Group items tagged

It's hard to say because it's not right to take someone's life. I'm sure morality is a big part of why they're taking the death penalty away in Virginia. However, I've watch a lot of true crime shows to know that there are evil people in this world. Serial killers kill for fun and have no compassion for victims. It gets to the point where one wonders if they deserve their life because they've caused so much destruction. So, I guess, there's too many factors for me to have a set opinion.

I do think that the death penalty still has its uses. Though it is still flawed the most recent method of lethal injection is still done incorrectly so I believe that once we find the most reasonable way it should be in play.

There are so many different factors that go into whether the death penalty is appropriate or not. Part of me thinks that if you do something horrible enough it's fair for people to want to take your life in exchange for what was taken from them. But part of me says that it's the coward's way out, that rotting in jail for the rest of their life is better than being able to just die and get away from it. You look back on cases like that of Jeffrey Dahmer and think "wow, why didn't he get the death penalty?", but he was beaten to death by fellow inmates later on in his sentence, so either way he was going to die. You look back at Ted Bundy and the horrific murders that he committed and you're glad he got the death penalty, right? A life for a life, it seems fair. There are just so many things that go into it and it's so personal and complicated for everyone.

I think that if somebody did something where they truly do deserve the death penalty then it should stick around for those terrible people who only harm society.

I think the death penalty shouldn't be a thing anymore. Even this woman who lost her father at a young age doesn't want her father's killer to receive the death penalty. She wants justice, however not in the form of the death penalty. It should no longer exist anyway, it's cruel and people should have to pay for their crimes.

I agree yet disagree with the death penalty. First, I would say that it would give certain families who are for it justice for loved ones that were lost or hurt. Second, I would say that it would prevent future crimes from occurring if that person only had received a life sentence. On the other hand, I would say it is an "easy out" and certain families could be against it for that reason. Additionally, if that person was wrongfully killed, that would be completely on the court system and no justice would be served, it would be a longer, more "drug-out" process.

I agree with Allison. The killing of a perpetrator is not justice. The death penalty is outdated and should be abolished.

I think the death penalty should still be a thing but I think that they need to change what crimes fit the death penalty.

I think the death penalty should remain however I think it should only be if you killed another person on purpose or multiple people.

I think it shouldn't be abolished because there are still many criminals out there that have done several bad things and but I also think that the death penalty should change the crimes it's in.

I understand that there are bad people in the world and that the death penalty is sometimes used on those people. However, I believe that the death penalty is not morally right. The methods that are used can be flawed and not always go right. In the end, it's difficult to pick sides because I can see both reasons as to why it should or should not be used.

I agree with Sydney, I don't think the death penalty is morally right. Even though there are awful people in the world, killing them doesn't bring justice to the people they've hurt.

The death penalty I feel is an oxymoron on its own. How are you going to prevent killing by killing? It makes no sense. I feel if the crime was super severe, maybe the family of the family could come up with a punishment. I just don't think it should be allowed, especially if it is for a petty crime. We are the only developed nation in the world that still has the death penalty.

They should punish the people that do bad things instead of giving them the death penalty because death is not scary

I think that the death penalty is a sort of necessity. If we don't have it, then murders and serial killers will be able to live, even though they contribute nothing to society.

I think that if someone committed a terrible crime such as murder or rape, the death penalty is reasonable. How can you let someone of that nature still live? I personally believe it would be giving them what they deserve, prevent it from happening again from that same person, and save jails money rather than basically giving them free food and shelter. Of course with major restrictions on why someone should get it, but I think it should most definitely still be around.

I have mixed emotions about the death penalty. I know some families would consider the death penalty justice for those who have lost loved ones due to a murder or something of that sort. I also believe life in prison can have more of an effect on the person who committed the crime and they would have to think about what they did for the rest of their life knowing they will no longer have freedom. I don't really have a definite stance on the subject.

I dont agree with the death penalty. I dont think that they should have the power to take someones life away. And in some cases people used be given death penalty for things that they did not even do. I think that a life in prison is would be better because the wont be free they wont have a life anymore and they will die there. and in my opinion that is a good punishment.

I think the death penalty should still be around. There are some extremely disgusting or disturbing things that people could do that deserve death. The only problem is that they need to be 100% sure the person is guilty so they don't kill someone for no reason.

I believe that the accused should be able to decide between life in prison or death in these situations.

I think the death penalty should still be around. Personally if I had one of my family members killed I would want the killer to have to suffer for life in prison rather than not having to face their consequences. The death penalty is just way of reassurance to make sure they wont do anything bad again.

I believe that the death penalty has its uses in certain situations like on terrorists or mass killers. It's simple they killed many and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again and that's the cruel but necessary action. If someone that I cared about was gone because of someone id want my peace.

I think they should have kept it for certain times where it was the best course of action.

The second dose really does have stronger side effects. My mom got her vaccine because she works with law enforcement and she was sick for a few days after she got hers and she said when she woke up the morning after her shot that it felt like someone hit her in the arm with a baseball bat.

yes, the second dose does have side effects, but the same thing happens with the flu vaccine. the only difference is that this vaccine doesn't actually inject you with the virus. it just sends antibodies to teach your body to fight it.

This article talks more in-depth about what coronavirus vaccines do to your body. For example, it talks about how the first vaccine teaches your body how to react to the virus. With the second vaccine, you will more than likely be getting more side effects. According to the article, no matter how many side effects people will get, the vaccine will still be working in your body. What are your guy's thoughts about the vaccine?

