Group items tagged

It would be a violation of the first amendment if the family was forced to remove their decorations, but I think they should , out of courtesy, tone it down a little bit because kids are being scared by it. And it doesn't really look like Halloween decorations it is just graphic and violent.

I think they should take it down since they live near a school and little kids probably walk past and get scared. I think it would be fine if they put it up on Halloween because other people are probably going to have scarier stuff out.

I don't think they should have to take it down. Everyone decorates their houses in different ways and that is how they chose to decorate their house. What if someone had a blow pumpkin with a face that would be considered scary to a group of two year olds? Should that neighbor take down that blow up pumpkin?

I don't think the family should have to take this down. Everyone has their own views and opinions. I would be violating their freedom. They may be able to make it a little less scary for the children's sake but they shouldn't have too.

well no person should destroy this, its a work of art, if parents don't like this they can make their children stay home or look away but this is and can be a form of speech. so it can be lowered but it can't be taken away.

This is their own option to make it scary. Parents should be able to shield their kids from what they don't agree with.

Being forced to take it down would be a violation of their freedom of speech. They have the right to express themselves.

The family put a lot of work into their decoration.

It really isn't fair for the family to have to take down their decorations, because some parents don't agree with it. If they don't agree with it they don't have to pay attention to it. The family shouldn't have to adjust their halloween fun and decorations to make someone else happy.

The United States is based off the freedom of expression, and if the Ohio family wants to set up decorations for Halloween they are more than allowed to do so. Because of this freedom of expression it wouldn't be fair to have to take down their decorations.

People should not be allowed to bring guns to the polling stations. These can be used as a form of voter intimidation which is a crime, though at it's core I have respect for people's right to carry, guns should never be used to scare or intimidate voters

This should not be allowed. This could cause many harmful things including intimidation and crimes against a particular group of people.

No, people should not be allowed to bring guns to polling stations.

No, people shouldn't be allowed to bring guns to voting sites. I feel like this will create more problems than solutions.

This should not be allowed

I dont think people should be able to bring guns to a voting site

This should not be able to allowed

I don't think there is a reason they should even feel the need to bring a gun to a voting site. But no they shouldn't bring a gun.

This should not be allowed I think that this could cause major issues with other people and safety.

People should not be allowed to do this. What would the purpose of having a gun be? Something bad could happen if this was allowed.

This shouldn't be allowed. It's unnecessary and could cause an even bigger issue than there would have been if a gun hadn't been brought.

i feel having fire arms there would not be okay and it would not be safe many things could haoppen it could cause chaos

Thanks for posting this Jessica! A good amount of responses so far. I will post a wikipedia link for state-by-state carry rules. If that isn't tricky enough, some states have laws differentiating "carrying" a firearm and "brandishing" (holding it pointed toward someone). I suspect we will be hearing more about this over the next week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#Iowa

No people shouldn't be allowed to bring a gun because agreeing with someone else's comment, it would only cause more problems than solutions, therefore it is unnecessary.

I don't think people should bring guns to the voting site because it may cause others not to come and may scare people. It would not be safe and there could be many things to go wrong.

I think bringing guns is super unnecessary to bring to a polling site, it could scare people away and possibly be the cause of an injury or death.

i think that unless you have your concealed carry licence, you should be able to bring it. yes, there is a chance of people being afraid, but there is nothing you can do about that. it isn't going to harm the election in any way and there are rules that have to be followed in order to be given the privilege of the license in the first place

why would you bring a gun, something for self-defense, killing, hurting... to voting sites? ummmmmmm

I simply do not see the point. I mean sure you can bring them if you are licensed but that doesn't mean I'm not going to judge you because clearly, the purpose is to make a statement, and not for self-defense. It's not like a grandma is going to point a gun at your head and make you vote Biden.

I personally think that you shouldn't be able to bring guns to voting sites. People are already intimidated going to these places to vote, and adding weapons would just cause more harm than good.

I personally don't believe there is any reason to bring a weapon to voting sites at all. There should be no weapons in a building during a government event.

If the gun holder has a licensed weapon and has years of experience with guns, then I think it wouldn't be a problem. A problem I noticed in the USA is everyone is very paranoid about guns, but not the person holding the gun. If the person has had little to no mental health issues and had years of experience with guns, then It shouldn't be a problem.

