Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged go

Rss Feed Group items tagged

jsachs097

Should the U.S. lock down again to stop the coronavirus? | AllSides - 29 views

  •  
    I feel like we can't go on a full lockdown. This will make the economy even worse than it currently is.
  • ...39 more comments...
  •  
    I feel like there should be more regulation and rules but we should not go on full lockdown because it could cause many businesses to crash and close down.
  •  
    even though many feel as though we should go into full lock down, I don't think it would be the best idea. especially because we had tried it in the beginning and people were still wandering around and two, we can't keep digging a hole for the economy
  •  
    I think if we go into a full lockdown, our economy won't be in the best place for the country and I don't think we are mentally strong enough to deal with a full lockdown.
  •  
    This is why I believe that stimulus checks are necessary. Yes, many Americans would be left without an income if a lockdown was put in place, but that's why a stimulus check would be helpful. Money provided to those who need it during a lockdown would ultimately help enforce a lockdown long enough to see Covid-19 numbers go down.
  •  
    I believe that if we go into a lockdown, our economy wouldn't be the same anymore and would get worst over time.
  •  
    I think that if we go into full lock down, people will freak out even more than they already are. Everyone would stock up on everything and we all know how that went with the toilet paper last time we tried to be on lock down.
  •  
    We absolutely need to go into full lock-down. Concerns about the economy, in my opinion, are entirely bunk. It's saying that it's okay for people to risk their lives unnecessarily so that a line can go up on a graph. I'd hope people have learned something, and would know that they don't need to hyperstock on certain things.
  •  
    I think if we would have just gone on a nationwide full lockdown for 2 or 3 weeks at the beginning of this, we would be much better off. I think it would be a good idea, but with how far the pandemic has progressed, I'm not sure it would help as much as it would have a long time ago.
  •  
    It could have been better if we did something right away when Covid first started and not waited to do something. We could probably have stopped it from being so dangerous,
  •  
    In my opinion a nation wide lock-down will not do anything but harm. There are still millions of Americans that have not been able to recover form the first wave of lock-down, as stated in the story up above. And i know that a huge counter argument is that the government can just pay us more during a lock-down. While that is true that would put us further and further into debt that we are struggling to get out of. A Lot of it comes down to the people, by that i mean that people have to take others into consideration, wearing a mask, social distance. That way Americans can still go to work and provide for their family's without the help of the government.
  •  
    I agree with you Zoe, but in order for that to work, every country would have had to do a lockdown. and sadly we didn't know the severity back then so people still had an excuse to be ignorant.
  •  
    I believe a full lockdown is necessary if people ever want to go back to living their lives as "normal" again. There are plenty of other countries living covid free as they did a strict lockdown in the beginning, as we should have done. A few weeks of a strict lockdown isn't going to kill us just as it didn't kill anyone in the other countries where strict lockdowns occurred.
  •  
    I feel like another lockdown would help if not eliminate the virus but like last time not everyone cooperated and if history shows that it won't be worth locking down again then there's not really a point. Another impact of locking down like some comments and brought up is the economy getting severely worse than it already is. In a perfect fantasy land bills would freeze, everyone would get stimulus checks that wouldn't run out and the virus would go away but that is all super unlikely if another lockdown occurs.
  •  
    while we cant go on a full lockdown, there needs to be tighter restrictions on people, or heavier responses to keep infections down
  •  
    I think that going into lockdown or some kind of restriction would help slow the spread of the virus, but not stop it. People would not cooperate to stop the spread of the virus completely. Other countries that had strict Covid restrictions are doing much better than the United States, and some have even eliminated covid completely. If the US could do that it might work, but the economy would still get worse during the lockdown.
  •  
    If the outbreak is getting worse I think that we should do some sort of lock down. Maybe some restriction so that less people are in large groups so that we can control the virus.
  •  
    Since we can't go into a full lockdown I think they should make the restrictions more known if people aren't wearing a mask in public I think they should be fined but, I think the amount of money should be high so people will think twice.
  •  
    I'm not real sure on what to do in this siutation. If we shut down our country, our economy will go down. If wes stay open, more covid cases. I dont know which one is worse.
  •  
    I don't think the US can handle another lockdown. The economy tanked the first time and I cant imagine how bad it'll get if we lockdown again
  •  
    we should not lock down again it will hurt the economy
  •  
    I think we should have more restrictions but I don't think we should go into full lockdown or else people will lose jobs and businesses
  •  
    I feel like we haven't been on a full lock down, in some states they are more serious about COVID, in others there's not even a mask mandate.
  •  
    I thinnk people dont realize how big corona is in the US because of ignorance, lack of respect and decency, and or just they don't know. If we need to lock down, we need to lockdown. No uts no butts no coconuts. Fighting this is what got us here in the first place. We could be like other countries where they have respect for each other and themselves, and corona is almost gone or very low.
  •  
    There are definitely a lot of things to consider, like our economy, if we were to go into lock down. I just don't thing it's possible right now but we should still have restrictions.
  •  
    I feel like we should but are not able to go on another lock down
  •  
    No we should not go on lockdown again because no matter how much we do that it will slow it down but it wont stop it and it also will just go right back up one the lockdown is over.
  •  
    things are starting to calm down more than before and were just learning to live with it as we do any other virus. With the vaccine now people are going to feel safer and hopefully, it actually will be saving lives. If it gets worse a shutdown may be the best option, but right now learning to live with it is the better option.
  •  
    I think we could go on lockdown again but there is no point anymore because we should of done that right away when it first started and people are getting the vaccines already so it doesn't really matter if we do or don't.
  •  
    I don't think we need a full-scale hardcore lockdown, we do need tighter enforcement of mandates and stricter punishments for not following public safety, I get people don't want to, but that one person who didn't wear their mask could end up getting your loved ones sick, if everyone just followed guidelines we would get out of this funk sooner
  •  
    The country is divided over the false binary of financial and health security. Reopening is not enough to ensure economic prosperity, but setting a lockdown is also not enough to contain the virus and prevent needless death.
  •  
    Another lock down would just cause more discomfort and an economic fall. With people not being able to work it would be very difficult to keep the economy great and balanced. If another lock down was to occur more people would be bothered because they just want to go back to normal life.
  •  
    I personally don't think we need to go on full lockdown again especially since the new covid vaccine. i think that it's okay to lift some rules and regulations on public places, but we still need to wear masks and stay safe until the pandemic is completely over
  •  
    I don't think we should go into another full lockdown with closing down non-essential stores because too many businesses had to shutdown or almost had to after the first lockdown.
  •  
    I don't think we should have to lock down again, we're in the process of releasing the vaccine, and less people are dying
  •  
    I don't think we should go back t=into another lockdown because I don't think our economy will do very good and I think some peoples mental health won't be in the best place if we do another lockdown
  •  
    If we went into a lockdown our economy would suffer tremendously and there is no point. If we go into lockdown then I don't really see the point of all of the vaccinations and all of the other mandates we have.
  •  
    Having another lock down would just put the United States into a far worse situation. More people would lose jobs, more people would go into debt, and our economic status would fall tremendously. I agree with luke in the fact that going into lockdown would just make the vaccine pointless because nobody would be going out anymore.
  •  
    no we will lose alot of money
  •  
    I dont think we should go into lockdown because if we expose our bodies to the virus steadily and take vitamins and antibodies our immune system will be stronger and get closer to fighting off the virus.
  •  
    I don't think we should go into lockdown again but if people keep lifting up their masks, we're probably gonna have to go into lockdown again.
  •  
    I feel that the issue is passed on now and we no longer need the lockdown or quarantine. Most people have already passed this issue on in their heads.
alyne47

Iowa lifts mask mandate, gathering restrictions as U.K. variant surges - The Washington... - 27 views

  •  
    Is this the time or should we still keep the mandate and restrictions up until after the pandemic has officially ended? (Vaccines are done and no new cases.)
  • ...22 more comments...
  •  
    This seems like an absolutely bone head move by Governor Reynolds. I can understand now that cases are going down it seems like everything will be ok but restrictions are what bring cases down. Now with a new strain that is more infectious making its way to the US Iowa shouldn't lift any restrictions or things are going to get way worse.
  •  
    I think we should keep the restrictions, they are there to help the spread, even more, lifting it might just make things worse as how we are now. In the future, we might be ready to lift the restrictions, but it's too soon.
  •  
    i think we shouldn't lift the masking restrictions. just because the vaccines are out, doesn't mean the pandemic is over. not everyone will be getting the shot right away. numbers are going down because people are actually following the rules. when the numbers go down, we shouldn't lift the rules. it means the rules are actually working
  •  
    I think during this time lifting the restrictions is the worst possible thing we could do. There are new variants of COVID coming to the U.S. some of which are highly contagious which means now more than ever we should be wearing a mask. The only reason our numbers are down is due to these restrictions and now our governor is going to act shocked when the numbers go up again. We have battled back and forth between lifting restrictions and then enforcing them. Keeping restrictions until COVID is over seems like the most reasonable thing to do at this point.
  •  
    Even tho we have a vaccine out we should still use mask, because not everyone can get the vaccine right now.
  •  
    While we do have a vaccine being rolled out, this does not mean that we should lift the mask mandate. COVID-19 cases are going down but we still should be doing our best to make sure that we don't spread it. Plus, the vaccine is only 95% effective. While that is a large percentage, it doesn't mean that it completely protects us from COVID.
  •  
    I think that it's a horrible idea to lift the mask mandate now. Even though there is finally a light at the end of the tunnel with this pandemic it's just not a logical move to lift it now after months of it being in place when there was no solution. I think we should wait till everyone that wants to be is vaccinated and make sure that it makes a big enough impact that losing our mask will not have an effect the spread. I understand that this pandemic is getting old but if we all start spreading it right before the vaccine is released to everyone and things get so out of hand that we have to lock down again all we have done will be for nothing.
  •  
    The mask mandate should not be lifted, numbers are going down because people are being safe and wearing masks. The vaccine is out but not everyone has access to it and it is not completely effective. People going out in public with no mask increases the chance of either getting COVID or spreading it more. The mask mandate and restrictions should not be lifted until later on in the future when more people have the vaccine, now does not seem like the right time.
  •  
    We shouldn't lift the mask mandate. Numbers are going down because we're wearing masks, if we allow people not to wear masks cases will spike. We need to be diligent with these safety measures if we ever want this pandemic to be over.
  •  
    i dont think we should lift the mask mandate because even if the numbers are going down theyre just going to go right back up. there are still a lot of people who think masks are dumb and useless and refuse to wear them and they put other people at risk, the mandate was the only thing keeping others safe from them. i also know multiple people who arent able to get the vaccine because of past health issues and so wearing a mask was their only way of staying safe.
  •  
    This doesn't seem safe or smart because cases are still high, and even if they're decreasing now they will spike if everyone stops wearing a mask.
  •  
    The numbers are going to continue to grow with stuff like this happening. We already don't have a stay at home order,but now we're lifting the masks? This isn't going to make the virus disappear. If anything it will make things worse
  •  
    I don't think we should lift our masks now since Covid is still going on, if we lift our masks then Covid will just rise right back up and we'll just have to go back into quarantine.
  •  
    Lifting our masks now, would just cause more cases to rise and more people will get confirmed. Also there is not enough vaccines currently to give to everyone.
  •  
    I agree with bklopp601 because I don't think we should lift our masks because Covid is still going on, if we lift our masks then Covid will just rise right back up and we'll just have to go back into quarantine.
  •  
    I don't agree that we should lift the mask mandate as more people will get infected and cases will spike up causing another full lockdown and another mask mandate will be enforced later again.
  •  
    I don't think we should have lifted the mask mandate now that it is lifted more people are going to be getting sick & the cases are going to rise again meaning we could go into another lockdown & the mask mandate will be brought back
  •  
    I don't think they should lift the mask mandate. Yes, people are getting the vaccine, but most people don't have access to it, plus others don't feel safe getting it. We also have different strains of the virus going around that are more contagious than the original.
  •  
    I think that lifting the mask mandate is just going to set us back. Even though people are getting the vaccine, majority do not.
  •  
    I don't think they should've lifted the masking policy. Although cases are going down, Covid is still alive and thriving. If we lift the masking mandates now, we may need to wear masks longer in the future
  •  
    I agree that the mask mandate should have stayed in place because the cases may be going down but the virus is still very easily spread and without masks cases are destined to go back up.
  •  
    I don't think they should have lifted it, but honestly, not much has changed, most businesses are still requiring masks (as they should). I still think there needs to be a mandate though.
  •  
    I think its good that the mandate is lifted.
  •  
    I think its fine they lift it as long people keep getting vaccinated, but they should definitely keep the mandate in hospitals and places like that.
Faith Otten

