Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged hate

Rss Feed Group items tagged

jessicavaldez

Lawyer says a man is recieving hate mail over the accusation of slapping a baby - 2 views

  •  
    Being intoxicated or aggravated doesn't give anyone the right to use racial terms towards anyone. And, they don't have the right to slap a child, either. I think this man deserves hate mail.
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    Slapping a child is never okay, and being intoxicated is not an excuse for it either. This man deserves more then just hate mail.
  •  
    I wouldn't be surprised if he got more than just hate mail, Just because your intoxicated gives you no reason to slap a baby. That baby didn't deserve that.
  •  
    That guy is crazy, he slapped a little kid in front of a bunch of people, and called it the N-word. He's lucky he's just getting hate mail and nothing more.
  •  
    just because a baby is crying it does not give anyone the right to slap a baby
  •  
    I think that this story is a great reminder that our behavior has consequences. He has already been fired from an executive position in his company and has been publicly ridiculed. This in in addition to any sort of legal punishment that he might be facing. His decision to have maybe just one more drink before he boarded the plane was a bad decision with far reaching consequences!
  •  
    Of course he is being sent hate mail he slapped a baby. What kind of person does that?
  •  
    If what he is being accused for actually happened he deserves time in prison because for one racism is a terrible thing people don't get to choose what raise they are going to be they are born into it. For two no one in their right mind should every hit a child.
  •  
    i agree with all your comments it isn't right to slap a child becuase it's crying and it's not ok to use racial terms to anyone it's not cool.
  •  
    it all depends on the terms of which he did or did not some might say he did in fact slap the baby while others would say he didn't because of the accusation that he did in fact hit the baby but what it all comes down to is that no matter what you still have no right to hit a kid under any circumstances no matter what so he might deserve hate mail or he might not but not racist comments seriously what the f#^5 don't be racist
  •  
    This story is interesting..if he was intoxicated of any sort, that doesn't make it okay to use the language he supposedly did or hit a child. That's why I don't think it should be allowed to have alcoholic beverages on a plane. People take advantage of it, and you never know what could happen..much like what he's being accused. I think he deserves the "hate mail" he's getting!
  •  
    Is not right to slap a baby,because he/she is just a little baby who doesn't know nothing yet.
Natalie Wilson

Victim's son: 'They ran him over because he was black' - 4 views

  •  
    he turned the wheel to hit him so he ment to injure him so it was a hate crime
  • ...15 more comments...
  •  
    In the south it seems like, there are people who will threaten you if you say it's a hate crime when it was a supposed 'Accident'
  •  
    This story seems to belittle the idea of equality and shows that racism will continue and equality might never happen. Really sad
  •  
    what is the world coming to
  •  
    I don't think this man was ran over because of his race. The article clearly states that the teens were under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. I think that the driver did not care what race the man was, he was going to be hit either way.
  •  
    He might have been under the influence but he did say he turned the wheel on him so it would be consider he did it on purpose
  •  
    This is so horrible!! They do it for entertainment and its just wrong. Some people need serious help and put in an institution..
  •  
    Racism is not a joke, and for everyone living in a "free" country, I don't believe anyone really feels that way.
  •  
    Who in there right mind would run over a person no matter what race he or she is?! Even though they were under the influence the driver still purposely hit the man.
  •  
    that just racist!!!! some people need serious help or be locked up in an insitution or something!!!!!
  •  
    Personally, I don't think that racism has to do with this. I think that the person driving was the only one that can be held accountable for the crime, but they all should be held accountable for not doing something about it. I also don't feel it was necessarily a hate crime either. I feel that the driver just wanted to hit that person, no reason behind why. I think that they tried to make it seem like a racist hate crime to make the story more interesting or something. And if it truly was a hate crime, then that is a shame. I guess some people may not ever be able to accept others.
  •  
    I don't understand why people would do something like that to and innocent person. makes my sick when people get the sick thought in their mind to do something like that.
  •  
    I think this is absolutely terrible what those people did, and it's sad that people think because you're that race, and I'm this race, that I'm better than you just for that reason.
  •  
    That is really cruel and racism is not right
  •  
    They didnt do it just for the fun of it. They run BLACK people over to keep themselves entertained. They said it plain and simple and admitted to it. Its just wrong on a whole nother level. I dont even understand what goes through some individuals minds and i dont think i want to understand.
  •  
    The police are obviously not doing their jobs correctly. A black man was killed 3 years before this happened and they did nothing about that either. The FBI should step in and take these cases over, because these cops are hiding something. Even the mother said two of the kids were racist.
  •  
    It's good to see that the teen is being charged with murder, but he should also be charged for the murder being a hate crime. And I'll never know why people can hate someone for the color of their skin.
  •  
    it was a hate crime and an intention to hit the guy
Bryan Pregon

