Group items tagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i agree with matthew trumps just terrible person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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 think it was a good idea to outlaw the death penalty, personally because I don't think that you should take someones life in punishment of someone else's. "An eye for an eye." There's always another way to deal with this, not greet it with death. If anything, I'd sentence him to jail for most of his life or his whole life in that matter. But the Government itself can also make a mistake and accuse the innocent of murder and then give them death as a punishment. They'd be in the wrong. Death is more drastic to me then spending a few years in jail, (thinking about it in a family way).

Keeping someone in jail for their whole life takes millions of dollars paid from the tax payers. If their crime was drastic enough then I am fully in support of the death penalty. Jail is basically a long term time out chamber for people to get clean and think about what they did. If you have already murdered, or raped, or abused someone a thirty year wag of the finger is not going to change their behavior.

I believe in the death penalty. Let's say there's a serial killer and he's already murdered a good amount of people. Would you really want that person to go on living his or her life after all the pain he caused for all of those families? I know I wouldn't.

I believe in the death penalty because if someone has already done a good amount of harm to others and they have died because of it then the person who committed the crime deserves the same. Keeping them in prison is just a waste of money and giving them to much time. They deserve nothing less and being in prison isn't going to change their behavior.

As a very liberal person myself, and the death penalty is a conservative policy for crime, I am happy to see a state so close to home abolish this penalty. We have prisons and judges and laws for a reason that will punish those who do bad things. What are we accomplishing by killing someone publicly for killing others?

I belive the death penalty is okay becasue you have to commit a pretty serious crime to get the death penalty and really in that case you almost kind of deserve it because of the pain you caused to multiple people.

The death penalty is a tricky subject to talk about, most people are strictly for the death penalty, or strongly against it. However, in my opinion, I believe that everything has a consequence to a set of actions. Is it necessary to kill somebody though? I think everyone deserves a second chance especially if they know they are in the wrong and trying to change their lives around. The type of crime the person committed is the key. Let's say a person committed murder, would you say "an eye for an eye?" and kill them too through the death penalty? If you were to do this, aren't you doing the same thing that they committed? Overall, I think it was wise that Nebraska outlawed the death penalty.

I don't believe in the death penalty, because by killing someone who killed someone else it's hypocritical. I think it's wrong to kill anyone, even if they killed someone else. The death penalty also put innocent lives at risk, someone could have been framed for the murder. The death penalty also costs a lot of money, people think that it's okay because they think that it saves the government from spending money but we are still spending a lot. There are a lot better ways to avoid the death penalty, and there a lot of mentally ill patients killed by the death penalty.

I believe that outlawing the death penalty is the right thing to do because you shouldn't fight fire with fire. It is wrong to show that killing, or any other act of the sort, is wrong by doing the same thing. It is also a good thing because there have been wrong accusations in the past, and the death penalty cannot be undone. If you argue for a just prosecution, they can live with the guilt of their crime in prison. If they felt no remorse then the person should get pyschiatric help to correct the situation. There is also data that says the death penality costs more than housing the prisoner because of the long appeal process.

Spending jail time is to help you become a better person because you did something bad. Killing someone does not help them become better as a person.

I believe in the death penalty, if someone has committed a big enough crime.I don't think it should be outlawed becuase If someone has tortured and/or murdered multiple people than they should.

Moms freakin out by this she wont shut up about it its hilarious

I think it is good that states are starting to outlaw the death penalty. If someone kills someone why does it make it right for them to be killed even if its by the government. Today we see punishments like the electric chair as barbaric and years from now people will say the same thing about the death penalty.

I think we should keep the death penalty why should we have people murder other people and live in prison the rest of their lives we should show them what the did to people i mean the deserve so i think we should keep the death penalty

We should keep the death penalty because if you take a persons life or multiple peoples lives then yes the state should take yours. Only if it was on purpose, because you get in a car crash and kill someone from the impact that shouldn't really count because it wasn't intended. Also if someone gets life in prison they get everything pretty much handed to them and they don't to pay for it. For example Nikko Jenkins killed multiple people on multiple occasions and no justice happened for the family's who had to deal with the loss of a loved one because hes just going to prison for life.

