Group items tagged

I think it's wrong to keep them on life support if they really don't want to live.

This is good because who wants to be alive if the only way they can stay alive is if they're hooked up to a bunch of machines just laying in bed. Also costing money for everyone involved with it

I think those punishments are completely necessary and he deserves it. There's stories like this all the time but a lot of cops won't admit to not shooting them for self defense.

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.....

The fact that he still risked his life for a complete stranger, makes him a hero

That is just absolutely amazing. The police officer definitely has some good karma coming.

Faith in humanity restored

Holy crap, that was super close. The officer did his job like a pro!

That's pretty awesome!

wow thats a good officer,He got the man in time

it was a good thing that the cop just happened to be walking in that area at the right time because if not someone would have lost one of their loved ones but they have th cop to think for saving the mans life.

They should give him a raise or something!

that was cool

i feel that the death penalty should stay around as a form of punishment, but only for the most heinous of crimes. As for how we obtained this lethal drug, it is ours legally and can not be taken back. However america should start making our own lethal drugs if we want to take part in executions.

Personally (no one take this offensively) I agree with Romney. It is those types of people that want Obama to win, now I'm not saying that is all of them, but that is most definitely majority. Stereotypes such as this one are based off of majority and are almost always true. Yes, Mitt Romney should not have stereotyped these people, but don't we all do it at some point? No one should get mad about this because he was making a point (that so happens to be true). No one in this country has the right to health care, food or housing. There is no part of the constitution that states that. "He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them." I believe that this quote sums up those types of people perfectly. These people are the ones who are burdens to our society and will vote him to be president and will eventually change the country for the worst. Now, I realize that this is a strong point, but it is my opinion. I do not intend to offend anyone because you could disagree with me and I would accept that. But, people need to take care of themselves and not depend on anyone, not even the government to take care of them. People like this claim to be for equality, then be equal and pay taxes and take care of your self on your OWN just like the rest of us. To me, that makes a better person. (I know I went on a rant, but this again is my opinion.)

Not everyone the NEEDS help from the government wants it. It doesn't mean they are freeloaders. They have to do what they have to do to support their family. If I was of age I would vote for Obama not because I want to freeload off the government but because I don't want someone like Romney that I feel to be ignorant and unfit to be the president. My parents voted for Obama and will vote for him this election not because they freeload off the government but because they agree with the things Obama is wanting to do and not what Romney wants to do. I think that's what the majority of people who vote for Obama are thinking. Just my opinion.

I don't think anyone needs help from the government, because they're the ones who got themselves in that mess to need so much "help" anyways. The government, tax payers and citizens of America don't owe anything to those people who got themselves into those situations. I think the government needs to be in as little of people's lives as possible. I know what I'm saying is kind of harsh and is tough for those people who are in tight situations that I know I've never had to experience and I am thankful for that. But I know if I was brought up in a life of welfare (just an example no offense) or a government funded program or made a bad choice to get into a bad situation in the future, I would be ashamed and embarrassed and would do everything in my power to get my butt off the couch and do something about it. There are options in life that will lead to a better outcome of success, but people are choosing to take the easy way out and use the government for these things because they are just plain lazy and don't want to take the challenge that is required to become successful.

My question to you is then what about the people with disabilities? That can't go out and work. The people who are mentally or physically handicapped because of nothing in their power. What happens to them? No one is there for them? They NEED the governments help to live. Not all of them can go out and get jobs to support themselves.What about those girls that are 20 and were raped and now have a kid? Maybe they NEED help from the government. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I think that too many people are abusing the governments help but saying that no one needs government help is wrong some select few people/groups do need the help of our government.

So say that someone is in a car accident. They are hit by a drunk driver who is completely at fault. Because of the accident the victim becomes a paraplegic. This is a permanent condition. Don't they deserve help from the government?

Like Rainie and Jeremy said, not everybody has the ability to get off their butt and go work. But people that have the ability need to quit taking advantage of the government.

Yes, that is a type of situation where someone would be in need of help. But again, is that their problem? And I agree, he would need help and in his condition, it is provable but what about the people who take advantage of the government and I thought I made it clear that those are the ones who I was talking about. Didn't I say the lazy ones? Not the permanently injured.