New York bans display of Confederate flag and other hate symbols on state grounds - CNN - 7 views

  •  
    I don't think that banning certain flags is completely fair. Some people may have considered those flags hate flags but others not. I think that if other people want to have flags banned it should be because they may consider it hate speech or they may not agree with certain flags either.
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    I think that it was fair to ban it as the message it sends today is one of hate. While some may not consider it hate speech, we must take into account the opinion of the people that symbol hurts. As such the only place I think that flag should be is in a museum.
  •  
    I agree with Emma that banning flags isn't fair. Just because you don't agree with a flag someone has doesn't mean it should be banned.
  •  
    I think that emma and baylie are racist
  •  
    and i agree with @margaretgrover <3
  •  
    I think you haven't really thought about this through. That flag is disgusting. LIke Germany banned its nazi flag, America as a whole should ban that confederate flag.
  •  
    I think they should ban the confederate flag like they did with the Nazi flag in Germany
Jeremy Vogel

Westboro Baptist Church Says It Will Picket Vigil For Connecticut School Shooting Victims - 1 views

  •  
    The Westboro Baptist Church, the controversial group known for protesting outside funerals of slain U.S. service members, announced that it will picket a vigil for the victims of Friday's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the second-deadliest school shooting in American history.
  • ...10 more comments...
  •  
    KC news is reporting on petitions to have the Westboro Church classified as a hate group and remove their tax exempt status as a "church" http://fox4kc.com/2012/12/17/westboro-meets-its-match-thousands-sign-retaliatory-petitions/
  •  
    I don't condone the activities of this group but they have freedom of speech and the right to do whatever they want with it no matter how hateful it is and people could have private funerals
  •  
    They should leave people be, to bad they most likely never will, Because the parents can't even stop them without likely being sued by Westboro.
  •  
    I do not agree with their way of think about homosexuals. I think that the church should mind their own business in their own sate. The parents and everyone should just ignore the Westboro Church.
  •  
    i think we should ignore the group otherwise we are giving them the attention they want.
  •  
    It is sad that this church will stoop this low to get their (totally invalid) point across. They are a bunch of idiots if you ask me.
  •  
    I think that they have the right to be there, but they should understand that this is not a good time to do this. They should understand how hard it must be for their parents, and would feel the same way if one of their children died. I also do not agree with the fact they blame homosexuality for all the problems and say God hates America. In reality God does not hate anyone because we are all his children.
  •  
    I can truly see the side of the Westboro Baptist Church but it does not mean that I agree with it. I find that America itself has quite a few strange beliefs itself defended by these rights. I don't have any means to go against these rights.
  •  
    I think that they have the ability to not allow the Church to protest.
  •  
    I'm all for free speech. But I think there should definitely be a line drawn as where freedom of speech ends.
  •  
    I hope they lose their tax-exempt status. Here's an article with more information on their 501(c)3 status and how they could lose it. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/westboro_baptist_churchs_tax-exempt_status_challenged_20121218/ Personally, I think their protests are clearly staged with the intent to influence politics. (They want gay marriage outlawed)
  •  
    well if the parents know they are gonna protest have the funeral be private so they can't protest
Bryan Pregon