I think the death penalty is okay to have in every state. If you are willing to murder a person then you should be murdered yourself. The crime they commit should be used in the same way against them.

but are you willing to take it yourself for a crime that's the question everyone fears.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I personally think that arming teacher would be a huge risk but yet could be a life-saving moment. Just think about it if a student would happen to go crazy in our school they would know that every teacher is armed with a gun so they'll do anything to get a gun from a teacher but yet if they tried anything a teacher could end up saving kids lives. I'm kind of in the middle. Also not selling guns to teenagers I mean that's crazy look what happened in Florida!!! I wouldn't want that to happen in our school. Checking their background and mental state I agree on, I just don't understand why this world and this generation needs to be holding guns to protect themselves I mean that's sad.

I think that arming teachers would be a great idea, but schools shouldn't feel this unsafe. I believe that this outrage has kind of became yesterdays news the first couple of weeks there were a lot of controversy but has died down for the past 2 weeks. Solutions are hard to reach because not everyone agrees on one solution so whatever the government decides to do not everyone will be happy with the end result. I think that everyone should just be happy that the government is trying to solve this problem and they shouldn't freak out until they see a change.

I believe there needs to be more limitations to those that obtain guns. Guns have become an unnecessary evil that many have taken advantage of greatly. The outrage has not yet become "yesterday's news" because many are still fighting and protesting for more effective gun laws. Many survivors from the Parkland shooting are coming forward and sharing their stories about the actions that took place inside their school and how horrifying the event was. They are still coming forward and still fighting to show everyone what it is like from their perspective. The politics of this issue make solutions difficult to reach because they many times propose an idea to prevent conflict in the future, but they do not follow through with the potential idea.

I think that even if we try to have teachers have guns in school it will be a major problem. I think some teachers will be against it and students will be scared to come to school knowing their teachers have guns. I think the only thing schools can do to prevent this from happening is better security like more officers at the schools. The Parkland shooting won't be yesterdays news because many people are affected by this.

Its very easy to get a gun. Guns should be legal just stricter tests and background checks.

I feel that increasing the minimum age to buy firearms isn't really gonna make a change in what is happening because I feel that people are still going to find a way to get this firearm. i feel that politics are making this difficult because everyone has there own opinion on what to do and how it should be done. but this isn't something that should become "yesterday's news" we should be figuring out ways to make the school the safest it can be

Honestly, I don't think we need teachers with guns, that is taking it a little too far, like that if they hit the wrong person or get angry at a kid and lose it and kill or injure a kid. I think we just need to have better protection in schools, and also we need to be aware of signs before things happen. Most times when there is a shooter they end up posting about it before it happens or will show signs that they might do it, and we just brush it off when we should be focused and do investigations if someone is on facebook bragging saying they are going to do it. We also need to have better plans for when a shooter does come, instead of sitting in a corner and hoping they don't come to you, we should figure out how to get out or something else instead of being sitting ducks.

I don't really have a side that I'm 100% for I think no matter what happens there is always going to be someone who isn't happy which is going to lead to more conflicts.

I think there should be some way to check mental health before buying a gun and stronger background checks. Maybe arm a few teachers that are capable that way its almost as if you have another cop in the school. I belive they need to find a compromise to make everyone happy and stay safe.

I do think that students and their families shouldn't feel unsafe while going to school so I think that schools should either have more armed security or teachers should have guns. I do think this is kind of dying down and it isn't being talked about as much as it was 2 weeks ago.

So... solve the problems of gun violence... with more guns? This is the White House's big plan. Because we have a Conservative cabinet, they do not support putting more restrictions on guns. This is why there is such a big debate. Others want more restrictions so this does not happen.

