo ghis museum. I believe he could have handled the situation better than the way he did, i understand he was sticking up for what he believes in but he could have approached the guy a different way.
  • Emalie Bowman on 16 Mar 17
     
    With all due respect, I don't believe that most people saying that he should react differently would handle the situation peacefully. You'd be outraged if there was a genocide of Christians that had happened not even a century ago, and a random stranger (knowing you are of that religion) said something similar to "Hitler did nothing wrong", you'd be livid. It is essentially implying "they deserved it." Yes, he has a right to share his opinion. But opinions are more along the lines of "I prefer coffee over tea", not "I think that Jews are less than human, therefore Hitler did nothing wrong because they deserve to die." But it's not simply that, it goes beyond the Holocaust. Jews were the world's scapegoat for CENTURIES before the Holocaust. They've been targeted for centuries, and if I were religious and devoted to my religion and somebody said that to me. I'd more than likely react the same way. Yes, Shia deserved to be punished, he assaulted the dude. But the other guy had it coming for egging him on at what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.
  • rwilladsen586 on 17 Mar 17
     
    I think the man was trying to pull a publicity stunt on the actor because he's aware of some of his past actions and he purposely tried to get a rise out of him. Was it legal? Yes. Was it Right? No
  • ahayden800 on 20 Mar 17
     
    I agree with Reed, the person did this to get a rise out of the actor.
  • Jorden Crinklaw on 20 Mar 17
     
    The protester was clearly trying to upset Shia enough for him to attack him. Because once that happened, he was arrested and it was put all over the news, making him look like he attacked an innocent person for absolutely no reason.
Bryan Pregon

South Carolina adds firing squad to execution methods after running out of lethal-injec... - 20 views

www.abc.net.au/...100125786

shared by Bryan Pregon on 09 May 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 09 May 21
     
    "Politicians in South Carolina have voted to add a firing squad to the state's execution methods amid a lack of lethal-injection drugs"
  • ...16 more comments...
  • sydneykolln on 10 May 21
     
    South Carolina has the electric chair and now a firing squad as their execution methods. It's absurd that the firing squad passed and that South Carolina is now the fourth state to allow this. Personally, I don't believe that there should be any execution methods and this just seems completely crazy to me that a firing squad is now one.
  • arosas733 on 10 May 21
     
    I find it kind of funny they would use a firing squad. It is a waste of money and a lot more extra work and time spent on worthless people. I believe executions for those kinds of people should be quick, easy, and cheap. Firing squads just seem ridiculous especially since it's not like they are being attacked and need to use multiple people for one person.
  • nick_rice on 10 May 21
     
    I don't understand why they would choose a firing squad of all things. I feel like there are more humane ways to execute someone but I suppose some people may want to go out with a bang.
  • allisonwalker on 10 May 21
     
    I don't understand why this is even a thing. No one should be sentenced to death and if they were sentenced to death, it should be a humane way, not a firing squad or electric chair.
  • kredding147 on 10 May 21
     
    This is just stupid. This would be such a painful and awful way to go, even if you did something bad enough to get sentenced to death. Imagine what these people's families would be thinking, watching their son or daughter getting shot to death.
  • joeypo10 on 10 May 21
     
    I don't understand why South Carolina thinks this should be aloud. Granted the death would happen anyway but having people line up and shoot people just seems inhumane and unnecessary.
  • peytongrenoble on 10 May 21
     
    I personally don't understand how they came to the decision that this was smart or found a way to justify it. I don't think that it is something that is going to be used in other states...hopefully. I think that this should be intervened by the national government considering how inhumane the idea is.
  • samhovey on 10 May 21
     
    I agree with Joey, this seems like a recreational activity that fire squads would enjoy participating in, rather than an act of justice.
  • eballenger on 10 May 21
     
    I think this is a pretty cruel punishment even for large criminals and seems like its more for the firing squad than it is about justice.
  • milo_nordman on 11 May 21
     
    Having a firing squad as an execution method is ridiculous. It's a cruel and inhumane punishment that shouldn't be used, and the fact that four states have it listed as an execution method is disturbing.
  • ericschmidtberge on 11 May 21
     