It doesn't make sense for people to be able to open carry firearms because votes could feel intimidated by the weapons into voting for a candidate they don't actually like.

i can't think of a reason of why people can bring guns into voting places. yes, they have a right to own one, but i don't think you need to carry a gun with you to vote

I think it's okay for someone with a license to carry to bring one in because that's the entire purpose of a license, but I think it should be kept to only small firearms in the event that someone were to attempt to attack a voting site.

I do not think people should bring guns to voting sites there is absolutely no reason. It only takes one person to get mad or get their feelings hurt and then start shooting then people are hurt or even dead. Especially when the world and the people are like the way they are right now.

I don't think that people should bring guns to voting sites because it would be easy for them to just decide to shoot it up if people don't agree with them.

I don't think it's a good idea to bring guns to voting sites because there is no point to. You wouldn't be in danger more than likely so there is no reason to take a gun with you to vote. And it may make other people uncomfortable and feel less safe while voting.

that sounds cool but what would happen if the car malfunctioned and the driver wasnt able to gain control?

it would be a good idea but will take huge amounts of time to make.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm hoping that all this is just a bunch of saber rattling as they say, and not the start of WWIII.

Koreans success with nuclear missiles is really scary fir the United Nations, China needs to go against them and help the rest of the United Nations cut off their resources.

I thought that if the field sobriety test was failed or alcohol was on the breath they were instantly subject to breath test or blood test.

This is not a very professional thing to say especially about the president

This "leader" is insane, he's making threats to our people and taking simple manners of politics to a new level of crazy. For example on the controversy about illegal logging he said "cut the trees and I cut your heads." Like who says this publicly about another country. This was just one of many things this man has proclaimed about Obama.

I think that the Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is sort of exaggerating his points to look tougher than he is, especially when he backs away from his statement about the president.

What was said by President Rodrigo Duterte was very unprofessional. It calls his ability to maintain the Philippines into question. He says very inappropriate things, and does things that shouldn't and/or aren't legal.

Honestly he shouldn't even be president if this is the crap he's going to pull! Rape and drug cartels are illegal and it won't get stopped cause when you are involved in that you make bank. A lot of his comments remind me of Trump all the sexual remarks especially.. Makes me sick.

He shouldn't have talked about the president like that especially in an interview. It looked very unprofessional for someone big like him to say that.

This guy should not be president. He is immature and childish. All his comments on important topics are crazy and not professional.

I think that the comments of the President Rodrigo Duterte are very inappropriate, because he's a leader and he should be an example for the other people, but he is acting like a baby, insulting people without any sense.

Obviously this guy is a crazy cannibal and should not be in a leader position if he can't be an adult and level headed about things. He seems to get angry very quickly and that's not a good characteristic of a good leader.

The comments by the President are outrageous. A government official should not be saying that to news media knowing that this will get out. He acts like a little baby. He is asking to get shwacked.

Just like Trump he uses his words to try and gain power but instead Duterte used choice words that insulted the president and because the cancellation of their meeting the president of the Philippines had somethings to say that he would have done and he put his words into scenarios that made him disrespectful and should not be a president if he acts like that.

this dude is a savage. He is a crazy little guy and i would be scared to visit or live in the philippines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i 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.

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

I think that they should of shut school down for a while. They put a bunch of peoples lives in danger. Even if they checked their bags and what not, that doesn't mean they aren't considered dangerous.

i Think that they should shut the school down until they take all the security measures possible to make sure something doesn't happen again

It stinks that things like this keep happening. Why do people keep making serious threats to hurt other people at schools? What do they gain from that?

They should have shut down the school for awhile. It should be taken with more precaution they should have taken even just a day or two to decide if what they are doing is enough to keep people safe.

I feel like they have done everything right in this situation, there isn't a whole lot more they can do to help the cause. Closing school a little longer I feel wouldn't have a huge effect on the situation, yet it could help the students clear their mind and stuff.

Safety measures should be taken and those who were addressed in the "hit list" should have extra protection seeing as they are targets of this threat.

I agree with many comments here. It would seem that there must have been enough credible evidence to think that the person making the threat might act on it. Even though I posted the article, I think we can sometimes get over excited when hearing these sorts of stories... the fact is, schools are among the SAFEST places for us to be. There has been school violence (even locally), but those situations are thankfully very rare!