YouTube Removes 17,000 Channels for Hate Speech | Hollywood Reporter - 16 views

  •  
    "The Google-owned company also removed 100,000 videos, a spike in takedowns since its new hate speech policy went into effect in June."
  •  
    it seems kind of stupid to me that they would do that usually they will give people a warning to take down the video that violates there rules but I guess they decided to just give up on them.
  •  
    I think that the arguments arising around Youtube, Facebook, etc. are interesting. Because, while they are private corporations with the ability to regulate their material how they please, they are also communication platforms. And being communication platforms, they have to conform to certain laws. They have to guarantee everyone a right to be seen and heard.
Bryan Pregon

Twitter Suspends Journalist, Because Defining "Hate Speech" is Harder Than You'd Think ... - 1 views

  •  
    "On Nov. 25, Twitter temporarily suspended Andy Ngo, a journalist known for documenting political violence, due to a tweet he sent to Chelsea Clinton. The suspension is a case study in differing definitions of "hate speech" on the left and right"
xolson974

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

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

Justices will soon decide whether to take up same-sex marriage appeals - CNN.com - 7 views

  •  
    I'm not sure if we as a society, are prepared for such a big idea to be handled. The Justices are going to, if they take up the case, make some major leaps and bounds for the community, or pretty much end same sex marriage. If the court does take up the case, I am going to want to follow it extremely closely.
  • ...13 more comments...
  •  
    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 am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments (lots of good information in many posts and "food for thought"). 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/yUIP3
  •  
    In all reality, gay marriage being a possibility to be legalized, is very interesting. Our constitutional founders, from what many anti-gay's claim, say that the founders were all religious, and did not support gay marriage. The problem with that is the constitutional wording, freedom of religion. Another issue is separation of church and state, this the facts Mr. Pregon gave are interesting, but can we say the religion is a reason as to why gay marriage should/should not be legal? Something funny, although probably irrelevant, is the idea of a church for the gay community to worship as they please, and is accepting of gay marriage. Form some sort of religion out of this, and by that, the gay community can simply do as they please, and get married as they want just by the basis of our constitution. I don't know why, but that thought just came to mind.
Bryan Pregon

Virginia high school students suspended for wearing Confederate flag apparel - The Wash... - 33 views

  •  
    "Virginia high school students suspended for wearing Confederate flag apparel"
  • ...14 more comments...
  •  
    I feel like they band the flag for racism not due to religion, which I understand. But what I also understand is wanting to be able to have the freedom to your religion. And in this case their flag represents that.
  •  
    I honestly believe that it is an infringement on the first amendment and these students should have the right to wear what they want.
  •  
    I think that they should have been able to wear the flag because it's their freedom and they were not doing it to be racist they just wanted to be able to wear what they want because its their right.
  •  
    thats so dumb they have the right to wear what ever they want as long as its appropriate to the school policy
  •  
    I think the school was blowing it out of proportion. The students should have been able to wear the confederate flag. The confederate flag has historical significance. I think the school was biased. They were more concerned with the politics surrounding the flag, because it was a pretty debated subject for awhile.
  •  
    I feel like they shouldn't be able to wear confederate flag apparel mainly because it makes black students feel threatened and reminds them of slavery.
  •  
    Students should be able to wear the flag because they have the right of freedom of expression. Like he said in the article just because he flies the flag doesn't mean he discriminates against race.
  •  
    I think they are wrong wearing something like that to school and they shouldn't be able too. The school is right for suspending them. Even if they have the freedom to wear what they want there is also school rules and dress codes and that is not school appropriate.
  •  
    In the article the students say they are not trying to be racist but the just want to be able to wear what they want to wear, and i think they should be able to. Not every person who wears a confederate flag is racist or supports slavery or the war that was fought to keep slavery. Many people who live in the south have grown up with this flag as a part of their lives weather the true meaning was explained to them or not it was a big part in many peoples lives and you cant expect them to change how they feel about the flag because at one time not many people saw this flag as a big deal because people have a right to support what they believe in. also the flag was not just about slavery it was the symbol of the rebellion and many people who wear the flag had family members that were part of the rebellion and they support their family personally.
  •  
    Very controversial, since the flag was a Representative for the south in the war, founded on hate. Though this is clothing so I guess they shouldn't have been suspended and from what the students say it's not about hate but rather than representing themselves, I suppose? Though I still think they should follow the dress code.
  •  
    Discuss this case from last year...
  •  
    It's so controversial, with whether it's about slavery or true pride of where you are from. As for me I see where the kids are coming from as to want to show their pride in where they're from, for example I will always have pride in the midwest. However if you are wearing the symbol to depersonalize another person, then yes the school had the right to take action.
  •  
    I believe they had a right to suspend them because it can be taken offensive to certain people but it also is a freedom of speech and what they believe. I think it causes conflict so they shouldn't be allowed and the school did the right thing.
  •  
    I think the school did have a right to suspend them, since the school has a history of the confederate flag causing fights between the students
  •  
    It is important for schools to want and try to create a safe and learning environment for their students, and different students had different beliefs and ideas based on their own color and race.
  •  
    I think that the school taking away this could of had an affect on how the kids reacted. If you think about it when someone tells you not to do something you have a slight urge to go against what they are saying. These kids probably wanted to do the same thing, maybe just because they wanted to get under their skin, not because they were standing up for what they believe in.
Bryan Pregon