I think that the teacher should be able to have the gun but very protected from anybody except themselves. The teachers should always should check them everyday so they know if its still there.

In my opinion teachers with guns is a good idea, although I don't want some teachers thinking that gives them a sense of bigger authority.

It is a good idea for them to have guns, it would help with safety.

I don't agree with the right of just teachers being able to carry a gun if someone takes a 4 hour class to know to take the gun out and use it in the right way, someone that is professionally trained should be hired because nobody knows if a teacher is going to be able to take a life of someone else.

In my opinion, teachers having the right to carry a weapon is okay. For protection and safety purposes, I completely agree. I think it would give us a sense of reassurance, knowing that we would have a fighting chance, if a person(s) with a weapon entered the school.

I think that teachers should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to school, if the case is that the first responders would arrive to the scene too late.

I think that its dangerous that the teachers have guns but in this situation I think its okay. The best thing about this situation is that the students don't know where the guns are and how to access them. Also another reason that the guardian plan is so necessary for this town in Texas is because the response time is so long and I would definatley agree that the teachers should be able to have guns.

I would take the side that I think guns would be an okay idea. I think that before a teacher is handed a gun they should be trained on how to use it. I also think that the guns should be put in a safe, somewhere out of the reach of the children. But on the other hand I believe that their should be an officer in every school, I think this would prevent a lot of violence.

Although it might be risk to have teachers carry guns at school, it could also potentially save lives because they could be the ones to stop a shooting or whatever else may happen in the school. I think that as long as the teachers keep them hidden and everyone is on board, then it should be okay.

I believe that some teachers, who have gun permits and all the legal things, should be able to carry guns. But I think they should be hidden so that students cannot get to them.

After viewing the video and reading the article, I am for the fact that the teachers at this school should be able to have guns because they're in a rural area. It takes the first responder 30 minutes to get to the emergency site. A lot of "bad" can happen in 30 minutes. Although I previously stated I was for the carrying of guns, I also am against because I think that if the teachers are going to be carrying guns, they need to be properly trained. If they're not properly trained, bad things can happen too. So all in all, I am for it if the teachers and school board members receive proper training.

I don't think teachers should have guns, because the gun violence will increase. More kids will think they could start to carry weapons, and most schools already have an officer.

I think teachers should be able to have guns in safes in their class room for safety reasons.

I don't think teachers should have guns because I think gun violence might increase and we already have a cop that has a gun so I don't think it's necessary for all teachers to have them

I think that teachers should be able to have guns. they would be protected and i dont think that them having guns would cause more violence because they would be using it for safety of them and the children at there school so there teaching student to be responsible and how to act it that kind of situation.

I think teachers having guns would be a good idea as long as they keep them put away until needed.

I do not think that teachers should have guns because some teachers get mad easily and we don't know what they would do with them. Also students could be looking through a cabinet and find it and tell other students who might take it and possibly use it against the school.

I think teachers should have guns to protect themselves and others but they should check the gun everyday.

Teachers are teachers and there is other people that should take care of violence and shooting at schools. I wouldn't feel more safe if more people start carrying guns I would feel more threaten. If something should it be more difficult to get a gun in some of the states.

I think that it's a good idea to an extent. There are some teachers who, under the circumstances, probably would be to afraid, or just in shock to act in the situation. Over all though, I think it is a good idea.

Being in a rural town it is easier to approve guns and I beileve is ok, in small towns everybody knoes everybody. Many people "Pass through" small towns where there isnt much authority and public safety in the town but there is in the town miles down the highway. Therefore in rural schools I think it is right to be able to carry guns for the students saftey. In urban areas there is public safety patroling the town on a regular basis, there is police inside schools with guns and weapons to protect studnets and staff. In Urban areas I do not think it should not be allowed for teachers to carry guns inside schools.

I think teachers should be able to carry concealed guns, but I also think they should have background checks to make sure they are good people to have guns. I would feel safer knowing that a good person has a way to protect us.

To Sydney - I agree. I think that it should be an optional thing and if you do carry a gun as a teacher you must take a class/course in order for to be able to permit it in the school building.