I think that even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, we should all consider taking it. At this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.

I think that even though it has stronger side effects people should still consider getting the vaccine. The stronger side effects may be rough, but I'm sure getting Covid is worse.

The article discusses how the second Covid shot will most likely hit harder than the first. It talks about how that's actually a good thing because these common symptoms are typically signs that the vaccine is working. While I have had friends that have suffered from the second shot, I would still get the shot because it's better than getting Covid.

I think that because the side effects are stronger we should allow the vaccine more time for development, but we should still consider getting it.

Even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, I think all of us should consider taking it at this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.

I think that even with the second shot having more side effects we should still get it because it is our only option at this point but I do also think that there needed to be more time for the vaccine to develop and for us to know if it could really effect us in the future.

I completely trust the Maderna vaccine as my dad was part of the trial for it and he had no problems with it (he didn't have the placebo, he had the actual vaccine), and that's good enough for me, if he was fine, ill most likely be fine.

I think although the second dose has stronger side effects it shouldn't stop you from not getting the vaccine at all. I think the vaccine is our only chance of getting rid of COVID and it will only work if the majority of Americans get it. At the end of the day, I think the side effects of the vaccine can't be as bad as the long-lasting effects COVID can have on you.

The COVID shot reminds me of the flu shot because when you get the flu shot it is normal to get sick afterwards or have pain but it will prevent you later from getting the flu. Even though the covid shot has side effects it is still good to get it because it will prevent you from getting COVID

Even though the second dose has strong side effects I think that it's vital that everyone gets vaccinated if we ever want to return to normal life. I got my first dose last week and besides a sore arm and being a little thirsty I was fine. It affects people in different ways so I could get no side effects when I get my second dose or I could get a ton of negative ones. It's only for 48 hours according to the article and I´m willing to endure the risk of being sick if it means making the world hopefully safe and normal again.

I think its really your choice. I personally believe I do not need to be getting a newly made vaccine that no one knows the possible future effects from it. If I get Covid I get it and I feel it's more important for older people to get the vaccine if they like, you do you. But as well as the J & J vaccine, I feel it is unneeded things being put into your body where there has already been multiple of horrible results from people getting the vaccine. You won't be seeing me vaccinated.

Personally, I would not get the vaccine because nobody knows what it is going to do to you later. If there are no long-term effects and it truly does protect you from the virus then I completely understand why you would get it. The thing is, no one 100% knows so I would be very hesitant to get it.

I think you should get the vaccine but you should not be forced to get it. If someone is worried that the vaccine is not safe then they should not have to get it if they do not want it.

Even though it has stronger effects I still think everyone should consider getting vaccinated. Of course, there should be no forcing anyone to get vaccinated, it's just important that everyone weighs their options. I was really really sick with Covid earlier this year and it was awful. If I can do my part to protect myself and everyone else I'm going to do it.

I think that it's a good thing since as the article said, it means it's working. If there is a chance for people to be able to not get the harsh effects of COVID-19 then maybe they should get the shot so they can be prepared for it. Idk.

It's still in the works so of course it's going to have different/stronger effects.

I believe that we all should take the second dose because it will help with Covid and in fact it's definitely stronger than the first one.

I think that people should be able to decide if they want the second dose or not, but I hope they do.

I think more Americans should get the vaccine despite the side effects the vaccine has on them. It's our best chance of not catching or spreading the virus meaning that we can return to our normal lives. A couple of days of the side effects the vaccine has on them outweighs the long-term effects of not getting the vaccine including the fact that if you get COVID, there's a possibility your symptoms from the virus will last even after you're free of spreading the virus.

I agree with everyone's comments, even though the second dose has worse effects i think people should try to get it because other wise we'll never "go back to normal"

I think we should stick to the vaccine that we KNOW works best

People should definitely not pump gas into plastic bags or any container that is not meant for gas. My main thought is that people shouldn't take more gasoline than they truly need. People stalking up on gas is just going to make the shortage worse than it already is.

people hoarding gas in this situation only worsens the situation in a fuel shortage when you take more than you need you're just taking a conscious decision to disadvantage other people who wouldn't be able to get gas.

I´m not surprised by this at this point. I had a gas can spill over in my car and I couldn't breathe when I was driving so I think it´s a hazard that so many people are driving around with bags of gas in their trunk that I bet not only leak but the gas probably destroys the plastic causing more leaks. Theoretically, you can ruin the gas this way not only by spilling it but by the plastic infecting it. It´s also just a bad idea in general to hoard gas because if it runs out at a slow pace the more likely there will be time to refill the stations.

People need to stop putting gasoline into plastic bags because it's only causing more contamination to the planet. I think people instead should try to calm down and we try to figure out what to do about the fuel shortage.

I don't think people realize that the gasoline will burn the plastic bags so you're pretty much wasting your money by the time you get home from the gas station.

I feel like just because something became more expensive, doesn't mean you can get it while it is "cheaper" excessively.

This is crazy to think that people actually do that and think that it's a good idea. Fighting to get to the gas first also isn't going to help, it will just start a craze and everyone going for gas will cause the prices to rise even more.

It amazes me that people would even think this is a good idea and even try putting gas in a plastic bag.

I feel like this is wrong and not even a safe, smart, efficient way to go about collecting fuel for yourself. And the people that are taking more than they need and know it are completely wrong, there are people who rely on that and being selfish is just ridiculous for them.