Virginia Students Suspended After Protesting Confederate Flag Ban - NBC News - 22 views

  •  
    "More than 20 students at a southwestern Virginia high school were suspended Thursday after wearing clothing bearing the Confederate flag in protest of school policy."
  • ...22 more comments...
  •  
    I think that most of these students have as little or no knowledge of the flags origin and are just doing it to get attention and publicity.
  •  
    I agree with zayne
  •  
    I agree with zayne when he says they don't have that much knowledge about the flag because they said it wasn't about hate
  •  
    I think they are trying to just get attention from the school and social media they don't really know what the flag means or stands for.
  •  
    I think this whole situation is kind of blown out of proportion, Instead of expelling these students I think they should have dealt with the situation a little differently.
  •  
    I don't believe that it would disrupt their school. I also don't believe that the reason that they are wearing, flying, or painting the flag is racist. Like in Hannah's case she is using the flag to support her brother who served. When it is wrongly used I believe it can be racist but in this case it's not.
  •  
    I think that the school did the right thing banning the flag
  •  
    This is a touchy subject, however, i think it's unjust that they were suspended for showing their opinion. I disagree with the symbolism of the confederate flag because it is a racist symbol that encourages a war to keep slavery. But the first amendment protects our opinions and the ability to share and express them in speech, clothing, or whatever else. So according to the first amendment they are allowed and cannot be punished for showing this flag no matter how much others disagree with the meaning and symbolism.
  •  
    I agree with Zayne because they probably don't know much about it
  •  
    In the article I wanted to hear an actual explanation of what the flag means to them if they are just ignoring the history and origin of the flag, but there was none. They just said, "Welp I say it's not racist so..." and that was it. If they want people to respect them and want to be able to wear the flag they have to at least try to explain or persuade people that it's not racist and causing a problem.
  •  
    These people were not defending their right to free expression, as it was causing danger (the fights leading to the ban) so they shouldn't break the rules as they are constitutional. I agree w/ zayned
  •  
    I think that if they want to wear this flag on their clothes or whatever that's fine but they should also respect their school rules.
  •  
    i think anyone should be able to have the flag, wear the flag on clothing, etc, if its used for a good/right reason then i think it should not be banned.
  •  
    I think this is ridiculous and they should be able to wear it or display it if they want to. They shouldn't be stopped from expressing themselves just because some people interpret it the wrong way. Being from deep Missouri I've seen plenty of them and heard a fair amount of reasoning from it (most of it coming from heritage) and whether I disagree with it or not, they should be able to do what they want with it.
  •  
    They have the right to do wear what they want. school does not need to get involved with it. Its there right that is why we got the bill of rights so the GOVERNMENT or in this case the SCHOOL does not mess up with those peoples rights or anyone's right. The people who dont like it boo hoo they will have to deal with it. Its a right get over it period.
  •  
    This whole incident has some students result to threats and other violent ways, I think the school had a right to ban the flag because the student's behavior got out of hand and it is a matter of others safety.
  •  
    They shouldn't have banned their freedom of speech, because this sort of tells us that we don't have the right to have our own opinion.
  •  
    I think that many of the students should know the real meaning but they do those things to attract the attention of others and that way they publicize what they do. But they can also be badly informed and that way they do it without any idea of what it is really.
  •  
    I think that they had the right to have that flag on there shirts and cars because they are not using it for anything wrong, they are wearing it to show their family and to support people.
  •  
    I do not agree with the school banning the flag.
  •  
    I feel like if the kids have a legit reason to have the flag they should be able to have it. But if its just for hate they shouldn't.
  •  
    Though it would be nice why they would explain why its racist, but they never did, but overall I believe these people are making this a bigger deal just for attention.
  •  
    The students who are representing the flag may represent it for their own reason but if it offends other people because it's known widely for the racism coming from it in history.
  •  
    The flag was created to show the support for slavery, it was the face of the southern states, the reason they flew it high and proudly was to fight FOR slavery, not just to show pride. It was offensive then, it's offensive now.
Bryan Pregon