It makes sense that the school is taking the measures needed to make the school a safer environment. No one should have to go to their job or their classes scared of being killed.

School should have been closed for awhile until it was safe for everyone. They need to make sure that no one is in any sort of danger. The school should go through all the things wrong and find ways to fix it all.

that's weird. i wonder how he was still alive if he didn't even have a heartbeat.

As long as someone still has some brain activity they are still technically alive

It must have been a really happy day for the family, and a frightening day for the funeral home workers.

Wow, I do believe miracles can happen. I would've been scared out of my wits if a body suddenly started to move that was pronounced dead, though. But I'm happy for his family who got to spend two weeks with the man (:

I think that the SUV's will be good for catching drivers texting. If the word gets around there will probably be less accidents and less desire to text while driving.

I think this is more of a scare tactic. People seeing those big SUVs will stop texting knowing that they are looking for texters.

i think that suvs will be a good thing to stop drivers that are texting

I think the drivers will still text, because there can't be cops everywhere watching for it. Especially if there are more serious problems going on.

The SUV could be helpful

Good idea, but I think they should have used a different method than just buying SUVs for all New York Troopers

I think drivers are still going to text while driving because they don't care. You can't have cop everywhere because one, there isn't enough and second because there is more important thing then set at every street.

I don't think it matters because texting is a second offense. Which means that a trooper cannot pull you over just because you are texting. You have to commit a first offense and get pulled over to be charged for the second offense.

Iowa needs to be $9.19 per hour

This changes my view on cats a bit. As much as I like cats, I didn't think they would defend for someone like that. It's pretty cool.

I saw the video on the news the other day and I thought It was cool that the cat had saved the kid form getting hurt even more, the dog attacking the little kid out of nowhere wasn't really cool though. Its a crazy story.

This is pretty crazy considering cats are usually scared of dogs. I'm just curious as to why that dog would just randomly attack a little boy. The owners need to do something about that.

This is crazy! I didn't even know that the dog got the little boy! I didn't think cats even did that. But, thank gosh it was not as bad as it couldnt have been. If that cat wasnt there then who knows what could of happened to that little boy.

I heard that the dog is going to be put down because of this. But I am kind of wondering if the boy did things to the dog before, like throw rocks at it or other things. But that cat was pretty loyal and brave for saving that boy, and probably pretty fearsome too. That dog just ran like it just heard a gun!

it was so cool how the cat saved the kid but i think the owner should get in to truble.

Exactly why cats are better than dogs! Imagine if the cat wasn't there, the kid possibly could have died!

On June 25, North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency condemned the film (without naming it), promising "stern" and "merciless" retaliation if the film is released. "Making and releasing a film that portrays an attack on our top-level leadership is the most blatant act of terrorism and war and will absolutely not be tolerated" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Interview_%282014_film%29

I think Sony should release the movie anyway. Korea already has the information so what's done is done. Sony spent a lot of money to make the movie so if they just throw away all of the time and money, it would be even more of a loss.

stupid people do stupid things

The actions of the suspect on the plane was uncalled for and the intensions of the suspect are unknown.

This sounds like a bad idea for a prank.

Sad that someone would do something so stupid to scare people, knowing the past with terrorism and planes.

It's scary to think this can happen any where. Just on a plan to Denver this happened. It's also really weird that the man was not arrested.

I don't understand this fully but from what it seems a man running towards the cockpit of a plan while also not responding to the flight attendants is something to be alert about. I think those 2 men reacted fairly towards the safety of them selves and others. I think on each planes there should be trained guys like them to protect incase there is something real like that on a plane.

I think this guy was definitely on some type of drug to be this stupid. They said he was fidgeting on the ground so I think he was on drugs and had something mentally wrong with him. I'd be intrigued to see if they did blood work on the guy after they took him to jail to see if there was anything in his system or if he was actually trying to commit an act of terror.

I found it really weird on how afterwards they didn't arrest him.

It sounds like this man might have just been emotionally unstable, considering that after everything happened he started pleading and saying "I'm sorry. I'm so sorry." There could have been medication involved, whether or not it was prescribed or not, and other factors influencing his behavior. It doesn't surprise me that they didn't arrest him quite yet, seeing as he doesn't have any suspicious background or anything of the nature.