I feel like this is just unsafe and not smart. If the bag broke they would spill everywhere, wasting more gas. Also, if there is gas in bags you're being selfish and could potentially put yourself in danger.

What no who comes up with these ideas

I thought this was dumb because they were scared of a shortage but like stocking up with gas would only be making it worse because they are helping the storage.

This is not only idiotic but unsafe as well for so many obvious reasons. People scrambling and trying to hoard gas is only going to make this 'shortage' worse.

I feel like we should have human lab rats for this stuff. Like if there's a mandate for vaccines, we should see what the effects are on people before we give it to the whole population.

I think there will be no easy way of getting rid of the virus because not everyone is going to trust the vaccine and not everyone is going to be on the same page. I can see this pandemic stretching far into next year which is so annoying and sad.

If the vaccine isn't going to 100% protect you then why get it? It's starting to seem like the vaccine has the potential to cause more harm than good.

I have to agree with Lennx partly, why take the vaccine when it is giving people more issues, even though not all vaccines are 100% sure to protect you I I think they should have worked and studied the vaccine longer to make sure it was safer than it is. Also, I don´t think it should be allowed to required medical workers to take the vaccine to keep their job because since people are getting sick from the vaccine more medical workers have to stay home from getting sick and if all medical workers have to take the vaccine and they get sick there is going to be a lot less doctors and nurses working.

If I didn't have sports to play and could watch an artist I enjoy for free I would participate in a study like this. The reason being I'm healthy and all of my friends who have gotten the virus said it felt like a cold. (I know this isn't the case for all people of course)

Yes, because i'm healthy and have a small chance of dying from the corona virus.

I think I would try and avoid an experiment like this. Don't get me wrong, it sounds interesting and enjoyable but even if I could listen to a band I enjoy, there is always going to be a looming fear of me getting the virus. I wouldn't be able to focus on the music.

I don't think I would consider being apart of experiments like this, mainly because I don't want to get it and maybe spread it to others who didn't even attend it, like my family or friends. It would just make me nervous, to be honest.

I wouldn't try. because I don't wanna get Corona. or I don't wanna spread to people.

I would volunteer because it's a free concert and it would help bring back more live events that would be safer and help us get back to normality plus I'm a healthy kid so I'm low risk.

I would volunteer because its a free concert and I am very healthy and if I were to get it I would most likely recover from it and be fine.

I would definitely volunteer to be apart of this study. I think we need to try and gain some normalcy back into our lives. Another reason I'd try this is because I'm very healthy and haven't been exposed to anything. With this study underway, we as people could see if this could be an effective way to get back to our lives

I wouldn't volunteer because yes its a free concert, and yes I'm healthy so I'm at low risk but, I have lots a family members who are at high risk. Even if I'm fine and get it, those who are around me and are at high risk might not be in the long run. I rather stay safe for others.

Ok so, this is like a 50/50 no I don't want corona but if I can help humanity to figure out more about this virus then i would do it hands down no questions asked.

I would volunteer to do this study because I think it would be a cool opportunity to see where you can get COVID and where it is mostly at. I would absolutely volunteer just for the experience and to see what is around me and to see if we could actually use something other than masks.

I think I would definitely participate in this study because I think society needs to try to get back to normalcy and try to figure out how to go back to times before covid.

I would volunteer because I'm all for trying to get things back to normal. I think that corona has changed our lives enough, and I don't think we should have to live in fear of going in public without a mask.

I would not volunteer because its dangerous enough trusting some masks material to protect you from spreading or receiving the virus. As nice as a free concert would sound, it would be too risky to make it as a test. If they used something other than humans (or easier to maintain animals) for testing, it could make tests less worrisome when post-results are gathered.

I would do it because I know that I can't die from the virus, so I think it would be cool to find out how quickly it actually spreads and how many people are really effected by it

I would volunteer because i think it would be fun to go to a concert also it would help get more information on covid and how to deal with it.

I would not participate in this experiment because I would not put myself in a situation where I'm most susceptible to the potentially deadly virus.

I would participate in this experiment because I could have fun while giving people more information about COVID 19.

I think that it is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. This is an issue that is important to a minority group that has never really been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I personally want to see how the Court applies the Loving v. Virginia case to one or all of the cases they may hear. I just don't expect anything until after the election in November because it has become an important issue this election cycle. Payton I don't think that the Supreme Court could end same-sex marriage. Marriage licenses are left up to each individual state and I can't imagine any possible outcome that would result in the Supreme Court taking away a State's right to issue a marriage license to whoever they want to grant a license to. I can see them saying there is no right to marry at the federal level or that the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages but I don't see them telling states that they can't issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple if the state wants to.

Jeremy, what I am saying is that same sex marriage, if ruled against, will have almost no chance of reversing the choice for a very long time. Based upon our constitutional values though, I doubt that they will rule in favor of those that oppose same sex marriage though.

I'm still like . . . trying to figure out why exactly some people hate the idea of gay marriage so much and want to make sure that it's not legal. I mean, even if it's for religious reasons, like their religion doesn't support gays and lesbians, it's not like they would be getting married in their church or that they even want to. It doesn't affect those against gay marriage at all. It really only affects gays and lesbians and it makes them happy.

I think whatever the outcome and effects of the ruling will be a new direction in our lives as Americans. I'm interested in how this will effect us in the future.

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ I know I got a little confused about why some people think same sex marriage marriage is bad and I found this to be very helpful in understanding it.