Iowa Woman Run Over In Driveway - 5 views

  •  
    I hate doing dishes as much as the next guy... unless this is the next guy.
  •  
    If you don't want to do dishes, then say it. There is no reason to run someone over.
  •  
    No one liked to do dishes but you shouldn't run someone over for it.
Bryan Pregon

Twitter wants to crack down on 'dehumanizing language' - 6 views

  •  
    "The "hateful conduct" policy prohibits users from making direct attacks or threats against people on the basis of considerations like race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender, for example, but it doesn't necessarily also encompass tweets that dehumanize users in different ways."
  •  
    How will twitter actually be successful in cracking down on 100% of the dehumanizing language without stepping on some free speech toes?
nwellman913

Taking Stock of Hate Under Trump - 0 views

  •  
    Last week, the zoning board in Bayonne, New Jersey-just across New York Harbor from Sunset Park, Brooklyn-voted to deny a variance to Muslim residents who wanted to convert a warehouse into a mosque. The hearing had been moved to Bayonne High School, to accommodate a large crowd, and wound up lasting six hours.
qanderson136

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

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

House Republican introduces anti-trans legislation that could lead to genital exams for... - 36 views

  •  
    so it says "House Republican introduces anti-trans legislation that could lead to genital exams for school girls"
  • ...21 more comments...
  •  
    Im angry about this be because it's already been moving to pass in Mississippi, Connecticut, and Tennessee. It's sad to see so many people retaliate against the trans-community. They see us as disgusting monsters. They don't feel bad when they take away the rights of trans youth because of their lack of understanding of what being transgender actually is. I'm not speaking for all trans people, but I would have rather never been born than to be trans. for many reasons because most are too personal to say. and when old 1900s people take away our basic rights, and others seem to never care, it angers me.
  •  
    This is simply disgusting. Have people really become this ignorant and transphobic? Maybe they should... hear me out here... mind.their.business
  •  
    I personally agree that transgender women should be banned from women sports because biologically they are still male and for all of human history males have been proven to physically superior to females and when you put a transgender women whos been a male for most of their life vs a women whos been a woman all of her life it's gonna be pretty obvious whos gonna win I would hate to be a girl in a wrestling team and get destroyed by a transgender women whos been a male for the longest time ever.
  •  
    I disagree with the House of Republicans introducing anti-trans legislation that could lead to genital exams for females. America is a free nation where everyone has the right to choose and be identified based on their gender decision. As a female and one day future mother, I suggest not allowing this legislation because it will only spread narcissism and homophobia. Females should never be forced to go through an "examination" to prove their gender. The First Amendment guarantees our right to free expression and we should maintain it active no matter what.
  •  
    I disagree, I think people have a right to be who they want and have a right to participate in the things that they want. Just because you fear what you don't understand doesn't mean you can force HUMANS to go through these traumatizing experiences so you can tell them they can't do something. They have a right to play sports if they want to and people shouldn't stand in their way.
  •  
    I completely disagree with this. This is teaching young girls that it's okay for people to expect you to show them their genitals, this is teaching young girls that they don't have the choice to say no, this is teaching young girls to let old white men control our lives and the way that we handle our bodies. This is only adding to the rape culture of the present day by teaching girls that we don't have control over our bodies.
  •  
    I disagree with this whole thing. Females have privacy and should keep it. I don't even see the big deal in allowing someone who identifies as female to play a sport that is only for girls. People should be able to be who they identify as without facing discrimination. I thought we've moved on already.
  •  
    I disagree with the legislation. No one should have to have their genitals checked just to play sports in general. Also, people in the trans community already face enough humiliation and bullying, the old white men writing the legislation should stop worrying about what sports trans people play and instead work on attempting to end the global pandemic at hand.
  •  
    how do you not see the problem with trans people playing sports? Men are scientifically stronger than females creating an unfair advantage. These trans people will just take opportunities away from women, like scholarships. If you are say a female wrestler, would you want to wrestle a male? No, because it's unfair.
  •  
    I disagree with this completely. We should not have to show our genitals or get them checked in order to play sports. The trans community gets so much hate and suffers enough as it is. The people writing the legislation need to quit being so concerned with the trans community and what sports they're playing and also quit trying to pass laws that could invade young womens privacy. It's disgusting that this is even being considered.
  •  
    Personally I think people should be allowed to do what they want, transgenders playing sports included. Politicians spend too much time creating conflict and fighting among themselves, which creates division among the people too