Donald Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do - 22 views

  •  
    Donald Trump is doing what he promised, but is that a good thing?
  • ...18 more comments...
  •  
    With Mexico refusing to pay for the wall, I don't think the wall will even go up. So we should worry less about walls and more about the important things.
  •  
    I agree with Makenzie, don't worry about the wall but worry about what's important
  •  
    If he does what he always said in a way that benefits each of the citizens we work and live in a good way always striving for what we have is a good idea but if it is to harm people and thus humiliate them I am not made a good idea
  •  
    I agree with McKenzie, even though the wall has been a topic for a few months now... people are realizing this is getting close to happening... I don't blame Mexico for not wanting to help pay for the wall. It's probably not even gonna happen anyways. Trump needs to work on making people happy and "making America great again".
  •  
    It seems like Trump is trying to get to much accomplished at one time, he's not focusing on one problem, so nothing is going to get done. My problem with the wall is that it doesn't solve the problem people will always find a way in so unless we are putting a wall up around the whole US we will still deal with people trying to get in.
  •  
    Even though trump said he's going to build a wall people are still going to get over it. Unless he is planning on putting a wall all around. I think he's just gonna make it worst for us, he should do the little things first and work his way up with the big things, because what is he changes his mind about what he's doing.
  •  
    I agree with kim, he is doing everything so fast hes not really focusing or thinging about anything as long as it gets done.
  •  
    Donald has been doing everything he said he was going to but i dont think he is seeing what he is doing because he is doing everything so fast. i also dont think he will put the wall up because mexico wont pay. people are going to find a way around the wall too
  •  
    He is a man of his word, the word most people voted for, so that means he is going to do what he says and listen to the people.
  •  
    I agree with Justice because people are just going to find another way over or around the wall. Illegals are still going to jump the border and some of them will still make it into the United States. I don't understand why he is trying to do everything so fast. He does know that he has four years right? Maybe someone should inform him of that. The wall is a pointless thing especially if he's trying to get Mexico to pay for it.
  •  
    the wall is not a pointless thing. He will get mexico to pay for it. He is a man that keeps to his word. He is not bought and paid for by lobbyist, and super PACS. The wall is a great idea. Just remember would you want to take in some homeless person into your house? thats what a front door is for. that is why we need a wall.
  •  
    Mexico will not pay for the wall he's insane for thinking that they're going to help stay out. All he's doing is humiliating immigrants and kind of bullying them. If he plans on bullying people all four years he has then he's not going to do anything for us and that should worry people.
  •  
    I agree with Landon. Mexico is most likely not going to be willing to pay for the way so therefore its pointless. People are still going to try and do what they want, a wall is not going to stop them.
  •  
    Mexico might not pay. But Abby, you say he is humiliating immigrants, he is welcoming to other foreigners he just dislikes illegal immigrants, it's like somebody broke into your house and is living in your attic without you knowing. He is blocking immigration from the middle east not because he hates all muslims but because most terrorism is from that general area.
  •  
    I think the general concept of what he's trying to accomplish is a good idea, but of course there's plenty of flaws in the system. Mexico's obviously not going to be on board for covering the funds necessary to build the wall, and neither would any country in their position. You're going to have plenty of Mexican citizens who are totally against this and might even try to wreak havoc on the project which will only stir the pot more. On the other hand, he's making an effort to keep illegal immigrants out and follow through to his word by building the wall.
  •  
    I agree with Landon, Mexico might not pay for the wall. If Mexico doesn't pay for the wall to go up what are the chances that the wall is actually going to be put up?
  •  
    Mexico will pay for the wall if the like it or not. America will just stop sending them financial aid that we give to them every year. There is many ways to get Mexico to do what we want and we finally have a president that will stop the illegal immigration and do what he promised he was going to do. Amen!
  •  
    I think it is insane that Trump proposed the idea of building a wall, and now is trying to make Mexico pay for it. Why would they? How does that even make sense? If Mexico doesn't pay-which they wont, American tax payers will be the ones paying for it. And it is a multi billion dollar project.
  •  
    That's the reason why people voted for him, he is a man of his word that's what us the people wanted.
  •  
    He's doing what he promised, if someone didn't support him it's most likely not too good in their opinion, but he won promising things. It's a good thing to have a president doing what he promised, even if someone doesn't agree with it all.
Bryan Pregon

The Morning: 'Covid zero' isn't happening - 25 views

  •  
    This article really opened my eyes to see how the flu compares to the Coronavirus. Even with the vaccines rolling out, Covid cases will still happen even if they are decreasing. It will take numerous years to get back to "normal" and hopefully, this pandemic opened our eyes to realize just how serious these diseases and viruses can be.
  • ...18 more comments...
  •  
    i have thought from the beginning that covid will not disappear. but it will get better like the flu, thanks to vaccines and people becoming immune.
  •  
    I think this article kinda showed me a perspective that I didn't really think about. I kinda just blew off everyone saying it was gonna go away because obviously, that's just people being optimistic. But reading about the number of serious cases covid/flu wise made me realize that it is managable.
  •  
    I thought from the beginning that covid will not disappear and life wouldn't be life anymore, but I wasn't going to think about bad so I thought to myself, it will get better like the flu, thanks to vaccines older people have a better chance of becoming immune.
  •  
    I did not expect that the covid deaths were going to be that high than the flu deaths until I saw the graph that the article has. I'm glad that the covid vaccine is out so it can help sick people.
  •  
    I also believed that it was going to be very hard to get rid of or at least control covid but now I realize how our Nation has used all types of advanced technology and knowledge to stop it. Ieven see how we have achieved such as great overcome, the cure.
  •  
    "For fully vaccinated people, serious illness from Covid is extremely rare, much rarer than serious illness from the seasonal flu." i think this is great! seems like the vaccine is working! I have a question though... any update on the age limit for vaccines? i know when they first started, it was 16+ and then it was 18+... in china, they were vaccinating children as young as two.
  •  
    I believe that covid cases will happen even when they are decreasing. I looked at the chart and was surprised at the difference between covid and all of the other diseases.
  •  
    I think the thought that Covid is just going to disappear with the preventative measures has mostly just been a necessary lie or at least has intentionally not fully been explained just for the consequences of people seeing it as never going away. People already don't want to follow guidelines, but if it's never going to go away I think that would embolden a lot of people to completely disregard guidelines unrightfully.
  •  
    I think that if we had acted faster and with more intention at the beginning of the outbreak, we could've been back to normal already. Australia had some of the harshest quarantine restrictions before things really got bad and they're essentially back to normal already. As long as we don't get overconfident maybe we can avoid extending this quarantine longer that it needs to be... again.
  •  
    In the first few weeks, I did think covid would just blow over but after a year of living with it clearly didn't. I think that as time passes hopefully in the next year or two the vaccines will help create immunity and keep people safe and eventually we can return to a somewhat normal life. I've heard the analogy of covid being like how airport security came to be. A sad tragedy occurred but because of that event, we learned to put precautions in place to prevent it from happing. I feel like once covid gets under control we will be better equipped to not only survive another virus if that is the case but we are also better equipped to prevent the sickness and death from existing ones as well.
  •  
    We're still gonna be dealing with losses while covid is around but the vaccine can hopefully start to clear this up for people. So I think that within the next year these cases will go down.
  •  
    This article was definitely an interesting read. I think that even with the vaccine being given out it will take time to get back to normal, especially when people are still disregarding safety guidelines.
  •  
    I agree with tsilva588 because we are still gonna be dealing with losses while covid is around. But the whole world hopes that the vaccine can hopefully start to clear this up for people because I think within the next year these cases are going to go down.
  •  
    With the Covid vaccine rolling out, I think the number of fatalities from Covid will go down, But I think the number of people getting infected won't be going down by a large percentage since people don't trust the covid vaccine and people even then don't want to wear a mask. I think life won't be normal for the next 2-3 years.
  •  
    This article was interesting to read and very true, it won't go away completely but hopefully, soon we will be going back to normalcy. We have been learning to live with it and just like any virus, it is going to die out but we should always be cautious no matter what. Keep clean and take care of ourselves, as it overall doesn't have as much of an effect on healthier people.
  •  
    I agree, while yes it may still go down, this pandemic reminds us how bad things can get, we are lucky to brush with a not so deadly disease, yes people still die from it, but the mortality rate is exceedingly high, thanks to huge advancements in medical research and development, and, on the optimistic side of things, many good ideas and products came out of this, restaurants being able to deliver, seeing loved ones on a screen to be able to connect with them more easily, and widespread connectivity with everyone.
  •  
    this was interesting because the situation was put into perspective. They say that is should be kinda normal around the summer and that is such a good new because that means senior year will be more normal. I was kinda hesitant about the vaccine but apparently it is really helping even though there are some people who still do get sick is has come down to less people.
  •  
    I thought this article was interesting because it helped me gain a better perspective of COVID-19. Even with vaccines coming out, the world will not be put back on its axis because of all the damage that´s been done. It will take a while for things to return normally. Even with the decreasing number of cases, there will still be people who get it. It will still spread around like any other virus. I knew it was obviously a bad problem but it really put it into perspective for me.
  •  
    This article was very eye-opening. A lot of people think that the coronavirus will soon end, according to the article, it says that the coronavirus will be not be extinguished anytime soon. The University of Johns Hopkins says that people thinking the virus will end sounds like a fantasy and not a reality. The virus caused a lot of people harm and sadness. Many things were ruined by the virus and have opened a lot of people eye's to appreciate and value what they have. Having the vaccine it'll help us make the virus manageable, just like the flu.
  •  
    I liked this article because it gave me a better view on how corona is and how long it will take for people and us to get back to our "old world" and how it compares to other viruses.
ataylor074