I believe that there are many causes of a school shooting and because there are so many aspects to it, it then becomes difficult to fix. Sure you can make the buying age older but, then they will resort to other weapons which would just put a band-aid on the problem. Maybe more security would work? In the Flordia school shooting, there was a police officer there, there was protection but, somehow it still happened. I 100% believe that something needs to be done but, it's going to need to be more than just 1 thing that changes.

Arming teachers is not a good idea, people who have witness school shootings do NOT want to see more guns in their school. Kids want to feel save in school.

I think we just need better protection in schools and we must also be aware of the signs before things happen.

I agree with limiting the ability to have guns. the parkland shooting will never be yesterdays news, its important to know about it so there can be prevention from this happening again. There are way more shootings going on around the world everyday that not as big as the mass shooting, but to just know that people are getting shot back to back because of the unnecessary presents of guns, that frightening and shows that we need a change. I also think teachers should NOT have access to guns. People may think they have the ability to carry guns, and believe that they can be smart with them, but i disagree.

I think arming teacher would be a great idea, but like most people are commenting kids and teachers should not feel this unsafe in a school building. I think more security on schools is required to make teens and children safer. Yes, raising the gun purchase would help, but there is always still a way for people to get their hands on a weapon if they wanted to do harm to others. In the end, there are too many crazy and unsafe people out there and I think if they wanted to damage they could find a way I think the ultimate solutions are taking more precautions at schools.

I agree with Taylor Nickerson, guns should be more restricted since they have become more dangerous than they should be. Nobody should feel unsafe going to school, or anywhere really. You're supposed to feel safe at school, with others. Guns and weapons as deadly as these shouldn't be so accessible, or easy to get. They should have a higher age restriction and make sure that they're going to use them properly and not going to harm others.

i think the government shoulf take care of these things before it get out of hand and people get hurt. to them it take people dying or having a tragic thing happens for them to take initiative to do something about it. for example like sucide theres no posters up right now it there but then a week later someone commitis and then thats what is covering the walls poster after poster about bullying can lead to death. sucied pervention. stop things early

I honestly think it would be a huge risk to arm teachers with guns but it could also be a good thing. The reason i think it would be bad is because i personally have been in a class where a teacher can't control themselves and freak out on students. Now if you armed teachers and they have a little "break down" they have easy access to and weapon and all those children in the class are in major danger. But there are positive things about arming teachers like if there was a person in the building trying to kill kids, the teacher could easily go and kill the shooter before he kills innocent kids. So there are good things and bad things about but i still don't know if i personally would feel safe knowing teachers have guns and easy access to them.

i belive that what trump is saying "That we should arm teachers with gums and have them trained" evan if it's for the selfish reson of wanting to protect your self, is something good that could happen to all the schools in the US and it would stop school shooters a lot quicker

I believe that It could be a good or bad thing because student can fear going to school knowing teachers have them but it can also be good if someone is in the school and protect students.

I agree with Noah Lybarger with what he's saying that people will still find a way to get them. I personally believe that politics are making it hard because everyone has their own opinion and there are a lot of ideas on how to fix it, some that might work and some that won't, but they are completely different from each other. I feel they should raise the age and do a more thorough background check before the sale of firearms. Also a good idea to protect schools themselves is raising the security and maybe having more police officers around, making it a place where everyone feels safe. On the other side if it was made illegal to have a weapon, but just likes drugs and even all the way back to when alcohol was illegal, people that want to do harm like that they would find a gun somehow (just like people find drugs) would be able to find it and making it illegal to get a weapon would make the person that found one even more dangerous because people would be more defenseless than we are now.

I do not believe that teachers should have guns because I think that that would just cause more problems and violence. I think that we need to add more restrictions for guns and I think we need to ban semi automatics to the public because there is no reason for it. I believe that honestly there would be more violence and deaths if teachers were to have firearms in school.

I don't think that arming teachers would be a good idea, because I don't think there is a single teacher I have had that would have the willpower to shoot a person. Many school shootings are done by young people, and it would take a lot out of someone to shoot them, is this really what we want to do to our teachers?