  •  
    I also feel like most don't really care about the highschool sport. They just don't want trans people participating. I think when they imagine a trans woman, they think of a pedo looking dude, or very masculine. When in reality, many trans women look very much like women. I understand a physical sport, like wrestling, but that's basically it. Maybe weight lifting, but everything else is just based on the fact that some people don't understand the transgender mind and body and how they work. Who cares about high school or middle school volleyball that much to be so concerned to want to check any women's genitals? invasion of privacy and just embarrassing.
  •  
    I 100% disagree with this. First off girls shouldn't have to show their genitals in order to play sports, it's an invasion of privacy and just disgusting. And secondly, this legislation perpetuates the idea that trans women aren't women, which simply isn't true. If a trans woman, or just a trans person in general, wants to play a sport on the team that aligns with their gender identity they should be able to.
  •  
    I completely disagree with the statement "I also feel like most don't really care about the highschool sport". These high school athletes put in many hours of their week into participating in their sport. These people care a lot. For some kids, this could be their only way out of a bad situation they are in. Also, it's not only wrestling that this would create an unfair advantage. Basketball, Soccer, Softball, Volleyball, Swiming. The list just goes on. If you say that "Most people don't care" you must not be involved in any type of sport seriously.
  •  
    true, I don't participate in sports. I guess I didn't think about how big and important even middle school sports can be, and I'm sorry bout that. What I was trying to say before is that most of the people passing these laws don't care about the sport. They just don't. They see Biden allow trans people back into the military, and they got mad. Another thing is that for the people saying it's a disadvantage, idk what to say to ya'll. Yall All could ban mentally disabled girls because it could "bring the team down". yall could ban stronger girls with muscle because they are "too strong compared to the other girls and its unfair". Anyone can make excuses to discriminate against a group they don't understand or care about and make it sound like they have the best of intentions. And maybe they do, but the fact they think they can stop the freedom of that individual because its unfair to them, shows the lack of understanding they have on that issue. I'm a trans person, and I personally live through small micro-aggressions and just blatant transphobia in my own house every day. So when I see discrimination with no consiterate thought on how to solve an issue (instead of finding a solution, they just ban people from playing all together) that's when I have an issue. I'm sorry this is long btw (:
  •  
    the fact that they could say "I also feel like most don't really care about their highschool sport" is wrong the people who participate in their high school sports aren't just doing it for fun that may be one of the only ways they can start a career they want or it may be their only way to get out of a bad situation they also take hours out of their weeks to perfect their skills I personally think most people just don't understand the time & dedication.
  •  
    I don't think that it should truly matter as long as they are doing what they need. The girls who are putting time and dedication into the sport should get to play, that is all that matters.
  •  
    I agree with the ban because I feel it would always result in an unfair advantage however if there are ways to make it fairer then I suppose I would have no real problem with it
  •  
    I disagree with this because it could allow children to think that other people looking at their genitals and that's just disgusting. Also, I feel like someone who is transgender is going to be taking certain hormones to change their body and while they are transitioning they shouldn't have the possibility of being looked at in this way because trans people already struggle with body dysphoria and this may just worsen it.
  •  
    I feel like if you were born a male then it is fair to switch to a female or do whatever makes you happy but, it is definitely unfair for someone with the genetic make-up of a man to be competing against women in sports. Man are known to generally be stronger and more athletic than women and I feel like if they were competing in a physical activity it would never be fair.
  •  
    This is a disgusting bill that has begun passing in some conservative states. The people writing these don't understand that Transgender (Male to Female) start hormone therapy that degrades their muscle building and strength overall so people would not have that much of an advantage. Also, no one is upset if it was a Transgender female to male.
  •  
    Whether you think transgender athletes should be able to participate in sports or not I think this bills is unacceptable and unethical because it allows for a challenge where an examination of the students genitals is required. In high school sports a place known a lot of times for coaches sexually assaulting young athletes and taking advantage of them I don't think under any circumstance a proposition like this should be acceptable.
  •  
    I do believe that this bill violates citizens' rights and is unethical. People should be allowed to be trans and should be allowed to identify as one. However, when it comes to sports they still should be separated because even if I was a woman it is still conflicting with nature. If the woman/woman is ok with the competition then it's fine to me.
blakewilladsen