Volunteers provide oxygen as India's COVID-19 cases near 20 million | Reuters - 16 views

  •  
    Do you guys think they should go into a lockdown? Do you think we should join the UK in sending aid to them?
  • ...14 more comments...
  •  
    I think India should seriously considering going into a lock down, even for a few days or weeks. That way it can contain the spread of the virus outbreak. Last year, we learned about the dangers of not containing this virus. I also think the U.S. should join the UK in helping them. I know our country has it's own problems, but if we can -- even just a little bit -- we should help others in the world during these tough times.
  •  
    i think that india should go into lockdown. cases are rising and if they don't quarantine, it will continue to rise
  •  
    They should consider a lockdown. So many people are getting sick, it's the best way to go. If they don't, who knows what could happen?
  •  
    they should definitely go on lockdown because it will just get worse and worse if they do not do anything right now when they should.
  •  
    I strongly feel that India should go on a breathly lockdown. The virus could spread more than it already is. With caution and responsibility, I feel like the numbers would go down by a lot. Now that covid has been going on for more than a year, we should think and do more research of how we should help others.
  •  
    I think for a country like India it's more complicated then just going into a lockdown. They have a population much higher than countries that have been able to successfully have lockdowns which makes it inherently much harder. On top of this India socioeconomic makeup make up is substantially poorer than countries that have had lockdowns as well. For a lot of India's population a lockdown just isn't viable, and you can see this in what happened in America as well where poorer people worked through lockdowns and because of this in poorer areas COVID spread easily. However this is a large portion of India's population, so this is an area where America needs to start exporting our extra vaccines since we have already had major success in our vaccine roll out and this is a grave situation
  •  
    I think India needs to go on a heavy lockdown. It's important that they take a lot of precautions because the virus could spread more than it already is and prevent another world lockdown from happening and keep other people safe. It would also help their numbers go down and to keep the threat of it spreading contained.
  •  
    India should go on lockdown right now when they can before it gets even worse for the people/
  •  
    With the severity of COVID in India, I think they need to come up with a strategic plan to control the virus. Whether that means a heavy lockdown or something else it's important they do something now before it gets even worse. They are in a terrible place right now with the amount of COVID cases and I don't think anyone wants to know what it will be like if it continues to get any worse.
  •  
    India definitely needs a lockdown right now. With COVID cases rising so drastically, this is the best possible thing for them to do to hopefully slow the spread of the virus.
  •  
    Understandably the severity of COVID-19 is extremely high, but India is also a third world country that relies heavily on their work force to bring in any kind of revenue for their government. In a country like India the governments respect for the residents is slim so while they should go into lock down I don't believe they will.
  •  
    They definitley need a lockdown as soon as possible. That could be a huge mess for India if covid isn't solved. I do think the US could provide aid I don't see why we couldn't?
  •  
    They should go on lockdown, it'd benefit them so things don't get worse. They are suffering and need as much help as possible so we should help them.
  •  
    I do believe they need to go into lockdown very soon so they can try to help keep themselves safe.
  •  
    I think they should go into lockdown to make sure everyone is safe.
  •  
    I think they should go to lockdown since covid is very bad there.
jessicasolorio

3 million new Covid-19 infections were reported in November, as hospitalizations reach ... - 7 views

  •  
    I can't imagine how many cases there are going to be in December when Christmas rolls around.
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    I think cases are going to rise very dramatically due to people getting together for Thanksgiving and Christmas.
  •  
    I think that the cases are going to keep going up. People are still going to get together for Christmas and thanksgiving and it is going to go way up.
  •  
    Cases are going to keep going up over the holidays.
  •  
    people are still getting together in big groups for the holidays and the number of cases is going to rise more and more.
  •  
    I'm sure no matter how you look at it, the cases will drastically go up in December. Especially since Christmas is rolling around, we saw how many families and people still gathered together for Thanksgiving. It's not going to be any better for Christmas.
  •  
    This is just going to get worse after black friday if nothing changes.
  •  
    thanksgiving and christmas are both holidays that are meant to be spent with your families so there was already no doubt that cases were going to go up. and same goes for black friday, you're shopping at multiple different stores in the span of two or three days
  •  
    Many people are spending time with their families around this time so there was no doubt that cases would have gone up. I'm just surprised they went up so drastically and in such a short period.
  •  
    we all suspected the rate of infection would go up during the holidays. meeting with people from all over the country definitely increases the amount of exposure a family can receive. people can choose to connect virtually instead of in person. it's not the same, but it decreases the exposure
Bryan Pregon

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

  •  
    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...
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    Its very easy to get a gun. Guns should be legal just stricter tests and background checks.
  •  
    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
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    I think we just need better protection in schools and we must also be aware of the signs before things happen.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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?
  •  
    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.
  •  
    I believe that arming teachers with a gun,would be a good idea. Because that could make the school much safer.
  •  
    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.
saralong057

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

  •  
    Why do you think the number of cases are starting to rise once again?
  • ...38 more comments...
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    I agree with "xxchrysxx" I have also read about what you've mentioned. It makes you wonder how valid Covid-19 really is.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    I think that because of the cold weather and flu season around the corner, the number will start to rise again.
  •  
    People are not taking it as seriously as they should and not following guidelines that were put in place to protect us.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    People started loosening the rules and safety regulations lately, plus this is flue season and cold season so I guess its corona season too
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    I think the cases are starting to rise again because states peeled back their lockdown measures and the cases began to rise
  •  
    I think it is because it is not being taken seriously enough and the lockdown measures are being repealed.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    I think cases are starting to rise because people aren't taking it as serious as they were.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    I think that numbers are going to continue to rise dramatically because of the holidays, and people not taking it serious anymore.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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
  •  
    cuz people still dont want to wear a mask for sum reason.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    Viruses thrive in cold weather, it is colder outside so more people will be inside together, and nobody likes to wear a mask
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    I believe it is just because people are getting too careless about Covid and won't wear a mask or social distance.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
jessicasolorio

Things Will Get Better. Seriously. - 26 views

  •  
    Personally, I think every day is a step forward in going back to our normal lives. We should be more hopeful and optimistic.
  • ...20 more comments...
  •  
    I think that we are going in the right direction more people are following mask rules. Of course some people will not but that is to be expected.
  •  
    I feel like that it is true that things are getting better, but we can't forget the HOW of how they're getting better. We need to continue following guidelines and wearing masks so that we can get back to normal.
  •  
    I think things will eventually get better but people have to be patient and do the things that they need to do.
  •  
    I think things are slowly getting better. We just need to be more patient.
  •  
    I agree that things are getting better. There's also an issue with too many people panicking making the situation seem worse than it is at times.
  •  
    I think things are slowly getting better but it is gonna take time and patience for everything to be fully normal again.
  •  
    Actually, I think is not, the coronavirus come to stay, and am pretty sure that Joe Biden is going to win,and he will change all the laws we know and been for almost all the time, and we have to be prepared because this year would be a hard year.
  •  
    I think things are really tough right now, but, I think things have gotten a little bit better. I think that everyone just needs to take the right precautions so we can go back to how things were.
  •  
    I think every day is a step forward in going back to our normal lives. We should be more hopeful and optimistic.
  •  
    I think that times right now can be scary and worrisome, but I do agree that we need to be more hopeful and optimistic for the future.
  •  
    I think things will also definitely get better. We all had to face issues in 2020 but we needed them to happen to learn and grow. I feel we are much stronger going into 2021 with everything that happened.
  •  
    I think this will end up being a tough change before things get better
  •  
    I think that even though covid has caused a lot of devastation it's also will lead to a lot of advancements that will help us in the following years. If we follow the guidelines and get through the next few months I think that things will get better.
  •  
    I think that thing will get better as well and hopefully it does so that things can go back to normal and so we can feel safe again and live our lives more freely.
  •  
    I think we can solve covid, it will become something like the flu so all we have to do is vaccinate each year. I think it will get better in the future.
  •  
    I feel like things will stay in the same state for a while. If people would learn to get a long and not make everything controversial we will eventually move forward and have a better society. But if people keep judging and hating on people because of their beliefs things will continue to go downhill.
  •  
    With masks now seen as a political statement and the many people who are not going to get the vaccine, I am very pessimistic about COVID going away as soon as people want it. With President Biden's new plan we should have enough vaccines to get everyone in America vaccinated. But from what I've seen there are just too many people who don't wear masks and won't get the vaccine.
  •  
    I don't think things will get better for a while since we have covid and other bad things going on
  •  
    Just because some restrictions are being lifted, it doesn't mean that things are getting better. By lifting these restrictions in restaurants, movie theatres, etc. we are actually making covid cases go up, ultimately making things worse.
  •  
    I think that things will in time get better, but it will defiantly take some time. Simply because no one was really ready for this pandemic to hit and so people who were struggling before are struggling worse. My hope is once the vaccine is widely rolled out things will really start up again.
  •  
    I think that we need to ease back into "normal" and this is still very far. People shoulnd't just believe that since things are starting to get better that they are.
  •  
    Yeah things will get better but if people want it to get better quicker they should listen and get vaccinated, the covid vaccine has proven that it is safe and works.
Bryan Pregon