I believe that teachers having guns isn't going to improve safety for a school by much. What happens when a kid doesn't listen in class so the teacher pulls the gun on the student threatening them? Or worse, what if a student got a hold of one of these guns? We need to add more restrictions to guns and when they can be solicited to you because getting a hold of weapons at the mere age of 19 only seems to more endangering. There would be so much less violence if there were more restrictions to guns.

I believe that arming teachers with a gun,would be a good idea. Because that could make the school much safer.

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.

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.

This student's name is Zach Wahls and this was a very powerful speech. Here is another link for the story with some more details http://goo.gl/LfiKK . I also know that he did a reddit AMA recently but I can't find a link right now.

"marriage- ... 3) an intimate or close union" i think that if you asked a random person on the street what they thought marriage was this would be close to what they said, so why WOULD we be against it?

If they are together the same as a man and a women are, why shouldn't they get the same benefits? I mean their relationships generally last longer then "legitimate" marriages so why shouldn't they be treated the same? By not allowing them to get married, are you doing anything? Besides denying them the benefits of that little piece of paper...such as lower insurance rates, higher health benefits, what happens if their partner dies? Then simply because they weren't ALLOWED to be married, the living partner does not get their belongings unless it is in the written will, they wont get any of the insurance money because that only goes to family, so if they are just "dating" they don't get any money to help them through the hard times...I think they should allow same sex marriage simply because if they are going to be together whether or not you allow them to get married, they should get the same benefits as everyone else.

I don't mean to start a fight or anything like that, I just don't think it's right in the biblical sense. I am very close minded about this topic, and can't seem to change and I don't plan on it. I can see where people come from, but I bet some of those people don't believe in God, or the bible. It even states it in the bible that is wrong.

I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments. Discussion groups like these can easily turn into arguments with little information on either side. Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/BFKIo

I don't think that religion can play a part in what marriage is in today's world. Marriage now in the eyes of our government is a way for 2 people to share benefits that the government gives them.

casue it sthe same sex it shold not be

this is a hard question to answer. I believe very strongly that gays have the right to be together and form a union, so i think that marriage is all well and good, but there is another issue. No matter what the dictionary says what the definition of marriage is, it doesn't take superiority over the bibles definition, which clearly states marriage is only to be formed between a man and a woman. Some say that the bible was not very clear on that, and that it is up for debate, but if one looks at leviticus 18:22 it states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I don't think it is abominations, but the concept of christianity, and judaism does, which is where it gets tricky. Does the government have the right to force the church to do things against their belief such as allowing gays and lesbians to marry? quite frankly i don't think so. Its not like the pope can just say, hey gays are ok now. It would be blasphemous. the only way gays would be allowed is if God himself came down from heaven and made it publicly known that he has changed his mind on the concept. If i was lets say jewish and had my own resteraunt, and i didn't serve pork due to my belief that pork was a dirty meat, would you go to the mayor and convince him to force me to change my rule even though its against my religion, and causes the lord to look down on me with disdain? I dont think you would because its preposterous. So i believe we need to meet in the middle. Make a union that gives gays all the same rights and privileges as regular marriage, but make it a different term than marriage, or at least make it known that the church is not ordaining it. The trick is not to force people to do things against their will, but to find new methods to do things so that we can all co exist without such petty argument.

I just think people come up with poor excuses for gay marriage not to eligible..

they do, but many people are scared of change. its going to change i believe, but its going to take time.

I think that if a gay couple want to be want to be married, why can't they? There isn't a negative effect of a gay marriage, and you can see from the young man in this video that they can be just the same as a straight marriage. Infact I think that man was in more successful than any of us coming from opposite sex parents would be at that age. I also think that they provide a better family life for their children as well. His family seemed alot closer than most families today. So theres no reason a gay couple can't be married. Sure you can say that its wrong because its against Gods will and all, but being gay isnt a choice. Its who you are. God created man, and if being gay is really as terrible as they say it is, then God wouldnt have made them gay. And to the guy who says people that are for gay marriage aren't christian or don't belive in God, guess what? I go to church, believe in God, and I am for gay marriage. Who's to say that gay people can't have the same rights as straight people? The only difference is the gender we prefer. Why should gay marriage be outlawed and ridiculed? Where has prejudice ever gotten us?