I, myself, do not agree with gay marriage, or being gay at all. But that is my personal beliefs. I don't want people to try to tell me that I'm wrong, because I'm not saying I am right. I know this is a big issue in the U.S and it does need to be addressed, but I do think it is more of a state issue. As for gay marriage, it will probably be passed to be legal, and that's fine because it really doesn't affect me, I am straight. But from a conservative viewpoint, here is why some don't agree with gay marriage, not just because of religion. It is because it defeats the whole sacredness marriage was and still is meant to be. To me it is for man and wife. Not man and man or woman and woman. I am not intending to offend anyone at all, if someone wants to be gay, then be gay. I will not discriminate, I just will not support it, because I don't agree with it.

You do realize that times have changed, right? And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights. Honestly, unless you're white, straight, and male, you haven't really gotten rights until sometime in the late 19th /20th century, and for some in the 21st century. Also, how would a homosexual relationship ruin the sacredness of marriage? When you really consider it, marriage isn't all that sacred, especially these days because there's money and materialism involved, and then of course sex too. Of course, sex is okay so long as you're married, but if you're not married and you've had sex, it's considered immoral, according to society. And even though people these days marry for love, those things are still involved in it. And if marriage is sacred, then why are divorces allowed? Aren't sacred things supposed to be protected no matter what? Divorce obviously doesn't protect marriage. It just ends marriages. If marriage was considered sacred then divorces wouldn't be allowed, and divorce is necessary at times.

I think that if a man and a woman hate each other but still have more rights to get married than two homosexuals who actually love each other, then we should definitely legalize it!

Whoa, I never said anything about the roles of men and women, sex or divorce. I was stating my opinion on gay marriage, and I will continue to do so in this comment. Again, not intended to offend anyone, just my take on what I think about gay marriage and being gay in general. Kirstina, you just proved my point for me that being gay isn't right by saying it depends on how people are raised that changes how they will be like when their older. So are the way people are raised now, affecting if they are gay or straight? If someone were told tell me that people are born gay, I would say they are wrong. (I'm bringing this up because that is probably what you and many viewers believe) Here's why, when you're a little kid, you don't think about which gender you like. You think about having friends with whoever and don't even know about how to take friendship further than that, as a child. There is no gene in your body that makes you gay.Plus, no one that says they're gay, knows until they are teens or older. That is because they observe how others are, think about how they are treated by the opposite gender and make their decision. And why are there all of the sudden so many gay people? Why weren't there any back then? Not because it wasn't allowed, because it wasn't not allowed, it was just unheard of. It's (to me) because it isn't natural. It is a life CHOICE that people have made for their OWN reasons. Some for attention, some to fit in, some because they can't find someone of the opposite sex that is interested in them and some for reasons I don't know. People are put on this Earth to make more people, just like animals are here to live, provide for people and make more animals. Two men or two women physically cannot make more people. Man and man and woman and woman are not meant to be together. What is and/or was meant to be can't change. Because whatever is meant to be is just meant to be and you can't change that, no matter what time in history it is. Gay marriage d

Gay marriage does ruin the sacredness of marriage because a married couples are supposed to stay together, reproduce, carry on the human race, and be a happy family. I know, sounds a little far fetched in this modern day, but if America could go back to that, this country would be so much better off. I'm not saying divorces don't happen, or are wrong because my parents are divorces and my mom is remarried and that doesn't make them bad people. But I am saying that they made a mistake somewhere and did, in turn affect the sacredness of marriage. Divorces should not be illegal, but people should think twice before getting married. Also, I'm not trying to squash the dreams of gay couples, or tell anyone that I'm right and their wrong, that is not my intention.

Alex I would just like to point out a few things you may have over looked or may not have known. The first thing is that there aren't "all of the sudden so many gay people?" There have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history. One example is the first gay couple to be joined by Civil Union in the world, in Denmark, in 1989 and had been in a relationship 40 years prior to their Union. The reason we don't hear much about homosexuality in history is because it used to be a crime that if found guilty of being homosexual you could be put to death or thrown in jail for it (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has more information on this particular subject). It is reasonable, then, to believe that homosexuals would keep their homosexuality to themselves as to protect themselves from violence. Another thing you seem to overlook is that there are heterosexual couples who "physically cannot make more people," for one reason or another without using alternative methods such as surrogates and/or in vitro fertilization. that still enjoy the benefits and legal aspects (such as inheritance and the right to hospital visits and end of life decisions for their spouse) of marriage. These same options are also available for Same-Sex couples and they have the option to have children that are the biologic child of one of the parents just like families where one of the parents is infertile. Homosexual behaviors have also been observed in natural populations in a large number of other animals have shown homosexual behaviors while observed in their natural habitats and also in unnatural locations such as zoos. So to say that homosexuality is unnatural ignores that these observations have been made in the "natural" world. The finial thing that you brought up was about when people form, or in your words "choose", their sexuality. The American Psychological Association says that a persons sexual orientation can start to form in middle childhood and early adolescence a

Alex . . . you totally missed my point with me saying how people used to be raised. This is what I said: "And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights." I was merely giving that as an example of how times have changed and how things have changed. If women and nonwhite races can get rights over time, then why can't homosexual people? That doesn't seem fair. Marriage has now become a legal thing, and even if you don't want to, you have to accept it as it is - a legal thing that's nowhere near sacred. So what's so bad about gays having the the same legal rights to get married and all the legal things that come with it? Also, at dinner tonight, my dad told me that marriage used to be a property thing. Women/wives used to be considered property and not human beings. African Americans became slaves of the American white people, and therefore were also property. Now slavery is illegal, and marriage happens between two people who love each other and are willing/want to be legally bound. Also, therefore marriage has never been sacred. I also agree wholeheartedly with what Jeremy said.

