Group items tagged

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.

My thoughts on the debate is that guns should be more restricted, but not completely disallowed. Ideas like banning bump stocks are very good, but going without due process is a side that isn't good. However, the outrage and protesting about mass shootings like parkland and sandy hook should never become just yesterday news and should be a constant focus, but due to media jumping off issues quickly for ratings, how divisive the issue is among political groups, and the NRA lobbying extremely for gun rights, it is hard to reach any sort of conclusion and compromise,

I do believe that our government did have intentions of wanting to change in order to prevent gun violence, but as time passed, they seem to have little effort now to do anything. Yes, the solution may take a long time for everyone to be on board with, especially to those that support guns, they are now neglecting the idea. From the government's perspective, it seems to be old news to them, but society and civilians are still trying to remind and encourage the White House to make a change.

I think trumps thoughts on arming teacher is a good idea because it would keep schools safe and their students. It would also make the school shootings less likely to happen

I believe that we should ban bump stocks, and raise the age to buy a gun with stricter background checks.

I agree with Sara. It even said in the article that most of Trumps supporters republicans that don't want stricter gun laws. With that being said, he doesn't want to lose those supporters. It also talked about how he was for tightening the laws right after the shooting happened; moving into the idea without really knowing about gun laws. During the luncheon he hosted, he didn't stick to what he had proposed.

I think sadly it has begun to become yesterdays news. At first everyone was outraged and everyone wanted results with plans of walkouts and things like that but as time passes people slowly started talking about it less and the press for change lessened.

agreeing with sarah and dthomas how they had put their attention to it at first but after few days and weeks had passed they had lost the interest to put as much attention to it. They do need to put more attention and change the age to buy an assault rifle as it is as deadly as any other weapon, especially to an 18-year-old. The government risks more lives being taken with more school shootings by people who shouldn't have a weapon in the first place.

This outrage has become slightly a thing of yesterday. I know it's not completely out of people's minds because there is still a lot of local and national talk about the walkouts and movements planned to continue the spread of awareness. In this article it states that Trump had changed his mind on the gun legislation a few weeks following the tragedy. He was all for changing the ages and putting restrictions on the gun laws, but was very quick to change his mind after the media died down on the subject. Most of his supporters, shown in private polls, are not interested in changing the gun laws and legislation because he still wants to hold as many supporters as he can. The outrage seems to be yesterday news because it isn't in the media all the much anymore. I don't think our country has moved on from the tragedy yet because there is still a lot of talk about the national walkouts and the other movements that are being pushed to enforce change in the legislation.

I feel like as the president he should stick with his ideas and support them.Not switch up because hes afraid to upset people.The people voted him in he shouldn't cave because hes scared of the NRA when its our safety he should worry about

I agree with Grace. She right it has become old news which is sad, people should talk more about the safety of people. And like Grace said they plan all these walkouts and stuff but people stopped talking about it which made the press quit talking about it, and if the press isn't talking about it then no one else is. And if no one is talking then there is going to be no change

I think that this news has become "old". Huge amounts of support at first, but the momentum died eventually. The whole conversation is slowly dying because of the realities of politics too. Like one person said in the article, you can just swing a pen around for a bit and give way to legislation. It takes time. But sadly, this topic won't stay around long enough.

When these shooting first happened the government had intentions of taking control of gun violence and preventing these type of events. But after a while their effort to control this has reduced to little or nothing. From the governments perspective they think that it will go away and but the community wants to have the laws change.

"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.

I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.

the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction

I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think

I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.

an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?

Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?

I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).

Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"

Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.

Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.

That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.

I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V

Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.

Of course you would put this up Payton....

I don't think this will happen..

If it's gonna happen then their should be strict "laws" to follow for it. Although it probably wont happen.

I think that if it does not happen now it is inevitable for the legalization of marijuana. The government has noticed that when it was illegal the money made a year in the "business" is in the billions. The government does not want to miss out on that much money to conclude.

Students will continue to fight to have stronger gun control laws.

nothing is going to be changed until there are more fatalities

The stimulus bill sounds like a good deal for Americans. COVID-19 negatively impacted many people, so it's good that the government is trying to help get the country going after COVID-19.

I think this stimulus bill is necessary and will be a step forward in the right direction. Although things seem to be slowly moving in the right direction there are still a lot of people without a job and in need of assistance so I think this will help those people out tremendously.

This could go both way's as in good and bad. Good:So people can get some help from the government to help pay off debts or just put food on the table. Bad: some people can become to reliant on the government for money.

this stimulus check is going to help a lot of families especially the ones who already struggle.

I feel like the stimulus is a good thing for a lot of families that have been struggling throughout the pandemic. It is also bad in the way of tax inflation and things of that nature. Although I feel like it was needed for some, it might be damaging in the future.

technically we could get 12,000 for a stimulus check but the government is not willing to do that.

I feel like this is a relatively good amount for a stimulus check because the amount of inflation it will create will be far less than if the check was bigger.

i think the check is a step in the right direction. it's giving families coverage and more cushion to their budget.