Council Bluffs Schools blocking Facebook - 3 views

shared by Bryan Pregon on 04 Oct 12 - No Cached
  •  
    I am curious if you agree or disagree with the decision. Here are excerpts from three documents the school district has sent me about the decision.
  • ...14 more comments...
  •  
    i think blocking it was 50/50, good for the kids that are addicted to changing their status, but bad for people who are on it during free time or lunch.
  •  
    I agree with Andrew because there are a lot of people that abuse he privilege, but then there are the ones that only get on when told that they can or in free time.
  •  
    I think that our school system is going way Wacko with this, with Facebook, yeah block it, but you should block it on the school's wifi not the chromes. you should be able to get on at you house. What is the harm there...? Its not like you are getting distracted from a teacher talking..... With the cell phones. Yeah, thats whatever... I understand that you aren't supposed to have them out during class, but only being aloud to have them during lunch and before or after school, it makes me feel like we are back in Jr. High, that was their policy. I even remember i went to work Kirn's show and i forgot that there was that rule and so i was walking down the hallway texting, i looked right at the teacher and said that i was in high school, she laughed and said sorry and gave it back. But i think with this rule the students will feel like that are being treated as jr high students again and i know that would make me frustrated. But not having a relaxed rule on cell phones students will just get super mad and well, teacher's and Administrators,, You're gonna have a bad time...
  •  
    I agree with Eric, it should just be blocked on the wifi, not the Chromes themselves because now the people who brought their own computers can get on facebook, or the people with internet on their phones can access it that way. So the school didn't block the students %100, they just made an obstacle for the students to get through, because I think we all know someone is going to find a way around it soon, like they did last year.
  •  
    I agree with Eric and Alex as well, just block it on their wifi during the school day.
  •  
    It does feel like we are still in Junior High. but how do most Students? certainly not like they are in high school. If people would act their age then you could use this statement. take a look around the hallways and you know what i am talking about. And when you are on facebook or any other website it is a distraction because you are zoned out of everything that is going on around you and ten minutes can easily turn into an hour or a couple of hours
  •  
    a good 3/4 of the conversations during class periods... maybe not everyone's but at least mine has been about getting around the the Facebook block. They say Facebook is distracting well it is for certain people that get on it constantly but what really is distracting is people constantly talking about how they are trying to get back on Facebook through the chromes. That's not distracting a select few it's distracting us all.
  •  
    I feel like if the school has such a big problem with Facebook they need to realize that although blocking Facebook from chromes will stop many students from getting on it the majority of us do have smart phones. Meaning we can still get on Facebook. I think that if a student doesn't know how to control their use on facebook during school they will have to deal with the consequences and that it wasn't necessary to block the site, it's called responsibility and if someone doesn't know how to be responsible then that's their problem. Also I don't understand why students aren't able to get on Facebook outside of school?
  •  
    I don't feel like blocking Facebook was very beneficial. High school is supposed to be preparing us for college or a career, in which we will have access to anything we want. How are we supposed to know how to limit distractions if we don't have the opportunity to do so now? On another note, the students who aren't doing their work now with Facebook unblocked still aren't generally going to do it even without that particular distraction.
  •  
    I agree with Rainie, Jaidlyn, and Olivia. The school board and the administrators don't know what we are thinking in class, yes they might see that a good portion of our students are on Facebook, but also, a good majority is paying attention and actually learning, I personally find Facebook a good tool for school, because there has been multiple times where I have no clue what so ever on what is going on so I go and ask some of my friends that are in college and ask them, and also my friends explain it so much better than Teacher's do, I feel as though most of the times teacher's just speak it so they can get paid, they don't go in depth to it. So I feel also that if they were teaching more hands on there would be less Facebook usage, well, at least there would be if it was unblocked.
  •  
    Sorry.. I realized that I didn't finish.. With what Rainie said, that is so true you can't sit through a whole class period with out hearing, "This is peeveing me off!" or "There has to be a way around it, that will be my project this weekend, to figure out what how to get around this dumb thing!"
  •  
    Personally, if the schools are trying to prepare us for the future, then why limit what we can do, and not do with the chromes? How does limiting us teach us good decision making skills? I mean, in the future, if you are at work and spend 4 hours of your time at work on facebook, you are gonna get fired. We should have it just to learn that we do not need it. Plus, students are just going to move onto the next thing. Like there are not a billion other things we are going to get on?
  •  
    I completely agree with Payton. There are so many things that aren't blocked and we can move right on to the next thing.
  •  
    I totally agree with both Eric and Payton, also what about using our phones, Ipods, and personal computers to get on FB at school. An I know most of the people on FB use it to waste time, what about the students using it during free time for good things like making a FB page for a club or a FB event for a soccer game?
  •  
    In response to Payton W: If an employee would get fired for wasting company time on Facebook, what is a logical penalty for teachers/administrators to administer to those who refuse to work? It is hardly a solution to take the computer away, since there is so much effort placed on getting kids to use them for class work. Of course we cannot "fire" our students like an employee. Following your logic, shouldn't "moving on to the next thing" also get you the same penalty? Isn't the real issue students wasting time (whatever it might be)?
  •  
    Mr. Pregon, the personal issue with this is, we can't go around blocking things all the time, that does not teach good choice-making skills. I know that one solution, that may only work in some situations, is that, make them do it by hand. I've seen teachers use this before, and noticed quiet a bit improvement on students taking it upon themselves to avoid facebook. Mr. Nelson, in Algebra 2 made someone solve a 3 variable question using Matrices by hand, which can take about 10 minutes for a single problem. That student has not been on facebook in his class, or at least caught, since. As for penalties, students do have privileged that teachers may take away, such as going to the bathroom during class. Although, that is unlikely to affect most students, it is hard to say whether or not that will have much affect. Perhaps a major punishment such as Monday school if caught so many times? I have no direct answer as to how this should work though.
sydneykolln

Ted Cruz's Cancun Trip: Family Texts Detail His Political Blunder - 18 views

  •  
    Personally, I feel like it was wrong for Ted Cruz to go to Cancun when Texas is freezing and having a power outage. What are your thoughts on this?
  • ...16 more comments...
  •  
    While people in Texas are struggling for power, on top of a global pandemic happening Ted Cruz should not be leaving for Cancun.
  •  
    This is especially sad as well because up until now he denied climate change, and when he was proven wrong, instead of helping, he just left.
  •  
    I think that him and his family are wrong because he didn't believe in climate change and not that he knows that iyts real hes not going to do anything to help, hes just going to leave.
  •  
    I don't think what Ted Cruz did was okay. It shows that he doesn't care about what the people in Texas are going through and just makes him look bad in general.
  •  
    I feel like if you are someone who is viewed as a leader, you should not run away from the problems at hand. He is a congressman in Texas and I feel like he should've stayed home with his people and not go stay in Cancun while his state is under duress
  •  
    I think Ted Cruz leaving to go on a trip to Cancun with his family was extremely immature and inconsiderate. He is a well known politician with a large following that leaves a lot of people looking up to him. As soon as things got bad he decided to leave when instead he should have been helping and thinking of recovery plans for the people in Texas.
  •  
    I think that Ted Cruz leaving was really dumb on his part. Peoples houses are literally falling apart and flooding and people are dying and he is doing nothing about it. So unless he's out there making plans on how to save everybody, he doesnt deserve the title he has.
  •  
    I feel like this was not right of him to do. Ted Cruz is an important figure there in Texas and if he can't be there to help during the bad times, he shouldn't deserve to be there for the good.
  •  
    I understand that even if he had stayed most likely it wouldn't have had that much of an effect on the situation but it's basically a slap in the face to all the people who didn't have the fund's in Texas to even heat their homes if that was an option and could only dream on going on a vacation to Cancun. He at a minimum could have donated the money the family spent on the trip to help some of the people freezing to death and losing their homes.
  •  
    I believe he did not do the right thing in that situation and he should have stayed and helped Texas instead of running away like a little baby.
  •  
    This made me so mad. I know that he was just trying to be a good dad, but he's not just any dad. He's a senator. And there's a crisis going on and he's flying to Mexico while people are literally dying.
  •  
    He should've stayed in Texas to help the texans in crisis instead of going to cancun for warmth.
  •  
    Personally, I don't think Ted Cruz should have left Texas because it was a time that people needed help from the government most and he wasn't anywhere to be seen.
  •  
    Ted Cruz should not have left but there was not much that he could do being a senator in DC. The most he could have done much like Dan Crenshaw was hand out water, or food. And that is better than nothing but he had no control over what was going on or had no way to actually help bring the power back.
  •  
    I think it's ironic to say that Joe Biden was hiding during the campaign trail in the 2020 election. Then proceeds to "Hide" in Cancun when his state was in a crisis.
  •  
    This especially makes me mad since most of my family lives in Texas and they had no power and no running water and he just left them alone there to go to Cancun. This is a situation involving his own state and he doesn't even show the decency to pretend to care about the people there as their senator
  •  
    Why would you abandon your state when they need you most? Sounds selfish and morally just wrong.
  •  
    I think that Ted Cruz was dumb for this because he is a senator and should be trying to do something about their outages but instead he became selfish and fled to Mexico.
Jeremy Vogel

U.S. government insists 2012 apocalypse is a myth - 2 views

  •  
    One of government's greatest trusts is ensuring the safety of its people. But sometimes you have to protect people from themselves. The U.S. government's latest effort on that front is a blog post patiently explaining that, no, the world will not end this December.
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    I think this is a good move by the government to keep people from panicking in the next few weeks about the end of the world.
  •  
    It going to be scary/interesting to see all the things that people are going to do because they think the world is going to end. and i wonder when will the next world end date be
  •  
    Well sounds like they are going to handle it better than 1999 doomsday.
  •  
    people are crazy
  •  
    If the world ends im going to be pissed.
  •  
    Media blows things way out of proportion, starting with making the movie "2012." There is no scientific evidence of any apocalyptic events that will happen between now and December 21st, so I don't see what the big hysteria is. People will believe anything the news or the internet says and the internet is only correct a very small fraction of the time.
  •  
    people need to realize their are these things called lies and/or rumors which can be started easily just buy going on the internet and making something up and it clearly says most astronomers around the world would tell the public somehow if an unknown planet was going to collide with us
  •  
    "the emergence of a hidden planet known as Nibiru which will crash into Earth." What I want to know is how people believe a planet could be hidden. They're a little large...
  •  
    The following is a mass of sarcasm and poking fun at the people who believe in Nibiru. Do not attempt to recreate these actions because it's pretty much just me calling some people absolutely foolish. (Do not try this at him warning wannabe.) Read at your own risk. Mallory, they obviously have a cloaking device that prevents us from seeing this planet. When the day comes, the planet is going to ram into us and the world will end, because science has not found a way to flaw this theory, because gravity does not exist, because if gravity existed, this planet would have hit us a long time ago. Obviously.
  •  
    Foolish Payton, Doctor Who has already conclusively proven that all you need to prevent a planet ramming into us is the Doctor and a time lock. Or, alternately, the Doctor and his TARDIS, which can haul the other planet away. Seriously, though, it's extraordinarily sad that people insist on believing this. Something is very wrong when children become sick and suicidal because they believe in the end of the world. For that to happen the parents/guardians must either be encouraging the belief that the world will end, or at least not doing anything to dispel that belief. Very sad.
  •  
    As far as the Mayan calendar part is concerned, they probably got bored with doing it and wanted to do something else. But I don't remember anyone saying anything about how the Mayans specifically wrote on the calendar, "This is the day the world will end." Also, the day of Doomsday was later changed to sometime in the spring of 2011, or that's when the Rapture was supposed to happen or something. But nothing happened whatsoever. So it's a little surprising to see people still freaking out about how Doomsday is supposedly on December 21st, when nothing happened on that day in 2011. So nothing's going to happen. It's also really sad that some people want to commit suicide because they think the world is going to end.
Bryan Pregon