I think giving licensed teachers guns in rural areas would be beneficial. It may be simpler to have one or two police officer in the school, but have the teachers have guns would also be okay as long as they were trained with a gun and could handle an intense situation. As some were saying about how students might find the gun, the school would probably have a locked up location for the gun, therefore the students would not be able to access it.

I don't think teachers having guns is a good idea because they aren't trained properly in that area. That's why we have a school cop who should be the first to handle situations like that. I'm sure if something like that happened here there wouldn't be an issue with the amount of time it would take the police to get here.

I agree that teachers should be allowed to have guns, but check on the gun everyday to make sure students don't mess with the gun

I don't think every teacher needs to carry a gun but the district should designates certain teachers to allow them to carry guns. They should also be properly trained and be monitored. In the time it takes police to arrive to a call for a school shooting countless students could already be dead, but with the designated teachers there they could put a stop to the shooter.

bllandon- I agree. I believe that certain courses and classes should be taken in order to be an armed teacher. If i had to trust my life to a teacher in a dire situation like a school shooting, I'd prefer it to be in then hands of a calm under pressure, capable shooter.

I believe that teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons but as long as they have some type of professional training. It wouldn't do any use to carry a gun of you can't use it and use it safely. Also the gun should be used as a last resort in an extreme situation. I agree with Emily when she's says some students might try and take it but it should definitely be in a safe place where no one but the teacher would have access to it.

I think it is a good idea. The only concern I have is the teacher viewing him/herself to have more authority over others. The students should not know which teacher carry's a weapon. Though the teacher should have to go through many training courses in order to do so. It's one thing to carry a gun, it's another to kill a person and be in a firefight. Not everyone can handle it.

I Think Teachers should be allowed to Concealed Carry as long as they pass certain requirements, like in the video the administrator says they have to be accurate up to a certain point in order to be able to carry said gun. As well as the do training he mentioned that the teachers have been trained in hostage situations. In my opinion with the correct training and practice it would be a great idea.

I think teachers should not be aloud to carry guns we don't live in a small town in Texas where it would take 30 mins. for people to respond .Plus most school already have a trained officers in their schools we don't need untrained teachers to carry weapons.

In regards to what fwyldes753 said, I believe that teachers shouldn't be able to carry guns because we don't live in a rural area and cops are in a close distance. I wouldn't trust teachers to carry a weapon. We also have a school cop that would respond immediately.

I think schools teachers should be able to have concealed weapons on them as long as they go through a gun safety course and if they are too far away to be able to wait for police.

I think that teachers should be allowed to carry guns, but under very strict circumstances. The gun should be on the teacher at all times (never put in a cabinet or a safe, as kids could more easily find a way to get to it), the teachers should go through gun safety and training (which they apparently do), only teachers with gun permits should be allowed to have them, and they should be completely concealed at all times. Although I think this idea is most likely going to stay in rural schools (they have less students, and are farther away from law enforcement), I could see it traveling into city schools in the future. So yeah, all in all I don't think this is a bad thing at all. It could save a lot of lives in the event of a school shooting.

I think that there intentions are great and in a rural town with not many armed forces around to help it might work. But what if a kid were to get ahold of it? I believe that they'd have to be in a safe where the students don't realize what it is or can't see it. But with that they won't have the whole quick to help plan they are hoping for. It would be faster then the cops getting there though.

I think that if the location of that school is very dangerous then teachers should be able to carry guns but out of sight from students at all times. because if students can see the gun, it would make them too uncomfortable to even learn.

After viewing the video and reading this article, I feel that it is appropriate for staff and board members of a school to carry guns. As for schools located in a area where first responders are able to access the situation more quickly, I don't think it would be as necessary. Although I think school teachers carrying guns is a good idea, I believe that it only makes sense for these teachers to go through the proper training before doing so.

I think that it should be allowed for some teachers in rural areas to carry guns. As long as the guns are kept in a safe place and locked away from the students. I don't think that every teacher needs a gun but because they are in a rural area and it will take longer for police to get they should have someone there who can protect them the moment a situation happens. We have a police officer at our school at all times ready to protect us, why shouldn't they have someone who can protect them. If teachers are allowed to carry guns they should have to go through a class/course before being allowed to have a gun at the school.