I think this is a good check cause it will help people in the mere future and possibly in the present.

So depending on who you are it could be a good thing or an iffy thing I believe that most people around our area would all agree that it's a good thing and I think so too.

I think its good cause people could use this money during this time

I think the death penalty is pointless. In my opinion all it does is give horrible criminals an easy way out. If I did something horrible enough to get the death penalty, I'd rather die than serve life in prison.

Yup we are for sure with out a doubt falling back into a dark age.

i think we should have the death penalty

Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back.

I think that the death penalty is wrong because they are trying to stop a murderer by murdering him themselves so really it's not much better then what the killer was doing himself.

What would happen if the person was innocent after all?

Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out

It will be interesting to hear Sorenson's argument as to why to changes things. Prisons are getting crowded but this is still Iowa. We still have a small population

I think the death penalty is not a bad idea nor I think it is a good idea. They will suffer in jail or suffer in hell. My opinion is put them in jail. If it is not their time to die yet then it is not. If they did something as bad as kill someone then they do deserve to go to jail and suffer for life.

I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions.

Its not weather which one is worse, its that killing a person for killing another person is not only hypocritical but inhumane to today's society.

I disagree with bringing the death penalty back to Iowa. We've taken it away twice, once in 1872 and the second time in 1965, so I feel that shows that we, as a state, don't want it. Also the death penalty isn't really a deterrent for crime. There is a really interesting website that shows so facts about murder rates and comparing states that do and don't have the death penalty. They have a ton of information and I would recommend that you go through the site a little if you're interested in this topic. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

I agree with Aaron, but i also think that justice should be served

Aaron giving someone the death penalty is acceptable. Having life in prison is worse anyway and it just puts more people in danger if that person is still alive.

better for the death penalty then life in prison.

Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.

Mr. Garner, it would cost more money to give somebody the death penalty then to have them spend life in prison. We live in a different type of world then when people had there heads chopped off and dragons happened to be there to save "johns" life. To me that's not what God intended us to do with people that made a mistake and yes a big one but everybody has a reason to something or there could be something seriously wrong with there head to commit a murder but its not always there fault.

For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1 For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9 For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8 For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

It seems like if the act of violence is bad enough to get the death penalty most of the people kill themselves before the law can.

Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!

Mr. Valdivia how would it cost more to give the death penalty then to keep them in prison for life? That's right, IT WOULDN'T. And I'm not saying give the death penalty for 1 murder. Based on depravity and body counts they should be sentenced to death.

unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf Dylan pages 20 and 21 of the PDF I linked above, explain why the death penalty costs more to administer than life in prison with out parole. More specifically on page 20 under the heading Time on Death Row it says, "In California, a legislative commission concluded that it costs the state an extra $90,000 for each death row inmate per year compared to the costs of the same inmate housed in general population. With over 670 inmates on death row, that amounts to an additional yearly cost of $60 million solely attributable to the death penalty."

Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.

Well then we can change the process to a quick and easy death without all that court BS. And plus I'm a prison warden so you guys both don't know what you are talking about. Aaron. And Jeremy.

FALSE. There is NO WAY you're a prison warden. The minimum age for a Warden is 21, plus you have to have lots of training. So someone of your prestige and experience, (not to mention your practically a 5 year old) would never be able to be a warden. Kthnxbye

I am prison

Dylan and Joe, The reason that the death penalty is more expensive (and always will be) is the courts have to make sure that the criminal that is convicted is 100 percent guilty. There can't be any room for doubt. This means that the state has to supply better (More expensive) lawyers for the suspected party, and the trial has to be more in depth, therefor much longer. We can't make this time shorter than it is, because as a country, we are will do everything we can to keep an Innocent man from dying. And to just keep the perpetrators in jail is much cheaper, as there is already a well set system in place, and one more person will not increase the cost of that system to go up in large amounts as much as the singled out attention a person on death row will.

@ Dylan and Joe, if you both still think that the death penalty is cheaper, you are wrong, look at the 20th page Jeremy posted. @ Jared, ethically speaking, shouldn't any person who is accused of murder have an outrageously expensive lawyer anyways? If someone is going to be imprisoned for life, or going to be executed for a crime, should the one being executed receive a better lawyer?

I think they should, but the person being put to jail for life has the chance to have new evidence pop up, and potentially let them eventually get out, they have the chance to get out on parole, they have the potential for choices. The man that is getting the death penalty have to be 100 percent sure. They don't have room to make mistakes. Ethically, I believe that people getting put away for life should have the same standards of 100 percent, but as I said, they have choices later on down the road. The dead don't.

@ Payton. It is cheaper. I know for a fact. I AM A PRISON WARDEN.

I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty.

@Peyton Are you trying to tell me its more expensive to keep someone alive in prison? this means that dude lives off our tax money. You will literally pay for his food, housing, and heck, that dude can even go lift for 3 hours a day and run his block! THink about that. State Champ.

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.