Iowa Lawmaker Wants To Bring Back The Death Penalty - 1 views

  •  
    I think life in prison would be worse than the death penalty to begin with
  • ...33 more comments...
  •  
    I think the death penalty is pointless. In my opinion all it does is give horrible criminals an easy way out. If I did something horrible enough to get the death penalty, I'd rather die than serve life in prison.
  •  
    Yup we are for sure with out a doubt falling back into a dark age.
  •  
    i think we should have the death penalty
  •  
    Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back.
  •  
    I think that the death penalty is wrong because they are trying to stop a murderer by murdering him themselves so really it's not much better then what the killer was doing himself.
  •  
    What would happen if the person was innocent after all?
  •  
    Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out
  •  
    It will be interesting to hear Sorenson's argument as to why to changes things. Prisons are getting crowded but this is still Iowa. We still have a small population
  •  
    I think the death penalty is not a bad idea nor I think it is a good idea. They will suffer in jail or suffer in hell. My opinion is put them in jail. If it is not their time to die yet then it is not. If they did something as bad as kill someone then they do deserve to go to jail and suffer for life.
  •  
    I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions.
  •  
    Its not weather which one is worse, its that killing a person for killing another person is not only hypocritical but inhumane to today's society.
  •  
    I disagree with bringing the death penalty back to Iowa. We've taken it away twice, once in 1872 and the second time in 1965, so I feel that shows that we, as a state, don't want it. Also the death penalty isn't really a deterrent for crime. There is a really interesting website that shows so facts about murder rates and comparing states that do and don't have the death penalty. They have a ton of information and I would recommend that you go through the site a little if you're interested in this topic. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
  •  
    I agree with Aaron, but i also think that justice should be served
  •  
    Aaron giving someone the death penalty is acceptable. Having life in prison is worse anyway and it just puts more people in danger if that person is still alive.
  •  
    better for the death penalty then life in prison.
  •  
    Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.
  •  
    Mr. Garner, it would cost more money to give somebody the death penalty then to have them spend life in prison. We live in a different type of world then when people had there heads chopped off and dragons happened to be there to save "johns" life. To me that's not what God intended us to do with people that made a mistake and yes a big one but everybody has a reason to something or there could be something seriously wrong with there head to commit a murder but its not always there fault.
  •  
    For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1 For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9 For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8 For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
  •  
    It seems like if the act of violence is bad enough to get the death penalty most of the people kill themselves before the law can.
  •  
    Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!
  •  
    Mr. Valdivia how would it cost more to give the death penalty then to keep them in prison for life? That's right, IT WOULDN'T. And I'm not saying give the death penalty for 1 murder. Based on depravity and body counts they should be sentenced to death.
  •  
    unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people
  •  
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf Dylan pages 20 and 21 of the PDF I linked above, explain why the death penalty costs more to administer than life in prison with out parole. More specifically on page 20 under the heading Time on Death Row it says, "In California, a legislative commission concluded that it costs the state an extra $90,000 for each death row inmate per year compared to the costs of the same inmate housed in general population. With over 670 inmates on death row, that amounts to an additional yearly cost of $60 million solely attributable to the death penalty."
  •  
    Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.
  •  
    Well then we can change the process to a quick and easy death without all that court BS. And plus I'm a prison warden so you guys both don't know what you are talking about. Aaron. And Jeremy.
  •  
    FALSE. There is NO WAY you're a prison warden. The minimum age for a Warden is 21, plus you have to have lots of training. So someone of your prestige and experience, (not to mention your practically a 5 year old) would never be able to be a warden. Kthnxbye
  •  
    I am prison
  •  
    Dylan and Joe, The reason that the death penalty is more expensive (and always will be) is the courts have to make sure that the criminal that is convicted is 100 percent guilty. There can't be any room for doubt. This means that the state has to supply better (More expensive) lawyers for the suspected party, and the trial has to be more in depth, therefor much longer. We can't make this time shorter than it is, because as a country, we are will do everything we can to keep an Innocent man from dying. And to just keep the perpetrators in jail is much cheaper, as there is already a well set system in place, and one more person will not increase the cost of that system to go up in large amounts as much as the singled out attention a person on death row will.
  •  
    @ Dylan and Joe, if you both still think that the death penalty is cheaper, you are wrong, look at the 20th page Jeremy posted. @ Jared, ethically speaking, shouldn't any person who is accused of murder have an outrageously expensive lawyer anyways? If someone is going to be imprisoned for life, or going to be executed for a crime, should the one being executed receive a better lawyer?
  •  
    I think they should, but the person being put to jail for life has the chance to have new evidence pop up, and potentially let them eventually get out, they have the chance to get out on parole, they have the potential for choices. The man that is getting the death penalty have to be 100 percent sure. They don't have room to make mistakes. Ethically, I believe that people getting put away for life should have the same standards of 100 percent, but as I said, they have choices later on down the road. The dead don't.
  •  
    @ Payton. It is cheaper. I know for a fact. I AM A PRISON WARDEN.
  •  
    I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty.
  •  
    @Peyton Are you trying to tell me its more expensive to keep someone alive in prison? this means that dude lives off our tax money. You will literally pay for his food, housing, and heck, that dude can even go lift for 3 hours a day and run his block! THink about that. State Champ.
  •  
    @ Dylan, you are not a prison warden, keep the topics on this page relevant to the conversation, and have some potential form of evidence to back up what you say. @ Joe, it is much less expensive to keep someone alive then execute them. The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated. Example State: California How much they could save: With life in prison as the maximum punishment for 1st degree murder, they would save over 1 billion dollars a year. Money that could be saved per year for taxpayers: 90,000 dollars a year. Taxpayers save money if they do not use the death penalty. http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 Besides, many murder victims PREFER the idea of Life without Parole. If you do not believe this, check out this site made by the victims families: https://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/death_penalty/Voices_from_California_Crime_Victims_for_Alternatives_to_the_Death_Penalty.pdf I have the feeling that nobody will even look at these links, but they are blunt evidence that it is cheaper, and makes more people happy, then when we use the death penalty. Oh.... By the way, 2nd degree murders (who cannot receive the death penalty) can do all that which you stated before Joe. Why should first degree murders be any different?
  •  
    The death penalty is dumb you should just let that sever his/or hers time in prison.
Janeth Cano