I do not think religion has anything to do with marriage. After all atheists can get married can't they? Also if you have read the entire bible there are more things that god has said is wrong then gays, and i guarantee everybody has done something god has said is a sin. It is up to the people getting married whether they want their marriage to be religious or not. If we let religion be a part of our everyday lives we would go insane with all of the "rules" the bible states. Who is to say that gays shouldn't have the right to get married? If that is the case then maybe we should limit what straights can do.

Dakota, If you look at Americas past there has always been prejudice. And in the end it united America. Look at the way people treated colored folk, or women for that example. There has always been prejudice in the past and there will always be in the future. People are going to voice their opinions no matter how ignorant or naive they are.

I am against gay marraige but I also think that people have the right to chose what they want. they can make their own choices and I will make mine. I have friends that are gay and I have no problems with them or the way they act. I may not like it but im not going to hate them for it.

i actually have read the whole bible, and i spent 7 years of my life in a private christian school. it doesn't matter if you stole an orange or killed a man, a sin is a sin. what you dont understand is that god weighs all sins the same, and quite frankly if i really should tell the truth gay people are going to burn in a pit, just as that guy with the orange will if they dont change their ways and repent. The church is like a private club, and they say gays cant marry. end of story. they dont care if your not christian, they care about anatomy. anything else people want to ask questions about so i can answer them? or how about making false statements i can shoot down? listen unless we find an alternate to marriage, we should not and i will not stand up for gay marriage. perhaps if it was termed differently and done done in the name of god, i would just say more power to them. no matter how much you want to, you cant change the laws in the bible and call them legitimate.

"broxton anderson " so your saying that the homosexuals need their own form of union instead of marriage? I thought that most marriages were now legal constructs with religious ceremonies being a personal choice? Does anyone else think this touches on separation of church and government? Should there be a true separation between the phrases "civil union" and "marriage" or is there already and some of us just can't see it yet?

From a biblical point of view God made women for man and man for women, not man for man and women for women! #RealTalk

yes it should be a "true separation" that way it removes itself from religion which leaves religions no room to complain. I feel that a civil union should give ALL the same benefits as marriage to. must people truly complain so much over two words? its the same thing, just a different name, and can prevent millions of wasted arguments.

for those of you that say it is wrong according to the Bible, what happens if you were gay? It's not like you can change how you feel...and if "God" created all people "equal" why shouldn't they actually be treated equal? And i honestly think that simply because gays are the minority, they are being picked on...it's wrong...so why would "God create" people just to send to the deep south? ...just a thought

Broxton Anderson- You have read the bible, yet you chose to use the most uncredible source in the bible. Using Leviticus is ridiculous. Leviticus also states that it is okay to own slaves and that if one performs the act of beastiality, that person is to be murdered and so shall the animal. It also states that you may not speak to a women on her menstrual cycle and it is also forbidden to touch pig skin and for men to cut their hair. You are completely fine with ignoring these very radical notions, but when it comes to gay marriage you instantly are against it? Seems to me like there is a lot of hypocrisy in your ways. I am a Catholic, but I fully accept the institution of gay marriage. I myself am not gay, nor do I plan on becoming gay. Leviticus is outdated and does not apply to our modern lives. Do not pick apart the bible and try to sound as if you know the way people should be. Anyone can misquote the bible. If you have a problem with homosexuals, keep it to yourself. They have just as much rights as everyone else in this world and should not be denied rights such as being married. A few men who disliked gay people have started this constant circle of quoting Leviticus in order to make their way sound just. If anything, they are doing more wrong by corrupting the bible to use it to justify their personal views.

Same goes to Jay Cook. Talking on something you do not understand, or even researched, makes you arrogant and naive. If you are so fine with not allowing gays to be married, then you should be put back into slavery. Fair trade, yes? From a biblical view?