Guys, Alex gave her opinion, she even said in her that is her personal belief, and that she didn't want anyone trying to tell her that she was wrong. She stated her opinion, you don't have to kill her through a website, It is her opinion, lay off.....

I believe that it is totally okay for these people to protest. They are protesting based upon their beliefs and feelings, so they have a right to protest. They feel that expansion in the fossil fuel is going to impact our climate. This is a perfect example of where people are lobbying the Obama Administration through peaceful protest to effect a desired result and outcome of government action.

I heard something about this actually. The executive branch went to Hollywood, and asked them to come up with 50 impossible worst case scenarios. They are going to prepare for the top 10 or something. This is due to 9/11, nobody ever thought someone would be stupid enough to (and smart enough to pull it off) crash planes into 2 towers, and the pentagon. They thought it be impossible, so now the government is going to prepare for the impossible.

If you read the reasons for doing this, it actually makes sense. Although they might be preparing for "zombies," the training is really giving them experience that would let them handle terrorist attacks, mobs, etc. A doctor from the CDC said this: "If you are generally well equipped to deal with a zombie apocalypse you will be prepared for a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake, or terrorist attack." So while training our military for a zombie apocalypse might seem eccentric it really isn't. Besides, there are actually a number of theories on how humans could become zombie-like, and some of them are even backed up by science. The CDC also has a blog on how to prepare yourself for a zombie apocalypse. http://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2011/05/preparedness-101-zombie-apocalypse/

we are screwed...

This is ridiculous! Pigs will fly the day of an apocalypse!

This doesn't actually mean there is going to be a zombie apocalypse. People will believe anything the media puts out there. I agree with Mallory, if they are prepared for a science fiction "zombie attack" then they are prepared for almost any natural disaster or terrorist attack.

I agree with Kayla. Admitting to the murder does not change the fact that the little girl is dead.. So what, if I get mad at my baby sister, throw her down the stairs, and she dies, as long as its my first murder and I admit to it I wont get in that much trouble? Ridiculous.

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. Why did he get so little punishment for killing someone? No matter how old the victim is, or how unlikely the person is to commit this crime again, doesn't make the crime any less bad than it was. This man should have gotten much worse. The fact that he got away with this, with only a few punishments, sickens me.

90 days isn't a long enough punishment for killing a baby, even if it was an accident.

He should be sentenced for longer or even for life. If I went out and killed someone they wouldn't let me free just because "I was scared to tell someone so I lied" and "It was an accident" Just because he admitted to murdering her that doesn't mean they should take away from the punishment.

I agree with everyone. If you kill someone, no matter what your age is you should be punished for a lot longer than 90 days.

Admitting to his faults shouldn't of shortened his sentence. He had killed his kid, 90 days in prison is nothing to what he should have really gotten.

19 or not, he should have much more than 90 days. They are basically saying, that even if a 35 year old man killed his child, that its ok because the guy does not have a criminal background.... That is not how things should be.

I am in shock! He killed his daughter and got 90 days! I know people that did little crimes compared to that and got 15 years in prison! I cannot believe it. Who ever was the judge is literally crazy! They need to go back and put him on trial again, and sentence him for life!

He should be put in jail no matter what his criminal record is. He murdered someone and when he said he forcefully put her to bed then obviously he was intending to hurt her. That doesn't exactly sound like an accident.

this is so unreal how stupied it is 90 days really!!! i could go kill someone and get life right now it dosent matter how old u are if you kill someone u should get the full punishment the law will leet u get

90 days is hardly a sentence, just because they think he isn't going to do it again doesn't mean he should get any less then an average person would get.

You kill a child you should be sent away for a long time. Do the crime do the time.

who would kill a innocent child ,like really that messed up!!!

WOW when and/or if someone were to kill an infant they should get more than 90 days. I completely disagree with this sentencing.

He should get longer than 90 days. Who kills a child

This is a cruel world ,why in the world do people have to kill others especially little ones?!

I like this post Cause it makes you think about the causes of becoming pregnant When your still in school. Like the girl in the reading that had plans to go to school for 4 years and didn't because she had a child.

Teen pregnancy is a great deal and seemingly popular. For instance the teen mom show which doesn't show consequences of pregnancy it almost glorifies the fact those girls are pregnant. Im not saying its totally wrong to get pregnant but its not the smartest choice a teen girl could make.

Well some teen mom's do go back school after having their baby because their education is still important to them so they try to make an effort on finishing school whatever way they can.

He deserves what he is getting. I think he new what he was doing the whole time. That school should feel horrible for not having good enough security to let him bring in a gun.

what is wrong with this kid. he is crazy!! now the school should know they need more security so this wont happen again.

Wow, This is shocking. Oddly enough all I could think about the whole time was how do attorneys do their jobs? How in the world could you be strong enough to defend something like that. That young man is sick.

That is terrible! At least he got what he deserved. I don't understand how anybody in their right mind could do such things.

That kid is sick and twist. He doesn't deserve 3 life sentences he deserves the death penatly

I don't understand why nobody saw that there was something wrong with this person he isn't exactly sane it seem I mean to go and kill people for one, then to go to court and act like he did why didn't anyone try and stop him.