harrassers claim hoax in newtown shooting - 0 views

  •  
    interesting back and forth regarding free speech
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    Wow... sure, there are inconsistencies in the coverage of the Newtown massacre, but there are inconsistencies in any news story that is reported on by more than one individual. To claim that the massacre may not have happened at all - and the professor is the only person who says this - is extremely disrespectful.
  •  
    I would blame the media for starting this "conspiracy" in the first place. Once one person makes an assumption based on an event they didn't even witness, and they share it with some sort of media, it explodes into a big "conspiracy" against the government? I really do feel bad for the families who lost their children in such a tragic incident, and I feel even worse that they have to put up with these nonsense hate messages and such from people. It's very disrespectful.
  •  
    I think the intensity of media coverage of an event such as this can be both good and harmful. When you over expose every detail and interview every last person related to the issue at hand there is bound to be inconsistencies in reporting. However when the media is able to really tell the story of such a tragedy it enlightens the public to some very serious issues. it makes it much easier for legislation to be brought to the table.
brandonprice94

Klu Klux Klan Protests Westboro Church's Protest - 2 views

  •  
    "When the KKK steps in as the voice of reason, you know you are dealing with the bottom-of-the-barrel crazy." -Very true. I don't usually approve of Anonymous, but it will be interesting to see what they do.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    the KKK is just a racist, red neck group that hates all races besides Caucasians.
  •  
    It's a scary thing the KKK going up against Westboro there both prejudice against one thing or the other, In the end this could either make things MUCH worse or make them better.
  •  
    I find it interesting that the KKK is against what they're doing. Like the quote that Mallory posted said, you're clearly wrong and crazy if the KKK is against what you're doing.
  •  
    To funny, Anonymous is going after them! This is hilarious! Mallory, thank you for showing me this!
Holly Jensen