I'm not sure about teachers being able to carry guns in school. You have to put into factor how it would be concealed, which teachers have access and or carry it, and things like if the students would think it was okay for them to bring some sort of protection, whatever that may be. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think people would have to be much more cautious in all senses. The barrier between feeling safe, nervous, or afraid around someone would be different for everyone. Carrying weapons might also deter some of the schools wanted achievements for the future, for example attendance averages.

I feel that the police should be charged for the murder of the Colorado man being shot and killed because this is exactly why people have police protests. The justice system is failing the system.

The fact that he had a hearing impairment was not something that the cops knew forthright and, not to give them the right for shooting an innocent man, they had reason to believe that he could have been the intruder. He was in a robe and looked to be disheveled and could very well have been a crazy man who broke into a random home. There is also the fact that it was dark and the police had no idea what to expect in the outcome of this incident. I do not believe that the cops are at fault in this incident.

Should the cops be arrested, no why? because for one before the coped entered or saw the man they heard a shot being fire in the house which of course caused them to pull there weapons out. When they go to the door the man peaked out around a hallway which to a cop could look suspicious not only that but after multiple attempts to get him to drop the weapon he still didn't. Which was most likely because of he hard hearing but he made a terrible mistake by then coming out and pointing a flashlight at them with the gun in his hand even though the man wasn't pointing the gun at the police it was still alarming to them and there instinct kicked like hey I got a man with a gun in his hand pointing a flashlight at me like he could kill me and the reacted by shooting him dead. Although steps could have been taken before shooting a shot, there was also multiple cops at the scene and you can't predict what each cop would have done. none the less they shouldn't be arrested for the mistake of the man.

i feel like he should not be charged because a man with a gun came out and he also had a flashlight and most guns have a flashlight attachment and so when the guy pointed the flashlight at them they thought he was aiming at them so they fired shots at him also in the 911 call they should have said something about having a gun or about the grandpa

I agree with cmerksick It was a tragic mistake but I think they shouldn't be punished given the situation and knowledge the officers had.

I don't know how I feel about this, I think scientist are super smart people but there not using there knowledge to the best of there abilities... I personally find making animals live longer and possibly in the future creating a "medicine" or treatment to transform adult cells back to there embryonic form disturbing. It will probably cost a whole lot of money to. Its awesome how far they have come, but its weird when you mess with the life span of animals... it could also mess with natural selection.

I think that it's amazing that science has come this far and they might be able to do this, but I don't think that we should reverse aging because we don't know the side effects on humans. I think they should just know they can do it but not use it because it could be harmful.

"The breakthrough could also help people stay healthier for longer. The ageing population means that the risk of developing age-related diseases, such as dementia, cancer and heart disease also rises. But if the body could be kept younger for longer then it could prevent many deadly diseases for decades." It has a lot of pros and cons to this i think they shouldn't mess with the life span of make cells younger because that means there will be more people and the world could come over populated. But living longer would help a lot because you will learn more and be able to educate young people with better knowledge

I agree that the law enforcement did do the right thing but I also think that it was good that the daughter did escape and called the police, or else they might not of gotten the help they needed in the first place.

I heard about this all over the internet such as facebook, snapchat, etc... and i believe the law enforcement did the right thing and saved many lives that day.

This is so very sad. I have been reading about this and in one article I read it said all the kids could keep a diary. They believe the parents could be faced with more charges.

We talk about this story in ROTC. It's very sad, but even though how scared that girl must of been she did a great thing and saved her life, and her siblings life.

This looks like something off of criminal minds, I watch it all the time and this is actually something that would happen on there. That's crazy people are so heartless

This is very sad but they got the right punishment and glad everyone was safe!

I think this is repulsive and terrible however the authorities did do the right thing

This story is very sad and scary. But I would probably not love my sister after knowing that all this happened. Considering the fact that she never got to see her sisters children that she really badly wanted to see.

I think it is very strange how the sister didn't catch on to any of the strange actions that happened when she was there and that no one even questioned the fact that they were never allowed any further than the driveway with no contact with the kids for years.

I think the police did the right things but I don't understand how no one noticed the kids didn't come out of the house or didn't hear them.