Obama is claiming he can't and wont pardon Edward Snowden, also known as the most famous whistleblower in our governments history, solely because he hasn't stood before a court. The president CAN pardon him, but decides not to. Snowden would appear before a court if he knew it'd be a fair trial, but he knows that wont happen. He knows how tyrannous the government is and wont even attempt to have a fair trial.

I agree with Deven because as soon as Snowden steps foot on United States soil he's getting thrown into federal prison and then going to go on trial and not win because it wouldn't be a fair trial

Deven is correct on this one. The thing I find interesting is that Obama said that if Trump pardons Snowden then he will pardon Clinton, the problem with that is Clinton wasn't convicted of anything.

Zayne brought up the Clinton situation, I agree with that because you can't pardon somebody who wasn't convicted of anything, so how would he pardon him?

Snowden shouldn't be pardoned because what he did was against the government policy, even though he was trying to tell america what our government was doing he still violated the law.

In this article, one paragraph says that Obama pardoned three Iranian Americans before they stood trial. So in a way I think Obama is just using his opinion and not giving Snowden a chance. It's truly unfair that if he steps on US soil he will be thrown in jail, when really he just wants a chance to explain himself

I agree with the president on forgiving him because we deserve to know this information.

I think Obama could have pardoned him but is choosing not to. The fact that he's saying that he's not able to is ridiculous. Though what he did was considered against the law, sometimes we need people to go against in order to uncover hidden truths.

On the idea of pardoning Snowden, I agree with Nate because although the information he had should have been told to the public, just in a different way, he broke major laws, so there must be consequences. And going off of Devin's idea of no fair trial is inevitable.

I don't feel like he disrupted anything and I feel like he's sticking to his ideas that will try to succeed America

I believe that Donald Trump was the right choice for time magazine. Everyone has their point of view on him whether it is good or bad. I think that he will actually do good things for this country when he gets elected. He is on the cover of time magazine because they thought he had the greatest influence.

I feel like it was the right choice because in the very first paragraph time says "This is the 90th time we have named the person who had the greatest influence, for better or worse, on the events of the year." Not saying he has done amazing or horrible things he has had the greatest influence on people and I agree on that.

I agree with Landon, Donald Trump deserved to be named person of the year because set his plan to become president and "To Make America Great Again". His ideas may hurt our relationships with other countries, but he is focused to help our country first.

I also believe that Trump hasn't done anything wrong, and he will try to help our country to the best of his ability.

I would agree with Times choice to pick Trump because as it was stated at the very beginning of the article they named the person with the greatest influence.. For better or worse. Which I would agree with, whether or not you agree with Trump or you believe to deserves Presidency or not, he was one of the top influencers in 2016. You couldn't watch the news without hearing about him. He was very impactful in politics and news in the past year. So whether or not you support him he was one of the most influential people in the last year.

I would agree Trump should get this. He won it because of the hard fought presidential campaign. He got made fun of etc.

I'm not surprised that he won the person of the year, but I don't believe he deserves it.

I have to say that I any happy that Trump did became President, he should the people to not think so lightly of him. He will do good for our country.

Everybody has their view on who he is and what he is going to do. Although I don't agree that he should be on TIME person of the year, because there are others who deserve it just as much as him.

I think him becoming "person of the year" is a little risky because Donald Trump really hasn't shown us, Americans, what his in capable of yet. Obviously he was capable of becoming president of the United States but what if were unsatisfied with his decisions in the upcoming year? Will Time Magazine regret making him person of the year?

Not surprised he won person of the year, I do think we had better options and many people would agree that other would deserve this more than trump.

I think he shouldn't have gotten "person of the year" because of what he said towards women and people of color. But other people may have think he deserved it. It's just a different opinion, but I wonder how this whole thing will turn out.

Just in general there are many apposing factors about Trump, good ones are him being president and is going to help out communities and so on. Bad ones are Trump ends up being racist and sexist.In my personal opinion, there are many more apposing factors of bad and he is just a terrible person. But many can argue.

Trump shouldn't have gotten person of the year. What he says about women and people of color and the way he treats them. That's not what the person of the year should be doing. Some people are for Trump and that's okay because that's their opinion. He'll be able to help out communities but many are against him for being racist and sexist. In my opinion he is a terrible person.

Trump is the first president without government or military background to go with them. It's a new feeling in the office that some agree with and some don't.

I think that whoever won the election would have won person of the year. Trump won the election and ended up winning the person of the year because he was influential, probably talked about the most and while he was supposed to fall out of the presidential race early on, he eventually won the presidency.

i agree with matthew trumps just terrible person.

I feel like people are so focused on who he is as a person and now who he can become, we can't change the fact that he is president whoever we can accept it.

I really hope Donald can do good things for this country. I hope and wish that he will take back the bad and cruel things he has said about women, disabled people, people of color, etc,. I want him to keep his promises in making this country better. But I know he won't. I can't read his mind or read the future but from the looks of it, this can not turn out well. He should not have been chosen for people of the year. A great person, who is open-minded, strong and brave, accepting, a hero even, would make person of the year. But, instead, we all chose a sexist and racist man who has been elected for president. Cool.

I agree with their decision to make him the person of the year because he deserved it and people all over the country were influenced by him in either a good or a bad way.