    I think that there should be a death penalty in cases where the criminal is too dangerous to be kept in captivity but a firing squad is an insane method. Not only is it a waste of money, time, and effort but do they really need a full firing squad for one person? That just makes no sense and seems nothing but cruel and disturbing.
  • mcaamal on 13 May 21
     
    I disagree with this they should not be adding new way of execution. This a cruel way to punish people and it should not be allowed. There are other way to punish people other than getting violent.
  • abbidominguez on 14 May 21
     
    I think a firing squad is very extreme. I think the death penalty in general is very extreme. I can't believe South Carolina is the 4th state to allow this as well. There are definitely other ways to go about this than a firing squad or a death penalty at all.
  • masonmascarenas on 17 May 21
     
    I don't believe as we are such an advanced society that we should resort back to such a harsh capital punishment.
  • jdogan on 17 May 21
     
    I can't see a death sentence not being a cruel punishment let alone the electric chair as the method, but South Carolina seeking to go further by adding the firing squad is even worse the fact that anyone would be convinced this is acceptable is astounding to me and shows the disconnect people have from the people around them
  • redrose99875 on 17 May 21
     
    I really hope they get more injections, so the executions can be more humane again
  • tsilva588 on 17 May 21
     
    Honestly, lethal injection isn't any better they still suffer even with that method so I don't really see a problem with this because they will be killed either way.
  • thomaschau on 21 May 21
     
    I think a firing squad is a more humane death than lethal injection. Trained men with rifles and a well-placed shot to the head are the swiftest way to go.
saralong057

Coronavirus: Why are infections rising again in US? | AllSides - 40 views

www.allsides.com/...are-infections-rising-again-us

news

shared by saralong057 on 12 Oct 20 - No Cached
  • saralong057 on 12 Oct 20
     
    Why do you think the number of cases are starting to rise once again?
  • ...38 more comments...
  • bayliegirres on 15 Oct 20
     
    I think they are rising more because people are getting used to covid now and kind of got less strict about the rules and are taking less precautions.
  • abbyparks on 15 Oct 20
     
    I believe that the number of cases is rising once again because the weather is getting colder, and viruses thrive in colder weather. I also think it's because people are starting to get used to covid as well and are getting too reckless.
  • xxchrysxx on 16 Oct 20
     
    No to mention its flu season so it's almost impossible to know if it's one or the other. It's also been said if you have the flu, but think it's covid and go to get a covid test, it could come out positive even though it's just the flu. Also, it's been proven that the covid test is only 90% or so effective and you can have a false test.
  • eoneal271 on 19 Oct 20
     
    I agree with Abby I think that people are getting sick of having to deal with covid and just want it to be over. I think that this winter we will see a decrease in the number of other viruses and colds like the flu because we are wearing masks.
  • lennxbrown on 19 Oct 20
     
    I agree with "xxchrysxx" I have also read about what you've mentioned. It makes you wonder how valid Covid-19 really is.
  • jcooley186 on 19 Oct 20
     
    Going off of what Abby said, I also agree. I've seen many people walking without masks and not social distancing outside, and I think that's one of the main reasons the numbers are going to keep rising.
  • jcollins438 on 19 Oct 20
     
    I think that because of the cold weather and flu season around the corner, the number will start to rise again.
  • hharker376 on 19 Oct 20
     
    People are not taking it as seriously as they should and not following guidelines that were put in place to protect us.
  • emilysmith200 on 19 Oct 20
     
    I think people haven't been taking COVID 19 seriously, and since it is getting colder and colder it will be harder to contain it.
  • olijohnson on 19 Oct 20
     
    People started loosening the rules and safety regulations lately, plus this is flue season and cold season so I guess its corona season too
  • mmailey052 on 19 Oct 20
     
    I think people as time is going on are not taking it as seriously anymore. People are going out not always wearing masks or sanitizing or following the rules as they should.
  • trinitytallman on 19 Oct 20
     