Why be against same sex marriage? - 37 views

  •  
    A student from ISU stands up for same sex marriage as he tells his story. Very powerful!
  • ...30 more comments...
  •  
    This student's name is Zach Wahls and this was a very powerful speech. Here is another link for the story with some more details http://goo.gl/LfiKK . I also know that he did a reddit AMA recently but I can't find a link right now.
  •  
    "marriage- ... 3) an intimate or close union" i think that if you asked a random person on the street what they thought marriage was this would be close to what they said, so why WOULD we be against it?
  •  
    If they are together the same as a man and a women are, why shouldn't they get the same benefits? I mean their relationships generally last longer then "legitimate" marriages so why shouldn't they be treated the same? By not allowing them to get married, are you doing anything? Besides denying them the benefits of that little piece of paper...such as lower insurance rates, higher health benefits, what happens if their partner dies? Then simply because they weren't ALLOWED to be married, the living partner does not get their belongings unless it is in the written will, they wont get any of the insurance money because that only goes to family, so if they are just "dating" they don't get any money to help them through the hard times...I think they should allow same sex marriage simply because if they are going to be together whether or not you allow them to get married, they should get the same benefits as everyone else.
  •  
    I don't mean to start a fight or anything like that, I just don't think it's right in the biblical sense. I am very close minded about this topic, and can't seem to change and I don't plan on it. I can see where people come from, but I bet some of those people don't believe in God, or the bible. It even states it in the bible that is wrong.
  •  
    I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments. Discussion groups like these can easily turn into arguments with little information on either side. Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/BFKIo
  •  
    I don't think that religion can play a part in what marriage is in today's world. Marriage now in the eyes of our government is a way for 2 people to share benefits that the government gives them.
  •  
    casue it sthe same sex it shold not be
  •  
    this is a hard question to answer. I believe very strongly that gays have the right to be together and form a union, so i think that marriage is all well and good, but there is another issue. No matter what the dictionary says what the definition of marriage is, it doesn't take superiority over the bibles definition, which clearly states marriage is only to be formed between a man and a woman. Some say that the bible was not very clear on that, and that it is up for debate, but if one looks at leviticus 18:22 it states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I don't think it is abominations, but the concept of christianity, and judaism does, which is where it gets tricky. Does the government have the right to force the church to do things against their belief such as allowing gays and lesbians to marry? quite frankly i don't think so. Its not like the pope can just say, hey gays are ok now. It would be blasphemous. the only way gays would be allowed is if God himself came down from heaven and made it publicly known that he has changed his mind on the concept. If i was lets say jewish and had my own resteraunt, and i didn't serve pork due to my belief that pork was a dirty meat, would you go to the mayor and convince him to force me to change my rule even though its against my religion, and causes the lord to look down on me with disdain? I dont think you would because its preposterous. So i believe we need to meet in the middle. Make a union that gives gays all the same rights and privileges as regular marriage, but make it a different term than marriage, or at least make it known that the church is not ordaining it. The trick is not to force people to do things against their will, but to find new methods to do things so that we can all co exist without such petty argument.
  •  
    I just think people come up with poor excuses for gay marriage not to eligible..
  •  
    they do, but many people are scared of change. its going to change i believe, but its going to take time.
  •  
    I think that if a gay couple want to be want to be married, why can't they? There isn't a negative effect of a gay marriage, and you can see from the young man in this video that they can be just the same as a straight marriage. Infact I think that man was in more successful than any of us coming from opposite sex parents would be at that age. I also think that they provide a better family life for their children as well. His family seemed alot closer than most families today. So theres no reason a gay couple can't be married. Sure you can say that its wrong because its against Gods will and all, but being gay isnt a choice. Its who you are. God created man, and if being gay is really as terrible as they say it is, then God wouldnt have made them gay. And to the guy who says people that are for gay marriage aren't christian or don't belive in God, guess what? I go to church, believe in God, and I am for gay marriage. Who's to say that gay people can't have the same rights as straight people? The only difference is the gender we prefer. Why should gay marriage be outlawed and ridiculed? Where has prejudice ever gotten us?
  •  
    I do not think religion has anything to do with marriage. After all atheists can get married can't they? Also if you have read the entire bible there are more things that god has said is wrong then gays, and i guarantee everybody has done something god has said is a sin. It is up to the people getting married whether they want their marriage to be religious or not. If we let religion be a part of our everyday lives we would go insane with all of the "rules" the bible states. Who is to say that gays shouldn't have the right to get married? If that is the case then maybe we should limit what straights can do.
  •  
    Dakota, If you look at Americas past there has always been prejudice. And in the end it united America. Look at the way people treated colored folk, or women for that example. There has always been prejudice in the past and there will always be in the future. People are going to voice their opinions no matter how ignorant or naive they are.
  •  
    I am against gay marraige but I also think that people have the right to chose what they want. they can make their own choices and I will make mine. I have friends that are gay and I have no problems with them or the way they act. I may not like it but im not going to hate them for it.
  •  
    i actually have read the whole bible, and i spent 7 years of my life in a private christian school. it doesn't matter if you stole an orange or killed a man, a sin is a sin. what you dont understand is that god weighs all sins the same, and quite frankly if i really should tell the truth gay people are going to burn in a pit, just as that guy with the orange will if they dont change their ways and repent. The church is like a private club, and they say gays cant marry. end of story. they dont care if your not christian, they care about anatomy. anything else people want to ask questions about so i can answer them? or how about making false statements i can shoot down? listen unless we find an alternate to marriage, we should not and i will not stand up for gay marriage. perhaps if it was termed differently and done done in the name of god, i would just say more power to them. no matter how much you want to, you cant change the laws in the bible and call them legitimate.
  •  
    "broxton anderson " so your saying that the homosexuals need their own form of union instead of marriage? I thought that most marriages were now legal constructs with religious ceremonies being a personal choice? Does anyone else think this touches on separation of church and government? Should there be a true separation between the phrases "civil union" and "marriage" or is there already and some of us just can't see it yet?
  •  
    From a biblical point of view God made women for man and man for women, not man for man and women for women! #RealTalk
  •  
    yes it should be a "true separation" that way it removes itself from religion which leaves religions no room to complain. I feel that a civil union should give ALL the same benefits as marriage to. must people truly complain so much over two words? its the same thing, just a different name, and can prevent millions of wasted arguments.
  •  
    for those of you that say it is wrong according to the Bible, what happens if you were gay? It's not like you can change how you feel...and if "God" created all people "equal" why shouldn't they actually be treated equal? And i honestly think that simply because gays are the minority, they are being picked on...it's wrong...so why would "God create" people just to send to the deep south? ...just a thought
  •  
    Broxton Anderson- You have read the bible, yet you chose to use the most uncredible source in the bible. Using Leviticus is ridiculous. Leviticus also states that it is okay to own slaves and that if one performs the act of beastiality, that person is to be murdered and so shall the animal. It also states that you may not speak to a women on her menstrual cycle and it is also forbidden to touch pig skin and for men to cut their hair. You are completely fine with ignoring these very radical notions, but when it comes to gay marriage you instantly are against it? Seems to me like there is a lot of hypocrisy in your ways. I am a Catholic, but I fully accept the institution of gay marriage. I myself am not gay, nor do I plan on becoming gay. Leviticus is outdated and does not apply to our modern lives. Do not pick apart the bible and try to sound as if you know the way people should be. Anyone can misquote the bible. If you have a problem with homosexuals, keep it to yourself. They have just as much rights as everyone else in this world and should not be denied rights such as being married. A few men who disliked gay people have started this constant circle of quoting Leviticus in order to make their way sound just. If anything, they are doing more wrong by corrupting the bible to use it to justify their personal views.
  •  
    Same goes to Jay Cook. Talking on something you do not understand, or even researched, makes you arrogant and naive. If you are so fine with not allowing gays to be married, then you should be put back into slavery. Fair trade, yes? From a biblical view?
  •  
    I compltely agree with you^ Most people that are against gay marriage claim to say they are against it mostly because its against the bible while over half of them have no idea what they are talking about and likly havent read the bible. I think people should be able to marry who they wish the gender should not matter.
  •  
    It's too bad the bible is a bunch of tall tales exaggerated, can't trust religion for anything, it's a petty excuse for any argument.
  •  
    From an evolutionary stand point homosexual relations don't have an impact other then thinning the human gene pool. Not that I'm against gay rights, but since everyone dismisses religion I thought it would be important to note that in the commonly held belief of evolution, unless a person has offspring, it's as if never existed. Just some food for thought...
  •  
    Obviously what he is saying that from the stand point of evolution. He wasn't saying the homosexuals provide nothing to their societies.
  •  
    If you think about it the bible states go forth and populate, and that's the premise of evolution....
  •  
    Yeah thats a good point but maybe thinning the human population isnt all a bad thing. Also have you even considered how many children gay people adopted from other countris and places were they probably would have not had a good chance in living a good long heaalthy life. I dont understand how people can be so one minded about things. What if you were gay and wanted to marry a person you loved and you couldnt because judgmental people didnt approve?
  •  
    I'm cool with gays as long as they don't try and make a move on me.
  •  
    I agree with Brittany, everyone as a human being has their rights
  •  
    i totally agree with riley its peoples life and they have their own rights
  •  
    Thinning the gene pool is a bad thing. Genes that don't get passed are lost, and it could have devastating effects. Also I never said they don't contribute through adopting. I said that in the eyes of evolution ANYONE who fails to pass on genes is nonexistent.
  •  
    I believe Brittany said the human population, not pointing out simply the gene pool. The human population rate needs to slow down. It's increasing at a ridiculous rate and with adoptions instead of births it will decrease slightly. However, more people need to understand that everyone has a right as an individual and if a man-man or woman-woman couple wants to get married or adopt children or have their own, I say let them.
Bryan Pregon

Newtown victims' families sue maker of gun used in 2012 attack | Reuters - 27 views

  •  
    "The families of nine people killed in a 2012 massacre at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school sued the maker of the gun used in the attack on Monday, saying the weapon should not have been sold because it had no reasonable civilian purpose."
  • ...11 more comments...
  •  
    I understand there rage towards the gun company, but you can't sue them for selling a gun. that's what there job is, that's just what they do. they didn't intentionally sell it to that guy knowing the terrible things he was going to do.
  •  
    I think the gun makers should not allow that gun to be to sold to the public. Its too powerful. But on the other hand the shooter could just get another gun. I don't think its the gun manufactures fault. People do crazy things, and it just happened to be their gun.
  •  
    I agree that the gun should not have been sold to a civilian and the maker/seller should be sued for the crime.
  •  
    They shouldn't sue the maker/seller, it was legal to sell that type of gun at that time. The seller didn't know that Lanza was going to shoot 20 first-graders and 6 teachers.
  •  
    I agree that it is wrong to sell such a powerful weapon to the general public. Never the less, you still aren''t going to get back some of those guns they have sold. A military issued weapon should not be sold to the general public, it has no good use for the public. But at the same time, I believe there is no reason to sue the company. The company didn't know this was going to happen.
  •  
    This whole massacre just absolutely angers me. I cannot believe that a gun that would be used in the military was used by a young, inexperienced man to kill 20 children and 6 faculty. Yeah, the gun-maker didn't know that Lanza was going to go out and do this, but they could have sold a different gun (a gun that would NOT be used in the military.) I think the victims' families did the right thing by sewing the gun-maker. He killed children and wives/husbands....LOVED ONES. That's not okay.
  •  
    I agree that it is wrong to sell such a powerful weapon to the general public. Never the less, you still aren''t going to get back some of those guns they have sold. A military issued weapon should not be sold to the general public, it has no good use for the public. But at the same time, I believe there is no reason to sue the company. The company didn't know this was going to happen.
  •  
    I agree with them with the thinking that such a powerful gun shouldn't be sold to just anyone, a gun like that only has one purpose and it isn't hunting. I don't think its fair to sue the gun company, just because you buy a gun doesn't mean you are going to do what happened on that terrible day.
  •  
    I think that we should have better background checks before people are sold guns. Also the gunmaker had no idea that Lanza would do something like what he did. The families have a good case because he shouldn't have had the gun at all because it is a very highly powered weapon.
  •  
    I do believe that such powerful guns should not be allowed to the public, especially for recreational use. I also do believe that before guns are sold to civilians we should issue many different back ground check systems. This is to ensure no gun is more powerful than the ones the law has and no one who is dangerous has a dangerous weapon.
  •  
    I agree that these guns shouldn't be sold to the public and in fact only used for military purposes. But I do not agree that the maker of the gun should be sued. He just made the gun. He didn't influence the carrier of the gun to do what he did with it. It's like suing a company who makes knives in the same situation. It's all about the user, not the maker.
  •  
    Guns shouldn't be sold to the public the maker of the gun should not be sued.
  •  
    I agree with them with the thinking that such a powerful gun shouldn't be sold to just anyone, a gun like that only has one purpose and it isn't hunting. I don't think its fair to sue the gun company, just because you buy a gun doesn't mean you are going to do what happened on that terrible day. You can make the gun, but there's no evidence showing the maker of the gun influenced the shooter to do what he did.
Bryan Pregon