I'm not surprised he was picked as person of the year

I think that although many people think that it is not apt to be president but has many skills in the part of negotiating and thinking about whether it is a good investment or bad, it should give the opportunity to experience its way of working and if it gives the quality Appropriate to accept it because everything must be for the good of the country and of the people. And truly being president is very difficult and with a lot of organization and choose good decisions .

Although I don't agree with how Trump spends his existence in this world I do think that it is appropriate to name him person of the year. The article said that he wasn't necessarily given the title because he has done good. I think this is a good title for him because a lot of 2016 attention has fallen on him, he has impacted a majority of America and weather he makes people happy or unhappy they were still giving him a reaction, so yes I think it is appropriate to name Donald Trump person of the year.

I know it is their culture to where a hijab but the woman should get freedom. They shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab all the time in public. It's a disgrace towards women. What she did was her belief and I think other women in Saudi Arabia don't want to wear their hijab all the time but they are too afraid of what will happen to them. Now that she has done it maybe other women will follow in her footsteps.

I understand that wearing the hijab is important to this religion and this country, but isn't it going a little far by arresting her? What they are trying to prove is that the country has a power of fear over it's citizens, mostly it's women citizens. This shows the importance of how religion and state should be separate because if it was, she wouldn't have gotten arrested.

I agree with Landon now that she took off her hijab maybe other women will follow in her footsteps

I agree with Landon because, the woman shouldn't have to wear something they don't want to wear all the time.

Nobody should be told what to believe or how to dress. This woman was simply expressing herself but was arrested for moral disagreements.

Landon got it right by saying she should get the freedom to wear whatever. And no woman or man should be disgraced by what they wear

I agree with Lauren on that people should have the freedom to dress how they want

I agree with Lauren. The women should express herself in anyway she wants.

This seems nuts. Like a spoof of middle eastern living on youtube. Does not seem real that a lady would be threatened with death and imprisoned for wearing a dress and coat. this is very different from my reality. I obviously think she should wear what she wants, it think the real issue is understanding that there is a large number of people that do not feel the same way.

She should have the freedom to dress how she wants and maybe others will follow her by dressing how they want.

I think she is brave to stand up for what she believes in, many women there are too scared to throw out the head scarfs and put on something that they feel nice in. I think she should be let free and allowed to wear whatever. There is no legal dress code there it's just considered taboo which is wrong.

I agree with Landon because this woman is now facing death all because she wanted to make a statement for women.

Unfortunately for the Arabic culture this is illegal and is shamed. With our culture this would be welcomed because people are allowed to show their skin, but with them its shamed and its not going to change.

I think it is unfair, sexist, and probably uncomfortable for the women. (Besides the constant torture, rape, imprisonment, etc etc that happens in saudi) they are being punished for wanting to be equal and expressing themselves.

I think that the woman is trying to promote change however she did not do it in the right way. Her actions were wrong because if its just her doing it than it won't have as much of an impact as it would if 20 or more did it. However if she really wanted to not wear them than can she just move to a different place so she can. I will admit arresting her is silly and doesn't solve anything, it could promote not wearing them by arresting her if you think about it.

I agree with Kim that she's trying to promote change, but I also understand that there are morals that the country believes women should follow. Instead of just her breaking the moral she should have gotten other women to join so there would have been more of an impact and something could have changed.

I think that even though it does not seem right, that is what the country believes and she knew that something was going to happen.

I think it's her freedom to dress how she wants and she shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab

I think that people have the right and free from what they want to wear only that it is not inappropriate to offend people depending also if they are in a place such as black people or other people of different ideologies and have some message discriminating That is a different way but for the rest, there is always freedom of expression and of being able to dress as one always wants and when one does not in a bad way.

I believe that this is null and void, just because someone has the drug in their system at the time of driving does not mean that it was the reason for their impairment.

Fatal accidents involving the use of marijuana have risen ever since it was legalized. Sparking the debate, which is worse? Driving drunk or stoned? This is a hard thing to prove which one is worse, so the answer is unclear. Either way just because the drug is legal does not mean you are totally safe to be operating a vehicle.

I think that they should try and invent things to help test and see if it impairs their judgment.

If it is harder to tell whether marijuana has something to do with impairment or no then they need to do more studies on it. Once they have done more studies and figured out what effects marijuana have then they can decide on laws or regulations that they need to have.

I believe that it could have happened if they weren't using the drug

But coming up with a test to get impaired drivers off the road will be far more difficult than the blood alcohol tests used to test for drunk drivers, according to the group. While tests show the ability to drive gets worse as blood alcohol rises, laboratory studies show the same is not necessarily true with increased levels of THC,

If they are going to legalize marijuana they should come up with a test like a breathalyzer test so they can actually tell if the incidents were the cause of being stoned.

I think it is a possibility that people who are stoned are at an increased risk of crashing their car. The article said, "One driver with high levels of THC might not be impaired, while another driver with very low levels can be impaired." I think that researches should base regulations off of the people that are impaired by low levels. They should also look at how levels of THC decrease over time to see how long it would take to get down to the lowest level that would affect people.

I believe more research needs to be done. Like alcohol, there should be limits and rules with the marijuana. Because it is a drug, there should be a law about driving because it impairs your thinking just like alcohol.

I think that in order to decide what they are going to use to test the amount, more research needs to be conducted on how marijuana affects the brain. It seems to be proven that marijuana can have a negative affect on driving and can impair people who are using it and I think that's reason enough to do more research. I also think that before a state legalizes marijuana they need to find solutions to all of the precautionaries, such as driving, first.