    I think that people are kind of forgetting that covid is a serious thing and aren't being as cautious as they were in the beginning. Flu and cold season is also coming and I feel like it will then be hard to tell who has covid or if it is just allergies/ flu.
  • laurenhansen168 on 26 Oct 20
     
    I think people aren't being as serious with covid as they were before. They are going out in large groups of people, hanging around lots of people and not wearing a mask like they should.
  • makosa23 on 26 Oct 20
     
    I think people aren't being as serious with covid as they were before and people aren't wearing mask or didn't wear mask correctly.
  • xxchrysxx on 26 Oct 20
     
    I believe the numbers are rising again because people have become too comfortable. Covid arrived in the united states around January 20-22 of 202. Covid will have been around for 9 months or so now. That is almost a year that many lucky people have gotten to live through. People are just now assuming that, since they haven't gotten it yet they can be lax about the new protocols.
  • scarney230 on 02 Nov 20
     
    I think the cases are starting to rise again because states peeled back their lockdown measures and the cases began to rise
  • hharker376 on 02 Nov 20
     
    I think it is because it is not being taken seriously enough and the lockdown measures are being repealed.
  • briannanixon on 02 Nov 20
     
    I think that people know how serious this is they just don't care because they want it to be over. Also we should have done a better job with the lockdowns measures.
  • trinitytallman on 02 Nov 20
     
    I think cases are starting to rise because people aren't taking it as serious as they were.
  • ethompson038 on 06 Nov 20
     
    I think cases are starting to rise again because people are tired of the pandemic and aren't taking as much responsibility as they should. I think also social media influencers like TikTok stars and Kylie Jenner having major parties and posting on social media are influencing people to disregard the seriousness of the pandemic.
  • meganolson04 on 18 Nov 20
     
    I think the numbers are rising because people are not being safe and as we get closer to the holidays they have parties and gathers which is where it is probably spreading.
  • trinitytallman on 30 Nov 20
     
    I think that numbers are going to continue to rise dramatically because of the holidays, and people not taking it serious anymore.
  • margaretgrover on 30 Nov 20
     
    I think that people have become complacent and aren't taking the proper precautions anymore, meaning that the numbers are going to steadily rise, especially around the holidays.
  • kaeleem on 30 Nov 20
     
    I believe the reason why the number of cases is going up so much is that it seems a lot of people forgot that we are still in a pandemic and go out and run around with big groups of people.
  • scarney230 on 30 Nov 20
     
    I feel since we're so far in the pandemic that people stopped and are not taking it as seriously. that the cases are rising and people are becoming lazy on masks and sanitary needs
  • cmacias539 on 04 Dec 20
     
    I think it's because we have stopped taking covid seriously, we still have parties and only wear masks when we are required to wear them if it was up to us we wouldn't and I know because I go to parties and no one including me wears masks, not proud of it but it's true, no one takes it seriously unless they're affected by it.
  • carmellahargens on 13 Jan 21
     
    i think that it is mainly due the the change in weather. viruses thrive in colder weather. personally i hate wearing a mask and i know a lot of people do too. if you haven't been effected by it, we brush it off because it doesn't pertain to us
  • bigslide on 27 Jan 21
     
    cuz people still dont want to wear a mask for sum reason.
  • thepriceisright on 27 Jan 21
     
    I believe it is because it was made political to wear a mask which is simply just embarrassing for America. People now are wearing masks, but for example in our own state Covid-Kim didn't do anything about the virus and didn't make masks mandatory.
  • lhunter952 on 27 Jan 21
     
    Viruses thrive in cold weather, it is colder outside so more people will be inside together, and nobody likes to wear a mask
  • gbrochu915 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I feel that covid will rise again due to, yes cold weather but also covid has been going on for over a year and people are tired of it and what to go back to their 'normal' lives when we cant yet because it is still around. people want to get back to there old life so they could be taking off the masks to make themselves feel better but it could bring harm to others.
  • abbidominguez on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think a lot of this has to do with people not taking it as seriously as they did in the beginning because either they personally haven't been affected or they got it and it wasn't that bad. A lot of the governors are also putting out restrictions but the second we begin to decrease the spread or see a drop in covid cases they then lift these restrictions which then causes our cases to rise again.
  • mynameisjeff1 on 27 Jan 21
     