Teachers with Guns - 31 views

  •  
    AFTER viewing the story/video, which side would you take? Teachers with guns could be first responders or do more guns create more gun violence in society?
  • ...40 more comments...
  •  
    I think that the teacher should be able to have the gun but very protected from anybody except themselves. The teachers should always should check them everyday so they know if its still there.
  •  
    In my opinion teachers with guns is a good idea, although I don't want some teachers thinking that gives them a sense of bigger authority.
  •  
    It is a good idea for them to have guns, it would help with safety.
  •  
    I don't agree with the right of just teachers being able to carry a gun if someone takes a 4 hour class to know to take the gun out and use it in the right way, someone that is professionally trained should be hired because nobody knows if a teacher is going to be able to take a life of someone else.
  •  
    In my opinion, teachers having the right to carry a weapon is okay. For protection and safety purposes, I completely agree. I think it would give us a sense of reassurance, knowing that we would have a fighting chance, if a person(s) with a weapon entered the school.
  •  
    I think that teachers should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to school, if the case is that the first responders would arrive to the scene too late.
  •  
    I think that its dangerous that the teachers have guns but in this situation I think its okay. The best thing about this situation is that the students don't know where the guns are and how to access them. Also another reason that the guardian plan is so necessary for this town in Texas is because the response time is so long and I would definatley agree that the teachers should be able to have guns.
  •  
    I would take the side that I think guns would be an okay idea. I think that before a teacher is handed a gun they should be trained on how to use it. I also think that the guns should be put in a safe, somewhere out of the reach of the children. But on the other hand I believe that their should be an officer in every school, I think this would prevent a lot of violence.
  •  
    Although it might be risk to have teachers carry guns at school, it could also potentially save lives because they could be the ones to stop a shooting or whatever else may happen in the school. I think that as long as the teachers keep them hidden and everyone is on board, then it should be okay.
  •  
    I believe that some teachers, who have gun permits and all the legal things, should be able to carry guns. But I think they should be hidden so that students cannot get to them.
  •  
    After viewing the video and reading the article, I am for the fact that the teachers at this school should be able to have guns because they're in a rural area. It takes the first responder 30 minutes to get to the emergency site. A lot of "bad" can happen in 30 minutes. Although I previously stated I was for the carrying of guns, I also am against because I think that if the teachers are going to be carrying guns, they need to be properly trained. If they're not properly trained, bad things can happen too. So all in all, I am for it if the teachers and school board members receive proper training.
  •  
    I don't think teachers should have guns, because the gun violence will increase. More kids will think they could start to carry weapons, and most schools already have an officer.
  •  
    I think teachers should be able to have guns in safes in their class room for safety reasons.
  •  
    I don't think teachers should have guns because I think gun violence might increase and we already have a cop that has a gun so I don't think it's necessary for all teachers to have them
  •  
    I think that teachers should be able to have guns. they would be protected and i dont think that them having guns would cause more violence because they would be using it for safety of them and the children at there school so there teaching student to be responsible and how to act it that kind of situation.
  •  
    I think teachers having guns would be a good idea as long as they keep them put away until needed.
  •  
    I do not think that teachers should have guns because some teachers get mad easily and we don't know what they would do with them. Also students could be looking through a cabinet and find it and tell other students who might take it and possibly use it against the school.
  •  
    I think teachers should have guns to protect themselves and others but they should check the gun everyday.
  •  
    Teachers are teachers and there is other people that should take care of violence and shooting at schools. I wouldn't feel more safe if more people start carrying guns I would feel more threaten. If something should it be more difficult to get a gun in some of the states.
  •  
    I think that it's a good idea to an extent. There are some teachers who, under the circumstances, probably would be to afraid, or just in shock to act in the situation. Over all though, I think it is a good idea.
  •  
    Being in a rural town it is easier to approve guns and I beileve is ok, in small towns everybody knoes everybody. Many people "Pass through" small towns where there isnt much authority and public safety in the town but there is in the town miles down the highway. Therefore in rural schools I think it is right to be able to carry guns for the students saftey. In urban areas there is public safety patroling the town on a regular basis, there is police inside schools with guns and weapons to protect studnets and staff. In Urban areas I do not think it should not be allowed for teachers to carry guns inside schools.
  •  
    I think teachers should be able to carry concealed guns, but I also think they should have background checks to make sure they are good people to have guns. I would feel safer knowing that a good person has a way to protect us.
  •  
    To Sydney - I agree. I think that it should be an optional thing and if you do carry a gun as a teacher you must take a class/course in order for to be able to permit it in the school building.
  •  
    I think giving licensed teachers guns in rural areas would be beneficial. It may be simpler to have one or two police officer in the school, but have the teachers have guns would also be okay as long as they were trained with a gun and could handle an intense situation. As some were saying about how students might find the gun, the school would probably have a locked up location for the gun, therefore the students would not be able to access it.
  •  
    I don't think teachers having guns is a good idea because they aren't trained properly in that area. That's why we have a school cop who should be the first to handle situations like that. I'm sure if something like that happened here there wouldn't be an issue with the amount of time it would take the police to get here.
  •  
    I agree that teachers should be allowed to have guns, but check on the gun everyday to make sure students don't mess with the gun
  •  
    I don't think every teacher needs to carry a gun but the district should designates certain teachers to allow them to carry guns. They should also be properly trained and be monitored. In the time it takes police to arrive to a call for a school shooting countless students could already be dead, but with the designated teachers there they could put a stop to the shooter.
  •  
    bllandon- I agree. I believe that certain courses and classes should be taken in order to be an armed teacher. If i had to trust my life to a teacher in a dire situation like a school shooting, I'd prefer it to be in then hands of a calm under pressure, capable shooter.
  •  
    I believe that teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons but as long as they have some type of professional training. It wouldn't do any use to carry a gun of you can't use it and use it safely. Also the gun should be used as a last resort in an extreme situation. I agree with Emily when she's says some students might try and take it but it should definitely be in a safe place where no one but the teacher would have access to it.
  •  
    I think it is a good idea. The only concern I have is the teacher viewing him/herself to have more authority over others. The students should not know which teacher carry's a weapon. Though the teacher should have to go through many training courses in order to do so. It's one thing to carry a gun, it's another to kill a person and be in a firefight. Not everyone can handle it.
  •  
    I Think Teachers should be allowed to Concealed Carry as long as they pass certain requirements, like in the video the administrator says they have to be accurate up to a certain point in order to be able to carry said gun. As well as the do training he mentioned that the teachers have been trained in hostage situations. In my opinion with the correct training and practice it would be a great idea.
  •  
    I think teachers should not be aloud to carry guns we don't live in a small town in Texas where it would take 30 mins. for people to respond .Plus most school already have a trained officers in their schools we don't need untrained teachers to carry weapons.
  •  
    In regards to what fwyldes753 said, I believe that teachers shouldn't be able to carry guns because we don't live in a rural area and cops are in a close distance. I wouldn't trust teachers to carry a weapon. We also have a school cop that would respond immediately.
  •  
    I think schools teachers should be able to have concealed weapons on them as long as they go through a gun safety course and if they are too far away to be able to wait for police.
  •  
    I think that teachers should be allowed to carry guns, but under very strict circumstances. The gun should be on the teacher at all times (never put in a cabinet or a safe, as kids could more easily find a way to get to it), the teachers should go through gun safety and training (which they apparently do), only teachers with gun permits should be allowed to have them, and they should be completely concealed at all times. Although I think this idea is most likely going to stay in rural schools (they have less students, and are farther away from law enforcement), I could see it traveling into city schools in the future. So yeah, all in all I don't think this is a bad thing at all. It could save a lot of lives in the event of a school shooting.
  •  
    I think that there intentions are great and in a rural town with not many armed forces around to help it might work. But what if a kid were to get ahold of it? I believe that they'd have to be in a safe where the students don't realize what it is or can't see it. But with that they won't have the whole quick to help plan they are hoping for. It would be faster then the cops getting there though.
  •  
    I think that if the location of that school is very dangerous then teachers should be able to carry guns but out of sight from students at all times. because if students can see the gun, it would make them too uncomfortable to even learn.
  •  
    After viewing the video and reading this article, I feel that it is appropriate for staff and board members of a school to carry guns. As for schools located in a area where first responders are able to access the situation more quickly, I don't think it would be as necessary. Although I think school teachers carrying guns is a good idea, I believe that it only makes sense for these teachers to go through the proper training before doing so.
  •  
    I think that it should be allowed for some teachers in rural areas to carry guns. As long as the guns are kept in a safe place and locked away from the students. I don't think that every teacher needs a gun but because they are in a rural area and it will take longer for police to get they should have someone there who can protect them the moment a situation happens. We have a police officer at our school at all times ready to protect us, why shouldn't they have someone who can protect them. If teachers are allowed to carry guns they should have to go through a class/course before being allowed to have a gun at the school.
  •  
    I'm not sure about teachers being able to carry guns in school. You have to put into factor how it would be concealed, which teachers have access and or carry it, and things like if the students would think it was okay for them to bring some sort of protection, whatever that may be. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think people would have to be much more cautious in all senses. The barrier between feeling safe, nervous, or afraid around someone would be different for everyone. Carrying weapons might also deter some of the schools wanted achievements for the future, for example attendance averages.
  •  
    I think it's a good idea. Obviously they are going to have to take a class and get a back ground check. The guns would be kept in a safe secured place away from the students. They don't have a police officer like we do so they don't have someone that is there to protect them.
  •  
    I believe that teachers with guns has its pros and cons. For example, I believe that guns do not kill people, but the people behind them do. You can do background checks on anyone, but at any time someone with a gun can become angry and upset and shoot a person. Guns for teachers can be useful in smaller, rural areas where medical attention or police could take longer. But for teachers in urban areas should be more limited. I feel as long as they take a class to learn to shoot, to carry it, and as long as it is locked up in the classroom or only allowed to be out when needed can be very beneficial.
mya_doty

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

shared by mya_doty on 05 Nov 14 - No Cached
  •  
    (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...
  •  
    Whats wrong with that.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    Every town has some sort of poverty and not feeding the homeless isn't going to get rid of them.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    this is a joke, how can you not feed another human being??
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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
Melissa Diaz-Aguilera