They cops did the right thing but the sister shouldn't have been so oblivious.

In general, Americans need undocumented workers. They are the ones who show up and actually need the money or else they have no home. They come to the US for a better life and work very hard, but get criticized essentially for not being born in the United States. This article in the American Conservative gives a better view on immigration and why it is seen as a necessity. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-blame-mexico/

Both side are going to pull their own narritive for who or what killed George Floyd however it is weird to see how the defense of the office pulled in the racial difference between the two.

Justice has been served in this case but if there was true justice George Floyd would still be alive. This is a good step but it's not nearly enough.

I don't think we should celebrate the bare minimum of putting away a murderer. While he is locked up, there are so many other's out there spreading the same harm and sharing the same narrative towards their fellow comrades. So many officers get away with a plethora of crimes, and some just stand by and watch. There can't be any"good ones" if they stand by and watch it happen without saying a word when they have the power to do so.

I agree with Sarai. There is so much racism that takes place in the police force, the death penalty, the government, and our overall society. People have fought against racism for decades. And winning one case, while it may be a starting point, is not something to celebrate when people of color have struggled so much.

I think it is good that we locked him up but I also think we need to do more about this kind of stuff. This stuff seems to happen often and something needs to be done about it.

Something needs to be done, so something like this doesn't happen and more lives can be kept.

The fact that a guilty verdict for Chauvin was even a surprise is a very bad thing it's good that there's finally some progress though.

It seems like no one tried to help him, but that's what I'm thinking about from reading this passage.

I personally don't understand how people thought he would be not guilty. There is so much evidence proving him guilty, yet many were still shocked. My primary issue with the case is how it took someone to be killed for light to be shed on racism. There isn't complete justice, but we are getting pushed in the right direction.

This is important to ensure the right to vote is extended towards everyone,and it gets more people out there to vote. These are important thing when we pick a new leader to represent the country as a whole.

Most people don't think that voting is important but it is and it is good that the president signed an executive order to see if more people will vote

In my opinion, this new executive order is amazing. According to the article, "Every eligible voter should be able to vote and have that vote counted. If you have the best ideas, you have nothing to hide. Let the people vote."(konish) I totally agree with it because it's time for new beneficial changes and reformations.

One of the peoples greatest defenses against corruption in our government is our ability to vote.

Extension of the right to vote to everyone who possibly can is the most important thing in maintaining democracy so this is a very good thing

It's good that Biden has put in place this new executive order. It's important that everyone who is eligible to vote should have the opportunity too.

i agree that if we did not have our right to vote then we would lose our best defense against corruption.

I think giving more people the ability to vote is great. Hopefully this attempt to bring the voter count up works and more people can voice their opinion on who they think is the best fit for our country.

I think this is good because, everyone should have a right to vote, if we were not able to that would not give us a choice to anything.

Biden says that if we allow everyone to vote, it will repair and also strengthen the democracy party. I think it is a pretty good idea, it would mean everyone will have more benefitions.

This is a good thing because I think that having more people experiencing the "American" life will have good input on who to vote for.

This is a good thing for Biden because congress will restore the voting rights for Americans, and I think by doing that he will have more people experiencing life, and maybe the people will have good input on him so they will vote for him for the next presidential election again.

I think this executive order is amazing for our country. All people should have the right to vote, and this executive order is making it easier for them.

this is good because they can't pull any more tricks or try to get people not to vote anymore, which equals fair elections in the future.

it's important and good that biden signed this act because it makes sure everyone votes and the voting count raises.

I think that Biden signing this bill helps ensure that Americans can exercise their right to vote and that it will help the voting count to increase.

It's really important that Biden signed this act because it makes sure everyone votes and the voting count raises.

I think it's good that Biden signed this bill because it will give more people the opportunity to vote.

I think this will be beneficial considering all the sneaky tactics that they've been using to get people not to vote, so this will help make voting fairer and give more opportunities to people.

I do believe that it does so happen to be a good thing that Mr. President Joe Biden has signed this act so that more people will have the chance to vote.

I think this is a good idea, we need more people voting if they can.

I like how voting is continuing to be a bigger issue people are bringing up because people living in America should get a say in who controls the government, regardless of who they are.