Preacher Phil Snider gives gay rights speach - 0 views

  •  
    This is totally great. I think it made a great comparison between racism and being against gay marriage. I highly recommend watching this.
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    I watched this and I really liked it. I give him credit for being a preacher and going against all other preachers by speaking on behalf of gay marriage.
  •  
    It just goes to show that you can't let one person represent an entire religion.
  •  
    Religion though, should not influence the policies of government upon gay marriage. Just a side note, I laugh at images of people going to his protest, and raising a sign that says, "god hates signs," or "He's gay"
  •  
    Exactly. Our country isn't ruled by religion its ruled by the people and their choices.
  •  
    I agree also, religion should stay out of politics, the only reason people think being homosexual is wrong is because it says so in the bible. Gay couples who get married aren't hurting anyone or anything, I really think that this even being an issue is absurd.
  •  
    I agree that one person can not represent an entire religion. One can represent their own easy because it is their personal belief on said subject. I give him props for being a willing person to speaking his views on gay marriage. The bible does not exactly say that it is not okay to be homosexual. It says its not okay to lay with someone of the same sex if I remember right. So I feel the physical part is viewed as not ok, wile the mental area should be taken in mind as well.
  •  
    Every time someone "interprets" the bible it's like they are trying to "play God". They all try to say this is what God thinks and this is what He believes is wrong. I mean we should all be able to interpret it our own way and not try to make others believe in our interpretation, especially if it portrays God as "against" his own creations.
  •  
    Religion is based off of your own personal faith and beliefs and with so many different versions and beliefs you can't let one person say what it means and stereotype that religion. You also have to consider the fact that things change with time, people evolve and so do thoughts. Like Snider showed in the video, we once thought that racism was right and accepting other nationalities was against their religion.
  •  
    As I have said before, religion should have no influence when it comes to government policy. As for the bible, I could point out many things wrong with the bible, and the idea that Christianity not supporting gay relationships. I will not, simply out of the urge as to not ruin peoples views on religion. What I will say, is that the bible should also have no say on our government as well. Religion should, and is, also limited in the US, contrary to popular belief. Religion has been limited to 1st, no human sacrifice. (We don't need them crazy beheading Aztec's coming in and just start slicing peoples heads off right?) Second, separation of church and state. That right there means religion is not allowed to say, "You can't be gay, ban gay marriage." (And oddly, it still managed to happen.) I'm really looking forward to the supreme courts ruling on this, as long as they decide to take the case.
Bryan Pregon

Facebook slammed for deleting iconic Vietnam War photo - Sep. 9, 2016 - 23 views

  •  
    "Mark Zuckerberg is facing criticism after Facebook censored one of the most famous war photographs in history."
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    I can see the situation from both directions. Facebook was trying to keep it theses things from blowing up and how close it was to child pornography, even if it was a historic photo. But it is part of our history and we should be able to see it when we want. I guess its just a matter of opinion.
  •  
    I can see why they censored the photo because it's in direct violation of their rules. I can also see the other side of the story and how people say that it's historical contention should be left untouched. If Zuckerberg doesn't do this then people can use the photo against him and claim that their rules are biased.
  •  
    Its not Mark Zuckerbergs fault the picture was on Facebook, and it should not be a big deal because the picture is part of understanding the history of the world.
  •  
    The picture is not a big deal it is part of history and it wasn't his fault at all, there is no reason that other people should be blaming him for the whole deal when he didnt even put it up in the first place
  •  
    I can understand were their coming from but that doesn't excuse that fact you should delete a picture of history.
  •  
    Mark should not be getting negative feedback from this picture. This is part of our history, and he may be getting the hate for this picture when he wasn't the one that posted it, but people should understand that this picture is part of history. Even though some may believe this is bad it shouldn't be taken like that.
1 - 20 of 43 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page