    At the start of COVID, everyone was so much more worried about it. The US immediately went into lockdown, schools closed, and the whole country became a ghost town. Once the CDC released more info to the public about this new virus, however, people stopped worrying as much as they should've been. It flipped from 3 cases and mass hysteria to 25M cases and a more lax attitude. Everyone is tired of this, it's been a year and nothing feels right anymore, so as a society we want to rush into the afterparty and return to our normal lives. But as it's the winter months and COVID hasn't gone away yet, now is especially not the time to ignore the virus. Overall, the cases are still rising because we are letting it happen.
  • peytongrenoble on 27 Jan 21
     
    Considering the United States has the highest number of COVID-19 cases on the globe, there should be more light towards getting this over and working towards not having to deal with it at all. Like New York, the entire United States, like other countries, should have done a national lockdown which would have definitely stopped the spread of the cases if fewer people were going out and about. Working towards staying at home and being more cautious will help in the long run.
  • gavync_alhs on 27 Jan 21
     
    Well, this is a bit outdated, and I'd like to know what the statistics are now. However, since the U.S. economy was dropping, I don't think they had much of a choice but to drop the quarantine. Plus, there is a lot of people who aren't educated about the effects of covid, and what it could do to people who have weak immune systems.
  • nick_rice on 27 Jan 21
     
    I believe it is just because people are getting too careless about Covid and won't wear a mask or social distance.
  • bklopp601 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I believe the number is rising up again because people aren't wearing masks, people aren't social distancing and people aren't following the rules and then so they get covid and then pass it on to others.
  • nadialove on 01 Feb 21
     
    I definitely agree with the article because by sending hundreds of thousands of kids back to school and in small hallways and classrooms it was destined to increase the spread even with masks. Tables, door knobs, and rails are hard to keep sanitized consistently. It also says that the ages of 18-22 Covid cases increased by 55% nationally.
  • tkoesters274 on 25 May 21
     
    I believe the number was rising because people are just selfish. There still is a pandemic and people are more concerned about long-term effects of the vaccine but no one is talking about the long-term effects of covid.
  • jcontreras201 on 25 May 21
     
    I think the numbers back then were rising so quick because people weren't following the covid guidelines, now I feel like things are definitely way better than they were then.
Bryan Pregon

Tennessee governor signs bill increasing punishments for certain protests | TheHill - 0 views

thehill.com/...easing-punishments-for-certain

shared by Bryan Pregon on 22 Aug 20 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 22 Aug 20
     
    "Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) quietly signed a bill into law ramping up punishments for certain kinds of protests, including losing the right to vote."
Bryan Pregon

Political Cartoon: Middle Class - 60 views

media.caglecartoons.com/...102536_600.jpg

government politics economy cartoon

shared by Bryan Pregon on 08 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Dec 11
     
    President Obama said yesterday that the United States faces "a make or break moment" for a middle class that is shrinking because of "gaping" income inequality. In the comments, please give your thoughts on what this cartoon is implying and if you agree/disagree.
  • ...31 more comments...
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • broxton anderson on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • anonymous on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • jordan peterson on 08 Dec 11
     
    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
  • Henry Black on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • Lauren Rommel on 08 Dec 11
     
    I believe that if we try to fix the "gap" in our country, the "gap" will increasingly become farther apart...
  • Anna Gahm on 08 Dec 11
     
    "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.
  • coleman miller on 08 Dec 11
     
    I think the middle class are more likely to break than make.
  • Daniel Pengra on 08 Dec 11
     
    When has any of Obama's plans actually worked? I think the middle class is in big trouble.
  • Megan Cheney on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • William Connelly on 08 Dec 11
     
    I also feel that the rich should be paying higher taxes, and the poor should get a little bit lower taxes
  • Sarah Trant on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • broxton anderson on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • christian knight on 08 Dec 11
     