Juvenile Justice: Too young for Life in Prison? - 10 views

  •  
    I feel like you should be able to charge juveniles as adults. I think it would be absurd to just let kids away with committing crimes, especially the one this kid did. If an adult did something like this no one would even think twice about arresting them, why is it different in this case? I think that he needs to be put behind bars and he needs some sort of counseling because obviously something is not right with him. It might also help to know what kind of background the kid has, to see why he did it. There has to be a reason.
  • ...27 more comments...
  •  
    If we as a society won't allow juveniles, sixteen year olds in particular, to vote or to sign their name to a legal contract and the justification for that restriction is because they aren't "mature enough" or that they "don't/won't understand" the lasting consequences then how can we expect them to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime? If sixteen year olds are old enough and mature enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime then shouldn't they also understand the lasting consequences to the things I mentioned above?
  •  
    I agree with Jermey, we need to not set a double standard. We need to rehabilitate young offenders, because if you are not a hard criminal before you go to prison for 20 years of one of the most impressionable times of your life, you will come out of it as one. These are kids that probably grew up in broken homes, and this was the only path they were going to take, because it was the only one they saw. So lets rehabilitate, and give them productive lives, not ones that are going to keep the cycle going.
  •  
    I agree with you for the most part Natalie. Although if it's a really small crime and the juvenile is unarmed, then they should go to juvenile court. But for crimes bigger than that example, they need to be charged as an adult would be charged. There's actually this reality TV show (that I can't remember the name of) where, in each episode, a group of kids who are on the streets and in gangs, etc. are taken into a jail as a form of rehabilitation, and they go through a day of being in jail and they also hear stories from people who are in jail at that time, and they always say that one doesn't want to end up in jail. I think there was one particular episode where a girl went with her mother to watch her mother plan a funeral for her. It's pretty interesting, and it does seem to help a lot.
  •  
    Jared, I understand what you mean by some kids growing up in broken homes and having bad lives growing up BUT you always have the option to not go down that road. You have the option to try to better yourself and make something of yourself. Although most people don't do that, they don't always pull a gun on a cop. That is a serious offense and I feel like you guys are so focused on the fact that he's our age that you're blinded by what he did. Jeremy, I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me so if you could maybe clarify that would be great. Thanks. Kirstina, I do get what you're saying. Most kids need to see what can happen but this kid is plenty old enough to know right from wrong.
  •  
    I realize that, but the people that are the most likely to pull a gun are the ones that have the most messed up life beforehand in most cases. We should try them as children, and try to rehabilitate them. Before your 18, and move, a large part of what you do, and know is influenced by your parents, and other senor figures in your life, and even friends Until you reach adulthood, its hard to be your own person, especially in the environment that generates this type of person. There is the odd person in there that is just a bad person, and it is all there fault, but we need to try to rehabilitate them as a child, not as an adult.
  •  
    Jeremy, there's a major difference between crime and legal contracts. They don't have anything to do with each other. Sentencing teens like adults is important because it protects us. It's a safety issue. Plus it tells other kids, "You break the law, you get in huge trouble." And they don't allow people under 18 to sign contracts without parental consent to protect them from making stupid decisions.
  •  
    Natalie I'm sorry for the confusion. I was replying more to the article then directly to your post. To clarify I disagree with your position about putting juveniles into adult court that commit violent crimes. At least with the current system we have in place. Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting. As long as our society wants to say that sixteen and seventeen year olds aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of something like voting then how can we expect them to understand these violent crimes that they commit. I'm all for placing older teens in adult court when they commit an adult crime but only if they aren't subjected to an unfounded and unreasonable double standard. Either sixteen year olds are on the same maturity level as adults or they aren't.
  •  
    i think it is totally understandable because it shows that this kid is planning on doing crimes in the future.
  •  
    i think that they did the right thing by arresting him if you are 16 then you are old enough to realize that shooting a cop isn't a good idea and you will have a punishment for it
  •  
    Natalie i agree with your point of view on this article. If he is 16 he already knows what he is doing. We are all in high school and know well the consequences if we did that. I also agree with what you said about his background. It seems like this is a record and he already knows the consequences. So in my opinion he should be charged for adult crime.
  •  
    I believe this kid should get charged as an adult because like they said in the article. He is a threat to society and to himself.
  •  
    I agree with Natalie, everyone in the right mind should know shooting at someone; especially a police officer is wrong. And know their will be consequences to follow. So yes, juveniles should be charged as an adult depending on the circumstances.
  •  
    I agree with charging juveniles as adults. People should know the right from wrongs at an early age and receive the consequences though an understanding of what they did wrong.
  •  
    I agree with Melissa, people should know the difference from right and wrong, they definitely know the incentives for doing wrong as well.
  •  
    Jeremy, I don't quite understand where you stand on the issue. You said that you realize there's a difference but then you said, and I quote, "Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting." You're contradicting yourself there and in your original comment.
  •  
    Obviously there is something wrong with society if we have mere teenagers pulling out weapons and assaulting people to the point of felony. I think that the punishment is completely fair for such a sick individual. Criminal behaviors are not taught, but learned so he had to have learned this from someone he knew or a parent with a criminal record. Either way, what he did was wrong and he deserves to be behind bars.
  •  
    I agree with charging minors as adults because this article is one of many where the felon was a minor. I did research over this in another class and i found many articles where they were charging a minor with adult charges because of how brutal the murders they committed where. Like i argued in my other paper "is your loved one's life any less valuable just because they got murdered by a minor"
  •  
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/sport/football/dutch-linesman-killed-football/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Here's another case of teenagers committing violent crimes. They beat this man to death. There were two 15 year-olds and a 16 year-old.
  •  
    they should charge minors as adults because they will be out in the streets again and doing more crimies. its there own fault that they get charged thats why they should face charges alone.
  •  
    I think if you do the crime, you pay the time whenever the government wants you to.
  •  
    i say same charge for everyone no matter what
  •  
    if you're willing to make the decision to break the law and commit a serious crime with the consequences of an adult then you should definitely suffer the same consequences no matter your age.
  •  
    if anyone commits a crime they should be charged the same no matter what age
  •  
    I agree with the idea that no matter your age, if you commit a serious crime, you should suffer the consequences. Say a teenager decides to murder someone... Just because they're a minor, should they be charged with a lesser offense than an adult would have? NO. If you are willing, capable, and have the mental capacity and audacity to commit such crimes, you deserve prison and whatever other punishment you receive.
  •  
    Great discussion guys! Here is some more food for thought. People who do bad things need punishment, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that teenage brains are in a state of development that doesn't excuse bad acts, but can help explain it. http://goo.gl/MXEAd Ask yourself if you are the "same person" you were when you were 5 years old? I can tell you, you will make decisions differently when you are 25, and probably 65.
  •  
    This is a good point i have to say. That's why I think we need to do our best to reform kids, not just punish them. Make it clear that their will be consequences, but try them as hardened, adult criminals is not the way to do it.
  •  
    This is an extremely touchy subject. It's hard to lay out things like this without stepping on toes of other controversial subjects like voting age and military eligability
  •  
    You both make a good point, but when a kid gets charged with a felony, he obviously has done wrong. Sometimes you do bad things, but its not as bad compared to other things. Though when you get older, you can continue to do bad things, and the bad things can turn into crimes, etc. Sometimes charging teens as adults is the way to go, even if it doesn't seem fare. Maybe not fore life, but two years, or even one, wont do any harm.
  •  
    I think if someone did crime, they should be punished no matter their age. so make them realize how bad it is.
Bryan Pregon

Iowa confirms first child death from COVID as schools reopen - 17 views

  •  
    I think it is terrible that the family lost their child due to Covid, but then again this is only one out thousands of kids to actually die. Unfortunately people are going to die from this but I think it is best if we try to get back to normal as fast as we can.
  • ...11 more comments...
  •  
    It is scary how big this virus has become and how deadly it can be to anyone. I think we need to keep trying to stay safe and help others be safe and healthy too. Especially how it was a young child that passed due to Covid is scary.
  •  
    This is very horrible and I think for this reason a lot of schools are closing. It's hard to keep everyone safe when everyone is itching to get back to normal. We have to remember this is kinda real and even tho it stinks we have to try to keep everything normal.
  •  
    I agree that its awful that a child passed due to the virus but I disagree when people say that they're just one of the many to come. Although unfortunately, it's true, we should use that as a reason to slow down the reopening of schools and other places. Our safety and health should always come before numbers on a chart.
  •  
    This is the scary part about going back to school when there is a pandemic going on, you don't know what's going to happen, I think this is why most schools are closing and doing online because they want to keep everyone safe and still have them "in school".
  •  
    that is really sad, but this is a new situation for everyone and there are no previously written guidelines for how to handle it so in reality things like this are expected until we know how to fix the problems. it's all trial and error
  •  
    This is so awful and terrifying. because we all going to school 2 or 3 in week and maybe someone have a Corona and when i think that, we all have to wear mask and we should do social distance until Corona is end.
  •  
    The worst thing that could happen to anyone is to lose family, That can be the worst of the pains. Also I don't think it is right to say that is was one from many to come. This is sadly true, this is not near a good think honestly they should've waited more to re open schools. I would rather keep people safe and alive then get an education!
  •  
    It's terrible that this is all happening, Hopefully people listen to the guidelines that people set to stay safe and we can all get back to normal life soon. -Khuntley170
  •  
    This is probably the worst-case scenario as we begin going back to school here in Iowa. The fact that this happened to a child is beyond belief. It is so scary to go to school when you are not sure if you are truly safe. We have had up to four cases here at AL, and it is only growing which is probably the scariest part.
  •  
    I think it's terrible how a young child died from Covid, now his family has to mourn his death. Though there are many other cases just like this one of children dying from this virus yet schools around the country are being reopened ignoring these deaths. Not only that but opening schools could cause an impact on the spread of the virus.
  •  
    I really think that this is terrible, that this and a bunch of cases like this happening in multiple states all over the country. I believe we might have opened too early to really guarantee the safety of these children and kids in class. Of course, we want to go back to normal, but we can't if we don't try to distance ourselves and make an attempt to prevent it spreading. Just because it doesn't hurt YOU doesn't mean it won't hurt others.
  •  
    this is bad because a young student died. but there is a lot of children who haven't died this kid is the first young kid to die due to Covid. and even though this is terrible we have to think of the majority and not just go off of one kid that died.
  •  
    This is definitely scary and unthinkable, especially being so close to "home". There are a bunch of cases like these happening, which is sad. I honestly think we opened too early. With having online school available in Iowa now, I don't understand why we did not use that to our advantage to keep us all safe, and work from home.
Victoria Holcomb

Mom is ticketed for letting her two year old son pee on the street - 0 views

  •  
    you gota go you gota go
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    That is crazy. I get that peeing on a street, is nasty... But it was a little kid, they can't hold it forever....
  •  
    I mean I would understand that if it was an older child to ticket her but it was a little boy and yeah it is gross but he's still little he didn't know better.
  •  
    I agree with Eric, except for the fact that she could have found a place to go in for her son to go to the bathroom. The police should have been a little bit more understanding with the age of the child.
  •  
    wow..... i agree with eric
  •  
    It doesn't matter if you're 2 or 20 it violates the law. Its called indecent exposure and it violates the law.
  •  
    I agree with Cameron. If I was walking on the street I definitely wouldn't want to see that no matter who it was. She could have taken her son into a near by business and asked to use their restroom.
  •  
    I agree with Charlie I think the police overreacted
  •  
    I agree with charlie also. I think that the mom should have been warned instead of given a ticket.
  •  
    I agree with Alex a parent is suppose to teach their child healthy things to do and to pee in places where you shouldn't isn't a healthy thing to do.
  •  
    Wow, just wow. I bluntly support the mother in this situation. First, it may be against the law, but can you hold a 2 year old accountable for understanding every law? Those that will say, the mother should have stopped him, it's either, in the grass in his pants, and they were out, so should that kid have to walk around smelling like Urine all day, and probably contract some sort of rash from it? Second, the officer lectured the mother. Since when does anyone have any say as to how a parent raises her child? Every person they news crew interviewed agreed with her. So, obviously, the mother has quiet a bit of support. Third, a sanitation issue? Let's take a look at the average dog. The kid does this once, 50 dollar fine. I bet you can have any dog walker have there dog go, and they won't receive a 50 dollar fine. I know I am comparing a human child to a dog, but still, the kid is 2. Just like a dog going in public, he does not know any better. For everyone that calls that a sanitation issue, there is likely to have been at least 1 dog to have pee'd there as well, probably more. Lastly, indecent exposure. By definition, indecent exposure is the deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of his or her body, in circumstances where the exposure is contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behavior. Let's go back to the dog reference. Since, by definition, this is not just applicable to humans, should every dog walker receive a 50 dollar fine every time they let there dog outside? Having 4 dogs, I would receive a 200 dollar ticket every 1-2 hours a day anyone in my house is home. Over a 24 hour period, I would probably receive about $3200 in fines. To add on, the term deliberate, as used in this form, would require the careful consideration of actions. This 2 year old did not consider anything other then probably, "I gotta go!!!" The definition of indecent exposure itself should override the tic
  •  
    For me personally, if I were a parent, I'd try to get my child to a bathroom, but that woman didn't deserve to be ticketed for that. If she were the one doing the peeing, I'd understand the ticket because she's an adult. But the little kid is only two, and knows nothing about indecency or sexuality or all that. (Or, at least, I hope he doesn't . . .) But it's also like Payton said about the whole dog deal. Dogs also know nothing about indecency. They obviously know about mating as they get older, but dogs aren't humans, so they don't know how to or not to be decent. And while the little kid is human, he obviously still knows nothing about either subject at that age; he hasn't lived long enough.
1 - 20 of 423 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page