I compltely agree with you^ Most people that are against gay marriage claim to say they are against it mostly because its against the bible while over half of them have no idea what they are talking about and likly havent read the bible. I think people should be able to marry who they wish the gender should not matter.

It's too bad the bible is a bunch of tall tales exaggerated, can't trust religion for anything, it's a petty excuse for any argument.

From an evolutionary stand point homosexual relations don't have an impact other then thinning the human gene pool. Not that I'm against gay rights, but since everyone dismisses religion I thought it would be important to note that in the commonly held belief of evolution, unless a person has offspring, it's as if never existed. Just some food for thought...

Obviously what he is saying that from the stand point of evolution. He wasn't saying the homosexuals provide nothing to their societies.

If you think about it the bible states go forth and populate, and that's the premise of evolution....

Yeah thats a good point but maybe thinning the human population isnt all a bad thing. Also have you even considered how many children gay people adopted from other countris and places were they probably would have not had a good chance in living a good long heaalthy life. I dont understand how people can be so one minded about things. What if you were gay and wanted to marry a person you loved and you couldnt because judgmental people didnt approve?

I'm cool with gays as long as they don't try and make a move on me.

I agree with Brittany, everyone as a human being has their rights

i totally agree with riley its peoples life and they have their own rights

Whats wrong with that.

I think that's awful and definitely shouldn't be against the law. Providing the homeless with a meal doesn't necessarily keep them on the street, rather them starving and not having any energy to even try to turn their lives around is.

Instead of it be against the law, they should be encouraging more people to feed them. If we just let them sit there and starve they will die, I would rather have homeless people living, then a bunch of dead bodies laying around the city. Maybe all they need to get the motivation to get up and get a job, is by other people showing that care about them, and want them to live a healthy a life.

I think this is absolutely ridiculous. How could the government of Fort Lauderdale be so ignorant and selfish? Granted, some people are homeless because they've made bad decisions to get to that point but some are homeless because they honestly can't help it. Who knows? But I think it should be okay for people to feed the homeless. It should be comforting knowing that people have caring hearts and are willing to give the less-unfortunate people food. I hope the banning of giving food to the homeless never becomes illegal in the state of Iowa because I have given homeless people food countless of times and I will not stop.

I don't think it should be against the law, its just help. Just because someone fed one person doesn't mean everyones going to go and be homeless.

Reading this story upsets me because no one should be charged for feeding the homeless. That is the same as arresting and charging a man/woman for donating to charity. I do believe that some people are homeless because they got themselves there from their life decisions and choices, however others have no other way out. For example, a veteran could be very ill after coming back home and maybe having PTSD and feel helpless and lost. They do not know where to go or who to ask for help. Helping the homeless lets them know that someone cares and wants to help, and I feel this act of kindness might just be the motivation they need to get themselves together and fix their life. This helps them know they are not alone. Florida is ridiculous for charging that man. Instead of it being a bad thing, let us encourage it.

People should be able to help whoever they please. I think the man shouldn't get in trouble because he is helping them by giving them meals. This could also help them save money and eventually buy/ rent a house in the future.

Every town has some sort of poverty and not feeding the homeless isn't going to get rid of them.

Feeding the homeless should not be a crime. It is helping someone in need which is what citizens of a community should be doing is helping people in need and getting the back on there feet.

I don't believe that Abott should be arrested just because he was doing a good deed. I understand the views of the policeman and how they're just doing their job but it's not fair to Abott that he was just trying to be a good person. There is no reason why he should be arrested and think it's crazy that people are getting upset for helping the homeless. They should just leave him alone because it doesn't affect their lives in a big way.

I do think that feeding them food -may- keep them in that cycle. MAY. I highly doubt it does though, because those homeless people probably have nowhere else to go at this point. And how are they suppose to "break" the cycle if they have nowhere to go? No job? If Florida isn't letting these people feed homeless people, then how about THEY do something about it rather than just giving everyone fines and acting without thinking.