    I disagree with obama i feel everyone should be taxed the same why should the wealthy be punished for how succesful they are
  • anonymous on 08 Dec 11
     
    I think that Obama is trying his best to help out his country, but he needs to make more effective decisions.
  • Janeth Cano on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • Hannah Browning on 08 Dec 11
     
    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".
  • maranda orth on 08 Dec 11
     
    if you in the middle class lower class or higher class you have to pay you taxes and we should all be taxed equaly
  • Jay Cook on 08 Dec 11
     
    I think that he is trying but he should make some diff. decision.
  • zach parker on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • Sierra Risner on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • Justice Fisher on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • Ziada Karbowski on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • alexisprazak on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • theresa schwenk on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • Derek Large on 08 Dec 11
     
    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
  • Samantha Pike on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • shay chandler on 08 Dec 11
     
    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 ?
  • awest520 on 08 Dec 11
     
    "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.
  • casandra morales on 08 Dec 11
     
    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.
  • ladasia on 10 Sep 13
     
    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.
  • Victoria Kirk on 13 Sep 13
     
    Rising taxes for the rich in unjust and rising taxes for everyone is just dumb. They spend our tax money on useless things like art work instead of helping the very thing that keeps this country going... The people.
  • Zach Standard on 16 Sep 13
     
    I don't think that taxing the wealthy will really solve anything. The money won't go to the middle class, it will be tax money. Which goes to the state, which gets spent on different items. Tax money isn't just transferred to the pockets of the people of the lower and middle class.
Bryan Pregon

Citizens United ruling accounts for 78 percent of 2012 election spending | The Raw Story - 2 views

www.rawstory.com/...cent-of-2012-election-spending

citizens united election Politics 99% Government

shared by Bryan Pregon on 26 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 26 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 26 Sep 12
     
    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.
Bryan Pregon

Google's Driverless Cars Permitted by New California Law- Bloomberg - 3 views

mobile.bloomberg.com/...ted-by-new-california-law.html

google california cars Government bill

shared by Bryan Pregon on 26 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Ashtyne Madsen on 28 Sep 12
     
    That's really cool! I would like to ride in one of these! Although I probably won't be able to for quite some time.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • dalton schaaf on 03 Oct 12
     
    that sounds cool but what would happen if the car malfunctioned and the driver wasnt able to gain control?
  • Kacie Karbowski on 08 Oct 12
     
    it would be a good idea but will take huge amounts of time to make.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 09 Oct 12
     
    Personally, I would not want one, for it to run on detailed maps, and be able to override and read every factor of driving, it would require the internet. Assuming it is using google maps, what if it cannot connect to the internet? That's dangerous. To add, like ever machine, there is going to be an error, and this will probably raise accident rates.
  • Kirstina Michl on 11 Oct 12
     
    . . . Google in general honestly kind of scares me. Like, yeah, the Chromes and Docs and stuff are beneficial for school things, but they don't have to try to take over the world. (And Payton brought up a good point with the car needing to be connected to the internet to work.) Also, has anyone heard about how Google asks you for your real name instead of allowing you to use a screen name (or something like that)? I remember, I think it was two days ago, that I was going to post a comment on a YouTube video that I had watched with my YouTube account that I've had since 2007, and then Google was all like, "Oh hey want to show your real name instead of your screen name?" and I was like, "Heck no." And there have been times where they purposely log me out of my Google account, and then when I sign back in, they ask for my cell phone number and I click skip because I'm not giving my number to Google. It's for some stupid information loss thing or whatever. But who knows if they're actually protecting your personal information and your privacy?
Madison Hass

Committee Recommends Schools for Deaf and Blind Students Stay - 1 views

www.kptm.com/...school-for-the-deaf-stays-open

Government News

shared by Madison Hass on 29 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 30 Nov 12
     
    I think this an amazing step in keeping ISD. My mom works with a lot of deaf student age people over in Omaha and she says that one of the worst things that has happened to them was when the Nebraska equivalent to ISD closed because the public schools said they would be able to offer the same kind of learning environment. That never ended up happening and now they are worse off then they were before.
1 - 20 of 92 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page