There is currently no way of testing if someone was "high" at the time of an accident and having THC in your system at the time of the accident means nothing, you could have smoked a week or even a month prior to the accident and had it in your system! I think they should keep doing studies and try and come up with a way of telling just like they have for alcohol testing for drunk driving but "All this report really shows is that more people in Washington State are likely consuming cannabis, and thus might have some THC in their systems at the time of an accident. But since having THC in your system tells us nothing about your potential impairment, it would be like a report showing how many people involved in accidents had drunk a beer in the last week" is all that needs to be said

link seems broken... try this http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-309/

I think its a good law, people should be able to know who you are. If you really wanna protest, you shouldn't care.

I believe that if you truly believe in the cause, then you should have to face the consequences, even if that means losing your job or your reputation and status.

This bill makes sense. Public safety is at the forefront of this bill, if a protest gets violent or other harmful/unlawful acts occur the persons the are held responsible will be able to be identified. But looking at it from the other side, people might want to conceal their identity at protests, or the masks are part of their protest(example Anonymous). If this bill passes people will be made, if it doesn't pass other people will be mad. Who is the Canadian government ok will making mad?

This bill should be passed because if you're risking yourself by already being there, you should have to show your face. Also, if the situation ever turned violent, that person wouldn't get away with it because their face wasn't exposed so they could be identified.

I think that this bill should be passed because the police should have the right to identify anyone who is protesting. If you want to protest, protecting your identity shouldn't be a major concern because you would want people to know who you are, and what you are speaking out against.

I think if you are going to protest, you are there for a reason, that you strongly believe in, so you should not want to hide who you really are

It should be considered that this is a trade for security by means of liberty. Sacrificing freedom for a small degree of protection. If this bill passes, it could easily snowball to other things (this may be a bit of a reach) such as controlling what you can wear altogether just so that you can be identified at all times just in case you might be possibly considering intending to commit a crime.

As said in earlier comments, I think that if you want to protest IN PUBLIC then the public has the right to know who you are. If you want you can protest in your house and no one needs to know who you are. But out side of you cant hide from the public if your are going to stand outside with a big sign and yell out things in front of people.

I think this should be a bill that becomes a law.

I see it as your there or your protesting for a reason so why hide it. If your protesting you believe something is ether wrong or right so why hide your believes. If you don't want to be seen or noticed here's an easy answer don't go!

I think that you should be able to wear a mask, because if you're protesting something that you believe in, or don't believe in, than it is a personal matter and you should be able to conceal your identity from the public.

I agree with this. If the prices for college keep raising then nobody can afford to go to college. All the higher paying jobs require more schooling, but if you don't have a good job then you can't pay for college. It's a deadly cycle. I also think the government is always looking for more money and raising interest rates. That fact doesn't bother me as much as the fact that the money is being spent on public art, landscapes, and totally unnecessary costs. I think that if the money was given back to 'tuition-payers' then maybe people wouldn't care so much.

That is absolutely ridiculous that the school would ban that girl for shaving her head. Since when is baldness a violation of dress code? She was supporting her friend going through cancer and I think that should be rewarded instead of punished.

This is sad, she was just trying to support her friend.

I think trying to voyage to Mars is a good idea because not all of Earth's resources will last forever and there is only so many other options to keep life as normal as possible without changing dramatically.

A voyage to Mars is a huge step in science and I think that it is a great step. We could find resources there that are not on earth. Things that can change our world.

I thing a trip to Mars is a good idea. This could get us closer to discovering what's out int he universe, while the thought is exciting it is also a little scary. I agree with the point that Logan made, we aren't going to have our reasources forever. At some point in time we are going to have to find a solution for other means of reasources.

i think its a good idea because we can find new things and maybe the things will make the earth better

I think it is a good idea, we can discover new things in the universe.

An exploration to Mars is an amazing idea. The resources we have on Earth, won't last forever. And finding other ways that will help us survive is a great thing. It's a pretty big step in helping humans, and Earth itself.

I think that this is a great idea. I think that exploring the unknown in the universe is very exciting and intriguing.

I think that this is good because if people keep treating the world like they do eventually we will run out of resources and need more. Mars could possibly have new and better resources.

I don't think the people of Berkeley, Missouri had a right to protest against the shooting of teenager, Antonio Martin. In the video the teen was armed and aiming at the police officer so the officer did what he had be trained to do. Like the mayor of Berkeley says, "Some people die because the policeman initiated. Some people die because they initiated it. And at this point, our review indicates that the police did not initiate this".

The boy that was killed had a weapon on him, and the video does show him raise his hand at the end, but there's no reason they should start a riot, he was in the wrong.

The rioting over this is ridiculous, before making such actions and accusing the wrong person is very naive and immature I think. These people did not know the truth, they just assumed because of what happened in Ferguson. Ultimatly the officer was defending himself, the boy pulled the gun on him first. This was purely an act of self defense, there is no reason for rioting.

It is always a tragedy when a young person dies especially when it happens like this. I understand that people are mad and have the right to have freedom of speech, but they weren't there and they also have to look at the evidence. A handgun was recovered from the scene. The cop did what was needed and probably feels bad enough that this happened he doesn't need more people to tell him he was wrong. People need to look and listen before they go and riot.

It's unfortunate that this shooting happened so close to Ferguson, if it hadn't I don't think there would have been such a big riot. But I don't see the police officer being at fault since there was a gun. I agree with the article when it says there are no winners going out of this