I think the city had made this a law in order to give the homeless an incentive to get a job. Which I personally believe is a terrible idea. No one likes living homeless, everyone needs a helping hand sometimes. I would think the officers of the city would have enough morals and ethics to not enforce this law. To be ignored and simply done away with in a few months. It's a sad day when helping becomes illegal.

i don't get why feeding the homeless is against the law, whats wrong with it? your helping a person maybe even saving their life.

I think the law against public food sharing is ridiculous. These kind of rules don't encourage the homeless to start getting back on their feet. Yes, they rely on the food given to them but all the law is doing is pushing the homeless out of Fort Lauderdale, to other areas. Rather then enforcing this new law they should come up with program that provide the homeless with job training and experience so they can really start off productively on their own.

To put it lightly the banning of public food sharing is a stupid, stupid law. Credit, however, to Seiler for saying, "Providing them with a meal and keeping them in that cycle on the street is not productive." He made a valid point, yes, but a homeless person is just the same as a person who owns four houses, they just don't have as much luxury. I think homeless shelters, or even what Arnold Abbot does, feeding the people in need on a beach, that's their luxury. How are you going to take away something like that, for most, it might keep them hopeful. It shouldn't be up to the law who we as people want to help.

this is a joke, how can you not feed another human being??

To me this is not just and feeding the homeless isn't against the law. My assumption is that the cop had hard feelings against the homeless guy and was enforcing illegally.

I don't think that this should be an actual law, what's the harm in feeding the poorest of the poor people? Cops are cracking down way too hard on the wrong "laws". There are criminals out there killing people, dealing drugs, stealing, and we're giving them jail time with possible probation, but feeding a homeless man is a serious crime? Think again.

I think this is ridiculous. We give our police too much power. Feeding the homeless is not a crime and it never should be. We have soup kitchens and things for them. How is it any different? The cops are pretty much taking away our rights and telling us not to be nice? Totally wrong.

I think Abbott has a right to feed the homeless. They don't have anything so we don't just want them to die in the street for starvation that's inhumane. They're just homeless people that are trying to eat the police should have their attention on things that are more important crimes. Besides feeding homeless people isn't a crime.

This sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.

I don't understand what is so wrong with feeding the homeless. I'd do the same exact thing if I could. Police officers are suppose to protect and that means everyone, even the homeless. If a police officer became homeless, losing his job, house, family, etc. I'm sure his friends and past co-workers would feed him too. So what makes him any different than the "random homeless guy on the street." ? I don't think Abbott should get charged.

his sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.

I don't see what is wrong with feeding the homeless. These people are at the lowest point in their lives and need all the help they can get and they fact that the city just want's to look the other way while these people suffer and hope that they go away is heartbreaking. People should help the homeless, help them get back on track and get their lives in order not treat them like a rat. There are actually criminals that get to go free and an old man who was helping the homeless gets put in jail? That's ridiculous.

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

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.

asking a little kid 2 change his name is ridiculous. the boy has a right 2 his own name just like any person does

I think asking a young child to change his name just because they think it looks like a gun when its simply his hand sign to represent his name is ridiculous. It is an actual sign to represent his name and is no way a threat to the other children or staff. Kids that little don't even think of things as weapons like that.

that is crazy that they would ask him to change his name just because of a school rule

that is stupid that a school ask a family just to change the kids name just because of a rule, even though the sign is approved by the S.E.E. And the school also does not have the right to ask the parents to change the kids name when it is the parents right to name their own kid.

I personally think the the school is being ridiculous. He's just a kid, he's not gonna know what a gun is.

That's his name, his identity. They have no right to tell him to change it. He's a child and I see no problem with him and his name sign when it's registered and causing no legitimate harm.

This rule seem very unfair. He has already been saying his name this way for three years. He has no other way to communicate, he can only use his hands. Which i think is ridiculous, they don't make hearing (i don't know how else you would describe them) people change how they say their name. It also doesn't seem to represent a gun in any way, in my thoughts, so it should be fine.

I also find it to be unfair because it's his name, so he shouldn't have to learn or make a new name.